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?

Only if one's depth of understanding about topics scientific is limited to not-very-accurate third-grade-level news media sound bites.

Well that's a very simplistic and condescending way of looking at the information now, but the information was considered gospel when it came out. There was a whole cottage Y2K industry as well as the medical community putting Haitian-Americans under increased scrutiny at the time. I was there and witnessed it so if you want to go into revisionist history go right ahead.

Yes, and I was there and witnessed it, too, and the characterizations of those issues in your previous post are pretty darn broad, generalized, and not very precise.

So, as I said ...

That is exactly where we heard about Global warming.

They are right and we are wrong to even question the 'science' behind it. The fact that this year and last have been a cooler years than previous years by every global measure is proof that....they are right !!! Dont ya get it? By the time anyone figures out who was right or wrong on this topic, unlike the others you listed, we will all be dead for hundreds of years!

That's true...Global warming is why it's hot, cold, wet, dry.......

That's "climate change".

Call it whatever you want. It's the same flawed theory.

How so? Cause it is cooler for this one year? Global warming is undeniable, the temperature of the planet is increasing over the past half century and especially over the last 30 years. Whether it is man-made or occurring naturally is up for debate but that it is occurring is as certain a "theory" as evolution or gravity are. There is just no way you can rationally look at this graph and conclude otherwise:

http://199.6.131.12/en/scictr/watch/...obal_temp1.jpg

The real question is whether the warming is something we should be concerned with or something that is just happening naturally. The sooner people stop trying to pretend global warming isn't occurring the sooner there can be a rational discussion on the real issue, whether or not we are the problem.

I'm not trying to say the temperatures are not rising over the 30 year snapshot. What I am disputing is that this is not a natural phenomenon that is being blamed on this carbon nonsense using a very narrow slice of data extrapolated across 4.5 billion years of Earth history.

The "science legacy" of the born-again George W. Bush. Thanks for making critical reasoning, facts and thinking "optional" or a matter of "belief", George. Well done :tro:

don't forget the debt owed to the "fair and balanced" crowd where thousands of climate scientists struggle to be heard above the constant drumbeat of a few dissenters.

1 senator that thinks cows fart carbon dioxide gets more press than 1000 climate scientists.

Just so I've got this straight, if you disagree with man made climate change you're not critically thinking?????:zz:
And I don't remember using George Bush in any of my arguments.

Maybe the Senator was schooled in Texas, out of textbooks fitting the Texas School Board criteria?

That is the liberal way. They are right and everyone else is wrong regardless. And when they have nothing else, they just blame Bush.

This is why that conservative rag TIME Magazine was predicting doom from an Ice Age 35 yrs ago.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

The subject of this post is Cap and Trade not Global Warming so anyone, explain how taxing everything American while NOTHING foreign will reduce carbon output and not make it worse?

Al Gore flying around via private jet, comparing the holocaust, as if the gas the Nazi’s produced is the same as we are, should serve as some clue as to the charade of this bill and the people behind it including the vast amount of scientists who are publicly funded to 'prove' global warming.

I think it's fair to say that Liberal and Bush are easily interchanged with Republican and Obama. There is no more unbending group that hard core conservatives...they may be "right" on some stuff, but I never hear they are wrong, unsure or bending on anything. It's attack mode 24/7 and everyone else is a moron.

No. If you disagree that climate change (not man-made climate change) is occuring, you're probably about 10-15 years behind the rest of the world, have the ability to completely ignore overwhelming reams of repeatedly validated data, and probably still believe the earth is flat.

Or their relatives are yaks.

Or they get their info from not-very-accurate third-grade-level news media sound bites. Or were schooled in Texas, out of textbooks fitting the Texas School Board criteria?

Just trying to be “impeccable with your word(s).” Not the voices in my head.