So, Mr. Wallis, are you lauding this bill because you've read all 1,200 pages? Or are you just repeating Gore's and Pelosi's talking points? Have you noted high energy costs also kill jobs? It's estimated that 1,145,000 jobs will be lost if Waxman-Markey is effected. How long will it take to create those 1.7 million new green jobs? Hopefully, not as long as it's taking to save or create those 3-4 million new jobs promised by the stimulus legislation. And have you considered the farmers? Since farming is energy intensive, it's estimated that Waxman-Markey will be responsible for lowering farm profits by 28% by 2012 and it continues downhill from there. "Climate change" or "global warming" has become a religion for false prophets.

Judithod, have YOU read all 1,200 pages? Whose talking points are YOU repeating? Rush's? Hannity's?

Of course not! Nor have our "esteemed" legislators. Nor has Wallis. I was pointing out the fallacy of Wallis claiming that he knew this bill was the "be all and end all" without providing any legitimate economic facts.

What I have read are pro and con comments regarding the legislation, and the cons far outweigh any pros, particularly in these tough economic times.

Thanks for demonstrating the point I was trying to make, Judithod!

If you haven't read it, then how can you say with such certainly that the cons outweigh the pros? You're guilty of the very same fallacy you accuse Rev. Wallis of accepting, just from the other side of the fence!

And further, Rev. Wallis wrote, "This legislation is a start and still far from perfect. But, it defines priorities for policy moving forward..." That hardly reads like he believes this bill is the "be all and end all." Your bias against Rev. Wallis is showing, Judithod. You didn't even pay attention to what he actually wrote.

Your initial comment was quite sly, implying that I must be a conservative because I disagree with Wallis's stance. I did read what Wallis wrote, and frankly, one is either for or against this bill based on its forecast economic outcomes, not to mention its doubtful premise. Why does a bill that's just a "start and still far from perfect" need to be rushed through? This is the point that I made by referring to the rushed, unread stimulus bill. Recall the adage: Haste makes waste.

What I do read and evaluate daily is a balance of publications from the conservative (e.g., Wall Street Journal) to the liberal (e.g., New York Times). Contrary to your smug assumption, I neither watch Fox nor listen to Limbaugh.

...frankly, one is either for or against this bill based on its forecast economic outcomes, not to mention its doubtful premise.

Are you a global warming denier, Judithod?

I'm definitely a skeptic as are more and more scientists. Note that the EPA has never done its own evaluation of the global warming theory; instead, the EPA has relied on others' analyses, primarily the UN's IPCC report, which was a political document. Also, the globe has been cooling for at least 8 years; hence, the need for the terminology switch from "global warming" to "climate change." An interesting report in regard to greenhouse gas emissions is that published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Believe the website is cei.org. Also the Heritage Foundation has sponsored some solid studies.

I suspected you were a global warming denier, Judithod.

There is no trend toward skepticism of global warming by "more and more scientists", as you claim. On the contrary, as more and more real world data and evidence emerges, more and more scientists are becoming more and more convinced of the reality of global warming.

There's a very good reason why the EPA hasn't released an analysis of global warming. They were forbidden to do so by the Bush administration, which also fired many career climate scientists from the EPA, who were convinced of the threat of global warming. In case you haven't noticed, Big Energy owned the Bush administration and Bush declared himself a global warming denier, having become convinced of this by the Petroleum Industry and his 'spiritual' advisors.

There is no evidence that planet Earth "has been cooling for at least 8 years" as you claim. On the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence that the planet is warming.

Buckeye Don explains the proper use of both terms -- 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming'. Do you understand Don's point?

Look up the word 'epistemology', Judithod.
You'll find some important tips for seeking out the best information on which to base your beliefs on global warming and what to do about it.
This is, FIRST a scientific issue, and SECONDARILY a political issue.
But you lack the intellectual curiosity necessary to arrive at a scientific conclusion before considering the politics of global warming.
Looking for answers about climate change from political sources is leading you to absurd scientific conclusions about the planet you're living on.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation are highly biased political 'think tanks', funded by Corporate interests and 'conservative' Private Foundations. Their job is to 'frame' public policy debate so as to move opinion away from the best interests of the public and toward policy that favors Big Money at the expense of the majority of American citizens.

I regret to advise you that the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute are lying to you about global warming.

But why should that surprise you?

Actually, the proposed legislation favors "Big Money" at the expense of average American citizens. Also suggest that you read the news about the EPA suppressing an internal report that is skeptical about global warming.

Thank you for your concern about my common sense, but can assure you that it is thriving. Look at the facts, which include this statistic: If the U.S. adopts Waxman-Markey, global warming would be reduced by a total of 0.2 degrees F by 2100, an amount too small to detect.

What legislation can you name that doesn't favor Big Money at the expense of average American citizens?

Show me:
"news about the EPA suppressing an internal report that is skeptical about global warming".
Are you quoting another political site here?

"If the U.S. adopts Waxman-Markey, global warming would be reduced by a total of 0.2 degrees F by 2100, an amount too small to detect."
Who did the numbers?

You're getting your science from political hacks, Judith.
Have you ever taken a science class?
Do you even believe in science?

Suggest you take the global warming quiz at this site:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/...

The 0.2 number is compliments of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO.

Alan Carlin is the author of the EPA report that was suppressed. I read about it at the CBS News site and assume it's still posted there.

In the science courses that I've taken from biology to geology, I was encouraged to evaluate hypotheses, not to parrot extremist agendas and rhetoric.

Finally, apparently quite a few "political hacks" share my skepticism since 34,000 scientists have signed a statement debunking global warming.

