'We're Getting There,' House Majority Whip Says as Climate Bill Vote Nears

[Justin5 20]

Ummm, maybe it's just *my* internet, but I see it on the front page of every news site. That, plus the bill isn't law - it passed 1 half of congress, still a ways to go.

Also, when has policy EVER taken the news away from entertainment? MJ died, thats what people want to see apparently.

On the CNN POLITICS page yesterday, there wasn't a single story about it on the homepage. There's a 10 pack of "top stories" links. None of which contained anything about it.

And for the last 3 weeks, the administration has been talking about health care to distract us from this bill. If the people don't know it's coming, then they can't call and urge their representatives against voting for it.

Make no mistake, this is a bill they don't want the American people to know about.

The American people made their decision on action regarding climate change in the 2008 elections. It was a part of Obama's and the Democratic party platform. The Democratic party was elected into power on that platform, and not following through on it would have been derelict. If you don't like it - tough, and I suggest doing your all to ensure your views are properly represented in the 2010 elections.

In addition, health care was a part of that platform so get ready for that as well.

This is the most LAME argument EITHER side makes after an election. The PEOPLE voted for those who would KEEP THE PEOPLE at the top of their agenda, not POLITICS! If you are happy about this bill, then you have some soul searching to do. The only people who be effected most are those who pay their bills with money THEY EARNED!

If you don't like my response, then tough.

Elections matter. Do your best to keep Alabama red next time, and go to others states as well.

[Tigermike 3,026]

Ummm, maybe it's just *my* internet, but I see it on the front page of every news site. That, plus the bill isn't law - it passed 1 half of congress, still a ways to go.

Also, when has policy EVER taken the news away from entertainment? MJ died, thats what people want to see apparently.

On the CNN POLITICS page yesterday, there wasn't a single story about it on the homepage. There's a 10 pack of "top stories" links. None of which contained anything about it.

And for the last 3 weeks, the administration has been talking about health care to distract us from this bill. If the people don't know it's coming, then they can't call and urge their representatives against voting for it.

Make no mistake, this is a bill they don't want the American people to know about.

The American people made their decision on action regarding climate change in the 2008 elections. It was a part of Obama's and the Democratic party platform. The Democratic party was elected into power on that platform, and not following through on it would have been derelict. If you don't like it - tough, and I suggest doing your all to ensure your views are properly represented in the 2010 elections.

In addition, health care was a part of that platform so get ready for that as well.

This is the most LAME argument EITHER side makes after an election. The PEOPLE voted for those who would KEEP THE PEOPLE at the top of their agenda, not POLITICS! If you are happy about this bill, then you have some soul searching to do. The only people who be effected most are those who pay their bills with money THEY EARNED!

If you don't like my response, then tough.

Elections matter. Do your best to keep Alabama red next time, and go to others states as well.

So because your band of socialist won the election we should all just sit back and keep quiet with any and all cockamamie schemes they dream up. It's good to see how you think.

[Justin5 20]

Not at all, just saying don't be surprised by this bill. You should have seen it coming.

[Tigermike 3,026]

Not at all, just saying don't be surprised by this bill. You should have seen it coming.

I did see it coming. I am also honest enough to call it a tax on all people. I am also honest enough to see how it will cost every man, woman and child a boat load and will do nothing at all to stop, diminish or curtail "global warming".

[autigeremt 6,602]

Ummm, maybe it's just *my* internet, but I see it on the front page of every news site. That, plus the bill isn't law - it passed 1 half of congress, still a ways to go.

Also, when has policy EVER taken the news away from entertainment? MJ died, thats what people want to see apparently.

On the CNN POLITICS page yesterday, there wasn't a single story about it on the homepage. There's a 10 pack of "top stories" links. None of which contained anything about it.

And for the last 3 weeks, the administration has been talking about health care to distract us from this bill. If the people don't know it's coming, then they can't call and urge their representatives against voting for it.

Make no mistake, this is a bill they don't want the American people to know about.

The American people made their decision on action regarding climate change in the 2008 elections. It was a part of Obama's and the Democratic party platform. The Democratic party was elected into power on that platform, and not following through on it would have been derelict. If you don't like it - tough, and I suggest doing your all to ensure your views are properly represented in the 2010 elections.

In addition, health care was a part of that platform so get ready for that as well.

This is the most LAME argument EITHER side makes after an election. The PEOPLE voted for those who would KEEP THE PEOPLE at the top of their agenda, not POLITICS! If you are happy about this bill, then you have some soul searching to do. The only people who be effected most are those who pay their bills with money THEY EARNED!

