<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for An interview with Rep. Ed Markey about the politics of climate change]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Roberttweed69</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/markey/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:00:37 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/markey/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>crazy science</strong></p><p>To suggest man is creating warming on earth is, well just not true.</p><p>
What has happened is science has become political. This is very sad.</p><p>
Temps have gone up and down for millions of years. Solar activity may have a lot to do with our current warming trend.</p><p>
The people who now suggest we make major changes to our economy and lifestyle in order to "save the planet" are not interested in doing anything other then to limit freedom.</p><p>
We sure can't predict the weather for next week ... much less the next 50 to 200 years.</p><p>
Al Gore did not invent the internet and he sure has no clue about the science of global warming ... he knows a lot about the politics of socialism ... that is what he is concerned about. </p><p>
Bunk!</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>crazy science</strong></p><p>To suggest man is creating warming on earth is, well just not true.</p><p>
What has happened is science has become political. This is very sad.</p><p>
Temps have gone up and down for millions of years. Solar activity may have a lot to do with our current warming trend.</p><p>
The people who now suggest we make major changes to our economy and lifestyle in order to "save the planet" are not interested in doing anything other then to limit freedom.</p><p>
We sure can't predict the weather for next week ... much less the next 50 to 200 years.</p><p>
Al Gore did not invent the internet and he sure has no clue about the science of global warming ... he knows a lot about the politics of socialism ... that is what he is concerned about. </p><p>
Bunk!</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by Pangolin</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/markey/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:32:01 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/markey/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Nobody is allowed their own facts.</strong></p><p>At this point the data makes it very clear that man is indeed warming the climate by emitting excess carbon dioxide. The physics of that are beyond a doubt. Excess CO2 traps heat and and the amount of heat in the atmosphere is rising. </p><p>
We are yearly releasing more CO2 by burning fossil fuels than the uptake by every living thing on earth. We could convert every plant on the planet to charcoal and bury it in a given year and still not reduce the growth in atmospheric CO2. </p><p>
Cap and trade systems just put off the day when we decide we are going to get serious about reducing CO2 emissions. We have to quit burning fossil fuels entirely.</p><p>
The US should institute a CO2 tax and return the money to taxpayers in the form of reduced payroll taxes. Taxpayers would quickly act to start saving energy rather than pay for the right to keep polluting. </p><p>
Businesses that reduced their power usage would be able to extract some of the money returned to taxpayers in the form sales of cheaper products. &nbsp;</p><p>
As long as a carbon tax is returned to voters dollar for dollar they will be willing to work with it. Since all sectors would pay the carbon tax and only payroll taxed employees would get tax credits or rebates the voter gets an initial bonus. </p><p>
It would be a revenue neutral way to reduce emissions without the Enron-style cap and trade fraud. </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Nobody is allowed their own facts.</strong></p><p>At this point the data makes it very clear that man is indeed warming the climate by emitting excess carbon dioxide. The physics of that are beyond a doubt. Excess CO2 traps heat and and the amount of heat in the atmosphere is rising. </p><p>
We are yearly releasing more CO2 by burning fossil fuels than the uptake by every living thing on earth. We could convert every plant on the planet to charcoal and bury it in a given year and still not reduce the growth in atmospheric CO2. </p><p>
Cap and trade systems just put off the day when we decide we are going to get serious about reducing CO2 emissions. We have to quit burning fossil fuels entirely.</p><p>
The US should institute a CO2 tax and return the money to taxpayers in the form of reduced payroll taxes. Taxpayers would quickly act to start saving energy rather than pay for the right to keep polluting. </p><p>
Businesses that reduced their power usage would be able to extract some of the money returned to taxpayers in the form sales of cheaper products. &nbsp;</p><p>
As long as a carbon tax is returned to voters dollar for dollar they will be willing to work with it. Since all sectors would pay the carbon tax and only payroll taxed employees would get tax credits or rebates the voter gets an initial bonus. </p><p>
It would be a revenue neutral way to reduce emissions without the Enron-style cap and trade fraud. </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by Mmimika</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/markey/</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:22:24 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/markey/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>ad hominem attacks on Al Gore</strong></p><p>... suggest that you can't take the evidence head on. Gore is communicating the consensus of scientists on the issue of global warming. You claim to have a PhD in Earth sciences - as such you should have a handle on the science. So why do you stoop to smearing the messenger? </p><p>
As for those smears - well, first, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet, just as John McCain does not have a black love child, and Ann Richardson is not a lesbian. Those were all campaign smears. </p><p>
Second, Al Gore actually was a crucial stakeholder in the development of the www. Its hard to find a history of the www which does not mention him. After the 2000 election, even partisan Republicans have been happy to acknowledge Gore's role:</p><p>
Newt Gingrich, 9/2000 in an address to the American Political Science Association:</p><p>
"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is--and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a "futures group"--the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen."</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>ad hominem attacks on Al Gore</strong></p><p>... suggest that you can't take the evidence head on. Gore is communicating the consensus of scientists on the issue of global warming. You claim to have a PhD in Earth sciences - as such you should have a handle on the science. So why do you stoop to smearing the messenger? </p><p>
As for those smears - well, first, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet, just as John McCain does not have a black love child, and Ann Richardson is not a lesbian. Those were all campaign smears. </p><p>
Second, Al Gore actually was a crucial stakeholder in the development of the www. Its hard to find a history of the www which does not mention him. After the 2000 election, even partisan Republicans have been happy to acknowledge Gore's role:</p><p>
Newt Gingrich, 9/2000 in an address to the American Political Science Association:</p><p>
"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is--and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a "futures group"--the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen."</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by bailsout</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/markey/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:42:10 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/markey/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>population control toward climate control</strong></p><p>Not a single word on creating incentives for couples to not have children or fewer children.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>population control toward climate control</strong></p><p>Not a single word on creating incentives for couples to not have children or fewer children.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by cpreed</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/markey/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:32:06 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/markey/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>population</strong></p><p>Well, firtility rate in the US is below replacement, meaning that without immigration our population is acctaully decreasing. This is the case in most developed countries. In fact, some would also argue that population growth has made us more efficient and technologically advanced. I think that we have reached a carrying capacity in most developed countries. We will have to figure out how to live with this many people. </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>population</strong></p><p>Well, firtility rate in the US is below replacement, meaning that without immigration our population is acctaully decreasing. This is the case in most developed countries. In fact, some would also argue that population growth has made us more efficient and technologically advanced. I think that we have reached a carrying capacity in most developed countries. We will have to figure out how to live with this many people. </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by Pangolin</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/markey/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:01:16 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/markey/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The flat earth society chimes in.....</strong></p><p>The Climate Change naysayers seem to want a physics unique to the issues they disagree with. The relationship between CO2 levels and climate changes in the past has been proven with a high degree of confidence. </p><p>
Please stay off the internet if you can't believe in physics. For you mythologists the internet is run by demons trapped in computers.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The flat earth society chimes in.....</strong></p><p>The Climate Change naysayers seem to want a physics unique to the issues they disagree with. The relationship between CO2 levels and climate changes in the past has been proven with a high degree of confidence. </p><p>
Please stay off the internet if you can't believe in physics. For you mythologists the internet is run by demons trapped in computers.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>