House Panel Advances Global Warming Bill

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - House Panel Advances Global Warming Bill stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

WASHINGTON — Legislation imposing the first nationwide limits on the pollution blamed for global warming advanced in the House late Thursday, clearing a key committee despite strong Republican opposition.

The Energy and Commerce Committee approved the sweeping climate bill 33-25 after repeatedly turning back GOP attempts to kill or weaken the measure during four days of debate.

The panel's action increases the likelihood that the full House for the first time will address broad legislation to tackle climate change later this year. The Senate has yet to take up the issue.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the panel's chairman, said the bill represents "decisive and historic action" to increase America's energy security and deal with global warming. "When this bill is enacted into law, we will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation the world leader in clean energy jobs and technology, and cut global-warming pollution," said Waxman.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has promised to press for passage of climate legislation this year, but prospects remain uncertain, especially in the Senate. President Barack Obama has told Congress he also wants a bill this year, ahead of international climate talks in December.

The House bill requires factories, refineries and power plants to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and six other greenhouse gases by roughly 80 percent by mid-century and hasten the nation's energy shift away from fossil fuels by putting a price on carbon dioxide releases.

Only one Republican _ Rep. Mary Bono Mack of California _ crossed party lines in support of the legislation. Four Democrats voted against it. She said that while she had concerns about the bill, including its cost, the country can't wait "to make needed changes to our energy policy."

Waxman had vowed to get the 946-page bill out of his committee before Memorial Day. Pressure on lawmakers to leave for the holiday recess pushed the committee to wrap up late Thursday after considering more than 80 amendments.

Story continues below
advertisement

"The American people are overwhelmingly calling for a new direction ... to take action in a way that changes forever our relationship with imported oil, with the loss of jobs overseas, with the pollution that is causing greenhouse gas warming on our planet," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a co-sponsor of the bill.

Republicans argued that the pollution cuts would lead to soaring energy prices and threaten economic growth by imposing new costs on energy-intensive industries already facing economic hardships.

"We don't want to put the economy in jeopardy," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the committee's ranking Republican. He offered an alternative that would have scrapped the cap on greenhouse gases and a requirement to produce more electricity from renewable sources. It was defeated 35-19.

Barton said he had "serious concern about the redirection of our energy policy in America."

"For the sake of our nation, I hope to some degree you are right. I'm afraid that you're not. We will see," Barton told Waxman minutes before the vote.

The legislation calls for the government to issue pollution allowances, or permits, to businesses that could be traded on the open market. The bill initially would give away 35 percent of the allowances to electric utilities to prevent higher energy costs from being passed on to consumers. The government also would sell 15 percent and use the money to provide direct relief to lower- and middle-income families.

To get the support of Democrats from coal and industrial states, Waxman had already agreed to give away significant emissions allowances to industries in their states, including the electric utilities, steel manufactures, automakers and refineries. The deal also lowered the bill's targets for renewable energy and required a smaller reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global warming.

Democrats this week added language to create a clean energy bank to disperse grants for new forms of energy and inserted a "cash for clunkers" program that would provide rebates to consumers who turn in gas guzzling vehicles for more fuel-efficient cars.

Republicans said there were other ways to accomplish the same goals.

"I guess our argument on this is there is so much a better way to do this ... through innovation versus this big government mandate," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "Believe in this next generation of Americans and you will be surprised how fast we can meet these goals without ... the largest energy tax in the history of the United States."

Environmentalists called the committee vote historic, even though some said they hoped the bill would be strengthened.

"The takeaway is that climate legislation is on a path to the president's desk," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "This bill is a breakthrough."

___

The bill is H.R. 2454.

___

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://energycommerce.house.gov

WASHINGTON — Legislation imposing the first nationwide limits on the pollution blamed for global warming advanced in the House late Thursday, clearing a key committee despite strong Republican o...
WASHINGTON — Legislation imposing the first nationwide limits on the pollution blamed for global warming advanced in the House late Thursday, clearing a key committee despite strong Republican o...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
91
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- JXJASON I'm a Fan of JXJASON 10 fans permalink

This bill stinks. I hope it is defeated.