If you don't like my response, then tough.

Elections matter. Do your best to keep Alabama red next time, and go to others states as well.

It's about RED, WHITE, and BLUE! Not about Red or Blue! Elections matter, but you see this as a total mandate! I see it as Americans wanting people in YOUR neck of the woods to do what's right, and not what's on their political agenda!

[autigeremt 6,602]

Not at all, just saying don't be surprised by this bill. You should have seen it coming.

Oh, we see it coming alright. You treat this as if it were two sports teams battling it out. I see it much differently. The difference between progressives and those who want fairness.

[BamaGrad03 0]

According to...?

Obama. He talks about Cap & Trade in DIRECT REFERENCE to Climate change in the same video where he says "under my cap & trade plan, energy rates will skyrocekt...and be passed on to consumers."

I feel like "skyrocket" can't be resolved with $175 a year. Then again, you've gone on record saying you aren't concerned about how much this bill taxes us...just that we have it.

[Tigermike 3,026]

I feel like "skyrocket" can't be resolved with $175 a year. Then again, you've gone on record saying you aren't concerned about how much this bill taxes us...just that we have it.

They know what "skyrocket" means and they know how this will affect the entire country. The problem is they don't care. They want their religion to advance.

[RunInRed 16,407]

According to...?

Obama. He talks about Cap & Trade in DIRECT REFERENCE to Climate change in the same video where he says "under my cap & trade plan, energy rates will skyrocekt...and be passed on to consumers."

-- notice how he specifically refers to it as an Energy Bill

You cherry-picked a campaign clip where he was responding to a specific Climate question.

Then again, you've gone on record saying you aren't concerned about how much this bill taxes us...just that we have it.

For the second time, that is not what I said.

[Justin5 20]

For those who are in so much love with Mr. Will's article about Spain:

Second, George Will published a piece, “Tilting at Green Windmills” in which he uses a discredited Spanish “study” to claim clean energy investments don’t create jobs (for debunking by CP and the Regional Minister of Innovation, Enterprise and Employment for the Government of Navarre, see here and here and here). Will’s piece is noteworthy for this remarkable admission:

[This] study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech.

That’s right, George Will published an entire piece based on disinformation bought and paid for by a think tank that is bought and paid for by ExxonMobil and run by Ken Lay’s former top shill — and Will also took money from that think tank. At least editorial page editor Fred Hiatt required that much in return for letting Will publish his umpteenth article full of misleading and inaccurate statements.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/28/geor...-ken-lay-enron/

[Tigermike 3,026]

For those who are in so much love with Mr. Will's article about Spain:

Second, George Will published a piece, “Tilting at Green Windmills” in which he uses a discredited Spanish “study” to claim clean energy investments don’t create jobs (for debunking by CP and the Regional Minister of Innovation, Enterprise and Employment for the Government of Navarre, see here and here and here). Will’s piece is noteworthy for this remarkable admission:

[This] study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech.

That’s right, George Will published an entire piece based on disinformation bought and paid for by a think tank that is bought and paid for by ExxonMobil and run by Ken Lay’s former top shill — and Will also took money from that think tank. At least editorial page editor Fred Hiatt required that much in return for letting Will publish his umpteenth article full of misleading and inaccurate statements.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/28/geor...-ken-lay-enron/

So basically climateprogress.org attacks George Will and the study he wrote about. Ironically the leftist pushing the green agenda in Spain have resorted to the same tactics.

They want to make a big deal of Mr. Will being paid to speak but who is paying the bills at climateprogress?

From what I have seen and read, climateprogress.org is about as reputable and honest as moveon.org

[OldNewby 27]

Sorry. See post below.

[OldNewby 27]

We "deniers" should be strangled in our sleep, according to Joe Romm of Climate Progress. The "true believers" are, and have been, throwing tantrums like a three-year old child pulling out all stops to get its way.

link: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1724/All-Hai...nial-NYTs-Krugm

All Hail the Planet! 'Immorality of climate-change denial': NYT's Krugman accuses Congressmen who voted against climate bill of 'treason against the planet!'

