All of a sudden… well, not quite all of a sudden, but recently… I have noticed my liberal friends (except for the most extreme and knee-jerk) are not very interested in discussing man-made global warming. The subject rarely comes up and, when it does, it is passed over quickly, given only a nod. It’s as if that was last year’s – or last decade’s – fad, at the very moment the House of Representatives has been browbeaten by LaPelosita into voting for a cap-and-trade bill no known person has read, let alone understood.
Scratching my head, I watched CSPAN when John Boehner read a bit of it on the house floor. Then my local congressman Henry Waxman received his plaudits as sponsor of the bill. I wondered if, somewhere deep inside him, Henry was worried. I know he has virtually no scientific training. He has even admitted in hearings that he relies on “experts.” Doesn’t he ever wonder if he picked the wrong ones? Is he aware of accusations the EPA just suppressed a skeptical global warming report from a graduate of CalTech and MIT? (Yes, I know his MIT degree is economics, but the CalTech is physics. Henry’s degree is in poli sci from UCLA.) Oh, well, history will resolve this – or not. In the short term I suggest Waxman et al have a read of Brecht’s Galileo. [Useless. They'll probably think they're Galileo and not the reactionary prelates.-ed. You're right. My bad.]
Anyway, it’s clear that the natives are restless. According to The Hill, One Democrat was upset that his leaders would needlessly force vulnerable Dems to vote for a bill that will come back to haunt them. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate.
“A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law,” Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down.
It will be interesting to see whether Obama will really put his weight behind this one – or if he will let LaPelosita twist.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
73 Comments
1. Barry Dauphin:One of the reasons they hadn’t read the bill is that it wasn’t even finished being written. Pelosi rammed this through because she knows it was now or never. She is a poll who does not care what tomorrow brings in terms of refuting the science of AGW. She can keep her hogs fed with stuff like this. She is a typical Democrat operative and as subtle as a freight train. She’s a believer that she can easily co-opt next year’s trend. If the Dems turn anti-AGW, she’ll write a bill to capitalize on that.
Jun 28, 2009 - 1:12 pm 2. Tom:“Oh, well, history will resolve this – or not.”
Probably not. Take DDT for example. History is written by the victors.
Jun 28, 2009 - 2:14 pm 3. Promoguy:Hell Roger, at least your liberal friends talk to you.
Jun 28, 2009 - 2:18 pm 4. Andrew_M_Garland:“Do The Right Thing” Bill
Future News:
An ashamed Congress has debated the “Do The Right Thing” bill for a week, and it is expected to pass today. Senate approval is expected in short order.
A leading Congressman spoke anonymously to avoid “electoral difficulties”:
Jun 28, 2009 - 2:24 pm 5. David L.:Your friends’ reluctance to talk may be due less to uncertainty and embarrassment than to arrogance and triumphalism. After all, if laws to prevent “carbon pollution” can be enacted and regulations promulgated, the questions are no longer those of science; only enforcement.
Jun 28, 2009 - 2:53 pm 6. Barry Dauphin:The less they talk, the less CO2 they emit. If they can be coaxed into holding their breaths say 20% of the time, just think what good it would do for many environments.
Jun 28, 2009 - 3:20 pm 7. texastickled:Me thinks that the reality of this Bill is sinking in. Also, that man made global warming has not been fully proven.
July 4th there are over 1800 Tea Parties scheduled. Then you will hear the silent majority say NO TO CAP AND TRADE!:-)
Jun 28, 2009 - 3:27 pm 8. Ad Noctum:It doesn’t surprise me that the lefties don’t talk about AGW; when it comes to this administration or Obama himself I get nothing but thin lipped silence from those people who just a few months ago were vocal in their support of the Obambi and all his works.
Jun 28, 2009 - 3:38 pm 9. Terrye:I wish I could find the link, but the other day I read that Inhofe had put together a document refuting man made global warming. He had 700 scientists contributing to the study. He also had MIT look at this cap and trade legislation and they said it was a huge tax increase.
