POLL: Cap and Trade

[Tom]

Do you favor C&T to combat global warming or whatever it is doing now?

[Greyfox]

Insanity. It hasn't worked in Europe and it won't work in the U.S.
Taxes, electricity, gas prices will go up, up, up.

[Warren Henry]

Do you favor C&T to combat global warming or whatever it is doing now?
Global Warming is BS. Cap & Trade is pure and simple a tax and power grab. They are in a hurry to get this crammed through (protraying it as an emergency) because there is good scientific evidence that the globe has cooled over the last several years.

If they get this and similar measures passed before the reports are released, they will take credit for the improvements.

Another example of the "ruling elite" telling the rest of us how we have to live while exempting themselves from the "equal sacrifice".

BS. BS. BS.

In case I wasn't clear, I am against it :lol:

[Warren Henry]

If capping greenhouse gas emissions was actually this critical, the scientists should determine the absolute caps necessary and then the allotments should be apportioned according to the greatest good. The government should significantly fine those who exceed their ration (this IS rationing).

Instead, we have the offsets or credits that can be traded. And who will make the market for these commodities? Why, perhaps the fat cat financial institutions that contribute so much to the politicians. Maybe Goldman Sachs?

Another example of enriching the elites at the expense of the rest of us all the while crying wolf about the crisis at hand.


Do you think that there will be speculators driving up the price of the trade credits - just as the fat cats did with oil? Will this make energy prohibitively expensive? Will expensive energy drive up the cost of EVERYTHING? If the cost of living goes up drastically, would not that be a tax on everyone (even those who make significantly less than $250,000).

You snooze, you lose. WAKE UP!! :bang:

[lsbets]

The left will continue to attempt to scare us into believing in the myth of man made global warming because it is the greatest tool they can use to gain total and complete control over the economy and our lives while cementing their grip on power.

[jonnielu]

The left will continue to attempt to scare us into believing in the myth of man made global warming because it is the greatest tool they can use to gain total and complete control over the economy and our lives while cementing their grip on power.

I believe that possibly some asses should be capped. I'll have to argue with the idea of anyone having a grip on power though.

The power that is being gripped in D.C. is the power that you are afraid of gripping yourself.

If ye love wealth better then Liberty, the tranquility of servitude better then the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels, or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands that feed you.

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams

jdl

[cj's dad]

I believe that possibly some asses should be capped. I'll have to argue with the idea of anyone having a grip on power though.

The power that is being gripped in D.C. is the power that you are afraid of gripping yourself.

If ye love wealth better then Liberty, the tranquility of servitude better then the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels, or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands that feed you.

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams

jdl

So, pray tell, what is your plan of attack ???

[Tape Reader]

The left will continue to attempt to scare us into believing in the myth of man made global warming because it is the greatest tool they can use to gain total and complete control over the economy and our lives while cementing their grip on power.

AMEN!

[jonnielu]

So, pray tell, what is your plan of attack ???

If you are asking what I did, the answer is that I am a citizen of the state of Tennessee. As such, I excercise my power on Congress in accordance with the Constitution. The Constitution was written with today in mind, it works amazingly well. Anybody can use it, it is a free country. The founders were looking out for you when they wrote it. They separated the jurisdictions, this was to ensure that the federal government
did not,

"usurp from the States all government in little as in great things, when all
government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of power it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as oppressive as the government from which we separated." Thomas Jefferson.

No attack needed.:eek:

jdl

[boxcar]

The left will continue to attempt to scare us into believing in the myth of man made global warming because it is the greatest tool they can use to gain total and complete control over the economy and our lives while cementing their grip on power.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

really shocked by the results of this poll LOL :rolleyes:

may as well have asked "is obama doing a good job" would have got the same results around here!

I voted no

[Tom]

I believe that possibly some asses should be capped.

jdl

:lol: Touche!

[boxcar]

I believe that possibly some asses should be capped

Yes! Instead of the masses being capped, which is what this scam is all about, the asses who are proposing this insantity should definitely be capped. No ands, ifs or buts!

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Global Warming is BS. Cap & Trade is pure and simple a tax and power grab. They are in a hurry to get this crammed through (protraying it as an emergency) because there is good scientific evidence that the globe has cooled over the last several years.

You do understand what a long term trend is, right? There may be fluctuations within the trend, but the overall direction is up. As shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

As you can plainly see, the trend since 1880 is up, even though there are a number of instances of individual years (or a series of years where average temperatures go down)

Another way to look at it. Here in the Chicago area temperatures trend upward starting in April, but there are cold snaps even into May. If I were to take one of those cold snaps and extrapolate it to tell you we would have snow on the fourth of July, you would say I'm an idiot. That is exactly what you are doing. NOT THAT I'M SAYING YOU'RE AN IDIOT. OH N0!!!!DEFINITELY NOT!!!!!!! But you are wrong ;) ;)

Here is another fun chart which shows the areas of the earth where average temperatures have risen vis a vis the 1940-1980 mean. There is an awful lot of yellow and brown on that map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Map.jpg

[Warren Henry]

You do understand what a long term trend is, right? There may be fluctuations within the trend, but the overall direction is up. As shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

As you can plainly see, the trend since 1880 is up, even though there are a number of instances of individual years (or a series of years where average temperatures go down)

Another way to look at it. Here in the Chicago area temperatures trend upward starting in April, but there are cold snaps even into May. If I were to take one of those cold snaps and extrapolate it to tell you we would have snow on the fourth of July, you would say I'm an idiot. That is exactly what you are doing. NOT THAT I'M SAYING YOU'RE AN IDIOT. OH N0!!!!DEFINITELY NOT!!!!!!! But you are wrong ;) ;)

Here is another fun chart which shows the areas of the earth where average temperatures have risen vis a vis the 1940-1980 mean. There is an awful lot of yellow and brown on that map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Map.jpg

I understand that the earth has been way hotter and way colder in long term trends way before man existed.

My problem with the pseudo science of Global Warming as espoused by Gore et. al. is that man is the reason for the current trend.

If one is to draw a direct link from the so called greenhouse gasses and global temperatures, then in the period of several years that we have had cooling, one should be able to see a corresponding decrease in the presence of these offending gasses. This is clearly not the case.

Therefore, cause and effect have not been conclusively proven. If not proven, it is folly (IMO) to make massive changes for the worse in the way we are allowed to live our lives.

I don't think you are an idiot either ;) But, you might be gullible. :lol:

[lsbets]

You do understand what a long term trend is, right?

Do you? Because since 1880 is not even close to a long term trend when you are talking about the earth.

[mostpost]

Do you? Because since 1880 is not even close to a long term trend when you are talking about the earth.

If 1880 to 2009 is not a long term trend. (I agree it isn't) then 2001 to 2009 is certainly not indicative of anything. The 1880's are when consistent, accurate record keeping began. If we want to go back beyond that into prehistory we have to rely on the fossil record for general trends.

[mostpost]

I don't think you are an idiot either
You obviously haven't seen my ROI lately :( :( :(

Comments on the restof your post later

[Warren Henry]

You obviously haven't seen my ROI lately :( :( :(

Comments on the restof your post later


:lol: Unlike some of my other Lib friends, you DO have a sense of humor.

[lsbets]

The 1880's are when consistent, accurate record keeping began.

The above statement would be true if you said the 1880s are when consistent, accurate record keeping began in some areas, while most of the world kept wildly inconsistent and inaccurate records. The fact is, accurate temperature readings worldwide are a very recent development.

[Tom]

The above statement would be true if you said the 1880s are when consistent, accurate record keeping began in some areas, while most of the world kept wildly inconsistent and inaccurate records. The fact is, accurate temperature readings worldwide are a very recent development.

Some would offer a lot of evidence that it not even a development yet.

[robert99]

Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history. A comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

[ArlJim78]

yes CO2 levels have gone up over time. SO? you can't reliably link it to warming. the earth has been cooling for 10 years.

on a local note, Chicago just recorded the coldest June in 118 years.

[Greyfox]

But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv,

Obviously the ice itself evolved in learning how to trap CO2 better.:D

[BenDiesel26]

Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history. A comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

I just looked at your link. Two things to note: the CO2 concentrations actually appear to lag behind the temperature fluctuations, i.e, the temperature rises before the C02 level rises. You can find this information elsewhere, but the chart downplays this fact by using an x-axis with a very large unit (one unit=one thousand years). Two, despite the high C02 posted at the end, if you look at the cyclical temperature plot trending over the full chart, it appears right on schedule with what has happened the previous thousands of years. It appears that every 100 to 125 years the temperature peaks, and right now we are at one of those peaks. Despite the high C02 however, this peak actually appears slightly smaller than previous peaks. It does not look out of ordinary at all. Thanks for the plot. I hadn't seen it before. It appears that we should be headed back down pretty soon at this point, and the chart you have provided seems to be pointing in this direction, as have ocean temperatures for the past 8 years which have seen a noticeable downward trend.

[Warren Henry]

if you look at the cyclical temperature plot trending over the full chart, it appears right on schedule with what has happened the previous thousands of years. It appears that every 100 to 125 years the temperature peaks, and right now we are at one of those peaks. Despite the high C02 however, this peak actually appears slightly smaller than previous peaks. It does not look out of ordinary at all. Thanks for the plot. I hadn't seen it before. It appears that we should be headed back down pretty soon at this point, and the chart you have provided seems to be pointing in this direction, as have ocean temperatures for the past 8 years which have seen a noticeable downward trend.

If the downward trend continues, and history would suggest it will, will Al Gore take credit for it?

[BenDiesel26]

I just looked at your link. Two things to note: the CO2 concentrations actually appear to lag behind the temperature fluctuations, i.e, the temperature rises before the C02 level rises. You can find this information elsewhere, but the chart downplays this fact by using an x-axis with a very large unit (one unit=one thousand years). Two, despite the high C02 posted at the end, if you look at the cyclical temperature plot trending over the full chart, it appears right on schedule with what has happened the previous thousands of years. It appears that every 100 to 125 years the temperature peaks, and right now we are at one of those peaks. Despite the high C02 however, this peak actually appears slightly smaller than previous peaks. It does not look out of ordinary at all. Thanks for the plot. I hadn't seen it before. It appears that we should be headed back down pretty soon at this point, and the chart you have provided seems to be pointing in this direction, as have ocean temperatures for the past 8 years which have seen a noticeable downward trend.

That should be every 100 to 125 THOUSAND years by the way.

[delayjf]

I just looked at your link. Two things to note: the CO2 concentrations actually appear to lag behind the temperature fluctuations, i.e, the temperature rises before the C02 level rises.

I recall that at least one climatologist argued that the increase in CO2 levels is due to the rise in temp not the opposite which those who believe in global warming.

[mostpost]

I recall that at least one climatologist argued that the increase in CO2 levels is due to the rise in temp not the opposite which those who believe in global warming.
So, in other words carbon dioxide is produced by hot air, not by respiration, nor by the burning of fossil fuels. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I guess if we shut down DC our global warming problems will be over.

[mostpost]

Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history. A comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
There you go again, introducing science and logic into the discussion. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

If one is to draw a direct link from the so called greenhouse gasses and global temperatures, then in the period of several years that we have had cooling, one should be able to see a corresponding decrease in the presence of these offending gasses
Why? Your statement assumes that CO2 is the only factor in climate change. It is an important one, but there are others. Carbon Dioxide concentrations can remain the same or even increase, yet the average temperature can drop for a number of years. This can be due to normal climate cycles or even sunspots. These are minor fluctuations within the major fluctuations. Consider that you are riding on a long fast train. You walk from the front car of the train back one hundred cars to the rear car. In the context of the train you are walking backwards, but in the larger world you have traveled miles forward.
You cannot look at a trend of a few years and use that to extrapolate that it will reverse a trend of many years.

[Tom]

Consider this train analogy.
The US is the caboose.
We destroy our economy but China and Italy, the two engines, do not.

[Warren Henry]

Why? Your statement assumes that CO2 is the only factor in climate change. It is an important one, but there are others. Carbon Dioxide concentrations can remain the same or even increase, yet the average temperature can drop for a number of years. This can be due to normal climate cycles or even sunspots. These are minor fluctuations within the major fluctuations. Consider that you are riding on a long fast train. You walk from the front car of the train back one hundred cars to the rear car. In the context of the train you are walking backwards, but in the larger world you have traveled miles forward.
You cannot look at a trend of a few years and use that to extrapolate that it will reverse a trend of many years.

Now wait a minute. First you say that it is vitally important to put a cap on CO2. So important that we must drastically change our way of life. Then someone says - But the data doesn't correlate properly and you say well, that isn't the only culprit?

Pseudo science. Just make up a bunch of factors whose interactions aren't totally understood, dummy up some questionable studies, then say that each of the factors is so important by itself that we must all sacrifice.

BS.

[Warren Henry]

If you successfuly point out the folly of one of their arguments, they just change to another one. In the meantime, the sheep allow them to implement their "changes".

We are losing the debate - not because we are wrong, but because the game is gaffed. Obama is the carney and we are the ones getting fleeced. This will continue to happen until we seize the game and make it legit or until we refuse to play

[BenDiesel26]

Why? Your statement assumes that CO2 is the only factor in climate change. It is an important one, but there are others. Carbon Dioxide concentrations can remain the same or even increase, yet the average temperature can drop for a number of years. This can be due to normal climate cycles or even sunspots. These are minor fluctuations within the major fluctuations. Consider that you are riding on a long fast train. You walk from the front car of the train back one hundred cars to the rear car. In the context of the train you are walking backwards, but in the larger world you have traveled miles forward.
You cannot look at a trend of a few years and use that to extrapolate that it will reverse a trend of many years.

This is exactly right. C02 is a small factor of many thousands, which is why AGW has not been even close to definitively proved as many liberals claim. That is junk. Is the null hypothesis that AGW is real rejected? No its not. But that doesn't make it true, because the null hypothesis that AGW is caused by sunspots (the sun is the most dominant factor in climate change that many people seem to conveniently ignore) is not rejected either. The book Heaven and Earth is written about the fact that trying to predict climate based on one factor (C02) is just silly. The book had a large influence on why Australia's government recently shot down their own cap and trade. In fact, one of Australia's representatives (Fielding) actually came to the Obama administration looking for evidence to prove to him not to believe the book and that AGW was real. As expected, the Obama administration could not prove it. The fact of the matter is that scientists all over the world right now are quickly becoming skeptics of AGW. This is why the EPA and our government are hiding facts and trying to ram legislation down our throats right now.

[BenDiesel26]

Here is the link to the article actually...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

[Warren Henry]

This is exactly right. C02 is a small factor of many thousands, which is why AGW has not been even close to definitively proved as many liberals claim. That is junk. Is the null hypothesis that AGW is real rejected? No its not. But that doesn't make it true, because the null hypothesis that AGW is caused by sunspots (the sun is the most dominant factor in climate change that many people seem to conveniently ignore) is not rejected either. The book Heaven and Earth is written about the fact that trying to predict climate based on one factor (C02) is just silly. The book had a large influence on why Australia's government recently shot down their own cap and trade. In fact, one of Australia's representatives (Fielding) actually came to the Obama administration looking for evidence to prove to him not to believe the book and that AGW was real. As expected, the Obama administration could not prove it. The fact of the matter is that scientists all over the world right now are quickly becoming skeptics of AGW. This is why the EPA and our government are hiding facts and trying to ram legislation down our throats right now.

BD26 Thanks for saying it more eloquently than I. You have posted some good links, actual names and counts of scientists etc to prove what I said - man's link to AGW is BS (or, more properly, most likely BS).

[Lefty]

David Macarthur, a small bakery owner, explained on the Glenn Beck show why Cap and Trade would make him lose a business that has been in the family 50+ yrs.
Sadly, he won't be alone.

[Tom]

Re-distribution of wealth.
From those that earned it to those that didn't.
Obama is a thief.

[mostpost]

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists
I am amazed!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: That Senator Inhofe can count to 700

[Warren Henry]

I am amazed!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: That Senator Inhofe can count to 700
ahh, deflect the facts with a personal attack. You been reading Ayers?

[mostpost]

ahh, deflect the facts with a personal attack. You been reading Ayers?
Based on a survey of several years ago in which Inhofe was chosen as dumbest Senator.

[Tom]

That might be, but the fact remains, you dodged the real issue yet again.

[Warren Henry]

That might be, but the fact remains, you dodged the real issue yet again.

Wonder if Most has a DODGE parked in his garage?

[mostpost]

That might be, but the fact remains, you dodged the real issue yet again.
Arguing on the issues seems pointless. We (the libs) point out that the concentrations of CO2 are higher, by far than ever before, you (the Cons) say it's part of a natural cycle. We point out that much of the increase can be attributable to man made CO2. You say it's part of the natural cycle. We point to studies by disinterested groups, such as the EPA (even during the Bush era) which support our claims. You point to studies by groups funded by the oil industry and expect us to accept their findings. For example, one of the groups which is at the forefront of the Global Warming deniers is The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute now refuses to disclose the source of its funding, but in the years prior to 2007 it received much of its funding from Exxon mobil. A good gauge of the scientific staus of the Heartland Institute is that they deny the harmful effects of second hand smoke. And SURPRISE SURPRISE another of their sponsors is Phillip Morris.

To continue; we show where temperatures have trended upward from the 1880's (when accurate record keeping began) through the present. You point out that Chicago had its coldest June this year. You need to learn the difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence.

I could go on, but it is pointless.

[BenDiesel26]

Arguing on the issues seems pointless. We (the libs) point out that the concentrations of CO2 are higher, by far than ever before, you (the Cons) say it's part of a natural cycle. We point out that much of the increase can be attributable to man made CO2. You say it's part of the natural cycle. We point to studies by disinterested groups, such as the EPA (even during the Bush era) which support our claims. You point to studies by groups funded by the oil industry and expect us to accept their findings. For example, one of the groups which is at the forefront of the Global Warming deniers is The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute now refuses to disclose the source of its funding, but in the years prior to 2007 it received much of its funding from Exxon mobil. A good gauge of the scientific staus of the Heartland Institute is that they deny the harmful effects of second hand smoke. And SURPRISE SURPRISE another of their sponsors is Phillip Morris.

To continue; we show where temperatures have trended upward from the 1880's (when accurate record keeping began) through the present. You point out that Chicago had its coldest June this year. You need to learn the difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence.

I could go on, but it is pointless.

Actually, many libs say AGW is a settled science. This couldn't be further from the truth. C02 concentrations are higher than ever before correct, but the temperature appears to be leveling off is the whole point. Thousands of scientists, including those at MIT as referenced in the other thread, and turning up the heat on whether AGW is real. The temperature appears to be leveling off over the past 8 years as opposed to the pathetic computer models that are forecasting global warming and are actually used as the evidence in many of these reports. Water temperature is a much better indicator of temperature change than surface temperature, since it has a much higher specific heat than air (more energy either lost or gained is required to change the temperature of water than air). Ocean temperatures have steadily dropped for 8 years now in the total opposite direction of the two computer models most often cited to forecast global warming, more or less rendering them useless. The so-called "disinterested" EPA has recently suppressed reports under the circumstance that they don't go along with "the legislation" currently in the works. I hope you were joking when you put EPA and disinterested in the same sentence based on the recent emails that have come to light by the way. Most liberals seriously get their global warming information from the "disinterested" Al Gore, who stands to become a billionaire if he gets his legislation passed, laughing all the way to the bank. Then, you have Robert99 posting this chart as if it shows some sort of bombshell that C02 concentrations are causing the temperature to rise.

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig1-CO2_and_Temp2.gif
Take a close look at the chart. Yes, C02 is higher than ever before. Yet take a look at the temperature. If you are familiar with basic time series analysis, what you would notice is that the secular trend of the temperature data for the 400 thousand years posted is a horizontal line. The seasonal variation obviously occurs every 100 to 125 thousand years with various cyclical variations between. This chart tends to actually show that the temperatures right now appear to be in line with what has happened over the thousands of years before. Right now notice we are at a peak, yet that peak actually appears to be lower than three of the 4 previous peaks over the history of the earth shown, despite the rapid C02 rise.

Now, you can argue that the extra C02 is not a good thing due to pollution, but to say that the C02 produced by man at this point is a large part to why the earth could potentially be warming right now and it is settled is an absolute joke.

[lsbets]

I could go on, but it is pointless.

It is pointless. You've been so brainwashed (and it seems willingly) that you cannot see what is clear to anyone who applies any thought to the issue. There is no way to say based on the evidence presented that man in causing global warming. Even the control the world crowd realizes that and they have changed it from "global warming" to "climate change". Mountains of evidence point to the cyclical nature of earth's temperature changes and there is zero conclusive evidence that man has had any impact on those temperature.

The people who answered yes to this poll are either:

a) uniformed and/or misinformed on the issue, or
b) total idiots

[PaceAdvantage]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”

[Valuist]

On Fast Money yesterday they said that it was the second coldest June in the continental U.S. since they started keeping track.

Global Cooling? :D

[Marshall Bennett]

On Fast Money yesterday they said that it was the second coldest June in the continental U.S. since they started keeping track.

Global Cooling? :D
Try selling that to folks in Texas . :)

[Valuist]

No offense but this might come as news to Texans: there's a whole rest of the country outside the state of Texas.

[Marshall Bennett]

No offense but this might come as news to Texans: there's a whole rest of the country outside the state of Texas.
Lighten up , was meant to be a joke .

[boxcar]

a) uniformed and/or misinformed on the issue, or
b) total idiots

or c...brainwashed
d. pinko commies
e. all of the above

:lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[Tom]

No offense but this might come as news to Texans: there's a whole rest of the country outside the state of Texas.

Damn tootin' - 56 more states! :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

On Fast Money yesterday they said that it was the second coldest June in the continental U.S. since they started keeping track.This has to be shaping up as one of the coldest Julys as well....it got down into the 50s one night this week here in metro NY....lol

I think we may have cracked the 90s ONCE so far this year....and it's already the middle of July....It's been in the mid to low 70s for the past two weeks....

Wild...

[robert99]

Institute for Creation Research is hardly a liberal organisation
http://www.icr.org/article/3233/

I posted the facts found from ice sampling - just reported facts and I am not qualified to judge their full meaning. No more than anyone else posting here. The source was posted to indicate that this is not science that starts from records in the 1880s. There has been a harmonious cycle for 400 thousand years that is clearly being broken. If man burns fuels, coal and oil, that locked up CO2 thousands of years ago and population increases as forests reduce, then free CO2 levels should surely increase. That CO2 and methane levels increase the greenhouse effect is not scientifically disputed, no more than the holes in the ozone layer were proven to be caused by man made chemicals, then cured as they were banned.

The ICR cannot yet definitely link man made CO2 with global warming as records are too short and any effects are both gradual and complicated by many other earth cycles and interactions - but they do confirm global warming as happening over recent decades, with rising sea temperatures; increased hurricane frequency and the reduction in the extent of sea ice. There is no evidence postulated that CO2 is not a possible cause of proven global warming.

[Marshall Bennett]

A local meteorologist mentioned in his weather segment the other day about an unusual pattern in the jet stream where cooler weather brought in from Canada was being trapped to the north due to several high pressure systems that have been lingering further south . We've been under one or another constantly all summer here in Texas . June and July has been one of the hottest and dryest in some time , temps over 100 nearly every day . Up to 107 in Waco . I'm not sure that this isn't just a weather pattern and has little to do with global warming .

[BenDiesel26]

The ICR cannot yet definitely link man made CO2 with global warming as records are too short and any effects are both gradual and complicated by many other earth cycles and interactions

So you must agree that our politicians are lying to us, thank you for coming out and saying so. Many others will not as Al Gore and Obama say that this is a settled science.

[dutchboy]

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/browse/glacflds/glacflds.htm

If man causes global warming how would the the advocates explain this? If you lived in northern Iowa or Minn 10,000 years ago you would be sitting with a glacier 700 feet thick on your head.

I doubt if there were many cars or enough people on earth 10,000 years ago to cause the glaciers to melt.

[delayjf]

Try selling that to folks in Texas

It was reported in the News a few weeks back that Arizona has set a record this summer with the most consecetive days under 100 degrees.

[beertapper]

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/07/10/could-cap-and-trade-create-another-economic-bubble/

"Could cap-and-trade create another economic bubble?
By Eoin O’Carroll | 07.10.09

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which squeaked through the
House of Representatives by a vote of 219-212 last month and is set to
be taken up by the Senate in September, proposes to create a huge new
market for trading carbon emission permits and offsets. This system
would create whole new classes of financial assets, which financial
firms could securitize, derivatize, and speculate on.

Sound familiar? Many critics are pointing out that this new market for
carbon derivatives could, without effective oversight, usher in
another Wall Street free-for-all just like the one that precipitated
the implosion of the global economy.

[dutchboy]

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/07/10/could-cap-and-trade-create-another-economic-bubble/

"Could cap-and-trade create another economic bubble?
By Eoin O’Carroll | 07.10.09

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which squeaked through the
House of Representatives by a vote of 219-212 last month and is set to
be taken up by the Senate in September, proposes to create a huge new
market for trading carbon emission permits and offsets. This system
would create whole new classes of financial assets, which financial
firms could securitize, derivatize, and speculate on.

Sound familiar? Many critics are pointing out that this new market for
carbon derivatives could, without effective oversight, usher in
another Wall Street free-for-all just like the one that precipitated
the implosion of the global economy.

90% of the ideas and news that is printed or appears on TV could have appeared in The Onion newspaper if you did not know for sure they are so goofy. Someday someone will cut and paste something from The Onion and pass it off as fact. Would make a good practical joke to pull on your friends.

The Onion is a newspaper of only made up news if you are not familiar with it.

[dutchboy]

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/07/10/could-cap-and-trade-create-another-economic-bubble/

"Could cap-and-trade create another economic bubble?
By Eoin O’Carroll | 07.10.09

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which squeaked through the
House of Representatives by a vote of 219-212 last month and is set to
be taken up by the Senate in September, proposes to create a huge new
market for trading carbon emission permits and offsets. This system
would create whole new classes of financial assets, which financial
firms could securitize, derivatize, and speculate on.

Sound familiar? Many critics are pointing out that this new market for
carbon derivatives could, without effective oversight, usher in
another Wall Street free-for-all just like the one that precipitated
the implosion of the global economy.

Writer mentions the carbon bs in the bill would contribute to the reforestation of the Amazon. Before they start spending who knows how much in the Amazon they should stop cutting down the dang trees and the forest will reforest itself. Just like the duck hunters in Minn who are complaining about the reduction in the number of ducks. Stop shooting the dang ducks for a few years and the population will come back.

[Warren Henry]

Just like the duck hunters in Minn who are complaining about the reduction in the number of ducks. Stop shooting the dang ducks for a few years and the population will come back.

Not if the breeding grounds are destroyed.