Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out

[sabra]

Source: ABC News

26 Scientists Say Assessment Gives World Leaders Solid Data for Climate Summit

There's even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by 26 scientists from eight countries.

Sea level rise, ocean acidification and the rapid melting of massive ice sheets are among the significantly increased effects of human-induced global warming assessed in the survey, which also examines the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are causing the climate change.

"Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst-case projections" made three years ago by the world's scientists, the new Copenhagen Diagnosis said.

Nor has manmade global warming slowed or paused, as some headlines have recently suggested, according to the report, which you can see here.

The scientists also calculate that the world's emissions of heat-trapping gases must peak in less than 10 years and then dive quickly to nearly zero, if warming of more than another 2 degrees Fahrenheit above the current annual global temperature is to be prevented after 2050.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/global-warming-report-finds-time-running/story?id=9159815

[abelenkpe]

1. This article will just

start a new wave of deniers, spark more funding from oil companies to pressure lawmakers to do nothing.

It's sad. We really need to cut emissions and moving towards sustainable energy is good for the US. Good for everyone but Exxon.

:(

[jdlh8894]

2. Good for everyone but Exxon

What about CITGO ?:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[lapfog_1]

3. The disturbing thing is that every report that is released now

says, over and over, time is short, things are progressing faster than our models predicted, etc, etc.

Either they are incompetent at updating the models (and I used to work with the people that created the climate models, and they are very competent) OR things are accelerating in ways that aren't modeled OR there is some really bad news in the models but no one wants to step out and say what the bad news is... they'd rather it be released bit by bit so it won't be dismissed as "outlandish".

I'm voting for reason number three.

[Tesha]

5. Several years ago, in scientific circles, it was already well-known that the models were...

cranking out really, really depressing data and that the
various groups (including the IPCC) were deliberately
publicizing data from the happiest end of the various
models' uncertainty bands. And they were doing this
because they felt that nobody would believe the results
if they started talking about the most likely outcomes,
let alone what the output was from the pessimistic end
of the error bands.

Tesha

[Birthmark]

11. One of the things that is progressing...

...is our knowledge of how glaciers melt. It was a subject that was largely ignored in the most recent IPCC since scientists didn't how adequately to model rapid glacial/ice melt.

Nature, of course, already knows how to melt glaciers and ice and doesn't need to explain it to anyone.

So some of the worst case scenarios weren't really worst case. They were just an indication of how far climatologists were willing to go in guessing. On the whole, scientists tend to guess very conservatively (when they are forced to guess), so it is no surprise that nature has surpassed those guesses.

Models, however, are *always* incomplete. They always will be. That doesn't make them wrong (and I'm not saying you did claim that), it just makes them imperfect. However, they are immensely useful.

[notesdev]

12. Or they are panicking

and becoming increasingly hysterical in the face of relevations that the temperature record being relied on has been fabricated, and are trying to drown out the reports of the malfeasance with noise.

[Birthmark]

13. Still sticking to your fantasies, are you?

How are things in the magic world of denial where economists can tell the world that CO2 isn't a GHG?

[notesdev]

15. Sticking to your fallacies I see

Must be the same logic that models CO2 as a GHG but ignores water vapor entirely.

[Birthmark]

16. LOL

Yeah? Puzzle me this, economist, how much water vapor is in the stratosphere?

You don't even know the extent of why you're wrong, do you? Logic, fact, and observation are all just one big conspiracy to you, aren't they?

For those wondering about the depths of notesdev's fantasies and ignorance of this subject, go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4157067

[fascisthunter]

29. you gotta be kidding yourself

[NecklyTyler]

33. Greenman3610 has already handled this one

The Big Mist Take


==> Thanks Greenman, you rock

[Xenotime]

30. You will believe anything the RW terrorists put out.

[lapfog_1]

34. Ah, the stupid is strong in this one.

Sorry, spent many years of my career working with NASA climate scientists ( I was in charge of the data collection and storage and distribution ), and their just ISN'T any fabrication of data or conspiracy to do so.

They told me then that we faced a real serious problem (early to mid 90's). I believed them.

NO ONE HAS EVER EXPLAINED WHAT MOTIVE THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HAVE FOR FABRICATING HYSTERIA OVER CLIMATE CHANGE.

Research grants? HAH! Most of them have jobs that are well funded by various governments for the growing of crops and other climate economic reasons. They never needed a "crises" to keep their funding. From LANSAT in the 1970s to the remote sensing technology of today, climate researchers MORE than earn their keep through improved crop yields.

[notesdev]

38. Explantion of motive

Your dogmatic insistence on the uniformly angelic motives of these individuals is amusing, but sad. You sound like an investment banker, a bit.

I can name quite a few motives. It sure beats toiling away as an obscure and unknown climate scientist in East Anglia, if instead you get to jet the world and be a big shot at conferences, because everyone is celebrating the latest advances based on your revolutionary new results. Cushy jobs, pretty nice salary, be the big man on campus, big budgets to play with, cut favors, launder a bit maybe. Everyone wants to talk to you and publish with you and invite you to their parties. Book deals, important posts, maybe some nice undergrad climate babes, you name it, there's a lot that could potentially provide motive to something like this.

There's plenty of motive. Fabricated data, if accepted as real and important enough (and what could be as important as this? TEOTWAWKI!) turns a bumbler with shoddy methodology into a movie star whose word is the Word of God in the ears of gullible naifs.

If there's no end-of-the-world scenario, Mr. Mann the Climate Scientist and Mr. Jones the Program Director are nobodies. Or maybe an actual scientist, instead of the man who dictated a faddish new secular religion's version of the Rapture.

The problem isn't even the motive. It's the fact that this whole end-of-the-world scenario is ultimate dependent on one single source of information, which we now know is tainted with a virtual cornucopia of error (selection and statistical), lack of corroboration, dubious choice of methodology, and incomplete publishing. They may be going through the science motions, but there is something key that went on here that is most certainly not science.

I was blown away when I learned that they were the only people keeping the global temperature record, and that no other group independently verified their work.

Since you are so close to the profession, I presume you had interest enough to read through the released material?

[Birthmark]

39. How dramatic!

As usual, you have no evidence to back that up. When confronted with actual evidence you run away. Apparently, evidence won't do the job you need done. ;)

But let's play it your way for a moment. Just so I can strip the last vestiges of dignity from your conspiracy theory:

Do you have any evidence that any of this? "Cushy jobs, pretty nice salary, be the big man on campus, big budgets to play with, cut favors, launder a bit maybe." For bonus, if those were the motive, wouldn't the climatologists make MUCH more shilling for the energy companies? How much does Mann make, for example, compared to Lindzen?

Do you have any evidence of fabricated data?

What's in it for those thousands of climate scientists who *aren't* at the top? Why do they go along with a conspiracy? Why have NONE of the IPCC signers signed even ONE of the denialist petitions? Why haven't any of those hundreds and thousands of lower-level climatologists cashed in by exposing the whole plot in an unambiguous way?

Why does the temperature keep rising if GW is a hoax? If you say that temperature is rising but it's *not* our fault, then 1) do we emit magic non-GHG CO2; or 2) what IS causing the warming?

Your position is frankly stupid, ignorant, dishonest, and unsupported by the evidence.

[joeglow3]

42. In all fairness, you offered no data either

I am inclined to believe in GW, but I am very ignorant on the subject. That said, nobody here has provided any evidence one way or the other.

[notesdev]

48. Here are the two sides to the story

Side 1 - global warming advocates, strongly associated with the IPCC/East Anglia CRU group:

http://realclimate.org

Side 2 - People trying to audit the data:

http://climateaudit.org
http://wattsupwiththat.com


Read what each side has to say, form your own conclusion - it will be quite obvious who is interested in knowing the truth, and who interested in concealing it; who is performing rigorous study, and who is engaged in a smoke-and-mirrors exercise.

I encourage everybody to review the facts and determine for themselves whether the science behind global warming advocacy is sound.

[Birthmark]

49. You don't need to "believe in GW"

...anymore than you need to "believe in" gravity. Both are facts, well supported by science. The only difference is AGW steps on the toes of very vested and very rich and powerful corporations. Those corporations fund "skeptics" whose goal isn't to prove the science wrong. That's attested to by their nearly complete lack of publication of science in reputable journals. Their goal is to undermine the science in the *public* mind so that their paymasters may continue to make huge profits.

Here is a link to the latest synopsis: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/ The science behind the report is referenced. I suggest looking up the actual science.

If you want to actually learn this from the ground up, start here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Then see if you can find any science supporting the denialist position. Good luck with that. All you'll see is nonsense, misrepresentation, wild accusations, and outright lies. You've already seen some of those in this thread.

Basically, GW is easy to understand. It has been known for well over 100 years that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is well known that burning fossil fuels produces CO2, thus increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is well known that we burn an assload of fossil fuels.

