CAP AND TRADE - Coming to your state soon?

[SpidermanTuba]

No tub old boy.

As usual you ignore the comment and come up with an unrelated point. CO2 regulations have no mechanism for pollution reduction. That is about as simple as I can make for a astrophysisicist such as yourself.

Uhhh, yes they do. That is about as simple as I can make it for a ward of the state such as yourself.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The MTBE was used as a replacement for LEAD in the gasoline you fool. You can't seriously be proposing that the environmental problems caused by MTBE are worse than those caused by LEADED gasoline. If so you're way way way dumber than I thought. So much dumber than I thought, its causing me to doubt my own intelligence.

Because this isn't about pollution control.

Remember MTBE? It is a carcinogenic byproduct of the crude oil cracking process and it costs a ton of money to get rid of. Well a chemist at Chevron figured out that you could use it to oxygenate gasoline to clean up air emissions. Chevron lobbied the California legislature and the legislature passed very strict rules pertaining to the oxygenation of gasoline.

The net result was Chevron was now REQUIRED to use MTBE to oxygenate gasoline and a byproduct that had been a pain in the ass to deal with was now a profitable additive. The problems began almost immediately. Older cars started burning up at a alarming rate. In the Bay Area (where I lived at the time) it was not uncommon to hear about three carbeques in any one traffic report. The problem was finally pinpointed as the MTBE which in addition to be a carcinogen was found (actually they knew all along) to be very caustic as well and was eating the fuel systems up in the older cars.

Additionally it was found that the MTBE was polluting the groundwater. And to make matters worse it was far more difficult to get out of the groundwater than they ever imagined. So finally the California Air Resources Board was required to listen to the scientists who had warned them all along that this was going to happen and they removed MTBE as an oxygenate. But by then the damage had been done. Thousands of water wells around the state of California and Nevada have been closed because they are poisoned by the very additive that did indeed clean the air but at a terrible cost.

Years from now people are going to start keeling over from the poisoned water but hey that's OK, Chevron made enough in that ten year period to pay all the lawsuits that are sure to follow...they hope.

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

 

[westwall]

Actually MTBE was one of several lead replacements that were TESTED (though you wouldn't understand that concept) in small amounts as a anti-knock compound starting in either 1978 or 79 I can't remember the exact year.

Lead was still in use in gasoline till 1995 but MTBE was used as an oxygenate in large quantities starting in 1992. However it was then discovered in wells in Santa Monica in 1995 and the state was forced to withdraw MTBE from gasoline starting in 1999. In the meantime as stated previously thousands of additional wells were found to be contaminated.

And yes MTBE is much worse than lead you halfwit. It took 35 years (and you can thank Clair Patterson a research associate in geology at Cal Tech for this) for the true effects of lead to be discovered and the primary effect is to reduce the intelligence of exposed children. On the other hand the negative effects of MTBE were so pronounced that it only took 5 years for the powers that be to get it removed. And then of course there is the simple fact that MTBE will KILL you. So smart guy you tell me. Which is worse, death or reduced intellect.

Lead is also much easier to remove from water whereas MTBE is virtually impossible to remove. MTBE once again wins in the negative impact battle.

Care to try again?

The MTBE was used as a replacement for LEAD in the gasoline you fool. You can't seriously be proposing that the environmental problems caused by MTBE are worse than those caused by LEADED gasoline. If so you're way way way dumber than I thought. So much dumber than I thought, its causing me to doubt my own intelligence.

Because this isn't about pollution control.

Remember MTBE? It is a carcinogenic byproduct of the crude oil cracking process and it costs a ton of money to get rid of. Well a chemist at Chevron figured out that you could use it to oxygenate gasoline to clean up air emissions. Chevron lobbied the California legislature and the legislature passed very strict rules pertaining to the oxygenation of gasoline.

The net result was Chevron was now REQUIRED to use MTBE to oxygenate gasoline and a byproduct that had been a pain in the ass to deal with was now a profitable additive. The problems began almost immediately. Older cars started burning up at a alarming rate. In the Bay Area (where I lived at the time) it was not uncommon to hear about three carbeques in any one traffic report. The problem was finally pinpointed as the MTBE which in addition to be a carcinogen was found (actually they knew all along) to be very caustic as well and was eating the fuel systems up in the older cars.

Additionally it was found that the MTBE was polluting the groundwater. And to make matters worse it was far more difficult to get out of the groundwater than they ever imagined. So finally the California Air Resources Board was required to listen to the scientists who had warned them all along that this was going to happen and they removed MTBE as an oxygenate. But by then the damage had been done. Thousands of water wells around the state of California and Nevada have been closed because they are poisoned by the very additive that did indeed clean the air but at a terrible cost.

Years from now people are going to start keeling over from the poisoned water but hey that's OK, Chevron made enough in that ten year period to pay all the lawsuits that are sure to follow...they hope.

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

 

[antagon]

Because this isn't about pollution control.

Remember MTBE? It is a carcinogenic byproduct of the crude oil cracking process and it costs a ton of money to get rid of. Well a chemist at Chevron figured out that you could use it to oxygenate gasoline to clean up air emissions. Chevron lobbied the California legislature and the legislature passed very strict rules pertaining to the oxygenation of gasoline.

The net result was Chevron was now REQUIRED to use MTBE to oxygenate gasoline and a byproduct that had been a pain in the ass to deal with was now a profitable additive. The problems began almost immediately. Older cars started burning up at a alarming rate. In the Bay Area (where I lived at the time) it was not uncommon to hear about three carbeques in any one traffic report. The problem was finally pinpointed as the MTBE which in addition to be a carcinogen was found (actually they knew all along) to be very caustic as well and was eating the fuel systems up in the older cars.

Additionally it was found that the MTBE was polluting the groundwater. And to make matters worse it was far more difficult to get out of the groundwater than they ever imagined. So finally the California Air Resources Board was required to listen to the scientists who had warned them all along that this was going to happen and they removed MTBE as an oxygenate. But by then the damage had been done. Thousands of water wells around the state of California and Nevada have been closed because they are poisoned by the very additive that did indeed clean the air but at a terrible cost.

Years from now people are going to start keeling over from the poisoned water but hey that's OK, Chevron made enough in that ten year period to pay all the lawsuits that are sure to follow...they hope.

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

its not about pollution control, per sa. it is not a chemical additive system either.

 

[westwall]

And if you look at the regulations it isn't about pollution control either. The only thing that the regs do very well is drain your bank account and give it to a bunch of allready wealty people who want to get richer...off of your back.

Because this isn't about pollution control.

Remember MTBE? It is a carcinogenic byproduct of the crude oil cracking process and it costs a ton of money to get rid of. Well a chemist at Chevron figured out that you could use it to oxygenate gasoline to clean up air emissions. Chevron lobbied the California legislature and the legislature passed very strict rules pertaining to the oxygenation of gasoline.

The net result was Chevron was now REQUIRED to use MTBE to oxygenate gasoline and a byproduct that had been a pain in the ass to deal with was now a profitable additive. The problems began almost immediately. Older cars started burning up at a alarming rate. In the Bay Area (where I lived at the time) it was not uncommon to hear about three carbeques in any one traffic report. The problem was finally pinpointed as the MTBE which in addition to be a carcinogen was found (actually they knew all along) to be very caustic as well and was eating the fuel systems up in the older cars.

Additionally it was found that the MTBE was polluting the groundwater. And to make matters worse it was far more difficult to get out of the groundwater than they ever imagined. So finally the California Air Resources Board was required to listen to the scientists who had warned them all along that this was going to happen and they removed MTBE as an oxygenate. But by then the damage had been done. Thousands of water wells around the state of California and Nevada have been closed because they are poisoned by the very additive that did indeed clean the air but at a terrible cost.

Years from now people are going to start keeling over from the poisoned water but hey that's OK, Chevron made enough in that ten year period to pay all the lawsuits that are sure to follow...they hope.

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

its not about pollution control, per sa. it is not a chemical additive system either.

 

[gslack]

Actually MTBE was one of several lead replacements that were TESTED (though you wouldn't understand that concept) in small amounts as a anti-knock compound starting in either 1978 or 79 I can't remember the exact year.

Lead was still in use in gasoline till 1995 but MTBE was used as an oxygenate in large quantities starting in 1992. However it was then discovered in wells in Santa Monica in 1995 and the state was forced to withdraw MTBE from gasoline starting in 1999. In the meantime as stated previously thousands of additional wells were found to be contaminated.

And yes MTBE is much worse than lead you halfwit. It took 35 years (and you can thank Clair Patterson a research associate in geology at Cal Tech for this) for the true effects of lead to be discovered and the primary effect is to reduce the intelligence of exposed children. On the other hand the negative effects of MTBE were so pronounced that it only took 5 years for the powers that be to get it removed. And then of course there is the simple fact that MTBE will KILL you. So smart guy you tell me. Which is worse, death or reduced intellect.

Lead is also much easier to remove from water whereas MTBE is virtually impossible to remove. MTBE once again wins in the negative impact battle.

Care to try again?

The MTBE was used as a replacement for LEAD in the gasoline you fool. You can't seriously be proposing that the environmental problems caused by MTBE are worse than those caused by LEADED gasoline. If so you're way way way dumber than I thought. So much dumber than I thought, its causing me to doubt my own intelligence.

Because this isn't about pollution control.

Remember MTBE? It is a carcinogenic byproduct of the crude oil cracking process and it costs a ton of money to get rid of. Well a chemist at Chevron figured out that you could use it to oxygenate gasoline to clean up air emissions. Chevron lobbied the California legislature and the legislature passed very strict rules pertaining to the oxygenation of gasoline.

The net result was Chevron was now REQUIRED to use MTBE to oxygenate gasoline and a byproduct that had been a pain in the ass to deal with was now a profitable additive. The problems began almost immediately. Older cars started burning up at a alarming rate. In the Bay Area (where I lived at the time) it was not uncommon to hear about three carbeques in any one traffic report. The problem was finally pinpointed as the MTBE which in addition to be a carcinogen was found (actually they knew all along) to be very caustic as well and was eating the fuel systems up in the older cars.

Additionally it was found that the MTBE was polluting the groundwater. And to make matters worse it was far more difficult to get out of the groundwater than they ever imagined. So finally the California Air Resources Board was required to listen to the scientists who had warned them all along that this was going to happen and they removed MTBE as an oxygenate. But by then the damage had been done. Thousands of water wells around the state of California and Nevada have been closed because they are poisoned by the very additive that did indeed clean the air but at a terrible cost.

Years from now people are going to start keeling over from the poisoned water but hey that's OK, Chevron made enough in that ten year period to pay all the lawsuits that are sure to follow...they hope.

West I must commend you for the level of patience, and amount of effort you have put into trying to educate people like SpidermanTubby, konradv, oldrocks and the many socks and proxies that come with them.

I used to try a bit harder to maintain civility and decorum with people like that, but here lately I just have very little desire or patience with them. To me, They and their ilk show no more genuine desire to know or actually learn than the average cucumber in my wifes garden.

I have 3 children, and by the time each of them were 9 years old, they came to me with logical and concise reasons why they were longer going to buy into Santa Claus. They told me they would play along for the sake of getting along, but it was just an ignorant belief and they knew better. The reason they did this? Because they were smart for one thing, and because they were taught from a young age to question everything and take nothing at face value. Even and especially their father. They knew by that age, all the good intentions in the world amount to nothing if the actions do not reflect the same purity.

Today, of those 3 children I have 3 national honors society students, 1 starts Notre Dame in the fall, 1 is second in a class of over 2500, and the last one is well on her way to surpassing the other two... They didn't get there from some higher intellect naturally or some genetic gift. They got there because of their own work ethic, and the desire to actually KNOW truth, and question everything at all times.

So when I see ignorance and deliberate blind devotion to a cause like this, and then see the way these willfully ignorant people support it no matter what the truth tells them, I lose patience with them. They do not want education or knowledge, they want to play the good guys fighting a make -believe bad guy. Every bit of education these types get is wasted.

They take a simple concept like Greenhouse Gas Theory, which in that theory HELPS to keep the planet warm, and turn it into the reason we have a warm planet. And in so doing create the Monster for their make-believe bad guys to sick on them. The theory used to claim it helped keep the planet warm but now the media, agenda driven scientists on grant money to prove this, and government officials and elites who want to tax people on life itself and seal their control over the world, have turned this simple theory into the only reason the planet could possibly warm up and a planet killer.

These types are same people who awarded the woman 25 million for burning her leg on McDonald's coffee back in the 90's. These are the types who made OJ Not Guilty. They were the reason it took 2 trials to convict the Menendez brothers. They are the same people who told us "we didn't know" in Germany when the atrocities came to light... Sure some were educated, sure some were conscientious, but most of them were willfully ignorant and deliberately blind to the reality around them.

After 21 years of working with various numbers of these types in the government, I am now a private contractor and can speak my mind to an extent. And now I have zero tolerance, and zero patience with them. They cannot learn because they choose to see in one dimension only. You can teach them numbers and processes, but the most of them you cannot teach to want to understand them. They do not want education, they want the benefits of having an education. They do not want knowledge, they want to be recognized as having knowledge. And most dangerous of all to the world, they do not want to learn or think, they want to be told what is what and how to think to keep the show alive....

The fact you still have the tolerance and patience to deal with them the way you continue to do, speaks loads of your character. I commend you sir. it will be people like you who will have to save this planet from the droves of the virtual educations and virtual knowledge drones being churned out now.

Excellent work westwall, and good to know you!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And yes MTBE is much worse than lead you halfwit.

You're full of so much crap you might want to have BP standing ready in case you blow. Lead pollution from combustion comes out of the tailpipe and into the air. MTBE doesn't do this, it only gets into the environment when its improperly handled.

When lead was phased out, the mean blood lead level dropped from 13 μg/dL in 1976 to only 3 μg/dL in 1991. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7688/abstract.html

How much MTBE is in our blood?

 

[gslack]

And yes MTBE is much worse than lead you halfwit.

You're full of so much crap you might want to have BP standing ready in case you blow. Lead pollution from combustion comes out of the tailpipe and into the air. MTBE doesn't do this, it only gets into the environment when its improperly handled.

When lead was phased out, the mean blood lead level dropped from 13 μg/dL in 1976 to only 3 μg/dL in 1991. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7688/abstract.html

How much MTBE is in our blood?

Your link doesn't work..... Speaking of links where is your link on the 80% claim you made..... Don't have one do ya..... Pulled that number out of your ass huh... Yeah we know, we know......

Now try real hard to not be an idiot and actually debate what HE DOES say instead of trying to argue what he DIDN'T SAY..

 

[Big Fitz]

In fact SO2 and NO emissions were reduced by cap and trade.

Crap and tax hasn't been enacted yet, moron.

Cap and trade has been used for SO2 and NO emissions since 1990. I would highly suggest that you learn the basic facts related to the argument you are in before you go off calling other people names, that way you avoid looking like the total and complete utter brain dead poser you are.

No SO2, no Methane, no CO2, no NO, no this, no that, no dyes, no flavors, no added sugar, no caffeine...

Jeebus! Just QUIT it already will ya?

Why are you talking to yourself?

Just speaking to the sentient beings in the room, not the vegetables.... tuber.

 

[antagon]

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

because history's track record has shown that often the regulation's worse than the disease.

ideally you take those whose fervent optimism lies in acts of government, and those whose paranoid pessimism is skeptical of these acts, and they come to balanced policy conclusions that people like me who are cautiously optimistic and pragmatically skeptical could endorse, whole-heartedly. the issue is that your chicken littles cant run a campaign and have exiled themselves from politics. now, whatever the governmentoptimists want, is the law of the land.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

because history's track record has shown that often the regulation's worse than the disease.

ideally you take those whose fervent optimism lies in acts of government, and those whose paranoid pessimism is skeptical of these acts, and they come to balanced policy conclusions that people like me who are cautiously optimistic and pragmatically skeptical could endorse, whole-heartedly. the issue is that your chicken littles cant run a campaign and have exiled themselves from politics. now, whatever the governmentoptimists want, is the law of the land.

You sound like a paranoid pessimist to me.

 

[antagon]

fervent optimist, here. card holding. just not a government-based fervent optimist. too skeptical.

 

[westwall]

Oh toober you make me laugh. Yes lead is bad for you, yes it used to come out of the tailpipes of cars and you know what? It did so for decades. Were people harmed?Probably, but we don't know for sure (though you may be an example of that harm). Is it good that lead is no longer being used in gasoline? Absolutely! Why risk harming people if it is not neccessary. Did people die from lead poisoning after all those decades of exposure? So far as anyone can tell.... nope.

Now let's look at MTBE. Is it in your bloodstream? Well it had sure better not be because if it is you're going to be very sick. When the MTBE was used in CA it was detected in the bloodstream of people and they were suffering from all sorts of maladies. Many people had to leave the state to get well and this is all well documented. How many people had to leave LA because of lead in the air?

MTBE was not used improperly. It was stored in proper containers and was transported in approved containers....it just proved too caustic to be contained by the normal tanks then in use. Did lead ever do that? Nope........gas with lead in it just motored right along for over 90 years with no problems at all.

So junior. Go home, read something other than wikipedia. And when you've grown up a little more you can come back and tell the class what you've learned.

And yes MTBE is much worse than lead you halfwit.

You're full of so much crap you might want to have BP standing ready in case you blow. Lead pollution from combustion comes out of the tailpipe and into the air. MTBE doesn't do this, it only gets into the environment when its improperly handled.

When lead was phased out, the mean blood lead level dropped from 13 μg/dL in 1976 to only 3 μg/dL in 1991. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7688/abstract.html

How much MTBE is in our blood?

 

[Foxfyre]

Just checking in here. Very interesting discussions in progress.

As a bonafide AGW skeptic, I have read so much stuff from both sides of the debate it sort of all runs together in my head after awhile.

But putting it all into perspective, given the obvious personal motives along with flaws and outright occasional fabrication from some on the pro AGW side and the what appears to be mostly lack of personal motive from the skeptics side, I am convinced that so far the skeptics have made the more compelling argument. I'm speaking of those in the scientific community and not necessarily those of us here on USMB.

And for me, the most compelling questions these days are:

1. If CO2 is so dangerous and bad, why doesn't the government just restrict its production outright rather than pushing a Cap & Trade scheme that enriches certain people, impoverishes others, while not reducing any emissions at all?

2. If CO2 is so frightening, why aren't those in the 'scientific' community, such as Al Gore, actually walking the walk as well as talking big talk?

 

[antagon]

Just checking in here. Very interesting discussions in progress.

As a bonafide AGW skeptic, I have read so much stuff from both sides of the debate it sort of all runs together in my head after awhile.

But putting it all into perspective, given the obvious personal motives along with flaws and outright occasional fabrication from some on the pro AGW side and the what appears to be mostly lack of personal motive from the skeptics side, I am convinced that so far the skeptics have made the more compelling argument. I'm speaking of those in the scientific community and not necessarily those of us here on USMB.

And for me, the most compelling questions these days are:

1. If CO2 is so dangerous and bad, why doesn't the government just restrict its production outright rather than pushing a Cap & Trade scheme that enriches certain people, impoverishes others, while not reducing any emissions at all?

2. If CO2 is so frightening, why aren't those in the 'scientific' community, such as Al Gore, actually walking the walk as well as talking big talk?

the focus on CO2 is the real trademark of the hands moving the policy. there are human inputs to the environment which have negative effects on the atmosphere, water, and earth, indeed. i think that real environmental studies that focus on the actual issues at play suffer dearly from the bullshit. al gore, no doubt is the celeb in the mix, and the money for research which he's raised directly or indirectly leaves that trace: CO2.

as someone with a chemistry background, the idea that CO2 is the villain in the environment is preposterous. it is one of the compounds our earth is best adapted to cope with biologically and chemically. it is non-toxic. alternatively, as i'd espoused earlier, the indications for commoditizing carbon are robust. the mechanism proposed is proven. the outlook for multinational pollutant commodity markets is healthy.

to complement your questions, fox, i ask, why cant politicians be more honest about what they're trying to do? the shit is blatant as hell.

why cant they enable real environmental research, instead of forcing the issue of single-commodity research? if there's to be such an exchange, couldn't groundwater polluters be enrolled?

i'm no humbug to future trends, however, one of those trends is an end of the patronizing and pandersome politics gore ran for president with. that is all over this legislation as if americans are too stupid to tell what's clearly going on.

 

[westwall]

The politicians no longer care about the "truth" they only want to profit from their time in government..please show me just one honest politician who is not out to line their pocket.

These are some of my favourite qutes about politics in general.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Bean

"Giving money and power to the government is like giving car keys and whisky to teenage boys."
"When politics are used to allocate resources, the resources all end up being allocated to politics."
"Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without possessing merit. A politician is anyone who asks individuals to surrender part of their liberty -- their power and privilege -- to State, Masses, Mankind, Planet Earth, or whatever. This state, those masses, that mankind, and the planet will then be run by ... politicians."
"God has no role to play in politics except to make sure politicians go where they belong. To hell." All from P.J. O'Rourke

"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." Judge Gideon Tucker

"This country has come to feel the same when congress is in session as when a baby gets hold of a hammer."
"It is awful hard to get people interested in corruption unless they can get some of it."
"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."
"A politician is just like a pickpocket; it's almost impossible to get him to reform." Will Rogers of course.

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
"We have the best congress money can buy."
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Sam Clemens

"The problem with political jokes is they get elected." Henry Cate

I think you get the idea!



OTE=antagon;2277478]

Just checking in here. Very interesting discussions in progress.

As a bonafide AGW skeptic, I have read so much stuff from both sides of the debate it sort of all runs together in my head after awhile.

But putting it all into perspective, given the obvious personal motives along with flaws and outright occasional fabrication from some on the pro AGW side and the what appears to be mostly lack of personal motive from the skeptics side, I am convinced that so far the skeptics have made the more compelling argument. I'm speaking of those in the scientific community and not necessarily those of us here on USMB.

And for me, the most compelling questions these days are:

1. If CO2 is so dangerous and bad, why doesn't the government just restrict its production outright rather than pushing a Cap & Trade scheme that enriches certain people, impoverishes others, while not reducing any emissions at all?

2. If CO2 is so frightening, why aren't those in the 'scientific' community, such as Al Gore, actually walking the walk as well as talking big talk?

the focus on CO2 is the real trademark of the hands moving the policy. there are human inputs to the environment which have negative effects on the atmosphere, water, and earth, indeed. i think that real environmental studies that focus on the actual issues at play suffer dearly from the bullshit. al gore, no doubt is the celeb in the mix, and the money for research which he's raised directly or indirectly leaves that trace: CO2.

as someone with a chemistry background, the idea that CO2 is the villain in the environment is preposterous. it is one of the compounds our earth is best adapted to cope with biologically and chemically. it is non-toxic. alternatively, as i'd espoused earlier, the indications for commoditizing carbon are robust. the mechanism proposed is proven. the outlook for multinational pollutant commodity markets is healthy.

to complement your questions, fox, i ask, why cant politicians be more honest about what they're trying to do? the shit is blatant as hell.

why cant they enable real environmental research, instead of forcing the issue of single-commodity research? if there's to be such an exchange, couldn't groundwater polluters be enrolled?

i'm no humbug to future trends, however, one of those trends is an end of the patronizing and pandersome politics gore ran for president with. that is all over this legislation as if americans are too stupid to tell what's clearly going on.[/QUOTE]

 

[gslack]

Just checking in here. Very interesting discussions in progress.

As a bonafide AGW skeptic, I have read so much stuff from both sides of the debate it sort of all runs together in my head after awhile.

But putting it all into perspective, given the obvious personal motives along with flaws and outright occasional fabrication from some on the pro AGW side and the what appears to be mostly lack of personal motive from the skeptics side, I am convinced that so far the skeptics have made the more compelling argument. I'm speaking of those in the scientific community and not necessarily those of us here on USMB.

And for me, the most compelling questions these days are:

1. If CO2 is so dangerous and bad, why doesn't the government just restrict its production outright rather than pushing a Cap & Trade scheme that enriches certain people, impoverishes others, while not reducing any emissions at all?

2. If CO2 is so frightening, why aren't those in the 'scientific' community, such as Al Gore, actually walking the walk as well as talking big talk?

the focus on CO2 is the real trademark of the hands moving the policy. there are human inputs to the environment which have negative effects on the atmosphere, water, and earth, indeed. i think that real environmental studies that focus on the actual issues at play suffer dearly from the bullshit. al gore, no doubt is the celeb in the mix, and the money for research which he's raised directly or indirectly leaves that trace: CO2.

as someone with a chemistry background, the idea that CO2 is the villain in the environment is preposterous. it is one of the compounds our earth is best adapted to cope with biologically and chemically. it is non-toxic. alternatively, as i'd espoused earlier, the indications for commoditizing carbon are robust. the mechanism proposed is proven. the outlook for multinational pollutant commodity markets is healthy.

to complement your questions, fox, i ask, why cant politicians be more honest about what they're trying to do? the shit is blatant as hell.

why cant they enable real environmental research, instead of forcing the issue of single-commodity research? if there's to be such an exchange, couldn't groundwater polluters be enrolled?

i'm no humbug to future trends, however, one of those trends is an end of the patronizing and pandersome politics gore ran for president with. that is all over this legislation as if americans are too stupid to tell what's clearly going on.

BINGO! nice post Antagon....

 

[Big Fitz]

to complement your questions, fox, i ask, why cant politicians be more honest about what they're trying to do? the shit is blatant as hell.

why cant they enable real environmental research, instead of forcing the issue of single-commodity research? if there's to be such an exchange, couldn't groundwater polluters be enrolled?

i'm no humbug to future trends, however, one of those trends is an end of the patronizing and pandersome politics gore ran for president with. that is all over this legislation as if americans are too stupid to tell what's clearly going on.

Good set of questions. All answered by one sentence: "Human nature, is inherently skewed towards evil."

Unless you teach people the concepts of morals, ethics and goodness, it does not exist in their hearts and actions. Plus if they feel there is no consequence for any evil acts, they feel no impetus to do what is right.

I also believe that people often let their enlightened self interest get the better of them (see human nature). Although it is a good thing to get the best deal and most advantage under the rules, if it comes at the expense of truth, ethics and morality, it is far worse than ignorance or obstinance.

I do hope you're right with your prediction and we do see a swing away from that political smarminess of 2000. My hope is that the American people, or enough of them to do something, step forward to retrieve this nation from the jaws of encroaching fascism and vote for character, ethics and plain speaking. I have my doubts as of right now, but my hopes are higher than they ever have been, purely because the alternative is so deadly bad.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just checking in here. Very interesting discussions in progress.

As a bonafide AGW skeptic, I have read so much stuff from both sides of the debate it sort of all runs together in my head after awhile.

But putting it all into perspective, given the obvious personal motives along with flaws and outright occasional fabrication from some on the pro AGW side and the what appears to be mostly lack of personal motive from the skeptics side, I am convinced that so far the skeptics have made the more compelling argument. I'm speaking of those in the scientific community and not necessarily those of us here on USMB.

And for me, the most compelling questions these days are:

1. If CO2 is so dangerous and bad, why doesn't the government just restrict its production outright rather than pushing a Cap & Trade scheme that enriches certain people, impoverishes others, while not reducing any emissions at all?

Well, I would be all for that. But there is no way that you would ever pass that. And Cap and Trade has been shown to work to some extent with sulphate emissions.

2. If CO2 is so frightening, why aren't those in the 'scientific' community, such as Al Gore, actually walking the walk as well as talking big talk?

First, Gore is not in the scientific community. He is a politician, and very successful businessman. Secondly, after fighting the covenants in his neighborhood, he was able to install solar panels to help power his big mansion, which also serves as headquarters for some of his businesses and organizations.

And, lastly, if every scientist in the world were to reduce his or her carbon emission to zero, it would make no measurable differance.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just checking in here. Very interesting discussions in progress.

As a bonafide AGW skeptic, I have read so much stuff from both sides of the debate it sort of all runs together in my head after awhile.

But putting it all into perspective, given the obvious personal motives along with flaws and outright occasional fabrication from some on the pro AGW side and the what appears to be mostly lack of personal motive from the skeptics side, I am convinced that so far the skeptics have made the more compelling argument. I'm speaking of those in the scientific community and not necessarily those of us here on USMB.

And for me, the most compelling questions these days are:

1. If CO2 is so dangerous and bad, why doesn't the government just restrict its production outright rather than pushing a Cap & Trade scheme that enriches certain people, impoverishes others, while not reducing any emissions at all?

2. If CO2 is so frightening, why aren't those in the 'scientific' community, such as Al Gore, actually walking the walk as well as talking big talk?

the focus on CO2 is the real trademark of the hands moving the policy. there are human inputs to the environment which have negative effects on the atmosphere, water, and earth, indeed. i think that real environmental studies that focus on the actual issues at play suffer dearly from the bullshit. al gore, no doubt is the celeb in the mix, and the money for research which he's raised directly or indirectly leaves that trace: CO2.

as someone with a chemistry background, the idea that CO2 is the villain in the environment is preposterous. it is one of the compounds our earth is best adapted to cope with biologically and chemically. it is non-toxic. alternatively, as i'd espoused earlier, the indications for commoditizing carbon are robust. the mechanism proposed is proven. the outlook for multinational pollutant commodity markets is healthy.

to complement your questions, fox, i ask, why cant politicians be more honest about what they're trying to do? the shit is blatant as hell.

why cant they enable real environmental research, instead of forcing the issue of single-commodity research? if there's to be such an exchange, couldn't groundwater polluters be enrolled?

i'm no humbug to future trends, however, one of those trends is an end of the patronizing and pandersome politics gore ran for president with. that is all over this legislation as if americans are too stupid to tell what's clearly going on.

I see. And you know so much more than these people.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).[28]




The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect