[snip]

[JR: So there has been a vast conspiracy among the entire scientific community -- including every peer-reviewed journal and all the national academies of science -- to violate the rules of science? Not. Try actually reading any of the major analyses, which include all natural causes and inputs, clearly demonstrating that those are being overwhelmed by human-cost forcings. Push your conspiracy theories elsewhere.]

“But why do we expect so little from the US? Why do we treat the world’s most powerful and innovative nation as if it were a failed state, rejoicing at even the faintest suggestion of common sense??

I submit the answer is not hard to spot: it lies in the quality of our political debate. Just within the past few minutes, Republicans in the House are mouthing the same old lies in the runup to a floor vote on HR 2454. One of them said that global warming is a hoax. Another claimed the bill will kill millions of jobs, and added that there is no discussion about this. Never has there been a more transparent slab of sophistry.

The nation that aspires to be “the leader of the free world” should be better than this. Hell, it has to be better than this. If it merely aspires to survive intact beyond the current generation, it has to be better than this.

I know about statistical analysis, but I’m still not willing to buy that a random sampling of only 1,001 people is large enough to get a solid reading —

No, it’s based on sound statistics. Statistics and probability theory yield remarkably unintuitive results, which is what keeps casinos in business.

This explains why the polls are so often off the mark by more than their stated margin of error when actual votes are taken and large numbers of people are registering their opinion

There are several things to say …

1. First the confidence intervals are probably set at two standard deviations, i.e. about 5% of the time the actual results will fall outside the poll results.

2. If you have a binary question and, say, the poll result is “A favors B 51% to 49% +/- 3%”, a real-world result with B getting 51% and A getting 49% simultaneously contradicts the “A is winning” statement while BEING WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR. I think this example shows the basic problem pollsters face when reporting on any issue where the results are close.

3. People change their minds.

4. People don’t always tell pollsters the truth.

5. When it comes to elections you have to look at “likely voters” not all respondents, but the “likely voter” selection process has its own uncertainty interval (it can’t be precise, heck, if nothing else people fall ill or die suddenly), muddying things further.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx

More than that I believe:

*As the world’s largest economy remakes itself into an efficient prosperous and non polluting enterprise, we will demonstrate the new standard, and catalyze change throughout the world. Renewables and efficiency ARE the better economic choices–but we need to achieve a large scale demonstration of that to close the door on all the “burn baby burn” crowd’s noise. Once demonstrated, other economies will follow. Just look at what Energy Star has accomplished so far.

*Between the US’s emissions, and the emissions created in other countries like China to make the stuff we buy, the US is the largest single emitter. Much of it from coal, which could continue to grow both here and in China to support our lifestyle. Reversing that, which HR2454 gets started on, is a paramount climate saving objective. There are excellent low cabon and carbon free energy supplies available bothe here and in China, India, Australia, etc.

*As a major agricultural producer, the US has too much to lose from Global Warming. Just reducing our own emissions will have a real economic impact on our farmers.

HR2454 has warts, true. But it is 10,000 times better than no law at all.

“Between 1990 and 2005, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose from 5.8 to 7bn tonnes. The cut proposed by 2020 is just 17%…”

Shameful.

ACES doesn’t come close. This is Monbiot ripping into it in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ georgemonbiot/ 2009/ jun/ 26/ us-obama-climate-monbiot

He does want to see it go through though, however bad it is:

“Even so, I would like to see the bill passed, as it at least provides a framework for future improvements. But why do we expect so little from the US? Why do we treat the world’s most powerful and innovative nation as if it were a failed state, rejoicing at even the faintest suggestion of common sense?”

“The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a.k.a. Waxman-Markey), could save approximately $1,050 per household by 2020 and $4,400 per household by 2030, according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). ”

http://www.reuters.com/ article/ gwmCarbonEmissions/ idUS363785493920090624

In the short term at least, it will be a lot more sense to examine the issues associated with significant emissions, check out the alternatives (including those that don’t involve putting a price on carbon) then set up a separate scheme to deal with the specific issue. Can anyone think of an example where they they are convinced that trade and cap will really be the best way to deal with the issues?
For more details see Trade and Cap Alternatives