Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

Matt Taibbi

Palin: Our First WWE Politician

Pick an asshole, any asshole, and she'll rock the house

12 hours, 11 minutes ago
analysis

Book Tour Shows Palin
Hitting a Nerve

'Going Rogue' phenomenon may foreshadow something bigger

8 hours, 9 minutes ago
the big plan

Beck Will Host Conventions
to Educate America

He's shifting toward political organizer, plans big DC rally

Nov 21, 09 5:06 PM CST
Senate Democrats Clear
Health Care Hurdle, 60-39

Reid gets 60 votes to open full debate after Thanksgiving recess

Nov 21, 09 7:13 PM CST
editorial

NYT to Blankfein:
Your 'Apology'
Is Bull

Editorial board schools Goldman CEO in true meaning of 'sorry'

6 hours, 2 minutes ago
Palin Pulls in Big Bucks
—for Democrats

'Going Rogue' boosts Dem fundraising to new high

Nov 21, 09 6:50 AM CST
NO COMMUNION FOR YOU, MY SON

RI Bishop Disses
Kennedy Over
Pro-Choice
Stance

Spat over Patrick's position on abortion escalates

14 hours, 32 minutes ago
who let the paranoids out?

46 Years After Kennedy, the Virus of Hate Is Back

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert panders to dangerous paranoids

Nov 21, 09 9:08 AM CST
TALK SHOW ROUNDUP

McConnell:
Dems Proceed
at 2010 Peril

Senators hit the Sunday talk shows after health vote

11 hours, 40 minutes ago
Billboard Links Obama to Jihad

Colo. car dealership wants this opinion heard

Nov 20, 09 8:42 PM CST
Eyes on 2010

Lincoln
Swings to
Center of
Health Debate

Dems come calling as GOP eyes her seat in 2010

9 hours, 52 minutes ago
HE'S GOT A BOOK OUT, TOO

Beck to Unveil
'Big Plan' at
Saturday Rally

Righty pundit OK with destroying Dems and GOP

Nov 20, 09 8:07 PM CST
Neglected Ind. Fans Boo Palin

Hecklers accuse her of 'quitting on the job'

Nov 20, 09 3:50 PM CST

|NEXT STORY »

Pelosi Gambles on Climate Bill Vote Despite Dem Grumbling

Speaker may need GOP backing

By Rob Quinn| Posted Jun 24, 09 4:23 AM CDT|

(Newser) – Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a vote this Friday on a controversial climate change bill despite the strong reservations of some Democrats, the Hill reports. Farmbelt lawmakers fear that the sprawling bill's measures to curb emissions will put a disproportionate burden on their states with no reward. The House speaker and other top Democrats have been looking for a compromise deal as well as for votes from centrist Republicans.

Henry Waxman, chair of the Energy and and Commerce Committee, has been working to convince wary Democrats of the bill's merits. A deal hammered out yesterday would let the Department of Agriculture monitor the bill's land use provisions instead of the Environmental Protection Agency. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are also reluctant to commit to voting for the bill, and have called on President Obama to become more involved.

[Images (2)]

[Quotes (1)]

Farmbelt lawmakers worry that the cap-and-trade provisions in the climate bill will hit their states hard. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman, file)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California gestures during her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington last week. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

There are some issues still under discussion, but we are confident we can resolve them by the time the bill goes to the floor on Friday. - Drew Hammill, spokeman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

11.19.09

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

22 comments

VIEWING:

ClearSight
Jun 24, 09 6:48 AM CDT

Parts of the bill are needed but the "Cap and Trade" portion is a HUGE tax increase for you and I. Estimates are that it could cost $3k+ a year to an average family. I don't know about anyone else but I can't afford, not another dime in new taxes of any kind. I'm tapped out....... Reply

IN RESPONSE:

John_Galt
Jun 24, 09 6:56 AM CDT

Well what do you expect? The looters know it will be easy to hide taxes in the cost of goods and services, instead of increasing tax rates.

IN RESPONSE:

Citrixguy
Jun 24, 09 7:36 AM CDT

Who is John_Galt?

| 0 minutes ago

Vorant1
Jun 24, 09 7:03 AM CDT

This is a sham, its a tax bill hiding as a climate bill. This is just more criminal behavior by those thieves in Washington.... Reply

| 0 minutes ago

freethemall
Jun 24, 09 8:02 AM CDT

He who thinks global warming can be reversed, or our dependence on foreign energy sources reversed, on the cheap, is seriously deluded. Of course there are those who think global warming is not a serious problem. They are deluded indeed. Reply

-2

IN RESPONSE:

ClearSight
Jun 24, 09 8:13 AM CDT

So I take it that your not feeling especially cerebral today?

IN RESPONSE:

Clarke
Jun 24, 09 8:15 AM CDT

freethemall, if global warming is really happening, but it is a naturally occurring thing (as the graphs and charts and data suggest it is if you take the political horseshit out), is it a serious problem? For those with summer homes at the beach, yes. But if its natural, can it be reversed? Should it be? We can't pretend to try and reverse something when the science is flawed, or guessed at. That's not being deluded, thats a cold hard fact. But of course, for those of you that get your sciences lessons from a politician (Gore), facts may be something you don't comprehend.

| 0 minutes ago

freethemall
Jun 24, 09 8:46 AM CDT

Right, and those scientists comprising the National Academy of Sciences are all mistaken? Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Clarke
Jun 24, 09 10:47 AM CDT

Most of the scientists I have read state the same thing....we need more time and analyisis. If you look at IPCC's claims that got them the Nobel, you will see that they have reduced their doom and gloom forecasts several times and by over a 10000% reduction in ocean rise. All because they got more data and realized that their model was flawed. So yes, I am saying that they can be wrong. Nothing is proven yet. Heck, the world temperatures have been falling since 1998, and the alarmists are saying this is caused by global dimming that is masking global warming. Huh? That makes little to no sense. The world has experienced a net GAIN in ice sheets (area....volume is harder to calculate and there are arguments about the accuracy of the data), both on land and in water, since 1998. How do I know? I actually get my information from the scientists as I sit in different professional seminars (I am an environmental engineer and have to attend professional seminars/meetings as part of my job, and the global warming ones are the most compelling as it is the one most twisted by the media and the extremists).

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
Jun 24, 09 12:40 PM CDT

If you are right, and I am mistaken that would be good news. I'm still not convinced. Maybe as the word spreads that global warming fears were overblown, I'll be convinced.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Deebles
Jun 24, 09 12:54 PM CDT

Clarke, you have finally brought up the two points concerning the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem with CO2 is the natural chemical effect of the carbon atoms discovering way too many other carbon atoms up there in the atmosphere, and are bonding--the way excitable atoms do. That produces an effect where like a moving mirror and the sun, light--energy is being reflected in as well as out. The problem is the extra energy being absorbed by the planet. Your other point is the shield of dust etc. which reflects the sun's thermal energy away from the planet. When I see people on Tehran on their rooftops, I notice the rooftops--all white. The albedo effect is the amount of energy--heat retained with a low albedo as opposed to reflected by a high albedo. Doesn't matter where the CO2 came from, comes from, will come from--it increases our level of stored thermal energy. If another Krakatua blew tomorrow, the temperature would drop because the dust would reflect new incoming solar rays. It would do nothing about the carbon atoms still shooting around like an unmanned machine gun. If we had excepted global warming as a thing fifty years ago and worked less on fighting it and more on ways to reflect out the extra stuff, we wouldn't have a problem. Concrete-no asphalt. White roofs, etc. That is just a fact. The problem you have with the differing science is that some see the natural process of this and think the planet will survive, and others think we have passed the thermodynamic tipping point and the already absorbed energy means doom. So, how about the middle--lower as much as possible future CO2 and increase albedo?

-1

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
Jun 24, 09 7:37 PM CDT

Clarke, you keep mentioning "the media". What do you mean by that. Is Fox news and Rush Limbaugh part of "the media"? Just asking.

| 0 minutes ago

Reader22060479
Jun 24, 09 11:45 AM CDT

Get a life everybody. With the Big Man sitting in the White House, all knowing , all powerfull, what can possibly go wrong. He will make it all better. Trust me! Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 24, 09 1:17 PM CDT

deebles, I did not speak of these items here, so I don't know where I finally brought it up, however, since you did bring it up, the amount of energy from the sun being reflected has remained rather stable over the past century (how they know this I don't know). The amount of carbon (dioxide or monoxide) in the atmosphere is stable. We know we are creating more than a century ago, so the question is WHERE is it. Probably pushed into the ground. How that is going to affect the planet in the future is another question that needs to be asked. But one thing you fail to mention is the ongoing natural order of things. Scientific data tells us that historically when the earth has warmed, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased. We know that 1 follows the other in the order of about 500 years. Problem with the Gore theories is that the earth warms THEN carbon increases. For Gore's theories (I say Gore's, but I realize they are not his, he is not a scientist, just a mouthpiece) to be correct, it needs to be the opposite. And conversely, when the earth cools, carbon in the atmosphere decreases. And this cycle has been recorded by science as a continual loop going a few times over (obviously, science is limited, but we are not talking thousands, but millions of years, thru ice cores and sub-surface cores at the bottom of the oceans). I had this discussion a week ago on this site, and it is tiresome. Don't read 1 article and then plagiarize it here and tell me its proof positive....I read hundred of these scientific studies a year and listen to about a dozen presentations a year from scientists and professors in the environmental and climatology field. I am not an expert, but I am smart enough to know that there is much more debate in the field than the media and Al Gore wants you to know about. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Deebles
Jun 24, 09 2:24 PM CDT

I'm very sorry that I made a comment about something which has all ready been thoroughly discussed. I didn't know that. And please forgive the utter rudeness in responding to your questioning temperature drops with haze. And most of all forgive me for thinking that by global warming you meant increased carbon. I shall never speak of these things again. Thank you for the kind and gentle rebuff. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Clarke
Jun 24, 09 2:56 PM CDT

See, this is why you can't discuss things with liberals....I was very polite to you, and in trying to respond to your very convoluted post you get all upset and bothered. You show that you are unwilling to even entertain the thought that what the media has told you, what the politicians have stolen from real science, and then twisted, may not be the truth. I actually talk to the scientists, hear them at lectures. How many here can actually say that. Its been a whole month since I spoke with a PhD from an Ivy League school who has studied climatology since the 50s, before there was even a climatology degree. He states that the whole man causing global warming is a farce. He does believe global warming is happening, but believes it is natural based upon a ton of evidence, more than I can possibly type here even if I understood it all. He does NOT say that we are not polluting and affecting our environment around us. He does NOT say that we should not conserve and try to use best technology available to limit our impact. And that is the problem with you Goreites. If somebody were to say that we do not believe global warming is a threat to earth (since it is natural and Earth has been warming and cooling and then warming again for billions of years), you think we just said burn down all the forrests, pour all of our pollution in the nearest stream, and while we are at it, rape women and children and puppies. No, most of us are saying, lets study the subject and make informed decisions not guided by politics. Science should guide politics, not the other way around.

IN RESPONSE:

Deebles
Jun 24, 09 10:37 PM CDT

How does the term plagiarize come up in polite conversation? And how was I convoluted? I actually made no 'liberal' agenda statement. I merely offered my belief that increasing our albedo would help regardless of what was causing anything. That you should take such a mild comment which as you said was old and tired and which I truly meant I was sorry about and turn it into this rant I do not understand. I said nothing worth your response. I said middle. Your response should have been nothing or a simple acceptance of my apology. The fact that you saw upset was merely an emotional response to the word plagiarize and nothing about the facts that you stated. If you are going to continue being a whore, you need to get better at it. You withering fuck. See--that's upset and bothered.

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
Jun 26, 09 10:49 AM CDT

If you argue with a fool.....

| 0 minutes ago

freethemall
Jun 24, 09 7:39 PM CDT

Clarke, you keep mentioning "the media". What do you mean by that. Is Fox news and Rush Limbaugh part of "the media"? Just asking. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Clarke
Jun 25, 09 10:12 AM CDT

Fox news by all polls is considered the most balanced news outlet we have, but yes, it is clearly right leaning. But its also 1 outlet in 5 or 6 major outlets, not counting the print media. And its the only conservative voice out there. All the others tow the line for the liberal agenda. How else can you explain how they treated Obama versus all others in the election? Even Hillary Clinton was complaining that they were treating him with kid gloves (paraphrasing there). And you look at their treatment of Bush vs Obama....if Bush went golfing they talked about him playing an elitist sport...when Obama went golfing on father's day they were asking him "how was your game" or "what did you score"....no slamming him for being out of touch. These are absolute truths. So yes, the media is liberal and is selling the liberal koolaid as if it were gospel. I want a media that questions everything, not just the conservative viewpoint. And no, Rush Limbaugh is not part of the media. He is part of the entertainment industry. All talk show hosts are. He is no more media than Oprah Winfrey.

| 0 minutes ago

freethemall
Jun 24, 09 9:36 PM CDT

Clearsight asked me 13hrs and ~10mins ago if I were feeling cerebral. Maybe I was, but I was promptly humbled reading Clarke's and deebles' posts. They were so wonky, that I'll have to wait until I have the time to really concentrate, and reread their posts to see if I can figure out who won the argument. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Clarke
Jun 25, 09 10:07 AM CDT

deebles, glad you show your true colors. Other than my response to the guy that called me a Nazi, I would love to see you show where I used such language. Not only does that demean yourself, but it ruins any debate you have. Once you succumb to such poor and boorish behavior, you lose. Good Day. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

View all 22 comments »

climate change • Nancy Pelosi • House of Representatives • House Democrats • Congressional Black Caucus • Blue Dog Democrats

from our news partners

Taylor Swift Grabs AMA Artist of the Year from Michael...
(57 minutes ago)
Michael Jackson Sets AMA Record With 2009 Wins
(2 hours, 41 minutes ago)
'New Moon' Sinks Teeth Into $140.7 Opening Weekend
(7 hours, 15 minutes ago)
Jenna Fischer Knows As Much About Her 'Office' Baby As...
(10 hours, 56 minutes ago)

Not news: woman wants twins. News: woman already has thirteen...
(42 minutes ago)
Photoshop this immune system test [Photoshop]
(1 hour, 17 minutes ago)
Lots and lots of people would rather die than continue...
(3 hours, 1 minute ago)
Doctors discover patient trapped in a 23-year 'coma' has been...
(3 hours, 36 minutes ago)

Could Twilight Eclipse Be R-Rated?
(1 hour, 6 minutes ago)
The Mandarin May Be In Iron Man's Future
(2 hours, 29 minutes ago)
Paul Bettany Not Yet In Iron Man 2
(3 hours, 47 minutes ago)
First Look At Xeno Lovegood From The Deathly Hallows
(Nov 21, 09 8:48 PM CST)

Associated Press

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling
(3 hours, 28 minutes ago)
Turmoil from climate change poses security risks
(Oct 29, 09 12:10 AM CDT)
Turmoil from climate change poses security risks
(Oct 28, 09 8:09 PM CDT)
UN signals delay in climate change treaty
(Oct 27, 09 8:46 AM CDT)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Pelosi Gambles on Climate Bill Vote Despite Dem Grumbling