Good points Peter,
let's not forget the billions of dollars in no bid contracts IBM (smart grid technology) and GE (alternative energies, power systems, etc.) stand to receive. Their unchallenged contracts will dwarf the alleged nepotism of Halliburton during the Bush administration. Keep your eye on GE, with as many irons as they have in the Obama fire, and money ready to be handed them through the Federal Reserve with no checks and balances, they will redefine the term "too big to fail"

why do we believe in myth of global warming.. there is no global warming, im all for clean air but coal can be burned clean.we dont need any global warming tax for gods sakes. about time we tell the government whats whats around here.we have years of our own oil reserves to use.
yes work on other energy sources. just remember government lye's to us all the time. our reps vote for the party, NOT FOR US.

I would love to read this story with the benefit of facts and statistics as opposed to personal opinion.

The points about what's in the bill are facts. The points about the earth being in a cooling state now are facts.

6. Carbon Dioxide is plant food.
- - “Plant food?” Well, yes, plants use carbon dioxide during photosynthesis to produce sugars which are stored or utilized to sustain the plant. Plants require other nutrients as well. People breathe oxygen, but I wouldn’t call it people food. Incidentally, when plants decay they give off carbon dioxide.

7. We sit on several mountains of coal (literally) in this country. It is our most abundant form of energy and we are going to kill it for the myth of global warming. Since 2002 temperatures have been falling because the sun has been in a state of quiessence.
- -Greenhouse gases are necessary to trap heat and support life on our planet. For millions of years the level of greenhouse gases was fairly consistent as the natural agents producing and eliminating such gases were balanced. Since the Industrial Revolution (mid-1700s), large amounts of greenhouse gases have been added to the equation by human activity. The levels have exceeded the natural ability of the atmosphere to cleanse itself. The result of excessive accumulation of such gases is a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature. One degree may sound inconsequential, but note that a mere nine degree change resulted in our Ice Ages.
Carbon dioxide is just one greenhouse gas; still it is a benchmark indicator. CO2 levels are currently 31 percent above pre-industrial levels. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any time in the last 650,000 years.
Temperatures will continue to rise. This is not subject to debate, only in terms of how much. By 2100, the increase could be as low as 2 degrees or as high as 11.5 degrees.
Contrary to the even split on Global Climate Change (preferred term over “Global Warming”) among the general public: A recent survey was conducted; it’s database was built from Keane andMartinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth). To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]): 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions;
the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory. Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. Source-http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

8. The new CO2 tax opens the door to tax you for having a child and putting another CO2 producer on the planet.
- -Not even worthy of a response.

9. The earth has been warmer than this before. The warmer it gets the better it is for farming and therefore easier to "stamp out hunger".
- -The temperature at the Earth’s core is 6000 degrees Centigrade. I wouldn’t want to live there. Our climate and our harvests are inter-related. Predicting the impact of higher temperatures should not be taken lightly.
Temperature effects both germination and flowering of plant species. Generally, cool-season crops (e.g., spinach, radish, and lettuce) germinate best at 55° to 65°F, while warm-season crops (e.g., tomato, petunia, and lobelia) germinate best at 65° to 75°F.
Low temperatures reduce energy use and increase sugar storage. Thus, leaving crops such as ripe winter squash on the vine during cool, fall nights increases their sweetness. Adverse temperatures, however, cause stunted growth and poor-quality vegetables. For example, high temperatures cause bitter lettuce.
Plants grow best when daytime temperature is about 10 to 15 degrees higher than nighttime temperature. Under these conditions, plants photosynthesize (build up) and respire (break down) during optimum daytime temperatures and then curtail respiration at night.

Why would anyone want to mine coal with alternatives such as windmills and geothermal energy?

5 hours and 26 minutes to find, cut and paste statistics from websites that support a particular agenda.

Actually, I bipassed those that might be called agenda-related. I was looking for data-driven information that represented unbiased, both-sides respondents. If you bothered to read the polling information, you'd realize that.

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?...Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1
Let's see, between 1800 and 2008...more people, more buildings, more industry, more activity, more concrete, more asphalt, more vehicles...overall temperature of the earth goes up, DUH!
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?... and 82% answered yes to question 2.
As to the answers to question #2, given the same examples as question #1, again, DUH.

It doesn't take self-proclaimed experts to figure out that natural outcome. "...those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change"

These answers do not a global crisis make. What causes global crisis is scare tactics based on at best questionable findings. Shortly after hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, Al Gore seized on the tragedies to push his global warming fear mongering. He told the American public that not only were the storms a direct result of global warming but that the crisis was so imminent, scientists predicted the US could expect 5 or more catagory 4 or stronger hurricanes making landfall EACH YEAR over the next 10 years. Exactly 0(ZERO) CAT 4 or higher storms have made US landfall in the almost 4 years since.
Research results can be skewed to say just about anything, quotes and predictions gone awry do not lie. Unless these storms actually occurred and the conservatives were somehow able to cover them up in a massive Al Gore credibility conspiracy

C.M. Barons, you are brilliant. Truly truly brilliant.
------
Why would anyone want to mine coal with alternatives such as windmills and geothermal energy?
-----
Can you please informus all about your engineering background? You seem to have plentiful amounts of knowledge in the fields of alternative energy. I'm sensing a doctorate in your background with that type of statement.

Mr. Hall,
Maybe you're right, but have you seen how hard it is to get wind energy around here? With a few exceptions, everyone wants to ban it.

Posted by John Roach on July 4, 2009 - 9:00am
Mr. Hall,
Maybe you're right, but have you seen how hard it is to get wind energy around here? With a few exceptions, everyone wants to ban it.

I don't understand the opposition to wind energy. Apparently I'm missing something.

One needn't have an engineering degree to know that coal is dirty to extract and dirty to burn. Black lung disease? Carcinogenic PNAs? Methane explosions? Ground water contaminated by arsenic, sulphuric acid and mercury? There is a coal mine in Pennsylvania that has been burning out of control since 1962. ...Google Centralia coal fire.

As for geothermal, I have first hand knowledge; I heat and cool my home with a geothermal unit. It is my only heating/cooling system. It functions quietly and automatically. It has no flame, nothing to burn.
Compared to heating oil cost, I saved over $1500 last season.

I also have first hand experience with coal. For several years I heated with that fuel. The oily, black dust has to be contained or it would coat the house. It gives off sulphur fumes when you burn it. There are ashes to dispose of.

Coal may be cheap now. What happens when the demand goes up?

What I really don't understand is the manic aversion to alternative energy. The near-rage reaction to discussing the subject is irrational. There seems to be a cult of combustion, encouraged by the death-rattles of our hydrocarbon-based energy industry. What's so un-American about electric cars? The first successful horseless carriage (1891) was electric powered. Electric automobiles with Edison batteries dominated American roads until the electric starter was invented in 1912 and employed by Ford in his gasoline powered vehicles. At the time it was cheaper to manufacture gas engines than electric motors.
Windmills have been around for centuries. The windmill on a 19th century American farm was as recongizable as the barn and silo. The Tornado Windmill Company was located in Elba, New York.
The toxicity of the combustion engine is no secret. Prior to catalytic converters, asphyxia by auto exhaust was favored by the suicidal. Since converters eliminate nearly all the fast-acting carbon monoxide, the practice has declined. Exhaust fumes are so repugnant that perpetrators are unable to commit long enough for unconsciousness to occur. (That note seemed more sensational than statistics correlating asthma and air quality.)

I, for one, am in no way opposed to alternative energy resouces such as wind, geothermal, nuclear, clean coal, etc.. I just don't want some politician with an agenda based on spotty research telling me the world as we know it is going to cease to exist in 10 years if we don't do something right now. If alternative energies are practical and viable then they should be given the opportunity to succeed on their merits

Why is it many of the Progressive leaning individuals that oppose coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear energy are also opposed to wind, hydro, or solar power? As an example, I recall a fairly prominent US Senator leading the fight against a large wind turbine project off the coast of Massachusetts not to long ago. Are we supposed to go back to living in caves, burning dinosaur poop for heat?

If there is an abundant and available supply of dinosaur poop then I say dig, baby, dig!

C.M.There is nothing wrong with electric cars.But if every car is electric you need to produce alot more electric power..In the summer when electric demand is up ,in some major cities you have brown outs..So where will all this power come from..Power plants will need to burn more coal to do this..We need more nuclear power plants..With all this cap and trade the cost of this electric power is going to go up..From what i've read natural gas seems like a good way to power cars more so than electric..Global Warming has alot of faces,we sure aren't having any here in Batavia this year..As long as the oil and coal are there why not use it..In the end of it all Cap and Trade is all about bringing in new tax money to the government...

I can't speak for Senator Kennedy. Nor do I think that Senator Kennedy's take on Massachusetts wind farms is a popular political stance. It does seem consistent with the NIMBY sentiments that stand in the way of windmills in general (however he spins it). I think that public windfarms would be easier to sell and more beneficial to the country.

Interestingly enough, when Thomas Edison was supportive of electric cars (his good buddy Henry Ford may have changed his mind), his recharging idea envisioned car owners using personal windmills. I would imagine that when electric cars assume a significant number, the watts required to charge batteries will be offset by the lack of watts devoted to pumping gasoline.

As to the Senate's lack of support for the House Energy Bill, welcome to American political gridlock. These weak-knees are afraid to act with any degree of leadership. They're bogged down in insider polls/reports, lobbyists and Washington status quo (AKA outright fear that any decisive action will negatively impact chance of being reelected). They may call it compromise; it's career damage control.

If the American political landscape wasn't conveniently shared by two parties, this baloney would be ended.

The oil companies and auto makers made sure that electric cars were never economically feasible especially with the technology at the time. Watch how "hybred only" will sprout up. The dependence on oil is very much needed to drive funds for politicians and the lobbiests have been buying this right for decades.

The sad fact is neither political party is really serious about ending dependence on foreign oil. The solutions are relatively simple, economical and right in front of us. If our government were truly committed to getting off overseas oil, we would have done it by now. The Democrats tout their "green" ideas and yet have had numerous opportunities dating back to the 70's while the Republicans tout the "national security" issue along with availability of domestic resources and have done nothing about it. Both sides have been a huge disappointment on this issue.

A determined group of people were "fed up" with African Americans not having equal rights, they did something about it. Today, Jim Crow Laws are a thing of the past and we have an African American President.

A determined group of people were "fed up" with women not having the right to vote. Today, women vote in some areas in a greater proportion than men.

A determined group of people we're "fed up" in 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992, 1994, 2006 and 2008. In each of those elections, there was a dramatic political shift.

And at some point, in the very near future, a very large and very determined people will be "fed up" with the price of gasoline fluctuating constantly and being held hostage by powerful foreign oil interests. Believe me, when that day comes, when we're really "fed up", something will be done about it.

Posted by Daniel Jones on July 6, 2009 - 12:59am
A determined group of people were "fed up" with African Americans not having equal rights, they did something about it. Today, Jim Crow Laws are a thing of the past and we have an African American President.

A determined group of people were "fed up" with women not having the right to vote. Today, women vote in some areas in a greater proportion than men.

A determined group of people we're "fed up" in 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992, 1994, 2006 and 2008. In each of those elections, there was a dramatic political shift.

And at some point, in the very near future, a very large and very determined people will be "fed up" with the price of gasoline fluctuating constantly and being held hostage by powerful foreign oil interests. Believe me, when that day comes, when we're really "fed up", something will be done about it.

...and thus is crux of the matter.

First, CM wrote "the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists"

Then only 5% of the answers mattered.

Second, The EPA is suppressing its own report on the climate that is skeptical about Global Warming.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907035313/energy-and-environment/epa-dir...

Third, You don't get to change the name of your farce because you are being debunked. The left has changed the names of several things to make them more appealing
Jungle = Rainforest
Swamp = Wetlands
African Plains = Savannah
These were done deliberately to make them sound nicer.

Fourth, Wind power is very inefficient. "Is wind power really a viable economical alternative to other renewable energy options? The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19 per cent of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel power plant. It requires 50 per cent more coal-generated electricity to cover wind's failings; pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36 per cent in 2006 alone); and its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15 cents per kilowatt-hour...)"
http://bloghm.hazmatmag.com/2009/03/inefficiency_of_wind_turbines.htm

Fifth, Are you going to pay for me to drill a giant hole to the center of the earth? I'm not so I will keep my clean efficient Natural Gas (of which we have a crap ton right here in NY)
http://geology.com/articles/marcellus/marcellus-shale-map.gif

Sixth, With warmer temperatures comes more area that is in a climate suitable for farming. Do we farm much in Alberta? No but we could if the earth continued to get warmer.

Seventh, Cap and Trade is just another way for government to control business and keep the regular American down. If they let the economy care for itself we would all be richer because of it. And the more money we have the less we need the government so people like Obama lose power.

Eighth, your contradicting statements are amazing. First you say you save a ton of money because its cheap to pump water to heat your house, then you say we will offset the watts used to pump gas by the watts used to charge car batteries....That's just patently ridiculous.

Nine, Do you know what is in a rechargeable battery? Nickel! You are so against mining, but if its for a car that saves the environment that's ok even though Nickel is strip mined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining

Peter you got that right...The government needs more money..They tell us the sky is falling..Its not Cap and Trade its Cap and Take money from us..Were will all these Batteries end up ..You need to store the electric ..Will that be the next big panic..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR200907...

"Would this bill stop climate change?

No. Even if it works exactly as planned -- delivering a 17 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with 2005 levels -- it might not slow down the rate of climate change by very much. "

Stopping you from spewing your hot air would probably do more to effect climate change, so could you please give us a brake from your relentless rants today and spend your time looking for a job. Or maybe you could spend your time volunteering to help the needy or do some other community organizer type activity.

Richard, I suggest you do the same. I'm tired of your relentless attacks on Peter and general negativity on this board. Take your own advice.

Being attacked is what floats Peter's boat. Helps him pass the time.

Richard's Attacks on Peter and general negativity on this board? You've got to be kidding! Please take off your rose colored glasses when it comes to Peter!

So much for Howard's request of sticking to issues and no personal attacks.

Cut it out Peter has been the king of personal attacks. Ask Aunt Bea.

Gahagan, If I move to Texas do u think I could get a job where u work? You sure seem to have alot of computer time when your at work! Hey remember that time at Kellys? HA HA

Laaaaaaaaaaid back brutha. Nothng but sunshine, fishing, fast boats, road houses, halters and bikinis.

First, CM wrote "the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists"

Then only 5% of the answers mattered.

- -You neglected to note that 8.5% had published on the subject of climate change. The common theme among those who dispute climate change: Climate change is a hoax founded in politics. This survey was exclusively conducted among scientists. Despite the area of specialization, this pool of expertise includes those voices of authority on the subject. Who do you consider an authority on the subject?

Second, The EPA is suppressing its own report on the climate that is skeptical about Global Warming.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907035313/energy-and-environment/epa-dir...

- - The EPA has never been a part of this discussion. It’s a government agency made up of appointees. It has been notoriously manipulated by political and industrial expediency. The premise of this discussion was to find unbiased information.

Third, You don't get to change the name of your farce because you are being debunked. The left has changed the names of several things to make them more appealing
Jungle = Rainforest
Swamp = Wetlands
African Plains = Savannah
These were done deliberately to make them sound nicer.

- - If you’re going to charge me with changing the name of my farce, please note which farce I’m renaming so I can respond accurately. I assume that you are referring to Global Warming vis-a-vis, Global Climate Change. Global Warming and Global Climate Change are not interchangeable. Global Warming is one aspect of the larger picture: Global Climate Change. Global Warming refers only to the rise in Earth’s surface temperature.

Fourth, Wind power is very inefficient. "Is wind power really a viable economical alternative to other renewable energy options? The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19 per cent of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel power plant. It requires 50 per cent more coal-generated electricity to cover wind's failings; pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36 per cent in 2006 alone); and its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15 cents per kilowatt-hour...)"
http://bloghm.hazmatmag.com/2009/03/inefficiency_of_wind_turbines.htm

- - You speak as if the technology were static. The industry of alternative energy is new compared to fossil fuel technology. You also fail to mention the factor of electrical demand. Obviously if you add 19% more power (wind-generated) to the grid and remain 50% short, the demand has increased. Demand is a factor that has to be dealt with through conservation. …An entirely different issue.

Fifth, Are you going to pay for me to drill a giant hole to the center of the earth? I'm not so I will keep my clean efficient Natural Gas (of which we have a crap ton right here in NY)
http://geology.com/articles/marcellus/marcellus-shale-map.gif

- - Where did you get the idea that a hole had to be drilled to the center of the Earth? The "hole" I dug for my geothermal heating system is 250 foot deep. …Actually three wells of that depth. You can pay for your own hole; no one financed mine.

Sixth, With warmer temperatures comes more area that is in a climate suitable for farming. Do we farm much in Alberta? No but we could if the earth continued to get warmer.

- - Alberta is second only to Ontario in numbers of farms; accounting for 43% of Canada's cattle and 28% of the spring wheat. As I have noted previously, your unqualified statement in regard to increased temperature's impact on plantlife needs qualification. The rate of desertification as the Sahara increases its area attests to the extreme misconception: higher temperatures are better. Obviously the temperatures at the Equator do not need to be higher!

Seventh, Cap and Trade is just another way for government to control business and keep the regular American down. If they let the economy care for itself we would all be richer because of it. And the more money we have the less we need the government so people like Obama lose power.

- - Sometimes business needs to be controlled. What's a "regular American?" Who or what is keeping "regular Americans down?" I'd blame industry for dumbing down wages and benefits while shipping the jobs overseas. I do not leave government blameless: destroying our credit by funnelling money at wars in the Mideast is self-destructive. How does the economy care for itself? Sure. Let General Motors take care of the economy... After decades of Republican rule (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) and the Gingrich Congress, tell me how far ahead of the game all us "regular guys are." You may earn more dollars, but those dollars aren't worth squat.

Eighth, your contradicting statements are amazing. First you say you save a ton of money because its cheap to pump water to heat your house, then you say we will offset the watts used to pump gas by the watts used to charge car batteries....That's just patently ridiculous.

- - I never said I have a ton of money. Sheesh. I noted that I saved money switching from heating oil to a Geothermal system. The comment regarding savings at the pump referred to gasoline vs. charging electric cars.

Nine, Do you know what is in a rechargeable battery? Nickel! You are so against mining, but if its for a car that saves the environment that's ok even though Nickel is strip mined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining

- - Well, Peter, I'm glad that you finally came around. ...Defending against strip mining. There is hope afterall.

According to this US News piece, lots more Americans will be out of a job once the bill becomes law.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/07/06/democrats-admit-that-t...

I guess we're going to need another stimuluspalooza.

Authority on the subject: http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Why isn't the EPA involved in an environmental protection bill?

The powers that be like Gore have always said Global Warming. Climate change is a new term so that no matter what the temperatures do we can blame it on man.

Wind power will never hold a mercury filled CFL to Nuclear, Oil, and Gas power in this country because it is too inefficient. You will never be able to convert 100% of the wind to electrical power. I am all for Wind power, I want one on my house, but to think it is our savior is ridiculous.

I know you don't have to drill to magma. I also personally like the idea of geothermal. But I, like many others, don't have the money to invest in it. I also understand the maintenance cost are much less to and I am all for saving money on things I need to get more of what I want. Until the price of drilling comes down though most of us can't afford to switch.

Global Warming helps crops http://www.merrill.umd.edu/dateline/iceland/index.php?q=content/global-w...

Even Obama admits Cap and Trade is going to affect average americans "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." If that happens how are they going to spend money on other things that will stimulate the economy? Instead the government will get this added money. Regular Americans was referring to people not controlling policy.

"I never said I have a ton of money. Sheesh. I noted that I saved money switching from heating oil to a Geothermal system. The comment regarding savings at the pump referred to gasoline vs. charging electric cars."
Reread my statement and reply again please.

And just to add a little fun to this, you should know that I drive a hybrid and liked CFL's till they became a mandate.

Okay Peter, you may not be pocket book rich but ur definately rich wen it comes to personality ! You always keep me thinking.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f91e0ff4-6bf2-11de-9320-00144feabdc0.html?ncli...

"Senior Democrat senators said on Wednesday they would change a provision that imposes carbon taxes on imports following warnings that the clause in the House’s cap-and-trade bill could spark a global trade war.

The House’s bill contained tough provisions to impose carbon tariffs, aimed at protecting American companies’ competitiveness against imports from countries without equivalent carbon emission controls to those in the US.

Senator John Kerry, who is helping to write the senate’s version of the bill, said in a hearing on the issue on Wednesday: “We have already come to the conclusion in working on the Senate bill that we’re going to try and change that provision . . . we haven’t landed yet completely on where we come out”.

Max Baucus, the Democrat senator who chairs the senate finance committee, said any provisions that “provoke retaliation from our trading partners will only hurt the same industries we’re trying to help”, adding that he was “confident we can craft legislation that strikes the right balance”.

Differences in the two versions of the bill will eventually have to be reconciled before passing into law.

President Barack Obama has warned the House’s carbon tariffs plan could send the wrong signal to trading partners. India called the measures “pernicious” while China said they would violate World Trade Organisation principles and amounted to “trade protectionism in the disguise of environmental protection”.

A recent report from the WTO said that such “border tax adjustments” could in theory be made consistent with WTO rules, but trade lawyers stress that crafting such laws is likely to be very difficult in practice."

Even Algore admits that it is about power

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-...

"Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”"

Let me ask you all a question.

Do you remember a July as cool as this has been in recent history? I don't. So where is the global warming? Shouldn't we be sweltering in the hot summer sun with temps in the triple digits by now? The truth is we are about 10 degrees below the normal temperature for July.

But what is normal? Humans haven't kept track of the temperature long enough to have a viable standard of comparison.

Yeah how's the summer been up there? Any rain?

We have not had a good summer so far. The mornings are chilly and has been raining a fair amount.

The Commerce Secretary says that we should pay for the emissions of China and other LCC's

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/17/commerce-secretary-...

Sounds to me like his connections to China are more influential to him than the people of the USA.

Locke was the third pick for Commerce secretary after the first two dropped out for ethics reasons. I think Locke should do the same.