 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
Cap and trade (again)
I read that Pelosi has been working behind closed doors to bring a vote on cap and trade THIS FRIDAY if possible.
This administration has already admitted that utility bills will rise dramatically if this is put into law. THIS CRAP AND TRADE WILL KILL PEOPLE! Every summer we hear of people, especially older people on fixed incomes, dying from the heat BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO RUN THE AIR CONDITIONER. If this goes through, many more American citizens will die from heat. And for what? So that Al Gore and associates can become even more wealthy than they already are. If you feel the same way I do about this, you will call your Representative and Senators about it TODAY. |
||||
|
||||
|
I tried to post on this earlier before my computer crashed. The Dem moves on the Waxman-Markey bill have been incredible. Yesterday they added 300 pages to the bill (now 1201 pages long with more revisions possible) . It will at best have a 24 hr "sunshine " viewing before Pelosi tries to bum-rush it through the House Friday . That gives everyone a day to contact their Reps to tell them how they feel about it . Again no one will have time to read and digest the particulars of the legislation.
Also today was the deadline for public comment on the EPA's attempted power grab that will have them regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industry and agriculture. SCOTUS gave them cover by ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The new proposed regulations would give the EPA enormous powers to use the Clean Air Act to go after business and private citizens because of Co2 emissions . The propose cap and trade legislation and the EPA's expanding mandate to regulate Co2 emissions is the hammer and nail in the coffin of the US economy. |
||||
|
||||
|
Supposedly more language is being added to the bill as the Democrats strong arm and bribe other members of the House to sign on . The bill will not be in it's final form until minutes before it is voted on. It has become such a farce that environmental groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, as well as the open-government organization the Sunlight Foundation have come out against the bill.
The Obama adm. Is changing the wording of terrorist acts to man caused disasters... clearly Waxman-Markey is a man caused disaster in the making .It has the potential to be the Smoot-Hawley of our time. Remember that Obama campaign pledge . 95% of Americans would not see a tax increase?? Bwaaaahaaahaaaaaaa!! |
||||
|
||||
|
Lol... here is a change brought about by special interest lobbying . Tuesday Waxman announced that the oversight of cap and trade related to agriculture would be shifted from the EPA (which SCOTUS already ruled is the lead agency) to the Dept. of Agriculture.
The American Farm Bureau says cap and trade would cost the average farmer $175 on every dairy cow and $80 for beef cattle. So evidently the climate then becomes a secondary consideration when compared to the price of milk and a burger . Now you know about price supports and the subsidies big agriculture gets for not growing stuff ? Well us tax payers are also about to shell out $$ to companies that agree to NOT cut down trees! But it gets even better because not only will that apply to domestic business... it will also apply to INTERNATIONAL businesses as well!! So if a company decides to not cut down a tree in the Amazon they will profit from it. And what do they expect to accomplish with all the painful ,job killing ,economy destroying provisions in the bill ? Well according to Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 (the stated goal of the Waxman-Markey bill ) would reduce temperature in 2050 by 0.05 degree Celsius. (I am surprised at the lack of response to this posting given how important this vote is today) |
||||
|
||||
|
I'm sure my Congressman will vote no but I contacted him anyway. The Wall Street Journal reveals (to no surprise here) why Pelosi is trying to ram this through, "the global warming tide is again shifting." Got to hurry and get this ridiculous scheme through before they're found out to the frauds they are on the issue.
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S. In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program. The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.) 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. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. |
||||
|
||||
|
The measure was passed in a close vote in the House yesterday(219-212... 8 RINOs broke ranks* ).Before the vote the Dems added a 300 page addition to the bill (at 3 AM). Nobody read the bill in full before the vote.
If the precentages are the same in the Senate the bill can still be blocked by filibuster . Boehner was fantastic during the House debate, confronting the Democrats with the content of the 300 page last minute additions. He really p*ssed off Waxman.
After Boehner spoke for a few minutes, the leader donned a pair of reading glasses and began leafing through a gigantic, white binder. At that point, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) asked the chair if Boehner could do that.
“I know we have this magic minute that gives leaders a lot of extra time to speak. But I'm just wondering if there is some limit under the rules on the time that a leader may take, even though the time yielded was not 20 or 30 minutes?” Waxman asked. Waxman also wondered if any “historical records would be broken” by Boehner reading part of the bill and queried whether the tactic was “an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?” The Speaker Pro Tempore, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) then ruled that Boehner was order. “It is the custom of the house is to listen to the leader's comments,” Tauscher said, prompting a round of applause by Republicans. Tauscher's ruling immediately set House precedent, meaning Boehner could continue to read the legislation in order. Steve you are correct that there was an urgency in the Democrat's moves that was intended to get it passed before the scientific evidence against man made climate change overwhelmed the rationale . Yesterday the Competitive Enterprise Institute said it was releasing "an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency." It is ,according to Richard Morrison of the institute ,"internal EPA e-mail messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that [a] report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the administration's agenda of regulating carbon dioxide." The author is Alan Carlin ,an economist and 38 year veteran at the EPA. What his report says is that the EPA, by adopting the UN's 2007 "Fourth Assessment" report, is relying on outdated research by its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research, it says, is "at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field" and ignores the latest scientific findings. http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf Carlin has been transferred off all climate-related work. A new research paper by Nicola Scafetta Physics Department, Duke University, and Richard C. Willson Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), Coronado, California ACRIM Staff Information Concludes that total solar irradiance (TSI) is the determining factor in climate change . http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2008GL036307.pdf The authors state in their conclusions that:
“This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.
*Here are the 8 RINOs Mary Bono Mack (Calif.)202-225-533 (Sonny Bono's widow) Mike Castle(Del)202-225-4165 Mark Steven Kirk (Ill.)202-225-4835 Leonard Lance (NJ)202-225-5361 Frank LoBiondo (NJ)202-225-6572 John McHugh (NY)202-225-4611 Dave Reichert (Washington)202-225-7761 Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765.  Looking forward to supporting their primary challengers next year. Immediately after the vote ,Washington DC was hit by a hail storm. |
||||
|
||||
|
If this passes the Senate, the worst hit will be the very people that Obama promised to be looking out for; the poor, underprivileged. One wonders how these poor people will cope with $500 per month electric bills and $7.00 gal gasoline. Hey Pinocchio! Move over for Obama. |
||||
|
||||
|
Waxman claims that Republicans who voted against the bill are not only "rooting against the country" but against the world.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) on Republicans voting against the energy plan and Rep. John Boehner's comments on the House floor Friday evening: "They [Republicans] want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming."
Meanwhile, Paul Krugman of the NY Times thinks climate change 'denial' is treasonous. Remember the good ol' days of the Bush years when dissent was patriotic? And for good measure, Obama's energy czar hasn't read the bill either. |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by tomder55
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Wow. One side thinks the other is out to destroy the world as we know it. Let me see, you've got the climate changers on one side, and the deniers who think global warming is a hoax on the other. Seems to me this is a question for Bill Nye, the Science Guy. It would, too, if you believed in science. But, like Intelligent Design, you've got your own set of scientists who support your conclusions... Oh, I know. You'll say the climate warmers have their own scientists in their pockets too... But, from what I know of science, MOST scientists don't care much about the politics of the science they're doing. They just want to do the science. So, if one had to vote on which group of scientists they should believe, it would be MY view they should believe the ones whose side is taken by the ones who have been right in the past more times than they've been wrong. For SURE, your scientists are all wet if they're from the same crop who are foisting that ID crap on us. You also lose credibility because you BELIEVE the ID crap science. As a matter of fact, I think YOUR side has been against science from the git go. Therefore, given the recent histories of each side, I think you guys are bonkers and I think Henry Waxman is right. excon PS> You DO know that Henry Waxman is my friend. He encouraged me to run for president of the Beverly Hills Young Democrats after HIS term ended? I helped Henry win his first seat in the California House. Not, that that's got anything to do with anything... |
||||
|
||||
|
Does Waxman read his own legislation ? I doubt he had the time to finish reading all the pork that was added to this sausage.
Tell me how you can fix the climate by giving polluters the right to pollute if they can afford to buy the credit of someone who doesn't produce butkis for the right to emit as much cr*p as the polluter desires. I'm telling you this is a commodity traders wet dream . They just found a new phoney market to trade in that will probably be more lucrative than the derivative market. This is why a$$holes like Immelt and the statists in GoldmanSachs all love this stuff. According to the LA Slimes , the U.S. “would use more carbon-dioxide heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005”because of the bill .Time quotes an EPA analysis of the bill that forecast
the total amount of renewable energy generation under Waxman-Markey would actually be less than the renewable energy that would have been produced without the bill.
It's a scam and the sad part is I think you know it. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
If you read my earlier post, "13 times the number (of scientists) who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary" are skeptical of climate change. I'm sure they're all IDer's... not. All I'm saying is let's have an honest debate before we go screw the public. |
||||
|
||||
|
I have to wonder who is truly hostile to scientific inquiry . Seems that the global warming crowd have turned "settled science" into a cult-like orthodoxy .
A perfect example is the story of Canadian Polar Bear expert Dr Mitchell Taylor . For 30 years he has studied Arctic polar bears in academia and as a government employee. He has noticed that projections about the bear population are wrong and that the bear population far from decreasing are higher than they have been in 30 years. He also has studied the melting of the icecaps and says it is not C02 causing warming as various proven flawed computer models predicted ;but instead currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea. Well Dr Taylor obtained funding to attend this weeks meeting of the IUCN/SSC (International Union for Conservation of Nature)Polar Bear Specialist Group(PBSG) in Copenhagen . But his attendance was voted down by organization members because of his views. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former pupil of Dr Taylor's, explained in an email that his rejection had nothing to do with his expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition”...that his positions “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. OH THE HERESY!! So who then is clinging to orthodoxy ? Why does consensus science try to purge dissenting opinion based on valid scientific research ? |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello tom: I'm not going to argue the argument... I don't know why your guy isn't believed. I'm NOT a scientist. I just don't believe science has an agenda. I believe, however, that ID scientists DO have an agenda, and if the guy you're talking about is of that genre, then it's clear why his science was rejected. Plus, if you want to convince me that your side is right, you won't do it by telling me that MY side is only doing what it does in order to destroy the country. That ain't going to happen here. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
I do not claim fidelity to ID for the record.I don't think natural selection conflicts with my religious beliefs at all. So let me get this straight . Only ID scientists have an agenda... It couldn't happen that other science is flawed .Never before has science gotten their conclusions wrong even against prevailing consesus ? All I can say is wow ! There is nothing in the scientific method that supports consensus .Karl Popper instead said that science is a method of falsification ,not consensus . Scientist should be researching to find the flaws in consensus. But it doesn't surprise me that scientific research today attempts to pad consensus . As the example of Dr Taylor shows ,there is more economic benefits to travel with the lemmings . |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm not sure what the last means or who said it... But, let's talk about your "debate". There is NO debate. The debate resides only in the heads of the rightwingers... I'm going to use ID again, because it's a PERFECT example... In terms of evolution, there's no debate there either... There's established science. Then there's others who claim something different than that, ergo - it's a debate. But, it ain't no debate. If we're both looking at a green wall, and you declare it to be purple and say we should debate it, I'll look at you funny. I'm looking at you funny right now. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
In terms of evolution, there's no debate there either... There's established science. Then there's others who claim something different than that, ergo - it's a debate. But, it ain't no debate.
Here is consensus for you . The theory of continental drift was proposed by Alfred Wegener but was rejected as heresy by the consensus scientists . It took 50 years to prove the theory correct . Here's another one . Barry Marshall and Robin Warren concluded that Helicobacter pylori was the cause of stomach ulcers in 1982 . It was widely rejected by consensus science.But 23 years later in 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on Helicobacter pylori ,and that is now the consensus. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
There is NO debate. The debate resides only in the heads of the rightwingers... I'm going to use ID again, because it's a PERFECT example...
In terms of evolution, there's no debate there either... There's established science. Then there's others who claim something different than that, ergo - it's a debate. But, it ain't no debate.
But in this case there IS evidence that conflicts with the consensus, it's been enumerated here often but the consensus continues to ignore it and their enablers continue to preach impending doom. The number of skeptics is growing and the scientific community owes it everyone to hear them out.
If we're both looking at a green wall, and you declare it to be purple and say we should debate it, I'll look at you funny. I'm looking at you funny right now.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
No, it's NOT debatable! Just like the science surrounding continental drift is no longer debatable, as you point out. Oh, I'm sure there's a few crackpot scientists who debate it. But, I don't know who with. In terms of evolution, it's true that new details emerge as we learn more, but the CONSENSUS about evolution itself, is NOT changed by the new details, contrary to your statement - it's ENHANCED by it. Similarly, we still study plate tectonics to enhance the science. But, the established science isn't going to change - EVER. I don't doubt that there ARE plenty of scientists who dispute global warming, evolution and probably our moon trip too... But, their existence changes nothing. Established science is just that - established. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
In terms of our discussion about global warming, I'll tell you exactly what ID and evolution have to do with it. You don't believe clearly established science. Therefore, in my view, you have NO credibility on science - period. excon |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Cap and trade
[ 6 Answers ]
Of all the potential disasters lurking in this administration I believe "cap and trade" legislation to have the greatest potential for negative financial impact. It may pass the House this week. It would do nothing to improve the air (how can moving responsibility from one industry to another...
Trade restricted or not
[ 2 Answers ]
What is unrestricted international trade?
The trade
[ 4 Answers ]
One for the guys. It was a dark, stormy, night. The Marine was on his first assignment, and it was guard duty. A General stepped out taking his dog for a walk. The nervous young Private snapped to attention, made a perfect salute, and snapped out "Sir, Good Evening, Sir!" The General, out...
View more questions Search
|
