Global Warming

[Gene Frenkle]

More artificial government control.

How exactly is government control artificial? All cap and trade does is allow companies to sell carbon credits on the open market. There is already restriction on how much pollution these companies can produce.

[GG]

How exactly is government control artificial? All cap and trade does is allow companies to sell carbon credits on the open market. There is already restriction on how much pollution these companies can produce.

 

Because it's not truly a free market, as there are the usual loopholes for politically well connected. The bigger issue is the whole idea of capping carbon emissions as if carbon is the sole global warming agent. Very little thought is put into the true cost benefit analysis of capping carbon vs implementing new energy vs power needs that modern society requires.

 

I'm betting that you've heard very little along those lines, as opposed to the "carbon emissions, are bad" cackle.

[Rob's House]

How exactly is government control artificial? All cap and trade does is allow companies to sell carbon credits on the open market. There is already restriction on how much pollution these companies can produce.

You just exposed cap & trade for the bs that it is. It doesn't do ANYTHING to restrict pollution or CO2.

Industries that emit CO2 buy excess carbon credits from those who, by the nature of their operation use less. No less carbon is emitted, you are just transferring funds from one entity to another.

 

And if you did restrict or increase the cost of industry that by its nature emits carbon, you give every other country in the world a competetive advantage over us, and you still have the net total amount of carbon in the atmosphere because we can't keep it in their atmosphere and not ours.

 

So what was you point?

[Gene Frenkle]

Because it's not truly a free market, as there are the usual loopholes for politically well connected. The bigger issue is the whole idea of capping carbon emissions as if carbon is the sole global warming agent. Very little thought is put into the true cost benefit analysis of capping carbon vs implementing new energy vs power needs that modern society requires.

 

I'm betting that you've heard very little along those lines, as opposed to the "carbon emissions, are bad" cackle.

There is no truly free market then, because there are loopholes everywhere and that's not really a very a good argument. There are other global warming agents, but that doesn't make controlling/reducing carbon emissions a bad idea. I'm interested in the subject and as with many other interests, I try to ignore talking points and actually have some idea of what's going on.

[Magox]

There is no truly free market then, because there are loopholes everywhere and that's not really a very a good argument. There are other global warming agents, but that doesn't make controlling/reducing carbon emissions a bad idea. I'm interested in the subject and as with many other interests, I try to ignore talking points and actually have some idea of what's going on.

I know you don't like hearing this, but every initiative liberals have are to tax a profitable business or person and redistribute it. That's the way it has always been and will be.

 

Instead of taxing consumers and energy producers, why not give incentives and tax breaks to clean energy companies and research?

 

This way you get a "greener" world without punishing consumers and businesses.

[Gene Frenkle]

You just exposed cap & trade for the bs that it is. It doesn't do ANYTHING to restrict pollution or CO2.

Industries that emit CO2 buy excess carbon credits from those who, by the nature of their operation use less. No less carbon is emitted, you are just transferring funds from one entity to another.

 

And if you did restrict or increase the cost of industry that by its nature emits carbon, you give every other country in the world a competetive advantage over us, and you still have the net total amount of carbon in the atmosphere because we can't keep it in their atmosphere and not ours.

 

So what was you point?

You're against free market cap and trade, check.

 

We're the US of muthafukin A. It may seem a burden up front, but the technologies produced by this green pursuit will benefit American industry as a whole. See "Space Race" for past results.

 

I know you don't like hearing this, but every initiative liberals have are to tax a profitable business or person and redistribute it. That's the way it has always been and will be.

 

Instead of taxing consumers and energy producers, why not give incentives and tax breaks to clean energy companies and research?

 

This way you get a "greener" world without punishing consumers and businesses.

Wasn't this initially a Conservative initiative?

 

Regardless, why not limit emissions AND give tax breaks to such companies? Do we have to choose one or the other?

[Taro T]

You just exposed cap & trade for the bs that it is. It doesn't do ANYTHING to restrict pollution or CO2.

Industries that emit CO2 buy excess carbon credits from those who, by the nature of their operation use less. No less carbon is emitted, you are just transferring funds from one entity to another.

 

And if you did restrict or increase the cost of industry that by its nature emits carbon, you give every other country in the world a competetive advantage over us, and you still have the net total amount of carbon in the atmosphere because we can't keep it in their atmosphere and not ours.

 

So what was you point?

Additionally, in most versions of C&T it is also raising another barrier to entry for new companies as the existing ones are the ones that get the carbon credits to be traded. Hey, cool, 1 more new way to stiffle innovation. What's not to love?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ

This report is typical of the misleading information and down right lies that are told on the right about global warming. The report they are talking about fully supports their concluion that global warming is both happening and man made, they are just criticizing points about some the the smaller conclusions. Welcome to science!

 

They believe its such an important issue that they want it studied in the best possible way. To say that any criticism of the scientists from other scientists is proff that global warming is fake is to only show you know nothing about the scientific method

 

Here is a more accurate article:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/08/30/report_climate_science_panel_should_be_better_run/?page=1

 

 

~smug

[GG]

You're against free market cap and trade, check.

 

We're the US of muthafukin A. It may seem a burden up front, but the technologies produced by this green pursuit will benefit American industry as a whole. See "Space Race" for past results.

 

 

Wasn't this initially a Conservative initiative?

 

Regardless, why not limit emissions AND give tax breaks to such companies? Do we have to choose one or the other?

 

Because you're tilting at the windmills with these proposals. Taxing carbon output is highly ineffective because you cannot precisely measure the carbon output and you're not taxing everyone equally. So in effect, you end up taxing the end user through a highly convoluted system, without doing swuat to reduce the carbon, nor seriously putting in a dent in changing behavior.

 

If you truly wanted to change behavior, then you would tax the hell out of all current energy sources. Of course you would also stifle the economy, which has subsisted on some kind of internal combustion for nearly two centuries.

 

So what you say? It's needed. Then look across the pond, where energy already is taxed to the hilt and the economies stink. You would figure that they would be the perfect breeding ground for space age technologies that could get good energy out of hippie dung. Yet, the best thing that they came up with is nuclear energy.

 

This gets back to science in a truly scientific way. Burning fossil fuels unfortunately is still the most efficient way to generate energy, by a significant factor. There is nothing on the horizon that stands to match that, unless the greens have a 180 on nuclear energy.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking at improving the efficiency and output of fossil fuels, but it's ridiculous to think they should be abandoned. The space program you refer to was a nice toy that brought bragging rights, but in no way did it lead to transformational economic shifts, similar to what you expect for the energy industry.

[Rob's House]

You're against free market cap and trade, check.

 

We're the US of muthafukin A. It may seem a burden up front, but the technologies produced by this green pursuit will benefit American industry as a whole. See "Space Race" for past results.

 

You're comparing apples to hand grenades. The space race didn't put undue burdens on American businesses. This business of We're USMFA doesn't excuse us from the fundamental laws of economics. Getting overconfident because you think you're unbeatable is a good way to find yourself on the losing end saying "what happened?" See "Tortoise and the Hare"

 

Plus the ultimate goal of these "green" initiatives has nothing to do with efficient forms of energy as it pertains to cost but as it pertains to carbon. Reduced carbon will make mindless hippies happy but will do less than nothing for the US economy.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Rob's House

[OCinBuffalo]

1. We are dealing with people that are psychologically committed to the idea that man is the only cause of global warming. Some of them are at the UN, some are at Universities, the IPCC is chock full of them, and some are even on this friggin' board.

 

2. How does one become psychologically committed to a position? Easy. In essence, the effect replaces the cause. The effect is so desirable to them that the cause must be supported at all costs. In fact, they don't even want to discuss the cause, or allow it to be held to reasonable scrutiny, because that endangers the effect.

 

3. Example #1: The Boston.com article says that "Several outside reports -- including those by the British, Dutch and American governments -- have upheld the chief scientific finding of the climate panel: that global warming is man-made and incontrovertible." Where are these reports linked in this article? Where's the context in that statement?

 

How much credibility does our current government have? On anything? This is the most far-left administration we have had since LBJ, and we are supposed to believe that they have objectively reviewed this report? Forget the Dutch and British, of all people, their university is where the scandal comes from. Are we supposed to believe this has nothing to do with political CYA? The simple fact is that all 3 governments have a LOT to lose from the IPCC scandal. All 3 have been carrying water for man-made global warming for years, both in power and out, and we simply cannot take their word at face value. But, this article removes all context, and is an example of the altered perception of the psychologically committed.

 

4. Example #2: The Boston.com article contradicts itself: "On top of that, the winter seemed unusually cold in many places, undercutting belief in global warming.", and in the very next paragraph says: "This year, so far, is on target to be the hottest on record worldwide with a number of extreme weather events."

 

So which is it, there d-bag? The winter "seemed" unusually cold? How does either of these prove anything? But more importantly, how does the record-setting winter, only "seem" cold, while the summer, of course , set records? Again, this is clear evidence of the altered perception that I am talking about.

 

There are more examples, but the point has been made. Clearly we are dealing with people that don't "seem" able to help themselves. Apparently making predictions that glaciers will melt in 35 years, which would cause catastrophe, and that being exposed as pure speculation and wrong, and not science, is not a "major" problem.

 

Why in the hell are scientists sounding more and more like White House Press Secretaries, and less and less like scientists?

Answer: because unfortunately, they are just as psychologically committed as the far-left politicians.

Edited September 2, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[drnykterstein]

We might be inclined to accept the possibility that man's miniscule contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is playing a significant role in the warming of the planet if instead of demagoguery, "consensus", or intentionally misleading propaganda courtesy of Al Gore, we were presented with some actual evidence to support the theory.

Not that I believe for a minute that you would ever change your mind on this. But sure, we'll do this whole shebang one more time for the gipper.

 

Lay-mans terminology:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

 

Technical..

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

 

In my opinion, a society that does not trust and look to it's most intelligent members is !@#$ed.

Just read this: http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

 

Tell me Rob's House, and the rest of you insane folks, why do you not listen to and respect the words of the most intelligent members of our society?

 

1. We are dealing with people that are psychologically committed to the idea that man is the only cause of global warming. Some of them are at the UN, some are at Universities, the IPCC is chock full of them, and some are even on this friggin' board.the most intelligent members of our society who have done the most research and put the most time into studying this topic

Edited September 2, 2010 by conner

[Alaska Darin]

Not that I believe for a minute that you would ever change your mind on this. But sure, we'll do this whole shebang one more time for the gipper.

 

Lay-mans terminology:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

 

Technical..

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

 

In my opinion, a society that does not trust and look to it's most intelligent members is !@#$ed.

Just read this: http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

 

Tell me Rob's House, and the rest of you insane folks, why do you not listen to and respect the words of the most intelligent members of our society?

1. The world is flat and there are monsters at the edges.

2. The sun revolves around the earth.

3. Etc.

 

Science isn't infallible, despite your desperate need to worship those you somehow deem smarter than you (as if that isn't just about everyone).

 

Now before you go off on another lip smacking liberal choad slurp fest, I'm an environmentalist. I'm an environmentalist who believes that man is an abomination on the earth's environment and needs to do a far better job of stewarding this world. Every dollar wasted on "Global Warming" is a dollar not being spent on the true environmental issues that face us. Try and figure out why that is important, you !@#$ing incorrigible drone.

[DC Tom]

Not that I believe for a minute that you would ever change your mind on this. But sure, we'll do this whole shebang one more time for the gipper.

 

Lay-mans terminology:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

 

Technical..

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

 

In my opinion, a society that does not trust and look to it's most intelligent members is !@#$ed.

Just read this: http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

 

Tell me Rob's House, and the rest of you insane folks, why do you not listen to and respect the words of the most intelligent members of our society?

 

Once AGAIN proving you wouldn't know "science" if it bit you in the ass.

[KD in CA]

Nice talking point. How does a free market cap and trade system harm our economy?

 

Oh, a free market huh? So, businesses have the option to simply not join?

[DC Tom]

Oh, a free market huh? So, businesses have the option to simply not join?

 

Not a line of debate you'll win. That logic worked for health care, after all.

[OCinBuffalo]

:rolleyes:

 

Most intelligent members of our society? Conner, are you calling yourself intelligent? You do understand we have a mountain of empirical evidence that disproves this, right?

 

Rajendra Pachauri the author of this novel that can't get published due to its vapidity, is the current head of the IPCC. This guy is nowhere near highly intelligent. Not on my scale anyway. Perhaps on conner's? I imagine Keith Olbermann, or a well-trained seal, rates high on conner's scale.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Ever hear of the global cooling/freezing and new ice age we were all told about in the 70's?

 

 

Really? I grew up then and never heard about that. Can you point to some non-Rushbo links to prove people were pushing this?

 

"the snows of Buffalo would never melt". Part 3.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Jim in Anchorage

[Nanker]

Al Gore is a pervert. He will never get over the fact that he lost the election to GW. Never.

It's not ironic that the crass dumbazz who castigated Bush with, "He played on our FEARS!!!" has relied on that very tactic to foist his convenient lie on a naive and gullible public ill-equipped to understand anything deeper than sensationalist headlines, vitriolic slogans and partisan sound bites, and all to eager to believe what they want to believe according to their own preconceived notions and beliefs. It's clumsy, oafish and boorish.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

And Bill Gates is part of this vast mmgw conspiracy also. Poor little conservatives, everyone is out to get you, lol