Monday, June 29, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman has charged that Congressmen who do not subscribe to his view of a man-made global warming "crisis" are guilty of "treason against the planet." Krugman also rebuked the "irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial." The House of Representatives narrowly passed the climate bill last week. (Krugman's sentiments about skeptics are not isolated. See: 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' - June 3, 2009)

"As I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet," Krugman wrote in the New York Times on June 28, 2009. [Editor's Note: Nice smear Mr. Krugman. Your use of the term "denier" has an intentional "Holocaust Denial" connotation to it. See: Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.: 'The phrase 'climate change denier' is meant to be evocative of the phrase 'holocaust denier' ]

"We're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?" Krugman explained.

"Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is," Krugman wrote. [Editor's Note: Krugman is a full blown "climate astrologist" -- someone who reads a prediction of 100 years from now and believes it as fact and irrefutable evidence of a climate catastrophe. (see Climate Depot report on "Climate Astrology" here.) Krugman cites the scientifically ridiculed MIT model predictions as "proof" of a climate crisis. For a full rebuttal of Krugman's climate model "evidence" see here: Forecast Pioneers: MIT's unscientific, catastrophic climate forecast: MIT modellers violated 49 principles of forecasting - June 16, 2009 - Also see: Even Computer Models Now Defying Predictions of Doom! New study 'concludes global average sea level rise UNLIKELY to exceed one meter by 2100' & U.S. Senate Report: 700 Plus Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Warming Claims - March 2009 ]

Krugman continued: "Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual? Yes, it is — and that's why it's unforgivable."

Treason? Immoral? Unforgivable? What is the punishment for such transgressions Mr. Krugman?

The answer to this question is readily available from Krugman's climate fear soul mates.

'Execute' Skeptics! Krugman's sentiment joined by fellow climate fear promoters

In June 2009, a public appeal was issued on an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S.

The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing ****tards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?" (For full story see: 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' - June 3, 2009)

After all the attention drawn to it by Climate Depot, the Talking Points Memo article was later pulled and the website published a retraction and apology, but the sentiment was stark and unequivocal and has significant company among climate fear promoters.

On June 5, 2009, Joe Romm of Climate Progress defended a posting on his website warning that climate skeptics would be strangled in bed for rejecting the view that we face a man-made climate crisis. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," warned the message posted on Climate Progress.

Romm, a former Clinton Administration official, pulled the comments after Climate Depot drew attention to them. "The original was clearly not a threat but a prediction -- albeit one that I certainly do not agree with. Since some people misread it, I am editing it," Romm wrote.

#

Climate Depot Editor's Note:

Paul Krugman's demonization of those skeptical of man-made climate fears and The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate. Looming Question: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?

Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:

NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that 'climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called 'Climate Criminals' who are committing 'Terracide' (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing.

Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.

November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be 'criminally irresponsible' Excerpt: The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible." Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.

September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: 'I was told that I could not speak in public' Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. "I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist," Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. "It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction." (LINK)

Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[state Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change...So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.

Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?

October 28, 2008: License to dissent: 'Internet should be nationalized as a public utility' to combat global warming skepticism - Australian Herald Sun - Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google's Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog...

November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: 'BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE' – UK Daily Express

Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)

Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN's scientific “consensus."

Former US Vice President Al Gore compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006)

Gore Refuses to Hear Skeptical Global Warming Views (Video)

UK environment secretary David Miliband said 'those who deny [climate change] are the flat-Earthers of the twenty-first century' (October 6, 2006)

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

[Tigermike 3,026]

All Hail the Planet! 'Immorality of climate-change denial': NYT's Krugman accuses Congressmen who voted against climate bill of 'treason against the planet!'

Monday, June 29, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman has charged that Congressmen who do not subscribe to his view of a man-made global warming "crisis" are guilty of "treason against the planet." Krugman also rebuked the "irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial." The House of Representatives narrowly passed the climate bill last week. (Krugman's sentiments about skeptics are not isolated. See: 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' - June 3, 2009)

"As I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet," Krugman wrote in the New York Times on June 28, 2009. [Editor's Note: Nice smear Mr. Krugman. Your use of the term "denier" has an intentional "Holocaust Denial" connotation to it. See: Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.: 'The phrase 'climate change denier' is meant to be evocative of the phrase 'holocaust denier' ]

"We're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?" Krugman explained.

Speaking of Mr. Krugman's dishonest little article in which he proved why he should stick with writing about economics:

One of the favorite arguments of climate-change deniers is "but it was warmer in the late 90s. In fact, the odds are good that get that argument from George Will on This Weak tomorrow. I basically know the answer: temperature is a noisy time series, so if you pick and choose your dates over a short time span you can usually make whatever case you want. That's why you need to look at longer trends and do some statistical analysis. But I thought that it would be a good thing to look at the data myself.

Here's the data he chose: (How convenient) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Does anyone know what happened prior to 1850?

A little thing called the "Little Ice Age",

remember hearing about that? And before that? Yup, the Medieval Warm Period. So what did that look like?

Surprise, surprise.

So what are the two things you would notice right away? Well, one is "cycles". In fact, if you go back even further you"ll see the same sorts of cycles repeated through out our planet's history. Looking at data from 1850 in the context of climate change history is to use an eyeblink of data for comparison (coming out of the depths of a centuries long planetary cold spell). It is a classic misuse of limited data in an attempt to support a point of view. It certainly can't be called "science".

I wonder if Mr. Krugman is as slective and missleading in his economic writings?

[BamaGrad03 0]

For the second time, that is not what I said.

Here's what I asked:

What if the CBO's estimates are wrong and in hindsight we find that it's costing us $500 per year per household...will you denounce the bill?

At what price point does this bill become an unfair tax to the American people?

You said:

No

You avoided the second question. But you certainly have no problem with it being triple the CBO estimate.

I think it's a fair question. What burden are you all willing to put on the American taxpayers before you are unwilling to support the bill? What's the Cap if you will (pun intended).

Secondly, if this is a bill to stop the use of limited fossil fuels, why the lack of support for nuclear? A cheap renewable energy resource that doesn't burden 100% of Americans.

[Tigermike 3,026]

Secondly, if this is a bill to stop the use of limited fossil fuels, why the lack of support for nuclear? A cheap renewable energy resource that doesn't burden 100% of Americans.

A little strange isn't it, the only nuclear the dims support is in Iran?

[RunInRed 16,407]

I said, let's not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Obviously, we need to take steps to ensure this measure is not overly punitive to consumers in the short-term. In the long-term, I have no doubt the windfalls from a green economy can be a net positive for every one.

You are focusing on the wrong questions. Let me help redirect you: What is the cost of doing nothing? What happens if we continue to aggressively consume the world's finite resources with little regard to the effects? If the US does not seize this moment and lead with new technologies, new solutions and better ways forward, how long will we remain the brightest light and strongest country in the world?

Secondly, if this is a bill to stop the use of limited fossil fuels, why the lack of support for nuclear? A cheap renewable energy resource that doesn't burden 100% of Americans.

As I've said before, I have no problem with nuclear energy - as long as you can give me a good plan for how to dispose of the waste.

[Justin5 20]

Secondly, if this is a bill to stop the use of limited fossil fuels, why the lack of support for nuclear? A cheap renewable energy resource that doesn't burden 100% of Americans.

A little strange isn't it, the only nuclear the dims support is in Iran?

Um, if you did any research on the bill you would know it is EXTREMELY favorable to nuclear power.

And you guys REALLY think this picture proves a LACK of abnormal recent global warming?

Lets see, we started putting out significant CO2 gasses in, hmmm, I don't know, maybe 1900. What happens on that graph around 1900?

[RunInRed 16,407]

Um, if you did any research on the bill you would know it is EXTREMELY favorable to nuclear power.

It's a 1,200 page document that was written in the dark of night - how can we be expected to read it?!

[BamaGrad03 0]

You are focusing on the wrong questions. Let me help redirect you: What is the cost of doing nothing? What happens if we continue to aggressively consume the world's finite resources with little regard to the effects? If the US does not seize this moment and lead with new technologies, new solutions and better ways forward, how long will we remain the brightest light and strongest country in the world?

I'm not focusing on the wrong question. Because we are doing this in the middle of what you guys keep telling us is the worst economy since the stone ages. But you want to keep enacting tax after tax to further your political agenda. When we can least afford it.

This is a tax who's job creation is not in any way commensurate with the amount of fiscal burden it's going to impose on the American people. And you're wrong. It's not being billed as a way to slow our use of finite resources. It's being pushed under the guise of climate change.

You can traipse out "what's the cost of doing nothing" all you want. But if you further cripple this economy with a far reaching tax, I'd say that cost of this bill is pretty significant.

I do find it funny that there's still nothing about it on the CNN.com page. YOU specifically want don't to tout it as a climate bill. And everyone wants to downplay what Obama said would be "skyrocketing" costs passed onto consumers.

Because democrats know, the overwhelming majority of americans...while interested in climate change...have ZERO interest in climate change policies that significantly effect their finances. ie they don't BELIEVE with their wallets. They believe when it's a fun/cool/hip dogma to get behind...or when MTV says it's important.

You ask them if they believe enough to fork out an extra grand a year to pay for that belief, you'll get a whole different response.

I still think my question is an important one...what is the amount of financial burden you're NOT willing to impose on american citizens with this bill?

Do you BELIEVE in this bill enough to impose an extra $5,000 per year on americans? $50,000?

[Justin5 20]

I've got to (surprise surprise) disagree who say now is the wrong time do this. First of all, you can always come up with reasons why the timing is wrong. If the economy was going great - you'd say 'don't do it now, things are going great' - so what are we supposed to do? Wait until the economy is just average? Well seeing that the SOONEST this bill could become law is October, and more likely Novemberish, I for one would like to believe that by around then thing will have completely stabilized. So you could almost argue the timing is perfect - but I digress.

The point is if you are constantly waiting for the perfect time to pass legislation, you will just keep waiting. You have to at some point just jump because you know its right. That's what the Democratic party is doing. Say what you want, but the party is trying to doing what they believe is right rather than sitting idly by, hoping the problem magically fixes itself. I understand the debate also, and how some believe that there is no problem, but those views are not in control of Congress now, so what can I say - sorry?

Democratic members of Congress didn't vote for this bill to fill their pockets - they didn't do it as a political move - they did it because the people who elected them made it clear it was a priority. Disagree? Sure, some will. But from our side, this is investment in our economy and security for the future. Adapting isn't easy, but its often necessary.

[rexbo 104]

Secondly, if this is a bill to stop the use of limited fossil fuels, why the lack of support for nuclear? A cheap renewable energy resource that doesn't burden 100% of Americans.

A little strange isn't it, the only nuclear the dims support is in Iran?

Um, if you did any research on the bill you would know it is EXTREMELY favorable to nuclear power.

And you guys REALLY think this picture proves a LACK of abnormal recent global warming?

Lets see, we started putting out significant CO2 gasses in, hmmm, I don't know, maybe 1900. What happens on that graph around 1900?

Um, right, in the Year ZERO, scientists were recording the average temperature of the entire earth to within .2 degrees C. They weren't even doing that in the year 1900! Tell, me, how do you calculate the complete, true average temperature of the earth? Take a reading at the North Pole, one at the South and one at the equator? There is no way to measure accurately the average temperature, this chart is made up of many, many, many estimates and assumptions. There's no doubt the temperature of the earth varies, and there are even ways to estimate relatively what the average temperature was in the past; but to take a few tenths from the past 10 years, and extrapolate that to OMG MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!! is way past silly to my engineering mind.

[rexbo 104]

Democratic members of Congress didn't vote for this bill to fill their pockets - they didn't do it as a political move - they did it because the people who elected them made it clear it was a priority. Disagree? Sure, some will. But from our side, this is investment in our economy and security for the future. Adapting isn't easy, but its often necessary.

Our district voted ~29% for Obama yet our supposedly Blue Dog Congressman just voted FOR this monstrous tax increase; I can guarantee you that he voted to line his pockets or a political move, NOT because he thought it was a priority for his constituents.

And there are ways the Government can incentivize changes in energy policies, I am for doing that now. But this 1000+page bill that almost NO one in the House of Representatives read before passing is not the way; this bill, and the way it was just passed, is just the Federal Government completely out of control, and is turning a huge number of moderate voters against Obama and the Democrats. But keep on, you are making things look better for 2010 with every naive and misguided step...

[RunInRed 16,407]

I'm not focusing on the wrong question. Because we are doing this in the middle of what you guys keep telling us is the worst economy since the stone ages. But you want to keep enacting tax after tax to further your political agenda. When we can least afford it.

This is a tax who's job creation is not in any way commensurate with the amount of fiscal burden it's going to impose on the American people. And you're wrong. It's not being billed as a way to slow our use of finite resources. It's being pushed under the guise of climate change.

You can traipse out "what's the cost of doing nothing" all you want. But if you further cripple this economy with a far reaching tax, I'd say that cost of this bill is pretty significant.

I do find it funny that there's still nothing about it on the CNN.com page. YOU specifically want don't to tout it as a climate bill. And everyone wants to downplay what Obama said would be "skyrocketing" costs passed onto consumers.

Because democrats know, the overwhelming majority of americans...while interested in climate change...have ZERO interest in climate change policies that significantly effect their finances. ie they don't BELIEVE with their wallets. They believe when it's a fun/cool/hip dogma to get behind...or when MTV says it's important.

You ask them if they believe enough to fork out an extra grand a year to pay for that belief, you'll get a whole different response.

