Cross-Dressing Capitalism for Global Warming and the weekly Chilling Effect cartoon

Energy and Environment: Around The Interwebs

* The Hill: In House climate vote, hints of problems in Senate

* Will Dem pay the price for sticking up for America’s economy and remembering it’s not the United States of Cap and Trade?

* ClimateDepot.com: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore: NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: ‘Climate has been changing for billions of years’ …

* … and Global temperatures ‘have plunged .74°F since Gore released ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ …

* …and remember to check out ClimateDepot.com’s Marc Morano in a Tribune report on the Senate’s consideration of climate change policy

* A reminder: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis)

* Reuters global warming blogger not so much with the fair and balanced, warning “catastrophic climate effects creep up”

* British event’s big-wig will boycott Prince Charles’s enviro-babble-filled appearance because the once-and-would-be-king meddles in public affairs

* A nice little carbon cartoon over at Watts Up With That?

* “Waxman-Markey, Davis-Bacon, Herbert Hoover”

* State’s Renewable-Energy Focus Risks Power Shortages

* True: “The climate bill approved by the House last month started out as an idea — fight global warming — and wound up looking like an unabridged dictionary. It runs to more than 1,400 pages, swollen with loopholes and giveaways meant to win over un-green industries and wary legislators. Here are answers to some key questions about the bill.”

* A Modest Proposal for Dealing with the Traitors Who Imperil Our Planet

Oh Yeah, The Senate Still Needs A Global Warming Bill of Its Own

Now that the House faced an embarrassingly close squeaker of a vote to force through its cap-and-trade global warming bill (which won’t really affect global warming but is in fact simply a big bill to come due later), the Senate will have to begin considering something of the sort.

Jim Tankersley of the Tribune newspapers has a forecast of Senate action, and reports:

“The bill is likely to include provisions designed to encourage development of new energy sources, including wind and solar power. Among these: financial and legal provisions to speed construction of transmission lines to move power from the remote deserts and plains where it is easily produced to coastal cities where it’s needed.

“The quest for new energy sources is expected to reopen the politically explosive issue of offshore drilling as well.

“Looming over all of the provisions is cost, a focal point of Republican attacks.

“’The public is especially wary of passing this during a major recession,’ said Marc Morano, a former Republican on the Senate environment committee.”

Yes indeed.

“The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic”

Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel writes “The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign”:

“The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from “any direct communication” with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: ‘The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.’ (Emphasis added.)

“Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.” Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.”

Cross-Dressing Capitalism: Global Warming

The good folks at OpposingViews.com — a great site you must check out — have taken some of our thoughts on where our nation is going with respect to capitalism. We argue “Democrats are dressing up socialism in free market clothes” and relate it to last week’s global warming bill:

“This climate bill hides its extensive costs behind the veneer of free market rhetoric. The scheme’s proponents have long known Americans are unlikely to support a massive new energy tax – especially in this hard economic time — so they claim this government-imposed cap on greenhouse gas emissions isn’t a tax. Instead, backers argue, it’s a system through which credits can be bought or sold in a market function.

“But the emissions market wouldn’t be free at all; lawmakers have already begun to rig the program, picking winners and losers and earmarking favored industries who would, in the case of the House bill, get their emission credits free of charge.

“New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman lifted the veil on the political strategy behind cap-and-trade, explaining that legislators’ affinity for the bill was derived from the fact that it ‘doesn’t use the word ‘tax’ — even though it amounts to one.’”

Thanks to OpposingViews.com for the chance to share our thoughts with a sizable audience.

Video: Going Green the Wrong Way

As always, nice work from The Onion (America’s Finest News Source!) for this parody of Taco Bell and it’s new green menu.





	July 6, 2009 Energy and Environment: Around The Interwebs * The Hill: In House climate vote, hints of problems in Senate * Will Dem pay the price for sticking up for America’s economy and remembering it’s not the United States of Cap and Trade? * ClimateDepot.com: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore: NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: ‘Climate has been changing for billions of years’ … * … and Global temperatures ‘have plunged .74°F since Gore released ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ … * …and remember to check out ClimateDepot.com’s Marc Morano in a Tribune report on the Senate’s consideration of climate change policy * A reminder: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis) * Reuters global warming blogger not so much with the fair and balanced, warning “catastrophic climate effects creep up” * British event’s big-wig will boycott Prince Charles’s enviro-babble-filled appearance because the once-and-would-be-king meddles in public affairs * A nice little carbon cartoon over at Watts Up With That? * “Waxman-Markey, Davis-Bacon, Herbert Hoover” * State’s Renewable-Energy Focus Risks Power Shortages * True: “The climate bill approved by the House last month started out as an idea — fight global warming — and wound up looking like an unabridged dictionary. It runs to more than 1,400 pages, swollen with loopholes and giveaways meant to win over un-green industries and wary legislators. Here are answers to some key questions about the bill.” * A Modest Proposal for Dealing with the Traitors Who Imperil Our Planet Oh Yeah, The Senate Still Needs A Global Warming Bill of Its Own Now that the House faced an embarrassingly close squeaker of a vote to force through its cap-and-trade global warming bill (which won’t really affect global warming but is in fact simply a big bill to come due later), the Senate will have to begin considering something of the sort. Jim Tankersley of the Tribune newspapers has a forecast of Senate action, and reports: “The bill is likely to include provisions designed to encourage development of new energy sources, including wind and solar power. Among these: financial and legal provisions to speed construction of transmission lines to move power from the remote deserts and plains where it is easily produced to coastal cities where it’s needed. “The quest for new energy sources is expected to reopen the politically explosive issue of offshore drilling as well. “Looming over all of the provisions is cost, a focal point of Republican attacks. “’The public is especially wary of passing this during a major recession,’ said Marc Morano, a former Republican on the Senate environment committee.” Yes indeed. “The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic” Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel writes “The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign”: “The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from “any direct communication” with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: ‘The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.’ (Emphasis added.) “Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.” Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.” Cross-Dressing Capitalism: Global Warming The good folks at OpposingViews.com — a great site you must check out — have taken some of our thoughts on where our nation is going with respect to capitalism. We argue “Democrats are dressing up socialism in free market clothes” and relate it to last week’s global warming bill: “This climate bill hides its extensive costs behind the veneer of free market rhetoric. The scheme’s proponents have long known Americans are unlikely to support a massive new energy tax – especially in this hard economic time — so they claim this government-imposed cap on greenhouse gas emissions isn’t a tax. Instead, backers argue, it’s a system through which credits can be bought or sold in a market function. “But the emissions market wouldn’t be free at all; lawmakers have already begun to rig the program, picking winners and losers and earmarking favored industries who would, in the case of the House bill, get their emission credits free of charge. “New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman lifted the veil on the political strategy behind cap-and-trade, explaining that legislators’ affinity for the bill was derived from the fact that it ‘doesn’t use the word ‘tax’ — even though it amounts to one.’” Thanks to OpposingViews.com for the chance to share our thoughts with a sizable audience. Video: Going Green the Wrong Way As always, nice work from The Onion (America’s Finest News Source!) for this parody of Taco Bell and it’s new green menu.