News
House OKs major clean energy bill
WASHINGTON -- In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.
The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs. At the White House, Obama said the bill would create jobs, and added that with its vote, the House had put America on a path toward leading the way toward "creating a 21st century global economy."
U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Flagstaff, opposed the bill, contending it could increase costs for the average household by $175 per year in a decade, according to one government estimate.
In a press release issued Friday, she said she was one of 44 Democrats to "stand up to congressional leadership and the White House" by opposing the bill.
Kirkpatrick also said people in rural Arizona couldn't afford any new costs when they were facing foreclosures, and cited the national debt and a need to create jobs before doing much else.
"This is a historic Congress, and we have a great opportunity to get things done for Arizona. But we cannot accomplish all of those things at once," it read. "This bill is too much, too quickly. Washington needs to take the time to do this right, in a way that will minimize the negative impact on rural communities and spurs real investment in renewable energy."
Kirkpatrick has also broken with Democratic leadership on two other recent bills, opposing FDA regulation of cigarettes and the so-called "clash for clunkers" auto rebate bill.
Kirkpatrick said she supported renewable energy, but did not specify the cost she would find acceptable.
"Investment in renewable energy, whether solar, wind, biomass, coal or nuclear, will be crucial to our achieving energy independence and could bring thousands of jobs to Arizona," it read. "This Congress must commit to a diversified energy portfolio that will protect our national security and benefit our economy."
UNCERTAIN FATE IN SENATE
The House's action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4. It also sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was "hopeful that the Senate will be able to debate and pass bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall."
Obama lobbied recalcitrant Democrats by phone from the White House as the House debate unfolded across several hours, and Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." The former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the destructive potential of global warming.
On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.
It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts. "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy."
But Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, used an extraordinary one-hour speech shortly before the final vote to warn of unintended consequences in what he said was a "defining bill." He called it a "bureaucratic nightmare" that would cost jobs, depress real estate prices and put the government into parts of the economy where it now has no role.
The legislation would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by mid-century. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by 2020 and the same 80 percent by mid-century.
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory limits.
Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters. Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent would be auctioned by bid and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families.
"Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in advance of the final vote. "But we have reached a compromise ... and it is a compromise that can pass this House, pass that Senate, be signed by the president and become law and make progress."
That seemed unlikely, judging from Reid's cautiously worded statement. "The bill is not perfect," it said, but rather "a good product" for the Senate to begin working on.
And there was plenty to work on in a House-passed measure that pointed toward higher electricity bills for the middle class, particularly in the Midwest and South, as well as steps to ease the way for construction of new nuclear reactors, the first to be built since the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979.
The bill's controversy was on display in the House, where only eight Republicans joined 211 Democrats in favor, while 44 Democrats joined 168 Republicans in opposition. And within an hour of the vote, both party campaign committees had begun attacking lawmakers for their votes.
One of the biggest compromises involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade -- money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut. About 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold, a concession to energy companies and their allies in the House -- and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.
The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others, some of them so late that they were not made public until 3 a.m. on Friday.
Supporters and opponents agreed the bill's result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports -- one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency -- that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.
Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.
The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles -- and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.
It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.
Pelosi, D-Calif., took an intense personal interest in the measure, sitting through hours of meetings with members of the rank and file and nurturing fragile compromises.
At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel. Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.
In the run-up to the vote, Democrats left little to chance.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., confirmed by the Senate on Thursday to an administration post, put off her resignation from Congress until after the final vote on the climate change bill. And Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., who has been undergoing treatment at an undisclosed facility, returned to the Capitol to support the legislation. He has said he struggles with depression, alcoholism and addiction, but has not specified the cause for his most recent absence.
ON THE WEBAmerican Clean Energy and Security Act: http://tinyurl.com/ph52vsArizona Daily Sun staff contributed to this story.
»Subscribe to the Arizona Daily Sun
Ads by Yahoo!
Readers' Favorites
Most commented stories
- Plea deal in abortion scuffle (300)
- FUSD budget override fails (83)
- From illuminated to eliminated (76)
- Student scofflaws now a Target (72)
- Big-city care driving FMC prices (63)
- Locals losing campus contracts (50)
- ADOT to cut plows (49)
- Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911 (32)
- State suspends operations at 13 rest areas (30)
- Detox falling short (28)
Leave your comments below:
Matthew Quigley wrote on Jul 4, 2009 3:39 AM:
" glen writes: "1. What's the nation's single greatest environmental problem, if any, in your opinion"?
Glen, the greatest environmental problem, in my opinion is the absolute myth of the existance of global warming and how it is being perpetuated upon the American people.
Early this year, the Environmental Protection Agency began telling Americans that carbon dioxide is a hazardous gas. In fact, CO2 is not a hazard; it's a necessary gas that supports all plant life. It accounts for a feeble .038 percent of the atmosphere. Just last week the EPA was caught red handed, suppressing information contained in their own report on the dangers of carbon dioxide. The report was contradictory and extremely skeptical of the science. The author, Alan Carlin, was told by EPA officials that he would never again be involved in the research of climate change. Whatever happened to openness, transparency, and science-based decision making? We’ve long endured the myth that reduced CO2 levels would result in lower global temperatures. Global temperatures have not risen during the past decade but CO2 levels have continued to rise – a contradiction that completely exposes the global warming myth. The earth's temperature has risen only 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, and most of that occurred prior to the 1940s. There’s been no warming of the earth's climate since 1998, and during the past 18 months the earth has experienced a cooling trend. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, is a transparent power grab, based upon the fictional crisis of global warming.
The bottom line on cap and trade is this; cap and trade raises the cost of energy so high that individuals and businesses will be forced to use less of it. Taxing energy until it becomes cost prohibitive is what this legislation is all about. Obama will proudly destroy an American industry if it serves his ends. His own words expose his intentions – “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted”. When the President of the United States openly brags about bankrupting the coal industry, it's time to take a step back and evaluate how we got here. The coal industry employs 80,000 people. So much for Obama's reputation for "saving" jobs. "
Glen, the greatest environmental problem, in my opinion is the absolute myth of the existance of global warming and how it is being perpetuated upon the American people.
Early this year, the Environmental Protection Agency began telling Americans that carbon dioxide is a hazardous gas. In fact, CO2 is not a hazard; it's a necessary gas that supports all plant life. It accounts for a feeble .038 percent of the atmosphere. Just last week the EPA was caught red handed, suppressing information contained in their own report on the dangers of carbon dioxide. The report was contradictory and extremely skeptical of the science. The author, Alan Carlin, was told by EPA officials that he would never again be involved in the research of climate change. Whatever happened to openness, transparency, and science-based decision making? We’ve long endured the myth that reduced CO2 levels would result in lower global temperatures. Global temperatures have not risen during the past decade but CO2 levels have continued to rise – a contradiction that completely exposes the global warming myth. The earth's temperature has risen only 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, and most of that occurred prior to the 1940s. There’s been no warming of the earth's climate since 1998, and during the past 18 months the earth has experienced a cooling trend. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, is a transparent power grab, based upon the fictional crisis of global warming.
The bottom line on cap and trade is this; cap and trade raises the cost of energy so high that individuals and businesses will be forced to use less of it. Taxing energy until it becomes cost prohibitive is what this legislation is all about. Obama will proudly destroy an American industry if it serves his ends. His own words expose his intentions – “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted”. When the President of the United States openly brags about bankrupting the coal industry, it's time to take a step back and evaluate how we got here. The coal industry employs 80,000 people. So much for Obama's reputation for "saving" jobs. "
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jul 2, 2009 8:46 AM:
" Reference: glen wrote on Jul 1, 2009 5:17 PM:
Thank you for the explanation of your motivations. I now better understand why Climate Change is a high priority within your personal judgement.
With the U.S. National Debt: 10.9 Trillion. as of 03-03-09 http://zfacts.com/p/461.html , how do your propose to pay for the cost?
A few other questions:
1- Are you and the members of your family fully employed?
2- Have you, or a member of your family, lost their home?
3- Are you and your family able to provide adequate food supplies?
4- Are you and your family members in good health with adequate medical care both for today and the unforeseeable future?
5- Do you or members of your family have adequate personal savings to retire, with or without Social Security and/or Medicare?
6- Why do you choose to remain anonymous, and withhold your last name? I presume you are a U.S. Citizen and an Arizona resident.
Within my personal judgement, I choose to reduce any spending not required to carry on basic day-to-day government, educational, health and personal functions. At 78 years of age and moderately disabled due to PhRMA & FDA withholding adverse side effect information, I am very thankful for SS & Medicare. Yes one could say I live on Welfare, without Govertment funding I would be homeless.
An Afterthought
I recommend you watch the interview with David Simon "Fact and Fiction" ref Bill Moyers Journal http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04172009/profile.html "
Thank you for the explanation of your motivations. I now better understand why Climate Change is a high priority within your personal judgement.
With the U.S. National Debt: 10.9 Trillion. as of 03-03-09 http://zfacts.com/p/461.html , how do your propose to pay for the cost?
A few other questions:
1- Are you and the members of your family fully employed?
2- Have you, or a member of your family, lost their home?
3- Are you and your family able to provide adequate food supplies?
4- Are you and your family members in good health with adequate medical care both for today and the unforeseeable future?
5- Do you or members of your family have adequate personal savings to retire, with or without Social Security and/or Medicare?
6- Why do you choose to remain anonymous, and withhold your last name? I presume you are a U.S. Citizen and an Arizona resident.
Within my personal judgement, I choose to reduce any spending not required to carry on basic day-to-day government, educational, health and personal functions. At 78 years of age and moderately disabled due to PhRMA & FDA withholding adverse side effect information, I am very thankful for SS & Medicare. Yes one could say I live on Welfare, without Govertment funding I would be homeless.
An Afterthought
I recommend you watch the interview with David Simon "Fact and Fiction" ref Bill Moyers Journal http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04172009/profile.html "
glen wrote on Jul 1, 2009 5:17 PM:
" getting back to why i used the descriptive word(my 1st post) on AKirkpatrick(AK)
asked in 06/30/08 by the dailysun, she responded
1. What's the nation's single greatest environmental problem, if any, in your opinion?
1. America's greatest environmental challenge is climate change, which is likely contributing to drought conditions here in the district. Our government must work with business to find economically viable solutions to this common problem. America should be a leader in the global community on this issue.
