Im not liking the Cap and Trade...

[zero-gravity]

It doesn't appeal to me, at least not at this moment. Sure, saving the environment is great and all that jazz, but do we really need sudo-tariffs in a recession? Should we not be ensuring the economic futures of our children rather than the environmental. Now some of you will say "w/o environment you can't have economy." My response: "well if you don't have economy to begin with, whats the difference?" I say we deal with it AFTER we clean up the more immediate crisis. Now this even brings up a bigger question: Is there even global warming? Yea you can reference greenhouse gasses and CO2 and such, but i need some hard, peer reviewed, scientific evidence saying that global warming exists before i buy into sapping away our potential economic growth.

[Anozke]

About that global warming, I haven't come across any hard, peer reviewed, scientific evidence, but it's not the CO2 that worries me, it's the hazardous materials that are byproducts of the economy. The CO2 that leaves the smokestack of a coal powerplant in my opinion is trivial compared to mercury and other noxious gases that are released.

[TimeLordX]

They tried this cap-n-trade, green energy stuff in spain and they now have 18% unemployment as a result. This bill is a very bad idea.

[Bookman60]

At 7/1/09 12:02 AM, TimeLordX wrote: They tried this cap-n-trade, green energy stuff in spain and they now have 18% unemployment as a result. This bill is a very bad idea.

You know this and I know this but the fat cats in Washington evidently don't. Or don't care. Or want to line their pockets with as many tax dollars as they can.

[promontorium]

I mostly agree with you Zero. The only contention I have is the line about "our children". I fucking hate that line. I've been told by all of media, and public education, since I was 5 years old, that I need to be worrying about my children's future. With that attitude, problems will never get solved.

How about we solve things for our lives? Nevermind the next generation. Fix it now.

I'm with Bill Hicks on child worship; "What does that mean, they reach a certain age, they're off your fucking love list? Fuck your children if that's the way you feel and fuck you with them. You either love people in general from all ages or you shut the fuck up." His wonderful rant continued...

"Why don't you try loving the people that are already fucking here ok? Instead of living for a future that never fucking comes? It doesn't exist, it ain't coming. There is no future. There's no such thing. It doesn't exist."

[promontorium]

What's really disgusting about the Cap and Trade bill is that it was passed without ANYONE reading it.

That is proof, alone, of irresponsibility. It is the epitome of irresponsibility. It is the definition of irresponsibility. How do they justify these actions? They don't have to. You people will re-elect them anyway.

[Bookman60]

At 7/1/09 05:37 AM, promontorium wrote: What's really disgusting about the Cap and Trade bill is that it was passed without ANYONE reading it.

That is proof, alone, of irresponsibility. It is the epitome of irresponsibility. It is the definition of irresponsibility. How do they justify these actions? They don't have to. You people will re-elect them anyway.

Irresponsibility... absolutely. But rest assured there won't be any irresponsibility on my part at least... However... never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. *cough* Congress *cough*

[FC-Thun-Fan]

At 6/30/09 05:28 PM, zero-gravity wrote: It doesn't appeal to me, at least not at this moment. Sure, saving the environment is great and all that jazz, but do we really need sudo-tariffs in a recession? Should we not be ensuring the economic futures of our children rather than the environmental.

I think saving the planet from a catastrophe is far more important than the economy. Besides, who says the economy has to suffer greatly if you want to protect the environment? I really don't know much about this particular policy, so it could be crap it could be good. However, in general, I think climate protection is important.

Now some of you will say "w/o environment you can't have economy." My response: "well if you don't have economy to begin with, whats the difference?" I say we deal with it AFTER we clean up the more immediate crisis.

I've seen statistics that say that we have already changed the planet irreversibly and it will get worse. For example, the zone around the mediterranean is partly becoming a desert and more of it will follow. Not to mention other things, and here's another thought, the effects of climate change will damage the economy a lot more than preventing it will.

Fighting climate change is urgent.

Now this even brings up a bigger question: Is there even global warming? Yea you can reference greenhouse gasses and CO2 and such, but i need some hard, peer reviewed, scientific evidence saying that global warming exists before i buy into sapping away our potential economic growth.

There is no doubt that climate change does exist. Why do you think it doesn't? Because you can't feel it yourself immediately? Have you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? I think it makes the point about climate change quite well (I'm not saying that the sun shines out of Al Gore's ass, but he gets the message across and backs it up).

Inform yourself on the matter. Something tells me you haven't been looking for scientific evidence, but have been waiting for somebody to wave it in your face.

I find posts like these extremely frustrating. I don't know what it's like in the U.S.A., but here in Europe only the stupidest people doubt climate change. It annoys me to see that the biggest contributor hasn't even done the first step to solving the problem: realization.

I hope you will soon inform yourself on the subject and realize that it is of urgence.

Just a short question out of interest: are you taught about climate change at school? Because we are.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

Or you could invest money in green technologies so that when you hit a breakthrough or whatever you've got the start of a new industry which can be based in the nation, thus being beneficial to the economy and the environment at the same time?

The cap and trade stuff is crap, but you can be environmentally friendly and economically sound at the same time. Case in point, cars which run on renewable resources. Invest in that, subsidis to an extent the creation of manufacturing facilities in the nation and voila, new jobs!

[homor]

At 7/4/09 05:31 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote: you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth"?

you mean that inaccurate biased propaganda film that makes Ben Stein's "Expelled" look like the Frost interview with Nixion?

[FC-Thun-Fan]

At 7/4/09 12:11 PM, homor wrote:

At 7/4/09 05:31 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote: you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth"?

you mean that inaccurate biased propaganda film that makes Ben Stein's "Expelled" look like the Frost interview with Nixion?

I know it's not perfect but I can't really find anything better to recommend. I'd just generally recommend informing yourself on the matter.

[Korriken]

At 7/4/09 02:27 PM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

I know it's not perfect but I can't really find anything better to recommend. I'd just generally recommend informing yourself on the matter.

you don't inform yourself by watching 'documentaries' made by people looking to make a bunch of money off of other peoples' fears. You turn to actual scientists and listen to BOTH sides of the story then form you own opinion. that is the ONLY way to be informed about something. Listen to both sides, and form your own opinion, instead of listening to what some propagandist has to say, and accept it as the infallible truth.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/4/09 05:48 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Or you could invest money in green technologies so that when you hit a breakthrough or whatever you've got the start of a new industry which can be based in the nation, thus being beneficial to the economy and the environment at the same time?

You listen to this man, he presents good ideas. The big problem as I've seen it is so many politicians tend to listen to big oil which has so much lobbying power and makes so much cash (not to mention folks like Bush have their fortune at least in part from being oil men) so they effectively are trying to unfairly cripple their competitor when in reality once an alternative energy source exists they can market that instead of, or as well as, the core oil product they have now. Why must we insist on waiting until we are nearly or completely tapped out of a non-renewable resource before we work to combat the issue?

Also yeah, this bill is a bad idea, and anything being passed without being fully and thoroughly read is garbage. Even if the bill mostly states something you can get behind like "This bill will make all the child molesters magically normal", you have to wonder what kind of hidden riders lurk within it that such a seemingly awesome bill would be rushed through without being read or debated, don't you?

[FC-Thun-Fan]

At 7/4/09 03:35 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/4/09 02:27 PM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

I know it's not perfect but I can't really find anything better to recommend. I'd just generally recommend informing yourself on the matter.

you don't inform yourself by watching 'documentaries' made by people looking to make a bunch of money off of other peoples' fears. You turn to actual scientists and listen to BOTH sides of the story then form you own opinion. that is the ONLY way to be informed about something. Listen to both sides, and form your own opinion, instead of listening to what some propagandist has to say, and accept it as the infallible truth.

My chemistry teacher who is a Dr. of Biochemistry says pretty much the same: there is no doubt in his mind that climate change is taking place. He's very informed on the subject and a scientist, heck he's even written stuff on the greenhouse gas effect (some of which I have read), so I think his opinion is worth quite a lot. I have other sources. I've read things that explain it fairly neutrally. To tell you the truth I was sceptic about climate change myself, but having looked at the subject more closely I have changed my mind. Also I've listened to the other side (hence being sceptic) and all they have been able to produce just isn't convincing to me anymore. So stop going on about me having mentioned that film. I have formed my opinion in a perfectly good way.