From there, it can get very complex very fast. But that's the basics. Those that contend there is no warming must either believe a fundamental error was made (and continues to be made) and that CO2 *isn't* a GHG --which is a ludicrous position; or they must believe that humanity puts out some kind of magic CO2 that isn't a GHG --which is also ludicrous.

It's no wonder the denialists don't show up in the scientific literature. But, man, can they churn out the op-eds and the blogs!

Good luck.

[lapfog_1]

41. "Your dogmatic insistence on the uniformly angelic"

bit hyperbolic, no?

And you didn't show a single instance of a climate scientist "cashing in" on global warming... "jet the world and be a big shot", Cushy jobs and pretty nice salary? Give me a fucking break. Most of the people you are accusing of perpetrating fraud do NOT have now or ever had "cushy jobs" and would laugh if someone described their pay as a "pretty nice salary". The vast majority are NOT "big shots" or even "little shots".

There are a number of problems for climate change deniers.

One of them is motive (because for their NOT to be climate change, then the climate scientists MUST be in a conspiracy to hide the truth and sell a big lie). And now even MOST climate change deniers (apparently not you yet) accept that there IS climate change happening, but now the cause isn't the constant release of millions of tons of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere. It has to be a solar cycle or something. It just can't be caused by humans. (hint: you need to keep up with current anti-climate change talking points).

Two is the facts on the ground. Sea Ice is retreating so much that the fabled "Northwest Passage" is now open for shipping for a significant fraction of the year. Fabled because when I was in high school, the history books would talk about the early explorers of the frozen north and their search for a route that would allow shipping from the Far East to Europe, something desired for centuries and their absolute failure to find such a passage because "it didn't exist". Well, it does now.

Or you can read Hemingway's "Snows of Kilimanjaro" (1936) and wonder if he ever VISITED the mountain because it has (currently) almost NO SNOW on it anymore. 80% of the glacier ice is gone now compared to Hemingway's time. And there are photos to prove it. Or maybe all the photographers in the world are in on the grand conspiracy too. And every contemporary photo is doctored. But not just of this one mountain top in Tanzania, but of glaciers around the world. Even the tourist photos are doctored.

Really, most of the idiots spouting the anti-climate change crap have gotten with the program... "there IS global warming, but it ISN'T caused by man's activities"... that's the stuff. You need to update your talking points.

[notesdev]

47. Don't change the subject

The issue is not "climate change". Nobody is disputing that climate changes. Always has, always will.

The issue in dispute is "global warming". There is no way one can state with confidence based on that global temperature reconstructions that it is happening, because the basis for those constructions is invalid. Look at the data they base their conclusions on, it's extremely thin and has absolutely no independent verification. I have also confirmed with a specialist that the dendrochronology is NOT accepted as valid and in fact validity of the technique used is strongly disputed by plant physiology.

Global warming is bunk. A full investigation is warranted as to how we came to rely on such specious analysis.

[lapfog_1]

50. How do you breath air?

Seriously, I know that it's a lower brain function, almost involuntary (like the heart beating). But you still have to have a few neurons firing to accomplish it.

[Psephos]

52. About that Kilimanjaro glacier...

Remember that a glacier is a river, in slow motion. Like any river, it dries up and stops flowing if its headwaters are depleted.

Now, has it shrunk because it became warm and melted?

Or because there has been less precipitation to replenish it as it flows down the mountain?

The answer is not the one that most lay people think.

Here are a couple of hints: the temperature at altitude on Kilimanjaro never rises above freezing, and the ice has been in retreat for a century. (There are vanishingly few papers in the journals proposing that horse farts started the Kilimanjaro ice recession.)

All around the world, there are glaciers retreating, glaciers advancing, and glaciers in homeostasis. Picking an individual glacier as an AGW signal is like painting a bullseye on your butt. Especially Kilimanjaro.

OTOH, upon examining the global population of glaciers as a group, then some melting trends are evident. But the montane glacial signal is noisy at best, and divining the information is a black art.

The signals that really matter are mostly in the ocean.

[boppers]

53. "one single source of information"

Wow. You did't even understand the topic before forming an opinion. Nice.

[tinrobot]

18. Reason three - they're too scared to speak the truth

Because the truth is pretty damn grim.

[dixiegrrrrl]

35. or # 4, The Powers That Be don't give a damn.