The Synthesis Report(by a "star alliance" of research universities) is the most important update of climate science since the 2007 IPCC report.
from the executive summary, key message 2:
"... Temperature rises above 2C will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the century and beyond."
the paper emphasizes the 2C guardrail;
"The conclusion from both the IPCC and later analyses is simple - immediate and dramatic emission reductions of all greenhouse gases are needed if the 2ºC guardrail is to be respected."
staying below 2C warming is entirely feasible, the report shows.
key message 5: "Inaction is inexcusable."
with this amount of information available to AK and her staff, she comes up with the excuse cited in the original story. she mentions to the cost of H.R. 2454, she mentions job loss, and others but primarily it is the 48 cents per day per household in 2020 that came out as "the excuse".
to JS 06/30
"I remain committed to the point that the Universe, not humans, controls Global Warming and Cooling." it must have been quite a wedding
"I would appreciate the opportunity to better understand your motivations."
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/08/ponzi-scheme-madoff-friedman-natural-capital-renewable-resources/ (i agree with j. romm on his major pts.)
in modern societies, we tend to act on the assumption that if we look after our own best interests, the future will look after itself; but this approach will not work with climate change. we need to consider the needs of future generations -- both people and other species. "
asked in 06/30/08 by the dailysun, she responded
1. What's the nation's single greatest environmental problem, if any, in your opinion?
1. America's greatest environmental challenge is climate change, which is likely contributing to drought conditions here in the district. Our government must work with business to find economically viable solutions to this common problem. America should be a leader in the global community on this issue.
The Synthesis Report(by a "star alliance" of research universities) is the most important update of climate science since the 2007 IPCC report.
from the executive summary, key message 2:
"... Temperature rises above 2C will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the century and beyond."
the paper emphasizes the 2C guardrail;
"The conclusion from both the IPCC and later analyses is simple - immediate and dramatic emission reductions of all greenhouse gases are needed if the 2ºC guardrail is to be respected."
staying below 2C warming is entirely feasible, the report shows.
key message 5: "Inaction is inexcusable."
with this amount of information available to AK and her staff, she comes up with the excuse cited in the original story. she mentions to the cost of H.R. 2454, she mentions job loss, and others but primarily it is the 48 cents per day per household in 2020 that came out as "the excuse".
to JS 06/30
"I remain committed to the point that the Universe, not humans, controls Global Warming and Cooling." it must have been quite a wedding
"I would appreciate the opportunity to better understand your motivations."
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/08/ponzi-scheme-madoff-friedman-natural-capital-renewable-resources/ (i agree with j. romm on his major pts.)
in modern societies, we tend to act on the assumption that if we look after our own best interests, the future will look after itself; but this approach will not work with climate change. we need to consider the needs of future generations -- both people and other species. "
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:20 PM:
" Reference: glen wrote on Jun 30, 2009 2:45 PM:
I remain committed to the point that the Universe, not humans, controls Global Warming and Cooling.
I believe we have carried on this discussion of Global Warming long enough as Comments. As I stated before, the article comments were originally based upon Spending vs Saving.
I would appreciate the opportunity to better understand your motivations. My name is in the phone book should you be willing to contact me.
Refrain: We each are entitled to our own respective judgements. "
I remain committed to the point that the Universe, not humans, controls Global Warming and Cooling.
I believe we have carried on this discussion of Global Warming long enough as Comments. As I stated before, the article comments were originally based upon Spending vs Saving.
I would appreciate the opportunity to better understand your motivations. My name is in the phone book should you be willing to contact me.
Refrain: We each are entitled to our own respective judgements. "
Tater wrote on Jun 30, 2009 3:32 PM:
" Glen Beck claims there is a provision for federal energy standards on homes, which is adopted from the California model. One of the provisions requires homeowners to have their house inspected (not clear who pays) against these standards for energy efficiency before it can be sold.
Has anybody actually seen the bill, who can verify or discount Beck's claim? After witnessing the hole they have dug themselves in, does anybody think its a good idea to model ANYTHING on the way California does things? "
Has anybody actually seen the bill, who can verify or discount Beck's claim? After witnessing the hole they have dug themselves in, does anybody think its a good idea to model ANYTHING on the way California does things? "
glen wrote on Jun 30, 2009 2:45 PM:
" this page contains the .pdf link(it is upstream -- BTW the other link works on my MAC/Safari -- make sure you get the .pdf extension at the end of the address)
http://www.iaruni.org/events/past/meetings/090310_climatesummit/index/
"Therefore, I have to ask just how accurate are the USGCPR reports?"
Chris Horner(RedHotLies) - VS - the USGCRP - Observation & Monitoring working group
are you serious?? the fact that you are unable to tell science from anti-science, is unfortunately, a big part of the problem... but, i'm going to give you a hint anyway: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090223/
click the top-right image(global map) to enlarge
do you see large positive temperature(red/brown) anomalies were all the desert cites of the US are?
do you see a red/brown spots over PHX, LV, ABQ, or other world urban areas?
with all the explosive growth since 1951 and "careless" practices of the Feds(according to Horner) you would think that there would be a more anomalistic signal than + .2-.6C
your question should have started with, who is C. Horner?, what is his motivation for the book?
http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner
i forget who originally posted this but it fits. "No reputable journalist — indeed, no rational blogger — would quote Chris Horner in support of an argument on science or climate." "
http://www.iaruni.org/events/past/meetings/090310_climatesummit/index/
"Therefore, I have to ask just how accurate are the USGCPR reports?"
Chris Horner(RedHotLies) - VS - the USGCRP - Observation & Monitoring working group
are you serious?? the fact that you are unable to tell science from anti-science, is unfortunately, a big part of the problem... but, i'm going to give you a hint anyway: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090223/
click the top-right image(global map) to enlarge
do you see large positive temperature(red/brown) anomalies were all the desert cites of the US are?
do you see a red/brown spots over PHX, LV, ABQ, or other world urban areas?
with all the explosive growth since 1951 and "careless" practices of the Feds(according to Horner) you would think that there would be a more anomalistic signal than + .2-.6C
your question should have started with, who is C. Horner?, what is his motivation for the book?
http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner
i forget who originally posted this but it fits. "No reputable journalist — indeed, no rational blogger — would quote Chris Horner in support of an argument on science or climate." "
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jun 29, 2009 7:42 PM:
" Responding to Glen, we each are entitled to our own respective judgments. Interesting that I tried to open your 2- reference in Safari, which froze, & Firefox which gave the message "Error: Cannot open the file. Probably it does not exist." Yes I'm a Mac bigot.
My statement re. Global Warming was not directed toward Climate Change caused by human release of gaseous toxins such as mercury & sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, and the solid toxins of plastics and automobiles. Those toxins can be controlled by humans.
Ref. the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) report, as I recall it was Chris Horner's book Red Hot Lies that pointed out that many of the U.S. weather stations did not even comply with USGCPR Standards. Example, the Standard for weather stations is to place them on low cut grass, 25 feet away from any structure, tree or bush. He showed several photographs including one where the station was mounted on the side of a building. Another was at Phoenix, AZ, Skyharbor Airport with the station directly on top of asphalt. I have lived in Phoenix, currently in Flagstaff. Anyone living in the area knows asphalt will increase the temperature by up to 5+ degrees when atmospheric temp's are 90+ degrees.Therefore, I have to ask just how accurate are the USGCPR reports?
We are told when, not if, the volcano in Yellowstone Park erupts, the entire No. American Continent and most of Europe will be covered with a layer of gases and ash causing major climate change quickly killing 1000's of people and most likely a 3rd Ice Age.
A show on TV last night (should have made note of it) described methane to have 5 times the Greenhouse Gas effect as CO2. With the sun shinning on the ocean, the gases are continually released having originated from under water ocean volcanos.
Refrain: We each are entitled to our own respective judgments.
Again, to me the primary significance of this article is Spending vs Saving. We simply got carried away on Global Warming, etc. "
My statement re. Global Warming was not directed toward Climate Change caused by human release of gaseous toxins such as mercury & sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, and the solid toxins of plastics and automobiles. Those toxins can be controlled by humans.
Ref. the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) report, as I recall it was Chris Horner's book Red Hot Lies that pointed out that many of the U.S. weather stations did not even comply with USGCPR Standards. Example, the Standard for weather stations is to place them on low cut grass, 25 feet away from any structure, tree or bush. He showed several photographs including one where the station was mounted on the side of a building. Another was at Phoenix, AZ, Skyharbor Airport with the station directly on top of asphalt. I have lived in Phoenix, currently in Flagstaff. Anyone living in the area knows asphalt will increase the temperature by up to 5+ degrees when atmospheric temp's are 90+ degrees.Therefore, I have to ask just how accurate are the USGCPR reports?
We are told when, not if, the volcano in Yellowstone Park erupts, the entire No. American Continent and most of Europe will be covered with a layer of gases and ash causing major climate change quickly killing 1000's of people and most likely a 3rd Ice Age.
A show on TV last night (should have made note of it) described methane to have 5 times the Greenhouse Gas effect as CO2. With the sun shinning on the ocean, the gases are continually released having originated from under water ocean volcanos.
Refrain: We each are entitled to our own respective judgments.
Again, to me the primary significance of this article is Spending vs Saving. We simply got carried away on Global Warming, etc. "
glen wrote on Jun 29, 2009 11:29 AM:
" In short, Global warming began the day the earth was formed, and will continue until the day the earth is destroyed. The Universe is going to do whatever it wants to do without consulting human 'expertise', 'n we can't change that!
i guess the post is intended to send the message that it is all "natural variability" and man has nothing to do with it.
BS!
the latest significant reports(1 is paid for by US taxpayers and should have been released by the Bush administration years ago)
1 • http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report
2 • http://www.iaruni.org/events/past/meetings/090310_climatesummit/ClimateChangeCongress_SynthesisReport180609.pdf
from the executive summary of ref. 1:
"Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global
warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced
emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the
burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from
the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."
from the Key Findings in ref. 2;
"Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."
both of these excerpts directly contradict PJ Micheals and his book(publisher; Cato Institute).
one might ask why??
http://www.desmogblog.com/cato-institute-and-patrick-michaels-its-small-world-after-all
what's is even more amusing is... at amazon.com, the "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" shows all the climate change pseudo-science FUD books. "
i guess the post is intended to send the message that it is all "natural variability" and man has nothing to do with it.
BS!
the latest significant reports(1 is paid for by US taxpayers and should have been released by the Bush administration years ago)
1 • http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report
2 • http://www.iaruni.org/events/past/meetings/090310_climatesummit/ClimateChangeCongress_SynthesisReport180609.pdf
from the executive summary of ref. 1:
"Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global
warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced
emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the
burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from
the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."
from the Key Findings in ref. 2;
"Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."
both of these excerpts directly contradict PJ Micheals and his book(publisher; Cato Institute).
one might ask why??
http://www.desmogblog.com/cato-institute-and-patrick-michaels-its-small-world-after-all
what's is even more amusing is... at amazon.com, the "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" shows all the climate change pseudo-science FUD books. "
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jun 29, 2009 10:02 AM:
" Reference Joe wrote on Jun 28, 2009 9:12 PM:
Please be specific. Where in this article or in the previous comments are Lobbyists implied?
Ref. article paragraph 3 through 5: "U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Flagstaff, opposed the bill… …" That's one reason to admire Ann's vote against spending. Lobbyists encourage spending for their Special Interests.
I agree with you that Lobbyists strongly control Congress. For information on Lobbyist activity: Center for Public Integrity
http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx "
Please be specific. Where in this article or in the previous comments are Lobbyists implied?
Ref. article paragraph 3 through 5: "U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Flagstaff, opposed the bill… …" That's one reason to admire Ann's vote against spending. Lobbyists encourage spending for their Special Interests.
I agree with you that Lobbyists strongly control Congress. For information on Lobbyist activity: Center for Public Integrity
http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx "
Joe wrote on Jun 28, 2009 9:12 PM:
" More spending and trying to bandaid the problem than find a solution.
this bill will also raise taxes and make energy cost more untill it spirals out of control.
I wish you all would understand that the whole Rep vs Dem is a huge joke, and the world is controlled by lobbyists. lobbyists who put obama where he is, who put bush where he is. etc etc. "
this bill will also raise taxes and make energy cost more untill it spirals out of control.
I wish you all would understand that the whole Rep vs Dem is a huge joke, and the world is controlled by lobbyists. lobbyists who put obama where he is, who put bush where he is. etc etc. "
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jun 28, 2009 6:22 PM:
" For those who did not view the Book TV Climate of Extremes program, and especially those that imply the book is not scientific, I suggest you watch the Book TV Video: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=284633-1
Be patient through the introduction of other books, the Climate of Extremes is a 1 hour, 5 minute Video. A memory error I stated in the Jun 27, 2009 5:59 PM Comment is that the U.S. Southwest 60 year drouth was in the 12th century [not the 1920's].
The book is also available at Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=lWQdP4_7SycC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=Climate+of+Extremes:+Global+Warming+Science+They+Didn't+Want+You+to+Know&source=bl&ots=1I-G8rLX5a&sig=DUs3Z2gb5h8TAKkmbjhfggUoYfk&hl=en&ei=0chGSuj0DISONvqkwbIK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
The implication the author is influenced by Exxon funding apparently has never written a Request for Fundiing himself. Funds come from many sources and rarely have restrictions or control over the project content. One exception is PhRMA submitted journal articles and Direct To Consumer advertising of which I have personal experience.
In short, Global warming began the day the earth was formed, and will continue until the day the earth is destroyed. The Universe is going to do whatever it wants to do without consulting human 'expertise', 'n we can't change that!
To me, the primary significance of this article is Spending vs Saving. "
Be patient through the introduction of other books, the Climate of Extremes is a 1 hour, 5 minute Video. A memory error I stated in the Jun 27, 2009 5:59 PM Comment is that the U.S. Southwest 60 year drouth was in the 12th century [not the 1920's].
The book is also available at Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=lWQdP4_7SycC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=Climate+of+Extremes:+Global+Warming+Science+They+Didn't+Want+You+to+Know&source=bl&ots=1I-G8rLX5a&sig=DUs3Z2gb5h8TAKkmbjhfggUoYfk&hl=en&ei=0chGSuj0DISONvqkwbIK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
The implication the author is influenced by Exxon funding apparently has never written a Request for Fundiing himself. Funds come from many sources and rarely have restrictions or control over the project content. One exception is PhRMA submitted journal articles and Direct To Consumer advertising of which I have personal experience.
In short, Global warming began the day the earth was formed, and will continue until the day the earth is destroyed. The Universe is going to do whatever it wants to do without consulting human 'expertise', 'n we can't change that!
To me, the primary significance of this article is Spending vs Saving. "
glen wrote on Jun 28, 2009 4:25 PM:
" ************************************************************************************
one last thing:
"how in the world someone can believe in less than ten short years that the science is complete on so called global warming is beyond comprehension."
about using the word "complete" or "settled"
Find a climate scientist saying it. The point being that the whole phrase implies a false binary distinction complete/not complete or settled/not-settled that is simply anathema to the whole scientific enterprise of finding ever better approximations to reality. The poster of this statement simply chooses the phrase as a strawman critique against mainstream science. "
one last thing:
"how in the world someone can believe in less than ten short years that the science is complete on so called global warming is beyond comprehension."
about using the word "complete" or "settled"
Find a climate scientist saying it. The point being that the whole phrase implies a false binary distinction complete/not complete or settled/not-settled that is simply anathema to the whole scientific enterprise of finding ever better approximations to reality. The poster of this statement simply chooses the phrase as a strawman critique against mainstream science. "
Tater wrote on Jun 28, 2009 2:17 PM:
" Dave--Your comments are spot on. Unfortunatley, our representatives aren't likely to stop this insanity, especially when their failure to read the bill is dismissed with 'we never read bills'. I would think that bills of the magnitude passed by this congress would deserve more than 'business as usual'.
As I watched Senator Finestein dress down a Brigadier General at a committee hearing, it struck me that something is wrong. Wouldn't it be beneficial for citizens if we could get some of these senators and congressmen to testify before citizens and answer direct and pointed questions about bills they are proposing to become law? Citizen committee's, with the power to cut short a represntative who tries to dance around the questions as politicians are so skilled at doing.
Kudo's to Ann Kirkpatrick. The number one reason I have difficulty supporting democrats to national office, is their lack of a backbone to stand up to party leaders. It looks like Ann has passed my first test, but its not over yet. I'm cynical about the games politicians play. Sometimes Pelosi will give permission for her caucus members to go off the reservation for political cover. Should this ridiculous bill come out of the senate and need another vote, I hope Ann still has the courage to oppose it. "
As I watched Senator Finestein dress down a Brigadier General at a committee hearing, it struck me that something is wrong. Wouldn't it be beneficial for citizens if we could get some of these senators and congressmen to testify before citizens and answer direct and pointed questions about bills they are proposing to become law? Citizen committee's, with the power to cut short a represntative who tries to dance around the questions as politicians are so skilled at doing.
Kudo's to Ann Kirkpatrick. The number one reason I have difficulty supporting democrats to national office, is their lack of a backbone to stand up to party leaders. It looks like Ann has passed my first test, but its not over yet. I'm cynical about the games politicians play. Sometimes Pelosi will give permission for her caucus members to go off the reservation for political cover. Should this ridiculous bill come out of the senate and need another vote, I hope Ann still has the courage to oppose it. "
glen wrote on Jun 28, 2009 2:15 PM:
" " Opps, I made an error: Tomorrow is Sunday the 28th for the BookTV Climate of Extremes showing at 7:00AM. "
thanks, but no thanks
this is a tv program based on a book by PJ Michaels; publisher Cato Institute
readers of this blog can go to http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1365 and do a search(by name) and take a look at his funding and connections.
i'll stick to my reading of scientific conclusions that are supported by "peer-reviewed" climate research. That is, research that has been published by one or more scientists in a scholarly scientific journal after review by one or more experts in the scientists' same field ('peers') for accuracy and validity. "
thanks, but no thanks
this is a tv program based on a book by PJ Michaels; publisher Cato Institute
readers of this blog can go to http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1365 and do a search(by name) and take a look at his funding and connections.
i'll stick to my reading of scientific conclusions that are supported by "peer-reviewed" climate research. That is, research that has been published by one or more scientists in a scholarly scientific journal after review by one or more experts in the scientists' same field ('peers') for accuracy and validity. "
glen wrote on Jun 28, 2009 1:21 PM:
" how in the world someone can believe in less than ten short years that the science is complete on so called global warming is beyond comprehension. this is nothing more than a money grab by the .gov along with controlling our lives. get ready, here come the 1800's again.
i'll give you some 1800's
1824 • Joseph Fourier, French mathematician, calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
1859 • John Tyndall, British physicist, discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.
1896 • Svante A. Arrhenius, Swedish scientist, publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
and a couple of notes from the 20th century
1965 • U.S. Presidents have been advised since at least LB Johnson administration that the greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted as a result of burning fossil fuels will cause significant global warming.
1979 • US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5C global warming.
It has NOT BEEN LESS THAN 10 SHORT YEARS.
"SPENDING VERUS SAVING is the most significant point Ann continues to address. If the governement doesn't control spending, i.e. peak oil and climate change on Arizona won't matter, none of us will have any money! "
there is no "SAVING" -- there is only less or more spending. saving only happens when there are no deficits.
what is going to ruin the "full faith and credit of the US government" is most likely be entitlements not discretionary spending, starting around 2017 if nothing is done. the nation is currently insolvent by most accounting standards. total US debt is closing in on 5 times GDP.
my last point: just because 5% of the worlds homo sapiens happen to bankrupt their own country does mean -- they have to drag the other 95% through "hell and high water". not to mention a 6th major biosphere mass-exinction event in earth's history. "
i'll give you some 1800's
1824 • Joseph Fourier, French mathematician, calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
1859 • John Tyndall, British physicist, discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.
1896 • Svante A. Arrhenius, Swedish scientist, publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
and a couple of notes from the 20th century
1965 • U.S. Presidents have been advised since at least LB Johnson administration that the greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted as a result of burning fossil fuels will cause significant global warming.
1979 • US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5C global warming.
It has NOT BEEN LESS THAN 10 SHORT YEARS.
"SPENDING VERUS SAVING is the most significant point Ann continues to address. If the governement doesn't control spending, i.e. peak oil and climate change on Arizona won't matter, none of us will have any money! "
there is no "SAVING" -- there is only less or more spending. saving only happens when there are no deficits.
what is going to ruin the "full faith and credit of the US government" is most likely be entitlements not discretionary spending, starting around 2017 if nothing is done. the nation is currently insolvent by most accounting standards. total US debt is closing in on 5 times GDP.
my last point: just because 5% of the worlds homo sapiens happen to bankrupt their own country does mean -- they have to drag the other 95% through "hell and high water". not to mention a 6th major biosphere mass-exinction event in earth's history. "
don m. peavey wrote on Jun 28, 2009 11:29 AM:
" Though I have little doubt that the earth is warming, the fact remains that if you don't want to support oil fuels, you don't have to.. If you can get others to do the same, than the oil fuels and byproducts will cease to exist, because the companies that deal in them will be out of business.. That is how you change the world, with money, vote with your dollar..
But those who believe global warming would be a death sentence to AZ, that doesn't have a lot of basis in fact and historical precedence. Egypt was one the fertile valley, and Arizona once has a bay... The bay in AZ disappeared a very long time ago, and it had NOTHING to do with man made global warming, of which I do question the "science" used to back up. We should stop poisoning the earth, but that is to save ourselves, don't pretend otherwise.. The earth will be around, and fruitful long after mans time on earth has passed..
Global warming does not automatically mean, that the whole world will get warming, it will mean, on average, with variety on how these global changes will affect various areas on the earth.. Things changed before we came to the earth, and things will continue to change when we leave it.
I am thankful that Ann Kirkpatrick, whom I don't always agree with, has decided against increasing taxing of US citizens in some well intentioned, perhaps, but not honest scheme of the Federal Government to increase taxes...
Don't you all realize? Powerful corporation won't be punished, really, you will..
They have better lawyers. "
But those who believe global warming would be a death sentence to AZ, that doesn't have a lot of basis in fact and historical precedence. Egypt was one the fertile valley, and Arizona once has a bay... The bay in AZ disappeared a very long time ago, and it had NOTHING to do with man made global warming, of which I do question the "science" used to back up. We should stop poisoning the earth, but that is to save ourselves, don't pretend otherwise.. The earth will be around, and fruitful long after mans time on earth has passed..
Global warming does not automatically mean, that the whole world will get warming, it will mean, on average, with variety on how these global changes will affect various areas on the earth.. Things changed before we came to the earth, and things will continue to change when we leave it.
I am thankful that Ann Kirkpatrick, whom I don't always agree with, has decided against increasing taxing of US citizens in some well intentioned, perhaps, but not honest scheme of the Federal Government to increase taxes...
Don't you all realize? Powerful corporation won't be punished, really, you will..
They have better lawyers. "
Dave wrote on Jun 27, 2009 8:19 PM:
" .There's no such thing as "Peak Oil", nor is there "Global Warming". The gentleman calling the Congresswoman an idiot should check the mirror. She surprised me and did the right thing. Something I did not think a Democrat was capable of doing. I commend her for her actions and her wisdom. This is another maniacal bill of 1500 pages no one read AGAIN, that will most likely kill our economy off in favor of "feel good" politics verses use of common sense. I hope the supporters of this insanity are the first ones to go without heat or electricity down the road because they won't be able to pay for it. Hopefully the Senate exhibits a bit more logic and wisdom verses all the hand wringing emotion present in the Congress "
Richard Williams wrote on Jun 27, 2009 8:05 PM:
" On Friday, Ann Kirkpatrick let down every citizen in Arizona. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a preventative band aid that will save Arizonans millions in our wallets and incalculable costs in protecting our health. In addition, millions of jobs will be created, many thousand right here in Northern Arizona.
I was once excited to vote for Rep Kirkpatrick. As soon as I saw her vote, I felt completely betrayed. "
I was once excited to vote for Rep Kirkpatrick. As soon as I saw her vote, I felt completely betrayed. "
easy brown wrote on Jun 27, 2009 6:34 PM:
" thankful for some common sense from rep. kirkpatrick! how in the world someone can believe in less than ten short years that the science is complete on so called global warming is beyond comprehension. this is nothing more than a money grab by the .gov along with controlling our lives. get ready, here come the 1800's again. except this time cows are not allowed. good thing there are plenty of sheeple. "
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jun 27, 2009 6:04 PM:
" Opps, I made an error: Tomorrow is Sunday the 28th for the BookTV Climate of Extremes showing at 7:00AM. "
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jun 27, 2009 5:59 PM:
" Yes, U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick has surprised me on her recent views of Spending vs Saving.
I believe most individuals when they realize a decrease in income, regardless of the reason, begin to evaluate where they can save money [except the Michael Jackson types]. They cease buying things like cakes and pies they like, but really don't need. They become more efficient in their driving habits. They turn off lights in the non-occupied rooms. etc., etc., etc.
For those of you concerned about Climate Change, I suggest you watch CSPAN-2, NPGCable Ch 90, tomorrow the 27th, at 7:00 AM, Book TV - Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Didn't Want You to Know. As example, the entire Southwest U.S. has previously gone through a lengthly and severe drouth, as I recall it was 60 years in the 1920's. "
I believe most individuals when they realize a decrease in income, regardless of the reason, begin to evaluate where they can save money [except the Michael Jackson types]. They cease buying things like cakes and pies they like, but really don't need. They become more efficient in their driving habits. They turn off lights in the non-occupied rooms. etc., etc., etc.
For those of you concerned about Climate Change, I suggest you watch CSPAN-2, NPGCable Ch 90, tomorrow the 27th, at 7:00 AM, Book TV - Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Didn't Want You to Know. As example, the entire Southwest U.S. has previously gone through a lengthly and severe drouth, as I recall it was 60 years in the 1920's. "
glen wrote on Jun 27, 2009 3:49 PM:
" U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Flagstaff, opposed the bill, contending it could increase costs for the average household by $175 per year in a decade, according to one government estimate.
that is 48 cents per day in 2019. Kirkpatrick is an idiot to use this as an excuse to vote against HR 2454.
Rep. Kirkpatrick's website (http://kirkpatrick.house.gov/2009/06/rep-kirkpatrick-opposes-waxman-markey-energy-bill-stands-up-for-rural-arizona-citing-rising-consumer.shtml)
no mention of climate change... but expresses support for the 4 coal-fired power plants in 1st district of AZ.
For a person who is concerned about the 1st district Arizonans in 2019, WHY NOT 2059(a jump of another 40yrs) when the projected average global surface temperature is now 3F higher than it is today with business as usual emissions. "
that is 48 cents per day in 2019. Kirkpatrick is an idiot to use this as an excuse to vote against HR 2454.
Rep. Kirkpatrick's website (http://kirkpatrick.house.gov/2009/06/rep-kirkpatrick-opposes-waxman-markey-energy-bill-stands-up-for-rural-arizona-citing-rising-consumer.shtml)
no mention of climate change... but expresses support for the 4 coal-fired power plants in 1st district of AZ.
For a person who is concerned about the 1st district Arizonans in 2019, WHY NOT 2059(a jump of another 40yrs) when the projected average global surface temperature is now 3F higher than it is today with business as usual emissions. "
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jun 27, 2009 2:51 PM:
" I repeat my comment from June 21st article:
" I admire Rep, Ann Kirkpartick for her decisions!… …I commend Ann's basis of "…over-regulating and creating more beureaucracy," 2nd, her "No Cash For Gas Guzzlers" makes sense in that the cost of trade-in would probably exceed the dollar value gained, i.e. breakeven would take several years. 3rd, overall she is truly addressing "SPENDING VERUS SAVING". … … "
SPENDING VERUS SAVING is the most significant point Ann continues to address. If the governement doesn't control spending, i.e. peak oil and climate change on Arizona won't matter, none of us will have any money! "
" I admire Rep, Ann Kirkpartick for her decisions!… …I commend Ann's basis of "…over-regulating and creating more beureaucracy," 2nd, her "No Cash For Gas Guzzlers" makes sense in that the cost of trade-in would probably exceed the dollar value gained, i.e. breakeven would take several years. 3rd, overall she is truly addressing "SPENDING VERUS SAVING". … … "
SPENDING VERUS SAVING is the most significant point Ann continues to address. If the governement doesn't control spending, i.e. peak oil and climate change on Arizona won't matter, none of us will have any money! "
All comments will be reviewed before being posted. Comments that contain profanity or are obscene, resort to name calling, are libelous in nature, or make personal attacks won’t be approved. Criticism should focus on the ideas or arguments presented — not the person.
Comments are not always reviewed immediately, especially when posted on weekends or nights.
We reserve the right to delete any comments that, upon further review, fail to meet our guidelines.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide.
Click to see the complete policy
Advertisement
News Photos Slide Show
Top Jobs
Arizona Central Credit Union
Branch Manager
Blair Worldwide
Consultants
Flagstaff Preferred
Salespeople
High tech dental practice
Dental Hygenist
Mack Corporation
Ofc Mngr/Bookkeeper
New Generation
Fun Travel Job
Praxair Healthcare Services
Client Care Assoc
Southern California Water Dist
Millwright/Mechanic
Unspecified
CAD drafter
Unspecified
Opto-tech engineer
Branch Manager
Blair Worldwide
Consultants
Flagstaff Preferred
Salespeople
High tech dental practice
Dental Hygenist
Mack Corporation
Ofc Mngr/Bookkeeper
New Generation
Fun Travel Job
Praxair Healthcare Services
Client Care Assoc
Southern California Water Dist
Millwright/Mechanic
Unspecified
CAD drafter
Unspecified
Opto-tech engineer
Advertisements
Site Index
[ About Us |
Contact Us |
Job Opportunities |
Advertise |
Terms of use |
Privacy policy |
Legal Statement ]
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 © 1751 S. Thompson, Flagstaff, AZ
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 © 1751 S. Thompson, Flagstaff, AZ
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jul 4, 2009 3:08 PM:
Comments have broadened the scope from Global Warming to Human Ethics!
In Summary:
My interpretation of Ann’s vote is that she was addressing Government Spending vs Saving, and prioritising where spending could/should be focused. I admire Ann's vote against spending. I admit, I am confused as to what Obama’s objectives are.
I described what I consider short term spending priorities in my Comment of
Jerry Shannon wrote on Jul 2, 2009 8:46 AM, reference: glen wrote on Jul 1, 2009 5:17 PM: addressed to Glen “A few other questions:”
With reference to Matthew Quigley wrote on Jul 4, 2009 3:39 AM: — I can concur that Global Warming is a Politically Correct “…myth of the existence of global warming and how it is being perpetuated upon the American people.” Lobbyists are known to strongly control Congress in order to perpetuate their Special Interest Groups. For information on Lobbyist activity: Center for Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
I restate my observation of Jun 28, 2009 6:22 PM:
Global warming (and cooling) began the day the earth was formed, and will continue until the day the earth is destroyed. The Universe is going to do whatever it wants to do without consulting human expertise, 'n we can't change that!
There are volumes of geological data and fossil evidence, including the Kaibab Plateau, supporting that the earth surface has been destroyed at least three times by volcanic and asteroid activity. One example prior to the 1st Ice Age, Greenland and the Kaibab Plateau were covered with spruce. Any spruce on the Plateau today are imported. The history of humans, as we know them, covers a relatively short period of time of the earth’s existence, varying from 4000 to 8000 years.
A second example, Prehistoric Disasters - Planet of Fire
Discovery Channel Aired on Sunday April 28, 2009 11:00 PM Episode:
250 Million years ago Earth's only continent, Pangea, was a lush oasis swarming with life. Then, a massive extinction wiped out 95% of life on earth. Now, scientists believe they have uncovered the event responsible for the largest extinction in history.
a Refrain:
I recommend you watch the interview with David Simon "Fact and Fiction" ref Bill Moyers Journal http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04172009/profile.html "
Simon describes several occurrences of Fact based upon Fiction. I do not recall his including Global Warming. "