I still think my question is an important one...what is the amount of financial burden you're NOT willing to impose on american citizens with this bill?

Do you BELIEVE in this bill enough to impose an extra $5,000 per year on americans? $50,000?

$1,000/$5,000,$50,000?! What orifice are you pulling these figures from? I know you are trying to make a point but your insistence on focusing on short-term costs prevents you from recogninzing the opportunities passage of such a bill would create. A few more thoughts...

1) Taking Justin's point above a step further, I believe there is no better time to address the root problems we face than now (btw, this notion would definitely be applicable to healthcare as well). You don't work your way out of recession by ignoring problems - you tackle them and take advantage of the opportunities that are contained within.

2) While I am weary of short-term costs to consumers, I don't think we shoiuld let marginal upfront investment scare us into the frozen status quo while the marketplace all around us is demanding greener and more efficient energy solutions.

3) There are entire new economic engines around a Green future. This can fill the manufacturing void which has been widening for decades. This can not be understated. And make no mistake, if we don't seize these opportunities to create the energies and technologies of tomorrow, China, Europe, Korea, Japan, or some one else will.

Bottom line, ten years from now I don't want to be buying battery powered cars and solar panels for my house from China because narrow minds insist on paying $15 less a month on their utility bill.

[Tigermike 3,026]

I'm not focusing on the wrong question. Because we are doing this in the middle of what you guys keep telling us is the worst economy since the stone ages. But you want to keep enacting tax after tax to further your political agenda. When we can least afford it.

This is a tax who's job creation is not in any way commensurate with the amount of fiscal burden it's going to impose on the American people. And you're wrong. It's not being billed as a way to slow our use of finite resources. It's being pushed under the guise of climate change.

You can traipse out "what's the cost of doing nothing" all you want. But if you further cripple this economy with a far reaching tax, I'd say that cost of this bill is pretty significant.

I do find it funny that there's still nothing about it on the CNN.com page. YOU specifically want don't to tout it as a climate bill. And everyone wants to downplay what Obama said would be "skyrocketing" costs passed onto consumers.

Because democrats know, the overwhelming majority of americans...while interested in climate change...have ZERO interest in climate change policies that significantly effect their finances. ie they don't BELIEVE with their wallets. They believe when it's a fun/cool/hip dogma to get behind...or when MTV says it's important.

You ask them if they believe enough to fork out an extra grand a year to pay for that belief, you'll get a whole different response.

I still think my question is an important one...what is the amount of financial burden you're NOT willing to impose on american citizens with this bill?

Do you BELIEVE in this bill enough to impose an extra $5,000 per year on americans? $50,000?

$1,000/$5,000,$50,000?! What orifice are you pulling these figures from? I know you are trying to make a point but your insistence on focusing on short-term costs prevents you from recogninzing the opportunities passage of such a bill would create. A few more thoughts... (The only opportunity's passage of this bill will provide is tons of new tax $$$$$$$$ rolling into the federal government. That's all this is. Don't be so naive as to believe the politicians those on the left have elected really believe in man made global warming.)

1) Taking Justin's point above a step further, I believe there is no better time to address the root problems we face than now (btw, this notion would definitely be applicable to healthcare as well). You don't work your way out of recession by ignoring problems - you tackle them and take advantage of the opportunities that are contained within. (dimocrat Fear mongering 101 - "We have to do something NOW, to save the planet!) (Oh and if you want to take the same argument to health care then please do. The plans they are floating out there are nothing more than another government grab for power and control.)

2) While I am weary of short-term costs to consumers, I don't think we shoiuld let marginal upfront investment scare us into the frozen status quo while the marketplace all around us is demanding greener and more efficient energy solutions. (And it is the governments place to subsidize all those green things you want isn't it? The fact is if there was a market for all those things someone would be making them without government subsidization. You know like market demand?)

3) There are entire new economic engines around a Green future. (You mean like Spain? How is that working out for them?) This can fill the manufacturing void which has been widening for decades. This can not be understated. And make no mistake, if we don't seize this opportunities to create the energies and technologies of tomorrow, China, Europe, Korea, Japan, or some one else will.

Bottom line, ten years from now I don't want to be buying battery powered cars and solar panels for my house from China because narrow minds insist on paying $15 less a month on their utility bill. (Ten years from now you will still be buying batteries from China because they are not planning on destroying their economy with this BS. And not only will utility bills be much higher than $15 per month but everything you purchase will be higher. Much higher.)