PDA

View Full Version : Environment Republicans shifting towards climate change legislation.


Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:07 AM
Thank you god.

Can we get this done in the next two years, please?

Norquist seems to be pushing for it to be part of the Grand Bargain. The last time Obama scored energy legislation it was wrapped up in the stimulus package. Wrapping up more energy legislation in a Grand Bargain would be consistent with that -- never let an opportunity go to waste, amiright?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/norquist-carbon-tax-swap-for-income-tax-cut-wouldn-t-violate-no-tax-hike-pledge-20121112

Norquist: Carbon-Tax Swap for Income-Tax Cut Wouldn't Violate No-Tax-Hike Pledge
Coral Davenport
November 12, 2012 | 5:09 p.m.

In a step that may help crack open the partisan impasse on climate change, Grover Norquist, the influential lobbyist who has bound hundreds of Republicans to a pledge never to raise taxes, told National Journal that a proposed “carbon tax swap”—taxing carbon pollution in exchange for cutting the income tax—would not violate his pledge.

Norquist’s assessment matters a lot, and could help pave the way for at least a handful of Republicans to support the policy. Over the past six months, a growing number of conservative voices, including former Republican officials and renowned economists, have amped up pressure on their party to finally address climate change.

One group, the Energy and Enterprise Initiative headed by former Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., has been working for months to persuade the GOP to take up a carbon-tax swap as part of a broad tax-reform package next year. The idea is to create a market signal to drive consumers away from fossil fuels by taxing the carbon pollution caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas.

The problem is that creating a new “energy tax” would be viewed by some as political suicide. And Republicans who have signed Norquist’s pledge would be barred from supporting it.

That’s where the “swap” side of the policy comes in: The new carbon tax would be paired with a cut in the income tax—something Republicans have long sought. The idea essentially would be to cut the tax on income and move it over to carbon pollution—keeping the proposal revenue-neutral.

“It’s possible you could structure something that wasn’t an increase and didn’t violate the pledge,” Norquist told National Journal.

But Norquist made clear he himself doesn’t like the policy. “It would infuriate taxpayers,” he said. He also opined that politically, it’s beyond a long shot. While supporters might now be talking about how to structure the tax swap in such a way that it could win political support, “It’s a conversation about what color unicorn you’d like,” Norquist said.

“If the Democrats thought it was a good idea and the country wouldn’t hate them for it they would have done it in 2009,” when their party held majorities in both chambers of Congress, he said.

Still, if the tax swap could indeed be structured in such a way that it wouldn’t violate Norquist’s pledge, it could remove at least one political obstacle for some Republicans.

“We hear frequently, constantly from Republican lawmakers who say, we see climate change as a huge problem and we want to talk about ways to do this, but for now they’re afraid to talk about it, because of the political repercussions,” said Rob Sisson, president of the group ConservAmerica, formerly Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Conversation about a carbon tax is increasing in Washington. In September, the Congressional Budget Office released a report concluding that a carbon tax on its own—not paired with a tax cut elsewhere—could reduce the federal deficit by 10 percent to 50 percent.

The day after the presidential election, the global bank HSBC put out a research note identifying a carbon tax as a policy that could emerge in President Obama’s second term.

On Tuesday, the Brookings Institution hosts a daylong conference on the economics of a carbon tax, featuring speakers from CBO, the Treasury Department, and the International Monetary Fund.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 07:09 AM
Traitors

Another reason why there is no difference between the two parties.

King_Chief_Fan
11-13-2012, 07:10 AM
This country is in financial ruins and we are worrying about this crap

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 07:22 AM
Throw these bums out, NOW! You want austerity? look no further than this bullshit.

patteeu
11-13-2012, 08:00 AM
I thought you said just a couple of days ago that you knew a carbon tax wasn't going to happen?

HonestChieffan
11-13-2012, 08:25 AM
I thought you said just a couple of days ago that you knew a carbon tax wasn't going to happen?

I had same question. Another day a new bunny trail for diwreck

patteeu
11-13-2012, 08:31 AM
The big problem with this idea of a revenue neutral swap of income tax rate cuts for a carbon tax is that democrats can't be trusted not to turn around and try to raise income tax rates again, particularly on "the wealthy".

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 08:32 AM
The big problem with this idea of a revenue neutral swap of income tax rate cuts for a carbon tax is that democrats can't be trusted not to turn around and try to raise income tax rates again, particularly on "the wealthy".
Has anything ever been "revenue" neutral with the left? Or any politician. That's what Obamacare was claimed to be.

Brock
11-13-2012, 08:36 AM
Making everything more expensive is the answer!

FD
11-13-2012, 08:45 AM
I actually think this would have been more likely under Romney. His top economic advisor is one of the loudest advocates for a revenue neutral carbon tax out there.

SNR
11-13-2012, 09:06 AM
Thank God money is being spent on shit that won't actually clean up the environment.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 09:08 AM
Fun to think that these would be Robin Hoods would be stealing from the rich and poor alike to hook up their cronies.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 09:09 AM
I actually think this would have been more likely under Romney. His top economic advisor is one of the loudest advocates for a revenue neutral carbon tax out there.

I agree. Christ Cristie is on this bandwagon too.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 09:09 AM
Fun to think that these would be Robin Hoods would be stealing from the rich and poor alike to hook up their cronies.

...and keep competitors regulated out of the market.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 09:10 AM
I agree. Christ Cristie is on this bandwagon too.

he's a piece of dog shit.

Iowanian
11-13-2012, 09:10 AM
NO.

Carbon tax will be an economy killer.


Only democrats are that stupid.

mnchiefsguy
11-13-2012, 11:20 AM
NO.

Carbon tax will be an economy killer.


Only democrats are that stupid.

While I agree with you, unfortunately, if some Republicans go along with it, Democrats will not be the only stupid ones.

Carbon taxes will be an economy killer.

Donger
11-13-2012, 11:26 AM
When and why did "Global Warming" become "Climate Change"?

vailpass
11-13-2012, 11:31 AM
he's a piece of dog shit.

Yep. That fat fuck can coronary himself today and it would be a good thing.

patteeu
11-13-2012, 11:43 AM
I don't agree that a carbon tax would be an economy killer if it replaced a different tax instead of being applied on top of existing taxes. In fact, the good thing about a carbon tax is not that it addresses climate change (it doesn't, unless we're talking about taxing carbon across the entire developed and developing world). It's that it shifts a portion of our tax system away from production onto consumption and because it stands as a price proxy for the national security expenses we incur to keep the global oil trade flowing.

Pawnmower
11-13-2012, 12:12 PM
Awesome. Fuck income taxes.

Pawnmower
11-13-2012, 12:13 PM
it shifts a portion of our tax system away from production onto consumption

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Someone gets it

cosmo20002
11-13-2012, 12:53 PM
Thank you god.

In a step that may help crack open the partisan impasse on climate change, Grover Norquist, the influential lobbyist who has bound hundreds of Republicans to a pledge never to raise taxes, told National Journal that a proposed “carbon tax swap”—taxing carbon pollution in exchange for cutting the income tax—would not violate his pledge.

The problem is that creating a new “energy tax” would be viewed by some as political suicide. And Republicans who have signed Norquist’s pledge would be barred from supporting it.

“It’s possible you could structure something that wasn’t an increase and didn’t violate the pledge,” Norquist told National Journal.



Its one thing to be for or against this idea. But the power of Grover and this fucking pledge are just ridiculous. "Can't do it--I signed a pledge to a lobbyist."--WTF? Grover and Rush own the Rs.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 12:56 PM
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Someone gets it

Since when did the repubs want more taxes? There won't be any kind of tax cut, just more layed upon us.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 01:18 PM
Thank you god.



Is this the one you speak of?

http://www.hellhappens.com/satan-3-by-jack-chick.gif

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 01:20 PM
I thought you said just a couple of days ago that you knew a carbon tax wasn't going to happen?

I am still of the belief that it won't.

I do think something more moderate, like a cap-and-trade concept, is feasible.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 01:21 PM
The big problem with this idea of a revenue neutral swap of income tax rate cuts for a carbon tax is that democrats can't be trusted not to turn around and try to raise income tax rates again, particularly on "the wealthy".

And Republicans can't be trusted not to turn around and try to eliminate the carbon tax while keeping the income tax cuts in line.

But, you do it anyway, because that's another conversation.

FD
11-13-2012, 01:21 PM
I don't agree that a carbon tax would be an economy killer if it replaced a different tax instead of being applied on top of existing taxes. In fact, the good thing about a carbon tax is not that it addresses climate change (it doesn't, unless we're talking about taxing carbon across the entire developed and developing world). It's that it shifts a portion of our tax system away from production onto consumption and because it stands as a price proxy for the national security expenses we incur to keep the global oil trade flowing.

Yep. This is why a lot of Republican economists support it. It shifts taxes to a more efficient system. It would also kill any political will to act on climate change in the more hands-on regulatory way that Democrats prefer, but which would probably be a huge mess.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 01:22 PM
Making everything more expensive is the answer!

It is when your goal is to reduce your carbon footprint.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 01:22 PM
I actually think this would have been more likely under Romney. His top economic advisor is one of the loudest advocates for a revenue neutral carbon tax out there.

It probably would have been more possible under Romney because the House GOP would be falling in line.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 01:22 PM
Thank God money is being spent on shit that won't actually clean up the environment.

You don't think a carbon tax is an effective way to reduce carbon output?

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 01:23 PM
When and why did "Global Warming" become "Climate Change"?

I am not sure when it happened, but climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing.

vailpass
11-13-2012, 01:24 PM
It is when your goal is to reduce your carbon footprint.

Die in a fire.

alnorth
11-13-2012, 01:25 PM
This will not happen.

As much as many have mocked the right for being delusional lately, the left is delusional on this issue. The only environmental policy issues with any shred of viability in this country are things like researching renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency. Every form of cap and trade is dead, dead, dead in this country.

Kyoto was rejected by the Senate 95-0. Ninety-Five to Nothing. This is not a Democrat vs Republican thing, cap and trade has no significant support in congress.

alnorth
11-13-2012, 01:27 PM
It probably would have been more possible under Romney because the House GOP would be falling in line.

No, they would not. You are greatly over-estimating the political viability of a cap and trade law.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 01:29 PM
This will not happen.

As much as many have mocked the right for being delusional lately, the left is delusional on this issue. The only environmental policy issues with any shred of viability in this country are things like researching renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency. Every form of cap and trade is dead, dead, dead in this country.

Kyoto was rejected by the Senate 95-0. Ninety-Five to Nothing. This is not a Democrat vs Republican thing, cap and trade has no significant support in congress.

The science has gotten a lot more severe since then.

The Democrats have largely turned on the issue. You can probably get 51 votes for something along the lines of cap-and-trade right now from Democrats. If this momentum towards climate change legislation continues, you really only need 5-7 more Republicans who agree to beat a filibuster.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 01:29 PM
No, they would not. You are greatly over-estimating the political viability of a cap and trade law.

Doesn't have to be cap-and-trade, necessarily.

Brock
11-13-2012, 01:45 PM
Some rich people are going to get richer off of this, the poor will pay more for everything they buy, and the weather will continue to give zero ****s what we do.

vailpass
11-13-2012, 01:54 PM
Some rich people are going to get richer off of this, the poor will pay more for everything they buy, and the weather will continue to give zero ****s what we do.

The idea that we can significantly alter the weather by anything we do short of ceasing production and transportation or leaving the planet is indeed laughable.

patteeu
11-13-2012, 01:55 PM
Some rich people are going to get richer off of this, the poor will pay more for everything they buy, and the weather will continue to give zero ****s what we do.

It would lead to more people paying a fairer share of the country's taxes, but don't let Direckshun in on our secret.

ChiefsCountry
11-13-2012, 01:55 PM
The idea that we can significantly alter the weather by anything we do short of ceasing production and transportation or leaving the planet is indeed laughable.

Please Ari said the US government caused the tornado in Joplin.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 01:59 PM
he's a piece of dog shit.

No wonder Griswald laps him up. ROFL

SNR
11-13-2012, 02:34 PM
You don't think a carbon tax is an effective way to reduce carbon output?
Gas prices have gone up. People still use gas.

I think the headache of taxing carbon usage is going to outweigh any kind of positive effect we'll see on the environment.

Meanwhile they still use leaded gas in parts of Africa, deforestation isn't slowing down, and China is cool with shitting whatever it wants into the atmosphere.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 02:36 PM
Gas prices have gone up. People still use gas.

I think the headache of taxing carbon usage is going to outweigh any kind of positive effect we'll see on the environment.

Meanwhile they still use leaded gas in parts of Africa, deforestation isn't slowing down, and China is cool with shitting whatever it wants into the atmosphere.

Your preferential course of action, then?

SNR
11-13-2012, 02:41 PM
Your preferential course of action, then?

Start burning some of that natural gas we've got. It's cleaner burning than oil.

The market is doing a good job adjusting to make fuel efficient cars. Green crap is everywhere. It's popular in this country. Let people continue to make those decisions, and let companies continue to churn that stuff out.

In the mean time, I have no fucking clue what you say to the rest of the world to make them stop being stupid. I'm not a politician or an ambassador.

Garcia Bronco
11-13-2012, 02:45 PM
Again...I don't know who I find more amusing...the people that say Man is warming the globe, or the people that think we can do something about it.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 02:47 PM
Some rich people are going to get richer off of this, the poor will pay more for everything they buy, and the weather will continue to give zero ****s what we do.

QFT here, if issue <> dead then go to kill mode.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 02:48 PM
Again...I don't know who I find more amusing...the people that say Man is warming the globe, or the people that think we can do something about it.

I've warmed quite a few globes in my day, no one offered to pay any carbon taxes on it though.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 03:10 PM
No man can warm my globes!

OUCH! Did I just post that?

patteeu
11-13-2012, 03:21 PM
Your preferential course of action, then?

Stop foolishly trying to hamstringing our own economy in an effort to save the world that can't possibly succeed.

J Diddy
11-13-2012, 04:00 PM
Please Ari said the US government caused the tornado in Joplin.

WTF are you talking about dumbass?

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 06:58 PM
Government is not the answer to climate change. Innovative economic, social and cultural entrepreneurs rather than politicians are.

RaiderH8r
11-13-2012, 07:11 PM
Making everything more expensive is the answer!

And then they will institute another energy welfare program to pay for the costs they jacked up in the first place.

ChiefsCountry
11-13-2012, 07:15 PM
WTF are you talking about dumbass?

Ari, teedubya whatever the hell his name is now started a thread that the US government created harp rings that caused the tornado in Joplin.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=245462

Donger
11-13-2012, 07:15 PM
I am not sure when it happened, but climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing.

You didn't address the "why" part.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:19 PM
You didn't address the "why" part.

Climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

Donger
11-13-2012, 07:20 PM
Climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

Yes, I know. And why has "global warming" been replaced with "climate change"? You acknowledge that "global warming" was the common phrase over the last few years, yes?

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:25 PM
Yes, I know. And why has "global warming" been replaced with "climate change"? You acknowledge that "global warming" was the common phrase over the last few years, yes?

Right.

But climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 07:27 PM
Climate change happens all the time in nature. For instance, winter is coming and it's getting colder.

Donger
11-13-2012, 07:29 PM
Right.

But climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

So you would agree that there has been a shift from the specific (i.e. global warming) to the general (i.e., climate change), yes?

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:30 PM
Climate change happens all the time in nature. For instance, winter is coming and it's getting colder.

Holy balls, that's retarded.

I normally just completely ignore your existence, but holy balls.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:32 PM
So you would agree that there has been a shift from the specific (i.e. global warming) to the general (i.e., climate change), yes?

I don't understand your question, honestly.

For some time, they defined climate change as "global warming," even though global warming is only one (critical) symptom of the broader issue of climate change.

I hope that answers your question.

HonestChieffan
11-13-2012, 07:32 PM
In all honesty, lets drop the climate angst and just admit this is a new avenue to add taxes. That is the objective. It has nothing to do with carbon, ozone, ice melting or any of this shit.

The good news is we have a new tax that everyone pays!! Tax all the bastards so we can waste it somewhere else.

RaiderH8r
11-13-2012, 07:35 PM
Holy balls, that's retarded.

I normally just completely ignore your existence, but holy balls.

Climate change has been happening for millennia, roughly since the last ice age to be specific and I, for one, welcome the change for life thrives during tropical warm periods, throughout the fossil record. In fact I look forward to a robust and burgeoning diversity of new and fascinating organisms that will be discovered in the millennia to come.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:37 PM
Climate change has been happening for millennia, roughly since the last ice age to be specific and I, for one, welcome the change for life thrives during tropical warm periods, throughout the fossil record. In fact I look forward to a robust and burgeoning diversity of new and fascinating organisms that will be discovered in the millennia to come.

The recent bout of global warming, however, has no precedent.

The planet has been warming in years and decades in ways that previously took centuries.

That's not for no reason.

HonestChieffan
11-13-2012, 07:38 PM
The recent bout of global warming, however, has no precedent.

The planet has been warming in years and decades in ways that previously took centuries.

That's not for no reason.

Drink the koolaid you fool

Donger
11-13-2012, 07:38 PM
I don't understand your question, honestly.

For some time, they defined climate change as "global warming," even though global warming is only one (critical) symptom of the broader issue of climate change.

I hope that answers your question.

You just acknowledged that there has been a shift from everyone saying "global warming" to saying "climate change."

I'm asking if you agree that with the above being true, these people are going from a specific (global warming) to a general (climate change). If global warming is just part of climate change, it seems obvious.

I'm asking if you'll acknowledge the obvious.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:42 PM
You just acknowledged that there has been a shift from everyone saying "global warming" to saying "climate change."

I'm asking if you agree that with the above being true, these people are going from a specific (global warming) to a general (climate change). If global warming is just part of climate change, it seems obvious.

I'm asking if you'll acknowledge the obvious.

I've been acknowledging it all thread.

RaiderH8r
11-13-2012, 07:46 PM
The recent bout of global warming, however, has no precedent.

The planet has been warming in years and decades in ways that previously took centuries.

That's not for no reason.

What's the problem? We're getting to a more biologically friendly climate more efficiently. Do you know what happened the last time the planet cooled? The whole thing froze the fuck over. It's like Alaska in January all the time. Have you been to Alaska in January? No, you haven't because if you had you would see that warming is good. Ever see a verdant forest on a glacier? Nope. Why? Shit don't grow on an ice sheet.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:48 PM
What's the problem? We're getting to a more biologically friendly climate more efficiently.

Link, or you're full of it.

Do you know what happened the last time the planet cooled? The whole thing froze the **** over.

You heard it here first, folks.

If we attempt to slow global warming, we are daring to invite the next ice age.

Donger
11-13-2012, 07:51 PM
I've been acknowledging it all thread.

Good. And why do you think there has been a shift from the specific to the general?

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:53 PM
Good. And why do you think there has been a shift from the specific to the general?

Because climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

Donger
11-13-2012, 07:55 PM
Because climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

And why is that important enough to make the change from the specific to the general?

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:55 PM
And why is that important enough to make the change from the specific to the general?

Because climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue.

Hoover
11-13-2012, 07:56 PM
Cap and Tax would be a deal breaker. And Norquist is just a little hairy dude, not the power house people make him out to be IMO.

cdcox
11-13-2012, 08:00 PM
Drink the koolaid you fool

Is this just physics that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?

cdcox
11-13-2012, 08:02 PM
Climate change happens all the time in nature. For instance, winter is coming and it's getting colder.

cli·mate   [klahy-mit]
noun
1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

Donger
11-13-2012, 08:04 PM
Because climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue.

You do realize that the cynics would take issue with your explanation, yes?

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 08:05 PM
You do realize that the cynics would take issue with your explanation, yes?

I'm pretty sure they take issue with everything.

It doesn't change the science.

cosmo20002
11-13-2012, 08:05 PM
Because climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue.

LMAO He didn't get it the first 5 times. I don't think #6 is going to do it.

petegz28
11-13-2012, 08:08 PM
Wow, the climate changes...paint me shocked and what not. Next thing you know the earth will start spinning, continents will separate and if we don't watch it, there might be lava spewing from under the ground which some are call "volcanoes".

Some have even predicted that the sun, that's that large orange thing in the sky, will get warmer and bigger. Others predict that the moon will start to pull away from the earth ever so slightly each year.

And some real whackos think that not only are there these things called magnetic poles, but that they shift every so often.

It's just sad that none of the poor souls that spout the above realize that the SUV is what is fucking everything up.

cdcox
11-13-2012, 08:09 PM
To try one more time to answer Donger's question, because climate change includes more frequent storm events, changing precipitation patterns, changing wind patterns, etc. in addition to a general warming trend.

Donger
11-13-2012, 08:09 PM
I'm pretty sure they take issue with everything.

It doesn't change the science.

What science? Those British chaps?

Donger
11-13-2012, 08:11 PM
LMAO He didn't get it the first 5 times. I don't think #6 is going to do it.

I got it just fine. I was just trying to see if Direckshun would be willing to entertain the possibility that global warming was no longer readily sale-able, so "they" changed it from the specific to the general.

Shaid
11-13-2012, 08:11 PM
This is a horrible idea at this point. You don't get the economy moving by raising fuel costs. I agree we need to make incentives to move towards green energy but the economy is too tapped to take this right now.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 08:11 PM
What science? Those British chaps?

That the globe is warming at an unprecedented rate, for starters.

Donger
11-13-2012, 08:12 PM
That the globe is warming at an unprecedented rate, for starters.

According to the British chaps?

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 08:17 PM
According to the British chaps?

I don't know who you're referring to? Is that a band?

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 08:19 PM
The recent bout of global warming, however, has no precedent.

The planet has been warming in years and decades in ways that previously took centuries.

That's not for no reason.

translation: we're all gonna die, pay me bitch! /Shaman

RaiderH8r
11-13-2012, 08:35 PM
Link, or you're full of it.



You heard it here first, folks.

If we attempt to slow global warming, we are daring to invite the next ice age.

The climate is always changing so it is either warming or cooling.

And I am simply pointing out that if we accept the premise that humanity can change the climate in one direction then we must accept the premise that we can change it in the other. Hence if we can warm the planet we can cool it and if you think that it is asinine to think we can precipitate an ice age then you should re-examine your entire premise there sparky.

CoMoChief
11-13-2012, 08:41 PM
The republican party is dead. There aren't any conservatives in Congress except for a handful of members.

They're just as bad as liberals except the rhetoric isn't as bad.

Just about every republican in office in DC is for big govt, more police state and more govt spending.

Time for you liberals to grow a fucking spine, stop playing the left/right game and start looking for candidates that WILL make change....not these status quo globalist puppets.

You ever wonder why the majority of Congress walks out of DC 10x richer than when they came into office...meanwhile the gap between the rich and poor grows wider and wider by the day? The jokers don't care about anything than their own well being and sweetheart deals. Time for you libtards and neocons to wake the fuck up.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 08:44 PM
The republican party is dead. There aren't any conservatives in Congress except for a handful of members.

They're just as bad as liberals except the rhetoric isn't as bad.

Just about every republican in office in DC is for big govt, more police state and more govt spending.

Time for you liberals to grow a ****ing spine, stop playing the left/right game and start looking for candidates that WILL make change....not these status quo globalist puppets.

You ever wonder why the majority of Congress walks out of DC 10x richer than when they came into office...meanwhile the gap between the rich and poor grows wider and wider by the day? The jokers don't care about anything than their own well being and sweetheart deals. Time for you libtards and neocons to wake the **** up.

Yes and won't happen.

HonestChieffan
11-13-2012, 08:45 PM
Climate change has nothing to do with it. Its all about a new avenue to add taxes. Be honest, no one sees a change in the climate as a result of one countey on the globe deciding to tax carbon. Wake the fuck up. Diwreck and his cronies are on a tax mission period

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 08:48 PM
Climate change has nothing to do with it. Its all about a new avenue to add taxes. Be honest, no one sees a change in the climate as a result of one countey on the globe deciding to tax carbon. Wake the **** up. Diwreck and his cronies are on a tax mission period

Well ya, gots ta get payed ya knowz?

cdcox
11-13-2012, 08:50 PM
The climate is always changing so it is either warming or cooling.

And I am simply pointing out that if we accept the premise that humanity can change the climate in one direction then we must accept the premise that we can change it in the other. Hence if we can warm the planet we can cool it and if you think that it is asinine to think we can precipitate an ice age then you should re-examine your entire premise there sparky.

Your counter premises are feasible. Certainly humans could change the earth systems in ways that would act to cool the planet (global nuclear war for example). But that isn't our problem right now, because most of the forcing that human activity is currently introducing into the environment are forcings that tend to warm. So I don't see what your point is.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 08:55 PM
cli·mate   [klahy-mit]
noun
1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

I was being facetious. Lighten up Francis. :p

RaiderH8r
11-13-2012, 08:57 PM
Your counter premises are feasible. Certainly humans could change the earth systems in ways that would act to cool the planet (global nuclear war for example). But that isn't our problem right now, because most of the forcing that human activity is currently introducing into the environment are forcings that tend to warm. So I don't see what your point is.

Dismissing the counter as farcical betrays the lie that the discussion is about climate change. In fact the discussion is about further taxing productivity.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 08:58 PM
Dismissing the counter as farcical betrays the lie that the discussion is about climate change. In fact the discussion is about further taxing productivity.

Yup! This whole GW charade is nothing but a power grab....particularly for the UN.

cdcox
11-13-2012, 09:19 PM
Dismissing the counter as farcical betrays the lie that the discussion is about climate change. In fact the discussion is about further taxing productivity.

I'm not dismissing the counter. My only goal is for people to treat the science as science and the politics as politics. Sticking ones head in the sand about climate change makes as much sense as sticking ones head in the sand about the deficit. Just because you don't like the other side's solution, doesn't mean the problem isn't there.

cdcox
11-13-2012, 09:22 PM
Yup! This whole GW charade is nothing but a power grab....particularly for the UN.

This is true just as much as the idea that this whole deficit charade is just an excuse for the rich to kick the poor to the curb so they can keep more of their money.

petegz28
11-13-2012, 09:26 PM
This is true just as much as the idea that this whole deficit charade is just an excuse for the rich to kick the poor to the curb so they can keep more of their money.

Wow, seriously, just listen to how you sound.."so they can keep more of their money"....:shake:

HonestChieffan
11-13-2012, 09:30 PM
This is true just as much as the idea that this whole deficit charade is just an excuse for the rich to kick the poor to the curb so they can keep more of their money.

Nice move to the top of the really stupid posts of the year

cdcox
11-13-2012, 09:32 PM
Wow, seriously, just listen to how you sound.."so they can keep more of their money"....:shake:

Yes its rediculous. That was the whole point. The deficit is a real problem that will bite us in the ass if we don't deal with it. Same with climate change. There are many different political solutions that you can support or criticize, but to call either problem a fabrication created to allow one group or another to grab power isn't helpful. Come up with your own idea to address the problem, but saying the problem doesn't exist is harmful.

petegz28
11-13-2012, 09:35 PM
Yes its rediculous. That was the whole point. The deficit is a real problem that will bite us in the ass if we don't deal with it. Same with climate change. There are many different political solutions that you can support or criticize, but to call either problem a fabrication created to allow one group or another to grab power isn't helpful. Come up with your own idea to address the problem, but saying the problem doesn't exist is harmful.

Two realitites I want to drop on you:

1. The climate has, is and always will be changing.

2. The deficit is caused by spending more money than you have.

#1 we can do some good but little in the overall context

#2 is something we cand have a serious impact on. And yes, it was fabricated for a power grab. It's called politicians buying votes with money they don't have.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 09:39 PM
Yes its rediculous. That was the whole point. The deficit is a real problem that will bite us in the ass if we don't deal with it. Same with climate change. There are many different political solutions that you can support or criticize, but to call either problem a fabrication created to allow one group or another to grab power isn't helpful. Come up with your own idea to address the problem, but saying the problem doesn't exist is harmful.

Where are the spelling Nazis when someone they agree with spells something wrong?

It's ridiculous.

La literatura
11-13-2012, 09:43 PM
Climate change has nothing to do with it. Its all about a new avenue to add taxes. Be honest, no one sees a change in the climate as a result of one countey on the globe deciding to tax carbon. Wake the **** up. Diwreck and his cronies are on a tax mission period

Carbon tax is another one of those conservative ideas like the individual mandate that are now used by Republicans as attack points (the only reason, apparently, is because now Democrats support it). The echo chamber's noise doesn't last too long, does it?

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 09:43 PM
This is true just as much as the idea that this whole deficit charade is just an excuse for the rich to kick the poor to the curb so they can keep more of their money.

You realize that most below a certain income level aren't paying anything?

For someone who is a math man, I think you should add up that taxing them more is still a drop in the bucket for our problems. Why don't you just take it all away from them, so the govt can run for just a few months then? Would that make you feel better?

Taxes aren't the problem. Revenue is not the problem. Spending is the problem.

We have plenty of aid at federal and state levels for the poor. Times are tough for many more than just the poor. What you need to do is visit a third world country and see what poor really looks like.

La literatura
11-13-2012, 09:46 PM
We have plenty of aid at federal and state levels for the poor. Times are tough for many more than just the poor. What you need to do is visit a third world country and see what poor really looks like.

You should go to another first world industrial country and see what their highest tax rates look like.

cdcox
11-13-2012, 09:50 PM
Two realitites I want to drop on you:

1. The climate has, is and always will be changing.

2. The deficit is caused by spending more money than you have.

#1 we can do some good but little in the overall context

#2 is something we cand have a serious impact on. And yes, it was fabricated for a power grab. It's called politicians buying votes with money they don't have.

I'll drop a reality or two on you:

All evidence indicates that the climate is changing faster than it ever has before. So fast that life forms aren't having time to adapt and evolve. And we are only at the beginning of the process.

Damn, Samuel Langley sure had a lot of foresight to go to all of the trouble to fabricate human-induced climate change back in 1890 so the UN could come in and have power over you in 2012.

Greece has problems but they are miniscule in comparison to those that unchecked climate change are likely to yield. For example, they aren't losing half of their population to starvation. If we are realistic with the magnitude of the problem climate change represents, solutions can be found. We just aren't motivated enough.

cdcox
11-13-2012, 09:55 PM
Where are the spelling Nazis when someone they agree with spells something wrong?

It's ridiculous.

Must have been a delay in the spell check. I was shocked when the spell check didn't underline it, and moved on. I'm a terrible speller. I make my best guess and hope the computer can figure out what I meant.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 09:57 PM
Must have been a delay in the spell check. I was shocked when the spell check didn't underline it, and moved on. I'm a terrible speller. I make my best guess and hope the computer can figure out what I meant.

I don't really care. I got you're point.
It's just that there's been a few spelling Nazis from the left recently making a big deal about typos and then piling on as if it's a big deal.

cdcox
11-13-2012, 10:04 PM
You realize that most below a certain income level aren't paying anything?

For someone who is a math man, I think you should add up that taxing them more is still a drop in the bucket for our problems. Why don't you just take it all away from them, so the govt can run for just a few months then? Would that make you feel better?

Taxes aren't the problem. Revenue is not the problem. Spending is the problem.

We have plenty of aid at federal and state levels for the poor. Times are tough for many more than just the poor. What you need to do is visit a third world country and see what poor really looks like.

I don't agree with the statement I made at all. It was an illustration of the absurdity of your statement that climate change was fabricated so the UN can control our lives. Both arguments ignore real problems and instead create a boogie man.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 10:07 PM
I don't agree with the statement I made at all. It was an illustration of the absurdity of your statement that climate change was fabricated so the UN can control our lives. Both arguments ignore real problems and instead create a boogie man.

Well, it may be absurd to you but I know all about the UN and it's green agenda because I've read their documents. It's really an international socialist goal.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

SNR
11-13-2012, 10:09 PM
The recent bout of global warming, however, has no precedent.

The planet has been warming in years and decades in ways that previously took centuries.

That's not for no reason.

Can I see some projections by scientists/economists estimating how much carbon in the atmosphere this will reduce and if that will save us all from dooooooooooooom?

This just sounds like a silly and stupid plan. Like Romeo Crennel cutting Stanford Routt will result in the Chiefs winning some games. That level of feeble planning.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 10:12 PM
I don't agree with the statement I made at all. It was an illustration of the absurdity of your statement that climate change was fabricated so the UN can control our lives. Both arguments ignore real problems and instead create a boogie man.

Welcome to the Carbon trading scam, kill the POOR!

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 10:12 PM
Can I see some projections by scientists/economists estimating how much carbon in the atmosphere this will reduce and if that will save us all from dooooooooooooom?

This just sounds like a silly and stupid plan. Like Romeo Crennel cutting Stanford Routt will result in the Chiefs winning some games. That level of feeble planning.

The goal is to ostensibly reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air.

Almost all acts of taxation repricing have historically been successful in limiting and reducing that which they were aiming for. I don't see why a carbon tax can't accomplish the same thing.

La literatura
11-13-2012, 10:15 PM
I don't really care. I got you're point.
It's just that there's been a few spelling Nazis from the left recently making a big deal about typos and then piling on as if it's a big deal.

That's horrible. BTW, it's "your point."

SNR
11-13-2012, 10:18 PM
The goal is to ostensibly reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air.

Almost all acts of taxation repricing have historically been successful in limiting and reducing that which they were aiming for. I don't see why a carbon tax can't accomplish the same thing.
I don't doubt that taxation will reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air

What I'm skeptical of is what effect that will have on climate change. The United States, while the largest consumer of energy in the world by FAR, can only do so much if the rest of the world doesn't also get their fucking shit together.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 10:19 PM
I don't doubt that taxation will reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air

What I'm skeptical of is what effect that will have on climate change. The United States, while the largest consumer of energy in the world by FAR, can only do so much if the rest of the world doesn't also get their ****ing shit together.

Very true.

It's what you call a good first step.

RaiderH8r
11-13-2012, 10:23 PM
The goal is to ostensibly reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air.

Almost all acts of taxation repricing have historically been successful in limiting and reducing that which they were aiming for. I don't see why a carbon tax can't accomplish the same thing.

What percent of the total annual carbon emissions is directly attributable to human activity?

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 10:30 PM
The return of "Indulgences!" In Medieval times the church declared everything to be a sin, then sold indulgences to the wealthy. The abuses of that system made the church wealthy and fueled the reformation.

Brock
11-13-2012, 10:31 PM
The goal is to ostensibly reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air.

Almost all acts of taxation repricing have historically been successful in limiting and reducing that which they were aiming for. I don't see why a carbon tax can't accomplish the same thing.

Has taxation repricing ever been used to raise the price of every single thing people use on a daily basis?

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 10:37 PM
Venus: No Greenhouse Effect
The flip side of the entrenched incompetence in science today is that all it takes is scientific competence to make revolutionary discoveries, or fundamental corrections to current dogma. Being a competent physicist rather than an incompetent climate scientist (which 97% of them demonstrably are), I was able recently to post an answer on yahoo.com to a question about the greenhouse effect on Venus, an update to which I give here:

Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.

This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER

Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.

Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.

[Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]

So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic.

Here is a table more precisely comparing the temperatures at various pressures in Earth's atmosphere (the standard atmosphere) with the corresponding temperatures in Venus's atmosphere:


(updated 12/02/10)

My uncertainty in finding T_Venus from the graphs is +/- 1.4 K, so any error less than about 1.2 K (in the last column) is negligible. I don't know why the comparison falters slightly between 600 and 300 mb, or why it improves suddenly at 200 mb (~60 km altitude), but the Venus cloud top is given as 58 km, between the 300 and 200 mb levels.

The Venus atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, and supposedly superheated due to a runaway greenhouse effect, yet that portion of it within the pressure bounds of the Earth atmosphere is remarkably like the Earth in temperature. This is student-level analysis, and could not have been neglected by climate scientists, if they were not rendered incompetent by their dogmatic belief in the greenhouse hypothesis. (Again, the overwhelming extent of fundamental incompetence exhibited by scientists today is the real underlying story.) This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth -- the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely. This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared radiation from the Sun, which is not reflected but absorbed by Venus's clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface. (It also indicates that the Earth atmosphere is substantially warmed the same way, during daylight hours, by direct solar infrared irradiation, and that the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below.) This denies any possibility of a "greenhouse effect" on Venus (or on Earth), much less a "runaway" one. This has already been pointed out recently by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who have written succinctly, "...since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses [sic] is not obeyed." Yet they are ridiculed by climate scientists, who thus behave like spoiled children who refuse to be chastised by their parents.

Update March 14, 2012: This analysis is so easy, the result so immediately amazing, and the interpretation just above so obvious to me, yet the opposition to accepting it so universal and so determined, that I was led to unconsciously accept, partially but nevertheless wrongly, the premise of incompetent critics, that my findings were invalid because I had not "corrected for albedo", or in other words had wrongly assumed the Earth and Venus atmospheres were blackbodies, absorbing all the radiation incident upon them. I inadvertently got caught up, over time, in claiming the Earth-plus-atmosphere system behaves like a blackbody (although I never claimed it absorbs all the radiation incident upon it, as a blackbody is defined to do, and as the incompetent dismissers of my analysis have determinedly, dogmatically insisted). Although this has thoroughly hindered the acceptance of my analysis, my initial approach to the problem was in fact sound (even if too simple-minded for most), and my above, initial interpretation is quite correct, and in fact unavoidable, although it is not a complete statement. The complete interpretation, which I have stressed (as a logical fact) ever since, both in comments below this article, and on other internet sites, is that the two atmospheres must DIRECTLY absorb the SAME FRACTION of the incident solar radiation. For, supposing that both atmospheres do so absorb, and are solely warmed by, the same fraction (f), and given that the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun--Venus/Earth--is (A), the governing formula becomes, for the Earth and Venus atmospheres in turn

This result is independent of the fraction f absorbed, which is why naively approaching the problem as if f = 1 nevertheless gives, without the need to even consciously consider albedo beforehand, the amazingly clear result that the temperature ratio depends only--and amazingly, quite precisely--upon the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun. Any "expert", upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction. So I apologize for not presenting the explicit equations above sooner, for it would have saved me stumbling into error later, and embarrassing my few defenders, in my "blackbody" defense of the original analysis--but I insist my critics have all been more incompetent than I in this matter, in refusing to even consider my correct interpretation, because of what they merely assumed was a fatal error. There was no physical error in my original analysis, because the temperature ratio I obtained was an empirical fact, and the absorbed power ratio I implied from that was a logical fact (simply stated, Venus's atmosphere DOES absorb 1.91 times the power that Earth's atmosphere does, as their temperature ratio shows--and that ratio is precisely that predicted simply from the ratio of their distances from the Sun). Since the two atmospheres DO, factually, absorb the same fraction of the solar radiation incident upon them, there was, in reality, no physical reason to extend the analysis by "correcting for albedo". But I seriously underestimated the level of determined ignorance--alias incompetence--of the "experts", and dropped part way down to their level for a time.

Another way to look at the Venus/Earth data is this:

Venus is 67.25 million miles from the Sun, the Earth, 93 million.

The radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.

Without ANY greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC, at any given pressure within the range of the Earth atmosphere, the temperature of the Venus atmosphere should be 1.176 times that of the corresponding Earth atmosphere.

The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)

The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%.

There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun tells us that both atmospheres must be warmed, overall, essentially in the same way, by direct IR solar irradiation from above, not by surface emissions from below. Keeping it simple, the atmospheres must be like sponges, or empty bowls, with the same structure (hydrostatic lapse rate), filled with energy by the incident solar radiation to their capacity to hold that energy.

There is no greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace of carbon dioxide.

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

cdcox
11-13-2012, 10:55 PM
Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

Garbage physics deleted.



Total physics fail. Why is Mercury cooler than Venus? Why do the moons of Jupiter have different temperatures?

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 11:05 PM
Total physics fail. Why is Mercury cooler than Venus? Why do the moons of Jupiter have different temperatures?

I bet the answer can somehow be blamed on Earthling caused global warming. LMAO Nice rebuttal btw.

RaiderH8r
11-13-2012, 11:31 PM
Total physics fail. Why is Mercury cooler than Venus? Why do the moons of Jupiter have different temperatures?

And why does Mars' temperature continue to rise? That little rover must be pumping out the CO2.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-13-2012, 11:34 PM
And why does Mars' temperature continue to rise? That little rover must be pumping out the CO2.

Put down the SUV, NAOW!!!! LMAO

cdcox
11-14-2012, 12:11 AM
And why does Mars' temperature continue to rise? That little rover must be pumping out the CO2.

What is the evidence that Mars is warming?

A NASA scientist took two measurements of albedo (the amount of radiation reflected by the planet) one from 1977 and one from 1999 and calculated using a Global Climate Model that the change in albedo was consistent with a small temperature change.

What is causes changes in albedo?

On Mars, it's dust storms.

Were any actual changes in temperature measured?

No. Just changes in the light and dark areas on the surface measured on two different days about 23 years apart, presumably caused by dust storms.

Two different days? You mean there is no long term observation that the changes in albedo are increasing in one direction instead of just changing randomly?

Nope. Two points don't make a trend.

So it doesn't sound like there is any evidence that the temperature on Mars is increasing.

Nope.

So why do people bring up this argument?


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

BWillie
11-14-2012, 12:24 AM
I give no shits about the environment unless it adds economic value. ..which it never does. You and me well be long gone way before anything we do good or bad really makes a difference. ... And I don't care if your grandchildren have to pick motor oil out of their teeth when they eat cod. Makes no difference to me.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 05:36 AM
I'll drop a reality or two on you:

All evidence indicates that the climate is changing faster than it ever has before. So fast that life forms aren't having time to adapt and evolve. And we are only at the beginning of the process.

Damn, Samuel Langley sure had a lot of foresight to go to all of the trouble to fabricate human-induced climate change back in 1890 so the UN could come in and have power over you in 2012.

Greece has problems but they are miniscule in comparison to those that unchecked climate change are likely to yield. For example, they aren't losing half of their population to starvation. If we are realistic with the magnitude of the problem climate change represents, solutions can be found. We just aren't motivated enough.

Would you be willing to give up Obamacare in return for a carbon tax?

Earthling
11-14-2012, 05:45 AM
I bet the answer can somehow be blamed on Earthling caused global warming..

Thems fightin' words mister...!! STFU

patteeu
11-14-2012, 06:01 AM
Very true.

It's what you call a good first step.

No, it's a second step. The first step is for you to stop driving a car and using air conditioning or heating. Have you taken those steps so we can start considering this one?

KILLER_CLOWN
11-14-2012, 07:33 AM
Would you be willing to give up Obamacare in return for a carbon tax?

No I would rather have the crappy Obamacare.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-14-2012, 07:35 AM
Thems fightin' words mister...!! STFU

It's all your fault, and think of how derogatory the word Clown is... :mad:

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:09 AM
I don't doubt that taxation will reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air

What I'm skeptical of is what effect that will have on climate change. The United States, while the largest consumer of energy in the world by FAR, can only do so much if the rest of the world doesn't also get their ****ing shit together.

Tax the richa nd all the world's ills will go away

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 08:46 AM
So why do people bring up this argument?



Why do some scientists disagree with you on GW? One is an atmospheric physicist who teaches meteorology at MIT —Richard Lindzen. Oh yeah, he was invited to give talks to some oil companies. But it was because he already disagreed not because he was paid to parrot big oil. Even he claims that there are "political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism....He has long opposed the conventional consensus on global warming, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction." (wiki)

BTW I do think there is warming but I don't think it's catastrophic. I think it's better for man than cooling. Longer growing seasons, less need for winter fuel.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 03:56 PM
Total physics fail. Why is Mercury cooler than Venus? Why do the moons of Jupiter have different temperatures?

Q: Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

A: One has an atmosphere, one doesn't

Q: Why do moons of Jupiter have different temps?

A: Composition, atmosphere or lack thereof, location, etc.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 04:16 PM
Q: Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

A: One has an atmosphere, one doesn't

Q: Why do moons of Jupiter have different temps?

A: Composition, atmosphere or lack thereof, location, etc.

Which one doesn't have an atmosphere, pete?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 05:25 PM
Which one doesn't have an atmosphere, pete?

If you mean Mercury vs. Venus, Mercury does not have an atmosphere.

Considering there are 65+ Jupiter moons, I don't know. The point is to compare Earth to other planets\moons is rather idiotic at it's root.

cdcox
11-14-2012, 08:04 PM
If you mean Mercury vs. Venus, Mercury does not have an atmosphere.

Considering there are 65+ Jupiter moons, I don't know. The point is to compare Earth to other planets\moons is rather idiotic at it's root.

So Pete do all atmospheres absorb the same amount of heat regardless of composition? That is what the author of the garbage physics is proposing. Do you think all wavelengths of light absorb the same? Do you know anything about physics? Or do you do special physics because you're a Republican?

cdcox
11-14-2012, 08:17 PM
Why do some scientists disagree with you on GW? One is an atmospheric physicist who teaches meteorology at MIT —Richard Lindzen. Oh yeah, he was invited to give talks to some oil companies. But it was because he already disagreed not because he was paid to parrot big oil. Even he claims that there are "political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism....He has long opposed the conventional consensus on global warming, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction." (wiki)

BTW I do think there is warming but I don't think it's catastrophic. I think it's better for man than cooling. Longer growing seasons, less need for winter fuel.

Can we take Richard Lindzen as a starting point? I we call Lindzen's position a northward point of view and the consensus opinion of climate change a southern point of view, can we ignore any thought to the north of Lindzen to be unscientific? Can we agree on that much?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:42 PM
So Pete do all atmospheres absorb the same amount of heat regardless of composition? That is what the author of the garbage physics is proposing. Do you think all wavelengths of light absorb the same? Do you know anything about physics? Or do you do special physics because you're a Republican?

You were the one talking shit about why Venus is hotter than Mercury. I was merely pointing out the reason why. Sorry if that upsets you.

cdcox
11-14-2012, 08:45 PM
You were the one talking shit about why Venus is hotter than Mercury. I was merely pointing out the reason why. Sorry if that upsets you.

I thought you were defending the bad physics post. Rereading, I see that you were not. My bad and my apologies.

RaiderH8r
11-14-2012, 09:10 PM
Tax the richa nd all the world's ills will go away

You can shear a sheep dozens of times but you can only skin it once.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:15 PM
You can shear a sheep dozens of times but you can only skin it once.

The plain truth of it is what it always has been. The Democrats don't have any ideas and "tax the rich" is a tag line that people will buy into. The sad part is you can tax them into poverty and it would change very little given the spending habits in D.C.

Garcia Bronco
11-19-2012, 02:57 PM
The plain truth of it is what it always has been. The Democrats don't have any ideas and "tax the rich" is a tag line that people will buy into. The sad part is you can tax them into poverty and it would change very little given the spending habits in D.C.

this.

I don't understand how others don't understand that our government spends 1/3rd over what it takes in..meaning you can take everything that everyone has and still not pay the difference for one year in deficit spending alone.

Spending is 100 percent our problem. Just think of all the money we spend in this country just subsidizing the vagina. :evil:

BucEyedPea
11-19-2012, 02:59 PM
this.

I don't understand how others don't understand that our government spends 1/3rd over what it takes in..meaning you can take everything that everyone has and still not pay the difference for one year in deficit spending alone.

Spending is 100 percent our problem. Just think of all the money we spend in this country just subsidizing the vagina. :evil:

Mine isn't subsidized. Just the ones getting govt paid birth control.

Garcia Bronco
11-19-2012, 03:05 PM
Mine isn't subsidized. Just the ones getting govt paid birth control.

It's not just birth control. Birth control is one line item in a long list.

Direckshun
02-14-2013, 07:01 PM
C'mon guys. Keep coming to the light.

NBC News (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16954211-gao-climate-change-poses-big-financial-risk-to-us-government?lite):

The federal government is facing significant financial risks related to extreme weather events, and states and cities can no longer depend on it for extra help after such events occur, the Republican chairman of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Friday.

The warning from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., came at a press conference about the release of a new report (http://www.gao.gov/highrisk) by the Government Accountability Office, which identified “climate change” on its 2013 list of items presenting high risk to the federal government.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-15-2013, 08:24 AM
I remember pre 08 election, people on this forum would say....

Why do you believe that Obama will push for carbon legislation? He Clearly won't be able to push anything through

Why do you think Obama will push to ban gun ownership?

Clearly he won't be able to, nothing will change..Just vote for Hopebama!

mlyonsd
02-15-2013, 08:48 AM
C'mon guys. Keep coming to the light.

NBC News (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16954211-gao-climate-change-poses-big-financial-risk-to-us-government?lite):

And then Issa shit all over it......

Though all the lawmakers stressed bipartisan agreement on the goal of reducing government waste, House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said, "Whether climate change is increasing will be talked about for some time to come. But we can't assume the budget is one thing and then add $50 billion in a supplemental bill every year."

He said the federal and state governments have "underprepared for a generation" as if not anticipating that there will be floods and earthquakes. "It's the responsibility of states and cities, who can't just assume the federal government will come in," Issa said. "We must be proactive in withholding federal funds" and monitor how locals are handling issues of insurance and safe rebuilding. "Our committee has the obligation to ask questions so the federal government either appropriates money or shifts it to states and localities. This isn't controversial, it's good government."

Issa said he hopes "all members approach the budget issue in a way that is not all about where they are on climate change."http://www.govexec.com/management/2013/02/gaos-high-risk-list-tackles-climate-change/61312/