<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Conservative activists wage war on Republicans who voted for climate bill]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by aquaken http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:00:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/1 I'm with Paul Krugman on this one. The eight Republican yes votes are heroes.

]]> I'm with Paul Krugman on this one. The eight Republican yes votes are heroes.

]]> Comment #2 by got2bgreen http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:47:07 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/2 The funny thing is, most of the Republicans who voted for the ACES act, which includes my congressman, represent districts that are not generally known for their hardcore conservative values.  Every single state that they represent has in place Renewable Portfolio Standards.  All of their states were also carried by Obama in November.  I'm not too worried about the "Elite Eight" facing primary challenges from "more conservative opponents."  Chances are the message carried by a far right wing candidate would not resonate too well with the "Elite Eight's" districts.  It took a lot of courage for these representatives to go against the prevailing opinion of their party, and that shows true leadership.       

]]> The funny thing is, most of the Republicans who voted for the ACES act, which includes my congressman, represent districts that are not generally known for their hardcore conservative values.  Every single state that they represent has in place Renewable Portfolio Standards.  All of their states were also carried by Obama in November.  I'm not too worried about the "Elite Eight" facing primary challenges from "more conservative opponents."  Chances are the message carried by a far right wing candidate would not resonate too well with the "Elite Eight's" districts.  It took a lot of courage for these representatives to go against the prevailing opinion of their party, and that shows true leadership.       

]]> Comment #3 by randino http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:30:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/3 First you lose power.  Then you lose your mind.  I saw this in the late 60s and early 70s with the left.  As frustration levels increased, sectarianism and paranoia grew, and the politics got crazier and crazier.  It is called a death spiral, and the conservative movement is in one.  It has lost one stabilizer and most of one wing, and is careening to earth.  

Looking forward to the  crash and fire ball.  I hope there will be no survivors.

Randy Cunningham

 

 

]]> First you lose power.  Then you lose your mind.  I saw this in the late 60s and early 70s with the left.  As frustration levels increased, sectarianism and paranoia grew, and the politics got crazier and crazier.  It is called a death spiral, and the conservative movement is in one.  It has lost one stabilizer and most of one wing, and is careening to earth.  

Looking forward to the  crash and fire ball.  I hope there will be no survivors.

Randy Cunningham

 

 

]]> Comment #4 by Abscam Man http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:18:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/4 They should skin them alive!  Its a terrible bill for businesses and consumers.  Yes it rams a bunch of green initiatives down our gullets.  But do we just want to be green or be smart about it?  Corn methonal is a huge huge mistake.  Its not green at all, its got huge Gov't subsidies, barely dents the foreign oil, rams petro-chemicals into the soil, and worst of all - cheap feed corn has ruined our food system.  Corn fed beef, pigs, chickens, even corn fed farmed fish = Bad food for humans.  Cheap by product HFCS is driving diabetes through the roof - all unitended consequences of Ag bills in the '70s.

Just wait for the unintended consequences from Cap and Trade.  We will be captive to the Chinese for eternity because we won't be able to produce ANYTHING competitively...but we'll be green by golly!

]]> They should skin them alive!  Its a terrible bill for businesses and consumers.  Yes it rams a bunch of green initiatives down our gullets.  But do we just want to be green or be smart about it?  Corn methonal is a huge huge mistake.  Its not green at all, its got huge Gov't subsidies, barely dents the foreign oil, rams petro-chemicals into the soil, and worst of all - cheap feed corn has ruined our food system.  Corn fed beef, pigs, chickens, even corn fed farmed fish = Bad food for humans.  Cheap by product HFCS is driving diabetes through the roof - all unitended consequences of Ag bills in the '70s.

Just wait for the unintended consequences from Cap and Trade.  We will be captive to the Chinese for eternity because we won't be able to produce ANYTHING competitively...but we'll be green by golly!

]]> Comment #5 by Teuthis http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:11:17 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/5 Cursed by the right, cursed by the left...I just pity them.

]]> Cursed by the right, cursed by the left...I just pity them.

]]> Comment #6 by davescott http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:27:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/6 These were courageous votes.  But I think you'd find a very strong correlation between those who "crossed party lines" in either direction and which presidential candidate won their district in 2008.  Dems in Republican leaning districts were far more likely to vote against the bill, and vice versa.  Hardly a surprise, and I dont mean to take anything away from brave Republicans who did the right thing and voted yes.

]]> These were courageous votes.  But I think you'd find a very strong correlation between those who "crossed party lines" in either direction and which presidential candidate won their district in 2008.  Dems in Republican leaning districts were far more likely to vote against the bill, and vice versa.  Hardly a surprise, and I dont mean to take anything away from brave Republicans who did the right thing and voted yes.

]]> Comment #7 by Erik Hoffner http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:55:52 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/7 Enjoyable, watching them attack each other. Positively easy on the eyes.


But their party is truly deaf if they think rhetoric and soundbites are enough to confuse people into ambivalence on the issue of climate change. They also don't consider the fresh age of the hordes of climate activists in the country.

 


Erik, Orion Grassroots Network



]]> Enjoyable, watching them attack each other. Positively easy on the eyes.


But their party is truly deaf if they think rhetoric and soundbites are enough to confuse people into ambivalence on the issue of climate change. They also don't consider the fresh age of the hordes of climate activists in the country.

 


Erik, Orion Grassroots Network



]]> Comment #8 by Global Changes http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:30:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/8 Typical right wing politics. They think its about who shouts loudest and not who is actually right. They are living the failed American dream of ignorance to everything that is incovenient to them. They cant ignore the fate of 6 billion people and they cant ignore climate change

]]> Typical right wing politics. They think its about who shouts loudest and not who is actually right. They are living the failed American dream of ignorance to everything that is incovenient to them. They cant ignore the fate of 6 billion people and they cant ignore climate change

]]> Comment #9 by James C. Wilson http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:24:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/9 I teach thermodynamics from time to time.  I view climate change science as a wonderful thermodynamic problem.  You have the system receiving energy from the sun, reflecting some of it back to space and radiating thermally to space.  If you can apply the first law of thermodynamics, then you see how things work.  Lets see:  Heat capacity of oceans, CO2+H2O forcings, warming, time constants, outgoing long wavelength radiation. melting ice, evaporating water etc etc.  It is complicated but the best analyses have it working out pretty well:  Follow the energy and find the warming.

But no, the Republicans think that this is junk science.  The party of Lincoln is planning to run against the First Law of Thermodynamics!  (Remember that Lincoln signed the bill creating the National Academy of Science.)  Usually students get the first law.  The second is more difficult and often trips up the novice inventors (teachers of thermo are sometimes asked to help the stymied inventor get a patent on his perpetual motion machines).  It is the third law that trips up most - 

But the Republicans are going to run against the First Law of Thermodynamics!  The party of Th. Roosevelt is going to run against the First Law!!!!  (Remember that Th. Roosevelt created executive agencies to use scientific knowledge to protect the public and expanded the National Park System.)

The first law is usually understood by any student who can balance their check book.  It is the same gig after all.  Instead of following the money, you follow the energy and calculate its effects.  But this is Junk Science according to the GOP.


The Republicans are going to run against the First Law!!  The First Law of Thermodynamics.  The Party of Nixon (he created the EPA, signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.  Signed the NEPA.) is going to run against applying the First Law of Thermodynamics to climate.  The GOP is running on Separation of Science and State. 

The climate contrarians have been looking for the Achilles' Heel of anthropogenic global warming (AWG).  The first great hope was the failure of the NOAA MSU's to duplicate the surface record of warming.  Dr. Singer argued (incorrectly) that the satellites were the most accurate devices around and he would not believe warming until they showed it.  IPCC 2001 hedged their bets with a 'preponderance of evidence" claim on warming because the MSU's were not on board.  Well, then they re-analyzed the MSU output and found the warming.  Too bad.  Then Dr. Lindzen pointed out that the outgoing long wavelength radiation was not in agreement with the models.  Again this would be a problem since outgoing long wavelength radiation is fundamental.  Again satellite retrievals were revised and now the outgoing longwavelength radiation measurements are in accord with AGW.  Bad Luck.  Finally the temperature measurements of the oceans produced the transient hope that the energy would not balance.  But corrections and this year's papers have set that right.  AGW obeys the first law of thermodynamics.  There is no place to hide.

So the Republicans are going to run against the First Law.  The party of Ronald Reagan is going to deny the existence of climate change as a central part of who they are.  (Remember that Reagan whole-hearted acted to protect stratospheric ozone.  In 50 generations, it is all he will be remembered for.)

Who can vote Republican after they run agains the First Law of Thermodynamics??????  Well, lots of people actually.  They might even win.  Sad but true.

Regards,

 


]]> I teach thermodynamics from time to time.  I view climate change science as a wonderful thermodynamic problem.  You have the system receiving energy from the sun, reflecting some of it back to space and radiating thermally to space.  If you can apply the first law of thermodynamics, then you see how things work.  Lets see:  Heat capacity of oceans, CO2+H2O forcings, warming, time constants, outgoing long wavelength radiation. melting ice, evaporating water etc etc.  It is complicated but the best analyses have it working out pretty well:  Follow the energy and find the warming.

But no, the Republicans think that this is junk science.  The party of Lincoln is planning to run against the First Law of Thermodynamics!  (Remember that Lincoln signed the bill creating the National Academy of Science.)  Usually students get the first law.  The second is more difficult and often trips up the novice inventors (teachers of thermo are sometimes asked to help the stymied inventor get a patent on his perpetual motion machines).  It is the third law that trips up most - 

But the Republicans are going to run against the First Law of Thermodynamics!  The party of Th. Roosevelt is going to run against the First Law!!!!  (Remember that Th. Roosevelt created executive agencies to use scientific knowledge to protect the public and expanded the National Park System.)

The first law is usually understood by any student who can balance their check book.  It is the same gig after all.  Instead of following the money, you follow the energy and calculate its effects.  But this is Junk Science according to the GOP.


The Republicans are going to run against the First Law!!  The First Law of Thermodynamics.  The Party of Nixon (he created the EPA, signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.  Signed the NEPA.) is going to run against applying the First Law of Thermodynamics to climate.  The GOP is running on Separation of Science and State. 

The climate contrarians have been looking for the Achilles' Heel of anthropogenic global warming (AWG).  The first great hope was the failure of the NOAA MSU's to duplicate the surface record of warming.  Dr. Singer argued (incorrectly) that the satellites were the most accurate devices around and he would not believe warming until they showed it.  IPCC 2001 hedged their bets with a 'preponderance of evidence" claim on warming because the MSU's were not on board.  Well, then they re-analyzed the MSU output and found the warming.  Too bad.  Then Dr. Lindzen pointed out that the outgoing long wavelength radiation was not in agreement with the models.  Again this would be a problem since outgoing long wavelength radiation is fundamental.  Again satellite retrievals were revised and now the outgoing longwavelength radiation measurements are in accord with AGW.  Bad Luck.  Finally the temperature measurements of the oceans produced the transient hope that the energy would not balance.  But corrections and this year's papers have set that right.  AGW obeys the first law of thermodynamics.  There is no place to hide.

So the Republicans are going to run against the First Law.  The party of Ronald Reagan is going to deny the existence of climate change as a central part of who they are.  (Remember that Reagan whole-hearted acted to protect stratospheric ozone.  In 50 generations, it is all he will be remembered for.)

Who can vote Republican after they run agains the First Law of Thermodynamics??????  Well, lots of people actually.  They might even win.  Sad but true.

Regards,

 


]]> Comment #10 by solargroupies http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:17:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/10 Labels give us plenty to fight about. I would hope that eventually we will have leaders who will rely on critical thinking skills to make decisions, not how much money they will get for supporting a particular lobby. Politicians who are reading this: Remember, you can't take it with you, and the odds are good that there will be plenty of people who will judge your actions based on the ethics your decisions. This is the legacy that your family will live with.

]]> Labels give us plenty to fight about. I would hope that eventually we will have leaders who will rely on critical thinking skills to make decisions, not how much money they will get for supporting a particular lobby. Politicians who are reading this: Remember, you can't take it with you, and the odds are good that there will be plenty of people who will judge your actions based on the ethics your decisions. This is the legacy that your family will live with.

]]> Comment #11 by Catmoves http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:45:22 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/11 I hear you, Aquaken. I'm with Paul Krugman,  too.  And , yes, I am Democrat.

I also find Kate Sheppards style of writing reminiscent of the irresponsible attacks of newspapers in the 1800's and 1900's. It's snide, it's condescending and it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

Insulting another person's beliefs is NOT the way to change them.

Aha! Maybe she's really a Republican in our midst? Wouldn't surprise me. Are you, Kate?

]]> I hear you, Aquaken. I'm with Paul Krugman,  too.  And , yes, I am Democrat.

I also find Kate Sheppards style of writing reminiscent of the irresponsible attacks of newspapers in the 1800's and 1900's. It's snide, it's condescending and it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

Insulting another person's beliefs is NOT the way to change them.

Aha! Maybe she's really a Republican in our midst? Wouldn't surprise me. Are you, Kate?

]]> Comment #12 by its easy being green http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:59:34 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/12 Don't be so catty, catmoves...Kate is an excellent writer.

]]> Don't be so catty, catmoves...Kate is an excellent writer.

]]> Comment #13 by davescott http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:24:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/13 The poster confuses the point of view of the reporter with that of people she is quoting or whose views she is stating as part of the  article.

]]> The poster confuses the point of view of the reporter with that of people she is quoting or whose views she is stating as part of the  article.

]]> Comment #14 by socsciprof http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/ Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:21:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-02-cap-and-traitors/14 Cap and Trade uses market incentives rather than command and control regulation. Have Republican leaders forgotten that they support this approach? Remember Poppy Bush supported cap and trade for SO2 and it worked for reducing emissions and creating opportunities for cleaner power plants to make money? (Alas NOX reductions were voluntary and acid rain remains an environmental problem for NE forests...but progress).

Pundits are self serving and manipulative, careless of public interests, and they hurt the Repub Party's chances long-term.

]]> Cap and Trade uses market incentives rather than command and control regulation. Have Republican leaders forgotten that they support this approach? Remember Poppy Bush supported cap and trade for SO2 and it worked for reducing emissions and creating opportunities for cleaner power plants to make money? (Alas NOX reductions were voluntary and acid rain remains an environmental problem for NE forests...but progress).

Pundits are self serving and manipulative, careless of public interests, and they hurt the Repub Party's chances long-term.

]]>