March 16th 2009
Obama Facing Cap & Trade Fight
H
ere’s an interesting little preface to this story, courtesy of the University of Wisconsin/Milwaukee:
The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.
However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.
And what did synchronized chaos – an oxymoron if ever I heard one – tell them about Al Gore and his prostelytes?
“The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.”
The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000. …
[Dr. Anastasios] Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.
Just another brick in the wall, buttered with mud and slapped into place at a particularly interesting time, given this:
Eight Senate Democrats are opposing speedy action on President Barack Obama’s bill to combat global warming, complicating prospects for the legislation and creating problems for their party’s leaders.
The eight Democrats disapprove of using the annual budget debate to pass Obama’s “cap and trade” bill to fight greenhouse gas emissions, a measure that divides lawmakers, environmentalists and businesses. The lawmakers’ opposition makes it more difficult for Democratic leaders to move the bill without a threat of a Republican filibuster.
The budget debate is the only way to circumvent Senate rules that allow a unified GOP to stop a bill through filibusters.
“Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy,” wrote the Democratic senators, mostly moderates. They were joined by 25 Republicans. “Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate.”
Eight dems would probably give the GOP a filibuster, even if the usual GOP defections to the dark side occur.
But here’s a better question for you: Why only eight Dems? Why aren’t more seeing the dubiousness and danger of piling on fundamental change after fundamental change without meaningful debate? When the first madcap Obama scheme fails, the lack of debate will haunt the Dems.
Gore tells us the global warming debate is over, and it’s not. Obama tells us Congressional debate is a thing of the past, and it’d better not be.
A rare double hat-tip to Jim.
Posted in Democrats, Global warming, Obama | 1 Comment » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
March 17th, 2009 at 5:59 am
I’ve sometimes wondered why those folks trying to model something so complex as the world’s climate didn’t turn their attentions to something simpler but more lucrative, like predicting the stock market. After all, the same fundamental forecasting rules apply: “A trend will continue until it changes.”