Cap and Trade

#26
#26
I think that the scientists who work on this have done an OK job of explaining the CO2-temperature link...and explaining why at least a decent portion of the warming can be attributed to the rise in greenhouse gases. As far as the cooling is concerned, while temperatures are lower now than they were 10 years ago, it may not really be cooling...if you look at the temperature record, there are plenty of periods of cooling followed by bigger periods of warming in the last 50 years. What we've seen in the last few years could be significant...but we'll have to wait 5 years or more before we know.

The part where I feel that the good explanations lack is how the effects of these temperature increases are evaluated. For example, the effect on species, ecosystems, ice shelves, sea level, disease, etc....I feel that the explanations are not as good here (probably because the science isn't as clear)...and this is a huge player in how we respond to climate change. Why should we care if temperatures increase? I would like to see explanations I could understand more clearly than what I usually find, which are just numbers...I would like to understand the methods and assumptions used to arrive at these ranges....which I haven't seen clearly presented (or as clearly presented as the temperature increase estimates).
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
droski said:
The jury is still out. Even if it's a probable theory, obama should not be trying to push this down our throats by lying and saying it's fact. The guy clearly has no scruples about stretching the truth for his own gain. He's AT LEAST as bad as Bush.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the jury is only out on extent and consequence...and much more the latter than the former.
 
#28
#28
TennTradition said:
I would argue that the jury is only out on extent and consequence...and much more the latter than the former.
Click to expand...

we had plenty of CO2 emmisions in the 70s when people were saying we could be going into an ice age. i'm not one of these people saying that global warming is complete bs, just that it isn't anwhere near fact.
 
#29
#29
droski said:
we had plenty of CO2 emmisions in the 70s when people were saying we could be going into an ice age. i'm not one of these people saying that global warming is complete bs, just that it isn't anwhere near fact.
Click to expand...

We also had a crap ton of sulfur emissions that were suppressing temperatures at the time (in fact...China's increase in coal burning could be causing a dip today, even). There is a clearly defined scientific link between greenhouse gases and an increase in temperature of the earth. The jury is not out on this for all intents and purposes. There is debate (though not in the climate community circles really..but in a wider social science, geology, and some physicists, etc.) about how much temperature increase we can expect from our CO2 emissions...and what this temperature increase will mean. Is it anything to worry about..how big will it be...etc?

My point is that Obama's comment alone is not false...and could be a bit of "trickery" in some ways. People hear a lot more from that than what was actually said, which is generally a good way to cover you ass and yet have the effect you want. In that way, it is unfortunate...but a common ploy, not just in politics and not just when talking about global warming.
 
#30
#30
TennTradition said:
We also had a crap ton of sulfur emissions that were suppressing temperatures at the time (in fact...China's increase in coal burning could be causing a dip today, even). There is a clearly defined scientific link between greenhouse gases and an increase in temperature of the earth. The jury is not out on this for all intents and purposes. There is debate (though not in the climate community circles really..but in a wider social science, geology, and some physicists, etc.) about how much temperature increase we can expect from our CO2 emissions...and what this temperature increase will mean. Is it anything to worry about..how big will it be...etc?

My point is that Obama's comment alone is not false...and could be a bit of "trickery" in some ways. People hear a lot more from that than what was actually said, which is generally a good way to cover you ass and yet have the effect you want. In that way, it is unfortunate...but a common ploy, not just in politics and not just when talking about global warming.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of information from scientists, climatologists, etc who oppose the the man made global warming theory, or at the very least dispute the numbers (percentage of temperature) that are the result of man. In this area there is a significant rift and the science is certainly not settled.

What my biggest problem here is that if we do not yet fully understands mans impact on temperature how are we to pass a massive tax onto our people that we do know will have some very serious consequences to the economy and consumers. Doing this at this time just doesn't make sense to me. Not to mention there are other ways to promote a cleaner better environment than cap and trade that would have nowhere near the impact economically and actually do some good for the environment, unlike this bill.
 
#37
#37
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Also, we shouldn't be forced as a people to change our lifestyle. That's complete BS right there.
Click to expand...

I think that there are times when it is understandable that people be forced to change their lifestyle. Do you mean that this isn't an instance to call for such a demand, in your opinion?
 
#39
#39
Has Lincoln Davis said how he is going to vote yet? I met with him earlier this year and he didn't seem to care much at all for arguments about new energy infrastructures as it relates to climate/CO2 reduction....he was, on the other hand, excited about pursuing some new energy initiatives for national security purposes.
 
#41
#41
XtennesseeX said:
219-212

House approves Energy Bill. . .
Click to expand...

7 votes, huh...guess the test vote a bit earlier was accurate*...I'm not sure this survives the Senate. Is the Senate version essentially the same, calling for 17% reduction by 2020, or does anyone know? Often they look quite different....

*actually it may have been a bit off...7 votes were needed to kill after the test vote, so that means that the 3 votes swung from the test to the actual vote....may not be unusual, don't know....
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
Well thank goodness for The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I love the titles of these things. I feel so clean and secure now.
 
#43
#43
From WattsUpWithThat...... :rofl:

waxman-markey-sausage1.jpg
 
#44
#44
BTW, 8 of the 219 votes in support of the bill were from "Republicans," who could have defeated the bill if they had stuck with the party on this.
 
#45
#45
SGMVols said:
BTW, 8 of the 219 votes in support of the bill were from "Republicans," who could have defeated the bill if they had stuck with the party on this.
Click to expand...

If the democrats had stuck with their party, it would have sailed through....all politics are local, as they say...
 
#46
#46
SGMVols said:
BTW, 8 of the 219 votes in support of the bill were from "Republicans," who could have defeated the bill if they had stuck with the party on this.
Click to expand...
do you have a link that breaks it down by party? or that shows TN congressmen/?
 
#47
#47
SGMVols said:
BTW, 8 of the 219 votes in support of the bill were from "Republicans," who could have defeated the bill if they had stuck with the party on this.
Click to expand...

Rep. Mary Bono (R - CA)
Rep. Dave Reichert (R - WA)
Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo (R - NJ)
Rep. Leonard Lance (R - NJ)
Rep. Chris Smith (R - NJ)
Rep. John McHugh (R - NY)
Rep. Mark Kirk (R - IL)
Rep. Michael Castle (R - DE)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top