Congress panders to everyone and then laws are passed that do not work. This is dumb, stupid and lacks common sense.

If we all stop using energy as much as we do, through conservation, we can solve some problems over time.

Taxing US citizens to accomplish energy conservation will hurt the poor and middle class citizens. The wealthy will not suffer at all ( And that includes all members of Congress who only earn $174,500.00 per year ).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 AM on 06/10/2009

THe bill is a crock, a smoke-screen. It's a joke and the world knows it. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d12b5516-4f95-11de-a692-00144feabdc0.html We should have simplified it and had carbon taxes instead.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 06/02/2009
- JXJASON I'm a Fan of JXJASON 10 fans permalink

Yea, right on, the Financial Post writer doesn't like the bill either.

How about we make it illegal to heat your house over 50 degrees F. in the winter. And cool your house lower than 75 degrees in summer.

And lets charge $.50 per KWH ( that's kilowatthour ) for electricity... and stop doing business with Brazil because they are cutting down the rain forest TO GROW SOYBEANS AND SUGAR CANE .

And tell Al Gore to lose weight...everyone lose weight...farmers produce less food and use less energy... So we should TAX OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE !!!

Problem solved.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 AM on 06/10/2009

The goal of this bill is to fund the massive expansion and the control of Govt. over every aspect of our lives what car we drive, how warm we keep our houses etc..etc

....And we don't need any new taxes no matter how much Corporate lobbys of Democratic party cry!
exxon mobile shareholders in 2007 paid the feds 58% of all profits...that's ALOT OF MONEY! what they do with all that money??? did it go to any productive use??? With the money taken from exxon mobile alone in 07 they could;ve built every road in Europe,Asia and Africa and cured World hunger! Why didn't they???

In my opinion and stating fact:

If the fascist Politically correct police-corprate socialist "left" New World Order -transnati­onalist...­.really wanted to "save the planet" they would give tax credits to industrys for going clean instead of taxing them for being industrious and for growing=expanding, global warming is a myth! the greatest faux- ever pulled on mankind and it will enslave him!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:24 PM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

The whole point of it is to give a tax credit for going green.
The intention of the bill is to address what is understood to be an important common problem (think defense).
Your ideology appears to prevent you from seeing what is plainly in front of you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 05/22/2009

Thanks jake.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 05/22/2009

The bill is a head-fake. If we really wanted to go green, we would have a carbon tax instead. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d12b5516-4f95-11de-a692-00144feabdc0.html

And as for tax payments vs. profits, well, XOM earnings that year was listed north of 40 billion dollars and it reported 30 billion in taxes paid. In the same year it paid 400 million to its departing CEO, and they are currently paying their CEO north of 22 million a year. And where does this CEO largess get accounted for? In the EXPENSE column; it's a reduction in income and no taxes are paid by Exxon on it or any other expense. Shareholders get a pittance. But then you knew that.

Poster child for overpaying taxes? Hardly. In 2007 they had profits of 407 billion, minus deductions, allowances, etc., before coming up with that 40.6 billion dollar figure - about 10 per cent of their actual income. Wish I could deduct 90% of my income before figuring taxes - without the AMT. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-dugan/all-hail-exxon_b_86918.html

Also, Exxon gets deductions for oil exploration, production, a windfall for followong of OPEC in keeping production low, and a depletion allowance for every barrel of oil. And how much are we paying to preserve and protect the "shipping lanes" so the Exxon tankers can ship oil around the world with our military infrastructure? Did I mention Iraq?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 PM on 06/02/2009

.............

WELCOME TO THE Socialist-Fascisto States of Amerika and the NWO and new State Religion of Global Warming.
ALL BOW!
to the tune of 856 Billion of your money to create "The SuperState Corporation"
......where as NO other Corporation except those getting tax payers money aloted by "Big Brother" will be able to compete.
All others shall pay to create it
"for OUR OWN benefit" ........because they know better than us what's good for us!!!

By the Way what exactly is a "Green Job" ? does anyone know anyone whom has one?

And is China, India ..And are the Russians exactly worried about CO2~?

