Cap and Tirade: Bachmann Repeats Falsehood

[Ban Hammer 13,394]

*throws a dollar bill at steven*

will that shut you up? or do you want more until i'm all out?

steven's a male stripper now?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

well the libruls are running their very own dollar train.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Ahead of Congressional action on proposed cap and trade legislation, Charles River Associates today released a study, commissioned by the Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE), exposing the economic consequences of the bill. The data projects broad increases in energy costs that will result in more than 3 million jobs lost by 2030 and a cost of more than $2,100 per household.

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/20...28_economic.htm

I'd trust the independent study from MIT over any study done by groups that represent the fossil fuel industry.

Let's see, a professor from MIT, versus a trusted, worldwide consulting firm:

A consulting firm paid by the very industry that doesn't want a cap on emissions vs. an independent study from MIT....hmmm.

Your call, Bill? Which one are you gonna believe?

[natty bumppo 297]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Ahead of Congressional action on proposed cap and trade legislation, Charles River Associates today released a study, commissioned by the Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE), exposing the economic consequences of the bill. The data projects broad increases in energy costs that will result in more than 3 million jobs lost by 2030 and a cost of more than $2,100 per household.

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/20...28_economic.htm

I'd trust the independent study from MIT over any study done by groups that represent the fossil fuel industry.

wonder what group provided the "donation" that was funneled toward financing the MIT independent study ...

Edited April 29, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Ahead of Congressional action on proposed cap and trade legislation, Charles River Associates today released a study, commissioned by the Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE), exposing the economic consequences of the bill. The data projects broad increases in energy costs that will result in more than 3 million jobs lost by 2030 and a cost of more than $2,100 per household.

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/20...28_economic.htm

I'd trust the independent study from MIT over any study done by groups that represent the fossil fuel industry.

Let's see, a professor from MIT, versus a trusted, worldwide consulting firm:

A consulting firm paid by the very industry that doesn't want a cap on emissions vs. an independent study from MIT....hmmm.

Your call, Bill? Which one are you gonna believe?

I'm sorry. Did you ask something meaningful?

[GaryC 7]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Ahead of Congressional action on proposed cap and trade legislation, Charles River Associates today released a study, commissioned by the Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE), exposing the economic consequences of the bill. The data projects broad increases in energy costs that will result in more than 3 million jobs lost by 2030 and a cost of more than $2,100 per household.

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/20...28_economic.htm

I'd trust the independent study from MIT over any study done by groups that represent the fossil fuel industry.

Really? Good, then read this.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

Richard S. Lindzen

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors.

To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.

The rest of the study can be read here

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[GaryC 7]

Don't worry, Steven is furiously googling right now to find a way to spin this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Ahead of Congressional action on proposed cap and trade legislation, Charles River Associates today released a study, commissioned by the Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE), exposing the economic consequences of the bill. The data projects broad increases in energy costs that will result in more than 3 million jobs lost by 2030 and a cost of more than $2,100 per household.

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/20...28_economic.htm

I'd trust the independent study from MIT over any study done by groups that represent the fossil fuel industry.

Really? Good, then read this.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

Richard S. Lindzen

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors.

To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.

The rest of the study can be read here

Gary, Lindzen didn't conduct his own, independent study on global warming - he's drawing his own conclusions based on other people's studies. He's a known skeptic of global warming and made a speech back in '91 to Senate that was underwritten by OPEC. Hardly an independent voice nor has he done any of his own independent research.

[GaryC 7]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Ahead of Congressional action on proposed cap and trade legislation, Charles River Associates today released a study, commissioned by the Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE), exposing the economic consequences of the bill. The data projects broad increases in energy costs that will result in more than 3 million jobs lost by 2030 and a cost of more than $2,100 per household.

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/20...28_economic.htm

I'd trust the independent study from MIT over any study done by groups that represent the fossil fuel industry.

Really? Good, then read this.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

Richard S. Lindzen

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors.

To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.

The rest of the study can be read here

Gary, Lindzen didn't conduct his own, independent study on global warming - he's drawing his own conclusions based on other people's studies. He's a known skeptic of global warming and made a speech back in '91 to Senate that was underwritten by OPEC. Hardly an independent voice nor has he done any of his own independent research.

Steven you don't disapoint. Your the king of spin.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

[GaryC 7]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

Take a wild guess who funded the MIT study. Congress did. Which congress? The one that wants to implement the Cap and Trade. Hardly independant.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

Take a wild guess who funded the MIT study. Congress did. Which congress? The one that wants to implement the Cap and Trade. Hardly independant.

I think it would be worth your while to click here about Lindzen. He's been proven wrong on more than one occasion...

In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

Take a wild guess who funded the MIT study. Congress did. Which congress? The one that wants to implement the Cap and Trade. Hardly independant.

I think it would be worth your while to click here about Lindzen. He's been proven wrong on more than one occasion...

In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

[GaryC 7]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

Take a wild guess who funded the MIT study. Congress did. Which congress? The one that wants to implement the Cap and Trade. Hardly independant.

I think it would be worth your while to click here about Lindzen. He's been proven wrong on more than one occasion...

In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

Ok, I see, a study from MIT funded by congress is above reproach but a "skeptic" from MIT is automaticly disqualified from having any opinion of merit. Oh, and having a "speculation" proven wrong means nothing. I would say that any noted scientist would speculate something that is later proven wrong. Your total bias is funny to watch. You only believe what you want to believe.