What is Cap and Trade all about?

Where CNN gets their information
-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 Oct 19, 2009 9:57 pm

OMG still on the cronyism vs conflict of interest!!??!?

CRONYISM is what I'm worried about. The same cronyism that landed Haliburton all the contracts in Iraq. You pay those that help you out be it with money or favors or media time. So when this passes this panel that decides who gets the credits will be doing it by giving them to those who support the democratic socialist movement in whatever way they in their own particular.....idiom sir?...IDIOM! Will conflict of interest be a concern ... certainly it always is. Oddly enough the bigger the government is the more chances there are for conflict of interest to occur.

Now on to all this contractor and competitive bidding bull shit. Give me a break. I was just in charge of a 1.5 million dollar equipment purchase. I can't deliver the specifics of what we got. But three servers, 8 laptops a smart board and some fancy tables were the biggest part of it. A buddy of mine just signed the delivery reciept for 3 laptops for 11000 dollars. What pray tell type of laptops were they? Well none other than These beasts of computing. I'm NOT shitting you. Want some more? Well the Marine Corps a few years back decided to contract out it's intranet. A branch of EDS handles it. We pay about 10000 dollars per seat, for some crap ass tower from Dell. That doesn't even include the monitor.

You know as well as I do that Uncle Sam is NOT competitive in it's bidding. Nor is it efficient in its spending. The government doesn't run ANYTHING efficiently. And that's to INCLUDE our military. We could be as effective as we are on HALF the budget if there was not so much wasted. Or if someone who actually cared about driving a hard bargain, and earning the best bang for the tax payer buck, was put in charge. But that will never happen. We will continue to develop social programs like social security (which has been operating at a deficit since damn near its inception), or the post office (which only wishes it had the efficiency of UPS or FedEx), or Medicaid (which is also operating at a deficit), or welfare (which is obviously operating at a deficit because it doesn't earn ANYTHING it just takes taxes from people that DO work), or nationalized health care...oh wait that one doesn't exist.......yet.

Of course I'm sure now that the government owns GM, and most of the banks I'm sure they'll start doing REALLY well. By being heavily subsidized by tax payer dollars! Pretty soon we can tax those greedy ass rich folk down to our level.....and then who will pay all the taxes!

Of course we are sliding off topic, you didn't respond to anything about the IPCC author declaring that global cooling for about 20yrs is the next phase. But hey if we pass cap and tax quick enough, we can say Obama is the savior of the planet and that he single handedly stopped global warming. Wait for it, you know it's coming. The planet will cool for the next couple decades whether we pass cap and tax or not, and at the end democrats will take credit somehow. You also didn't address the german article discussing how the increase in cost was passed on to the customers of power companies because they are a form of monopoly and their customers really don't have a voice in how much they pay. Which is exactly what I said would happen if it passes here and you tried to deny it.

-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 Dec 03, 2009 3:17 am

Since you said you had a response for this and never came out with one, I'm still interested in what you had to say about the IPCC member saying that global cooling was a definite trend. And, as if that was not enough to respond to, you'll now have to address the bit about the 'scientists' sending emails to each other indicating that they should delete all emails concerning a 'trick' on how to manipulate data so that a global warming trend emerges...despite the fact that it doesn't exist. They were worried about having to release these emails because of the freedom of information act.I won't post a link, I know you are aware of the instance to which I refer. Just google "climategate" if you haven't heard yet.

A simple "yes liberals were full of shit and we ALMOST got the public to bite on a completely socialist piece of legislation" will do here. If I can get that, I won't mention the complete crap this whole anthropological global warming bit has been ever again.

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 Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:52 am

-PC-Taishar wrote:Game, set, match
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".

Of course. In a monopoly, you can charge the consumer with whatever you want! The reason they can pass on most of the costs is because these particular utilities exist as a non-competitive, “quasimonopoly”. Those power companies that exist as “quasimonopolies” are because they exist in a regulated marketplace, and should be deregulated and should have to compete on the open market. (*GASP* But that isn’t “socialism”! Here’s something else to boggle your mind: If democrats are so anti-competition/pro-socialism, why are they usually to prohibit anti-competitive practices and other abusive behavior?) It’s not all bad for these regulated market places that you seem to be worried about. The regulator has the power (and will) to pass on the money from the carbon credits directly to the consumer. Also, Germany’s situation is somewhat unique. Their high energy costs came because they tried to replace high capital-cost baseload power with intermittent power.
....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.
It’s not a tax. A tax is what you will get if we don’t pass cap & trade, at which point the EPA will slap a big fine on polluting our environment (god forbid).
But let's put aside the economic FACTS stating that it will hinder our economy.
Don’t get all doom and gloom. Cap and Trade is actually cheap. According to the nonpartisan CBO, the cap and trade bill HR 2454 will cost .2% to .7% GDP by 2020, and 1.1% to 3.5% by 2050. That is total. Per year, that is .03% to .09% GDP. This only considers the affect of cap and trade, and not the effect of global warming, which actually does have the potential to affect the economy. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc105 ... se-Gas.pdf

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.
What a perfect lead in to a point I like to bring up. Being misinformed by partisan, agenda driven, cherry picking "news" sources is worse than being uninformed. If you were uninformed, you wouldn't take a position and would most likely be apathetic. There would only be properly informed people, and the best possible course of action would be taken. However, being misinformed, you take an activist role. Your bad information and all the other poor misinformed saps play an actual in policy making. It’s sort of a stupidity in numbers thing.

The name in case you were wondering is Mojib Latif.
Before I answer, first let me say how absurd your claim is. You are citing as your evidence, 1 (“one”) scientist. I showed you over 75 scientific organizations. (I’m sure your talk radio gave them all equal time…).
What your talk radio brainwashing didn’t tell you is that these quotes are cherry picked and taken out of context.
{Latif} acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades.
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."
lol. No. Latif doesn’t even say these things. What Latif says is the natural temperature fluctuations in the climate are so large that they can be as big as one or two decades of rising temperatures from global warming (not that the next two decades will be cooling). Here is his “climate surprise” from his power point presentation:
[ img ]
There it is. A little cooling with impending global climate problems.

-PC-Taishar wrote:Now on to all this contractor and competitive bidding bull shit. Give me a break. I was just in charge of a 1.5 million dollar equipment purchase. I can't deliver the specifics of what we got. But three servers, 8 laptops a smart board and some fancy tables were the biggest part of it. A buddy of mine just signed the delivery reciept for 3 laptops for 11000 dollars. What pray tell type of laptops were they? Well none other than These beasts of computing. I'm NOT shitting you. Want some more? Well the Marine Corps a few years back decided to contract out it's intranet. A branch of EDS handles it. We pay about 10000 dollars per seat, for some crap ass tower from Dell. That doesn't even include the monitor.
If it is as bad as you say it is, why don't you become a contractor and sell the army the same 3 laptops for $10k?
The planet will cool for the next couple decades whether we pass cap and tax or not, and at the end democrats will take credit somehow.
I’ve already covered why your science is wrong. I just wanted to point out again how you love to speculate about what the dems will do.

...climategate...
So-called “climategate” changes nothing:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... behind-cl/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
CRU is only a small part of a ton of climate research out there. And the stolen emails don’t change anything, except for the fact that it gives global warming deniers thousands of emails written over the course of a decade to cherry-pick poor wordings and plenty “gotcha’s” they can take out of context. I can go into more detail if I really need to, but do we really need to get into that? They are much like what you did when you took Latif out of context. I am hoping the last two links will be enough for you to see reason, and/or you will realize how embarrassing the whole Latif argument was and that global warming deniers are just doing the same thing in "climategate".

-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 Dec 16, 2009 11:04 pm

Of course. In a monopoly, you can charge the consumer with whatever you want! The reason they can pass on most of the costs is because these particular utilities exist as a non-competitive, “quasimonopoly”. Those power companies that exist as “quasimonopolies” are because they exist in a regulated marketplace, and should be deregulated and should have to compete on the open market. (*GASP* But that isn’t “socialism”! Here’s something else to boggle your mind: If democrats are so anti-competition/pro-socialism, why are they usually to prohibit anti-competitive practices and other abusive behavior?) It’s not all bad for these regulated market places that you seem to be worried about. The regulator has the power (and will) to pass on the money from the carbon credits directly to the consumer. Also, Germany’s situation is somewhat unique. Their high energy costs came because they tried to replace high capital-cost baseload power with intermittent power.


Way to redirect the meat and potatoes of the argument. The point isn't whether it's a monopoly or NOT. The point is added costs were passed on to the consumer because of cap and trade legislation. If you would like to address that issue we can discuss further. I won't fall for your redirection.

It’s not a tax. A tax is what you will get if we don’t pass cap & trade, at which point the EPA will slap a big fine on polluting our environment (god forbid).

You're right it's NOT a tax. And I said it wasn't a tax. I merely said it was extra revenue the government was going to get without having to call it a tax....and you've as much as admitted that it is. See above.
Don’t get all doom and gloom. Cap and Trade is actually cheap. According to the nonpartisan CBO, the cap and trade bill HR 2454 will cost .2% to .7% GDP by 2020, and 1.1% to 3.5% by 2050. That is total. Per year, that is .03% to .09% GDP. This only considers the affect of cap and trade, and not the effect of global warming, which actually does have the potential to affect the economy.

Is this the same CBO that predicted SS and medicaid and medicare could operate at a profit? Or at least avoid insolvency? Just wondering, because well all of them are operating at heavy losses.
What a perfect lead in to a point I like to bring up. Being misinformed by partisan, agenda driven, cherry picking "news" sources is worse than being uninformed. If you were uninformed, you wouldn't take a position and would most likely be apathetic. There would only be properly informed people, and the best possible course of action would be taken. However, being misinformed, you take an activist role. Your bad information and all the other poor misinformed saps play an actual in policy making. It’s sort of a stupidity in numbers thing.

And I'm to assume that if I listened to left wing propaganda I would be 'informed' Please.
If it is as bad as you say it is, why don't you become a contractor and sell the army the same 3 laptops for $10k?

Because I have morals. And do my best to live by them.
CRU is only a small part of a ton of climate research out there. And the stolen emails don’t change anything, except for the fact that it gives global warming deniers thousands of emails written over the course of a decade to cherry-pick poor wordings and plenty “gotcha’s” they can take out of context. I can go into more detail if I really need to, but do we really need to get into that? They are much like what you did when you took Latif out of context. I am hoping the last two links will be enough for you to see reason, and/or you will realize how embarrassing the whole Latif argument was and that global warming deniers are just doing the same thing in "climategate".

NO I don't suppose we really do need to go into all of 'that'. I mean facts are so annoying. Let's just gloss over it and get on to more state control of your life.

You know I'm really disappointed. It was a nice long response that said absolutely NOTHING, avoided keypoints, and trivialized relevant statements by key players. Of course that's what liberals do, when faced with hard facts, they trivialize the method in which they were obtained.

PS: Im a Marine. I'm not in the Army. Soldiers are fat.

-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 Dec 17, 2009 3:14 pm

Ugh I simply HAVE to say something about that graph now too. Let's just ASSUME his model is true and the graph really does represent what is going to happen in the next 50 yrs or so. Well, what happened prior to 1900? Did we go through a super heating then cooling phase then too? How is it that the early 190's did not see a HUGE relative increase in temperatures when the industrial age was blowing up and carbon emissions skyrocketed. It's ridiculous to assume that our carbon emissions are now going to cause a +4 degree temp difference when from 1900 to 2000 it PEAKED at a +1 degree difference.

This graph is nothing more than a liberal with a crayon. It makes no sense when compared to ACTUAL historical trends.

And as for climate gate. Regardless of whether they are cherry picking or not, the fact remains that top scientists in the project were discussing ways to manipulate data in order to reflect the result they wanted. This is unethical and far from scientific. It is politically driven as I suspect most global warming 'science' is.

On a more results driven note. I heard a suggestion that surprised me with it's simplicity and across the aisle attitude. How about we pass some sort of carbon tax emission legislation that is DIRECTLY tied to global mean temperature. This will force alarmists (on both sides) to put their money where their mouth is. We pass some nominal carbon tax right now (ugh more taxes but in the spirit of compromise....). This tax is directly tied to the global mean temperature. If temperatures start to rise then the companies pay more taxes (obviously an exponential model would work better than a linear one). However if global temperatures go DOWN then these same companies get rebates on taxes paid. This to me represents that type of forward thinking that will get shut down IMMEDIATELY by all statists (which include democrats and republicans).

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 Dec 20, 2009 3:29 pm

-PC-Taishar wrote:Way to redirect the meat and potatoes of the argument. The point isn't whether it's a monopoly or NOT. The point is added costs were passed on to the consumer because of cap and trade legislation. If you would like to address that issue we can discuss further. I won't fall for your redirection.
I am making an overarching argument for capitalism and competition, which you are (sometimes) arguing against. I didn't skip over the important facts. Here they are again (plus some):

1) It's an article about germany, not the US.
2) It's applicable to certain utilities in germany.
3) If it's applicable to the US, it is only applicable to certain utilities in the US
4) Those certain consumers will benefit vastly (Everyone will, but it will be windfall money in their pocket) from the carbon credits, and
You're right it's NOT a tax. And I said it wasn't a tax. I merely said it was extra revenue the government was going to get without having to call it a tax....
5) The house bill uses that money to put in a permanent tax cut to 95% of all Americans, a very large tax cut which in fact, they have already started with the Recovery Bill last Feb.

Is this the same CBO that predicted SS and medicaid and medicare could operate at a profit? Or at least avoid insolvency?
Funny you say that, because I heard that the CBO has overestimated the cost of medicare and medicaid legislation multiple times. The CBO is nonpartisan, and despite your effort, well respected. Predicting the future isn't easy, but clearly using methodologies and data in a systematic way is better than your gut feelings.

And I'm to assume that if I listened to left wing propaganda I would be 'informed' Please.
I didn't say that. If you went and listened to Michael Moore, you still would be falling to the same fate, as even I did years ago.

If it is as bad as you say it is, why don't you become a contractor and sell the army the same 3 laptops for $10k?
Because I have morals. And do my best to live by them.
Seriously? You are more a socialist than I am. Fuck those guys selling laptops at $3600 a pop. If you can do it for less, capitalism says that you should.

CRU is only a small part of a ton of climate research out there. And the stolen emails don’t change anything, except for the fact that it gives global warming deniers thousands of emails written over the course of a decade to cherry-pick poor wordings and plenty “gotcha’s” they can take out of context. I can go into more detail if I really need to, but do we really need to get into that? They are much like what you did when you took Latif out of context. I am hoping the last two links will be enough for you to see reason, and/or you will realize how embarrassing the whole Latif argument was and that global warming deniers are just doing the same thing in "climategate".


NO I don't suppose we really do need to go into all of 'that'. I mean facts are so annoying...It was a nice long response that said absolutely NOTHING, avoided keypoints, and trivialized relevant statements by key players. Of course that's what liberals do, when faced with hard facts, they trivialize the method in which they were obtained.
Here are the facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... behind-cl/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Now, tell me how those aren't the facts that matter? Tell me how these aren't the "hard facts", and you aren't the one "trivializ[ing]" them. Tell me how you can ignore every scientific organization that says anything about global warming and still continue?

Let's just gloss over it and get on to more state control of your life.
No. It's not state control of your life. It is state protection from others controlling your life. Are you mad that the EPA bans companies from poisoning your well-water? Are you mad that the FDA bans companies from tainting your food with toxins? I do not mean to absolve us (because we all share responsibility), but companies are polluting our environment. The fight against global warming is in the end, a libertarian's fight defending his property rights.

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 Dec 20, 2009 4:16 pm

-PC-Taishar wrote:Well, what happened prior to 1900? Did we go through a super heating then cooling phase then too?
No.
How is it that the early 190's did not see a HUGE relative increase in temperatures when the industrial age was blowing up and carbon emissions skyrocketed. It's ridiculous to assume that our carbon emissions are now going to cause a +4 degree temp difference when from 1900 to 2000 it PEAKED at a +1 degree difference.
It didn't skyrocket. AT least not in comparison:
[ img ]

Obviously looking at the carbon emission doesn't show other GHGs and land clearing, which are also a large contributors to global warming.

This graph is nothing more than a liberal with a crayon.
lol. It's YOUR scientist that YOU have been quoting to try to show global warming is a fraud.

And as for climate gate. Regardless of whether they are cherry picking or not, the fact remains that top scientists in the project were discussing ways to manipulate data in order to reflect the result they wanted.
cherry picked AND taken out of context. They were personal emails, and a few used very poor words like "hide" and "trick". Taken out of context like they have, they sound horrible, but I am not convinced they were meant to be deceptive, and the explanations of those accused seem very plausible. Never-the-less, none of this changes the facts about climate change.

I heard a suggestion [of a tax that] is directly tied to the global mean temperature.
We want to keep the planet from being destroyed, not look for someone to blame after it is. Not to mention, the cost of prevention is much less than the cost of fixing it. In fact, many of the effects of global warming are irreversible.

-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 Dec 20, 2009 7:49 pm

awp-killer wrote:Obviously looking at the carbon emission doesn't show other GHGs and land clearing, which are also a large contributors to global warming.

You're right. Those other contributors are NOT shown, which would lead logical person to believe that the temperature increases would be even MORE dramatic than just the carbon emissions increases. Yet they are NOT.

awp-killer wrote:lol. It's YOUR scientist that YOU have been quoting to try to show global warming is a fraud.

Exactly. Which only serves my point don't know why you would post that as somehow undermining my assertion.

awp-killer wrote:cherry picked AND taken out of context. They were personal emails, and a few used very poor words like "hide" and "trick". Taken out of context like they have, they sound horrible, but I am not convinced they were meant to be deceptive, and the explanations of those accused seem very plausible. Never-the-less, none of this changes the facts about climate change./quote]
I think cherry picked AND taken out of context ARE the same thing. But it sounds more definitive when you can say two things are supposedly wrong right? So let's address this.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”


All of those are direct quotes from the emails. Please put those in the proper context so they don't sound like deliberate attempts to subvert science in order to obtain political ends. It's not science when you have a preconceived notion of what you are looking for then CHERRY PICK facts to back it up.

For those just reading this thread and not really into doing more research. The above quotes refer to two different sets of data in order to hide an ACTUAL decline in temperatures, a scientist emailing his concern over not be able to find data to back up anthropogenic global warming declaring it a travesty, and the last one talks about trying to ostracize a previously accepted climate journal for publishing articles that indicate that AGW is non-existent. Typical leftist tactics when someone doesn't agree with you, take away their voice (as they are trying to do with talk radio right now).

awp-killer wrote:We want to keep the planet from being destroyed, not look for someone to blame after it is. Not to mention, the cost of prevention is much less than the cost of fixing it. In fact, many of the effects of global warming are irreversible.

I should have known a lefty wouldn't be interested in a compromise. An exponential tax reflective of increased or decreased temperatures would accomplish the goal of stopping carbon emissions. If temperatures do indeed go up. Businesses will recognize that and take steps in order to ensure profitability. They will do this PREEMPTIVELY because that would make sense especially if the tax got progressively more expensive as temperatures rise (that's what exponential means). IE at a 1 degree increase it would be 2 cents on the dollar at 2 degrees it would be 8 cents and three it would be 20 etc. If in fact global warming is real. companies trying to make a profit will recognize how badly this would hurt them and adjust accordingly. That's what people trying to make money do, and it's why the free market works. The real reason libs are against this idea is that it forces them to put their money where their mouth is. They are afraid of a decline in temps which would decrease their taxes AND leave them with egg on their face.

I'm curious why it took you so long to respond? Were you waiting for the liberal masterminds to release the talking points so you could regurgitate them here?

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 Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:11 am

-PC-Taishar wrote:You're right. Those other contributors are NOT shown, which would lead logical person to believe that the temperature increases would be even MORE dramatic than just the carbon emissions increases. Yet they are NOT.
You just specifically said "carbon emissions". I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to claim here.

awp-killer wrote:lol. It's YOUR scientist that YOU have been quoting to try to show global warming is a fraud.
Exactly. Which only serves my point don't know why you would post that as somehow undermining my assertion.
When you think you agree with him, you point to him as the one sane person and you promote him as the only person we should listen to. Then when you find out that he actually is a credible scientist, you call him a liberal with a crayon. It seems like you are saying: "I already know all the answers. Now I just need to find a way for the facts to show what I already know."

I think cherry picked AND taken out of context ARE the same thing. But it sounds more definitive when you can say two things are supposedly wrong right?
Well, if you found the worst true thing that I said out of every email I have ever written, it would probably be pretty bad. But global warming deniers go beyond that with these emails. They take them out of context to make them sound bad.

"Evil" scientist(s):
So let's address this.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Response:
Mann describes the "trick" as simply a concise way of showing the two kinds of data together while still clearly indicating which was which and has denied that there was anything "hidden or inappropriate" about it and that his method of combining proxy data had been corroborated by numerous statistical tests and matched thermometer readings taken over the past 150 years. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/528/story/948544.html
McIntyre claims that the "trick to hide the decline" consisted in discarding the tree ring data starting from 1961, because the proxy data for these years demonstrated a sharp decrease of temperatures, contrary to the real data - casting therefore doubt on reliability of all the tree ring data reconstruction. http://www.webcitation.org/5m9JSuhUw

And directly from the factcheck link (that I have already posted twice) which talks about both the above quotes:
Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. (emphasis mine)
You can read the rest if you want, it's rather anti-climatic (like the rest of this, when you realize it's not the juicy story that it is made out to be).

"Evil" scientist(s):
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Response:
Mann told the Wall Street Journal that he didn't feel there was anything wrong in saying "we shouldn't be publishing in a journal that's activist."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html

Mann was not alone in expressing concern about the peer review process of the journal. Half of the journal's editorial board, including editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, resigned in the wake of controversy surrounding the article's publication. The publisher later admitted that the paper's major findings could not "be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. [Climate Research] should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf


Now, tell me how all of this "climategate" fuss isn't just trivializing the real facts which are: global warming is mostly man-made. Even if these emails did prove everything that global warming deniers say they do about a few scientists (which they don't), or even the entire climate department at one university known as CRU (which they don't), that doesn't change the fact that climate change is real and mostly man-made, as every scientific organization agrees.

For those just reading this thread and not really into doing more research. The above quotes refer to two different sets of data in order to hide an ACTUAL decline in temperatures, a scientist emailing his concern over not be able to find data to back up anthropogenic global warming declaring it a travesty
Incorrect. The actual data is clear. The travesty is a tracking system that is inadequate because it can't do what it is supposed to do: track the real data.

I should have known a lefty wouldn't be interested in a compromise.
Your "compromise" is bad for business and bad for the planet. It's collective punishment. Prevention is much easier effective than mitigation. And you want to subject companies to the uncertainty of an exponentially increasing tax?

I'm curious why it took you so long to respond? Were you waiting for the liberal masterminds to release the talking points so you could regurgitate them here?
Sometimes I remember I have better things to do than beat my head against a wall. Other times, I don't remember so well. :o

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 Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:19 am

i think this thread may have more words in it than the entirety of wickednet.

sorry to interrupt, continue.

-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 Dec 21, 2009 11:02 am

awp-killer wrote:You just specifically said "carbon emissions". I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to claim here.

I'm saying that the dramatic rise in ALL AGW effects does not correspond to a similar rise in global mean temperature. We've seen similar rises in temperature in the past without the anthropogenic effects (according to the graphs YOU'VE posted), so who's to say this period of warming...which is actually cooling now... is caused by clear cutting, co2, etc.

awp-killer wrote:When you think you agree with him, you point to him as the one sane person and you promote him as the only person we should listen to.

Still supports my argument. Either you deem him a valid scientists (one of the LEAD researchers at IPCC) and you have to accept his position saying we are actually headed for a period of global cooling. Or you can accept that he is full of shit. I'm inclined to believe you would like to say he's full of shit now that he is saying global cooling is coming.

I DID read the factcheck site, and I even came across your responses. And OF COURSE you are going to try and spin it anyway you can. Just like Chris Brown tried to make it sound like he didn't hit Rihanna. The guy isn't going to flat out say: yeah we were trying to dupe you. The fact of the matter is he said he used a 'trick' to 'hide' neither of those words has a place in science. On the same note the journal in question was a previously accepted journal, but as soon as one of the editors allowed a few (I think one of the emails said 2) opposing viewpoints in, all of a sudden it's a worthless POS journal not worthy of acceptance among the scientific community? Why would they have to tell their colleagues to not cite papers written in the journal? If the science in a paper wasn't sound, then I should HOPE the scientists in the 'climate research community' would not WANT to cite them. Of course we've already established their propensity for not being all that scientific.

awp-killer wrote:that doesn't change the fact that climate change is real and mostly man-made

That's opinion.

awp-killer wrote:..as every scientific organization agrees.

And that's a lie.

awp-killer wrote:Incorrect. The actual data is clear. The travesty is a tracking system that is inadequate because it can't do what it is supposed to do: track the real data.

Another contradiction in your logic. It has to be one of two things, you can't use both. Either:
1. Means of determining temperatures PRIOR to the temperatures being measured across the globe by actual instrumentation are inaccurate and cannot be used to give factual temperatures in past years. This would mean that we only have factual data for 20 yrs or so. Which also means scientists are fucking smoking rocks if they think 20 years is a valid period of time to evaluate temperature trends. (what dare I say would they tell us if the planet was heading towards another ice age, and the temperatures of the earth were actually DROPPING for the past 20 years..like they have been for the past 5yrs). After this next period of cooling lets see where the temperature stands relative to when actual temperatures were first being measured. IF we are more than a degree off, then we can talk.
2. The methods used to determine past temperature changes are accurate, and 'scientists' chose NOT to use them because they don't agree with what they are trying to say.

awp-killer wrote:Your "compromise" is bad for business and bad for the planet.

Seriously? How is it bad for the planet? If in fact AGW is real, an exponential tax will stop companies from polluting as quickly. In fact, I dare say it would work FASTER than what's currently being proposed due to the exponential nature of it.

awp-killer wrote:It's collective punishment. Prevention is much easier effective than mitigation. And you want to subject companies to the uncertainty of an exponentially increasing tax?

And what, pray tell, is what is being proposed now called if not punishment? The compromise I proposed would accomplish the SAME ends. But the only problem on the left is that if AGW is not real then instead of increasing the governments revenue (which is the actual end state of all this global warming crap anyway) it will decrease it by giving a tax REFUND to companies. And we all know tax refunds are anathema to a government that can't spend enough fast enough. But hey that's another argument I can't convince you on. Spend away government my money is your money.

glitch
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL.

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby glitch on Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:35 pm


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 Oct 14, 2010 1:00 am

I thought I could bang my head on the wall some more. =D

-PC-Taishar wrote:... so who's to say this period of warming...which is actually cooling now... is caused by clear cutting, co2, etc.

You mean, other than "every scientific organization that takes a position on the matter"? There are normal climate cycles and natural fluctuations in temperature. This last century is the fastest temperature increase we have ever seen. And it is predicted and explained by the science. Who's to say it isn't?
Also, we are not in any period of "cooling". In fact, using my cunning ability of time travel to the future (i.e. now), I can say 2010 will probably be the hottest year in recorded history. This decade will also be the hottest decade in recorded history, just like the decade before, and the decade before that.

awp-killer wrote:When you think you agree with him, you point to him as the one sane person and you promote him as the only person we should listen to.

Still supports my argument. Either you deem him a valid scientists (one of the LEAD researchers at IPCC) and you have to accept his position saying we are actually headed for a period of global cooling. Or you can accept that he is full of shit. I'm inclined to believe you would like to say he's full of shit now that he is saying global cooling is coming.

I don't believe he isn't saying global cooling is coming. That's what your spin sources say he is saying. He is saying that the statistical variation of the climate has the temperature range equivalent to about 10 years worth of warming. In other words, global temperatures can go down. He is predicting global warming with variation, not "global cooling".

I DID read the factcheck site, and I even came across your responses. And OF COURSE you are going to try and spin it anyway you can...The guy isn't going to flat out say: yeah we were trying to dupe you. The fact of the matter is he said he used a 'trick' to 'hide' neither of those words has a place in science. On the same note the journal in question was a previously accepted journal, but as soon as one of the editors allowed a few (I think one of the emails said 2) opposing viewpoints in, all of a sudden it's a worthless POS journal not worthy of acceptance among the scientific community? Why would they have to tell their colleagues to not cite papers written in the journal? If the science in a paper wasn't sound, then I should HOPE the scientists in the 'climate research community' would not WANT to cite them. Of course we've already established their propensity for not being all that scientific.

You are going to believe what you want to believe. But all 3 investigations rejected allegations that climate scientists had colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted raw data, or manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is, but the UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information".

awp-killer wrote:that doesn't change the fact that climate change is real and mostly man-made

That's opinion.
Of the thousands of hacked emails over many years, only a handful of emails are cited in allegations. In addition, all but 60 some of them were either to/from 4 guys. Even if the allegations were true (which disagrees with all 3 investigations and myself), then the credibility of 4 people are ruined. Do you know how many people authored or reviewed the last IPCC report? Thousands. This whole issue is a red herring, but global warming deniers believe what they want to believe.

awp-killer wrote:..as every scientific organization agrees.

And that's a lie.
Excuse me, I misspoke. every scientific organization that takes a position on the issue agrees global warming is real and mostly man-made.

awp-killer wrote:Incorrect. The actual data is clear. The travesty is a tracking system that is inadequate because it can't do what it is supposed to do: track the real data.

Another contradiction in your logic. It has to be one of two things, you can't use both. Either:
1. Means of determining temperatures PRIOR to the temperatures being measured across the globe by actual instrumentation are inaccurate and cannot be used to give factual temperatures in past years. This would mean that we only have factual data for 20 yrs or so. Which also means scientists are fucking smoking rocks if they think 20 years is a valid period of time to evaluate temperature trends. (what dare I say would they tell us if the planet was heading towards another ice age, and the temperatures of the earth were actually DROPPING for the past 20 years..like they have been for the past 5yrs). After this next period of cooling lets see where the temperature stands relative to when actual temperatures were first being measured. IF we are more than a degree off, then we can talk.
2. The methods used to determine past temperature changes are accurate, and 'scientists' chose NOT to use them because they don't agree with what they are trying to say.
Well, it is the first one, but I don't think you are understanding. First of all, using actual instrumentation gives us factual data for 130 years. Second, we have many methods of measuring temperatures. One of them produces erratic results, at least in certain situations.
Last edited by awp-killer on Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

-wicked-toon-X
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8201
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: What is Cap and Trade all about?

Postby -wicked-toon-X on Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:28 am

here we go again. we'll be arguing this shit till we sink.

-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 19, 2010 3:48 pm

No we won't.

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron