Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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.
And, lastly, if every scientist in the world were to reduce his or her carbon emission to zero, it would make no measurable differance.
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?
Because cap & trade is a market based solution.
Yeah and a bad one...
1) allows a company to emit as much CO2 as it can afford.
Yeah and the fact you do not see a problem with it shows you are a zealot as well as an idiot.... What will be the motivation to stop emitting then? If they can invest in the market with it and get it all back with careful trading, speculation, and partnering with those whom are at the opposite end of the spectrum... Answer? There won't be any motivation to stop emitting you imbecile!
2) allows a company who takes action to reduce its emissions to profit directly
And allows them to profit even greater if they don't through the same kind of tactics perfected on wall street you moron!
3) causes money to flow into green technologies through market forces
BULLSHIT!!! what will be the motivation? History shows how people with money in a market will behave.... Greed serves no master other than itself, and this will be no different
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?
Al Gore isn't in the scientific community you fucking dolt.
AL GORE uses bullshit disguised as science to try and push this agenda you lying little POS!
And it's so nice to see you are starting to recognize the fraud for what it is.
And it's so nice to see you are starting to recognize the fraud for what it is.
You're not trying hard enough. You need to repeat "AGW is a fraud" at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to make it true.
my post indicates i believe what they know has been rendered moot by a focus to cuff a commodity with the blame.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
gslack, a reasonably effective pollutant exchange affected revenue and investment in pollutant control resulting in the measurable decrease in pollution.
such an exchange is, in my opinion, a superior solution to regulation or taxation alone. while polluters will pollute through a tax measure by way of your "greed serves no master", they are more likely to adopt policies or implement technologies to mitigate pollution given the opportunity to profit from their competitor's inaction on the same.
the idea extends beyond emplacing an exchange stateside to ensnaring participants from more emissive countries. china is our focus, no doubt, as we were the focus of europe and their kyoto cap and trade.
environment is now a concern of the past by way of the spotlight turning to a concern with less anthropological and biological consequence than it bears financial reward.
what about toxins and pollutants? these issues have taken the back seat to what i know to be non-toxic affectors on the environment.
environment is now a concern of the past by way of the spotlight turning to a concern with less anthropological and biological consequence than it bears financial reward.
what about toxins and pollutants? these issues have taken the back seat to what i know to be non-toxic affectors on the environment.
This is absolutely right.
My primary environmental concern right now is the heavy metals that are being dumped in the ocean - mercury et al. Such has extremely long term implications and seems to be entirely off the radar screen as a concern right now.
If our government was addressing that and putting pressure on the International community to follow suit, they could accomplish something truly wonderful for humankind and I think every one of us skeptics would be on board.
environment is now a concern of the past by way of the spotlight turning to a concern with less anthropological and biological consequence than it bears financial reward.
what about toxins and pollutants? these issues have taken the back seat to what i know to be non-toxic affectors on the environment.
This is absolutely right.
My primary environmental concern right now is the heavy metals that are being dumped in the ocean - mercury et al. Such has extremely long term implications and seems to be entirely off the radar screen as a concern right now.
If our government was addressing that and putting pressure on the International community to follow suit, they could accomplish something truly wonderful for humankind and I think every one of us skeptics would be on board.
Those things, general pollution, the genetic engineering of flora by various companies, waste management, and various other much more harmful points are the real problem we should be addressing. But sadly no one wants to talk about them anymore. THey would rather tax a natural trace gas and keep right on going.....
This is absolutely right.
My primary environmental concern right now is the heavy metals that are being dumped in the ocean - mercury et al. Such has extremely long term implications and seems to be entirely off the radar screen as a concern right now.
If our government was addressing that and putting pressure on the International community to follow suit, they could accomplish something truly wonderful for humankind and I think every one of us skeptics would be on board.
Those things, general pollution, the genetic engineering of flora by various companies, waste management, and various other much more harmful points are the real problem we should be addressing. But sadly no one wants to talk about them anymore. THey would rather tax a natural trace gas and keep right on going.....
I guess there just isn't enough money in cleaning up the real threats.
No. You need to prove ONCE that it is true, Tuber. Your attempts in the past have been shown to be based on lies, fraud and misleading theories.And it's so nice to see you are starting to recognize the fraud for what it is.
You're not trying hard enough. You need to repeat "AGW is a fraud" at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to make it true.
Ooohhh BAM! throw that lib chestnut in their faces why don't ya?Those things, general pollution, the genetic engineering of flora by various companies, waste management, and various other much more harmful points are the real problem we should be addressing. But sadly no one wants to talk about them anymore. THey would rather tax a natural trace gas and keep right on going.....
I guess there just isn't enough money in cleaning up the real threats.
Just like medicine there is no money in a cure, only in the treatment....
Ooohhh BAM! throw that lib chestnut in their faces why don't ya?I guess there just isn't enough money in cleaning up the real threats.
Just like medicine there is no money in a cure, only in the treatment....
gslack, a reasonably effective pollutant exchange affected revenue and investment in pollutant control resulting in the measurable decrease in pollution.
such an exchange is, in my opinion, a superior solution to regulation or taxation alone. while polluters will pollute through a tax measure by way of your "greed serves no master", they are more likely to adopt policies or implement technologies to mitigate pollution given the opportunity to profit from their competitor's inaction on the same.
the idea extends beyond emplacing an exchange stateside to ensnaring participants from more emissive countries. china is our focus, no doubt, as we were the focus of europe and their kyoto cap and trade.
Good points... I do not agree completely but simply because the way the entire thing is set up by the same people pushing the theory itself. If a system were set up which would make them push to be rid of fossil fuel use, and keep speculators, government officials with an inside track, and various other self serving interests out, i would consider it.
But sadly this is not the case and further, I do not see how it could happen today.. The fact is most big oil and coal has already bought into this system. They and the others who got in at the first stages will be basis of this structure. They represent both the biggest money and the largest users of the credits themselves.
If say exxon decides to import less or refine less they will have a bit of spare CO2 emissions to trade. At this same time the lowered amount of oil or gas produced by one of the largest producers on the planet, will force the supply and demand standard of raising the price of oil or gas. So when they do go back to peak efficiency they have a surplus ready to flood the market with. Now those spare CO2 emissions they had? Well they could have traded them on the market for cash or through smart trading could have gotten even more credits from them as supply was decreased, carbon credits on the market would also increase. And again would drop in value. now they have carbon credits to allow them to pump out as much gas and oil as they need to before the prime rate drops again from the flooding of the market.
So say that took place over a year... In that year did they actually decrease emissions or did they just stagger the emissions to a short and long period? Not only do I believe they could have done that, but I also contend they could quite feasibly end up dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere because of careful manipulation of supply of the product (oil), and the market related to effects of that product (cap and trade)...
There is no safe way to regulate a market reliant on the very thing its designed to combat... its just not logical nor is it reasonable to assume so in my opinion...
OnlyYour attempts in the past have been shown to be based on lies, fraud and misleading theories.And it's so nice to see you are starting to recognize the fraud for what it is.
You're not trying hard enough. You need to repeat "AGW is a fraud" at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to make it true.
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?
And its hilarious you would accuse me of being a fraud, when you think Al Gore is a member of the scientific community
OnlyYour attempts in the past have been shown to be based on lies, fraud and misleading theories.You're not trying hard enough. You need to repeat "AGW is a fraud" at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to make it true.
9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 more to go!
And its hilarious you would accuse me of being a fraud, when you think Al Gore is a member of the scientific community
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?
Where did Al get is PhD from? How many climate related peer reviewed scientific papers has he published? Can you direct me to one?
