Quote :

"US won't drop cap-and-trade auctions: White House WASHINGTON (AFP) — The White House is committed to auctioning off polluter permits under a "cap-and-trade" system to fight climate change, a top official said Thursday in remarks likely to anger US industry... Meanwhile the head of the Congressional Budget office told a Senate panel that cap-and-trade would adversely affect both consumers and producers at a time of national economic distress. "Under a cap-and-trade program, consumers would ultimately bear most of the costs of emission reductions," said CBO director Douglas Elmendorf in testimony to the Senate Finance Committee. "

Awesome, thanks Obama I can't wait to get socked with this crap legislation based on unproven science.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jVXwos2vKVH0vqSQjTDcMg5kyluQ

5/8/2009 10:49:51 AM

Quote :

"unproven science"

serious? or just kidding?

5/8/2009 10:51:54 AM

Exactly. I have no idea where he gets unproven. As I understand it, the science could not be any more settled: cap and trade will in no way detectably reduce global warming.

5/8/2009 10:55:13 AM

wow

I'll leave you guys alone

apparently the soapbox has recently dumbed itself down to a pathetic retard bitch session.

5/8/2009 11:04:31 AM

cap and trade will in no way detectably reduce global warming.

if you want to argue semantics (as you apparently do), you should probably specify that you are talking about instances when an open economy pursued a cap and trade policy in exclusion and without coordinating with other ghg emitting countries (ala experience in the UK).

That's the only way your statement would make sense.

5/8/2009 12:06:54 PM

Okay, not that I like the idea of cap 'n trade (given its horrible, horrible opaqueness and great ease of being manipulated for favored interests - just look at the proposed "loopholes" being asked for by John Dingell & co...), and certainly in its current form it would do little to actually bring about substantial reductions of CO2 (rather than simply stabilizing emissions - the cap would have to be drawn down for reductions to occur), but this part gets me:

Quote :

""Under a cap-and-trade program, consumers would ultimately bear most of the costs of emission reductions," said CBO director Douglas Elmendorf in testimony to the Senate Finance Committee."

You guys are up in arms about that? Who else do you think would - or should pay the cost? Do you think corporate taxes magically go into an income stream which in no way find their way into wages and consumer prices? That somehow, if we assume for the moment that CO2 causes a verifiable social harm (just work with me for a moment on this one), that those consuming products which demand its emissions should somehow be exempt from the cost?

I mean, really - why the hell are you people up in arms about this aspect?

5/8/2009 1:08:46 PM

Quote :

"DG. Why do you only point out that some of the people who are against AGW are in the pockets of oil companies? Why don't you point out the pro-AGW people who are equally in the pockets of "green" business? "

Primarily because there is nothing in the least bit equal to the hold oil companies have on the anti-AGW front. If you can give me one example, with evidence, of anything like a "green company" that's funneling millions into the pro-AGW camp and will somehow gain financially from it, I'd be glad to check it out. That won't change the fact that one side has scientific consensus behind it, of course.

5/8/2009 1:54:24 PM

Of course theres "Big Inuit" - the massive Eskimo conglomerate seeking to retain their permafrost and kick oil companies out of Alaska.

5/8/2009 2:36:34 PM

Right, and "big academia," the researchers and scientists who've banded together so that they can keep getting paid way too little by coming up with false problems to "research."

5/8/2009 3:02:33 PM

Quote :

"You guys are up in arms about that? Who else do you think would - or should pay the cost? Do you think corporate taxes magically go into an income stream which in no way find their way into wages and consumer prices? That somehow, if we assume for the moment that CO2 causes a verifiable social harm (just work with me for a moment on this one), that those consuming products which demand its emissions should somehow be exempt from the cost? I mean, really - why the hell are you people up in arms about this aspect?"

Considering Obama has already said he doesn't want the cost being passed onto the average citizen, YES, I am up in arms about it. And when the science behind the initiative is laughable, even more so.

Here is a nice snipet from an editorial about last week's debacle at the House hearing with Al Gore:

Quote :

"Imagine if a well-known British environmentalist - Zac Goldsmith, say, or the less well-off but just as eco-committed Prince Charles - was on his way to Congress in the US to take part in a debate about climate change, only to be told at the very last minute that he was no longer welcome. That he was being denied this prestigious public-speaking platform for unspecified reasons. There would be uproar, and understandably so. There would be op-eds and email circulars telling us that probably oil-funded, behind-the-scenes men had intervened to silence the green voice and to allow the other side - the sceptical, denying, twisted side - to have free rein in the debate. Someone would mention the c-word. Yet reverse the roles, and replace the ‘silenced environmentalist’ with ‘silenced sceptic’, and no one seems to mind. At the end of last month, one of Britain’s most controversial climate change sceptics - Monckton, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, or whom I prefer to call ‘Christopher Monckton’ - was invited by Republicans to testify on climate change at the House Energy & Commerce Committee, one of the oldest standing committees in the US House of Representatives, alongside a ‘celebrity witness’ offered up by the Democrats: none other than Al Gore. But something dramatic happened while Monckton was in the air. Upon landing in the US, he was told that he could not testify after all; that Democrats had vetoed his appearance; that, in the words of one Republican insider, Gore had ‘chickened out’ of debating him. "

No bias there.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6639

5/8/2009 4:27:57 PM

Quote :

" Considering Obama has already said he doesn't want the cost being passed onto the average citizen, YES, I am up in arms about it."

Obama is an idiot who knows nothing about economics. Is this really a stunning new development?

I go back to my original question: assuming CO2 is a social harm (again, take the premise at face value), who should bear the costs then, if not the consumer of the products which inherent result in CO2 production? How else do you expect the costs to be bourne?

Or, hell, if your imagination is simply that limited, plug in any known harmful substance into the above equation for CO2 - SOx, NOx, mercury, or whatever. Again, are you under the stupendously deluded perception that somehow any system of costs won't be passed directly onto consumers under any other system?

5/8/2009 5:47:28 PM

Its not a social harm and there's NO EVIDENCE directly linking it to anything! So enough of this "assume" bullshit.

5/10/2009 11:19:25 PM

This is why it's called a "hypothetical."

Or, had you bothered to read further.

Quote :

"Or, hell, if your imagination is simply that limited, plug in any known harmful substance into the above equation for CO2 - SOx, NOx, mercury, or whatever. Again, are you under the stupendously deluded perception that somehow any system of costs won't be passed directly onto consumers under any other system?"

I know. Reading is hard.

[Edited on May 10, 2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason : >.<]

5/10/2009 11:24:42 PM

I don't give a damn about your "hypothetical". When our new leader promises that we won't pay for it as one of the main points regarding the issue, its bullshit. I'm not entirely worried though, b/c the Senate already unanimously passed a motion saying they wouldn't pass anything that passed cost on to consumers (going entirely against the whole point of a cap and trade scheme).

Hypothetically, if I was a billionaire I wouldn't care about this.

See I can make pointless comments as well.

5/11/2009 10:25:42 AM

Quote :

""big academia," the researchers and scientists who've banded together so that they can keep getting paid way too little by coming up with false problems to "research." "

LOL the truth emerges!

Luckily our friends from ExXon and the GOP are funding research groups to show us the truth in these liberal lies!

5/11/2009 11:13:06 AM

Quote :

"I don't give a damn about your "hypothetical". When our new leader promises that we won't pay for it as one of the main points regarding the issue, its bullshit. I'm not entirely worried though, b/c the Senate already unanimously passed a motion saying they wouldn't pass anything that passed cost on to consumers (going entirely against the whole point of a cap and trade scheme)."

No, it's simply clear that you don't even understand the point of what I'm saying. Which isn't all that surprising, given the fact that even reading what's been posted has been a challenge for you in this thread.

Look - any scheme of cap 'n trade over anything that we suppose has a social harm - CO2, SOx, NOx, or whatever is going to impose costs - and any system inherently will pass those costs onto the consumer.

Therefore, excluding CO2 (since you obviously can't handle even a hypothetical - although it's a wonder how you made it through college) - under what magical system of economics do you expect an additional imposed cost on production - like a tax or cap on SOx or NOx or mercury - not to be passed on to the consumer? And even assuming we have your magical fairy-land economics, why shouldn't these costs be paid by those who consume the products which bring about a social harm in their production?

5/11/2009 11:20:42 AM

Steve, no one is arguing that global warming can be countered without a cost. The Cap and Trade outrage is over whether global warming is a danger at all; whether a cost is justified.

5/11/2009 11:39:30 AM

Quote :

"Steve, no one is arguing that global warming can be countered without a cost. The Cap and Trade outrage is over whether global warming is a danger at all; whether a cost is justified."

Neither is my argument, however. My argument is that any system of either restricting emissions on anything is going to inherently produce costs, which will then be passed onto the consumers. Therefore, I'm saying if (hence the hypothetical) CO2 causes a verifiable social harm, then what other system would we propose which would not inherently pass costs onto consumers?

In other words, getting bent out of shape about costs being passed onto people is the wrong thing to get irate about. Even if politicians are idiots.

It's one thing to argue cap 'n trade is unnecessary and useless. But bitching about the fact that it'll pass costs onto consumers is like bitching that the sky is blue - unless we have some entirely new economic system in the works, that's generally how these things work.

5/11/2009 11:46:46 AM

Iook you idiot. I realized YEARS AGO that a cap and trade on emissions of a compound we rely on every day would have costs that directly affect you and I. It's pretty obvious my outrage is over the government trying to lie about it. Who gives a shit about anything hypothetically at this point

So let me get this straight, you don't think me (or anyone) should complain about some stupid new tax on us all? B/c that's all it is. Even if CO2 is a boogey man these measures won't do a thing to curb a temperature increase.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM. Reason : i didn't realize you like taxes]

5/11/2009 12:40:11 PM

RAWR RAWR RAWR I CAN'T READ OR SPELL OR UNDERSTAND CONDITIONAL LOGIC BUT I'LL SURE CALL YOU AND IDIOT RAWR RAWR

5/11/2009 12:41:58 PM

I didn't realize this was prime trolling season.

you're injecting your conditional logic where it's not needed, you fucking idiot

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM. Reason : k]

5/11/2009 12:53:14 PM

You can't read, you can't spell, and you don't understand basic logic, but you feel free to call me an idiot? And that's what passes for your argument?

Wow. I mean, really. Wow.

Quote :

"So let me get this straight, you don't think me (or anyone) should complain about some stupid new tax on us all? B/c that's all it is. Even if CO2 is a boogey man these measures won't do a thing to curb a temperature increase."

I know it's futile to try and communicate to you with "words" and "logic", since you seem to have so much trouble with these, but what I'm saying is that you're complaining that a tax is... a tax! Wow!

If you want to bitch that Cap 'n Trade is useless, be my guest - like I said before (had you bothered to read - oh wait, that's right - too difficult) - you'll hardly find me in disagreement. If you want to argue it's unnecessary, fine - go right ahead.

However - and here comes the tricky part - the question I had is that how else do you expect policy to be handled in the case of things that cause a social harm? Since CO2 is off the table due to your inability to even handle a simple hypothetical, who do you expect to pay for the cost of other social harms? Magical economic fairies?

5/11/2009 1:03:29 PM

you've gone off the deep end, I'm gonna stop feeding you.


you really hurt me though, attacking my typo's! Oh nooooooos.

5/11/2009 1:11:48 PM

Look, it's clear that you're out of your depth on this one. How about you tag in one of your TKE brothers to help out?

5/11/2009 1:13:26 PM

yeah I'm out of my league. I made a point about Obama's policy and how its another example of bullshit and you're trying to tell me that "well obviously we should pay for it!"

two completely different arguments. I tried to ignore your tangent, and that made me "not understand" what you were saying. Why don't you ask your nuclear buddies to help steer you back on course

Well done, you got me.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM. Reason : oh no, i can't spell!]

5/11/2009 1:21:20 PM

Yeah, you forgot the "if" there. Not that I'm surprised.

How the hell did you make it through college, exactly?

5/11/2009 1:22:32 PM

oh no I'm good. Though I am too lazy to go back and put an apostrophe in "its".


How did I get an engineering degree with that lack of attention to detail! Dear God!!!!!!!!!

5/11/2009 1:26:36 PM

Swing and a miss.

5/11/2009 1:27:04 PM

Quote :

"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -John F. Kennedy"

5/11/2009 4:22:14 PM

So is the Republican PR train response still artificial global warming is 100% impossible, not worth our time researching, and completely bogus
via the liberal conspiracy.

OR

have they finally took on a more realistic attitude that humans could have a small effect on climate and our goals is to prevent economically
counter-productive taxes/policies until we can fully research and understand the full extent to which human created CO2 plays effect.

Websites such as homeland.org do not count as "research" though

5/11/2009 4:59:10 PM

Quote :

"Rather than use lists, I prefer to determine whether there is consensus on the subject by looking at polls like this one..."

Again. Consensus don't mean jack shit. An overwhelming number of Americans think that people in Columbus' time thought the earth was flat. If you have to resort to "consensus," then you have already admitted a lack of evidence to prove the point.

Quote :

"Primarily because there is nothing in the least bit equal to the hold oil companies have on the anti-AGW front. If you can give me one example, with evidence, of anything like a "green company" that's funneling millions into the pro-AGW camp and will somehow gain financially from it, I'd be glad to check it out."

Al Gore. And his movie.

Quote :

"That won't change the fact that one side has scientific consensus behind it, of course."

Too bad there isn't really "consensus." And, again, consensus means JACK SHIT in science.

Quote :

"Right, and "big academia," the researchers and scientists who've banded together so that they can keep getting paid way too little by coming up with false problems to "research.""

I've already covered this, but it has been well-documented that there is pressure against anti-AGWers in the research communities by higher-ups. Kind of like how there are calls for anyone who denies global warming to have all of their credentials revoked and to have all their funding terminated. How the fuck is that even close to being "academic."

Quote :

"Websites such as homeland.org do not count as "research" though"

Why, because they don't agree with you? You can't discount an entire community of people without a damned good reason which is based on science and logic. "THEY WERE FUNDED BY EXXON" is not a valid argument.

5/11/2009 8:27:40 PM

Quote :

"Consensus don't mean jack shit. An overwhelming number of Americans think that people in Columbus' time thought the earth was flat."

What average American's think about the world-view in the 1400's is irrelevant. Now, if European Historians came to a.... "consensus" on what people in Columbus' time thought, then I think we'd be on to something.

Kind of like what average American's think is causing global warming is irrelevant, but a consensus among climatologists might be something to pay attention to.

5/11/2009 8:45:13 PM

Quote :

"Now, if European Historians came to a.... "consensus" on what people in Columbus' time thought, then I think we'd be on to something. "

And in that case, a consensus might mean something. Because history isn't as much about facts and data as science is.

Quote :

"but a consensus among climatologists might be something to pay attention to."

Nope. their data is far more important, given that this is an argument about SCIENCE. As in, data, predictability, and repeatability. Things that AGWers are sorely lacking in.

5/11/2009 8:54:43 PM

I wonder what the correlation between people that don't believe that humans could potentially have any impact on climate (no matter how big or small) and those that do not believe in evolution.

As well as the specificity if someone does believe in human effected climate change and do not believe in evolution

5/11/2009 9:52:06 PM

I wonder what the correlation between troll and HUR is...

5/11/2009 9:59:22 PM

Quote :

"If you can give me one example, with evidence, of anything like a "green company" that's funneling millions into the pro-AGW camp and will somehow gain financially from it, I'd be glad to check it out."

Ooh! I just finished reading this. The company you are looking for is Enron! It spent gobs of money lobbying in favor of a carbon credit trading scheme similar to that found in Europe. They were going to use their government contacts to make themselves the sole carbon-credit exchange for the united states, giving themselves a cut of every carbon-credit traded. To boost their own political capital, Enron wasted lots of money investing in alternative energy sources, but the scheme failed when accounting irregularities bankrupted the company just when its lobbying efforts were starting to work.

5/11/2009 10:03:04 PM

^pretty much the best example. Another good one, as we all know, is GE.

5/11/2009 10:12:41 PM

I think this thread should be moved to chit-chat

5/12/2009 12:06:40 AM

^well if more people keep making worthless posts (save the tiny % that you actually contributed on the last page) such as yourself, perhaps it should.

Quote :

"OMB Memo: Serious Economic Impact Likely From EPA CO2 Rules WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide "is likely to have serious economic consequences" for businesses small and large across the economy, a White House memo warned the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year. The nine-page document also undermines the EPA's reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, a trigger for new rules. The memo, an amalgamation of government agencies' comments sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA, is in stark contrast to the official position presented by President Barack Obama and his Cabinet officials. It is likely to give critics of greenhouse-gas regulation ammunition in their political salvos against the administration. Cabinet officials, including the president's climate-change czar, Carol Browner, have said the administration would prefer Congress create greenhouse-gas regulations through legislation, and not through the EPA's Clean Air Act authority. But the White House has given the EPA the green light to move ahead with regulation under the Clean Air Act, a move deemed by some analysts as political leverage to push Congress to act because of the bluntness of the tool... ..."The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty," the memo reads. For example, the memo notes, the EPA endangerment technical document points out there are several areas where essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are "not well determined" and "not well understood." The OMB memo questions with concern the adequacy of the EPA finding that the gases are a harm to the public when there is "no demonstrated direct health effects," and the scientific data on which the agency relies are "almost exclusively from non-EPA sources." Based on the "dramatically expanded precautionary principle," the EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other alleged "pollutants," including electro-magnetic fields, noise, and salts called percholorates. "

I gladly welcome the day when the EPA can regulate the noise pollution from my neighbor's dog.

You can find the article summarizing the memo here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3530046c-802a-23ad-401a-82f7edb11f26

And the memo itself here: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=0900006480965abd

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM. Reason : quote]

5/12/2009 1:05:40 PM

Maybe Obama and the liberal conspirators will soon require all cattle ranchers to install a meter onto the asshole of each cow on their plantation so that they can be properly billed for carbon emissions

5/12/2009 6:13:55 PM

^Too bad they already beat you to it. Some nutjob politicians in NJ/PA have already proposed charging ranchers and dairy farmers $375/cow.

Thanks for proving my point, you idiot.

5/13/2009 2:07:57 PM

pwnt

5/13/2009 7:43:31 PM

Quote :

"Ocean Conveyor Belt Model Broken: 'Models are significantly wrong' News has come that the famed ocean conveyor belt, subject of countless TV documentaries and science lessons, is not as simple as scientists believed. The 50 year old model of global ocean circulation that predicts a deep Atlantic counter current below the Gulf Stream has been called into question by an armada of drifting subsurface sensors. As shocking as this news is to oceanographers it is even worse for climate modelers—it means that all the current climate prediction models are significantly wrong. It is known by many names: the meridional overturning current (MOC), the thermohaline circulation (THC), and, popularly, the great ocean conveyor belt. It has been the subject of study by oceanographers for half a century and is known to be a fundamentally important part of earthly climate regulation. It is the primary mechanism for transferring heat from the tropics to higher latitudes, the proximate reason that the occasional palm tree grows on the south coast of England. Until now, scientists thought they had a pretty good handle on how the current flows, the mechanisms that drive the circulation and affect climate world wide... ...“Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn't hold anymore,” said Duke oceanographer Susan Lozier. “So it's going to be more difficult to measure these climate change signals in the deep ocean.” This has been a particularly disquieting week for the climate change establishment, with new discoveries regarding the importance of aerosols' impact on sea surface temperatures (SST) and cloud formation, and the halving of predicted sea-level increases due to ice sheet melting coupled with predictions of significant change in Earth's gravity field and rotational axis if Antarctica even partially melts. Add the news regarding the THC and one has to ask, how many revelations of erroneous assumptions are necessary before climate modelers admit that their computer programs are incapable of accurately predicting future climate change?"

I can't find the scientific report itself, but the article commenting on this is here: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/conveyor-belt-model-broken

5/18/2009 1:15:25 PM

As far as livestock, I don't know if any regulations make sense or if I agree with them, but what they should do is make clear the fact that we should eat MUCH less meat and stop feeding grain to livestock instead of grass.

That would help significantly without the need for more monitoring and regulation.

5/18/2009 1:35:36 PM

^^ what an unbiased blog you cite.

In reality, it isn't clear what this will mean for the predictions that come out of various climate change models. Saying they are "wrong" doesn't tell us in which direction or by how much. If your only point is then is that they are not perfect or subject to revision, well, welcome to the real world. That is ALWAYS the case in any model you construct of a complex phenomena.

[Edited on May 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ``]

5/18/2009 1:45:10 PM

^well that is my main point. And are you telling me that, given the large margin for error, we should still rely so heavily on computer models instead of real scientific studies and experimentation?

I know its not an unbiased blog site, however I didn't locate the article itself

5/18/2009 3:32:12 PM

Eventhough I think human created emissions put some magnitude of positive pressure on global temperatures...

TKE-Teg and aaronburro can appreciate the head tilt that I think this is retarted

Quote :

"Obama gets tough on fuel economy The administration is set to announce rules that would create a single CO2 emission standard for cars four years sooner than anticipated. "

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=549171&page=14

If I want to be a douche and drive my big ass gas guzzling SUV that gets 12mpg; than I think this is my own business. These "mandatory" guidelines
are fucking stupid. The gas price bubble last summer proved that market forces will encourage drivers to utilize more responsible transportion
techniques and adopt "greener" alt energy means to get around. There is really no need to legislate to force people to change.

5/19/2009 11:16:40 AM

Quote :

"how many revelations of erroneous assumptions are necessary before climate modelers admit that their computer programs are incapable of accurately predicting future climate change?"

i don't get comments like these, they're clearly written with an agenda -- this is how science works, a model is made and then revised with the addition of experimental data (like these float observations)

and the article referenced is from nature last week:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature07979.html

i just read it and by no means does it say (or imply) that the deep ocean "conveyor belt model is broken" -- this guy is a hack

5/19/2009 2:18:06 PM

^I dunno if I can trust that article. The word "nature" appears only 3 times in the url..

5/19/2009 3:27:41 PM

Quote :

"this is how science works, a model is made and then revised with the addition of experimental data (like these float observations)"

Actually, that is NOT how science works.

Science works by EXPERIMENTATION, not modeling. A model is used as an explanation for observed phenomena, NOT a proof. And that is part of the problem. The original point is extremely valid, because "scientists" are relying on these unconfirmed and often fraudulent models in order to make broad-sweeping pronouncements without actually doing any experimentation or validation of the models. In fact, more often than not, as this example shows, the models are horribly flawed (as we should expect, when a model is used to prove a hypothesis). The fact is, I can make a computer model to prove just about anything, if you'll let me, especially if you don't require any kind of predictive validity, past or present.

5/19/2009 6:46:27 PM