June 27, 2009
– Comments (6)
Cap and Trade: Little Debate, No Sensibility, Devastating Consequences
Great blog. I agree with all you've said. I really think that we are screwed and people with common sense have very little control to change things. I'm disgusted. Lord O and congress are just continuing their ongoing quest to destroy what was once a great nation.
I strongly oppose the cap and trade as well. Government Intervention is further prolonging the recession and complicating any recovery in the future. I would not be suprised if the market takes a plunge on Monday.
I agree with you in regards to nuclear being viable, and the fact that the government seems to have ignored it. Nuclear is an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels. I do, however, believe this newest legislation includes some assitance to the nuclear industry in general in that it is facilitating the proccess in which new nuclear reactors are approved for construction--i.e. decreasing red tape.
Your argument in regards to the validity of AGW is tenuous at best. You provide neither empirical evidence nor specific credible sources to support your position. I suggest you spend less time in the political sphere and more time learning the science from those who study, research, and teach it. A great website i visit frequently is realclimate.org. Here you can find a myriad of articles relating to climate change and what is happening (currently) around the world climatologically. The articles are written by REAL climate scientists who use science and research to justify their claims.
Perhaps this legislation is flawed. But I am also aware that there is no such thing as "perfect" legislation. The renewable energy sector needs a significant boost in order to be jump started. You proclaim that this new legislation will place an even greater burden on an already financially strapped consumer. Let me ask you this: when gas prices were on avg. ~ 3.50/galloon last summer how much less money do you think consumers had to spend on other goods? So is it not logical to say that our decreased dependency on oil should result in lower gas prices while taxes increase? Therefore the issue of higher taxes will essentially be offset by significantly cheaper fuel and oil...
Oh, you mean the realclimate.org that is partially funded by the left-wing, moveon.org and george soros? That one?
Advising a young man to pay less attention to politics in the science that those who study gloabl warming are out of jobs if they can't get funding for studying it - their motivation being that if global warming doesn't exist, they don't get their research grants? Those "scientists?
YOU provide neither empirical evidence nor specific credible sources to support your position either. There is plenty of empirical evidence and credible sourses that demonstrate that man-made global warming is not occurring. Because the author did not produce a two hour tretise on the subject, don't try to discredit his message as being unsubstantiated.
This past winter and so far this May and June of '09 are much colder than average. Oh that's right, let's not call it global warming any more. Let's call it climate change, that way we win no matter which way the weather turns. We can directly observe historically and in our daily lives that weather and climate are difficult to predict. It's not hard to predict the arguments and tactics of a socialist.
One of the first tactics taught to a politically active socialist is to attack the opponent rather than the substance. You sir, failed to attack the substance of the arguement and resorted to attacking the author. (Oh, and before you try the trite little tactic of failed logic that I must be a socialist since I attacked you. Save us the trouble. I acknowledge that I've turned the tables on you and simply played your own game. Yet, where you will fail in your logic is that I attacked your sources and pointed out the failures in your argument. To take you on with substance could fill a book and I just don't have the time for engaging you here. There are plenty of credible sources that convincingly rip apart the so-called science of "AGW".
First off, the only reason I mentioned Realclimate, is because of its credibility, accessibility, conciseness, and intelligibility. I don't live by that website, but I do however believe for someone looking for some insight and self-education on the matter, it is a great place. Science NOT rhetoric is used to explain what is happening and WHY. You think all of this science is fabricated? And you still somehow have the will to live in such a selfishly driven society?
And see the problem with a political perspective is that everything is driven by selfishness, greed and money. Cynicism and negativity are the basis of your argument. If money were the only motivator for these people they would NOT have become SCIENTISTS. You don't/can't go to school for 10 years to get a PhD in meteorology, climatology, engineering, mathematics, physics or geology if the mighty dollar is your chief motive. I can think of numerous ways ways in which money could be earned more lucratively and expeditiously. You chose to attack the premise of AGW, declaring it is becoming increasingly ambiguous. And then use something even more opaque --human psychology-- to bolster your argument. The fact is humans have an aversion to change. Historically, in all contexts, drastic change has NOT occurred until something terrible or devastating with irreversible consequences ensues---the recent financial crisis is just one perfect case in point. Additionally, some of the most important scientific discoveries were at first ignored, discounted, refuted, or altogether thrown out, only years later to be found correct.
You furthermore failed to make any mention of what I had stated in my last paragraph. Ultimately, most people are concerned about the additional money needed from taxpayers to support this newest legislation. But wouldn't a substantial decrease in cost of fossil fuels offset any modest tax hikes? So even if there is no such thing as AGW as you profess, what could at worst happen is we simultaneously decrease our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, and increase our national security. Hmm, it appears you're the one with all of the ulterior motives...
did you say "nuculer"?
i think it's silly that you focus on global warming at all. it doesn't even matter if global warming is true or not, the bill is still awful.
you could have made an amazing argument just by looking at the economics of cap and trade and how it's basically a massive tax on the american people. Furthermore, jobs are almost guaranteed to go overseas.