Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

lquadland10 (< 20)

Attention United Nations and Al Gore. You are wrong and it is not humans..

Recs

16

March 28, 2011 – Comments (19)

Now please tell me what companies that now deal with Carbon Tax. Does GE? Need some names here my kind fools.I am sure you don't want to pay more taxes do you?  

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 28, 2011 at 1:44 AM, guiron (< 20) wrote:

It's always amusing watching people cherry pick the science they want to believe over the scientific consensus. Such thinking is ideologically based and bears little resemblence to the facts at hand. I would think people who are traders would be more impressed with evidence over their own emotions, or at least that your headline would jibe with what your linked report actually says.

I find amusing the conspiratorial angle that the rich and powerful are pushing this, as if you couldn't make a hell of a lot more money by backing energy companies who consistently fight attempts to regulate their pollution. As if those companies are the victims, when their profits have never been bigger and their liabilities carried by the rest of us, who pay to clean up their messes over and over.

Report this comment
#2) On March 28, 2011 at 1:55 AM, guiron (< 20) wrote:

Also, as for not wanting to pay more taxes. Nobody likes to pay taxes. Most of us grow up after our teenage years and realize that, although we don't like to pay taxes per se, there is really nothing wrong with it, and ultimately complaining about paying taxes is like complaining about the weather. Creating a political philosophy around the idea that someone doesn't like to pay taxes is pure adolescent foolishness, and I can't believe people take it as seriously as they do. Our tax burdens in the US are very light compared to any other advanced economy, and yet we have people screaming to balance the budget and cut taxes for the wealthy at the same time. It makes no sense - where is that coming from? It's as if people aren't thinking about what they're saying at all. They're just parroting what their political party tells them to without a thought to where those messages are originating, and why it might not be such a good idea for working people to back the politics of the rich and powerful who are convincing them to vote against their own interests.

Report this comment
#3) On March 28, 2011 at 8:49 AM, cthomas1017 (80.38) wrote:

It's always amusing watching people cherry pick news because they want to believe that there is a scientific consensus.

There, fixed it. 

Report this comment
#4) On March 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Yes and who will make the money by cherry picking what they want to get the carbon tax. I am glad you gurion like paying so much in taxes. I on the other hand added up all may taxes. Sales gas county fed med social security phone eletric water school fees and what not and I am now paying 40% what are you paying. I am in the lower tax bracket. I do not care at all what the other Country's are paying. NOT my problem. I care what I am paying. You want to pay more then do so. Take 100 weather reporting station around the country. Place them and record. Get an average. Then remove 30 of them from the colder parts and then report the average. Oh my the averave went up. If you pay 150.00 for summer energy and then have to pay 300.00 because of cap and tax then do so. I could buy a couple of dinners out on the town with that kind of money. Keep a few more people employed. Oh and on taxes........... Do me a favor when you pay your taxes and the government returns your check. Tell me the name of the bank it was cashed on. Ech.................oh and you still did not give me any names that deal with the carbon trading. Several states do that now on their own. 

Report this comment
#5) On March 28, 2011 at 7:02 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

Well said, cthomas.  I won't argue the point one way or the other, but I will say that global warming is simply a scientific theory.  Most people arguing about global warming don't seem to understand the definition of the word "theory".  It is not proven science...there is no real consensus.  There is ample evidence to argue either side...

Report this comment
#6) On March 28, 2011 at 7:30 PM, devoish (99.08) wrote:

davejh23 and cthomas1017 and lquadland10,

You are mistaken. CO2 forced global warming is real and we will face it. The cost of facing it later will exceed the cost of facing it now. And you will pay. No matter how low your tax bill is today or tomorrow.

It is the wonder of blissful ignorance to know that there is enough pollution in the air to see it with your own eyes as smog and the black soot on the snow on the side of the road, to affect the health of people, through asthma, and heart disease and lung disease, but imagine the rest of the world and its environments remain unchanged.

Best wishes,

Steven

Who also believes in the scientific theory of gravity.

Report this comment
#7) On March 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM, cthomas1017 (80.38) wrote:

Thank God I wasn't living in Pittsburgh in 1920.  The clear air back then would have convinced me that global warming could never happen.  I'm convinced.  I'll look out my window in the morning. and if I see soot in the air I will join the scientific consensous.  

Last of the snow melted last week so the only thing left is the tire residue, brake dust, and leaked oil on the side of the road.  It must be covering up all that global warming material.  I will make sure to scrape off the top layer to find what you've enlightened me about.

My asthma cleared up when I was about 16.  Must've been the elimination of those florocarbons.  All these years I thought it was pollen & dustmite excresion that was causing it.  I shall contact my old allergist and demand a refund for her misdiagnosis. 

Again, thank you for opening my eyes.  It is a glorious feeling to know that I am no longer among the blissfully ignorant.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I shall celebrate with a triple decker Whopper now that I know that glabal warming, and not cholestorol is the cause of those little blue pills I've been taking.

Best wishes,

CT

Who also believes in the LAW of gravity. 

Report this comment
#8) On March 29, 2011 at 8:22 PM, soycapital (< 20) wrote:

Gravity I can handle, man made global warming....not so much. You get enough people sitting around doing nothing they are always going to dream up something. Several years ago they were all alarmed about global cooling, a new ice age. I remember reading about it but somehow I don't remember it actually happening. Imagine that?

Report this comment
#9) On March 30, 2011 at 12:04 AM, MyDonkey (< 20) wrote:

davejh23, you're apparently confused on a few things:

1. Global warming is not a theory, it's an observation based on empirical evidence (i.e. actual measurements of the Earth's surface temperature over the years). See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

2. Science never PROVES anything; that's not how science works. A theory can be corroborated or supported by further evidence or experimentation, but it can never be proven as absolute truth. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

3. There is a strong scientifiic consensus that the recent increase in global surface temperatures is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Report this comment
#10) On March 30, 2011 at 7:23 PM, ajm101 (32.25) wrote:

cthomas, I'm afraid your response to devoish is classic dissembling.  you provided an attack on a straw man (local particulate pollution does not imply high atmospheric CO2, but the reverse is true) and an anecdote (your personal asthma experience).  Weak.

I would be really impressed if you could independently summarize the pro-anthropogenic global warming case, and then rebut it using hard science with data or proposing experiments that might disprove it.   I will even help you collect data if you design a good experiment with my somewhat limited means.

Report this comment
#11) On March 30, 2011 at 7:27 PM, ajm101 (32.25) wrote:

soycapital, the article you are thinking of was not a few years ago, it was 1974 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html).

Scientific tools have improved and CO2 emissions have increased since then.  The reason that you thought it was from a few years ago is because the Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity used it heavily (and successfully) to kill a carbon tax bill.

Report this comment
#12) On March 31, 2011 at 3:05 AM, guiron (< 20) wrote:

It's always amusing watching people cherry pick news because they want to believe that there is a scientific consensus.

Pull your head out. It's embarrassing.

Report this comment
#13) On March 31, 2011 at 3:12 AM, guiron (< 20) wrote:

The reason that you thought it was from a few years ago is because the Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity used it heavily (and successfully) to kill a carbon tax bill.

That's what you consider a reliable scource of scientific research? If I really wanted to cash in, which side would I take? The pro-science side, or the pro-business side, with deep pockets and hordes of lobbyists?

The science which proves over and over that climate change is manmade isn't political. It exists whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Apparently the call to action by Rick Santelli to get back at all the working-class "losers," who lost their jobs in the recession and couldn't pay for their mortgage, brought out the very best in humanity.

Report this comment
#14) On March 31, 2011 at 3:14 AM, guiron (< 20) wrote:

Gravity I can handle, man made global warming....not so much

Ah, that's smart thinking. Selective reality.

Report this comment
#15) On March 31, 2011 at 3:19 AM, guiron (< 20) wrote:

I would be really impressed if you could independently summarize the pro-anthropogenic global warming case

It's not anyone else's responsibility to do that, nor is it necessary. All the scientific research is available for you to peruse, as well as plentiful resources which can dumb it down to your level. All without other people having to waste their time yet again playing ridiculous games in the name of taking responsibility for your own ignorance.

Report this comment
#16) On March 31, 2011 at 4:10 AM, AvianFlu (34.32) wrote:

The most intelligent treatise I've read about this topic was written by noted rocket scientist Ruth McClung. As someone with minors in physics and mathematics the logic appealed to me greatly. Bottom line: global warming exists, but is most likely not caused by humans. Here is the link: http://ruth4az.com/Issues/GlobalWarming.html

Report this comment
#17) On March 31, 2011 at 4:15 AM, ryanalexanderson (< 20) wrote:

Well, I can chip in here on this one. I'm a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, working on ice shelf breakups, and incidentally this is my last day of work.

First of all, sea ice is somewhat of a red herring. It's extremely noisy data, and a couple years of anomalous data can easily occur at any time. Of all the data for a layman to interpret, it would be the hardest. You could read anything you want into it. 

And yes, parts of Antarctica are cooling slightly. Antarctica's weather system is isolated from the rest of the world by the Circumpolar Current, except for the peninsula. 

And the peninsula is the fastest warming place on the planet. 5 degrees in 50 years.

The news clip says ice is calving off the glaciers all the time. Also correct. However, the Larsen ice shelf has been a stable size for centuries, if not millenia, in an equilibrium of calving ice and ice being pushed out from the continent. That equilibrium is now gone, as is most of the huge Larsen ice shelf. This shouldn't be surprising...as I said, 5 degrees in 50 years. 

My point is, I guess, that it's more about the climate change bit than the global warming bit. The fact that the Antarctic interior is cooling slightly in areas is unimportant compared to the fact that the status quo is being radically changed.

On the anthropogenic side, I have very little opinion. It seems like a reasonable theory. Enough to secure conviction in a civil trial but not a criminal one, say. But I'm no eco-warrior attempting to change the world. BAS is mostly about the data - that's the "Survey" part of BAS - and things are definitely changing.

(On a lighter note, here's a blog of my work down south: http://www.ryantarctic.blogspot.com . I saw some stock footage in that news clip from my base, Halley.)

Report this comment
#18) On March 31, 2011 at 10:48 AM, ajm101 (32.25) wrote:

guiron - I think you misread me.

Report this comment
#19) On March 31, 2011 at 10:51 AM, ajm101 (32.25) wrote:

ryanalexanderson - nice to hear from an informed source.  i'll check out the blog.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement