I agree that not much will change in reality. However anything done by executive authority can be undone by executive authority, they are in effect very weak laws that can’t be funded properly. Obama needs to tread a fine line here that he doesn’t so annoy the electorate that he hands the presidency to Republicans in 2016. It’s not clear he is a very good judge of where this line is. He is doing the more unpopular things now in hopes that these will be forgotten by Nov 2016.
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Tom Scharf
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Tom Scharf
That may be true. What I think is odd is there are few calls for energy R&D from the AGW advocates. Why on earth would you support $3B for climate justice and not be demanding much of anything for energy research? This muddling of social policy and AGW has made the advocates look deranged when it comes to comparing apparent urgency with effectiveness of proposals. Round hole, square peg.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Tom Scharf
You forgot the last part…..policies supported by the people who voted them into office.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Chuck L
TonyB, you can count on Obama NOT being the leader of the Western World. By all evidence he despises the country the United States used to be, having delusions that his “skill” as an orator will solve the problems of the world. He spent the first two years of his reign apologizing to the world for the United States and its policies. He would gladly cede governance of the United States and the Western World to the UN.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Wagathon
Looking at the article by Nate Silver (Here’s Proof Some Pollsters Are Putting A Thumb On The Scale) made me think the main worry considering the difference between ‘outliers’ and ‘inliers’ are, outright l*i*a*r*s.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Richard (rls)
MK
Some factual notes:
1. Senator Reid blocked far more bills than did Boehner.
2. Congress reflects the desires of the electorate; a polarized congress reflects a polarized electorate. The polarized electorate reflects the politics of division.
3. If the Republicans pass a 2016 budget resolution only 50 votes will be re
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Richard (rls)
…will be required to cut EPA spending. Will Obama veto a small cut compared possible gains elsewhere?
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by aaron
Here, a cartoon with plankton and sharks.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Steven Mosher
100 years from now they will write that he saved the planet.
That is the bet.
With two years to go he is playing the Longshot.
Why work on a tough short term problem that is tough to solve when you can use your pen to place a long shot bet
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by kim
Gamblin’ by cuttin’ the rug with the one what brung him.
=======
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Wagathon
Hillary Clinton: climate change is “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.”
Believing anything Clinton says about climate change really requires a willing suspension of disbelief.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by JustinWonder
@brent
What does the following comment from that Yahoo post mean?
“…, the shale industry (by and large) is going to be sacrificed on the altar of pleasing Saudi Arabia and punishing Russia”
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by bill_c
Mosh and Kim,
I lean toward what Kim said. Mosh, I don’t think it’s a 100 year bet. I do think Obama is a long term thinker and a stubborn, committed ideologue. Who maybe at times thinks he’s above the rules ;).
I actually think the 26-28% is likely to be achieved:
CAFE
people drive less
renewables (utility scale and otherwise)
gas substituted for coal
efficiency, generally
I think too small to fail is exactly right, except that nothing is foolproof ever.
↧
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by Pooh, Dixie
When you’re worried, when in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout!
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by superchillskeptic
I think that most people are paying a little too much attention to President Obama’s recent rhetoric regarding climate change. Remember–he has no more campaigns to run, but most of the sitting Democratic senators do and they are keenly interested in keeping their jobs. They have to be aware of the plight of Senator Landrieu and may vote accordingly. If fact, there are reports of 14 Democratic Senators who are ready to vote for the Keystone pipeline this week. We may start seeing veto-proof votes on these matters once the new Senate is sworn in.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Jonathan Abbott
Mosher:
In 100 years time Obama will be viewed as someone who put short-term political expedience above attempting to wrestle with the major social and economic problems facing not just the US, but the entire world. As will all US presidents in the last 50, and probably the next 50 years.
In the even longer term it will get even worse. Who has a good word to say now about any of the Roman emperors?
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by ordvic
I don’t think either climate or immigration will have any effect on voters until or unless they see a direct effect on their pocket books or lifestyle and make the connection. The economy would have to go south and a direct connection seen. In the meantime, Obama and the Democrats will have an advantage as to ‘high moral ground’ and republicans will continue to look like heartless, anti-science obstructionists. It’s more about perception not necessarily reality unless the voters feel the pinch and relate it.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Steven Mosher
Jonathan. it doesnt matter what you think.
Stand in obama’s shoes.
Making a move on climate is a win for him on all time scales.
His reasoning like everyone else’s is motivated. And its tied to his identity.
So when he makes a move on climate all you have to ask yourself is how does it relate to his concept of his identity.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Lucifer
A Brief Recap is in order:
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by John Carter
More illogic from this commenter
“””she has, in this blog, given you references to her detailed scientific research which you can pursue if you actually want to learn any science.
Of course, that requires you to give a damn.”””
Yes, I don’t give a damn, that’s why I go through the extreme unpleasantness of trying to help broaden the information or at least perspective on this topic among skeptics, who make it as pleasant as a root canal (see above comment,and Dave”s response about how I’m “more than disingenuous” bc of my observation that this blog spends a lot of time in tangential musings… (see above)… an observation, or opinion, that he simply doesn’t like.)
And no offense but I’ll take my understanding of science over Judith Curry’s any day of the week. And as far as choosing my sources, there’s a world of information out there that can’t be gotten to in a thousand lifetimes.
So given the level of error and more importantly misconstruction of the issue that I repeatedly see on this blog alone (that’s not disingenuous, that’s my opinion, and I’d be happy to debate it publicly with Curry in a published forum) I think I’ll choose many many other sources in my exhaustive work as it is.
Thus as far as the latter part of your comment goes as well, you are once again being either disingenuous, or manipulative (as well as illogical) , in the implication that I need to read Curry’s other work in order to form an opinion on the blog posts.
But once again in a way to self reinforce, if not again seal your own beliefs, and (mis)interpret and (mis)represent my comments in a way consistent with your view that you feel you need to hold on the issue of climate change, a view that goes against what the great majority of those who study the issue believe, but yet on which you nevertheless feel you are more intelligent, and educated, on, than the majority of climate scientists (and I). Which illogical comments like these of yours go to self reinforce.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
