The bad news is that US Senate rejected a measure which would've required the Army Corps of Engineers to consider climate change. The good news is that for the first time there's a majority of Senators who have voted for such consideration. [Story; AP]
The Senate, after one of its first full debates on global warming, defeated a proposal Tuesday that would have required the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the impact of climate change in designing water resources projects.
The vote was 51-42 in favor of the amendment to a water projects bill, falling nine short of the 60 votes needed to approve it under rules set for the debate.
Opposition was led by Republican Sen. James Inhofe, top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate's leading skeptic of human-induced global warming.
Inhofe, naturally an opponent of the Kyoto Protocols, says this and much more in a press release; he argues passionately that Kyoto would hit hardest on the poor. This viewpoint is based on the false premise (stated in his release) that Kyoto requires all countries to make similar efforts to reduce greenhouse gases; in fact, poor countries are not, they must report on their emissions and develop long-term programs for their reduction.
The issue of catastrophic global warming, which I would like to speak about today, fits perfectly into this mold [of scaremongering]. Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science. Global warming alarmists see a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, war, terrorism, economic dislocations, droughts, crop failures, mosquito-borne diseases, and harsh weather-all caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, sounded both ridiculous and alarmist when he said in March, "I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict."
Comments