Bravo, Lord Monckton!

I'm not a big fan of any foreigner telling two of our politicians to resign, so in that respect I'm not a big fan of this letter.

As far as global warming goes though, I think it would be wise to keep in mind that there was once scientific consensus on global cooling and mass starvation due to population explosion, as Mark noted. Add to that things like the the world being flat and the Earth being the center of the universe. Not to mention the idea of spontaneous generation to explain maggots in rotting meat and things of that nature. And lets not forget all of the preparation our government did this year for the bird flu epidemic that never happened.

Shivv,

I'd much prefer that some GOPer had written the letter, but guts are in short supply in DC, most of them being locked up in the innards of President Bush and team, and they're busy with the war. So, I'll take an act of political courage where I can get it - plus, any of Maggie's people is good by me.

I'd believe the global warming alarmists if I could see two things happening:

1. A complete disregard of the critics because they are arguing with nearly self-evident fact and...

2. If the alarmists were holding conferences about and studying the ways and means of either evacuating or dyking our coastal cities....

We don't get a point by point refutation of the global warming dissidents - all we get is attacks on the messanger. When you've got a good argument, then you argue from it...when you're argument is weak, you try to make the other guy's argument appear even weaker.

If the alarmists are correct, then even a crash program of CO2 reductions will take at least some decades to halt the process, let alone reverse it. Given this, if the alarmists are correct, then we can expect major, permanent flooding of our coastal cities...we need, then, to build dykes, or relocate the populations...there is no move anywhere to do this, which indicates that even the advocats of warming don't believe it.

The kooks here will dismiss this guy as a former Thatcherite, and blame Karl Rove for the letter. You see, in their world, this so-called global warming didn't start until Bush took office, and, even if it does occur, it will be all Bush's fault. Even if it occurs a million years from now.

I just took my dogs outside--brrrr! I can't wait until April, when the global warming occurs here...

There are just some organizations who Need A Cause
and this 'global warming' is NOT one that is being
showcased by facts totally. It IS from those who
have made this the 'cause celeb' and do NOT take the other side that have given facts to the case, and many in the scientific world who have stated so, and given example after example. Mark's post is right in that it is only an argument by the alarmists against those who would disagree(the only difference is the facts are given, but the alarmists only give weak points against opposers.
It is somewhat like the nutjobs in Hollywood-Sean Penn in particular-who need their faces out there for the 'next job', and look for camera face time to extol their opinions. Not too many care what these spoiled-paid too much $$$-that live in their mansions and ivory towers and don't live in the 'real and regular people's world' types have to say, yet the MSM gives them air time. Now, it's the midget Penn, who is calling for the impeaachment of President Bush. What a laugh this
second rate actor is -He goes to Katrina victims
to help save them--"With a camera crew following his every move---Even the one where he is bailing
out water with a RED paper cup. Incidentally, in
the "row boat with he and his crew-wonder how they
were actually going to have any space for victims
to be rescued". Nice touch, along with going to Iraq....AGAIN, CAMERA CREW FOLLOWING, NOTING ALL THE HEROIC DEEDS. Well, we already KNOW where this one and his ilk stand.....NO WHERE, WITHOUT A CAMERA. AND LASTLY, THIS GLOBAL WARMING-IT HAS BECOME SOME OF HOLLYWOOD-HEADS LATEST CAUSE, AND THEY 'ABSOLUTELY KNOW IT ALL STARTED WITH THE ELECTIONS OF PRESIDENT BUSH-ISN'T EVERYTHING HIS FAULT"? Really big LOL.

The problem with the left, and one that has me no longer calling them liberals, is that in almost all cases, if you dissent from their point of view then you are wrong and must be silenced. Sounds like what used to happen in the old Soviet Union.

Back in the seventies as a child I would visit my aunt and uncle in Cleveland. We would take walks near Lake Erie. Once I bent over to pick up a rock in the water and my mother said don't touch that. It would be later when I found out how polluted this great body of water was. Today I go to Cleveland, people are fishing and children are playing on the water's edge. Leave it to corporations alone and the water would still be dirty. They had to be forced to clean up thier mess. Putting scrubbers and picking up after themselves taps into a company's profits.

We don't have to be tree huggers, but we have to realize "man" has a tremendous impact on the environment. Companies must be responsible for the messes they create.

How do individual rights (free speech) transfer to corporations (Exxon)?

There are a couple of questions that you need to ask yourself when it comes to the debate between Global Warming "alarmists" and "skeptics":

1.) Do any of the groups that ExxonMobil fund find data that supports Global Warming? If not, then is it a case of ExxonMobil only funding sympathetic scientists or is it a case of the scientists only finding results that coincide with the stated position of ExxonMobil/their money/livlihood?

2.) What does each side have to lose from losing the debate? To gain? What incentive does that provide to either side to skew their data?

Well, two of the main questions that you have to ask yourself about environmental regulation in general are: "Is the pollutant in question harmful?" and "What are the potential economic costs and benefits to regulating it?"

Let's talk about Sulfur Dioxide...

1.) It is harmful... It possibly causes global warming, it can cause respiratory and other health problems, and, when it mixes with rain water in the atmosphere, damages crops and reduces crop yields. Those are what I can think of off the top of my head.

2.) a.)Economic Costs: Losses in manufacturing, oil, and power generation sectors of the economy, at least temporarily. This would cause a temporary slow down of the economy as a whole. b.)Economic Benefits: Increased farm yields, abated medical costs, increased incentive for research and development, future increases in industrial efficiency, and increases in worker productivity from increases in overall health.

Some regulation would be a good thing, but any regulation must be phased in over time to allow the free market to adapt to any new constraints. Any regulation would also have to take into account the Marginal Abatement Costs of any and all firms that would be affected.

The situation isn't as dire as one side would have it, but it isn't as peachy as the other side would.

Todie/Keefer-

Actually, the global warming debate, in its current form, has been going on since the Clinton years... Get your facts straight Keef...

Shivv,
Scientists have been wrong before -- there's no doubt of it -- but self correction is the nature of science. They're also right a lot.
As for spontaneous generation and flat earth -- please give me a break. Both ideas are pre-enlightenment (although there are still evolution deniers -- many at this site -- that believe pretty much the same thing). The concept of a "flat earth" was disproven by the Greeks BCE. Dispite what you may have heard sung in grade school -- no, even slightly, educated person in 1492 believed that the earth was flat. They did, unfortunately, reley on some of the Greek's calculations and thus had the circumference of the planet off by enough that Columbus could mistake Central America for India.

Aztec,

The people who run Exxon have as much right to speak their minds as do the people who run the United States Senate.

So, Mark... what about what I said... any retort?

Todie/Keefer-

Actually, the global warming debate, in its current form, has been going on since the Clinton years... Get your facts straight Keef...

Posted by: Georgia Frawg

True...and the US SENATE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY NOT TO SIGN THE KYOTO TREATY. Senator Rockefeller was one of the co-sponsors of the Resolution, and he and Olympia Snowe both voted in favor of it.

Actually the people in the Senate have less of a right to speak as a member of that body than the population at large.

Constitutional provisions that include the right of the people to petition the government for relief of their grievances are a right of the people against the government. From a Constitutional point of view the government may not interfere with any Constitutional Rights. Thus if I seek to collect signatures on a petition directed to a government agency, some opposing private individual can take out an ad in a local newspaper calling me a fool and a liar to discourage me and the people who would sign my petition. If the ad did not contain actionable defamation, I could not sue. But if the government agency publishes the same ad, both the agency and the individuals responsible can be sued. The governmental individuals can be subject to punitive damages.

The two Constitutional Rights immediately implicated by this letter are the Right to Petition and the Right of free speech. I don’t know if identifying themselves only as Senators, or the implied threat of some kind of official action would make the grade as a governmental action. But if it does not provide the basis for a law suit, it is perilously close to doing so.

Allan Yackey

PS Protection on Business speech stands on a par with individual speech with the exception that reasonable rules can be imposed to eliminate fraud. It may be that the Senators think that this exception protects them, to the extent that they think that opposing global warming equals fraud.

However, that does not help against a claim relating to the Right to Petition. The Constitutional right permits people to petition for even stupid and destructive things.

phnxbmed-

Actually, the US did sign the Kyoto treaty, and the senate even said that they agreed with it in principle, but the Senate did not ratify it because it gave a free pass to China and India. So, it never became law, and the US is not bound to it. That is quite good because Kyoto sucked...

Anyways, if Snowe and Rockafeller voted for it, then it wasn't defeated unanimously...

Once again, people need to get their facts straight...

Here is the wikipedia article on the Kyoto Protocol.

"Anyways, if Snowe and Rockafeller voted for it, then it wasn't defeated unanimously...

Once again, people need to get their facts straight...

Posted by: Georgia Frawg

FIRST: READ what I wrote and get YOUR facts straight.

They voted unanimously FOR the Resolution NOT TO SIGN KYOTO.

Just what about 95-0 don't you understand.

After the Senate made their wishes clear through the Resolution, Clinton went against these wishes, and had Gore sign it, knowing full well that it didn't have a snowball's chance in hell in being ratified, but that it would endear him to the wacko environmentalists and the Eurotrash.

