Calculate your one-day Carbon Belch !
Even more important, take a look at the comments. The only posters who make solid, scientific comments are the anti-GW posters. We might just be starting to win the battle of ideas on this issue.
McCain will only be able to do what the Republicans let him and Obama may not get much at all.
That's what I say too - "f" it.
Tide is turning. Americans now 60% of them blame the Democrats and RINO’s for his Gas and food prices not the Oil Companies this could get the GOP back in the majority.
Had top read that a couple times. My brain was thinking George W. and it wouldn't compute.
I like the first sentence of the article. It sums up my feelings on the topic.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Pleasantly surprised that the WP didn't spin this as "evil Republicans". I heard on the radio that the reason for having it read aloud was that the Democrats added an amendment that they had not bothered to show the GOP.
IN the 1970s, some climatologists warned the world about global cooling.
Now it's GW. Then it was particulates in the air blocking the sun; now it's CO2 forming a greenhouse effect.
CO2 is now presented as the most dangerous greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere, the primary cause of GW. Some even call it a pollutant. I'd like to shed some light on this issue.
CO2 makes a very small contribution to the Earth's temperature. It is only 0.039 percent of the atmosphere. Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and argon comprise more than 99 percent of the atmosphere. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is not a particularly effective greenhouse gas. Out of the wide spectrum of radiation received from the sun, CO2 only absorbs energy from three very narrow levels.
Many people believe there is a difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2. There is no difference. Carbon dioxide is comprised of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. CO2 is a natural, vital part of biological life. Ants, termites and decaying foliage account for the formation of most of the CO2. There are more than a quadrillion ants and termites. These also make a major contribution to other greenhouse gases, methane and ammonia.
CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plant life. Chemists call it equilibrium. When large amounts of CO2 are created by volcanoes or forest fires, the metabolism of plant life increases and in a short time removes the CO2 from the air.
If there is less CO2 in the atmosphere, the metabolism of plant life slows down. Thus, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere stay very close to a yearly average of 0.039 percent. Because of the dynamic nature of our atmosphere, CO2 levels are always rising or falling. Low levels follow high levels. Ice core sampling demonstrates that this equilibrium has been in place for millennia.
The gas most responsible for the Earth's temperature is water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas. Not only does water vapor account for 3 percent to 4 percent of the atmosphere, it also accepts energy from the sun in virtually all energy levels. Water vapor is thousands of times more responsible for temperature than CO2. Ask any climatologist; he will tell you that this is in fact the case.
The oceans control the level of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is also responsible for cooling the planet, forming the cloud layer and reflecting the sun's energy. Again, an equilibrium. True, the atmosphere may warm for a while, but this causes more water to leave the oceans and fill the atmosphere. Over time, this causes a denser cloud cover, cooling the Earth.
A common practice among climatologists is to treat the Earth as a closed system. But certain gasses do in fact leave our atmosphere. All gases of a molecular weight 18 or above tend to be held by the Earth's gravitational field. Water is molecular weight (mw)18 and CO2 is mw44. They stay on the Earth. Methane and ammonia, the predominant gases of animal life on the planet, leave the gravitational field and go off into space and out of our atmosphere because their molecular weights are 16 and 17, respectively. Presenting these as greenhouse gases does not give a complete picture of their presence in our atmosphere.
So the oceans control both the warming and the cooling of the earth. Man's contribution of these gases is almost not measurable compared to what nature produces. Humans, with all our cars and factories, account for less than 1 percent of the CO2 present at any one time. Furthermore, man does not control the water cycle. We simply are not that important. We can work to keep the Earth clean, but we cannot control the atmosphere. Many climatologists are aware of this but do not give this critical information to the public.
GW activists believe mankind is altering the Earth's temperature. Although many know that man's contribution is negligible, it is not to their political advantage to reveal this fact. Climate scientists receive funding from the government to research causes of and solutions to man-made GW. If the current warming were demonstrated to be the natural cycle, this funding would be cut.
The 1970s climatologists had incomplete data, believing we were plunging into an ice age. Predictions made now are equally apocalyptic. They again are based on climate models with incomplete data or, in some cases, deliberately withheld data.
We are now making costly political decisions based on the non"fact" that human activity is causing the temperature to rise. Many politicians believe that human-caused GW is real and that since this view is held by a "consensus of scientists funded to support GW," further study is unnecessary. Climatologists need to come forward without fear and give the public the truth. CO2's contribution to GW is minimal; water vapor is the great buffer for the Earth's temperature; the oceans control this process. Humans have no measurable control over global temperatures.
“Things may not be looking so bad for the Senate pubbies after all. “
Back bone.. who knew?
The polls are breaking against the Dems. By a large margin people are against spending one cent for global warming fads. I predict polls in favor of drilling now will sting the Dems as well. pubbies may retain at least 40 senate seats after November.
Begging Yahoo news pardon, who says this is the starting point: “and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy”.
Who says what we are using now, is not renewable. Hmmm? Cat got your tongue? Since we seem to be finding more and more, I’m postulating that your postulation is bunk, a myth, a great beginning if you have an agenda.
...and while we are on the subject of “fossil” fuels, I’m going to step out again and say “buzz word”, an agenda oriented script designed for promotion of the agenda. Crude oil is what we use until something better comes along.
I don’t see anything better on the horizon or over it. Development of many forms of alternative energy are is ongoing, but not viable from the standpoint of broad use by the world’s population.
When man learns how to channel the sun’s energy into a pipeline, or drill into the earth’s magma and put it to use, or put the new, used tire burning, power plant on line or find a cheap method of producing and storing hydrogen gas, or an even newer nuc reactor we will need to drill here, drill now.
Rick Boucher is my former Congressman in the 9th District, Southwest Virginia, which is big-time coal mining country. He's lying when he blames the Republicans for not helping him with this bill since he wants it dead too.
In fact, because of current gas prices and China and India's expansion of their own power facilities, coal is making a huge comeback there, and Boucher does not want to do anything to cripple that recovery. He's already on thin ice politically back home because he was an early Obama supporter, in a region where Hillary won 90% of the Democrat vote during the primary, which speaks for itself.
...pushing this bill just as gas spikes to $4/gallon is the single most stupid act by the Dem's since pushing Hillary-care. Also consider the global cooling over the past year & a half - yes, i believe the tide is starting to turn...
Maybe that is exactly what should be done with EVERY bill. There would be a lot less BS bills coming out of DC and less $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ being spent by congress.
Some environmentalists said the current legislation, co-sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), is too weak, in any case. The bill aims to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at 488 parts per million, rather than at 350 parts per million, which climate scientists such as NASA's James E. Hansen see as necessary.
"Any bill that does not set us on track to reduce atmospheric carbon levels to 350 parts per million is wishful and dangerous thinking," wrote Kierán Suckling, of the Center for Biological Diversity, in an e-mail. "We're thankful the bill was introduced, but more thankful that it did not pass."
Why 350 ppm? Because Hansen, the man who has declared he on a mission to prevent the "destruction of Creation" says so?
Why not 400 ppm? Or why not 500? Shouldn't it be obvious to the nitwits writing about this that greenhouses artificially pump up the level of CO2 for a reason?
The Importance of Carbon Dioxide (Co2) for Healthy Plant Growth
Question #2...
As several have noted, Republican Senators seemed to grow a spine. They fought hard and performed good works.
Advance to 2009. If a President McCain were supporting this legislation and twisting GOP arms, would Republicans fight so vigorously in opposition? Would Democrats be able to peel off eight to ten RINOs to get them to the magic 60 votes?