Cap and Trade vote on Friday

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

I've never seen anybody characterize climate change as "an absolutely man-made phenomenom."

No, it's not "close to impossible to interpret all the data". It's done every day.

We have already measured the results of changes we have made, and seen the good they will do, for example concerning acid rain and pollution in cities.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

Actually this is wrong.

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming"


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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

?? 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.

This is outrageously ridiculous.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

What exactly is good ecomonically about this again?

And it will be good to have Vladimir Putin and a bunch of crazed militant Ayatollahs have untold wealth? Please NEVER teach social studies EVER!!!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

The dust bowl was man made? Wow. Just when i thought you couldn't top Jimmy Carter as a middle eastern savant you come up with this.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

I think that air quality is but one issue facing the long term health of the Chinese people.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

What does Bush have to do with this? Are you drinking?

Since when do the anti global warming scientists get the headlines? And why would any of the scientists mentioned in just the posted article have no validity? Says who? You have no idea which side is correct, you just think you do.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I've never seen anybody characterize climate change as "an absolutely man-made phenomenom."

No, it's not "close to impossible to interpret all the data". It's done every day.

We have already measured the results of changes we have made, and seen the good they will do, for example concerning acid rain and pollution in cities.

Please. Keep blaming Bush. Acid rain and pollution in cities had a direct issue that needed to be addressed. Global warming is not a similar issue.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Actually this is wrong.

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming"


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

Yes, yes, yes.

I can find so many more the other way.
Its silly to keep up the charade.

THE CONSENSUS is clearly over at least the last 50 years the average temp. of the Earth's atmosphere has increased.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What exactly is good ecomonically about this again?

And it will be good to have Vladimir Putin and a bunch of crazed militant Ayatollahs have untold wealth? Please NEVER teach social studies EVER!!!

Would you please read my quote again.

The second part is exactly opposite of what Obama's adm. has posited.
The idea is that oil going to levels that are high will FORCE us to use alternative sources (because they are now competitive) which will cause EXACTLY the opposite of what you posted. A painful oil punch will FORCE a switch.

THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE THE ADMISTRATION BELIEVES.
GET OFF THE OIL.

did i yell?

Do you think our reliance on oil importation is a problem?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think that air quality is but one issue facing the long term health of the Chinese people.

Polluted water ways.
A beautiful example of what unrestricted industry causes.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Yes, yes, yes.

I can find so many more the other way.
Its silly to keep up the charade.

THE CONSENSUS is clearly over at least the last 50 years the average temp. of the Earth's atmosphere has increased.

It is factual data, not opinions

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is factual data, not opinions

That site you put up is so politically motivated
it is laughable. Bogus cubed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Would you please read my quote again.

The second part is exactly opposite of what Obama's adm. has posited.
The idea is that oil going to levels that are high will FORCE us to use alternative sources (because they are now competitive) which will cause EXACTLY the opposite of what you posted. A painful oil punch will FORCE a switch.

THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE THE ADMISTRATION BELIEVES.
GET OFF THE OIL.

did i yell?

Do you think our reliance on oil importation is a problem?

How is wind or solar energy going to power our cars? You are confusing the issues.

Solar and wind energy are not good large scale sources because it costs way too much to produce. The main reason being that there are only a few areas of the country that have a climate conducive to those alternates and it will cost a fortune to get the energy created to the other areas.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

That site you put up is so politically motivated
it is laughable. Bogus cubed.

What is not true?? Show me a fact posted that is not true. It is hardly a mainstream source. Simply saying that it is biased without a single example why is stupid. It is simply not coming up with the hypthesis that you like therefore it is wrong. Again I ask you Mr climate expert, refute something in there if it is wrong.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Polluted water ways.
A beautiful example of what unrestricted industry causes.

yeah and they arent going to change either.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

1. How is wind or solar energy going to power our cars? You are confusing the issues.

2. Solar and wind energy are not good large scale sources because it costs way too much to produce. The main reason being that there are only a few areas of the country that have a climate conducive to those alternates and it will cost a fortune to get the energy created to the other areas.

1. Solar and wind power produce electricity.
Electricity is a source of energy.
Hybrid cars can be charged by electricity.

Do we need to go further?
And who is confusing the issues?

2. No it does not cost way too much to produce if other sources
become more expensive. It costs way too much now because we
buy mostly from foreign companies and we have no infrastructure
set up like we do for oil.

The energy created will cost to move to begin with. Once a grid is set up
which will be expensive, it will not be.


Nuclear energy is clearly a transitional option. You did not mention Nuclear.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

yeah and they arent going to change either.

Yes they will.
They will be the example for us.
They are experimenting with their environmental health
right now.

They have already made a few coal powered
plants that emit much less CO2 than ours as well as particulate matter. Very expensive though. But they work better than anything we have. So maybe we can Japan them. Steal their ideas and make them less expensive.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What is not true?? Show me a fact posted that is not true. It is hardly a mainstream source. Simply saying that it is biased without a single example why is stupid. It is simply not coming up with the hypthesis that you like therefore it is wrong. Again I ask you Mr climate expert, refute something in there if it is wrong.

Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.

Are you kidding?


When crap like this starts a SCIENCE explaination, I stop reading.
The funny thing is I am a skeptic also. But not brainwashed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

1. Solar and wind power produce electricity.
Electricity is a source of energy.
Hybrid cars can be charged by electricity.

Do we need to go further?
And who is confusing the issues?

2. No it does not cost way too much to produce if other sources
become more expensive. It costs way too much now because we
buy mostly from foreign companies and we have no infrastructure
set up like we do for oil.

The energy created will cost to move to begin with. Once a grid is set up
which will be expensive, it will not be.


Nuclear energy is clearly a transitional option. You did not mention Nuclear.

You honestly think that we can go to electric cars? Not hybrids which are gas cars with little value on highways. Oil is not widely used a an energy source outside of gasoline. I am hardly confusing the issues. You are simply thinking far too simplistically.