Because Al Gore sure isn't with his 3 private jets and all-terrain gas guzlers and house the size of three city blocks that uses more energy then three New York City Blocks!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:24 PM on 05/22/2009

Europe has been using industrial wind farms for decades. No coal or gas fired plant has ever closed after a wind farm was built. They are needed for back up.The alternative energy Obama is pushing , with transmission lines is primarily wind .

The wind doesn't blow in peak use times. If it blows too hard the turbines shut down as there is danger of friction fire. It can't be stored . Energy is lost in transmission. The wind farms can't be sited close to the general population as they are a health risk. Cause seizures, irregular heart beat and migraine head aches among other things.

Wind energy is the least reliable alternative in existance. It is also bad for the environment..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

There's no doubt that a practical use of wind, solar, and wave energy necessitates some kind of storage and regeneration capability. That migh mean storing the energy generated by the renewables, or it might mean keeping legacy power plants available (although not generating at full capacity much of the time and therfore emitting CO2) to fill the gaps.

If it were the right thing to do because damaging Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) were real, then this is only a cost factor, not a deal breaker.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:27 PM on 05/22/2009
- burt2009 I'm a Fan of burt2009 16 fans permalink

OK, let's be fuel indenpendent, lets go nuclear energy

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

Fuel supply is not a problem, but many are concerned about two things: 1) waste fuel radioactivity, and 2) the potential for catastrophe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 05/22/2009
- burt2009 I'm a Fan of burt2009 16 fans permalink

Wind turbine farms are killing birds at an alarming rate and hundreds of thousands of pristine acers of land is slated for wind mills.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 AM on 05/22/2009
photo

Yeah. It's so much better pollute the air, water and land with a coal-fired power plant.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

So..... what do you think about the bird killing problem?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 05/22/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Typical argument by half-truth and misinformation.

High bird kills, particularly raptors, are old news about old windmill designs with short, fast-spinning blades and open grid towers cited on known bird migration routes and in known nesting areas.

Current closed pylon designs with longer, slower moving blades and better siting has drastically reduced or eliminated bird fatalities.

As for land use, as anyone who has ever visited a wind farm knows, the foot print of an individual pylon is tiny, and the surrounding land is completely avialable for agriculture or grazing.

You want to see thousands of pristine acres of land being despoiled go look at mountain-top coal mining in West Virgina, or Wyoming's Powder River Basin prairie being strip mined.

But you won't, because it's not at all about pristine land or bird kills, is it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 05/22/2009
photo

"We don't want to put the economy in jeopardy," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas

Oh, glad you said that, the trouble is, it's just a tad (8 yrs) too late. You'r illegal wars and banking regulations already did that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 05/22/2009
- Gunwing I'm a Fan of Gunwing 5 fans permalink

WTH is wrong with you wig nuts today? You all think that Global Warming is a joke? A fake plot by Librals to steal your life from you? Get real. The North and South polls are melting more and more each year, and it's not because of "non human influence as you wig nuts try to point out"

We are makeing it happen 10 times faster then normal there is credable data that supports this. It's fact not wild speculation! You Riech wing fulls would rather us pump more crap into the air to keep your floundering business practices where you rip off customers, and speculate prices via Oil, and other out dated ideas.

You time has ended! A new age of green, and planet extending, and human life extending engery has begun! Get on board or shut up! It's proven fact that people who live near coal factories live 20% shorter lives then those who live out in the country, it's also fact that HUMANS, not god caused the Dust Boll! Or did you think that was more climate change? That happend because of over farming by US farmers, and the lack of regulations to keep them from planting the same crops over and over agian!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 AM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

With respect sir your language is not helping.

I for one am anything but a right wing wing-nut..... only interested in being realistic. And I freely admit that I don't have all the answers. I wonder if you feel the same way about yourself (you may, it's just not apparent from your comment).
I am all for doing something about carbon dioxide emissions if it is necessary. The problem is that I haven't yet seen a compelling case that it is necessary.
you mention the poles melting. In fact the south pole snow pack has apparently increased and there is apparently no reason to believe that the ice reduction in the north is any different than what would have happened without man-made CO2 emissions. Not long ago (in geological terms, about 20,000 years ago) much of Canada was covered in ice a mile deep. The "little ice age" minimum temperature is inferred to be around 1650 and it has been warming ever since (since centuries before manmade CO2 emissions were large).
Global temperature has been going down since 1998.

My point is not that this proves there is no global warming. My point is that it is a complex question and there doesn't seem to be proof that there is global warming. It could be that some circumstantial evidence suggest there could be man made global warming, but that in fact there isn't.

We probably need better "proof" before fundamentally disadvantaging our economy.

Wingnut? ...... more flies with honey.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 AM on 05/22/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

We don't know if Jake is merely misinformed, willfully ignorant, or deliberately attempting to mislead people, but for sure he is repeating most of the major global warming/climate change denier talking points, half truths, misinformation, disinformation and outright lies.

It doesn't matter, though. We're going to get controls on CO2 emissions, either by Waxman-Markey or by EPA regulations. Deal with it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 05/22/2009
- burt2009 I'm a Fan of burt2009 16 fans permalink

Data, data, no scientific debate makes global warming nothing more than what it is, a scam. Follow the money trail.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 AM on 05/22/2009
photo

No peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disputing global warming. What data are you going by?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

If there were man made global warming through carbon dioxide emissions ..... then things like cap and trade would probably make sense (if managed competently). However, there seems to be real reason to question the "fact" that carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activity is actually a problem. Unfortunately, it appears to be an entirely feasible proposition that the strength and tenacity of the drum beat in favor of CO2 abatement may be more explained by a combination of well-meaning but misinformed activism on the part of millions of citizens and more self-interested behavior on the part of the climate science and business community.

It may well be more of a case that many scientist feel unable to make a compelling case against the so-called "consensus" rather than being able to make a compelling case for it. What if Al Gore is wrong..... and he is dragging many along with him, simply through leadership and the fervent desire of environmentalists to have a cause that puts them in the center of attention? His movie certainly does not make a definitive argument compelling the conclusion that we must fundamentally alter our economy in a disadvantageous way. Is it possible that in retrospect a few years from now the media group think associated with this issue will be seen to be just as damaging as that which led to the Iraq war?

This issue could be more damaging to Democrats than the Iraq war was to Republicans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 AM on 05/22/2009
- burt2009 I'm a Fan of burt2009 16 fans permalink

For those that have bought into global warming, save the world, stop breathing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 AM on 05/22/2009
- Gunwing I'm a Fan of Gunwing 5 fans permalink

For those who lack brains and think HUMANs can't kill anything or effect the envirment they live in look up the Dust Bull part of US history, do some reading on it and then come back. That is utter proff that man can and indeed dose effect his envirment in great and many ways. Look at the bee problems where over 30% of domestic bees have started to die off due to the HUMAN introduction of Sucros Corn Suryup in their diet instead of letting them eat the huny they make like they do in the wild, look at the massive decline in wolf population in the north, and midwest due to over hunting, and over done farm expansion!

ALso for more proof how about you look at the use of Pestisides and it's effects on the Red Tailed Hawk. They nearly died out thanks to a HUMAN invention to kill bugs, not birds, and animals.

In short all the problems I just listed were caused not by mother Natiure, or god as you claim but by MAN!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 AM on 05/22/2009
- burt2009 I'm a Fan of burt2009 16 fans permalink

OK, save the animals and birds, stop eating.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 AM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

Gunwing,
It's not a case of believing that ".....humans can't kill anything....".
It's a case of trying to understand what is really going on and doing the right thing accordingly.
Ideology has nothing to do with it.
You are no doubt well meaning. But just because you've come to believe something doesn't make it right (although it may be right).
What if fundamentally altering our economy (and especially if it is unnecessary) has a huge negative effect on our ability to compete in the world? What if the premise of what you obviously believe so strongly happens to be wrong? And what if there are bad conseqeunces to acting upon that wrong understanding?

It's only about what is really going on, and what is truly our optimal response.... if any.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 AM on 05/22/2009

What exactly is disadvantageous about reducing our reliance on fuels produced by states that are antagonistic to our national interests? What makes you question the intentions of environmentalists who lobby for regulation but not of oil companies who lobby against it? The motivation of making billions of dollars seems like a stronger one than the motivation to get attention. I'm sorry, but none of these arguments make a whole lot of sense -- what I see on this thread is a lot of conservatives willing climate change to go away with wishful thinking and anecdotal evidence.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 AM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

Steve,
I appreciate the tone of your comment in that it is a question and not an attack.
You wrote: "What makes you question the intentions of environmentalists who lobby for regulation but not of oil companies who lobby against it?"

My original comment acknowledge that millions of activists are well meaning. Yes, I would agree that the original motivation behind the "global warming" alarm was almost certainly well meaning and genuine, and I have no doubt that the preponderance of intentions of those promoting CO2 mitigation is well meaning (but possibly misguided and possibly influenced by self-interest in some degree). I also agree that any of those arguing against CO2 mitigation who are doing so for self-interested reasons that don't consider the science are not credible. I would argue that it is possible that the subtle self-interest motivations driving some on each side may not be terribly different in their quality, though obviously different in their specifics.

My interest in this is only the credibility of the science, and it matters because the economic implications are large. Can we afford to go down a wrong path as a country? So far the scientific explanation appears to be uncompelling.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 AM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

The other question was: "What is disadvantageous about reducing dependence on fossil fuels?"

I wholeheartedly agree that reduced dependence on foreign oil must be a top priority. However, there are ways to do that that don't involve reducing carbon emissions, or by going nuclear.

The disadvantage would be if the economic cost of energy from renewables is much higher than that from domestic fossil fuels, and the effect on our international competitiveness for everything else we do. I say "if" because it is not absolutely certain whether it is. My impression is, particularly due to the inherent unreliability of renewable sources, that the true economic cost of electricity would be at least 2-3 times that from nuclear, coal, or gas. Perhaps an economically persuasive argument can be made (separate from global warming, were it to not in fact exist) that such a cost differential is justifiable and somehow beneficial, if so I would have no objection to it.

But in the absence of such an argument, and on the basis of not seeing a compelling case for AGW, the other domestic alternative energy sources may be better for the country as a whole.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 AM on 05/22/2009
- Roguewolf I'm a Fan of Roguewolf 36 fans permalink
photo

It is the Waxman-Markey Bill and Waxman didn't even read it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 05/22/2009
- burt2009 I'm a Fan of burt2009 16 fans permalink

The dems didn't even read the stimulus bill. It standard operational procedure to make everyone feel good and pass expensive bills that sound good. The only difference between CA and DC is CA can't print money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 05/22/2009

The continued solar inactivity is consistent with forecasts from Russia's Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, over more than a year. On Jan. 22, 2008 senior scientist Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the Space Research Lab at the Pulkovo Observatory, said in an interview with RIA Novosti that, "temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming."

Abdusamatov warned correctly, at the beginning of 2008, that global temperatures would drop slightly that year, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing, even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels. According to Abdusamatov's 2008 forecast, "By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-60. It will last for about 45-65 years and by mid-21st Century, the planet will face another Little Ice Age."

Belittling the global warming scare, Abdusamatov pointed out, "According to scientists, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade—but global warming has practically stopped. Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1°C in the past ten years—however, it never happened."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 05/22/2009
- burt2009 I'm a Fan of burt2009 16 fans permalink

Don't confuse everyone with facts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 05/22/2009
- Roguewolf I'm a Fan of Roguewolf 36 fans permalink
photo

Maybe we will need a Global Warming bill to warm the planet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 AM on 05/22/2009
- burt2009 I'm a Fan of burt2009 16 fans permalink

The global warming (which has never been debated by Gore) bill seals the fate of America. The bill will reduce the U.S. to third world status. What a shame our grandchildren will never know how to enjoy themselves as they will always be working to support government policies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 05/22/2009
photo

No your penchant for illegal wars will reduce you to third world status.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 05/22/2009
- jake1492 I'm a Fan of jake1492 9 fans permalink

The combination of the two things is a very heavy burden.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:10 AM on 05/22/2009
- Bcasey11 I'm a Fan of Bcasey11 13 fans permalink
photo

Taxation is the means by which a government exerts control on there people, support geothermal and nothing else, NO CARBON TAX!!!!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 05/22/2009
- Bcasey11 I'm a Fan of Bcasey11 13 fans permalink
photo

2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 AM on 05/22/2009
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect