What is Cap and Trade all about?

Where CNN gets their information
awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby awp-killer on Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:49 am

-PC-Taishar wrote:In the end Cap and Trade was bullshit. It was shoved down America's throat despite majority opposition, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it now except point and laugh/cry as all our manufacturing goes elsewhere.

Polls show majority support for cap and trade, and I already addressed the manufacturing myth.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby -PC-Taishar on Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:32 pm

Ugh. I read your link, dug up a few of my own, added some witty commentary, sat smugly staring at the screen as I re-read my post in preview and promptly closed the window before posting.

I'm not gonna do it again. Global warming is a scam. Like I said, the Earth was warming and cooling in cycles long before we came along with our carbon emissions. The fact of the matter is this: Sunspots and our proximity to the sun has more to do with the temperature of our planet than anything we can ever do.

I did, however, pull this link back up from memory. You may join me, per your promise, in ridiculing champion of Liberals everywhere, Time magazine. This is an article from back in the 70's telling us how the planet is going to freeze and you need to stock up on wood and coal and other house warming fuel. Not to mention make sure you insulate the crap out of your house. That was turned up in a quick google search. I'm sure a little more effort would have turned up a number of other sources of the cooling scare of the 60/70's. Of course, the Intarweb as we know it was not around back then so I might have to check out some microfiche if I really want to get more material, but I'm not gonna do it. You can deny it all you want. It doesn't change the fact it happened. Just ask Ahmedijad concerning his beliefs on the holocaust. Tell me, will you, in 20 yrs when we are back on a global cooling scare, say that you will join me in ridiculing how stupid the global warming scam is?

Funny you should accuse me of the bogeyman sensationalism when, in fact, sensationalism is the main staple of the liberal agenda. Without that and the race card they have NOTHING. Now don't get me wrong they have certainly mastered the art, I truly hate that I am now an unpatriotic racist, and because of those accusations I intend to immediately change my opinions. I never knew how much I hated minorities. Good thing we now have a president that has his lackeys remind me constantly that I am a racist because I don't agree with him. I didn't agree with Hitler much either. I guess I hate white people too.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby awp-killer on Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:51 pm

-PC-Taishar wrote:Ugh. I read your link, dug up a few of my own, added some witty commentary, sat smugly staring at the screen as I re-read my post in preview and promptly closed the window before posting.
I've done that before. It sucks.

The fact of the matter is this: Sunspots and our proximity to the sun has more to do with the temperature of our planet than anything we can ever do.
Sunspots have a very small effect compared to greenhouse gases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
And the eccentricity of the earth's orbit effects the earth on a 100,000 year cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Not one scientific organization disagrees with IPCC. Not even does the "American Association of Petroleum Geologists" disagree. And they work for the oil industry! How can you sit there and act like you know better than scientists, who spend their life studying the climate?

I did, however, pull this link back up from memory. You may join me, per your promise, in ridiculing champion of Liberals everywhere, Time magazine.
That's an article about the rising cost of energy. It doesn't have anything to do with climate change (you have egg on your face). Besides, I already agreed some news outlets thought they found a news story and ran with it. I'm still waiting to see some evidence about "the stupid ass left was screaming bloody murder about an impending ice age if we didn't clean up our act".

Funny you should accuse me of the bogeyman sensationalism when, in fact, sensationalism is the main staple of the liberal agenda. Without that and the race card they have NOTHING.
There is a difference between "making a boogieman" out of something, and not being ignorant to real problems. Global warming is a real problem. And regarding racism and the race card, I'm sick of it too. I understand that some people are horrible bigots. But for the most part, those issues just become distractions because it gives people one more thing to bicker about. Now that you have brought it up, I wouldn't even doubt it hijacks our global warming discussion.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby -PC-Taishar on Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:39 pm

I don't intend to derail the conversation with racism card.

I will, however, contend that to continue to argue by using internet links is kind of ridiculous. You continue to use wikipedia as a staple for your arguments. I wouldn't say that is a good source. Anyone can write in there. I'm sure the entries concerning global warming are straight from IPCC researchers. The links I provided were from NASA. I would consider them scientific, and they are not on board with global warming. The sites I researched spoke of using satellites to record mean global temperature. I consider this to be more accurate than using an average of a number of temperature recorders placed throughout the world (I have first had experience with this as we use them occasionally for our operations). The problem with terrestrial temp monitors is that they are predominately located in urban areas. The temps in urban areas tend to be warmer in general than in rural areas. This in turn leads to a faulty upward trend in global mean temperatures.

Regardless of what you say, global warming DOES have its opponents in the scientific field. A good number of them actually. And for the sake of not always being an opponent, I'll even say that it is a possibility that it IS real. HOWEVER, the fact remains we don't know enough about climate change throughout the history of the earth to say definitively that the recent warming trend (and current cooling trend) is caused by humans. To try and push policy that will dramatically hinder the economy of the United States (and at the same time cause a TON of extra operating costs to be passed on to the consumer...a hidden tax if you will) is ignorant and unwanted. Now I'm sure you'll contend that there will be no significant repercussions as you've already tried to argue concerning manufacturing (we haven't brought up what cap and trade will do to agriculture).

In the end one question remains. If it will not in any way hinder our economy as you propose it will not, why is it that China and India are so loathe to get on board? I mean if it has no negative economic repercussions, why isn't EVERYONE embracing cap and trade? Surely you can't argue it's because people just WANT to destroy the earth? I mean given the choice of spend 10 dollars and contribute to the destruction of the planet or spend 10 dollars and save the planet I'm sure 98% of the people would choose to spend 10 dollars and SAVE the planet. Unfortunately that is not the case, embracing cap and trade will contribute to expanding the power of government, constricting our economy, and increasing the financial burden of the American People. Those are all things I'm not willing to do just to perhaps have a chance at maybe stopping a phenomenon that may or may not exist. And damn me for saying it, but even if global warming IS real and Cap and Trade will definitely stop it, I'm not sure I'm willing to sacrifice the role of America as the sole world superpower in order to stop it. Far worse things can happen than a +2 degree F change in the global mean temp.

Also the Time magazine article was referring to the rising cost of heating DUE to the current (at the time) global cooling scare. Perhaps you did not read it all? I actually just read a website advocating the reality of global warming and it was also posting links to a number of articles at the time that were saying an ice age was imminent. Newsweek stands out as one they quoted.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby awp-killer on Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:57 pm

-PC-Taishar wrote:I will, however, contend that to continue to argue by using internet links is kind of ridiculous. You continue to use wikipedia as a staple for your arguments. I wouldn't say that is a good source. Anyone can write in there.
Wiki articles have been shown to have about the same error rate as Britannica. Some of the more obscure articles need to be taken with a grain of salt (those that you wouldn't even find in Britannica). However, high level articles like the ones I am posting have plenty of fact checkers and are very well referenced.

I'm sure the entries concerning global warming are straight from IPCC researchers.
Good. The IPCC is the world's authoritative body on climate change.

The links I provided were from NASA. I would consider them scientific, and they are not on board with global warming.
NASA is completely "on board" with global warming. They even quote the IPCC directly when talking about human influence, as seen here(NASA link #1) and here(NASA link #2). (That first link also has a good explanation on why we know solar output is not a major factor on global warming.) NASA has a problem before when a Bush appointee to NASA (with no scientific background) started editing NASA's scientific findings because he didn't like what they found.

[Terrestrial temp monitors lead] to a faulty upward trend in global mean temperatures.
Scientists aren't dumb; they account for that. Besides, we have plenty of other ways to monitor temperature besides just surface data. We have satellites (as you have already mentioned), upper air data, and marine data. We even have ice cores, we have tree rings.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html
This EPA link has a graph showing the change in global surface temperatures, and they say right in the caption "Surface temperature records such as the one shown here have been quality controlled to remove the effects of urbanization at observing stations in and around cities"

Regardless of what you say, global warming DOES have its opponents in the scientific field.
A large enough group of people, you can find anyone that will say anything. Find me one scientific organization that rejects global warming is happening (which is your position, correct?). I bet you can't even find one that says global warming isn't mostly caused by humans.

To try and push policy that will dramatically hinder the economy of the United States (and at the same time cause a TON of extra operating costs to be passed on to the consumer...a hidden tax if you will) is ignorant and unwanted
This is not ignorant. And the uncertainties a quite a bit less than what you make them out to be. I am a capitalist at heart, and we should not be giving huge subsidies to the coal industry and the like. And that's what this has been. Most power plants (the ones that run on fossil fuel) have a huge impact on us and the environment. These are huge external costs on society, which are huge subsidies. Only nuclear power gets taxed for its byproducts. If you considered external costs, coal plants would cost double what they do today, and that's not even considering global warming yet. (It includes things like public health, occupational health, crop/material damage, etc. The impact of global warming is not in there, only the cost of avoidance, and the so called low-hanging-fruit is cheap!)


In the end one question remains. If it will not in any way hinder our economy as you propose it will not, why is it that China and India are so loathe to get on board? I mean if it has no negative economic repercussions, why isn't EVERYONE embracing cap and trade? Surely you can't argue it's because people just WANT to destroy the earth?
China is getting on board. President Hu Jintao just made a big announcement at the UN that they will be making significant cuts to greenhouse gases, based on the growth of their economy a couple days ago. We have people over complaining about how our jobs will be sent to China, when even China is getting on board! How embarrassing is it that America has gone from being leaders, to getting pulled along kicking and screaming. Europe by the way is ready to make even deeper cuts, but they are waiting on us to show we are serious.

Not everyone is embracing it, because it is a complex issue and people are ignorant. It's the power of the status quo. Cap and Trade will be a benefit to the economy overall, because avoiding global warming will be a huge benefit. It will be a hindrance on polluting industries, and such a market reallocation is also difficult because those industries have a vested interest to exist.

The same is true for health insurance companies who don't want to see more competition from the health care bill. Same is true with the banking industry and the new regulations that we will put on them so they can't ruin the economy again. Same was true with the credit card companies who bitched and moaned about the credit card bill we passed earlier this year.


I'm not sure I'm willing to sacrifice the role of America as the sole world superpower in order to stop it.
lol, it is everyone else that is sacrificing. We are just bitching a moaning, and not doing near as much.

Also the Time magazine article was referring to the rising cost of heating DUE to the current (at the time) global cooling scare. Perhaps you did not read it all? I actually just read a website advocating the reality of global warming and it was also posting links to a number of articles at the time that were saying an ice age was imminent. Newsweek stands out as one they quoted.
I read about half of it. Did you read it? The article talks about the rising cost of heating DUE to the oil energy crisis in which oil prices went from 55 to 90 cents a gallon, not because there was a "global cooling scare". The title "Cooling in America" refers to the shortage of heating oil, not the climate. The whole article is about energy costs in different regions, alternate home heating, insulation, conservation, etc. There was a dip in temperatures in the 70s however, but they don't even talk about it, much less "scare" people into thinking an impending ice age is coming.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby -PC-Taishar on Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:57 pm

I don't know how you managed to write that much and say nothing rebutting what I wrote. Cap and Trade = government cronyism. If you don't believe that you are naive.

And as I said. I don't TRULY care whether global warming is real. In the end I don't believe the human race will survive long enough to see and of the more dramatic effects it will have. And even if it does survive that long, by then we'll have much better alternatives than reducing greenhouse gas output.

The IPCC is biased. It was formed with the very idea that global warming was real and OF COURSE is going to staff itself out with people who believe it, and will skew or manipulate the facts to support it. That's like saying the Heritage Foundation is going to support conservative viewpoints with their research. Well DUH of course it is.

In the end i've learned that you are only EVER going to support the liberal agenda. To say you are capitalist is anethema. There is not such thing as a true capitalist liberal. You advocate government involvement in EVERY SINGLE TOPIC that ever comes up in these forums. A true capitalist would recognize that as BS. Capitalism predicates itself on free market, NOT government dictated free market.

You support O'bama who is quite plainly a socialist. He has surrounded himself with other socialists. The only reason he hasn't flat out said it, is that he can't or he will lose popular support. He affiliated himself with Bill Ayers (whom i'm sure you think is a great american) and attended the church of Rev. Wright for 20 years. Thats like saying "Yah I went to a Catholic Church for 20 years but I'm actually Muslim."

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby HangOver on Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:19 am


-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby -PC-Taishar on Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:52 pm

LOL...and..........eww creepy.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby awp-killer on Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:07 pm

Heh, what tai said.

-PC-Taishar wrote:I don't know how you managed to write that much and say nothing rebutting what I wrote. Cap and Trade = government cronyism. If you don't believe that you are naive.
That doesn't even make sense. Who's "cronies", Obama's? Yes, we will be getting cap and trade because Obama has his lackies on the job. Conspiracy! [/shakes hands in scary fashion]

Most every other industrialized country in the world is on board, and the majority of America is also. That is despite the talking heads out there, with their propensity to ignore the experts because they think they know better. When you say "the IPCC is biased", what I hear is "I disagree with what the experts say, therefore they must be biased". But really, it is probably more an unfamiliarity of the process:

Consensus did not always exist. Global warming research is not new and it has taken a long time for the current consensus to emerge. Even now IPCC projections continue to be very conservative and many predicted effects are happening much faster than expected - arctic warming, sea ice melt, permafrost response.

The work of scientists in the IPCC is highly researched (unlike the 70s), scrutinized, peer reviewed, and brought together by world scientific experts to form consensus opinion. They say that global warming is 90% likely to be driven by human influence. But in fact, by the very nature of forming scientific consensus, their results are very conservative (not in a political sense). That is the strongest language they could put together that everyone ( 2000 scientists from 150+ countries) of very diverse backgrounds would agree. Many of them dissent in saying that IPCC reports are not strongly worded enough.

by then we'll have much better alternatives than reducing greenhouse gas output.
We will possibly get alternatives, when we make the concerted effort to care about the problem in the first place. A few scientists have suggested releasing more Sulfurous Oxides (and the like) into the atmosphere, but that tends just to make more problems.

In the end i've learned that you are only EVER going to support the liberal agenda. To say you are capitalist is anethema. There is not such thing as a true capitalist liberal. You advocate government involvement in EVERY SINGLE TOPIC that ever comes up in these forums. A true capitalist would recognize that as BS. Capitalism predicates itself on free market, NOT government dictated free market.
You and I just have a different idea of what capitalism is. Cap and Trade is an open market approach to this problem. I don't believe laissez-faire leads to the best and freest market. [shock!] For instance, the current housing market and subsequent banking industry collapse certainly wasn't because we had too much regulation. In fact, I could argue that true laissez-faire is anti-capitalism, because a market with no regulation will destroy competition. It will form monopolies and also it will not find a true balance of supply and demand because it will not consider external costs. The problem is you don't know the difference between liberalism and socialism.

You support O'bama who is quite plainly a socialist. He has surrounded himself with other socialists.
Obama is following Keynesian economics (or some form of it). I don't think you know what a socialist is. Is Bush a socialist? He started the bank bailouts.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby -PC-Taishar on Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:30 pm

Bring up Bush because we all know what a big fan of his i was /sarcasm. No Bush was not a socialist, he did not support redistribution of wealth.

Expanding government is just one aspect of Obama policy I don't like. I don't like his ideas of taking care of everyone. I'm a big fan of taking care of myself with no government intervention. And only lazy people and people that CAN'T take care of themselves disagree with me. In the former case FUCK THEM. In the latter,I'm all about helping out, and often do through donations and volunteering. Which many many people do WITHOUT government help.

Also his idea of acceptable deficit spending is ridiculous. Bush was just as bad. Clinton at least knew how to balance a budget. Despite a number of disagreements I have with Obama and his policies, if he could just balance the budget I'd be happy. I'm sure the means he would accomplish this would be WAY out of line with what I would like, but if we can just get to that point I'd be willing to whether the storm of the next hopefully only three years.

As for the Cap and Trade cronyism. There will be a government office dictating which companies get the 'free credit' carbon emission this will be based on their studies of the companies needs and their contribution to the power grid, etc, etc. You know a lot of things that would actually make sense. But you and I both know that if Acorn was a power company they would get more than their fair share of 'free credits'. So again if you don't believe that, you are naive. It would function similar to government expenditures (I'm referring to the BILLIONS of dollars in new funding Acorn has procured under this regime).

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby awp-killer on Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:31 pm

-PC-Taishar wrote:Bring up Bush because we all know what a big fan of his i was /sarcasm. No Bush was not a socialist, he did not support redistribution of wealth.
Ha. You say that like republicans don't redistribute wealth. Or maybe you forgot how they vote against raising minimum wage to keep up with inflation, putting the capital gains and dividends rate at 15% (absurdly low compared to income tax), and have given some pretty nice loopholes to big corporations. And I'm sure that both you and republicans have been oh so sad about the fall of labor unions the last few decades. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2%, and return to what it was during Clinton and Former Bush to pay for universal health care. Don't feel so threatened. Money has been going from the bottom to the top fairly steadily since 1976. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Also his idea of acceptable deficit spending is ridiculous. Bush was just as bad. Clinton at least knew how to balance a budget.
The contraction in the money supply was creating a very bad recession. It was very important to get credit flowing again by increasing the monetary supply (find me an economist that disagrees with this). That means deficit spending. Republicans know this, but they tend to have selective memory about the stimulus money too. They drafted their own stimulus bill, one that was just a big as the one that was passed. What was dumb was deficit spending for tax cuts and wars when we aren't in a recession, because our ability to do deficit spending is our recession safety net.

As for the Cap and Trade cronyism. There will be a government office dictating which companies get the 'free credit' carbon emission this will be based on their studies of the companies needs and their contribution to the power grid, etc, etc.
You are worried about conflicts of interest, not cronyism.

The allocation of credits is pre-determined in the bill. I believe 50% of the allocations will be distributed on the need (to the polluters), and 50% given to those based on their production. You will also be happy to know that not all the credits are given away, and eventually the allocation of credits are to be phased out.

But you and I both know that if Acorn was a power company they would get more than their fair share of 'free credits'. So again if you don't believe that, you are naive. It would function similar to government expenditures (I'm referring to the BILLIONS of dollars in new funding Acorn has procured under this regime).
Ha. Billions. Acorn's budget isn't even billions. Acorn has received $53 million (not billion) from the government in the last 15 years, and only for specific programs. And they aren't procuring anything from the government anymore, since they have been cut off in a bipartisan bill. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jxhq8CPN8LdLntDEDtE5NrEBQ2IgD9ANF3F01

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby -PC-Taishar on Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:14 am

What I don't get is why you keep defending your socialism erm i mean liberalism. By attacking Republicans. I know I need not state the obvious but.

1. Regardless of how much you attack republicans on their faulty views, it doesn't make yours any better.
2. I don't support republicans because they are just and nepitist minded as the left.

Neither party has the best interests of the american public at heart right now. Are they a golden few on both sides? Absolutely, and I'm sure they'll be "voted off" the island soon enough.

You may have noticed I was working the nepitism angle of the Cap and Trade bill by saying the government could hand out free credits to those that have supported them (and BTW that is CRONYISM not conflict of interest). As it turns out they aren't even trying to hide it that deep. Apparently the bill actually sets aside a good amount of money in the bill to fund 'community organizations" (read ACORN). You can read more here.

On to you defending unions. GIVE ME A BREAK. I'm from the car capital of the world. I've seen first hand how unions have single handedly destroyed the US auto industry. I actually worked for a contractor that went in to GM's facilities and mapped out their networking resources and placed them in CAD drawings. The following is unexaggerated. EVERY SINGLE ONE i visited had a number of fat old guys sitting on their asses doing any number of things that were not car production oriented. One place had a dart tournament they ran during the work day (30 bucks and hour for that) one was a Euchre tourney. Some other choice 'work habits' were basketball, poker, and my favorite, not showing up at all. Unions at one point in time in our history were necessary and I would have supported them at that time. Right now, all i see out of them is crooked political minded power grabs who needlessly jack up the cost of production in America. I give props to Ford for not selling out and actually standing on their own two legs. GM and Chrysler can lick my balls. I'll never buy one of their products. EVER.

Lets address deficit spending. OK you got me, the money was needed to free up credit. I agree with this. (Although I find it humorous you use this in your argument being that the only reason freeing up credit helps is that it expands companies' abilities to invest in themselves...oddly enough a lower capital gains tax does the same thing.... weird). However, you are being SNOWED again. The first bailout passed (against popular demand I might add). And all the money was spend rather quickly. Funny thing about the Obama bailout is that despite all the regimes claims of 'THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW' or else. So given the scare tactic, the bill got passed. And what happened to all this money from the TARP fund. Well it's pretty much still just sitting there. I think last I checked not even 200 billion of it was spent. Apparently right now meant it had to be PASSED right now so that people couldn't read over all the bull shit in it. Because it obviously didn't need to be SPENT right now just passed.

You also mentioned Keynes well I just happen to reject the idea he puts forth. I do believe in the economy NOT the government run economy. Free markets existed long before governments did. Yes a certain amount of government regulation is needed to protect the people. But it has gotten way out of hand and Obama is just trying to make it worse.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby -PC-Taishar on Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:10 am

Game, set, match

Published in the Wall Street Journal which we can all consider a pretty reliable economic outfit (or at least I would hope I don't end up defending them in my next post).

While the article doesn't deny global warming, it does address what I've been arguing is the most significant part of Cap and Trade which is the economic impact. The article discusses how costs have risen in energy providing companies in 'cap and trade' economies. It also unequivocally states that manufacturing is given a cushion in the Cap and Trade system. The brunt is born by the power companies which "often are quasimonopolies not subject to price competition and who can pass on added costs to consumers" Added cost to consumers....sounds a LOT like a tax. Of course it's not REALLY a tax in the strictest sense of the word. So lets not call it that...let's call it added government revenue at the cost of the consumer.

But let's put aside the economic FACTS stating that it will hinder our economy. Let's get back to the fact of whether or not GW actually exists. So I'm sittin here thinkin to myself. I says "Self, that AJ is a smart guy. I mean he's a damn nuclear physicist. And that is by far a much nerdier smart man job that computer networking. So he may be on to something." So me being the good researcher I am started digging. Ahh who am I kidding, I just started digging because I believe it's all a bunch of hulabaloo created by the inventor of the intarweb. So despite the obvious bias used when creating the IPCC, I had to grant you that many great scientific minds were gathered there. One might even venture to call them experts. This is a pretty strong argument you have in favor of global warming. So I figure I might really have to dig. But lo and behold as I sat in my car getting my daily dose of right wing propaganda and buying every minute of it of course since I'm so narrow minded, a common name kept popping up over the course of the past few days. I heard it a number of times. The name in case you were wondering is Mojib Latif. This man happens to be and I quote "one of the world's foremost climate modelers and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Well pluck my pubes and call me Jenna, that panel he's on has an acronym that looks similar to IPCC? Could it be? Well wait let's see what he has to say first. I don't want to jump to any conclusions. I mean I heard his name on conservative radio and we all know how full of shit they are (in all honesty I'm only half sarcastic on that). So I've done my due diligence. I think This article sums up rather nicely what Latif had to say recently. For those that won't read it allow me to quote a couple choice findings from Latif
{Latif} acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades.

and
Latif conceded the planet has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

Now pair this last statement with the following graph:
[ img ]
Now, according to the graph it would appear that carbon emissions rose by 3.5 billion tons from 1999 (the START of the past decade of FACTUAL measured cooling) and it only rose by 1.6 Billion tons from 1991 to 1997. So between those two six year periods the latter one...the one with DOUBLE the increase in carbon emissions has seen a period of cooling? Now I'm no nuclear physicist, but the math of that just don't jive. Can you enlighten me? Is it just me or does anyone else find the caption on the top right of the graph oh so sweetly ironic?

Now allow myself to play devil's advocate against.....myself? Let's perchance say this Latif guy is a rogue scientist. And he was offered bunches and bunches of cash by the right wing extremist. I believe, being the conspiracy theorist that I am that this is possible, so I won't rule it out. But even if that is the case we do have recorded global cooling over the past decade and we do have obviously much greater CO2 output. Not to mention that chart doesn't even show the past 4 years which have seen industrial growth in China and India similar to that of the America circa the 1950's. This will obviously result in exponentially higher CO2 output over the past 4 yrs as opposed to even the first half of the 2000's.

And now let me finish by saying to those of you that even bothered to read this far thanks and please read the whole article linked above, it's not very long and is a much more informative read than what I've posted here. It's nice to know someone cares, and I think it's good we have intelligent discussion in an intelligent community ... kelston excepted of course (and good that people take the time to read it regardless of position or participation). I do, however, regret that (and let me preface this by saying I am the same way) regardless of how strong the argument, I'll never convince AJ or any liberals that it is all a scam. Which is why it's sometimes frustrating for me to argue. But I'm a big enough asshole that my enjoyment outweighs my frustration so the fight continues. On that note, I'll be magnanimous and let you have the last post in this thread Mojo. It is nice to know that whatever thread we get to goin at it in always turns into a fire icon. We are so hot.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby -PC-Taishar on Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:47 pm

Not to rekindle but I don't think this requires a whole new thread since its still on topic.

Recently a good ole boy british trucker (you can bet he's conservative) filed a lawsuit against the British government saying kids were being indoctrinated by being forced to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." The case has just been decided, and a judge ruled that the movie was politically biased and that it had certain 'exaggerations' and 'untruths' in it. While the movie has not been banned from schools, they can no longer show it without a supplemental pack for balance. To do so would make the schools guilty of political indoctrination. So says the court.

I think this is a good ruling. As much as it may seem that I categorically reject global warming, I don't. I do, however, think that the science behind climate change is so far over our scientific understanding right now that we can't use it as a political tool. I mean we can't even predict temperatures for the next 5 days accurately much less the next 5 yrs. Implementing policy that can drastically change an economy based on something that is quite obviously beyond our complete understanding is asinine.

You can read about the ruling Here
And another article saying there is no global warming Here
The 2nd one is quite obviously biased, but its biased in the opposite direction of Al Gore. Thus providing what I like to call balance. It is a long read though. I'll copy a paragraph here because I find this part rather telling:
...And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.

What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.


It's funny when you take out the monetary reward for finding in favor of Global Warming how many scientists revert back to ..... uh .... science. of course this is all just prepping us for the next big scare...GLOBAL COOLING. AHHHHH.... Everyone get scared and prepare for manipulation!!!

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby awp-killer on Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:52 am

-PC-Taishar wrote:What I don't get is why you keep defending your socialism erm i mean liberalism. By attacking Republicans. I know I need not state the obvious but.
Calling liberalism socialism doesn't make it so. I think it just looks ignorant about the differences. But so are most people.

Cronyism is favoring your close friends over those with actual qualifications. Think "heck of a job, brownie". Mike Brown was an arabian horse judge put in charge of FEMA. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 45,00.html

Or maybe you are familiar with how Bush made political appointees. Answer: Not by their qualifications. He looked to see who gave him the most money. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... erks_x.htm

You are worried about conflict of interest. Yes, that is always a concern. For instance, the government hires contractors to do the majority of its work. (I bet you didn't know that, did you?. There are about 3 times as many federal contractors as there are federal employees like me [not including military]). http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cps/light20030905.pdf
These contractors are awarded on a very strict and competitive market basis (with special consideration to the small contracts being given to small businesses and economically depressed areas like detroit). If you think capitalism/competition drive efficiency, let this challenge the idea that government is inefficient.

Anyways, we deal with contracts and conflict of interest on a daily basis. We go beyond the just avoiding conflicts of interest, we are to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. But to assume conflicts of interest exist before a system for regulating carbon even exists is a bit over-cautious. If you like, we can just assert a tax per ton of carbon to everyone. But really, a competitive market based approach may be the most efficient way to deal with this problem.

Apparently the bill actually sets aside a good amount of money in the bill to fund 'community organizations" (read ACORN).
This bill doesn't have anything to do with ACORN. You could have just as easily said YMCA, and you probably would have been more correct. Take your ACORN outrage elsewhere. Try and focus here.

On to you defending unions. GIVE ME A BREAK. I'm from the car capital of the world. I've seen first hand how unions have single handedly destroyed the US auto industry.
I agree, the UAW is way too strong. If there was any silver lining to Chrysler and GM going bankrupt, it was they could now do something about the UAW which had them by the balls. That job banks program was absurd. But not all unions are the UAW.

Lets address deficit spending. OK you got me, the money was needed to free up credit. I agree with this. (Although I find it humorous you use this in your argument being that the only reason freeing up credit helps is that it expands companies' abilities to invest in themselves...oddly enough a lower capital gains tax does the same thing.... weird).
And tax cuts were a large part of the recovery act. You and me and everyone else is getting a little bit more in their paycheck every 2 weeks. However, capital gains tax cuts were not in there (at least I hope), because they go to the richest people. It may be good if you want to invest in your economy for the long run, but extremely lousy if you are trying to stimulate the economy (ie short term). If you want to quickly inject money into the economy, you get the biggest bang for the buck if the money goes to poor people.

And what happened to all this money from the TARP fund. Well it's pretty much still just sitting there. I think last I checked not even 200 billion of it was spent. Apparently right now meant it had to be PASSED right now so that people couldn't read over all the bull shit in it.
I think you are thinking about the recovery money, not the TARP. Perhaps you don't remember how the economy was completely tanking. In the previous 5 months with an uncertain future, the S&P500 plummeted 40%. The future was very bleak until the market saw the government was willing to use a massive safety net. The market stopped its free-fall almost immediately, and since the bottom, the market has clawed its way back up a massive 55%. At least some of that is due to the intervention of the "big bad government".

Now the market didn't make this drastic turn around because the government spent all this money all at once. Rather, the market was able to stop the hemorrhaging and slowly turn around because the future was no longer so bleak and uncertain. Investors had a reason to buy stock again (and extremely cheap at that) because before, the market didn't know what the future was going to be, but now it could see the recovery bill would be investing in the economy over the next 2 years. Oh, and 90% of the recovery spending is going out to the private industry...through those government contractors who work in the free market on a competitive basis (and somehow you confuse with socialism). 8)


I'll respond to your other post later. It's hard to keep up. :)

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron