Will it work in solving the non-existent "climate change" problem? Sure, I guess. It works as well as any other "remedy" this president recommends. He is the monarch in "The Emperor's New Clothes". Everyone is afraid to say that much of what he utters is complete nonsense. So he signed a 700 billion dollar bill that won't fix the economy. So what...he inherited the problem, so he gets to decide to what degree it can be fixed, and when, and he will constantly remind you about Bush, much like FDR reminded everyone about Herbert Hoover. It's the same old story.

The temperature of the earth fluctuates. First, let's start with the concept of measuring the temperature. If you spot measure, how do you know that "taking an average" is in anyway significant? How does the temperature in Miami relate to the temperature in Moscow?

Also, if you want to demonstrate any scientific knowledge, you can't refer to carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That's idiotic. It's been here from the beginning of life on the planet, and the plants breathe it in to convert back to oxygen for us. Notice that nobody is talking about planting more trees. That would be the one measure that makes sense if you are concerned about carbon dioxide levels. They (the enviro-Nazis) are not recommending it because that would not allow them to control your life -- to tell you how big of a house or a car you can have, or how much you will pay for energy, and for all the manufactured goods you buy, or how much beef you can have because cows fart too much. It's absurd -- it's the new religion, and if you question it you are considered a heretic.

I agree with you, what I am looking for is someone that believes in cap and trade and why they believe it will work. Personally no one I have talked to that has any understanding of Cap and Trade or Cap and TAX actually believes that it is a good thing. Can someone please explain to me why they believe cap and trade is a good thing and how it will benefit US tax payers and the environment?

Non partisan honesty...

I cannot.
The cases I have seen where this type of system
works are few. I did read one that worked on a small scale.

But for God's sake why dont Republicans stick to this part
of it and not get involved with the side Science issues
which do not fit their agenda. Republicans just deny
there is any problem. How about "we really dont know
if a man-made climate problem exists, but we do know
for damn sure if there is a problem, this will not fix it."

Why start with slanted BS to begin the argument?
Cut right to the meat. Republicans have discredited
themselves so many times with Science (evolution already
mentioned) that when something legitimate arises the other
side is automatically going to think its disingenous. There
are still Republicans that never believed acid rain existed
or caused any problems.

Yet another reason why we need Morty back.......

There is a whole lot of scientific stuff that is "unproven" - but considered to be virtually absolute. Don't fall into the, "it's just a 'theory' trap", as that's a common misunderstanding of the scientific use of what a "theory" is. Nearly all of medicine is "theory".

If you think that "spot measuring the temperature" in Miami vs Moscow is an integral part of "showing global warming exists", you need to go read up on global warming. Please. Here's a start: www.nationalgeographic.com

Yes, you can refer to a substance that is common as a "pollutant" when it is in excess. Not idiotic at all. A dangerous pollutant.

Guess you are missing the huge "plant trees, plant green" push on now, especially in cities. Yes, everybody is talking about planting more trees.

Your comment about enviro-nazi's and religion is a silly characterization that has nothing to do with global warming and climate change, and everything to do only with personal political views.

Stop dragging science through the mud just to satisfy political views.

you should do what i do. just close your eyes and imagine all the "i just breathed out and caused pollution ha ha ha!" folks breathing in a 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere for a few minutes. it's a completely harmless gas in any concentration, dont'cha know?

btw: all the "plant a tree" stuff is great for us but what happens in 300 years when all the trees we planted start dying and releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere? plants are carbon banks. whatever is deposited eventually gets withdrawn.

wiphan: cap and trade on sulphur dioxide was an unqualified success despite screaming from coal energy it was too expensive and the environmentalists it wouldn't work quick enough. remember acid rain? what does the right have against market solutions that worked before?

Now how ironic and moronic is it that Al Gore brought this up a week ago?.....

Brought what (specifically) up? People that confuse global climate change with political agendas?

Just for you Kev in Morty's absence:


CRAP AND CHARADE




Crinkle.....







Trash can.

that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat from Nazi Germany.

Nobel Prize worthy moronic

i'm not sure i understand either.

it's difficult to convince people that changes occurring on decade or century long time scales are as large a threat as say... hyena's rushing you and crushing your skull.

if his point was that we aren't equipped to understand very long cycle threats, he was dead on. it's just not in the nature of a beast that lives 70 plus years to seriously worry about what happens slowly over the next several centuries.

Deb-o-Deb..now I know why I love you :D

Gore's point was the threat from climate change is a urgent as the threat from Nazi Germany....if he had meant hyena's I'm sure he would have said that. What he did say is Nazi Germany and IMO his comparison is like me saying rust on steel buildings is as urgent a problem as the World Trade Center coming down. But this administration and Dems have at least been consistent on downplaying previous crimes of genocide which, I can't figure out why?

i read another interesting article today about cap and trade. about the amount of money it will cost families, jobs lost, and all to fix a climate change that may or may not even need fixing.

even if you concede the climate needs fixing this plan is doomed simply because China, India and I'm sure a host of other countries have stated they will not comply. Furthermore the Dems feel any new 'Green' tax placed on imports will possibly cause a trade war so their answer was to drop that from the bill. The much bigger problem directly concerning carbon emissions is that say a steel plant or refinery here will face new taxes while China & Co. keep trudging along. Sooner rather than later their (U.S. made) advantage will tilt the scales further making imports of say steel and gasoline cheaper and thus more desirable. The American plants close, jobs are lost, collected income and corporate tax goes down meanwhile production abroad increases to meet the need of new (U.S. made) business. Meanwhile China, whose plants are subject to far less regulation, produces the same steel previously produced here, with a far larger carbon output. I would argue environmentally, Cap and Trade would end up w/a net increase in greenhouse gases produced by man. We also get to further depend on foreign companies to refine the oil we already import and are reliant on.

Of course I may be in the minority for thinking Nazi Germany was a far MORE urgent problem than any threat from climate change but I don't have a Nobel Prize either. :D

That's OK, they never gave Neville Chamberlain a Nobel Prize either... :)

Can we say "global climate change" is a theory like global cooling was, or maybe that being Haitian was a risk factor for AIDS or even better, the science behind Y2K?