The 'Geocraft' site with the 'global warming quiz' is anonymously hosted and consists of cherry picked quotes, taken out of context, many of them outdated and all of them extremely biased and misleading. It appears to be targeted at the unsophisticated junior high school age group. Judging from other information ('Fossils of West Virginia') on the site, it was produced in West Virginia, perhaps with the support of the Coal Industry. Anyone who participates in misleading our youth with fake science should be ashamed of themselves and you should be ashamed of yourself for referencing this pathetic site while insulting Jim Wallis and the intelligence of the God's Politics community.

The 0.2 number is compliments of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO.
If you expect us to seriously consider this data, please provide a link to the document at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This is so we can verify that you haven't cherry picked it out of context. Forgive me for not trusting your information on global warming. So far all of your information, on careful inspection, has turned out to be false or misleading .

The CBS story claiming that Alan Carlin's EPA report was suppressed turned out to be in itself a hoax.
See: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10722-Orland...

The petition is really a website with an anti global warming petition to sign.
If you don't believe in global warming and you think you're a scientist, you can sign this petition. The most well known petition signatory is Dr. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb. In the movie 'Doctor Strangelove, or How I Learned how to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb', Peter Sellers plays Dr. Strangelove, a character modeled after Dr. Teller. Did you ever see that movie?

Teller was not a climate scientist, was one of the most right wing reactionary scientists (Hungarian refugee) ever and has been dead since 2003.
There are very few if any actual climate scientists on this list.
There are a lot of geologists, petroleum 'scientists'. and others with questionable credentials.
The Energy Industry generously funds 'researchers' who produce 'research' disputing global warming.
Conflict of Interest?
If anything, this site exposes the shaky scientific ground the anti global warming movement is based on.

Judith, you go out of your way to find any unscientific quackery that will support your indefensible position that global warming is a hoax. Why not go directly to the authoritative scientific sources and bypass all of the political hackery and scientific quackery?

You claim to be trained to evaluate hypotheses, not to parrot extremist agendas and rhetoric -- and yet that is exactly what you are doing.

You just earned a Failing Grade in Science 101, 'Introduction to the Scientific Method".

Get in touch with your God given common sense, Judithod.

Judithod, yes, my reply to you might have made some unfair assumptions, though as I wrote in response to oldersixties below, my questions were rhetorical and meant to display the fallacies of your own comments, since you accused Rev. Wallis of fallacious thinking.

Nevertheless, I might not have replied with the "slyness" you accuse me of if your own initial reply to Rev. Wallis had been less of an attack. Instead of attacking him like you did, perhaps you could have been a bit more gracious: "Rev. Wallis, I have read that there might be problems with this bill...What do you think?"

Maybe if you would adopt a less in-your-face approach, some folks who blog here might be willing to have a real conversation with you.

I was unaware that you had been appointed to monitor comments for perceived politeness. My "in-your-face approach" was designed to point out that no one, much less Mr. Wallis, should champion a bill that had not been read by him or, for that matter, by most Congressional representatives. And, of course, 300 pages were tacked on to the 1200 pages at the last minute. No one should applaud legislation that has not been thoroughly read and vetted, particularly legislation proposed by an administration that promised "transparency."

What you really mean is: please do not dissent from the right thinking of Sojo and Jim Wallis. God's Politics -- if that isn't hubristic, I don't know what is -- is nothing more than lackeys for the Democratic party. Well, you're in control now, so there should be no more excuses, at least for the next four years.

As for me, I'm sick and tired of Sojo and their followers lack of ability to support dissent. I thought that was the nature of academia; but my wife and I learned long ago that academia is all about tolerance as long as we agree with you. Not the real world.

If you're so sick and tired of Sojo, then why do you even bother reading this blog? I don't waste my time reading blogs that support ideas I'm not interested in supporting. Why do you?

So much for the "sifting and winnowing" of ideas, which used to be a
mainstay of institutions like the UW-Madison. Whatever happened to dissent?
A sister of a high school friend is a top elected official in my state.
She tells my friend that politics anymore is all about winning. There is
no interest in bi-partisanship. This in a state that used to pride itself
in its independent thought. Sojourners is no different than Focus on the
Family in that respect. Too bad.

Ando, and Judithod:

How can you accuse me of stifling dissent? Where have I in any way indicated my own opinion about this legislation? I have not said a word about whether I agree with Rev. Wallis or not. My concern has only been with the way certain people who disagree with Wallis have carried themselves on this forum.

It's really strange to me that people can come onto this forum in full attack mode, accusing Rev. Wallis of merely repeating talking points of others and accusing him of not really understanding the legislation, and then expecting people to be civil to them. Then when their tirades are dismissed, they have the gall to claim that we're "stifling debate." Just where is the hubris?

If you want to have a debate--if you want real winnowing of ideas--then come here with respect for those with whom you disagree. And come here with arguments backed by facts and reason.

If you want your ideas to be respected, then you need to show respect for others' ideas. It's really that simple.

It's really strange to me that people can come onto this forum in full attack mode, accusing Rev. Wallis of merely repeating talking points of others and accusing him of not really understanding the legislation, and then expecting people to be civil to them.

I understand your concern, and I certainly hope we can all have more civilized and respectful discussions. On the other hand, though, Jesus did not always partake in "civil discussion" with the likes of the Pharisees and other pious groups who believed themselves to have the solution to the problems of the Jews. Jesus chastised them in various cases. I think in certain times asking hard questions and chastising others is appropriate. Should that be all we do? Not at all! But when one believes Wallis is doing something out of comport with the Scriptures or Christian ethics, one needs to call him out on it.

A soft answer turns away wrath, and I hope we all talk as such. But that's not always mandatory.