Cap and Trade vote on Friday

[joeydb]

Whatever you guys do, call your congressman at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote AGAINST this bill.

Many of you already know what this is, so I'll keep this brief. The bill creates an artificial market with "carbon credits", the effect of which is to reward countries that don't produce any carbon dioxide, you know -- the naturally occurring gas that we breathe out and plants breathe in so they can make the oxygen we need. Our carbon dioxide is "capped" from cars, factories -- they can't stop us from exhaling yet, and we "buy carbon credits" from countries that produce nothing, so some third world countries will get big checks paid for from the increased energy bills that all of us in the United States will pay.

In addition, whether you believe in "Global Warming" or not, this will not help to reduce the worldwide output of CO2 since it is the Chinese who are putting up a new smokestack-type of power plant every 2 weeks. But it will cripple our economy unnecessarily since it is the power companies and us that will be punished. It is us who will not be able to afford to run our air conditioners or heat, for no reason but the errant thoughts of undereducated do-gooder liberals Congress.

By the way, as I write this, we in the Northeast are having one of the coolest starts to summer in recent memory, and last year was one where there was not one 100 degree day. Any of you guys ever see something that is heated and spontaneously cools on its own, just to reheat again at record levels? No, because such things don't happen in the physical universe -- the phenomenon does not exist.

I enjoy political discussions here and I do respect others who feel differently on the conservative versus liberal points of view. But this bill is that important to stop because the freedoms and lifestyle we all enjoy require access to affordable energy, and I think it's a cause we all share an interest in.

[Cannon Shell]

It wont pass the senate and if by some miracle it does it will be another "victory" for the Obama administration that will be detrimental to his party.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Originally Posted by joeydb

In addition, 1. whether you believe in "Global Warming" or not,
By the way, as I write this, 2. we in the Northeast are having one of the
coolest starts to summer in recent memoryand last year was one where there was not one 100 degree day. 3. Any of you guys ever see something that is heated and spontaneously cools on its own, just to reheat again at record levels? 4. No, because such things don't happen in the physical universe -- the phenomenon does not exist.

I bolded some stuff to above to reply to the post.

But I got blinded with psuedoscience.

OMG.
I humbly submit a question to the board:
Is this how the general public (Joe the Plumber)
thinks and believes?
Im serious.
This is scary.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I bolded some stuff to above to reply to the post.

But I got blinded with psuedoscience.

OMG.
I humbly submit a question to the board:
Is this how the general public (Joe the Plumber)
thinks and believes?
Im serious.
This is scary.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Whatever you guys do, call your congressman at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote AGAINST this bill.

Many of you already know what this is, so I'll keep this brief. The bill creates an artificial market with "carbon credits", the effect of which is to reward countries that don't produce any carbon dioxide, you know -- the naturally occurring gas that we breathe out and plants breathe in so they can make the oxygen we need. Our carbon dioxide is "capped" from cars, factories -- they can't stop us from exhaling yet, and we "buy carbon credits" from countries that produce nothing, so some third world countries will get big checks paid for from the increased energy bills that all of us in the United States will pay.

In addition, whether you believe in "Global Warming" or not, this will not help to reduce the worldwide output of CO2 since it is the Chinese who are putting up a new smokestack-type of power plant every 2 weeks. But it will cripple our economy unnecessarily since it is the power companies and us that will be punished. It is us who will not be able to afford to run our air conditioners or heat, for no reason but the errant thoughts of undereducated do-gooder liberals Congress.

By the way, as I write this, we in the Northeast are having one of the coolest starts to summer in recent memory, and last year was one where there was not one 100 degree day. Any of you guys ever see something that is heated and spontaneously cools on its own, just to reheat again at record levels? No, because such things don't happen in the physical universe -- the phenomenon does not exist.

I enjoy political discussions here and I do respect others who feel differently on the conservative versus liberal points of view. But this bill is that important to stop because the freedoms and lifestyle we all enjoy require access to affordable energy, and I think it's a cause we all share an interest in.

Joey..no offense..and this is cool..but I disagree with every single thing you wrote..that's hard to do, even for a Lefty/Righty arguement...Congrats

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Okay.
I read it again.

Nothing I read in the article refutes anything
I have read before. Or what I was planning to refute.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

OK..I'll bite..why is everything you disagree with the "Liberal Media" and everything you agree with the Washington Times, FOX News or The WSJ..obviously not media at all...I guess

[Danzig]

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-31282991_ITM



i can't help but wonder, after living thru warnings of impending doom from a soon to occur ice age, and now dealing with catastrophic warming, if these aren't just futile exercises of man attempting to control things that are really beyond his control?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-31282991_ITM



i can't help but wonder, after living thru warnings of impending doom from a soon to occur ice age, and now dealing with catastrophic warming, if these aren't just futile exercises of man attempting to control things that are really beyond his control?

Control..no? But if Joey, Timmi, Cannon or others really believe Global Warming is a huge hoax...a "Cottage Industry"..than there is no conversation.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Control..no? But if Joey, Timmi, Cannon or others really believe Global Warming is a huge hoax...a "Cottage Industry"..than there is no conversation.

But didn't you read the article? There are a whole 700 scientists worldwide estimated to be skeptics of man made global warming. I don't know what could be more conclusive. Oh, wait, I do, if there weren't 99% on the other side.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Control..no? But if Joey, Timmi, Cannon or others really believe Global Warming is a huge hoax...a "Cottage Industry"..than there is no conversation.

hoax might be the wrong word. i'm sure some scientists then believed in a looming ice age as much as some scientists now believe there is warming. the question is just how much we affect it for good or bad? we seem to think we are far more important than we really are, so i'd imagine we also think we play a far greater role in the grand scheme of things than we really do...
i also can't help but wonder if there isn't an agenda for some folks. one argument against fossil fuels is the pollution-what better way to convince everyone there's need to change to alternative energy than to say that continued use of what we're relying on now means the end of the world? i'm skeptical about the whole deal, mainly due to past actions-which is why i posted that link. we've been here before, only we were headed to a cold disaster, not a warm one. it seems, according to scientists, that whatever we're doing is wrong-we cause too much cold, and now too much heat. either way, i guess we're screwed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

But didn't you read the article? There are a whole 700 scientists worldwide estimated to be skeptics of man made global warming. I don't know what could be more conclusive. Oh, wait, I do, if there weren't 99% on the other side.

not a 'majority rules' argument??? i wonder if more would step forward if they didn't fear a backlash. galileo was right, but denied his own correct findings to avoid being burned at the stake.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Danzig

not a 'majority rules' argument??? i wonder if more would step forward if they didn't fear a backlash. galileo was right, but denied his own correct findings to avoid being burned at the stake.

You are really comparing the plight of the modern scientist to Galileo?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

You are really comparing the plight of the modern scientist to Galileo?

i mentioned galileo as an example of someone who was afraid to speak the truth-obviously i don't expect someone to be charged with heresy anymore.

you've heard the term safety in numbers, right? no one wants to be called a crackpot. more scientists are rethinking the whole global warming deal-who knows when thing will tilt in the other direction? if in a few years time, the majority of scientists said there's no man made global warming, will you be content with that? how much is science, and how much is jumping on the bandwagon? the fact that scientists change sides has got to make you wonder just how much real science is involved-at least it does me. science is supposed to be based on facts, not beliefs-which is probably why some call it the 'new religion'.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i mentioned galileo as an example of someone who was afraid to speak the truth-obviously i don't expect someone to be charged with heresy anymore.

you've heard the term safety in numbers, right? no one wants to be called a crackpot. more scientists are rethinking the whole global warming deal-who knows when thing will tilt in the other direction? if in a few years time, the majority of scientists said there's no man made global warming, will you be content with that? how much is science, and how much is jumping on the bandwagon? the fact that scientists change sides has got to make you wonder just how much real science is involved-at least it does me. science is supposed to be based on facts, not beliefs-which is probably why some call it the 'new religion'.

We are talking about 700 scientists worldwide!!!! Do you understand how small of a number that is? You can find far more than 700 people that don't believe we landed on the moon. And today's society is completely different than from in Galileo's time. Back then you were executed if you went against the common belief. Now the only way to make your name is to go against the common belief. And how about all the scientists that spoke up for man made global warming in the early days that were ridiculed by the media and turned out to be right? Weren't they also afraid of being called a crackpot (which many of them were)?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

not a 'majority rules' argument??? i wonder if more would step forward if they didn't fear a backlash. galileo was right, but denied his own correct findings to avoid being burned at the stake.

There are none to step forward..I bet that half the ones that did don't even believe what they are saying but are just doing it hoping for the PR. Arguing the dollars allocated for GW, allocated for windmills, etc is wrong is one thing,...arguing that it doesn't exist is like saying the Earth is flat...or maybe Columbus is still wrong...

There are people who like to stir the pot
because they want you to believe they are challenging
the status quo by innovative thought. And it is anything
but innovative, it is a purposeful attempt to go against
popular thought for the sake of the attempt, not because
they have crucial insight.


There are evolutionary biologists that refute
that populations of organisms change through time.

Originally Posted by joeydb
In addition,
1. whether you believe in "Global Warming" or not,

The Earth's average temperature has clearly increased over at least the past 50 years.

2. we in the Northeast are having one of the
coolest starts to summer in recent memoryand last year was one where there was not one 100 degree day.

We are having horrible droughts in Texas and it is much hotter and its only June.

You do not look at one place on the earth and make a declaration about the entire Earth, most of which is covered by water. My example is as silly as yours.

3. Any of you guys ever see something that is heated and spontaneously cools on its own, just to reheat again at record levels?

yes. When I turn my oven on it heats (electrical energy turned to heat energy). When I turn it off, it "spontaneously" loses heat to the surroundings in my house because the surroundings are at a lower temperature. There is a chance that my oven will get even hotter (after I turn it off)and that every atom with high kinetic energy (high temp) will gather in one spot within the oven. But it is incredibly improbable.

And what you are trying to say in the last part... I have not a clue. I will just add that the earth has clearly gone through hot and cold periods without God or man directing it to do so. What are you saying?

4. No, because such things don't happen in the physical universe -- the phenomenon does not exist.

WHAtttt?

What phenomenon does not exist?

[Danzig]

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02.


that's a line from the wsj article cannon posted...

Originally Posted by Danzig

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02.


that's a line from the wsj article cannon posted...

That inconvenient truth is what is happening in one particular layer
of the earth's atmosphere. So it is accurate. But other layers lead
to a diff. picture. And for at least the last 50 years the earth's average
atmospheric temperature has gone up.

The author should stick to the argument that the cap and trade
does nothing to effect climate change. Picking a time period showing
relative stability in one layer is disingenious imo, especially when particulate
pollutants (which have increased) in that layer might play a major role in the convenient time period chosen.