Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
You say the Bill is unaffordable, but I think this is open to dispute (1). I accept that climate change mitigation could have unforeseen and potentially negative consequences. This has to be balanced against the potential benefits of acting. In my view, there is justification for mitigating the risks of climate change.

Potential impacts (2):



Change in risk between business-as-usual emissions and sharp emission reductions (3):

Business-as-usual (currently spinning)



Sharp emission reductions



(1) April 2009 - The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Preliminary Analysis of the Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft in the 111th Congress, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html
See also:
Pew Centre – 'Climate Policy Memo #2 – Eight Myths about the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill'
http://www.pewclimate.org/acesa/eight-myths/June2009
(2) Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
(3) MIT Global Change Program
http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/spinning.html

Cool graphics!! :)

But you have ignored my solution (;))...and hundreds of other possible solutions.

This is not an issue to be taken lightly, nor to be pushed through the legislative process perfunctorily. Our country is in a great deal of economic peril at the moment. We're being led down a path by a group of people who have personal agendas and pork barrels to fill. You, nor anyone else, can tell us with any measure of certainty the implications of the passage of this Cap and Trade bill. This is perhaps especially true since the world's largest offenders, India and China, will not sign on to tackle the problem (at whatever level the real problem may be).
 
G

griffinconst

Senior Audioholic
This may have been mentioned earlier but this whole thing is a scam.
While I can't speak for everyone, most want clean air and water and don't want to purposefully hurt the environment, and that includes me, but we are being sold a bill of goods.
Didn't anyone notice when the enviro-hucksters figured out the planet is actually cooling, the name suddenly changed from global warming to climate change? Climate change is the perfect scam.
Let's take something normal, natural, and that we couldn't possibly control, (climate change) and pronounce it a problem or better yet a crisis.
Then say we're all dead unless we change it, which we couldn't possibly do, this is mother nature were talkin about here. We are no match for her no matter how arrogant we may think ourseves. Then of coarse the only way to fix it is throw money at it. Then the world can be saved, even if every last cent that hasn't already been confiscated by the government needs to go toward it. Oh wait, the government is spearheading this. Resistance is futile, we the people just don't understand.
 
annunaki

annunaki

Moderator
1) Our schools have been serving up a skewed version of the country's history for so long, people from the last 4 generations no longer have real knowledge of the facts. The amount of information available would make learning the real story a daunting task, at the very least, and with peoples' penchant for going the easy way it's unlikely that most people will make the effort.
I agree with you completely here, but it does not mean anyone should give up.
As far as no difference between Democrats and Republicans, if you mean they're both people and deserve the same rights, I agree but the fundamental differences in philosophy are almost diametrically opposed. It's Large government vs Small government, self fulfillment vs entitlement and "Let's help people" vs "Let's get people to help these people".
Here is where I disagree. This facade of Democrat vs. republican is what many would like us to believe. If they were truly diametrically opposed as you say, why did we have one of the most fiscally irresponsible congresses when the republicrats held the majority and the presidency?? Again, this is a ploy to gain more power for an elite class and divide a populace.

2) These all seem to be due to lawyers and liberals who want everyone to be the same. Concerning rights and opportunity, I agree but when it comes to distributing wealth and giving away the fruits of others' labors, I strongly disagree. Someone who sits on their *** and just hangs out when they should be staying in school is entitled to nothing from anyone else, IMO. They need to think about what will happen if they don't do the work but that has been changed to "Oh, it's OK, the government will give it to you". My opinion on this isn't based on race but because of sheer numbers, it will look that way.
I do agree with you that hand outs enable laziness. Distribution of wealth is not what this country was founded on, in fact, it is completely against it.

3) State run media is what Pravda was. Our media have never been completely unbiased but it's as bad as ever, now.
OK so it is not an "official" state run media, but it is pretty close.
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
and the weird just keeps getting ..... well wacky:D

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06427635.htm
LOL....the Princeton Environmental Study, eh?! I wonder how much money they got from the government (stimulus bill, you know) to do this. Hmmm. And here I thought my off-the-cuff Move Everybody To Temperate Latitudes and Kill All Cattle idea was just funny. I could have made a few hundred grand by proposing to the Feds that I study it. :D
 
annunaki

annunaki

Moderator
Where we lag behind is in the distribution of wealth, environmental consideration and healthcare. These are things Obama is working to correct. It will be a painful process, but I believe worthy of the ultimate gains from it.

Who really gains from this other than those in power??

Obama & congress have single-handedly put us deeper into debt than any administration in history. All we are getting is a distribution of debt to our descendants and a further weakening of America as a nation.
 
G

griffinconst

Senior Audioholic
People with money are not a bottomless pit. You can only take everything I have once, then what? It probably doesn't matter as long everyone is equally poor and miserable, that's the new American way.
 
Nemo128

Nemo128

Audioholic Field Marshall
This is the problem when you want to initiate programs you can't pay for. Apparently worse, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's not the top 2% wage earners that get taxed. It's everyone. If this bill passes the U.S. Senate, you can all kiss a LOT of money goodbye...jobs too, and not just for and in the energy sector. But then perhaps this is how our Supreme Leader proposes to pay for all the cool things he wants the government to do.

Here is a redacted letter sent to a friend of mine from our House Rep, Greg Walden, in Oregon. Remember, these are Oregon numbers where we have mighty green hydroelectric power. Poor midwesterners...you're sunk. (Trust your government. Buy Government Motors cars. :rolleyes:)

-----------------------------------------------

"As you may already know, the so-called cap and trade bill passed the House of Representatives narrowly this afternoon. The legislation now goes to the U.S. Senate. But I wanted to give you a quick update on the day's proceedings.

I opposed this bill, which levies the largest-ever energy tax on the American people. If it becomes law, PacifiCorp would hike its power rates in Oregon by at least 17.9 percent. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the National Energy Tax would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that could climb as high as $6,800 by 2035.
The authors of the bill recognized the toll higher energy prices will take on families, so they developed a new "energy stamps" welfare program. The size of this new entitlement is 16-times bigger than America's already-existent welfare system (the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program). But if you're a family of four making more than $33,000 a year, you're out of luck. The program doesn't apply to you.

You might assume that such an incredibly consequential bill would have been vetted carefully before passage. Incredibly, you'd be wrong. At 2:49 a.m. today, the bill's author, Representative Henry Waxman (D-Hollywood), introduced a new 309-page rewrite of the 1,201-page bill. I have trouble believing that any member of Congress read through this new rewrite before the vote. And out of 224 amendments that Republicans hoped to have considered, Speaker Nancy Pelosi only allowed one to receive a vote on the House floor.

I remain deeply concerned over what this bill would do to the American economy. I will continue to monitor the legislation closely as it heads to the U.S. Senate and keep you posted as the process moves forward."


Greg Walden
You said nothing of your own stance. You reiterated the rhetoric spewed by a politician, which you proceeded to quote. The statement in bold is exactly what I mentioned, that I don't mind $2k of my money going to the cause. I am a family of one, not four. When I see things like "tip of the iceberg", I'm waiting for you to expose that tip and the rest of that iceberg. Maybe you'd rather watch the Titanic sink and proceed to only point fingers and assume causes, but I like to investigate causes and find the underlying truth. Finger pointing is good for nothing.

I'm a self-admitted old and slow curmudgeon. What does the above say? ... or what do you really want to know? Frankly, Nemo, you're not making any sense. Based upon your first posts, I'd say the above is a bit of CYA hooey.

I stated my thoughts immediately while you wanted to show off your Evelyn Woods Speed Reading ability and have at debate. In your second post you contradict what you now say that we are probably in agreement. My post...what's not clear about my OP position?
CYA? Don't know where you draw that from, but I'll continue to discuss the facts and not just talk plain junk. Speed reading? I'm not even going to start on that comment. You believe what you want to believe, the fact is I was open to a debate about your thoughts on it and I did not see your thoughts. Also, for future reference, debate doesn't mean you are completely opposed to someone's stance. Unless it is engaged in by college students looking for gold stars and cookies, many a debate ends with mutual understanding and compromise. That's the very basis of open-mindedness and collaboration. Sorry for thinking I might see some sign of that in this obviously biased (Supreme Leader, Government Motors) discussion. :)

Oh, and probably agreeing is soley based on your further posting. This thread has gone on for 8 pages now, obviously you've given more information throughout it than your first post. To take my post from the 8th page and say it's a contradiction of the very first reply of this thread (which if you hadn't noticed did not state my own beliefs or feelings but simply opened the door for a detailed discussion) is absurd. I'm not the one who got defensive.
 
T

tbewick

Senior Audioholic
Cool graphics!! :)

But you have ignored my solution (;))...and hundreds of other possible solutions.

This is not an issue to be taken lightly, nor to be pushed through the legislative process perfunctorily. Our country is in a great deal of economic peril at the moment. We're being led down a path by a group of people who have personal agendas and pork barrels to fill. You, nor anyone else, can tell us with any measure of certainty the implications of the passage of this Cap and Trade bill. This is perhaps especially true since the world's largest offenders, India and China, will not sign on to tackle the problem (at whatever level the real problem may be).
In my view it's a question of values. If you place a high value on the impacts of climate change, then inevitably you will want to minimise the risk of those impacts occuring. One the other hand, if you place a high value on the risk of negative economic consequences of mitigation, then you will not accept even modest attempts to reduce emissions.

In all honesty, I find your criticisms of 'the world's largest offenders' China and India a bit difficult to swallow. Countries like China and India have a lower standard of living than us and have historically done less to affect the climate:


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5031503.htm

To use an analogy, imagine the rich world dining out in a restaurant, i.e., consuming cheap energy, and the developing countries coming in later on to enjoy the after-dinner mints. Is it fair for the dinner bill to be split equally between developing and rich nations?
 
T

tbewick

Senior Audioholic
Isn't amazing the biggest proponent for all this global warming legislation has the most to gain from it through his business???

http://www.generationim.com/

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=475461
'Global Warming: At the cap-and-trade hearings, it was revealed that not everyone will suffer from this growth-killing energy tax. A congresswoman wanted to know why sea levels aren't rising but Gore's bank account is.[...]'
Sea levels are rising, but you can hide this fact by misrepresenting the data (1). A common way of doing this is to look at noisy data over short time periods (e.g., the red bar in the diagram below). By doing this, it is possible to identify any trend you like:


http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/stefanrahmstorf-plenaryspeaker-10march2009.pdf/

Your view on vested interests seems rather one-sided. Exxon-Mobil etc. have a huge degree of lobbying power and have successfully prevented effective legislation for years. One of the advantages of cap-and-trade/carbon taxes is that it creates private sector lobbyists, such as Al Gore, who have a financial interest in future emission reductions. Of course, if you don't like the idea of emission reductions, then this is a bad thing.

(1) More info:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/pielke_srs_new_statistical_tec.php#more
 
T

tbewick

Senior Audioholic
During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between frigid, and steaming hot.

That normal change isn't what's up for debate. What is debatable is the political spin and profiteering that goes along with it.

How soon we forget the exact same type of spin & profiteering and the rush to go to war against terrorism.

The debate wasn't "if" terrorism existed, but it's cause and how and where to fight it.
Carbon dioxide's heat-trapping properties have been known since the 19th century. To claim that current warming is a natural trend requires scientific evidence. The preponderance of evidence points to current warming being due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. This is supported by palaeoclimate studies (e.g., see below) and climate models, along with what are called fingerprint studies. These identify the human 'fingerprint' of climate change, and involve comparing model data against observations.


http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_11/
 
T

tbewick

Senior Audioholic
This may have been mentioned earlier but this whole thing is a scam.
While I can't speak for everyone, most want clean air and water and don't want to purposefully hurt the environment, and that includes me, but we are being sold a bill of goods.
Didn't anyone notice when the enviro-hucksters figured out the planet is actually cooling, the name suddenly changed from global warming to climate change? Climate change is the perfect scam.
Let's take something normal, natural, and that we couldn't possibly control, (climate change) and pronounce it a problem or better yet a crisis.
Then say we're all dead unless we change it, which we couldn't possibly do, this is mother nature were talkin about here. We are no match for her no matter how arrogant we may think ourseves. Then of coarse the only way to fix it is throw money at it. Then the world can be saved, even if every last cent that hasn't already been confiscated by the government needs to go toward it. Oh wait, the government is spearheading this. Resistance is futile, we the people just don't understand.
(1)


It's called climate change because increases in global mean temperature result in changes to the climate system. This covers a wider range of effects than just temperature. To name a few examples, the effect of a higher global mean temperature:
- increases the risk of extreme weather events;
- changes global precipitation intensity and distribution;
- will likely increase the intensity of hurricanes.

(1)


Obviously, it would be far nicer if everyone spontaneously decided, out of the goodness of their hearts, to change their behaviour in-line with the external costs of climate change. As far as I can tell, this hasn't happened yet.

(1) http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
 
T

tbewick

Senior Audioholic
Well let's take it a little slow with these doom and gloom scenarios too.

Honestly I think this bill is a joke since it has not real effect until 2020. By then they will elect a republican that will reverse it. Or maybe we'll be at war with another super power.
The 'doom and gloom scenarios' I citied are consistent with what's in the peer-reviewed IPCC report. The 'greenhouse gamble' wheel is from a recent 2009 MIT Global Change Program study. Its findings are similar to a 2008 study done by the Hadley Centre (1). As regards the Waxman-Markey Bill, it's certainly better than doing nothing, at least in my opinion.

(1) http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/action/evidence.html
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
The chart on this link is much more extensive

www.scotese.com/climate.htm

It goes back 2 Billion years, it shows what I referred to in an earlier post as 'Normal Temp Change'

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
... im for one in the group that the Earth will goes thru natural cycles of cooling and heating, ....
Yes, but is what we are experiencing a natural cycle or an abnormal one cause by man? Perhaps if it is the latter, an unknown outcome is most likely and nothing like natural cycles of the past but most likely much worse.
I'd rather gamble with my money and not the planet, no?
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top