Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Cap and Trade and Global Warming      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 dharmadude
Joined: 5/10/2008
Msg: 1
Cap and Trade and Global WarmingPage 1 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
As part Obama’s plan to address global warming, he is proposing market based cap and trade which forces corporations to factor carbon credits into their bottom line.

This will bring the US into line with the rest of the developed world. Americans produce more carbon dioxide per capita than any other nation. We are the only major developed nation that did not sign onto the Kyoto Protocol.

We’ve got to do something. What do you think?
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 2
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 2/28/2009 5:00:03 PM
How cap and trade is supposed to work is the allocation of a finite number of carbon emission permits (“caps”). Countries are assigned individual target levels of pollution reduction. So governments dole out cap permits to their big polluters, but those producers that reduce their pollution can sell their spare permits to those that need more of them since these buyers have not yet reduced their pollution output levels for whatever reasons. As demand for the limited amount of caps runs ahead of the supply of caps, the price of these permits rises which then creates the incentive to invest in cleaner, “green” energy production. That's the idea.

This whole theory (which is believed in by socialists) boils down to you having less reason to bid on after-market cap permits to keep a coal plant running when you can just put that money into a new, green and clean power plant instead.

About a year ago Europe started such a program. So now, a year later, what's happening there is that the recession has reduced demand for just about everything, so manufacturers are now piling up cap permits that they don't need and they're selling them. The supply of caps goes up, which causes their price to fall, which removes the incentive to reduce pollution.

So, the bigger and richer a polluter is, the easier it is for them to stockpile permits to “spend” according to the changes in the business cycle. Not only is it now cheaper for them to avoid or delay the capital expenditures of going green, they can arbitrage the cap permits as another source of profit! (How capitalist of them!)

The real-world result of this ingenious plan is to produce no help for the environment, since instead it helps mega-corporations (and their governments) to continue their polluting ways and perhaps even make more profits!

The bottom line: Barack Obama is putting this socialist scheme into his proposed new budget, despite its now-proven major flaws. In this, he is not an executive who makes sensible decisions; he is a rigid ideologue who wants things to be the way his agenda dictates, with little regard for the impact of the outcome.

But he has throngs of adoring citizens and a large politically like-minded majority in the Congress.

OP: You failed to mention that the largest polluter on the planet did not sign on to Kyoto, either. (That would be China).
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 2/28/2009 6:46:33 PM
At least this President lets us know what he's doing, unlike "he lied people died!" Why, you don't need to look any further for evidence than his recent State of the Union address (which he delivered as the Constitution requires. Didn't he??) This interesting link testifies to his accuracy:

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/fact-checking_obamas_speech.html


Gosh, I just found another new article (by Rich Lowry, a neocom!) that calls the President a magician! Bear in mind, though, that if you're someone who think Lowry's a "bad person," you can't believe anything he says. (It's a rule of logic.)

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjY0OGQxNmMxZDgzMGRiOGEwNDY4N2E5MmFlZDUyNTY=



We’ve got to do something.


That little phrase, or its equivalent, has justified every ill-advised government action imaginable. I imagine it's posted all along the royal road to he!!. Because Washington has intervened so often in the past, all sorts of people in this country have come to believe it always will again. Looks like they were right. As to global warming, see George Will's newest column.
 o4
Joined: 4/7/2007
Msg: 4
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/1/2009 8:20:13 PM
Sorry to say........Doom and gloom.
I'm sorry to say dharmadude that I have a more pessimistic opinion of the whole situation. How does one say "no" to apple pie and motherhood, or at the very least not pay homage to it with eloquent speech? But however, all too often in rough economic times how many times do we see lofty goals give way to the pragmatics of feeding oneself first? Personally on this one, no matter how great of a goal it would be to limit the CO2 through mechanisms, I believe that we will see the U.S. efforts somehow get hung up in committee, and the comparable established progress that has been made in many other countries worldwide will take steps backwards in some of those countries until the global recession/depression turns to more prosperous times again. Even environmentalists have to eat, and with joblessness soaring, planet earth will get second priority. It will all be accompanied by public political gymnastics and gnashing of teeth over it during the stage play of it all, but the results will not be maintenance of such lofty goals unfortunately. Let's check back on this one in say around 2012.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 10:41:53 AM
Is the law authorizing this program to limit carbon dioxide emissions part of the 1,000 page "stimulus" law? I haven't read this masterwork of legislation, but I wonder what specific part of the Constitution Congress is relying on for authority to regulate CO2. I heard somewhere that the new law just amends the Clean Air Act to include CO2 as a "pollutant." If it does, there must be some "rational basis" for that definition.

Why wouldn't there be an equally rational basis for considering humans mobile point sources of this "pollutant?" Just by exhaling, we're constantly adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Also, CO2 dissolves in water, so while we're at it, we'd better amend the Clean Water Act to include it as a pollutant. What's more important to Our Planet, after all--the purity of its air and water, or the lives of humans?
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 6
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 1:02:24 PM
Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who is the chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, promised on February 3 to draft cap-and-trade legislation for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions “before the end of the year.”

In Obama's budget blueprint sent to Congress on February 26, he included $645 billion in assumed revenue by 2019 for a new cap-and-trade program. The money would come from power plants and other industrial sources of greenhouse gas emissions as they buy cap and trade waivers.

Boxer is now considering trying to pass global warming legislation in the Senate without having to deal with an expected Republican filibuster by using the budget reconciliation process. In budget reconciliation, a bill cannot be filibustered by the opposition party and therefore does not require meeting the 60-vote threshold for passage by the Senate—its passed in committee. Boxer says that the process does not circumvent congressional debate of such a key policy proposal. "I'm saying that we have a process here called reconciliation,” she said. “It's sometimes used. It's sometimes not used. We're looking at that as a possibility. We're looking at all the options right now."

***

To add some perspective to the current government’s mindset, in a recent Los Angeles Times interview, Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu said:

"I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen. We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California."

The he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going" either.
 o4
Joined: 4/7/2007
Msg: 7
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 5:07:44 PM
Sock! Thanks for bringing me up to speed on what our elected Boxer and Obama are doing there! Wow! I had no idea, somehow I missed that! ~
This truly IS "oh sh*t!"
If anyone out there doesn't see the negative from this bright idea of "let's just tax polution to get our deficite back in place", please go three spaces back on the playing board and re-take your economics classes. This is bad! The quickest way to save planet earth is for all of humanity to simply just get off of it. Trouble is though, if you're reading this note, congratulations, you are a part of humanity.

And to think that a contributor to Pravda West even spoke out against it too.......

On the other hand though, it'll also cure our migrant worker illegal alien problem too though. Instead they'll have to harvest in Argentina.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 6:40:18 PM
In the mid-1970's, the N.Y. Times was running lots of panicky articles about a possible new "ice age." Of course, they never mention that now, because we're supposed to believe the opposite is true. The Earth has been quite a bit warmer at other times than now, for example during the many tens of millions of years when dinosaurs existed. People obviously had nothing to do with that warming, just as they could not have caused the ice ages of the past several hundred thousand years.

When we don't understand what makes the sun's output fluctuate as it does, and we don't know how much volcanos or collisions with objects from space have affected the Earth's temperature, it seems too easy to claim to know just how much of the effects we see is caused by people. But those who like to control other people's lives have often claimed an urgent need to act to justify infringing their liberties.
 dharmadude
Joined: 5/10/2008
Msg: 9
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 6:58:13 PM
sock puppeteer,
You make an interesting point that has some truth to it:

About a year ago Europe started such a program. So now, a year later, what's happening there is that the recession has reduced demand for just about everything, so manufacturers are now piling up cap permits that they don't need and they're selling them. The supply of caps goes up, which causes their price to fall, which removes the incentive to reduce pollution.


You are right that the recent depression of the market is causing cap permits to pile up. But you neglect to acknowledge that caps that are put on a nations output of carbon dioxide sets a maximum level of emission which are indeed a reduction of emissions regardless of the economy. And, cap and trade is what was use to control the acid rain problem between the US and Canada. All of the gloom and doom naysayers said that the costs would be enormous and they overshot thier estimates by billions of dollars. And sulfer dioxide levels were reduced to nearly half at a fraction of the projected costs. Limits are limits and they are needed to avert global warming.


About a year ago Europe started such a program. So now, a year later, what's happening there is that the recession has reduced demand for just about everything, so manufacturers are now piling up cap permits that they don't need and they're selling them. The supply of caps goes up, which causes their price to fall, which removes the incentive to reduce pollution.


The incentives to innovate will become greater as the economy strengthens and new investment will eventually reward innovation in finding ways to profit while polluting less. While the innovations may be slowed by the economy, so are emissions. The limits still result in less carbon per country. That’s good and needed.


The real-world result of this ingenious plan is to produce no help for the environment, since instead it helps mega-corporations (and their governments) to continue their polluting ways and perhaps even make more profits!


Since caps limit emissions to reduced levels, less emission are released into the air. Less is better, so it does help the environment.


OP: You failed to mention that the largest polluter on the planet did not sign on to Kyoto, either. (That would be China).


Finally, most of the conservative ideologues love to march out this fact; but facts are only meaningful within context. I will provide some here:

China does produce more carbon emissions, 24.4% of the global total as opposed to the US which is close behind at 22.2%. But, keep in mind who is fueling that growth of emissions. How much of what we buy at Walmart was made in China? Our excessive consumer appetite is responsible for much of China’s emissions.

A more telling fact is this. The US emission of metric tons of carbon emitted per capita of 24.0 metric tons per person per year is higher than any industrialized country in the world. For comparison Japan emits 9.94, Great Briton and Germany emit 9.79 while China emits 3.84 metric tons per person per year. Keep in mind their emission are to feed our appetite for cheap consumer goods. We drive the demand to burn more by our consumption.
 dharmadude
Joined: 5/10/2008
Msg: 10
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 8:26:00 PM
RE msg #3

Matchlight,
I find it hard to believe that you would cite George Will as an expert on global warming.

As to global warming, see George Will's newest column.

What exactly are George Will’s qualifications to evaluate the science of global warming and the resulting environmental devastation that will result? Well, lets see, It would be like going to a car mechanic to diagnose a health problem. Or maybe it would be like discovering you have AIDS and going to a faith healer to evaluate a treatment plan.
The warming that is reasonably projected might be problematic, although not devastating, for the much-fretted-about polar bears, but it will be beneficial for other species. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment anticipates increasing species richness.

George Will has no background in science to make any of the outrageous and false claims he makes. Will is a master of taking things out of context to make himself appear to understand complex issues. He is making statements based on faith that believing something makes it so. The article you cited demonstrates just how out of touch George Will is regarding the science of global warming. His statements on global warming are not credible in any way whatsoever. They are emotional an intellectually fraudulent.
But, that seems to appeal to conservative ideologues. That is why Bush felt empowered to appoint a former oil executive to censor government scientists who researched global warming. This unprecedented effort to censor scientists was a reactionary, anti-intellectual response to information that did not fit the conservative world view. George Will continues this culture with this example of morally corrupt journalism that abuses the truth with flagrant misinformation and disinformation in order to present a position that serves corporate America so well.
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 11
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 8:27:21 PM

Finally, most of the conservative ideologues love to march out this fact; but facts are only meaningful within context. I will provide some here:… But, keep in mind who is fueling that growth of emissions. How much of what we buy at Walmart was made in China? Our excessive consumer appetite is responsible for much of China’s emissions… Keep in mind their emission are to feed our appetite for cheap consumer goods. We drive the demand to burn more by our consumption…


As Columbo used to say, "Lemme get this straight..." You are blaming the United States as a being a large part of the reason China is the world’s largest polluter? Well now, all aboard the liberal logic train! So, if I sexually harass a woman in the workplace, it’s largely her fault for being attractive instead of being frumpy? If I am a junkie, you will place a lot of the blame on my drug dealer? If I spend money impulsively and ruin my budget, it’s partially because Visa and Master Card are making it so easy for me to spend with credit cards?

As to context… (Oh, the irony...)

Of course China has a more modest emissions per capita than we do. We have been a factory society for decades longer than they have, so they are having to catch up.

The obvious factor is that they have over a billion people: If China had a fraction of its population size instead of 4 times as many people as the U.S. has, their emission levels per capita would not look so innocent.

Now they are shifting some production toward their domestic market, which will eventually add their own urbanizing citizens as consumer products customers alongside us and the rest of the world.

Bottom line: China is the world’s largest polluter and they are going to get worse. Their urban regions are filthy since profit and continued growth is more important to them than being a green producer. (Straight out of our playbook.) Studies show that there is Chinese smog in the Los Angeles Basin! China was too smart to sign Kyoto. Even Bill Clinton wouldn’t sign the U.S. to it! Reducing pollution is fine and good, but foolish schemes are not. Notwithstanding the current economic meltdown, the business cycle will always ebb and flow, and cap and trade is a lousy mechanism in a down market.

As to the "gloom and doom naysayers saying that the costs would be enormous and they miscalculated their estimates by billions of dollars", go talk to Obama. He is estimating that the proposed cap and trade legislation being trotted out by Pelosi & Co. will cost $645 billion dollars by 2015! Then again, he’s been spending so much of our childrens money lately on his agenda that it now seems like pocket change in comparison.

{And now a word from our sponsor}

Got Logic? Need some proper context? Those pesky Conservative ideologues got ya down? Well, fear not because we’ve got common sense cap & trade vouchers for sale! Act now since common sense is always in short supply. Call 1-800-TOXIC SCAM today! Al Gore is standing by to take your call…
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 12
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 11:39:36 PM

In the mid-1970's, the N.Y. Times was running lots of panicky articles about a possible new "ice age."


Oh really? Actually, that's another myth from the global warming debunkers.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

I love refuting your false points. I also have the links dressing down Jonah Goldberg's book (as well as his pretty sorry career) and the Joesph McCarthy book. But I actually have a life and am going on dates, so I just held my fire.

Global warming is real and the REAL science demonstrates this. REAL climatologists are in agreement about this. They may argue over certain degrees, but they would never sign onto the fossil fuel industry propaganda and ideological nonsense that is the global warming-denier's turf. Like:
"it's the sun"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
"there's a debate in the scientific community"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
"the climate has changed in the past"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Each link also has responses from someone who doesn't agree, and their points are generally answered.

Guys, this is real and it's serious. The science is on one side here. You want to keep arguing away, you're arguing against science and the people who really know what they're talking about. I've got a ton of links backing that up, and you don't.
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 13
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 11:45:54 PM

This interesting link testifies to his accuracy:

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/fact-checking_obamas_speech.html


An interesting partial rebuttal to some of the points raised by that site (later used by the AP):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/25/13135/6209
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 14
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/2/2009 11:52:45 PM

Global warming is only a big money hoax... and scare tactic. Don't you think that if Gore actually believed in what he preached, he would actually do something about it himself? And I don't mean make money by lecturing and making movies... I mean change his way of living like he preaches to everyone else.


Er...he is doing something about. The movie, his lectures..... Oh wait, he is supposed to be living and travelling on alternative energy ALL BY HIMSELF? And then we'll listen? Come on.

Listen, instead of spending time at that Aztlan website, start reading the stuff here:
http://www.realclimate.org/
And you can start with this page:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/3/2009 12:37:13 AM

Oh really? Actually, that's another myth from the global warming debunkers.


You claim it's false that the Times ran those articles, but anyone can read them at the library. Not surprisingly, you use someone else's opinions of Goldberg and Evans to discredit their writings. You haven't a clue what either book says, but why should a little detail like that keep you from attacking their authors? Must save time and effort--just read a couple reviews of any book, and you understand it!

You seem to like that one website a lot. Do the people there also try to refute arguments by criticizing the people who make them? Wouldn't surprise me. I'll let you find someone here who likes your kind of "debate," and share it with them.
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 16
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/3/2009 1:17:07 AM

You claim it's false that the Times ran those articles, but anyone can read them at the library


Brother...the argument isn't over whether the NY Times ran the stories or not. Your "point" infers that there was a consensus about global cooling in the '70s. The link I supplied fully demonstrates that there was never this high level of concern over global cooling in that decade. There were a sum total of 7 SCIENTIFIC papers about global cooling in the '70s, which became the source for those articles in the mainstream media. At no time during the decade were there more scientists or more papers arguing that global cooling was a greater threat than global warming. Or did you not read it? Hmm...


Not surprisingly, you use someone else's opinions of Goldberg and Evans to discredit their writings. You haven't a clue what either book says, but why should a little detail like that keep you from attacking their authors? Must save time and effort--just read a couple reviews of any book, and you understand it!


Well, I truly have better things to do than read a 600 page book by a conservative political operative defending "poor old" Joe McCarthy, so when I read a credible criticism by another McCarthy biographer, I do consider it time saved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html?_r=2
Don't pretend that's the same as not having a "clue" about the book. I would be better off having read the whole book to get into a debate with you about it, but I highly doubt you've read every page written by, oh, Al Franken and Noam Chomsky to debate them.


You seem to like that one website a lot. Do the people there also try to refute arguments by criticizing the people who make them?


That one website is actually run by real scientists and is very informative. They refute non-scientific arguments with science, and argue science from one side with their empirical evidence. Sometimes people go on there and are purposely obtuse and they lose patience with them. Whether that meets your defintion of "criticizing" them, I don't know.

I do know I showed a credible takedown of the point you made, and you can't handle it well. So don't make it like I'm simply critcizing YOU and not the argument.
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 17
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/3/2009 1:29:14 AM

Gosh, I just found another new article (by Rich Lowry, a neocom!) that calls the President a magician! Bear in mind, though, that if you're someone who think Lowry's a "bad person," you can't believe anything he says. (It's a rule of logic.)

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjY0OGQxNmMxZDgzMGRiOGEwNDY4N2E5MmFlZDUyNTY=


Well, Lowry argues that an increase in the price of energy could sort-of be considered a "tax increase." So therefore when Obama says that 95% or so of Americans will not have their "taxes" go up, he's wrong (and or lying) because an increase in energy costs is a "tax" increase. Sort of.

I think someone who writes that is amusingly wrong. I also think that someone who writes about seeing "starbursts" coming out of their TV set upon witnessing Sarah Palin during the VP Debate, that person is perhaps a bit off. Hey, what do you know? The very same person, Rich Lowry, wrote both things! Logically, I suppose I could conclude old Rich might be suspect when it comes to political analysis, but am I really being fair to him?
 dharmadude
Joined: 5/10/2008
Msg: 18
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/3/2009 6:20:36 AM

Global warming is only a big money hoax... and scare tactic. Don't you think that if Gore actually believed in what he preached, he would actually do something about it himself? And I don't mean make money by lecturing and making movies... I mean change his way of living like he preaches to everyone else.


This is a misinformed position. What big money? Who put up the big money? Who’s conspiracy was it?

Remember that Gore shares the Nobel prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their findings are based on and endorsed by “30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. ” as cited by Wikipedia. Each academy is a independent collection of each nations best scientists. Ya, they were all bribed, right. Get real.



Citing Wikipedia:
Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: Risks of passive smoking). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.
The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air', that criticizes ExxonMobil for "underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "funnelling about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue." In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.

The big money seems to have duped you and many others into believing that there is still a controversy surrounding the causes of global warming and the fact that it exists. There is consensus in the scientific community worldwide on this.
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 19
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/3/2009 12:03:21 PM
1] See this video of Obama’s statement that his cap and trade scheme and other programs will cause our electricity rates to “skyrocket”. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydqg7ThZB04

2] For more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age. America's major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times – each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean "billions will die." In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times' headline blared, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an "almost unprecedented magnitude."

3] There are 52 United Nations scientists who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. However, there are more than 31,000 American scientists that have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” (www.petitionproject.org/)

The list of 31,000 scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

4] Also, see: www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58024
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

5] John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, talks here about Roger Revelle and how Revelle started the global warming political process, then regretted how it started getting out of hand. www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38609397.html

6] See the Washington Times at (www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/) for background on Obama’s selection of a socialist, Carol M. Browner, to serve as his “climate change czar”.

Furthermore, Browner’s past is rather checkered: In 2001, in the landmark court case Coleman-Adebayo v. Browner, Carol M. Browner and the agency she administered, the EPA, were found guilty of race, color, and sex-based discrimination as well as tolerating a hostile work environment. The case provided the impetus for the passage (unanimous in both chambers) of The No FEAR Act (Notification of Federal Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation) that was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The law was heralded as the first civil rights law of the 21st century. Study of Coleman-Adebayo v. Browner is now mandated for all new Federal employees within 90 days of their being hired, and every 2 years for all Federal employees. The extent of the racism and retaliation within Ms. Browner's EPA was so pervasive that Congress and the Executive required study of it as the penultimate example of what was WRONG with government. When asked in Congressional hearings whether she accepted the judgment of the jury, Ms. Browner said she did.

The question for Mr. Obama, is: Given her unrepentant position on the deplorable conditions she oversaw at EPA, how is Carol Browner qualified to hold any administrative position again?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/3/2009 1:50:29 PM
[quoteI find it hard to believe that you would cite George Will as an expert on global warming.

Of course I did NOT cite him as an expert on that subject--I only said to see his recent column on it. Specifically, it was a rebuttal of someone who had (falsely) claimed that Will, in an earlier column, hadn't cited a report accurately. In any case, I don't see why you excoriate Will himself, or conservatives either. Why not just dispute their arguments?

You say that Will's statements are "emotional," but your own seem at least as emotional. You also say he's "out of touch" and "not credible" on this issue because he lacks a background in science. That may well be. But why shouldn't that same requirement apply to your claims on this?

I don't know what you mean by "corporate America." What evidence is there that Will lies to serve the interests of whatever people that phrase refers to? The notion that conservatives are "reactionaries" in league with big business to oppress the average citizen is tired Marxist cant. Many of us actually oppose a large central government because we believe it threatens our freedoms. After a century that saw the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao kill off at least a hundred million people, it's hard to imagine anyone could be so dull as not to appreciate that threat today.

If anyone is oppressing individual freedoms today, it is people who call themselves "progressives" or "liberals." As a rule, they distrust free enterprise and individualism. Because our constitution is designed to protect those things, they like courts to circumvent it. They want to make the U.S. a nanny state, commanding everyone's allegiance and controlling as many facets of our lives as possible. The economic crisis has given them an opening. And in the name of cleaning up the Earth--a quasi-religious crusade--they've made environmentalism yet another justification for centralized control over what individual Americans may do.
 dharmadude
Joined: 5/10/2008
Msg: 21
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/3/2009 10:34:32 PM
Jackdiamond312

and Global Warming is in your head... I am not saying this for any reason to debunk Gore or Liberals or who ever... Just need to open our eyes and see how a larger history of our world has been. The Last two thousand years is basically what most think of history... Our earth is a lot older than this... this two thousand years is nothing... and this planet has gone through so many global warming and coolings... without us. Can we be effecting it now... maybe... but not making the difference to abandon fossil fuel abruptly for the needs of Green Peace and others that are too far out that way.

I have a degree in Earth Science with honors in the major and I studied the geologic record of climate change. Those who claim that the rate of global temperature change falls within the range of that found in the geologic record are simply cherry picking a very small percentage of studies on climate change in the geologic record. There is overwhelming evidence that the rate of warming we are experiencing is at least an order of magnitude higher than the top of the natural rate of change. Since science is a peer reviewed discipline, I trust that when the evidence is so overwhelming we had better pay attention.

