Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tom Toles is worth a thousand words

c_04142010.gif

By Ezra Klein  |  April 14, 2010; 8:06 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Financial reforms moving fast
Next: A fast recovery? Or a slow one?

Comments

I remember when it was "Global Warming" until it wasn't really warming.

Now, it's "Climate Change". Much more convenient as you can attribute anything to it. Too hot? Climate change. Too cold? Climate change. To many tornadoes. Climate change.

Dog has more fleas? ____________________.

Posted by: WrongfulDeath | April 14, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

"I remember when it was 'Global Warming' until it wasn't really warming."

Shows how young and inexperienced you are. I remember when it was "The Coming Ice Age" (Newsweek, April 28th, 1975) or Lowell Ponte's "The Cooling" (in all fairness, Ponte was a fantasist more than a science . . . he also claimed that gravity in the universe was weakening).

But nobody is really old enough to remember when long term weather trends, such as droughts or flooding, were caused by the gods being displeased with our behavior, so we had to make sacrifices or otherwise atone for your sinful and indulgent past to please the gods. Although that's not that different from the popular First Church of Climate Change movement going on now.

Which is not to say that the climate isn't changing (it does, always has) or that mankind cannot potentially have an effect on climate, only that the political movement behind climate change legislation is all about wealth redistribution (preferably from the US to other nations) and creating a market in mythical carbon credits that will allow very rich people get that much richer by giving us carbon credit default swaps and creating a giant offset bubble that, when it bursts, the American tax payer will be left holding the bag. Again.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | April 14, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

"Leukemia has always been a disease that veers to the right," said Newsweek columnist Ezra Klein, adding that Republicans have also sought out the support of high-profile illnesses such as sickle-cell anemia, type 1 diabetes, and sepsis. "And at the end of the day, you can't ignore the fact that this deadly blood disorder has a lot to lose if the bill succeeds."

-The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-leukemia-team-up-to-repeal-health-care,17215/

Posted by: rt42 | April 14, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Hah. I didn't know this a minute ago, but a little further research turns up that Lowell Ponte (author of The Cooling) is now a denier!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=23124

Money quote: "As you probably recognized, all such Leftist doomsaying — hothouse or ice age, wet or dry, population explosion or drastic decline — calls for the same remedy. We must have bigger government, more political regulation and control, higher taxes, and permit less individual and private sector liberty if we are to survive whatever is this year’s fashionable danger."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | April 14, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Wrongful Death, It still *is* global warming. The average temperature on the Earth's surface is increasing. The problem is that this does not mean that every point on the Earth is simultaneously hotter than it was at some point in the past. The reason people started calling it "climate change" is because some folks, mostly conservatives, seemed to have a hard time coming to grips with the word "warming" not necessarily applying in the way people use it in conversation. Of course, this was helped by people who were trying to muddy the issue with nonsense like "But it's winter and it's cold! No global warming here!"

And you're right insofar as there are people out there who ascribe global warming as the "cause" of any bad weather. Those people don't help the debate either.

Posted by: MosBen | April 14, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Kevin

Can you point to ONE credible science organization (domestic or international) that ever declared global cooling was going to happen?

No, I didn't think so.

Instead, you take a few opinions from mass-market writers (such as those who produced Chariots of the Gods) to pretend there was consensus (that never existed) that we were to have cooling. And yet, now that we have definitive science consensus that we have a warming planet due to human impacts, you conveniently ignore it.

You are intellectually dishonest and a part of the right-wing lie machine.

Your assertion that climate change proponents are about wealth distribution puts you in the same league as 911 Truthers, holocaust deniers, moon-landing skeptics, and Birthers.

Posted by: Lomillialor | April 14, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

you're dating yourself ;-)

I can't help but think with all the earthquakes lately and what if any affect that has on it. I haven't seen it on the MSM and I'd expect those on both sides of this debate either try to push it or debunk it based upon their views.

Posted by: visionbrkr | April 14, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Cool boat. But why does every post about climate change invariably turn a comments section into a real-world version of Gilligan's Island?

Posted by: slag | April 14, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Regarding Kevin's absurd rant that climate change is really about a transfer of wealth, the fact is we would STOP transferring our wealth to oil-producing nations if we broke our dependance on foreign oil.

The below link explains how we could stop sending over $100 million PER DAY to Iran if we adopted a proper cap-trade system. Similar savings would be incurred for other oil producers too.

The US right now is transferring vast amounts of our treasure to foreign oil producers, and too much of it ends up in the hands of terrorists.

Also, much of defense budget/posture is geared towards protecting our oil supplies. If we someday became independant on such oil, we'd save wealth and blood there too, not to mention the fact we would finally become politically independant of the demands of OPEC and other oil producing nations.

Those who fight against America's oil independance (those against cap-trade and other green energy efforts) are really fighting for maintaining huge tax subsidies to oil companies and continued transfers of vast wealth to foreign oil producers.

Stopping transfer of wealth to countries like Iran:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/10/iran-carbon-cap-oil/

America's hidden power bill:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/13/federal-energy-tax-subsidies/

Posted by: Lomillialor | April 14, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company