Cap and Trade vote on Friday
 

Whatever you guys do, call your congressman at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote AGAINST this bill.

Many of you already know what this is, so I'll keep this brief. The bill creates an artificial market with "carbon credits", the effect of which is to reward countries that don't produce any carbon dioxide, you know -- the naturally occurring gas that we breathe out and plants breathe in so they can make the oxygen we need. Our carbon dioxide is "capped" from cars, factories -- they can't stop us from exhaling yet, and we "buy carbon credits" from countries that produce nothing, so some third world countries will get big checks paid for from the increased energy bills that all of us in the United States will pay.

In addition, whether you believe in "Global Warming" or not, this will not help to reduce the worldwide output of CO2 since it is the Chinese who are putting up a new smokestack-type of power plant every 2 weeks. But it will cripple our economy unnecessarily since it is the power companies and us that will be punished. It is us who will not be able to afford to run our air conditioners or heat, for no reason but the errant thoughts of undereducated do-gooder liberals Congress.

By the way, as I write this, we in the Northeast are having one of the coolest starts to summer in recent memory, and last year was one where there was not one 100 degree day. Any of you guys ever see something that is heated and spontaneously cools on its own, just to reheat again at record levels? No, because such things don't happen in the physical universe -- the phenomenon does not exist.

I enjoy political discussions here and I do respect others who feel differently on the conservative versus liberal points of view. But this bill is that important to stop because the freedoms and lifestyle we all enjoy require access to affordable energy, and I think it's a cause we all share an interest in.

It wont pass the senate and if by some miracle it does it will be another "victory" for the Obama administration that will be detrimental to his party.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

I bolded some stuff to above to reply to the post.

But I got blinded with psuedoscience.

OMG.
I humbly submit a question to the board:
Is this how the general public (Joe the Plumber)
thinks and believes?
Im serious.
This is scary.

Joey..no offense..and this is cool..but I disagree with every single thing you wrote..that's hard to do, even for a Lefty/Righty arguement...Congrats

Okay.
I read it again.

Nothing I read in the article refutes anything
I have read before. Or what I was planning to refute.

OK..I'll bite..why is everything you disagree with the "Liberal Media" and everything you agree with the Washington Times, FOX News or The WSJ..obviously not media at all...I guess

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-31282991_ITM



i can't help but wonder, after living thru warnings of impending doom from a soon to occur ice age, and now dealing with catastrophic warming, if these aren't just futile exercises of man attempting to control things that are really beyond his control?

Control..no? But if Joey, Timmi, Cannon or others really believe Global Warming is a huge hoax...a "Cottage Industry"..than there is no conversation.

But didn't you read the article? There are a whole 700 scientists worldwide estimated to be skeptics of man made global warming. I don't know what could be more conclusive. :rolleyes: Oh, wait, I do, if there weren't 99% on the other side.

hoax might be the wrong word. i'm sure some scientists then believed in a looming ice age as much as some scientists now believe there is warming. the question is just how much we affect it for good or bad? we seem to think we are far more important than we really are, so i'd imagine we also think we play a far greater role in the grand scheme of things than we really do...
i also can't help but wonder if there isn't an agenda for some folks. one argument against fossil fuels is the pollution-what better way to convince everyone there's need to change to alternative energy than to say that continued use of what we're relying on now means the end of the world? i'm skeptical about the whole deal, mainly due to past actions-which is why i posted that link. we've been here before, only we were headed to a cold disaster, not a warm one. it seems, according to scientists, that whatever we're doing is wrong-we cause too much cold, and now too much heat. either way, i guess we're screwed.

not a 'majority rules' argument??? i wonder if more would step forward if they didn't fear a backlash. galileo was right, but denied his own correct findings to avoid being burned at the stake.

You are really comparing the plight of the modern scientist to Galileo?

i mentioned galileo as an example of someone who was afraid to speak the truth-obviously i don't expect someone to be charged with heresy anymore.

you've heard the term safety in numbers, right? no one wants to be called a crackpot. more scientists are rethinking the whole global warming deal-who knows when thing will tilt in the other direction? if in a few years time, the majority of scientists said there's no man made global warming, will you be content with that? how much is science, and how much is jumping on the bandwagon? the fact that scientists change sides has got to make you wonder just how much real science is involved-at least it does me. science is supposed to be based on facts, not beliefs-which is probably why some call it the 'new religion'.

We are talking about 700 scientists worldwide!!!! Do you understand how small of a number that is? You can find far more than 700 people that don't believe we landed on the moon. And today's society is completely different than from in Galileo's time. Back then you were executed if you went against the common belief. Now the only way to make your name is to go against the common belief. And how about all the scientists that spoke up for man made global warming in the early days that were ridiculed by the media and turned out to be right? Weren't they also afraid of being called a crackpot (which many of them were)?

There are none to step forward..I bet that half the ones that did don't even believe what they are saying but are just doing it hoping for the PR. Arguing the dollars allocated for GW, allocated for windmills, etc is wrong is one thing,...arguing that it doesn't exist is like saying the Earth is flat...or maybe Columbus is still wrong...

There are people who like to stir the pot
because they want you to believe they are challenging
the status quo by innovative thought. And it is anything
but innovative, it is a purposeful attempt to go against
popular thought for the sake of the attempt, not because
they have crucial insight.


There are evolutionary biologists that refute
that populations of organisms change through time.

Originally Posted by joeydb
In addition,
1. whether you believe in "Global Warming" or not,

The Earth's average temperature has clearly increased over at least the past 50 years.

2. we in the Northeast are having one of the
coolest starts to summer in recent memoryand last year was one where there was not one 100 degree day.

We are having horrible droughts in Texas and it is much hotter and its only June.

You do not look at one place on the earth and make a declaration about the entire Earth, most of which is covered by water. My example is as silly as yours.

3. Any of you guys ever see something that is heated and spontaneously cools on its own, just to reheat again at record levels?

yes. When I turn my oven on it heats (electrical energy turned to heat energy). When I turn it off, it "spontaneously" loses heat to the surroundings in my house because the surroundings are at a lower temperature. There is a chance that my oven will get even hotter (after I turn it off)and that every atom with high kinetic energy (high temp) will gather in one spot within the oven. But it is incredibly improbable.

And what you are trying to say in the last part... I have not a clue. I will just add that the earth has clearly gone through hot and cold periods without God or man directing it to do so. What are you saying?

4. No, because such things don't happen in the physical universe -- the phenomenon does not exist.

WHAtttt?

What phenomenon does not exist?

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02.


that's a line from the wsj article cannon posted...

That inconvenient truth is what is happening in one particular layer
of the earth's atmosphere. So it is accurate. But other layers lead
to a diff. picture. And for at least the last 50 years the earth's average
atmospheric temperature has gone up.

The author should stick to the argument that the cap and trade
does nothing to effect climate change. Picking a time period showing
relative stability in one layer is disingenious imo, especially when particulate
pollutants (which have increased) in that layer might play a major role in the convenient time period chosen.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml Here's the lowdown.

Here's the meat and potatos...http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1112sWraR::.. Do you think any of our well paid Representatives bothered to read any of this? They had a whole day to do so.

.....or attempting to control others!

It's the sun, stupid.

Or not.

Jobs > environment

Get some god damned jobs for the people to pay for this global warming tax and stop punishing the people who have jobs by having them carry the burden of increased taxes so slapdicks who don't have jobs can have a/c.

Obama is a failure.

We successful controlled acid rain. The US and other countries made laws requiring that the emissions of sulphur dioxide be lowered and solved a much smaller problem.

?? But man causes a large portion of the problem. That part can indeed be controlled.

Man tore up the prairie and man created the dust bowl years, and is responsible for the anemic soils of today that cannot be farmed unless the soil is supplemented with boatloads of fertilizer. He completely changed the face of the land in the US in only 300 years.

Man caused and continues to cause the death of countless wild species in the waters and on the land, and the lack of those species to occur in nature, and the imbalances and disease outbreaks and feasts/famines that resulted.

Man has created and caused flooding, death, destruction and a self-species population explosion and influence truely unique in the planets history, in only a few years relatively, with an arrogance and disregard that now has come home to roost.

The earth has never previously, in any of history we've discerned, had a huge overpopulation of one species that influences everything else, and fouls the water and the air and the land. Now it does.

i watched a show about the dust bowl-it seemed to think the primary cause was lack of rain caused by a very strange shift of the jet stream, which kept rain from coming for several years, leading to the drought. plowing didn't cause the drought, altho plowing and then having nothing growing allowed soil to shift-thousands of acres of topsoil was blown away. so, pretty easy to say it was all mans fault-but it wasn't. man had lived and grown crops in that area successfully for years-when there was rain.

the thing is, there are more scientists arguing that there is no real warming-there are also quite a few scientists saying there may be warming, but it's not man-made.

interesting that more countries are recognizing that right now we have bigger obstacles in front of us then warming-which may be why so many are re-thinking their priorities. but not obama and the House...

That global warming is a bs theory? Seems like there a lot of evidence that refutes it and people that are certainly qualified that are making these points. The fact remains that we wont know who is right or wrong for a long time but we do know that as Chinese dont seem to give a damn so whatever we do is largely meaningless anyway.

Personally, I think this issue has been tied to getting the US off of Petroleum and Coal. Imo opinion if we could get away from these two sources of energy, or at least limit our dependency with alternatives, it would solve some huge problems:

1. The middle east, Iran, Ven., and Russia dont hold US and therefore many of our allies hostage in negotiations that effect the economy later on.

2. We get rid of all sorts of pollution problems. (not even considering CO2 and any warming occuring)

Problem is it is so easy an inexpensive to keep on using Coal and Petroleum (for the moment). Coal will be easy for a long time. In some people's view it in the best interest of our country to bite the bullet now. Government has clearly has been a catalyst for innovation in the past (Conservatives and Republicans can now shudder in horror). I think Obama's group thinks we need to start, and the timing is actually good for various economic reasons
and politcal reasons.

I think this country has little will to see things through. Pain must be felt first. I believe this requires gas nees to go to 4-5 bucks a gallon again. And then further. Russia gets wealthy, Iran wont have social unrest because their economy is rolling, and we start "getting it" again.

Oh heck I can barely read this.
I did not make small newspaper long
sentences.

Were any of the experts at climate change or people in that field that were mentioned in the article on the staffs of any of these organizations? Or were they merely stating that their professional opinion was that the global warming theory was not only misguided but politicalized which has led to misinformation that the liberal media refuses to recognize? The liberal media has long championed the "environmental" lobby and global warming is the centerpiece of that effort. They will have a lot of egg on their faces if the entire global warming theory turns out to be wrong. And nothing kills a liberal elitist media member like being wrong about an issue it has pursued so strongly for so long. I don't know if global warming is man made or even still occurring. Sounds like a lot of scientists don't either. It would be nice if global warming was referred to in this manner as more data is collected and dissected(either way) opposed to the absolute that it seemingly always is.

i absolutely disagree. we're already experiencing pain, with the govt thinking putting us deeper in the debt that got us where we are as some freakish sort of cure. the last thing we need right now is for energy prices to go thru the roof, which will only make our economic problems even larger than they are now. i don't think we lack will-we do however seem to have folks in high places who think we're our own worst enemy, and that we are all the cause of everything wrong is this world-i disagree with that as well. i certainly don't see how 4-5 dollar gas solves anything. gas is and will continue to be a relatively cheap energy source. we've already done a lot to reduce pollution-it would be nice if others, such as china, would follow suit, rather than thinking we can just get cleaner and cleaner, while they do not.

There would have been no loss of thousands of acres of land, topsoil blown away, without man.

The only question regarding climate change is the extent of man's contribution, and the vast majority of respected scientists say it's plenty.

No one said it is a huge hoax but there certainly is a lot of inconclusive data and a growing group of influential scientists that have created a doubt. Trying to say that the global warming push hasn't been jammed down our throats as an absolute truth is myopic. I have no knowledge in this field but as more data is being crunched, non-political scientific figures are casting doubt. Why shouldn't I?

Thanks climate expert!

1. I understand this concern. I do not necessarily disagree. But Obama has economists that do. I just dont know enough. I am stating what I think our current administrations thinking is.

2. This is somewhere around the price that makes alternatives to gasoline cheaper. There is no doubt that passenger vehicles can run effectively off the new technology. Big transport will most likely always require some type of petroleum or hydrocarbon. Electricity will not provide enough power for all transport.

Coal:
Texas is by far the biggest wind producer in the country. It is more expensive right now, but it might let people in San Antonio continue to exercise outside. People just dont get the health concerns with bad air. Look at China. They dont live as long and their people are not as healthy now due to air. They become an economic power house and they also become unhealthy. We need nuclear power, sun and wind where applicable imo. More electric cars or mass transit would also help with the air problem of course.

Bad air is a personal issue for me. Europe has solved this problem a number of times over. We can also.

That is what the entire push has been. A politicalized agenda. The facts are still murky but the way that some have characterized Global warming as an absolutely man made phenomenon, they cant turn back now. Hell if the earth starts cooling they will still be maintaining they were right and their actions worked! The problem is the world is a really big place and it is close to impossible to interpret all the data and factors in play to come up with a usable hypothesis that is 99.9% right. Because of this it is also impossible to tell if any of the measures that we have taken or will take will do any good.

Why do these scientists get press in front of the general public? It's because the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community thinks their theories have no basis, and are wrong. They have no validity in front of the scientific community.

There is not a big lack of consensus at all regarding global warming. Only a small minority across disciplines "cast doubt".

Bush confused and intertwined science with religion and politics. That has to stop.

Exactly how many people are experts in this field? Have any idea? How many top universities are there in the world that have a sciences dept that study this issue in depth? Surely you dont think that there are tens of thousands of experts in this field? Outside of a university or govt setting, how many of these type of people have positions?

Global warming is occurring.
There is no BS.
Global temps have increased for the last 50 years and most likely more.
Scientist who believe otherwise are not looking at
all the numbers based on what I have read.

No actually most evidence says that the temp increases have been
much more rapid than in the past unless you do some number fixing.

AGAIN.
The real question are human beings causing this.
And THIS is the real question that is not clear... to me anyways.

I will also state there is no direct link between cigarrettes and lung
cancer. But the numbers show a close correlation. We have no direct
evidence that any organic products from cigarette smoke has
caused a mutation or altered a person's lung cell DNA so that it undergoes
uncontrolled growth that kills the person.