Posted 13 days ago in 
Loading ...
Congress should not soak the public with the cap and trade bill. I am writing this request that Congress vote against the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (HR 2454).
Congress should consider the negative impact that this bill will have on the American people. This would cause an unnecessary burden at taxpayers’ expense. Anyone who pays an electric bill would
likely feel the impact of this climate legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already announced plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of their refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which will raise costs.
I do not believe anyone can give a clear cost of the sky rocketing energy cost caused by the carbon emissions clause. Do not try to force immediate change by taxing the voters. It will take years to change from the present vast fossil fuel base.
Certainly there are ways to promote alternate energy development without soaking the economically depressed American public, older Americans are hard pressed. Why not first promote a lucrative incentive program: Tax credits for companies developing alternate power sources. Or requiring each company to submit a 20 year plan. The bigger the change accomplished, the bigger the tax credit for a longer period of time. No compliance can draw the penalties.
JOHN MASKIE
Montrose
69 Responses to “Congress should vote against cap and trade”
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 10:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lucrative incentive program…. Indeed. Cap & Trade IS a lucrative incentive program for Congress. First will be the shakedown. The “Summer of the lobbyist” wasn’t enough for Congress, they ‘need’ more.
With the money raised by cap & trade Congress will make ‘investments’ in “Clean Energy”. These ‘investments’ will be determined by lobby activity. Hence, congress lines its pocket with campaign money. This is the ONLY compelling reason Congress has for pushing cap & trade through.
One ‘investment’ will be in Solar. A product that is too dangerous and environmentally unfriendly to manufacture here, let alone in a liberal congressional district like Boulder or San Fransico….. so we outsource it to someone else’s backyard. A place, and people we don’t care about, China in this case. I characterize the practice as State sponsored racism.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 10:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My understanding of cap and trade is that it introduces market incentives to bridge into clean/green energy. By incorporating the true cost of coal for instance, it is not cheap. Energy should cost us, as this is the heart of reform. It triggered the technology that we have now with energy star products, and should encourage innovation in energy conservation and energy solutions. The remodeling of our grid for electricity is an example of how we move forward with smart investments.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 10:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So you trust Congress to make investments for you?? With your money? While lining their pocket with a “commission” from Lobbyists for tax breaks, “pork” etc that Lobbyists will buy for their clients?
How is that a clean process? How can the new clean energy economy be called clean, if it originates from the same filthy cesspool as “dirty energy”???
What about Solar, if its so good why cant we manufacture in the USA??? Green Energy products should in fact meet an “Organic Standard” of some kind, if it is to be called “green”, “clean” etc. If it aint good enough to manufacture in a liberal Congressional district, directly in a N.I.M.B.Y.’s backyard… then it aint Green or Clean. Solar panels are currently manufactured in China, where little if any regulatory environment exists. The waste is often dumped behind the factory in a Farmers field. How is that fair? How is that Green? How can Democrats support that behavior by mandating the use of the product and providing federal funding for it?? I prefer to characterize NIMBY outsourcing of dangerous manufacturing to China & India as racist and bigoted. Presumably you characterize it with a smiley face… “unintended consequences”.. or a best case scenario that evil greedy Republicans are manufacturing our “green products”… that’s a best case scenario that Democrats are happy with??
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rojellio; “So you trust Congress to make investments for you?? With your money? While lining their pocket with a “commission” from Lobbyists for tax breaks, “pork” etc that Lobbyists will buy for their clients?”
No I expect Congress to represent the best interests of the nation (and the world). This is a U turn for us because we have been exporting our technology poisons to third world countries for quite some time. and YES I trust, based on our history of building the current infrastucture. We have immense potential.
I do not know enough about solar energy panel production and would like more details.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 11:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“By incorporating the true cost of coal for instance” How would one define the “true cost”?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 11:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This president needs to raise tax revenue to help offset his drunken spending. What better way to do so than to tax the evil corporations AND, at the same time, make it sound like it is for a good cause. Cap and Trade is an ideal program for liberals.
Too bad it has zero chance of passing the Senate.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 11:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skipp; This is an endeavor by energy cost accountants in universities like the School of Mines. They look at diffrentiating costs of production and use of energy. The externalization costs include lost productivity due to air pollution and increased medical expenses - the effects of environmental changes on agriculture. They compare products to see what is the cost of say coal next to gas or solar energy. Coal is only cheap because the plant is already built and operating and no one accounts for the larger impact of the dense CO2 production. Some experts project that even a supper advanced gasoline-burning car will, over its lifetime,cause an average of $1162 in health related damage associate with air pollution. Add in climate change (flood damage/drought) and you have busy mathematicians.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I did a search for the “true cost of coal” and came up with Green Peace and the Huffington Post. Can you point toward the School of Mines study?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 1:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skipp: No, I just know this is a field of study. I learned about externalization costs from the 2004 book entitled “The End of Oil” by Paul Roberts. I am sure there are more current studies or cost evaluations of energy. Maybe worth a google search on “externalization costs of energy”.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Also I don’t know the extent by which we subsidize coal, which would add another factor to the “true cost of coal”.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Davinci, here is the recent Washington Post article about dumping waste in the Chinese farmers field. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html?sub=new You can google “solar panel pollution” and find more.
Indeed, RL will likely dismiss the article and the source. Based on the fact the Post ran such a story… I will guess that they are a “Right Wing extremist, fiction based ‘news’ organization”. Presumably a wannabe Fox minion.
Also google “Sudbury Ontario”, where Prius batteries are mined. You will find pictures of cyanide leach tailings UGLIER than Colorado’s leach ponds circa 1970. You will also find that that particular Nickel mine is the premier source of acid rain in North America. Definitly the truth is not as awesome as the Prius commercial documenting what it would like like driving a Prius after dropping acid…..
Pollution Outsourcing…. Indeed, we have done it, and currently do it. Cap & Trade will insure that we do MORE of it. {and you thought “tea baggers” were racist…} It is only going to get worse. I have no quarrel with improving our situation. Mining, processing and manufacturing more responsibly. The fact is, that the USA has a stricter regulatory environment. It is better for the environment, and our work force if processing and manufacturing occur in the USA.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 2:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rojellio; You do recognize the tons of cyanide and metals we ship to China from computer technology as well, correct? I assume you are using technology, a car battery, a phone a microwave, an air conditioner….
The big idea of Cap and Trade is to address this very issue, starting with CO2. It is FINALLY taking responsibility for our part in generating the pollution that we do. Cap and Trade is creating incentives to act in a moral and responsible way for these mountains of poisons we are exporting.
I know that we ship out our waste, I don’t need an article to convince me, but will read your resource.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 2:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Great article and a convincing argument for the clean air act. China does not have protection against this kind of processing - It is a Chinese company that is producing the poisons;
He said that if environmental protection technology is used, the cost to produce one ton is approximately $84,500. But Chinese companies are making it at $21,000 to $56,000a ton
They need a reason to be responsible.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 3:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The “true costs of coal” are fairly subjective and do not come from unbiased sources. I admit there are some, but don’t think there is a way to fairly quantify them. I would like to know the source of the $1162 and what assumptions were used to derive that figure.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
When I read or hear “incentive”, it really makes my blood boil. Let us call them what they are “subsidies and bribes” to do what should be done in any case. Or perhaps too many have become accustomed to the idea that they should be rewarded for everything, even if it is just getting their backsides out of bed in the morning. In finance and industry, executives expect “bonuses” just for doing their job, and quite frequently not that well. Employees expect and demand special recognition and awards for no other reason than for just ’showing up.’ Whatever happened to doing things for no other reason than it is one’s responsibility, and it the obligation to meet those responsibilities.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Davinci said.. “Great article and a convincing argument for the clean air act. China does not have protection against this kind of processing - It is a Chinese company that is producing the poisons; ”
Then it is shipped to the US. Possibly the Front Range for partial assembly at the Colorado sales office. It is then endorsed and encouraged by Al Gore, the Sierra Club etc, “incentivised” by Congress {tax credit welfare}… then Barrack Obama flies to Denver dumping raw carbon emissions all over the place so he can have his picture taken standing in front of it.
IF China didn’t have strict gun control laws… there wouldn’t be anyone dumping toxic waste in their field. Try doing that in the USA and see what happens.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 5:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Davinci said.. “I assume you are using technology, a car battery, a phone a microwave, an air conditioner….”
Yes I do. I also have some change in my pocket going jing-a-lang-a lang. Not to mention the average level chrome plated plastical bling on my car. If it weren’t for how dreadful it sounds when someone yells “bling bling spinners” with a lisp… I might waste a fortune on some spinner rims.
I am not denying my footprint. I have been environmentally conscious for years. I even drove a GEO Metro, and wore super buttery soft Hemp Jeans.
As for E-waste.. I do the environmentally responsible thing. I put it in a landfill, and leave it be. Paying fiddy cent a pound to have it shipped to India, or China then burnt in a cut off 50 gallon drum, then treated with cyanide, leached, treated with mercury, then ran through a primitive retort that wouldn’t pass EPA standards…. No thanks. I am too responsible to fall for that scam.
Nor will I sport a re-usable grocery bag that says “look at me, I am so green!!”. It has a carbon footprint thingie of having been shipped from China, and it costs $1 more than its worth. If you ask nice, they will give you a perfectly re-usable kraft paper sack for free.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres;
I agree that it would be nice if corporate interests would put people before profit - but they don’t. Example is Rojellio #11 reference. I think you have to play a market game to forge necessary change, but after that, they are on their own. That is what cap and trade should do….don’t know if it will.
The Clean Air Act is a great story for our times. I am going to post the short version that Bill Bryson has in his book “A short History of Practically everything.”
Skipp: My reference comes from page 274 of “The End of Oil” and their reference was Ogden at the University of California Davis (energy cost accounting)
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rojellio; “Then it is shipped to the US. Possibly the Front Range for partial assembly at the Colorado sales office. It is then endorsed and encouraged by Al Gore, the Sierra Club etc, “incentivised” by Congress {tax credit welfare}… then Barrack Obama flies to Denver dumping raw carbon emissions all over the place so he can have his picture taken standing in front of it.”
Do an energy cost analysis before you assume that everything is equal. More waste happens secondary to a Hummer than a Hybrid. Energy Star Appliances trump others because long term they conserve energy. They should have label for those of us who know energy conservation is key to prosperity and decreasing toxic waste.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In the 1940’s Clair Patterson was doing a study to measure the age of the earth using lead isotopes. Unfortunately all his rock samples because wildly contaminated with lead, and he had to construct a sterile laboratory for his work. Much later he realizes that this is because of the leaded products designed by an Ohio inventor; Thomas Midgley. Even at the time it was recognized that lead was a neurotoxin, but it was in all manner of consumer products. General Motors, Du Pont and Standard Oil created Ethyl Gasoline Corp and began producing leaded products for gasoline engines.
Although the workers in their plant immediately began to exhibit signs of lead poisoning, the corporation began a long and successful marketing approach that concealed the darker side of their highly profitable product. Even Thomas Midgley washed his hands in the product and took deep breaths for public confidence building. Then he went on to invent chlorofluorocarbons. Later when he was paralyzed, he invented a machine that got him out of bed, but got strangled in the cords and died.
When Clair Patterson began his research on why there was so much lead in the atmosphere he discovered that (using ice cores) before 1923 there was almost no lead in the atmosphere. He quickly realized the source as the ethyl products that were being spewed into the air were to blame. He was treated the way whistle blowers are always treated by corporate interests, and they pretty much won the day. Even in 1971 he was excluded from the National Research Council panel appointed to investigate the dangers of atmospheric led poisoning, even though by then unquestionably he was the leader on atmospheric lead. To his credit he never wavered and his efforts contributed to the Clean Air Act of 1970, and the removal of lead from gas by 1986. Almost immediately lead levels in our blood fell by 80%.
This story never gets discussed when we talk about the increased diagnoses of autism, nor do we remember Clair Patterson when we are at the pump, but we should.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 6:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks for the reference!
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 6:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rojillio; Both of these statements belong to you;
“IF China didn’t have strict gun control laws… there wouldn’t be anyone dumping toxic waste in their field. Try doing that in the USA and see what happens
&
As for E-waste.. I do the environmentally responsible thing. I put it in a landfill, and leave it be. ”
So, tell me about the gunfight.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 7:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank You Al Gore and all your baby boomer followers, If cap and Trade is such a great Idea why did Austria give it up? You all realize this is going to end up costing your grocery bill to rise.
Cattle emit methane and will be eventually taxed.(not just feedlots)Not to mention the effects on transportion costs,and the utility rates. Who will be able to afford a $20.00 hamburger. This is just one more area the government will control.
Read the bill, quit believing the media, after all who owns them? Remember the references you are all so fond of quoting are other people opinions, wrote on their beliefs not facts. No one will know the facts for thousands of years. This material is wrote to get you to buy their product….
Read the history books and don’t delude your self, by supporting this BULL, you are giving away this country, while every other country is laughing.
No free country has ever survive this amount of government intusion. Food, Banks, Health care, transportion, energy, etc.Tthey pretty much will have us under control. Will charge us to breathe the air because they made it clean? It’s that what this is about, more taxes shouldered on the rest of us.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dreamer: “Thank You Al Gore and all your baby boomer followers”
Although a few years older, I still consider myself a “baby boomer”, or part of the “me” generation. Most are now worried about their legacy. That legacy was left behind a very long time ago and is not one to be at all proud of. And, that true legacy was, at it always is, more intellectual than materialistic.
True to its label of being the ‘me’ generation, that is what it has passed on to its progeny. Devoted to materialistic self-gratification and self-indulgence that is the values that it passed on, one of total materialism. In the process, it has managed to not only neglect to make any significant contribution to the future, but at the same time managed to squander their own heritage and mortgage the future as well.
It should be no surprise that we would see the ‘rise of the tea baggers’ at this time. Look and listen, and what you will see when looking at the age demographics, with some younger followers thrown in, that they are largely made up of seniors still worried about themselves, or “What about me? I’m an old person.” What we are seeing are those who, for most (if not all) of their lives, have been concerned primarily with themselves. Not having accepted any responsibility for anyone or anything else(essentially living a self-centered existence), it would be too much to expect that they would begin to do otherwise at this point. They will, as most do, seek out some idea no matter what the source (be that political ideology, economic theory and even religious doctrine) if it will provide them with some means of rationalizing their past behavior and provide them with an excuse to continue on the same path.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 9:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“So, tell me about the gunfight.” That would be the gunfight at the Split Estate Ranch.
I’m just say’in, none of the Farmers I know would take kindly to dumping toxic waste in their field. They wouldnt wait around for the Sheriff neither.
As for those blood curdling tax incentives, RL must get really steamed when he tallies up those incentives and tax break welfare for investing in an IRA, 401K etc. I am not asking for much here. Incentivise “Green” investments, make it slightly more interesting than the “dirty energy” investments in a standard 401K or IRA. I am not looking for outrageously rich people like Al Gore to get a refundable tax credit for investing 10 Million in a Worm Reactor. Just make it interesting, and encourage people.
And yes, I would totally invest in a Worm Reactor.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why individuals would waste their time concentrating on individuals like Al Gore is beyond me, especially when there are more fundamental issues to discuss. Rojellio considers IRA’s and 401K’s for the individual as ‘incentives’. Actually, those taxes are merely deferred, and are therefore not incentivized by the government at all. When I speak of incentives what I am referring to is when corporations roam country-wide and even internationally looking for whomever will “pay” them to either move into or stay in the neighborhood. Some even go so far as demand that sales taxes collected on what they sell, be returned to them. And even Grand Junction plays that game. That is called ‘purchasing of jobs’, over an over again. A classic examplie of one was Star-Tek who was paid to re-locate to Grand Junction, that while they were already a very profitable company. That practice, I would consider extortion “pay us or we will leave.”
In Delta we had one come in, Stewart Lodges, that obtained a subsidy from local government institutions, to the tune of $1,000,000. The promised “good jobs for a long time.” They did not stick around. After having ‘gobbled up’ the subsidies they quickly moved on, undoubtedly doing the same thing to some other community.
If, as some “totally free market capitalists” believe in the wonders of their approach, and would have us believe that they hold the answer to everything, why is it that they constantly have their hand out for subsidies from government; i.e. the taxpayer?
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 11:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Being good stewards of our planet is very important. When China and India jump on board I may consider the issue. That was one of the reasons that Clinton never bought off on the Kyoto Accord. Who presided over the Senate when that vote was cast, none other than Al Gore. What happened to him? Anyway, who will govern global cap and trade because that is where this is going…the UN? No thanks, bad track record. Plus the timing is no good. During our financial disaster Congress is going to demand more money from all taxpayers and businesses to be redistributed to other nations. That’s the current situation in Europe. And nations are trying to opt out.
Cap and trade, global warming, climate change, climate debt, social justice are all means to redistribute our tax money to governments that won’t distribute the money.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 12:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
renman: “Being good stewards of our planet is very important. When China and India jump on board I may consider the issue.”
I completely agree. As long as China and India are not on board, and they certainly are not, any effort we do here to significantly reduce our CO2 emissions is little more than cosmetic (even the head of the EPA has admitted as much). It really does only one thing: increase taxes to help liberals finance their spending agenda.
Those who believe that it is the right thing to do and we should do it anyway, even if the Chinese and Indians don’t go along, are ignoring the severe impact that the added costs would have on our economy.
Cap and trade barely passed the Congress and, from all I’ve heard, has little chance of passage in the Senate.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 1:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish; “Those who believe that it is the right thing to do and we should do it anyway, even if the Chinese and Indians don’t go along, are ignoring the severe impact that the added costs would have on our economy”.
Are you speaking of floods, drought, severe tornado/hurricanes, pest resurgence in foods, loss of forests to fires and consequent water storage loss, loss of coral reef and sea life, not to mention energy requirements for all the repairs from the weather related disasters? What severe impacts?
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Davinci, do you understand what it means to have an annual deficit in excess of one trillion dollars a year? Any idea?
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 8:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, but a trillion dollar deficit is better than a three trillion dollar deficit without infrastructure in place and safeguards for the middle class from profiteering. It is better than handing our children a trillion dollar deficit plus climate change plus the end of oil without alternatives.
As a fiscal conservative I think it is time to cut into the military budget and put that toward another branch of defense. An economic collapse from Republican de-regularion, climate change and unavailabe energy threatens the security of our nation.
Health care is a moral imperative. Just like we expect everyone to pitch in for roads, it is time to understand that health care should be accessible. - Basic care.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 8:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish: “Davinci, do you understand what it means to have an annual deficit in excess of one trillion dollars a year? Any idea?”
davinci: “No”
Clear enough.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
How is the term “fiscal conservative” defined?
Should our economy going to be based on private enterprise or government planning?
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 9:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
#26… I actually find some common ground and agreement with Laitres. The Corporate welfare tax incentives, buying jobs, bribery, etc. That is what Congress wants the pile of money for. The big pile of money from their awesome new money laundering scheme. Congress will invest that money. The recipients will be determined by Lobby & PAC activity. Congress will achieve personal financial gain investing that money. YOUR money.
Congressman Salazar estimates the “pass through” {former weak politically correct characterization that needs to be replaced with Money Laundering} to be $1200 per household. Some say its only $120… The Heritage Foundation says it will be more like $2700.
Since the money comes from YOU and I , being a ‘me-first’ing’ type… I happen to think that I should invest the money myself since the money came from me. {And I do in fact invest in ‘green’ stocks.} I think the filthy {e.d.} Lobbyists should not get ANY of that money, and my Congressman should get an even smaller portion of that money either.
I fully expect Michael Moore to whine like a Llorona about the “corperate welfare” tax handouts, subsidies etc. that Big Wind & Solar are getting. That will be an awesome movie.
And yes, I happen to believe that we should be encouraged to make Green investments. While very modest, I would like some tax incentive scheme slightly more interesting that the one I get for making “dirty energy” investments in my existing, normal dirty 401K.
Of course, if anyone in Washington DC actually cared… they would ask us to drive the posted speed. That would likely achieve more than Cash for Clunkers, and it would cost a couple Billion less. I characterize their incompetence to explore, at least try the free option first. Or at all.
Also if Politicians cared, whatsoever about ‘climate change’ they would make a law superseding zoning laws, and neighborhood covenants etc which prohibit many Americans from utilizing the most available and cheap solar technology. An {expletive deleted} clothesline!! Maybe the Census workers should hand out a hank of clothesline rope to every houshold.. “here, this exciting solar technology can save upwards of 30% on your electric bill”.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 12:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skipp: “Should our economy going to be based on private enterprise or government planning?”
Actually, the decision about the economy of this country was decided many years ago, at its founding. We chose the capitalistic model. Unless we want to change it to another, the only question that really exists is “what type of capitalism” do we want? Some, led by the Friedman school of thought believe that all answers lay in unrestrained capitalism, totally unregualted. That amounts to a ‘free for all’ adn ‘the devil take the hindmost’, including the individual who becomes little more than a cog in the economic engine. It is really no different than any other type of totalitarian regime. The only difference is who is the master. Under a totalitarian regime, it is the politician or those who hold the political reins, in the unfettered capitalism model, it is the plutocrats. Save to say, both having defined the individual as little more than a “thing” (or cog) the individual has no other value than how it can be used to serve the needs of the master.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 1:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “It is really no different than any other type of totalitarian regime.”
So, our economic model of capitalism, for all intents and purposes, provides the same results, as far as our citizens are concerned, as, say, that of the old Soviet Union, or that Of North Korea, or Cuba?
Very interesting. I wasn’t aware of that.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 10:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish: Capitalism would have worked without the red jinx - wink wink.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 8:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci: “Capitalism would have worked without the red jinx - wink wink.”
Don’t understand the meaning of your post.
The post by RL, on the other hand, appears clear. He is of the belief that the average citizen is just as well off in a capitalist system as he is in a totalitarian system. That, of course, is complete and utter nonsense.
If it were true, millions of people would not have risked their lives, and continue to risk their lives, to escape totalitarian regimes.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 8:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BullishFrawg said “If it were true, millions of people would not have risked their lives, and continue to risk their lives, to escape totalitarian regimes.”
OK Bull… how do you explain all the hard core lefty lefters jumping the border, and going to Cuba and Venezueala?? Were they do have an awesome Government Run health plan, and a more ‘appropriate form of Government’.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 8:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GLOBAL COOLING——————GLOBAL COOLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIRD COLDEST OCTOBER ON RECORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QUICK, QUICK, INCREASE CARBON BURNING BEFORE WE ALL FREEZE TO DEATH!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 9:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“That amounts to a ‘free for all’ adn ‘the devil take the hindmost’”.
It’s sorta like being chased by a bear…the only person in trouble is the slowest guy in the group.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
duke: “It’s sorta like being chased by a bear…the only person in trouble is the slowest guy in the group.”
Not totally. That depends also upon how big is the bear, how hungry it is, or if it is hunting to eat or merely to kill. But, moving to another question. Are the faster individuals displaying any kind of courage or responsibility toward the “slowest guy” if they allow him to be sacrificed just so they can save their own precious hides? Many apparently believe that way when considering questionas of public polity. “I only care about how it affects me.” (That by the way is a direct quote from a “conservative” neighbor.)
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 2:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “Not totally. That depends also upon how big is the bear, how hungry it is, or if it is hunting to eat or merely to kill.”
?????????????????????????
In which case is the victim of the bear attack better off? Is it if he is dead because the bear was hungry? Or is it if he is dead because the bear was just interested in killing?
Very deep question. Perhaps RL can provide the answer.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 3:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL - the moral choices of the “faster” individuals are theirs to make. Legislating morality is a dangerous business and not the business of any government.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish re post #37,38; your statement; “davinci, I came from a failed communist state.”
You refuse to deny that you have jinxed capitalism as a secret red plot as per our discussions earlier.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 5:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci, I appreciate your attempt at levity. I really do. Particularly when you can’t cope with the facts thrown at you.
LOL.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 5:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
warhorse: “the moral choices of the “faster” individuals are theirs to make. Legislating morality is a dangerous business and not the business of any government.”
As it is in the case of each and every individual to make when comes time to address public policy issues such as health care. That is the question is it not? We can talk in abstract of bears and slow runners, but when comes the time for facing a similar situation in real life, and making decisions that impact others, that is no longer imaginary but very real. It is at that point that the character of the individual is seen, and as to whether he has a social conscience and is prepared to face his/her obligations or withdraws into the self-centered “me, first and only.”
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 8:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Then we agree. I think the only way to follow through would be to put this issue to a national vote. True democracy.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 9:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That pesky global warming due to manmade C02…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 8:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is a fact to many Christians that there is a male God, and it is a fact to many conservatives that Obama is a secret muslim, and it is a fact to many Fox News idiots that global warming is a conspiracy among world scientists to harm the oil and gas interests. It is not our bias with “facts” that should absorb our posts as much as our response to the different opinions about the facts. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is a fact. We are producing tons of CO2 and that will create more greenhouse gas which will change our climate. The fact that these changes are measurable is to our advantage because we can plan for solutions. There should be a tax on those who interfere with this process by objecting to science or creating political power by their stubborn refusal to face facts. Climate change deniers should register for future flood victims.
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 8:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish; Sometimes facts are stored away in stories like the one I posted about Clair Patterson. The Clean Air Act was not so much a government take-over of our air quality as it was a responsible group leadership act to protect us from the interests of the corporate powers. This person is virtually unknown, like Brooksley Born. Cap and Trade is subject to the same type of propaganda they faced.
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci,
Climate change deniers? Cap and trade is an excuse using manmade goobal warming to tax us. You are truly blind. In case you haven’t noticed the average global tempurature has been in decline since 2001 while we continue to dump just as much C02 into the atmosphere if not more. How do you explain this? Please impart you scientific back ground on we less knowledgeable than you? Again your perspective is warped because of your polital mindset and agenda. You like to use scare words like “tons” of C02 being dumped into the atmosphere. Let’s put those tons into perspective. Those so called “tons” you tout to scare us add up to less than 0.005 of the total atmosphere. It is a scientific fact that temperature drives C02 levels and not the other way around. The Vostoc ice core records shows this and the fact C02 lags temperature rise as behind as 800 years. Just a small little fact Al Gore failed to tell anyone in his lie about it. Also you global warming alarmists love to to tout data that states some recent years have been the warmest “on record”. Again davinci lets put “on record” into perspective since you want to ignore the bigger scientifically proven bigger picture when it doesn’t fit your political agenda. On record is scientifically caputered accurate data that has been collected for the past 150 years out of the 4 billion years of earth’s climate history. Scientific accurate records through radio carbon dating have proven earth has had much warmer climates in the past where C02 was minimal. The earth is cyclic in temperature rise and fall. Al Gore and the likes of you want use less than half a degree rise (which by the way is insignificant compared to the geologic past) in temperature to say manmade C02 is responsible for all ready naturally occurring global warming. Get some perspective man! So please forgive us educated climate chane deniers a little break when we don’t go blindly running off a cliff like a sheep that you are.
Posted November 15th, 2009 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
pub; CO2 as you know is a good thing as long as it remains in equilibrium with other atmospheric gases. The ppm of CO2 is rising fast enough that it will change our climate. Climate change has always happened, always will - the rate of change is what we should be concerned with and it will end the human race on the track we are on, but life will probably carry on much like life does - adapts.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it traps heat. We like it to do this - to a point. I don’t see any of this penetrating your perspective because I read the same tired diatribe every time I read your posts.I just can’t believe you try to pass yourself off as an independent thinker.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 5:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci,
Nice try but you are wrong again. In the geologic past (try if you will to think outside the box here and see the bigger picture although hard for you to do though while looking through your rose colored liberal glasses) super volcanoes have released C02 in ppm 10 times as high as what is being done by man in a very short time frame. Faster than man could even possibly dream of putting the same amount into the atmosphere even if he tried! Guess what? Temperature didn’t rise when this heavy volcanic activity occurred. Typical lack of a diatribe from you I might add. Please impart your scientific knowledge on everyone here and explain to us why in the 1950’s at a time of unregulated industrial pollution and huge amounts of C02 being dumped into the atmosphere that over all global temperature fell?
As for your statement to me being an independent thinker nice try at a jab there, completely laughable at best. If you need to comfort yourself by saying I am not an independent thinker in order to stray from the facts I laid out and not come up with any valid scientific data to disprove what I have stated on your own then you are right on at least one thing here, you won’t penetrate my perspective.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 8:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
pub; I believe the dust in volcanoes blocks UV so the heat does not penetrate the upper layers of the atmosphere - therefore there is no heat for CO2 to block from exiting the atmosphere. Could be wrong about this. I am thinking a super volcano could save us from ourselves.
Just guessing, but I would think while the polar caps are rapidly melting we will have periods of cooler air. I don’t mind guessing anymore because I think that is what I am up against when I talk to those who deny the effects of CO2 on climate change. I will try to read up on this. Remember the big picture leaves us out of the picture for most of the earth’s history. We are a flash in the pan due to the narrow environmental conditions we require.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 6:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci,
true ash from volcanoes will block the sun’s rays. But volcanoes vent C02 all the time in huge amounts regardless of whether they are erupting or not. They just spew more tons more during eruptions. Ah the polar ice cap argument/diatribe, here we go. The arctic ice cap has stopped retreating for the past couple of years and is slowly gaining mass again. The antarctic cap is gaining even faster and was doing so while the arctic ice cap was retreating. Further more it is good to gather all the facts before commenting on the polar caps. Had you done that you would have found the the polar caps on Mars were retreating at the same time as earth’s arctic ice cap. Scientist also discovered some of the ice locked moons of Jupiter and Saturn were melting at the same time as earth’s ice caps. Must be that Martian green house C02 gas causing it on that planet. Perhaps it could be something as simple as the sun warming things up when it get hotter or cooler? What a crazy simple idea! So answer this one simple question davinci. If C02 is causing global warming, why was the global tempurature warmer in the past than it is now with and without high C02 levels?
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 7:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publuisco,
I’d really like a source on your claim that ice on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn is melting. This I got to see.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 7:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
pub; Cycles intensify cycles for one thing. There are other greenhouse gases that have probably had their own ebb and flow. Our planet should be slowly cooling, and solar flares are factored into climate change. Climate change in fact has rapidly happened at times perhaps due to a meteor strike, volcanic activity etc. Your claim that the artic and antarctic caps are gaining does not fit satelite and other scientific data;
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.
This mass loss is equally distributed between increased iceberg production, driven by acceleration of Greenland’s fast-flowing outlet glaciers, and increased meltwater production at the ice sheet surface. Recent warm summers further accelerated the mass loss to 273 Gt per year (1 Gt is the mass of 1 cubic kilometre of water), in the period 2006-2008, which represents 0.75 mm of global sea level rise per year.
Professor Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol and an author on the paper said: “It is clear from these results that mass loss from Greenland has been accelerating since the late 1990s and the underlying causes suggest this trend is likely to continue in the near future. We have produced agreement between two totally independent estimates, giving us a lot of confidence in the numbers and our inferences about the processes”.
The Greenland ice sheet contains enough water to cause a global sea level rise of seven metres. Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000.
At the same time that surface melting started to increase around 1996, snowfall on the ice sheet also increased at approximately the same rate, masking surface mass losses for nearly a decade. Moreover, a significant part of the additional meltwater refroze in the cold snowpack that covers the ice sheet. Without these moderating effects, post-1996 Greenland mass loss would have been double the amount of mass loss observed now.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 9:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci,
Glad you like to cherry pick issues like the melting Greenland Ice sheet to try and prove your point but again you and professor bamber should get some perespective on this. Or perhaps you want to intentionally hide or ignore scientific as explained here - http://www.cfact.org/a/886/Melting-the-facts-about-Greenlands-ice-sheet
As far as you so called proof of the ice caps melting you are not keeping up with the current data. First of all ice melting anyway is not a threat, I thought you would come up with better data to show me but oh well. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
Satellite records have been kept for polar sea ice over the last thirty years by the University Of Illinois. In 2007 2008, two very different records were set. The Arctic broke the previous record for the least sea ice area ever recorded, while the Antarctic broke the record for the most sea ice area ever recorded. Summed up over the entire earth, polar ice has remained constant. As seen below, there has been no net gain or loss of polar sea ice since records began. http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/07/03/ice_change_large.jpg
scott,
The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm — Red Spot Jr. — is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system’s largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Neptune’s moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton’s atmosphere denser. Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C “warmer.”
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 9:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publuisco,
Given that Jupiter generates it’s own heat, what does that have to do with any warming on earth? How was Triton’s current temperature recorded? Two data points does not a trend make. Where is Neptune in it’s orbit? In an elliptical orbit, it is significantly closer at some points than others, which could easily explain any melting simply because it is summer there for the next few decades.
Now if you could demonstrate that any of these events are connected to events on earth, you would have something. Till then, it’s interesting, but hardly conclusive.
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 7:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
pub; Sorry I don’t respect a 2006 article with clear intent to smear James Hansen always under attack during the Bush administration for his work in exposing climate change, highly regarded in science circles. This 2006 article is no doubt sourced from oil/gas interests. They propped up web-based organizations to spread propaganda. Second article is also 2005 article. I think the graphs prove my point.
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 8:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci - hasn’t the earth been much warmer during most of its history? I don’t recall scientists stating there were ice caps at the poles during the jurassic period. Why doesn’t the warming trend mean a revision to the historical mean of the earths temperature? I have never heard anyone address that issue.
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 9:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Holy cow! The Europeans are starting to get upset with our president because of his lack of action on global warming. Calling him a liar. Suggesting that he is as bad as Bush (wow!!!!!!!).
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,661678,00.html
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
warhorse: “davinci - hasn’t the earth been much warmer during most of its history?”
Apparently some do not understand the concept of “cummulative effect” when attempting to discuss man-made global warming. There is no doubt that the earth has warming and cooling cycles depending upon natural events. But, that is not really the issue is it?
What is at issue is as to whether, by our own activities, we are adding and/or substracting to those effects. Perhaps many have never experienced, the effects of storm surges during hurricanes, or have never considered the difference in outcomes depending upon whether the surge occurs at high or low tide.
Or perhaps it is because the deniers, as is normal, measure everything (even those of global events) by what they can themselves see in their narrow parochial existence, measuring everything only by what affects them directly. I don’t see it, therefore it is not so. That is not so clever a way to deny recognition and acceptance of personal responsibility.
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 11:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Holy cow! The Europeans are starting to get upset with our president because of his lack of action on global warming. Calling him a liar. Suggesting that he is as bad as Bush (wow!!!!!!!).”
Good deal. Maybe it will motivate him to get a spine on this issue. Admittedly, this one will be even tougher than health care, so, in fairness, he may be waiting for some reason we do not know. I suspect that someone in the coal industry may have undue influence on the President.
That would explain his foot dragging.
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL - I stated that I never heard anyone address the issue. I am not denying or accepting the thesis that man caused global warming is an issue. I do not have the facts to support or deny the claim. I asked the question in the hope that someone knows where to find the information. The “cummulative effect” that you pose presumably has solid science behind it. I would also assume that in that science normal/cyclical global warming and cooling over billions of years was taken into consideration. I am just interested in who did the research and the methodolgy used so I can read it for myself.
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 12:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You might start with some Google inquiries. You are on the internet if you are able to make comments on this site. Nice answer, but if you were really interested the information is right at your fingertips–and the disinformation as well. You can then make up your mind—unless it is already made up, which I suspect is the case.
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually it would be great if the Greenland ice sheet kept melting it will upon up some great new farm land!
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hopefully is would offset the amount of land that would then be underwater due to the higher sea level.
Who needs Florida, anyway.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.