This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
...and no, John, "action" does not include "filibuster."
When we finally clear health care reform from the table, what should Congress take up next? Climate change and energy security. No, not just because I say so (although the world would be a better place of legislation passed through the Madville Times first). Congress should act on climate and energy because the voters want them to.
A new poll by Benenson Strategy Group finds cap-and-trade legislation would win a popular vote 58% to 37% (ah, so that's why my conservative friends get so excited about saying America's a republic and not a democracy: they don't want the people's will to be done). Dems and Republicans split as you might expect... although Dems are much more strongly for it than Republicans are against it. But the big point: the ever desirable middle, all those Independents who think this partisan bickering is silly and just don't want to have to grow gills, support legislation including cap-and-trade 52% to 41%.
Even when asked about cap and trade as a measure to address climate change, with no added info about job creation or other economic benefits of not turning Earth into Venus, only a minority of voters say cap and trade would hurt the economy.
And remember GOP pollster Frank Luntz? He advised President Bush in 2002 to focus people's attention on the "lack of scientific certainty" about global warming. Luntz's latest research finds that the climate change deniers are becoming irrelevant: a majority of Americans (Obama voters and McCain voters) believe the climate is changing, but even more agree that we should pass climate change legislation for national security. Luntz's research also finds majorities of Obama and McCain voters want cap-and-trade legislation that "will limit the amount of pollution companies can emit, giving companies incentives to reduce emissions—and holding those who don't accountable…" (Tony! People understand externalities! We're winning!)
Read Luntz's full report (in PDF) here.
I often get nervous when my thinking matches that of a majority of Americans. But that's just me. Senator Thune, Representative Herseth Sandlin, you should get nervous when your thinking doesn't.
Falls Park or The Falls? What’s the difference?
-
So a few weeks ago I was riding thru Falls Park (I usually do a couple
rides a day thru DTSF just to see what projects are going) and I noticed
the new sig...
13 hours ago
really? that many americans want action on climate change? Out of all the people i know and work with in the tri state area, you are the only one out of those hundreds that seems to want anything done. this latest pew poll seems to reflect that same thing:
ReplyDeletehttp://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010.
nevermind that the 'warming' theories are junk anyway - hard to have good science with junk numbers...
Michael,
ReplyDeleteHere is what Lorne Gunter is saying:
"Hot on the heels of Climategate — the leaking of thousands of emails and computer files that show many of the world’s leading climate scientists fudging the results of their global warming research and contriving to keep skeptics from being published in academic journals — comes what could be called Glaciergate.
Prominent among the claims of impending environmental disaster in the UN’s fourth report on climate change, published in 2007, was the prediction that all of the 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by 2035. That’s just 25 years away. Now the Times of London has discovered that this claim was not based on scientific enquiry, but rather on speculation. And old speculation at that.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/20/lorne-gunter-first-climategate-now-glaciergate.aspx#ixzz0dgTU0jE4 "
If the truth ever became widely known, the support for Cap & Trade would be about 1%.
A new poll by Benenson Strategy Group finds cap-and-trade legislation would win a popular vote 58% to 37%.
ReplyDeleteLet's have a real honest-to-God public referendum on Cap and Trade. But before anyone can cast a vote, they have to perform the Kucinich maneuver: they have to read the bill.
I seriously doubt this also. And don't forget that McCain also supported cap and trade, so a poll quoting both Obama and McCain voters on this is ridiculous on its face. There is also a difference between supporting cap and trade and believing in a small amount of climate change that could be the natural cycling of earth and sun spots etc. If I had to support an argument based on fraudulent statistics, coercion, and outright lies, how far would I get in one of your debate contests,Cory?
ReplyDeleteLinda McIntyre (nonnie), I know you want to believe the statistics are fraudulent, but you have provided no evidence that they are fraudulent. If you tried to indict a speaker's evidence just by asserting it is bogus, without providing any reasonable counterevidence of your own, you would indeed lose that point in a debate round judged by me... or by any other reasonable debate judge. I provide evidence; you provide the same old wishes and unsubstantiated talking points.
ReplyDelete"I know you want to believe the statistics are fraudulent, but you have provided no evidence that they are fraudulent."
ReplyDeleteCory,
We proved that man-made global warming is a fraud. Start informing people about the truth instead of promoting lies.
Half of the mercury, lead, cadmium, thallium, and strontium released into Earth's environment and in repose in soils is due to human activity. HALF!
ReplyDeleteHumanity is stewing in its own effluent; global climate disruption is now.
Algal blooms are symptoms of the anthropocene; identify ag polluters and prosecute them. Call AG Marty Jackley and urge him to do his job.
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.climatechangefraud.com/
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/03/dan-gainor-climategate-media-journalists/
http://www.climategate.com/
Read them, Cory.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
And then read this one.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/27/man%E2%80%99s-contribution-to-global-warming/
And this one.
And I'll sign my name this time to save you the strokes to make sure that everyone knows who I am. I would appreciate if you would so the same for all contributors using pseudo names. Thanks.
Linda McIntyre
I don't think climate is as important to the American people as you think it is, follow the link.
ReplyDeletehttp://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010.
Tim Higgins
Here is another link that disputes global warming.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html
Tim Higgins
To quote Sean Connery in The Untouchables, "Just like a wop: brings a knife to a gun fight."
ReplyDeleteLinda, again, you are arguing the point you wish was the issue rather than the issue I raise. I'm not arguing climate change science. Neither are the Luntz and Benenson reports that the original post is all about. Not one of the sites you list indicts or even mentions either Luntz or Benenson. The statistics I offer are survey results from this month indicating that a majority of Americans want action on climate change and energy security legislation. The Luntz report says that a majority of Americans believe climate change is happening and that human action either possibly, probably, or definitely is responsible. But the thrust of both reports is that even if climate change weren't happening—even if you showed everybody the climate-change denial info you've linked here, a majority of Americans would still turn to you and say, "Fine, we still want the legislation to pass, because we believe the legislation will be good for national security, the economy, and the environment."
Your argument isn't just with me; it's with a majority of Americans who say you and John Thune and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin are missing the point.
Note that Benenson (definitely) and Luntz (I think) post-date the "Climate Gate" meme launched by Russian hackers and climate deniers with January 2010 data. We could conclude that that particular bit of Beck/Limbaugh propaganda failed to gain traction outside the Fox echo chamber with the majority of Americans. Nice try, kids!
And don't forget, Linda: Frank Luntz works for Fox News.
Now that we've refocused the question, Linda, the floor remains open for any evidence that any of the evidence from Luntz and Benenson is "fradulent," coercive, or "outright lies."
Cory, you rock; your patience with people that respond to overwhelming scientific consensus with someone else's opinions as arguments of fact is legion!
ReplyDeleteReconciling a culture of greed, gluttony, and Calvinistic entitlement to consume resources with reckless abandon plays right into Monsanto's corporate strategy.
These people have nothing to lose: they are up to their areolae in debt to the captains of banking, energy production, and then buy food shipped from Chile, Mexico, and Argentina at tremendous cost from grocers peddling obesity all the while pooping in their own wells.
Firebird Tim Higgins and Michael D. Meyer come a little closer. Their first link is about popular political opinion, which is indeed the subject of Luntz and Benenson. However, the survey Tim and Michael point to addresses relative priorities. It does not say that people oppose action on climate change or energy security. It just says they are worried about some other issues even more. And that's fine. Tim & Michael's evidence doesn't find that having steak for supper is a top political priority for a majority of Americans, either. But invite them over for dinner, tell them you're serving steak, and a whole lot of Americans will say, "Heck yeah!"
ReplyDeleteAlas, Tim's second link on climate change science brings the same knife to the gun fight that Linda did. My original post makes no affirmative claim about the validity of temperature readings, data collection methods, or the number of official thermometers in the Arctic Circle. My original post makes the affirmative claim that Americans want action on climate change and energy security legislation.
Cory,
ReplyDeleteOK I agree, the majority of the people believe lies. That is what happens when the governemnt creates an education monopoly. So again, what are we going to do to bring forward the truth? Or is your mission here to continue to delete those who bring the truth so that the masses remain indoctrinated?
Cap and trade would force Industrial Ag to help pay the State of South Dakota to clean up the results of "non-point" pollution now killing mycoremediation efforts.
ReplyDeleteCap and trade is a compromise in the otherwise flagrant assault on the wetlands and waterways that sustain this stupid state's number one industry.
Cap and trade would provide some resources for stemming the rates of cancer caused by the proliferation of heavy metal oxides precipitating from subsidized coal-fired plants in Wyoming.
Cap and trade would help to remediate the effects of out-of-state plunder at the Gilt Edge and a hundred other sites leaching into aquifers.
Cap and trade seeks to hold the Dows, the Monsantos, the Cargills, and the Pfizers holding South Dakotans resposible for the own failure to thrive.
“(ah, so that's why my conservative friends get so excited about saying America's a republic and not a democracy: they don't want the people's will to be done)”
ReplyDeleteThis is the typical kind of cheap shot that is the trade mark of this web site. And when conservatives come forward in response we are blamed for being off topic. A democracy is one in which the majority rules, and the minority has no “natural rights”. The Progressive left has lies repeated over and over, such as man-made global warming is going to destroy planet earth. When they get a majority to belief their lies, they put forward legislation such as Waxman-Markey. Here is some truth about that cap-and-trade legislation:
According to Kate Sheppard, “85 percent of emission permits would be given away free at the start of the program”. Among those are coal companies and oil refineries. Don’t believe it? Will Cory, do you believe Greenpeace:
“The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions.”
This is from page 107 of Tim Carney’s Obamanomics:
“So, all these companies would need to “pay” for their emissions with permits, but they would get permits for free, with the proportions determined by negotiations between lobbyists and lawmakers.”
So Cory, are you still OK with the Democrats behind close doors discussions?
Carney goes on to point this out:
Unsurprisingly, the Government Accountability Office found that regular people would end up paying the tab while corporations pocketed the profits: “Most of the benefits of freely allocated allowances will accrue to the shareholders of the entities that receive them,” the GAO wrote. “However, consumers are unlikely to see these benefits in the form of lower prices, since most covered entities will pass on costs associated with cap-and-trade program, even when they receive allowances for free.”
So Cory, if those polled understood the above truths, would they still be in favor of it? Are you still in favor of it? Are you still in favor of big government helping out big corporations?
How about the rest of you? Do you like being lied to and/or the truth being withheld from you. Do you like being mislead? Well Cory is working tooth and nail to keep me from bringing the light of truth to this dark corner of the world. He has already deleted one comment of mine from this thread. I wonder how long this one will be allowed to stand?
And now do we all understand the dangers of destroying America’s constitutional Republic, that is based on natural rights, and converting it over to a democracy of mob rule by the majority of the mislead?
a huge problem i have with "cap and trade bill" is this: most of the country has no clue what it is!!! how can a bill be passed by the folks that represent the "people" if nobody knows what it is and whats in it? that doesnt sound like people making bills happen, its bill-writers making laws without the people. - and that i believe is a problem.
ReplyDeletecheck out this poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/congress_pushes_cap_and_trade_but_just_24_know_what_it_is
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesorry, the link on my last comment is long and doesnt display right on here - i will try it this way instead:
ReplyDeleteRasmussen Report on Cap and Trade
Emissions trading is already working in the longer-lived democracies; including the one in California.
ReplyDeleteSince South Dakota's democracy is still evolving, some of us still expect to see the photos of Deadwood, Central City, and Lead at the end of the 19th century as representative of corporate responsibility.
Libby, Montana, is barely fit for human habitation because of corporate malfeasance.
Nemo sits atop a Superfund site, Edgemont still glows in the dark.
The silts in every dam killing the Missouri River are handled by technicians in haz-mat suits.
Eat the fish in any prairie lake and expect a much higher likelihood of illness.
Emissions are not just CO2 and NOX; heavy metals, glyphosphates, and PEOA, the surfactant in Roundup causes cervids to abort pregnancies.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteCalifornia is broke. And besides, Cory is going to be mad at you for being off topic.
Michael, third time's the (HTML) charm. :-)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you still haven't brought the big gun. Your Rasmussen poll is from May 2009, when climate change bill was still bubbling up into the public sphere. Since then, everyone has read the Madville Times' lucid explanation of the issue. (Ah, that's why there's now majority support nationwide for it! ;-) )
And just in case they missed my coverage, another January 2010 poll cited in the original post told respondents, briefly, exactly what cap and trade is. The poll thus addresses exactly the confusion your May 2009 Rasmussen poll cites in response to its question: "Does the cap-and-trade legislation address health care reform, environmental issues, or regulatory reform for Wall Street?"
Keep those links coming!
(Also of interest in the poll Michael cites: given a choice between passing climate change legislation and passing health care reform, 69% picked health care reform; 15% picked climate change legislation.)
ReplyDelete"So Cory, if those polled understood the above truths, would they still be in favor of it? Are you still in favor of it? Are you still in favor of big government helping out big corporations?'
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you deal with those questions? Why are you celebrating confused mislead Americans? Why are you instead concerned? And why did you attack the American Republic?
Thank you for that clarification, Cory; corporate self-regulation seems like such an oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteIf only corporate greed was a sacrament!
"And just in case they missed my coverage, another January 2010 poll cited in the original post told respondents, briefly, exactly what cap and trade is."
ReplyDeleteNo it did not. If they told the truth and said it was 85% corporate welfare, most would have been opposed. Even Paul Kurtz's cousin.
"Cory; corporate self-regulation seems like such an oxymoron."
ReplyDeleteLarry,
Did you read this part of my comment:
“So, all these companies would need to “pay” for their emissions with permits, but they would get permits for free, with the proportions determined by negotiations between lobbyists and lawmakers.”
Their lobbyists are writing the bills, so they are self-regulating in the cap-and-trade bill. So wake up Larry. And you too Cory. Stop promoting corporate welfare.
You are correct when you say that cap and trade, i.e. climate change, in reality cap and tax, has become one of the main issues in people's minds. My contention is that this issue has been put in the forefront by the likes of Gore et al, all the while the hype has been based on lies and coercion. Of course people are concerned when this is in the news day after day. If Gore really believed this stuff, he would walk the walk and live like it. No huge house, no private jetting all over, etc. The fact that my links showed that the data is questionable or false IS important to the issue here. This would do nothing for national security, unless a one world govt under the control of the UN is what the proponents at Copenhagen had in mind.
ReplyDeleteMake fun of Al Gore all you want, Linda: your talk about bogus science remains beside the point, an effort to cloud the issue by recycling your preferred talking points. The new Luntz data, which you are doggedly avoiding addressing, proves that your talking points are irrelevant: even if you won your argument and took global warming off the table as an issue, a majority of Americans are still more interested in passing climate change legislation for the sake of national security.
ReplyDeleteThese polls show that Americans are a lot more concerned about how many wind turbines and solar panels are made in America and how many barrels of oil come from the Saudis and Russkies than about how may thermometers we're checking in the Arctic Circle or how many SUVs Al Gore has in his garage.
"your talk about bogus science remains beside the point"
ReplyDeleteCory, why does the truth not matter to you? Why does people getting rich based on lies and made up stuff not bother you?