As you may or may not know, IT IS THE RESPONSIBLITY of the the SENATE to ratify the treaties. In the case of Kyoto they chose not to because it was serioulsy flawed, and would cause great harm to the economy. In the resolution there were several provisions included under which they would sign, including holding developing nations like CHina and India to the same standard. NONE of there provisions were adopted, and Clinton/Gore chose not to push them.

Next time try to do a little serious research, Wikipedia hardly qualifies. Using that as your source is like saying you read Moby Dick when you only read the Classic comic book version, or maybe Cliff Notes. That isn't how your're getting through college is it?

Mark,

That great corporation has exercised its right of free speech -- and with good reason -- in openly providing support for scientists and groups that dare to question how much the increased concentration of CO2 in the air may warm the world. You must honour the Constitution, withdraw your letter and apologize to ExxonMobil, or resign as Senators.

People yes but corporations? Do the tobacco companies have the right to publish studies that disagree with the link between smoking and lung cancer?

If this same Lord Monckton had written a letter like this to some Republicans, Mark and his Radical Rightwing Extremist Minions on B4B would be foaming at the mouth, wringing their hands, and whining at his nerve.

Mark, you're a partisan hack with no integrity. You should read lefty blogs like talkingpoints and see how often Josh Marshall is attacking the Democrats. You are such a hack that you refuse to admit that your beloved GOP Christofascist heroes can make a mistake.

Not to mention that you make Christians like me look bad. Yeah, I go to a Congregational church. You know, the kind that doesn't keep blacks and gays out of our services. People like you don't accept that people like me can be a Christian because of your foaming hatred towards liberals. Well, get used to us. We're not going away, and America has rejected your brand of extremism and you will be futher marginalized as time passes.

Sorry to tell you gavin, YOU make Americans like you look bad; if your horse gets any higher you will have to put a strobe light on your skull.

LTB: Proud member of Mark's Radical Rightwing Extremist Minions©

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and quote the part of Rockefeller's letter where he has an "implied legislative threat." THERE IS NO THREAT, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE. or did you even read the letter, or just read the neocon response?

They're not trying to silence dissent, they're asking rich companies to stop funding crooked, fake "research." History will show you cheering for the liers and losers, loser.

Actually, the global warming debate, in its current form, has been going on since the Clinton years... Get your facts straight Keef...

You have a problem with reading comprehension, frat-boy. I said Bush would be blamed for it, you stupid putz. I said that the left, your side, would treat it as is it didn't occur until Bush took office. You failed abortion, can't you read?

Are you gonna pay mommy and daddy back for all that wasted tuition money?

The kooks here will dismiss this guy as a former Thatcherite, and blame Karl Rove for the letter. You see, in their world, this so-called global warming didn't start until Bush took office, and, even if it does occur, it will be all Bush's fault. Even if it occurs a million years from now.

I just took my dogs outside--brrrr! I can't wait until April, when the global warming occurs here...
--Toadstool (emphasis mine)

Now... Keef... You said, "You see, in their world, this so-called global warming didn't start until Bush took office..."

So... was the ten years of debate that occurred before Bush took office just a liberal warm-up? People have been debating the merits of global warming since the nineties (or before)... hence... "in their world" it started before the ninties... As usual, your attempt at humor fell flat...

Face it... you said something stupid, and I called you on it... Now... take your loss with some dignity.

They're not trying to silence dissent, they're asking rich companies to stop funding crooked, fake "research." History will show you cheering for the liers and losers, loser.

If its fake, then you of course can provide conclusive proof that global warming is due solely to human action. Not a consensus, factual undeniable proof.

If "rich" companies provide fake research then that research should be easily debunked, or are you afraid to admit that a group's consensus cant provide facts, it can only provide... well...consensus. Science doesnt work on consensus.

BTW, before you decide to call other people losers, you might want to learn to spell; its 'liars' not 'liers'.

Georgia,

The fact of your implying that there even may be something untoward in a person or institution doing friendly research betrays a bias in your views. Should Greenpeace fund pro nuke power research in order to retain credibility as anti nuke power advocates?

Exxon is putting its two cents in - either it is garbage, and easily refuted, or it is worthwhile and thus deserves our careful consideration. What is not right is for US Senators to demand silence because they are convinced otherwise.

Gavin,

Congrats - I go to a Catholic church, myself, and our priest is Sri
Lankan, while I'd guess 60% of the congregation is non white. Nothing better than being united with my brothers and sisters in Christ of all ethnic backgrounds.

And, as it is, the letter was written to a Republican...if you are going to disobey Our Lord and hate me, then at least get your facts straight.

LtB,

Thanks - I never had a minion before...and, of course, I am a Rove minion, which means you'll now have to get your mental chip implanted.

Mark-

I tried to reach out here after the election, and you told me that because I'm a liberal I can't be a real Christian like you are. You also allow your guest bloggers to lie freely. You show hate to me and every other liberal, and you have the audacity to call me the hater?

A Catholic, huh? What's your stance on the pedophilia coverups that your church engages in? And if you hate gays so much, why do you allow them to be priests?

Deleted comment - no insults of the Frawg will be tolerated, except from Keefer, whom Georgia is usedf to.

Mark-

I tried to reach out here after the election, and you told me that because I'm a liberal I can't be a real Christian like you are. You also allow your guest bloggers to lie freely. You show hate to me and every other liberal, and you have the audacity to call me the hater?

A Catholic, huh? What's your stance on the pedophilia coverups that your church engages in? And if you hate gays so much, why do you allow them to be priests?

Unless you can without reservation, say "no" to that question, don't try to portray yourself as something that you clearly are not.

And what's with this "allow guest bloggers to lie" crap?

The only "hate" coming out around here is from your keyboard.

Look in the mirror before you type.

Leo-

Go find what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy. Then type it in an email from me to you.

Liar.

I'm anti-abortion. That's my choice to make. Life does not begin at conception, though. Sorry. Science was also made by God, you ignorant liar.

Deleted comment

Gavin,

You need to tone it down, ok?

phnxbmed-

Gore signed the treaty after the Senate said that they would not ratify it, this much is true... He also said "As we said from the very beginning, we will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort."

The reason that Gore signed was that he, and Clinton, saw Kyoto as an important first step in the fight against greenhouse emissions, and, since it is the Senate's responsibility to ratify treaties (you are very erudite), and whereas the Senate said that they would not ratify the treaty until key developing nations participated in it, was meant to show that the US, while not supporting the methods of the Protocol, supported the overall goal of said protocol. It was symbolic and nonbinding.here

So... the US (as represented by the Vice President) signed the Kyoto Protocol. So, the US signed the protocol and didn't ratify it...

So... doesn't that make me, and wikipedia, correct?

Mark-

Acknowledging the possibility of a conflict of interest is not a biased assessment (I also noted possible conflicts of interest on the other side)... When it comes down to it, you have a corporation paying scientists to reach a certain conclusion When a scientistis being paid to reach a certain conclusion... would any rational person find opposing data if they could skew it otherwise? The situation is analogous to a judge hearing an antitrust case where a company in which his money is ivested is involved.

I'm not saying that the experiments are flawed; I am saying that to not acknowledge the possibility of a conflict of interest is like sticking your head in the sand.

"So... doesn't that make me, and wikipedia, correct?" Frawg

Not if your sticking with this statement:

"Anyways, if Snowe and Rockafeller voted for it, then it wasn't defeated unanimously..."

georgia,

of course, not all dissenting science is corp sponsored, though the enviro-fascists try to make it seem so. but i don't see a conflict of interest here...a certain policy is on the table and some very well qualified people are saying thia and that about it...refute what they say, don't slander those who write their paychecks...

Gavin, your religion is not relevant to the total lack of respect you engender on this blog---and probably on any others you bless with your hyper-emotional fact-deficient drivel.

If you could, just once, offer a reasoned opinion based on your evaluation of actual facts, it might be different. But your gleeful regurgitation of the oldest and most tired Lefty talking points simply denies you credibility.

No one is denying the evidence of a warming trend. (Not even I, as I sit at my brother's computer, trapped hours from home by a serious blizzard, anticipating another 36 hours of this before I can get back.)

But the rational realists say, although it is intuitively tempting to look at the likely effects of industrialization on the world climate, we also have to acknowledge that the earth has endured many many MANY warming trends in the past, which were clearly not associated with any manmade influences. And gee, these have been followed by cooling trends and even massive Ice Ages.

Scientists in Japan have been warning us to prepare for a dramatic cooling trend within the next decade---AS SOLAR ACTIVITY DIMINSHES.

A reasonable discussion would be about the POSSIBILITY of historic warming trends POSSIBLY being affected by manmade influences, which exist for the first time in geologic history. A rational approach would be to OBJECTIVELY investigate this POSSIBILITY and then work to limit such influences as much as reasonably possible.

Terrifying children with claims that the coastlines are going to be underwater, that NYC is going to disappear, and so on, is simply irresponsible and rephrensible.

And attacking anyone who does not fall into line to admire this Emperor's new clothes, which in this care consist of man-made global warming and earthwide disaster, is equally irresponsible and reprehensible.

I note that the alarmists and agenda-driven hysterics also ignore, or deny, the advantages of a warmer climate, ranging from less fuel required to keep people alive in winters to increased agricultural production. And as no water is ever lost, wouldn't it seem that all those melting ice caps would result in more rainfall, possibly turning deserts into productive land?

But no, such thoughts are heresy to what is, in fact, a belief system far more than it is a serious scientific study.