I think Inhofe might have the last laugh on this. He also said it will die in the Senate.
We shall see.
As for why people do not want to talk about it…I think that the years of promising doom and gloom and disaster have taken their toll. The polar caps are still there. NYC has not gone under water. People are starting to think the whole thing just might be a bit of an exaggeration.
Jun 28, 2009 - 4:06 pm 10. M. Report:“The truth wiil out”
In 1960, the Loony Liberal Left could
Jun 28, 2009 - 4:57 pm 11. chuck:take advantage of the unsettled state
of this, and other scientific questions,
to push their own Politically Correct answers forward as gospel; Real scientiste
were handicapped by their honest doubts
as to the answers.
Today, mostly due to the increases in data
analysis made possible by supercomputers,
the facts are coming into focus, and the
PC Credo is corroding, in psychology,
genetics, and climatology; Watch for it.
Terrye,
Warren Buffett has also called it an enormous tax, and a regressive tax at that.
Jun 28, 2009 - 6:44 pm 12. Mike_K:The left still thinks that the science is “settled” although none of them knows anything about science. Al Gore flunked out of divinity school for chrissakes !
Jun 28, 2009 - 7:05 pm 13. rascalfair:Hey Roger! You lucked out….your liberal friends are still your friends. I can’t even talk to my grown children about this stuff.
Jun 28, 2009 - 8:33 pm 14. Instapundit » Blog Archive » ROGER SIMON: My liberal friends don’t want to talk about global warming anymore. “All of a sudde…:[...] SIMON: My liberal friends don’t want to talk about global warming anymore. “All of a sudden… well, not quite all of a sudden, but recently… I have noticed my [...]
Jun 29, 2009 - 4:22 am 15. betsybounds:Well I’ve thought for a long time that one of the big reasons for the hurry on this is that these guys know the climate is cooling, but that that fact hasn’t quite sunk in with the general population yet. It’s starting to, but has a ways to go. They want to be able to get something passed and in force so that, when cooling is really humming along, they can say, “See, we’ve begun to stop global warming! But we’ve ONLY begun–we must follow up on this success! We must do even more!”
Hang on. It’s goon to be a boompy ride.
Jun 29, 2009 - 4:40 am 16. AllenS:I also have liberal friends. Upon hearing my skepticism about global warming, their immediate Gore-like response was: “You believe that the earth is flat.” I think that they finally concluded that such a response was idiotic and nonsense. Now, they just don’t want to talk about it.
Jun 29, 2009 - 4:53 am 17. D. Anghelone:“LaPelosita.”
A shaggy-girl story?
Jun 29, 2009 - 4:58 am 18. gk1:This wouldn’t be the first time passionate know nothings pushed a bill through congress without fully thinking it through. Prohibition springs to mind where a forceful,narrow,minority of zealots finally got their way only to see the rest of the country flount it till it became irrelevant. What is sad about this is the upcoming backlash that will befall science as it is seen as yet another politicized discipline that had is reputation polluted by mediocrities. That will be the worst outcome of all.
Jun 29, 2009 - 5:09 am 19. Clyde:I prefer “Pelocchio.” There ain’t enough plastic in California to fix that nose!
Jun 29, 2009 - 5:13 am 20. davidingeorgia:don’t forget, a lot of the same idiots/fascists/king of the world wannabes who have screamed the loudest about the looming disaster of global warming cooking us all, etc. etc., were screaming just as loudly 30+ years ago about the impending doom of a coming ice age (something that actually has more scientific evidence supporting it than the GW lunacy does)…and the lemming herd will stampede in whichever direction it’s spooked into running toward.
Jun 29, 2009 - 5:31 am 21. ~Paules:Al Gore must have learned something in divinity school. After all, he’s the high priest of his own religion while he does a booming business in indulgences.
Jun 29, 2009 - 5:38 am 22. Wellspring:Climate is a dynamic and strange thing. I do believe that man-made CO2 is, overall, increasing temperatures. This is based on my understanding of the science and the models. However, this bill is a piece crap. It’s unlikely to have an effect, but even if it did we’re all alone out here (China and India refuse to participate, and Europe has cheated in Kyoto). The cost of reducing CO2 emissions is so high, it’s unlikely to be sustainable– the economic pain will outweigh even the high costs of global warming. And that’s assuming we’re not headed into another Maunder Minimum (solar-caused mini ice age).
The real solution for environmental problems of all kinds is economic growth. Prosperity creates the kind of affluent people who are rich enough to actually worry about these kinds of issues, and creates the economic surpluses to address them.
Taken as a whole (the bailouts, the corruption, nationalizations, tax increases, and debt loads), it seems like this administration’s policies are tailor made to destroy prosperity.
Incidentally, Roger: a PhD in economics is mostly about methodological techniques. Most of the econometric and statistical courses are equally applicable in the physical sciences. His page has crashed from all the traffic, so I can’t look over this paper in particular, though. Also, consider that ecological problems are inherently multi-disciplinary; whatever your degree is, you still need biology, chemistry, physics, economics, anthropology etc etc etc. A degree in econ is a solid foundation, every bit as valid as a natural science.
Jun 29, 2009 - 5:50 am 23. megapotamus:Wellspring, CO2 content has gone up (a miniscule amount of a miniscule total volume) and temps have gone down. Manmade CO2 emmissions have gone up, including in capped countries and yet temps fall. There is no scientific or even intellectual reason to give ANY slack on this topic. Consult those “models” again and see that they do not even predict the past, much less the future. If by “science” you mean the simple physical fact that a more dense atmosphere is more insulating, which is the ONE factual foundation for this whole pile of malarkey, that is true but has obviously, emprically already been swamped by forces beyond the control of even our Affirmative Action Messiat. There is no global warming, there is global cooling. That is a simple fact of the last decade.
Jun 29, 2009 - 6:15 am 24. The Monster:Every day that passes in the current sunspot cycle, it becomes clearer that it is a deep minimum like the one that brought on The Little Ice Age, if not the long-overdue full-blown one.
Paleoclimatologists agree that the normal cycle is about 100K years of ice age and 10K of interglacial. We’re due for one of the biggies, and back in the ’70s, the scientific “consensus” was that we were headed that general direction.
Another thing they all agree on is that there is about an 800-year lag between the temperature and CO2 increases/decreases. I have politely asked Believers to explain this to me, and gotten various responses, ranging from “TROLL!”, to “That’s already been explained”, to “There’s a feedback mechanism whereby the increase/decrease in temperatures produces an additional increase/decrease in CO2″. That one fascinates me, because as far as it goes, it makes some sense. But it leaves the logical follow-up question, which is “If CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas, how is it that, when it is at its lowest/highest, temperatures go the opposite direction for eight centuries in the first place?”
<crickets>
Jun 29, 2009 - 6:15 am 25. Sam Spade:The problem with AGW is that there is a kernel of truth to it. Increased CO2 levels should, all else being equal, lead to increased temperatures. The effect gets smaller as CO2 levels rise. Having said that, all else is rarely equal, and CO2 levels are a good proxy for industrialization. Why should we de-industrialize just because the world might become warmer than it currently is? How warm should the earth be? What alternate solutions will we deprive ourselves of by becoming dramatically poorer over the next 50 years? What happens when the poorer countries continue to industrialize anyway?
Jun 29, 2009 - 6:19 am 26. Jack Okie:My Sen. Inhofe has also done yeoman work in keeping user fees off the backs of general aviation. Such fees, as they have in Europe, stifle GA and limit the benefits of aviation to the airlines and high rollers.
And I might mention that Sen. Coburn is also MY senator (preen, preen).
Jun 29, 2009 - 6:22 am 27. John C. Randolph:Anyone who voted for that bill had better avoid debating their opponent in the next election. The only question you have to ask them is “did you read the bill?” If they say yes, they’re lying. If they say no, the next question is why the HELL would you vote for a bill without even knowing what’s in it?
-jcr
Jun 29, 2009 - 6:35 am 28. Jack Okie:Wellspring:
Right off the bat, there are three (among many) facts which induce skepticism in AGW:
1. The effect of CO2 is asymptotic – the greenhouse effect approaches a limit past which more CO2 has no effect.
2. The AGW models do not handle water vapor well, if at all, yet water vapor’s greenhouse effect is much greater than CO2.
3. Current research shows that historically, increases in CO2 consistently trail warming by around 800 years, thus indicating the increased CO2 levels are a consequence of, rather than cause, of warming.
There are other causes for skepticism about the AGW crowd’s objectivity and commitment to science: The punishments attempted and inflicted on Bjorn Lomborg after he published “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. Also the fact that James Hansen, NASA scientist and leading AGW modeler, got himself arrested at an environmental protest the other day. As an example of the mendacity of the AGW inquisition, Lomborg was criticized for speaking out when “he’s not a climatologist, so what does he know?”. He is, however, a statistician, and since the AGW argument is based on statistical methods – well, as they say, you do the math.
Jun 29, 2009 - 6:38 am 29. The Unbearable Lightness of Barak:If anything like this monster passes both houses, we will remember Waxman and Markey as we remember Smoot and Hawley.
Jun 29, 2009 - 7:01 am 30. Choey:Hansen isn’t a climatologist either. He’s an astronomer.
Jun 29, 2009 - 7:13 am 31. Bill:Roger great observation about man made global warming and its utility for pushing issues. Down here in So. Florida our local newpaper the Palm Beach Post had the big scare, global warming, up on its front page showing that in only 100 years “gasp” the ocean would flood the Everglades and inundate the coastal areas. After work I heard a group discussing this news in the usual manner of what can we do etc. I offered that perhaps, since the Everglades is a goner why don’t we stop spending a billion a year on Everglades restoration and concentrate on what we should do to preserve the communities that were to be flooded, maybe start building dikes like the Dutch. Yes, they too changed the subject.
Jun 29, 2009 - 7:19 am 32. Trouble:The enviros have had their day. I just saw an advert (on the Discovery Channel!) for a new hygienic product called “Degree V-12″ and it was pitched with a dude driving 130 mph in a high-powered sports car. The fact that they chose this name – even on a product pitched to men – speaks volumes about the way this issue is playing in the public imagination.
17.
“LaPelosita.”
A shaggy-girl story?
Please don’t mention “shag” and “Pelosi” in the same sentence. What a revoltin’ idea.
Jun 29, 2009 - 7:42 am 33. Our Numbers Rise Like the Tide « Buttle’s World:[...] Simon sees a trend. Leave a [...]
Jun 29, 2009 - 8:01 am 34. Melvin Winter:Reminds me of this newspaper parody entitled “Democrats Force Quick Vote on ‘Cap and Tax’ Legislation, Citing an ‘Escalating Skepticism Crisis’ Regarding Climate Warming Theories”: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/democrats-force-quick-vote-on-cap-and.html
Jun 29, 2009 - 8:10 am 35. Steve:I wonder if your liberal friends think that not talking now somehow will save them from being accountable later. They sound like gutless wonders.
Jun 29, 2009 - 8:16 am 36. leishman:I’ve used a version of Sam Spade’s question–i.e., “So tell me, what is the ideal temperature of the Earth?”–and have yet to receive a thoughtful, intelligent answer from any eco-leftie. This after 50 or so tries on my liberal friends. (40+ of those 50 answers contained the invective “Bush”.)
Jun 29, 2009 - 8:38 am 37. Paul:Not only have my liberal friends stopped yammering on about AGW, they have stopped talking about politics in general. They know, or at least suspect, that their Messiah and his minions in Congress are busy furiously punching holes in the bottom of the boat.
Jun 29, 2009 - 8:51 am 38. MikeD:“A degree in econ is a solid foundation, every bit as valid as a natural science.”
I am reminded of a friend (an economist, actually) who, with a smile on his face, was fond or repeating the old saw that if you laid all of the economists in the world end to end you would never reach a conclusion.
Kind of like climatologists.
Jun 29, 2009 - 9:12 am 39. dphorstick:The king has no clothes. Al Gore is a laughing stock and the economic underpinnings of capa trade are totally backward. Those with reliable energy should be charged less than the free riding wind and solar dolts. If it ever does work fine, but if you want it, pay for it.
Jun 29, 2009 - 9:17 am 40. Thomass:Promoguy:
“Hell Roger, at least your liberal friends talk to you.”
Ahh, left wing friends are over rated.
Jun 29, 2009 - 9:28 am 41. Thomass:22. Wellspring:
“Climate is a dynamic and strange thing. I do believe that man-made CO2 is, overall, increasing temperatures. This is based on my understanding of the science and the models. However, this bill is a piece crap.”
I agree. I think CO2 is making the earth a warmer but the democrat’s / global left party line solutions are cr*p. We need economic growth so we can deal with (and or work around) the problem since its not going away. If we were serious about working on it ourselves (not that we can get any other country to do anything) we’d be building nuke plants right now…. Clearly, we (dems not only included, but in power and leading right now) are not serious.
Jun 29, 2009 - 9:35 am 42. Bart:The question of CO2 leading or lagging temperature increases is a question of what is doing the forcing. If temperatures increase, then CO2 should lag in increasing. If CO2 increases, then the temperature increase should lag the CO2 increase.
However, the conclusion that CO2 concentrations have increased now because of industrial activity is post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy. The conclusion relies on the assumption of certain positive feedbacks, an assumption which has not been empirically confirmed, and for which some noted climate scientists (e.g., Lindzen at MIT) have offered counter-evidences.
Liberals who do not understand science take the simplistic view that it is “obvious” that CO2 is increasing due to our activities, ergo it is obvious this is increasing temperatures, hence you are stupid if you do not agree with them. It is an adolescent mentality.
Jun 29, 2009 - 9:54 am 43. The Old Guy:I believe it was also Bjorn Lomborg that pointed out that the benefits of global warming would outweigh the negative impacts – in lives and dollars.
So even if you believe in AGW (questionable at best), and believe that this bill will reduce/reverse it (almost certainly not the case), the bill’s impact is that more people die earlier.
Plus the reduction in economic growth and surplus in the US economy will have a host of bad effects on our ability to pay for helath care (like the $40 Trillion unfunded Medicare liability that’s coming due), and every other “public good”.
Jun 29, 2009 - 9:56 am 44. Strawman:The good news is that we don’t have a comprehensive energy policy. The bad news is that we don’t have a comprehensive energy policy. If we weren’t chasing this carbon unicorn, we might have been actually able to do something to reduce oil imports. The upshot of this is that the Magic Kingdom, Iran, Venezuela, and a lot of other bad people will continue to get a stream of our cash that we don’t have.
The only rational oil consumer in the world is China. Whatever they’re doing, we should be doing. That includes nuke and Fischer-Tropsch.
Jun 29, 2009 - 9:56 am 45. Tom Crispin:Re: “LaPelosita.”
Maybe Obama/Pelosi/Reid are best described as the Third Triumvirate?
Jun 29, 2009 - 10:07 am 46. doug l:Mabye your leftwing friends won’t talk because they’ve been insulted by those (not necessarily you) on the right, their ideological counterparts, in the same way they the left wing talks so poorly of those whom they percieve to be their ideological opponents, those of us who identify with the right, and that maybe the climate itself it not really the issue.
Jun 29, 2009 - 10:31 am 47. Strawman:I’m a relatively freethinking guy who admires aspects of both conservatism and liberalism, recognizing that there is a lot of historical and ideosyncratic definitions of just what those terms actually mean, and yet there are clearly different perspectives, one class of which any time might be the right one, but at no time are either positions necessarily better without an objective understanding of what the issue being addressed is.
When it comes to climate, I think you might do better in talking with and persuading your opposite wing friends, if in fact you DO actually want to persuade them, if one restrains the accusative words such as: “world control” and “religion of ignorance”, or suggest your fellow arguer is a “dupe” or “commie” or “fascist” or “terrorist”…these may be how you feel, but they have never been shown to actually change people’s minds, or even open up a bit so that can approach a problem objectively. If your real reason to “call a spade a spade” is to just blow off steam and draw the applause of your fellow howler monkeys, well by all means, go ahead, but you will look less than genuine if you claim the high ground because for some unknown reason your opponent wont subordinate themselves to you with your superior howling. And if you think the wrong howlers are on the other side from whichever side you think you’re on, well, you’re half right!
There are in fact some very serious human induced impacts that we are facing. I think it’s too bad that CO2 has become the divisive issue. I feel that we have all been duped, though not by our ideological opponents, or even by evil greedy scientists, but by the media circus that has sprung up around this emerging crisis who have been eagerly promoting the planet class fight to the finnish. As I say, I don’t think it’s CO2 we should worry about, and maybe “worry” is the term that’s gotten us into this useless exercise in arguementation instead of honest debate and continued research, or even working on plans that might work if we, whoever we are, turn out to be wrong.
While I’m associated with no religion, and am probably more a freethinking when it comes to religion than I am in any other realm of human thought, I know enough of the writing to realize that my favorite apostle was Thomas and take his act of skepticism as one of the more redeeming quality the scripture.
As for why they don’t want to talk about it, this reminds me of the homeless problem: we had a huge problem when Reagan and Bush I were president, and then it disappeared when Clinton was inaugurated.
I think that at some level, they know that this is a big charade. And now that the economy is coming unglued, they don’t have the energy for it. Particularly when their messiah had punked them on every issue from gay marriage to Gitmo.
The cult of Teh One is rapidly going to way of mainline Christianity; they want to believe, but the thrill is gone.
Jun 29, 2009 - 10:34 am 48. Wellspring:@ lots of people: Thanks for all the skeptic info on CO2 vs climate. I’ll go through it (though I should warn you I’ve done so before) and while I don’t believe that the science is a slam dunk, that AGW is the way to be betting at the moment. As I said, though, the way out is prosperity, not trying to choke off our energy supplies. When we try to bring an enemy’s economy to its knees, the way we do it is through sanctions– this appears to be a kind of self-sanction.
@Thomass: Thanks for the kind words, and I agree completely. Expanded use of nuclear power is a great idea, and for so many strategic, economic and environmental reasons that it’s positively criminal that the environmental movement has been blocking it.
Jun 29, 2009 - 10:44 am 49. Professor Guvinoff:A new branch of mathematics was recently created.
It is called “Transcendental Telepromptery” Seminal to this groundbreaking discipline is the so-called “LaPelosita theorem”, which states:
“Climate change is Global warming transmogrified by the spirit of bipartisanship”.
First corollary: “Cap-and-trade is the best man-made accelerant of the natural process of creative destruction”.
Second corollary: “The public option carefully prepared for shipment to the health industry may look like a Trojan horse, but it is only an brave donkey with the best of intentions”.
Third corollary: “The CIA will never warn you explicitely that their reports are not meant to be exploited for political advantage just because they are confidential”.
Fourth corollary: “One could speak in defense of freedom while hoping to change the hearts of the tyrants with good words if the State department was in favor of it”.
Feel free to add you own deductions.
Jun 29, 2009 - 11:26 am 50. Victor Erimita:My liberal friends of course rely on NYT/NPR Land’s assertion that “the science is settled.” I tell them they think that because they only read sources that say that. They ask me where I get my information. I have links to hundreds of studies and articles showing scientific holes in, or outright refutations of, the AGW alarmist caee. One of the best is the Brookhaven Labs study from 2007 (Google Brookhaven Labs global warming study.) It shows a small impact of anthropogenic CO2, most of which we have already seen, no delay effect between CO2 production and resulting warming (trashing the claim that we will see much worse warming from the CO2 already produced) and that after a certain point more CO2 doesn’t produce more heating, much like painting a wondow black the 5th time doesn;pt shut out more light than you shut out with the first coat.
My liberal friends usually ask that I send them information that clashes with their assumptions, because of course, being openminded, objective, reality-based students of reason, they are open to all information. But when I do, their reaction is (1) why are you so obsessed with this? (uhh, you asked for the information) and then (2) well, I really don’t find this subject very interesting.
And then—no more discussion. The reality based community. No faith-based systems here, nosirree.
Jun 29, 2009 - 11:35 am 51. LarryD:Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the AGW is right, this bill would only make a minute fraction of a degree difference decades from now. And at horrendous expense.
Bjøn Lomborg has argued for years that a better strategy is to just adapt to environmental changes.
Jun 29, 2009 - 11:36 am 52. EdSki:I would be very surprised if the Senate doesn’t pass it. They’ve got the votes, and the Obama tsunami its still at full force.
Jun 29, 2009 - 12:20 pm 53. tim maguire:I hadn’t really thought about it until I read this article and comments, but maybe Obama’s greatest acheivement will be getting liberals to stop talking about politics. The ones in my life lay off it more.
Jun 29, 2009 - 12:35 pm 54. Ted:It’s a no-brainer: There is no dialog because the right won’t listen to the left and left won’t listen to the right. Both sides are set in their ways.
Jun 29, 2009 - 12:54 pm 55. SukieTawdry:Maybe even liberals are starting to realize that none of the dire predictions are panning out. According to global warming dictum, most of the warming should be occurring in the global oceans and yet JPL, which has been measuring ocean temperatures, finds the oceans have actually cooled, albeit only slightly. Scientists now admit they haven’t paid nearly enough attention to clouds and the ways in which they act as natural thermostats. Scientists experimenting with the effects of increased CO2 on crop growth find improvements in yield and quality instead of the stunted growth they were expecting (hoping for?). The computer models have been shown to be absolute crap. Al Gore sounds like a crackpot up there in front Congress comparing skeptics to flat earthers. Even thick-headed liberals aren’t immune to repeated blows with a cluebat.
And then, too, I’m sure many of Roger’s liberal friends have affluent, even opulent, lifestyles and maybe, just maybe, they’re getting sick of their own hypocrisy. Stranger things have happened.
Jun 29, 2009 - 3:06 pm 56. Oldcrow:You have liberal friends? Why?
Jun 29, 2009 - 10:48 pm 57. DanaMac:You know what else Democrat friends don’t want to talk about anymore? Torture. Ever since it was discovered that Pelosi and the Dems knew about waterboarding and were ok with it, torture is off the table.
Gitmo will be next.
Jun 30, 2009 - 1:04 am 58. straightman:Start practicing, guys: Senator Franken.
Jun 30, 2009 - 11:18 am 59. Ed Driscoll » “That’s One Devastating Postage Stamp”:[...] And speaking of cap & tax, Roger L. Simon writes, “My liberal friends don’t want to talk about global warming anymore”: It’s as if that was last year’s – or last decade’s – fad, at the very moment [...]
Jun 30, 2009 - 1:12 pm 60. Crusader:58. straightman:
Start practicing, guys: Senator Franken.
Jun 30, 2009 – 11:18 am
So what he’s a clown that will be the gift that keeps on giving for the next 5.5 years. Thanks!
Jun 30, 2009 - 1:43 pm 61. Strawman:Some redneck hick racist denier (I think I missed a few) said:
He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965, together with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga.
Jun 30, 2009 - 2:20 pm 62. Strawman:As to why they don’t want to talk about it? Same reason why the Euros are suddenly sobering up and realizing that the have to start acting like adults for the first time since WWII: the American government has abdicated.
It was easy to drive your Escalade to your Sierra Club cocktail party and preen about how we must do something about the looming crisis of climate change when everyone felt secure in their knowledge that all of this was just idle talk. I think it’s finally dawned on the greener-than-thou set that this shiite is actually going to cost them serious money, at a time when people aren’t paying thousands for custom pottery like they did a couple years ago.
A cold shower kind of puts theoretical warming into perspective.
Jun 30, 2009 - 2:30 pm 63. Gaffe Prices:that Keenzy guy said ” When someone presents me with facts as yet not previously in evidence, I change my mind. What do you do?”
With Liberals it means we, the adults, have to change their diapers.
Jul 1, 2009 - 5:30 am 64. I blame Bush:Hope you’re right. Unfortunately the church of AGW is going to get a following breeze after the gabfest in Copenhagen, or wherever it is, in December. The know their religion is under attack, and they’ll make the most of it.
Jul 1, 2009 - 3:44 pm 65. kathy:58. straightman: Start practicing, guys: Senator Franken.
King Obama’s Court now has its Jester.
Jul 1, 2009 - 4:02 pm 66. Bohemond:58. straightman:
“Start practicing, guys: Senator Franken.”
I’ve been warming up on “Vice-President Biden.” A real laff riot.
Jul 1, 2009 - 4:20 pm 67. rickb308:19. Clyde:
I prefer “Pelocchio.” There ain’t enough plastic in California to fix that nose!
Sure there is. Now that Michael Jackson’s done using his.
Jul 1, 2009 - 5:31 pm 68. Delia:LOL! Roger, you are freakin’ AWESOME. Thank you for founding PJM.
Jul 1, 2009 - 8:53 pm 69. California Dreamer:I guess there was too much man-made warming in Waxman’s office today and he was too reluctant to turn on the AC. So if he fainted from the heat what will happen next? (from Breitbart via Drudge):
Is the karmic go-around-comes-around in effect?
Jul 1, 2009 - 11:24 pm 70. KB:Paul #47
Not only have my liberal friends stopped yammering on about AGW, they have stopped talking about politics in general. They know, or at least suspect, that their Messiah and his minions in Congress are busy furiously punching holes in the bottom of the boat.
Yeah, the only liberal friends of mine who continue to talk Barak are the ones who like him for his celebrity. They’re the ones who never paid attention to his politics…before or after the election.
I usually reply “Oh yeah, you read that in People?”, but the truth is most of Barak’s coverage continues to be based on his celebrity.
Oh well.
Jul 2, 2009 - 10:07 am 71. Bob:My favorite part of the bill is section 788 which simply reads “Section Reserved”. Even if they did read the bill no one knows what they will put into this placeholder after the vote. Such audacity.
Jul 2, 2009 - 2:38 pm 72. Soak The Poor:maybe Obama’s greatest acheivement will be getting liberals to stop talking about politics
If this bill goes through, he’ll also see to it that the poor finally pay their fair share of taxes.
Jul 3, 2009 - 12:56 am 73. Locomotive Breath:The Marxists of the world were in agony after the fall of the Soviet Union because it proved Marxism was a load of crap. AGW is a fiction propagated by the same old bunch of Marxists who still want to run your life. In contrast to Marxist economic theories, AGW has the advantage of being not disprovable by real world events (in our lifetimes at least).
As someone else said, “Green is the new Red”.
Jul 3, 2009 - 7:18 am