The Senate voted on the Green New Deal, but the proposal, first offered in the House (and yet to be voted on there), failed a cloture vote to let it come to the floor for discussion, debate, and subsequent vote up or down.
The Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the Green New Deal, the ambitious plan to combat climate change proposed by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after what Democrats said was a politically-motivated show vote.
The measure, which needed 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle, failed in a 0-57 vote, with 43 Democrats voting present.
George Melloan had some in a recent Wall Street Journal, and so do I.
Melloan pointed out that the hoi polloi around the world aren’t sold on the climate funding industry’s panicky wailing about atmospheric CO2 and how we have to do something—anything—give money—and how we have to do it Right Damn Now.
Never mind that
Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard Lindzen posited two immense, complex and turbulent fluids—the oceans and the air in the atmosphere—are in constant reaction with each other and the land, causing what we experience as storms and temperature changes. Variations in the sun’s radiation and the rotation of the planet play parts as well. And yet, he said, climate modelers claim that only one tiny component of this enormous churning mass, CO2, controls the planet’s climate.
This borders on “magical thinking,” he said….
Exxon Mobil Corp is throwing $1 million at the move to produce a national carbon tax.
Exxon’s move is an attempt to manage what it sees as the risk of a similar movement in the US, in ways that it hopes will simplify requirements on its industry….
Exxon sees a carbon tax as an alternative to patchwork regulations, putting one cost on all carbon emitters nationwide, eliminating regulatory uncertainty….
On the contrary, Exxon is looking for short-term competitive political advantage at the expense of long-term economic—real—advantage. That’s unfortunate.
Much is being made about how anthropogenic global warming is causing all those wildfires in California. Cliff Mass had a different view [emphasis in the original].
there is a lot misinformation going around in the media, some environmental advocacy groups, and some politicians. The story can’t be a simply that warming is increasing the numbers of wildfires in California because the number of fires is declining. And area burned has not been increasing either.
And [emphasis added]
[N]ow we get into the real interesting questions that many are not considering. What is driving the ups and downs in wildfires? There are so many factors that must be considered, such as:
In a piece onWatts Up With That, Eric Worrall explored the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. (Yes, yes, I know the science is settled, but the fact is the only thing settled is the pseudo-science nesting in the fetid imaginations of climate “science” funding industry personages. The rest of us keep asking rude questions.)
A bloke bought a sheep property of half a million acres in western Queensland for $2.0 million. Instead of running sheep on it, he now gets $350,000 per annum under the federal government’s Direct Action scheme for not using the grass on his property. The idea being that the grass locks up carbon and reduces Australia’s carbon emissions. A neighbouring property gets $600,000 per annum.
The positions are being eliminated, and the incumbents aren’t being offered positions elsewhere on the government’s teat payroll. The horror. The union-demanded, if not God-given, sinecures are not sinecures, after all. American Federation of Government Employees Local 704 President Michael Mikulka is quite vocal with his dismay.
EPA wants over 1,200 of us to leave, purportedly to save money going forward and claiming that they no longer need the positions occupied by staff that in some cases worked at EPA for over 30 years[.]
…is in the offing. The piece by John O’Sullivan in Principia Scientific International is a bit optimistic, but the outcome is legitimately expected under Canadian law. The offing-ed outcome concerns Penn State pseudo-scientist Michael Mann and his slander lawsuit against Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball in a British Columbia court.
It turns out that there are two legal factors of interest here. One is that Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable, and Mann had moved for such an adjournment of the lawsuit’s trial that was scheduled to months ago on 20 Feb. Ball agreed (of course), but he was able to get conditions imposed on that adjournment, one of which was that Mann would produce the data underlying his suit in court by 20 Feb.