They are all hell bent for leather to be the last people standing with all the toys.
You know, the IMPORTANT stuff.

[jaksavage]

4. It is going to take a revolution

Nothing else is going to work.
Too many problems, too little time.

[villager]

6. the question then is, what will the spark be?

n/t

[Birthmark]

14. The spark wil be the first widespread crop failure.

Nothing jump starts a revolution like an empty belly.

[villager]

17. you could be right -- when the wheat or the corn finally go...

n/t

[Birthmark]

20. I expect that neither will "go"

...all at once. I'm guessing but I suspect that they'll be a one-year major crop failure that most of us will make it through, but will wake up most people.

The alternative is too gruesome to think about without booze --and it's too early to drink.

[dysfunctional press]

45. whatever it the spark will be, it will come far too late to do any good...

by the time the visibly catastrophic events that will wake people up start happening, it'll be far too late to change the course of events, if it isn't already.

and-
if it IS already too late...why do anything?

[tinrobot]

19. ...or a collapse that sparks revolution.

[starzdust]

7. New Flash! It's already too late

I have an BS earth sciences and my reading on global warming now morphed into climate change is that it doesn't matter unless there is a immediate cessation of an increase in greenhouse gas rise AND an immediate steps taken to decrease them. Of coarse there are those who will say differently. the loss of arctic and antarctic sea and glacial ice can not be stopped else while global warming continues.

[jaksavage]

32. That's what I'm talkin about. nt

[The2ndWheel]

8. What were we doing in 1990 that was any more sustainable than today?

It's not that we're running out of time. It's happening right now, forget about the future. It's been happening for decades, centuries, etc, much less tomorrow. Time, as we define it, is not our problem. Time, as we know it, isn't a factor at all.

We twist ourselves into a pretzel over time. 40 years from now, in the magical year of 2050, we need to be doing what we were doing 20 years ago(again, as if that was sustainable), only with more people hooked into the global economic system than are currently hooked, and certainly more people than were hooked in 20 years ago. Why not pick 1980? Or 1920? Or even 1989 or 1991? Because it's not easily divisible by 5?

It's our activity that got us here. It's what we do that got us here. It's how we do it that got us here. Even our heat-trapping gases are just symptoms of a much deeper issue, not the cause.

[Bragi]

9. The planet will be fine, humanity won't be fine

Turns out our fatal flaw is that we lack the political and economic institutions that would be required to reverse the downward spiral that is now upon us. We are also not easily moved to act to avert a danger in the seemingly distant future, no matter how certain it may be.

Me, I'm almost 60, and won't be around to see the worst of it. But I have no doubt that anyone under the age of about 30 will live to see at least the beginnings of the worst of it. And today's children are doomed to live in a world with famines, resource wars, massive human upheaval, etc.

I see no reason for any optimism on this.

[Ian David]

10. Dear Republicans, "You arrogant ass... you've killed US!"

http://www.moviesounds.com/redoct/arrogant.mp3
http://www.moviesounds.com/redoct/arrogant.wav

[SandWalker1984]

21. Global warming man made or planetary changes? Global warming hoax to tax us?

The jury is still out on this one if you ask me. Some scientists believe the global warming, global cooling are natural cycles of the earth and man has little to do with cause or control of it.

Some believe this is an agenda by a group of "shadow" rule makers and shakers to coerce us all into a world government with taxing authority and regulations.

This article posted today discusses the "fixing" of the data for a global warming agenda. You can read it and reach your own conclusions.

November 24, 2009
ClimateGate: The Fix is In
By Robert Tracinski
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

A hacker-or possibly a disillusioned insider-has gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and made them available on the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine.

Yes, this is a theft of data-but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU.

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money - Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government - which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

[sethgrogen]

37. Whoa!

[Birthmark]

40. I love the denialists

They're so mercifully free from the ravages of honesty and the constraints of merely logic and evidence. It another time, perhaps, they'd write fairy-tales.

Question: If there is no warming then why are plants, animals, ice, and the atmosphere reacting as if there IS warming? Just how powerful ARE these climatologists?!

Denialists = Teh Stoopid.

[nebenaube]

44. nice spin...

But really, the issue is not that difficult to understand. There is no need to fudge data. There is no 'gap'. A suppression? Yes; All you need to do is to look at the data in terms of historical context.

[fascisthunter]

46. another know-nothing global warming denialist

[Uncle Joe]

22. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, sabra.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SandWalker1984]

24. You also need to check out regulations under HR 2454 for selling your home

Under H.R. 2454 Cap and Trade Bill, homeowners need upgrades and a license to sell a house
Published on 11-22-2009
http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-6409-0-29-29--.html

This is a long excerpt, but you should read the entire post by Frank Carrio at http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.

•No one is excluded.


However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:

•A year from now you won't be able to sell your house.

Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included.

•In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.


•To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.


•Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.


•Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.


•If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.



TRANSLATION: ANOTHER TRANSFER OF THE WEALTH OF THE MIDDLE CLASS TO THE FAT CATS AT THE TOP UNDER THE GUISE OF "HELPING" AMERICANS.

[Birthmark]

27. I mean this in the nicest way possible...

...Bullshit! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/23/chain-email/chain-e-mail-claims-cap-and-trade-will-require-hom/

You've been had.

[beyond cynical]

25. Uh oh...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

[Birthmark]

28. What oh?

Which of those emails prevents CO2 from trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere?

Some of them are pretty personally embarrassing to the individuals who wrote them, but there doesn't appear to be anything that affects the science.

Still, I guess denialists can hope.

[Therellas]

26. so lets pour everything into the space program and plan our escape!!!!!

thats something i really don't get.
now we are pushing for math and science more that ever.....
didn't Einstein say you cant fix a problem with the same type of thinking that caused it?
he was pretty smart in the math and science department i hear.
i quess all the people who just want to breathe can just watch as dick cheney gets blasted into space in his man sized safe while civilization crumbles.
neat.

[MisterP]

55. petroleum pete!

http://robotchicken.wikia.com/wiki/Petroleum_Pete

seriously, the whole "escape into lush outer space" is a mass of infantile wish-fulfillment--as though a whole biosphere could be cooked up with the snap of a finger

[Xenotime]

31. This is so sad. We had over 20 years to do something and...

we were too selfish to give up our SUVs

[fujiyama]

36. A lot of this is simply inevitable

and much of it really is unstoppable. There are a lot of people on this planet, without enough resources (and certainly not an equitable distribution of those resources). Humans ultimately will consume all nonrenewable resources before things really change - at which point many places will have felt the most drastic effects of climate change (such as many towns and cities anywhere near any glaciers).

As a society, we have set the standard for living - at least materially. We're looked at, many times with envy - but more often than not - simply with shock at our excess consumption. And let's be honest. Aside from replacing our light bulbs, driving a hybrid or using paper bags, few us are willing to or even capable of making really major changes to our lifestyle. I like hot showers in the morning and I use toilet paper. I don't know about you but I'm not giving those things up. And by toilet paper, I'm not going to buy the rough stuff either. I know that sounds irresponsible to some, but hey everyone has stuff they won't give up. For most others in this country, that includes such things as meat (and beef in particular). For some it's SUVs or other vehicles with poor fuel economy. And we will all find a way to justify it. Many will find any limitation on the ability to consume an infringement on liberty.

Well, as other nations progress industrially (namely China and India, with a population of over a billion each), they seek a greater standard of living as well. Industrialization is dirty and can be deadly at times as well.

[fascisthunter]

43. I can't believe the world is fucked up due to so many greedy freaks

if anybody is interested, read about Easter Isle.... these types of cancerous fools have always been around.

[Zavulon]

51. I'm sorry, but it seems that we get the "less than ten years" warning every other year.

If it's supposed to scare me, it stopped doing so when Ted Danson was giving it to us in the 1980's. I know something needs to be done, but I'm not going to be scared into using one square of toilet paper per dump, giving up foods I like just because of their supposed carbon footprint or driving a little underpowered piece of crap just because of the same droning warning I hear every 24 months or less.

[Psephos]

54. The world will end tomorrow. Repent sinners! ;)

And it's said that we have become a secular society. lol

Apocalypse Now! has been the favorite tool of ambitious religious prophets for millennia. Politicians love rousing up fear of an external threat as much as the false prophets. The similarities are not a coincidence. The goal is power.

It's clear the climate is changing. But that's what climate does.

If one assumes that nearly all of the observed change is anthropogenic, and that the most restrictive of the international anti-AGW proposals and legislation envisioned were enacted tomorrow, the effect on global temperatures would be on the order of half to three/fourths of a degree after 50 years. Ain't squat. If warming is coming, it is coming.

Somehow I think the world will carry on. That's the ultimate uniformitarian conclusion.

[Nihil]

56. Good - the sooner the better. (n/t)

:grr: