[ridenrain]

If carbon dosen't have a price, no one can make money from it's trading, and money is definately what this is all about.

[Lemmy]

The carbon needn't have a price so long as the permit to emit it has value.

[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

No doubt, but this is just another example of what I hate about this global warming debate. And I am sure you think it's only global warming pro'ers who do this kind of thing. Leave it to the scientists.

But the scientists are coming out against this bogus report too.

I already showed you the comments from geophysicist Dr. David Demmings. Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Chris Walcek, a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere had this to say...

$1:

The authors of the latest US climate change report would make Pravda editors and reporters blush with envy on how they can misconstrue and mis-report truths for a propaganda angle.

More Here

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

No doubt, but this is just another example of what I hate about this global warming debate. And I am sure you think it's only global warming pro'ers who do this kind of thing. Leave it to the scientists.

But the scientists are coming out against this bogus report too.

I already showed you the comments from geophysicist Dr. David Demmings. Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Chris Walcek, a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere had this to say...

$1:

The authors of the latest US climate change report would make Pravda editors and reporters blush with envy on how they can misconstrue and mis-report truths for a propaganda angle.

More Here

Do you ever do anything else, like watch a hockey game or go out and treat the wife to dinner? I really really do understand there is a debate going on. Your side hasn't won yet.

[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Do you ever do anything else, like...treat the wife to dinner?

No man, just your wife. Don't you get it? I'm unrepentant. You'll never shame me into shutting up on this very important issue with insults, and quite frankly if that's all you got, you ain't got much.

$1:

I really really do understand there is a debate going on. Your side hasn't won yet.

No. Not yet, but with Mother Nature on our side, we can't lose. The climate has been cooling for 7 years, and there's been no statistically significant warming for 15. Sooner or later people will get it.

Me, I won't stop until Al Gore's in jail for fraud.

In fact...just because you like Marc Morano so much...



Concerning the bogus report of this thread, the NY Times blog has a good article on how Roger Pielke Jr. proffesor of environmental studies at University of Colorado delivers a "withering critique" saying "(the report) misrepresents his own research and... wrongly concludes climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters."

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... -assailed/

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Do you ever do anything else, like...treat the wife to dinner?

No man, just your wife. Don't you get it? I'm unrepentant. You'll never shame me into shutting up on this very important issue with insults, and quite frankly if that's all you got, you ain't got much.

$1:

I really really do understand there is a debate going on. Your side hasn't won yet.

No. Not yet, but with Mother Nature on our side, we can't lose. The climate has been cooling for 7 years, and there's been no statistically significant warming for 15. Sooner or later people will get it.

Me, I won't stop until Al Gore's in jail for fraud.

In fact...just because you like Marc Morano so much...



Concerning the bogus report of this thread, the NY Times blog has a good article on how Roger Pielke Jr. proffesor of environmental studies at University of Colorado delivers a "withering critique" saying "(the report) misrepresents his own research and... wrongly concludes climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters."

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... -assailed/

Well, if you were out with my wife at dinner, at least you would have something else to talk about.

As I have said before, I do not have a stand on this subject. What I would like is for politics to leave it alone! Your interest appears to be more political than scientific.

Being an "unrepentant" bore makes you a fanatic. I suppose that's your choice.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Winston Churchill

Kind of like a jihad.


edit: and this time I did not read the links or watch youtube as you appear to have told me already it's just more of the same--- He said/she said.

[N_Fiddledog]

This thread is about the PR firm produced, Obama supported report being used to prop up a disastrous Cap and Trade bill. It's not about science, because there's no actual science in the report. This particular thread is about a political report. If politics is what I'm discussing it's because I'm trying to stay on topic.

If however you would like to wonder off topic, and produce some sort of supposed science proving an imminent catastrophe of human caused global warming bring it on. What ya got? Nothing right?

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

This thread is about the PR firm produced, Obama supported report being used to prop up a disastrous Cap and Trade bill. It's not about science, because there's no actual science in the report. This particular thread is about a political report. If politics is what I'm discussing it's because I'm trying to stay on topic.

If however you would like to wonder off topic, and produce some sort of supposed science proving an imminent catastrophe of human caused global warming bring it on. What ya got? Nothing right?

Wow, you didn't read what I said about my beliefs on this topic.



Repeat after me: "everyone who isn't with us is against us!" Say it often enough you will believe it.


Nah! I am just trying to give you something else to talk about besides Al Gore. Stalking him can really be bad for your mental health. Too bad it didn't work, eh. Perhaps someday you will find a way and purge yourself of those demons.

[PluggyRug]

fifeboy fifeboy:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

This thread is about the PR firm produced, Obama supported report being used to prop up a disastrous Cap and Trade bill. It's not about science, because there's no actual science in the report. This particular thread is about a political report. If politics is what I'm discussing it's because I'm trying to stay on topic.

If however you would like to wonder off topic, and produce some sort of supposed science proving an imminent catastrophe of human caused global warming bring it on. What ya got? Nothing right?

Wow, you didn't read what I said about my beliefs on this topic.



Repeat after me: "everyone who isn't with us is against us!" Say it often enough you will believe it.


Nah! I am just trying to give you something else to talk about besides Al Gore. Stalking him can really be bad for your mental health. Too bad it didn't work, eh. Perhaps someday you will find a way and purge yourself of those demons.

But do you think Obama's 'cap and trade' is just another tax wrapped in a flimsy brown paper bag which is maybe based upon the Goricles half truths?

[fifeboy]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

But do you think Obama's 'cap and trade' is just another tax wrapped in a flimsy brown paper bag which is maybe based upon the Goricles half truths?

Well, an honest question. Thanks. Of course it's a tax, and it will do only one thing...reduce the use of carbon. If global warming is a fact than it will put a price on carbon and slow it's use. If it is not a fact than it will put a price on carbon (oil and coal) and reduce our use of it. Petroleum is a useful material and it does seem to be a shame that it's being spewed from tail pipes so quickly. The supply is also limited. So, just do it and we will benefit from the resulting reduction in use. That's my thinking anyway. Now I am sure our friend violin_hound will come back with another "but so and so says Al Gore is a poopie head" and my response to him is what I said at my entry here...teach that pony another trick as it could start to effect your social life

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

Of course it's a tax, and it will do only one thing...reduce the use of carbon.

I disagree. Cap and Trade is a tax, but reducing the use of carbon is not what it's been shown to do. Not in Europe after the implementation of Cap and Trade, at least.

$1:

As a result, UNCCC data show that the European emissions rate under cap-and-trade increased by 3.5 percent from 2000 to 2006 while U.S. emissions increased by only 0.7 percent.

Source

More on what happened in Europe

Cap and Trade does however...

* Offer a competitive advantage to countries like China and India who will not play the game. (Russia's interesting too).

Last year China became the leading emitter of CO2 in the world. Here's an interesting graph showing the percentage of change in CO2 emission 2000-2007.



Cap and trade will also...

* Over-tax Canadian oil, making it expedient to import oil from other countries without any real saving on world carbon emissions.

* Force some industries to move to countries with laxer controls.

* Increase the price of energy, and eventually everything that uses it, primarily hurting the poor, and driving smaller businesses out of business.

* Create new bureaucracies. History shows us managers of those bureaucracies will come with hidden agendas. Once these guys are in the government they'll be impedded like ticks. You'll never get rid of them.

* Allow political mechanizations favoring some, and penalizing others.

* Create opportunities for corruption. The Kyoto and the European experiments with cap and trade, and carbon offsets allowed corrupt individuals to manipulate the schemes.

Here's a good video on how cap and trade works, and some of the problems with it.

[travior]

The numbers for China do not surprise me. That is one reason why many of the companies have moved their operations there. China could give a rat's-hind-end about the environment. Even if climate change kills millions of their people, they still have billions in reserve. Corporate greed is the primary enemy here.

[fifeboy]

I won't go into each point you make here. To a large extent, I do agree that the carbon trading thing is just a scheme. I would have preferred a straight carbon tax with the revenues pumped into research programs to find alternate ways to use the petro we still have and new ways to provide "mobile" power. I'm sure you disagree.

[sandorski]

Cap and Trade is not a Tax. It is a Market Driven way to put a Price on Carbon. The issue is quite simple: A Price for Carbon IS going to be established, so the real question is how to establish it? C&T takes the Pricing out of the hands of Government and gives it to Private Enterprise.

[N_Fiddledog]

There's nothing "simple" about cap and trade. The document for the proposed American cap and trade bill is so large very few have actually read it.

Cap and Trade does however meet the basic criterion for a tax. The government gets money when it first sets the price on carbon credits. You and me pay money when, say energy companies, pass that price on to the consumer. Even Obama stated energy prices would rise after cap and trade. The estimated price per average family I hear is about $1600 a year. As I understand it, this works out to be about a 50% tax hike. I've heard it called the biggest tax increase in the history of man.

In the sense the bill is not sent directly to people from the government, you could possibly get technical, and say it's not a tax. However the ultimate effect is the same. The government makes money. That money ultimately comes out of peoples' pockets. C & T performs the function of a tax. It has the effect of a tax. To me, saying it's not a tax is just semantics.