[zero-gravity]

At 7/4/09 11:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/4/09 05:48 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

You listen to this man, he presents good ideas. The big problem as I've seen it is so many politicians tend to listen to big oil which has so much lobbying power and makes so much cash (not to mention folks like Bush have their fortune at least in part from being oil men) so they effectively are trying to unfairly cripple their competitor when in reality once an alternative energy source exists they can market that instead of, or as well as, the core oil product they have now. Why must we insist on waiting until we are nearly or completely tapped out of a non-renewable resource before we work to combat the issue?

Also yeah, this bill is a bad idea, and anything being passed without being fully and thoroughly read is garbage. Even if the bill mostly states something you can get behind like "This bill will make all the child molesters magically normal", you have to wonder what kind of hidden riders lurk within it that such a seemingly awesome bill would be rushed through without being read or debated, don't you?

But i mean, what do you expect? These guys are on a payroll and powerroll. There is no way that they are going to give it up for the greater good. I think the biggest problem is that once you elect an official, there is no effective way for the people to remove him w/o waiting it out the next four years, and then even when you do, you have a terrible alternative. The political system in America has become so horribly corrupt that it is almost sickening, but i digress.

What i find very funny is the fact that they are creating this bill on non-conclusive evidence. There have been speculations, theories, hypothetical scenarios, and even climate reconstruction demonstrations, but there has not yet been hard core, peer reviewed evidence supporting either side, therefore i find it stupid that passing this bill is even in consideration with regards to the fact that there is no evidence.

[silentisdeath16]

At 7/4/09 05:48 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Or you could invest money in green technologies so that when you hit a breakthrough or whatever you've got the start of a new industry which can be based in the nation, thus being beneficial to the economy and the environment at the same time?

The cap and trade stuff is crap, but you can be environmentally friendly and economically sound at the same time. Case in point, cars which run on renewable resources. Invest in that, subsidis to an extent the creation of manufacturing facilities in the nation and voila, new jobs!

I completely agree, ive been saying this exact thing for years now, Thank you very much for posting this. Normally i wouldn't just copy something and say i agree....but in this case i feel it deserved it.

[FC-Thun-Fan]

At 7/6/09 12:44 AM, zero-gravity wrote: with regards to the fact that there is no evidence.

Evidence 1

"The trend is likely to worsen as water temperatures continue to rise, the scientists say."

Evidence 2

Evidence 3

Evidence 4

Evidence 5

Evidence 6

And I could go on

[Korriken]

At 7/6/09 05:05 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

At 7/6/09 12:44 AM, zero-gravity wrote: with regards to the fact that there is no evidence.

Evidence...

Oddly enough, all of those either either pictures with no reference at all, or say it "MAY" be because of global warming, which means its not conclusive. I could make a pretty grid with some squiggly lines and a few numbers to show pretty much whatever i want if i have no reference to it.

[FC-Thun-Fan]

At 7/6/09 06:55 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/6/09 05:05 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

At 7/6/09 12:44 AM, zero-gravity wrote: with regards to the fact that there is no evidence.

Evidence...

Oddly enough, all of those either either pictures with no reference at all, or say it "MAY" be because of global warming, which means its not conclusive. I could make a pretty grid with some squiggly lines and a few numbers to show pretty much whatever i want if i have no reference to it.

Evidence 1: "Researchers say the invasion is the result of a combination of climate change and overfishing of the jellyfish's natural predators and competitors for food."

Evidence 2: I see your point the x-axis isn't defined. Here's another graph showing the same thing which is more complete: Graph note: Mauna Loa is a CO2 measuring station.

Evidence 3: Again I see your point. This is the original source: http://www.wetterzentrale.de/cgi-bin/web bbs/wzconfig1.pl?noframes%3Bread=147
I made the little montage myself to make it more understandable for you because the original is in German. I also screwed up the first number by accident it says mid-eighties and I wrote 1980, sorry. By the way further down on that page you can see the number of metres the glacier has retreated since 1960, you'll notice that it has gone back dramatically since 1988.

Evidence 4: I don't see anything saying that it may not be because of climate change. The only real statement about the issue comes from the researcher:

"When asked whether there is any doubt that this is a consequence of human-fueled global warming, [the researcher] Ainley offered a flat "No" in reply."

Evidence 5: "Old-growth forests in the Western United States appear to be losing ground to the regional effects of global warming.

That's the conclusion a team of federal and university-based forest ecologists have reached after looking at long-term trends in patches of relatively pristine old-growth forests."

This statement is pretty clear apart from the fact that it says "appear to be" as opposed to "are". Let's keep in mind that I said evidence not proof of global warming. I definetly would say that this qualifies as evidence.

Evidence 6: This one isn't really evidence I just wanted to show that the scientific world doesn't doubt global warming. Also I'd like to show you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_
opinion_on_climate_change

Quote from that article: "Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
If you have faith in science then this is a pretty big point.

[Elfer]

Guess what guys: Pollution was still bad before global warming became popular.

[zero-gravity]

At 7/6/09 10:36 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

At 7/6/09 12:44 AM, zero-gravity wrote: with regards to the fact that there is no evidence.

Evidence...

Until you show me a peer reviewed, authentic study by a major science institution, i can't take you seriously.

[AbstractVagabond]

At 7/6/09 06:10 PM, zero-gravity wrote:

At 7/6/09 10:36 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

At 7/6/09 12:44 AM, zero-gravity wrote: with regards to the fact that there is no evidence.

Evidence...

Until you show me a peer reviewed, authentic study by a major science institution, i can't take you seriously.

And if that "major science institution" is controlled by bureaucrats and lobbyists, would you still take their "authentic study" seriously?

[zero-gravity]

At 7/6/09 07:00 PM, AbstractVagabond wrote:

Until you show me a peer reviewed, authentic study by a major science institution, i can't take you seriously.

And if that "major science institution" is controlled by bureaucrats and lobbyists, would you still take their "authentic study" seriously?

This is where the peer reviewed part comes into play. You wouldn't believe the standards that a journal has to pass to be considered scientifically true. There are a good number of people that have to look at the journal.

[Tancrisism]

At 7/1/09 12:02 AM, TimeLordX wrote: They tried this cap-n-trade, green energy stuff in spain and they now have 18% unemployment as a result. This bill is a very bad idea.

Weird, they didn't try it in the US and now we have a 10% unemployment rate as a result.

It's great how correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

[Memorize]

At 7/6/09 07:46 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

Weird, they didn't try it in the US and now we have a 10% unemployment rate as a result.

It's great how correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

I think the meaning is that they've had a higher unemployment even before the recession; that the Cap and Trade displaces jobs, ie. We lose 2 jobs to create 1 green job.

[farno1]

Global warming was taken and super sized to scare the people. Now that most people have turned into wacko greenies, the government can now tax you.

What I'm saying is global warming is a hoax so the government can tax you. All they want is your money.

That's why I should go on a campaign, STOP GLOBAL WARNINGS!

[Ericho]

At 7/7/09 08:15 AM, farno1 wrote: What I'm saying is global warming is a hoax so the government can tax you. All they want is your money.

If it's money used to save the environment its money worth taken.

[zero-gravity]

At 7/7/09 12:58 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 7/7/09 08:15 AM, farno1 wrote: What I'm saying is global warming is a hoax so the government can tax you. All they want is your money.

If it's money used to save the environment its money worth taken.

But the problem is that its not........

[All-American-Badass]

I personally don't like the cap and trade. I heard that it actually made it impossible to make a new nuclear plant in America. I really think that's the best way we can ween off oil is by switching to Nuclear power.

[Korriken]

At 7/7/09 12:58 PM, Ericho wrote: If it's money used to save the environment its money worth taken.

The money won't be used to save the environment though, it'll be used for anything BUT that. Given the government's track record on handling money (SOCIALSECURITY), The only thing the tax will do is either force the massive corporations to reduce CO2 emissions (not likely), or buy the offsets (which do not reduce emissions) then pass the tax burden on to the consumer with higher prices on goods (most likely). It won't reduce CO2 emissions by much if any. It just provides another way to tax the big evil corporations. Once this is in place, the government might even start spouting about "It's a good start, but it isn't enough! we have to tax vehicle emissions as well!" what would stop them from wanting to tax anything and everything that puts out even a little CO2? all in the name of the environment!