And sure Exxon Mobile has money, but so does Green Peace and the Sierra Club, and others like them that have an agenda as well. Both sides are playing to the piper.....


So, you’re saying that the IPCC report that is endorsed by “30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries” are getting funded and paid for by Green Peace and the Sierra Club? That is absurd to infer such nonsense. This is an ignorant attempt to trivialize global warming as a bunch of tree huggers.

Sock puppeteer,

You are a brilliant writer and truly funny guy, but you should be more critical of the information you cite. You use cited the same fraudulent information that pirateheaven cited previously. Here is what the Union of Concerned Scientists have to say about the Petition Project and the single non-peer reviewed article it is based on.


The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

The Petition Project is based on one article that was not peer reviewed. Can you say fraud?

Oh, and Momi,

You said
Most of the noble gases are whores anyhow, they will react and bond at the drop of a hat.
You meant halogens didn’t you?

And were you referring to me in this statement?
We don't really need any more free radicals bopping around.
Does that mean you don’t like me anymore?

And regarding this question:
So... is the IPCC the last word?
No, peer reviewed science goes on, and on…

And Matchlight,

You asked,
I don't know what you mean by "corporate America." What evidence is there that Will lies to serve the interests of whatever people that phrase refers to?

Follow the following link to see what part of corporate America I am referring to: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html


And you trivialized my researched and considered opinion in the following statement:
The notion that conservatives are "reactionaries" in league with big business to oppress the average citizen is tired Marxist cant.
You inferred I would want to oppress the average citizen and my argument is a tired Marxist cant. Nice job of fear mongering.

I meant reactionary according to Mirriam-Websters definition: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction ; especially : ultraconservative in politics.

You see, none of the conservatives that have responded to my thread have done anything more that reacted with criticism. That is what I mean by reactionary. None of you have offered any new ideas or alternatives to cap and trade. Conservatives fear change. It was a conservative president at the helm that led us down this failed path.

Intelligent solutions require an open mind, critical thought and the willingness to try new things. We can come out of our economic crisis and avert catastrophic climate change if we search for intelligent ideas and come up with workable solutions.
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 22
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/4/2009 1:10:46 AM

But we cannot just abandon fossil fuel...


The problem is, fossil fuel is going to abandon us. It is finite, you know- once used, it's never coming back. Have you seen all the compelling evidence that we will run out of obtainable oil- completely- in the next half century??? We can't wait for the day before that happens to switch to alternative energies- that is, renewable ones. (Note- all that talk about oil shale and shale sands in Canada having as much oil as Saudi Arabia? They forget to mention all the water and energy you need to get it. Let's put it this way- if we could get ALL our oil from Canada and never have to deal with Saudi Arabia, why aren't we?)


And I watched Al Gore's movie when it came out... It was mostly him stroking himself..... and why does he say he knew about Global Warming when he was a student at college and knew than he needed to do something about it.... and was Vice President for 8 years... I can't recall anything Gore did... especially on this. He just seems to be playing for the money...


Well, I definitely have a different opinion of the movie. First off, Al Gore is not in this "for the money". If he were really interested in the money, he would be giving speeches on the corporate circuit at $50,000 or $75,000 a pop- right? You want to pretend that there's as much $ in his global warming crusade, think again.
Secondly, Al Gore has always been known as an enviromentalist- at least, as much of one as you'll find at a high level of US politics. In 1992 he wrote the book "Earth In The Balance" which addressed enviromental issues. Then, as VP (from Wikipedia):

"As Vice-President, Gore was involved in a number of initiatives related to the environment. He launched the GLOBE program on Earth Day 1994, an education and science activity that, according to Forbes magazine, "made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment".[9] In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Protocol, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.[10][11] He was opposed by the Senate, which passed unanimously (95-0) the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[12] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".[13] On November 12, 1998, Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[14] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification."

He couldn't exactly do it all by himself.


And sure Exxon Mobile has money, but so does Green Peace and the Sierra Club, and others like them that have an agenda as well.


Exxon Mobil is a giant multi-national corporation that recently posted the biggest profit in history. GreenPeace and the Sierra Club are non-profit charitable organizations whose budgets are probably equal to the amount ExxonMobil spends on wastebaskets. I mean, come on. That's like if you and Bill Gates both own Microsoft stock, and you have 200 shares and Bill has 20 million. But you're both "stockholders", right? So you're both the same....yes?


Let me ask you... can you afford a battery powered vehicle?... Too many people can't afford food... you think they can get rid of their gas guzzlers? Lets get the fuel we need for what we have.... and work on the technology for these other things.


I might be able to afford a battery powered vehicle. I dunno, gas is $2.27 now- what if it's $7 a gallon next year? Or $10 a gallon the year after that? Who says it can't be? We are running out of it, in an absolute sense. Then which is cheaper? Unfortunately if we just keep waiting until the alternative is cheaper, we won't have time to move out of fossil fuels and into whatever we use next. Unless someone can show me how we can move to battery powered cars in a month or 3.

Cheers Jack- keep thinking about this stuff.
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 23
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/4/2009 1:40:31 AM
Oh Sock Puppeteer, you brought up the old PetitionProject....didn't you know that one has been laughed out of the room by real climatologists?

http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-1.html
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-2.html

I wouldn't bring medical doctors to a debate about climate. Especially when those that actually study the science of climatology are all on the other side.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/scientists-arent-even-sure.php

I'm going to listen to NASA and the American Meteological Society before I do to the Washington Times or World Net Daily.

As for Roger Revelle-
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/11/let-roger-revelle-speak-for-himself.html
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 24
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/4/2009 2:03:27 AM

Of course I did NOT cite him as an expert on that subject--I only said to see his recent column on it. Specifically, it was a rebuttal of someone who had (falsely) claimed that Will, in an earlier column, hadn't cited a report accurately. In any case, I don't see why you excoriate Will himself, or conservatives either. Why not just dispute their arguments?


This is an easy one-

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/george-will-and-the-washington-post-reputations-gone-up-in-smoke-over-global-warming-denialism/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902260029?f=h_latest

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/19/the-sea-ice-affair-continued/

There are only about 200 more. Boy those facts can hurt.


I don't know what you mean by "corporate America." What evidence is there that Will lies to serve the interests of whatever people that phrase refers to? The notion that conservatives are "reactionaries" in league with big business to oppress the average citizen is tired Marxist cant.


Well, "conservatives" and "corporate America" are both on the same side when it comes to economic ideology. That is, "free market". Any regulation of the market is deemed harmful if not dangerous. "Markets know best", right? Is that going to be heard at a Fortune 500 boardroom or an AFL-CIO meeting? At an "conservative" outlet or a "liberal" one? If George Will is a self-identified "conservative", and therefore supports "free markets" as "corporate America" does, where's the mystery?
BTW pulling out the "Marxist" card is tired.


They want to make the U.S. a nanny state, commanding everyone's allegiance and controlling as many facets of our lives as possible.


So you think the Bush Adminstration was "liberal"? Interesting....
The rest of this paragraph is wrong in so many ways but it's late....
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 25
Cap and Trade and Global Warming
Posted: 3/4/2009 2:18:51 AM
Intelligent post Mominatrix- but consider this.

We know we are putting large amounts of carbon in the atmosphere. We know that an atmosphere with increased CO2 leads to higher temperatures. We know that the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing and will remain high for years- as CO2 lingers in the upper atmosphere for decades.

In those statements lies either a simple annoyance or a crisis. Scientists by nature don't like to ring alarm bells, I've found. They react in mesured tones and quotes. After about half a century of measured caution, things were only getting worse (from their evidence and models). And nothing was happening. Some of them were basically forced to push the panic button to get anyone to listen.

If we left it all up to the scientists they might be less alarmist. They would have more reasoned debates and disagreements. But they have to operate in an enviroment where they have to hold onto the public's attention, a not-very-educated public. And fight business interests at the same time. So, things tend to get a little more strident.

For your consideration-
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven.php
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Cap and Trade and Global Warming