An inconvenient Absence
-
Ha. I see that Sev is trying to do his best and getting nowhere. Cheers, Sev.
Thought you guys would find this interesting, since you still can't get beyond the "It was cold where I live for a couple weeks so global warming doesn't exist" line of argument, as elementary as it may be:
"The globe recorded its eighth warmest December since record keeping began in 1880, and 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated December 2009 as the 4th warmest December on record, and the year 2009 tied with 2007 as the second warmest year on record."
Seems to run counter to the point of this thread, no?
OK.
So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:
So what?
Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.
WSS
OK.
So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:
So what?
Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.
WSS
Steve, I'm just trying to help them past the "Hey, it's snowing outside my house so global warming is hooey!" stage. And if you're still in that stage, there really isn't much point in debating what's beyond it, is there? It's like trying to debate the West Coast offense with someone who still doesn't understand what a quarterback does.
I mean, look at Sev in this thread. He actually knows this stuff, whereas all the other guys obviously don't, and have to cut and paste other people's opinions because their opinions are simply adopted from the political people they read or listen to. This should probably chasten them a bit, but it clearly doesn't. Once they're beaten, they just pick up another line and try that. And then the cycle repeats.
As for what comes next, I don't know what the point of your question is. Cap and trade is hanging in the balance, especially after a Brown win today, which he seems to be headed towards. And so you're faced with the prospect of EPA regulations, which nobody wants. So maybe you get some sort of watered down bill instead, which is all you can get out of Congress today. So there's a real prospect that greenhouse gas emissions will continue pretty much unabated, which is pretty bad news for the planet.
Besides, you're still stuck in your rut, which is to claim that there's no difference between emissions under a cap and trade system and emissions without one. So there's really no point in arguing with you either, which is why I don't, and periodically check in here to see what crazy people think is true this month.
-
Whats so funny about this whole thing is how only democrats want to tax the air you exhale and tax the weather outside.
Whats next a tax on how many hairs are on your head. The whole argument is getting ridiculous, especially when they have to fabricate their info.
-
Democrats don't want to tax the air you exhale or the weather. (Where do you get this stuff?) You're just a lunatic who doesn't know anything, T. That's all there is to it.
-
And, Heck, you are a loser who keeps bailing out of the forum and keeps coming back when
you think that we forgot that you seem to be the one who reads articles, then pens in your opinions like they were yours.
In my reading, I have more than 3 times read posts by "experts", in nearly the exact same words as you.
Coincidence? Or not?
BTW, you never answered my question - did you, Shep, Mzbeetlejuice, and Al know each other, or
some subgroup of the above, on some other forum @@ before you came here?
I ask, because, seems to me, that none of the above ever said how they are Browns fans, love the Browns, etc...........
and you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles.
After all the posts to the contrary of mmgw, they start all over AGAIN at the beginning, arguing the same premise.
"Deja vu all over again"
Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?
-
No, we didn't know each other. Sorry if this ruins some sort of conspiracy you've created in your head.
-
And, Heck, you are a loser who keeps bailing out of the forum and keeps coming back when
you think that we forgot that you seem to be the one who reads articles, then pens in your opinions like they were yours.
In my reading, I have more than 3 times read posts by "experts", in nearly the exact same words as you.
Coincidence? Or not?
BTW, you never answered my question - did you, Shep, Mzbeetlejuice, and Al know each other, or
some subgroup of the above, on some other forum @@ before you came here?
I ask, because, seems to me, that none of the above ever said how they are Browns fans, love the Browns, etc...........
and you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles.
After all the posts to the contrary of mmgw, they start all over AGAIN at the beginning, arguing the same premise.
"Deja vu all over again"
Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?
And, Heck, you are a loser who keeps bailing out of the forum and keeps coming back when
you think that we forgot that you seem to be the one who reads articles, then pens in your opinions like they were yours.
In my reading, I have more than 3 times read posts by "experts", in nearly the exact same words as you.
Coincidence? Or not?
BTW, you never answered my question - did you, Shep, Mzbeetlejuice, and Al know each other, or
some subgroup of the above, on some other forum @@ before you came here?
I ask, because, seems to me, that none of the above ever said how they are Browns fans, love the Browns, etc...........
and you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles.
After all the posts to the contrary of mmgw, they start all over AGAIN at the beginning, arguing the same premise.
"Deja vu all over again"
Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?
Cal I think it's the other way around. They did not know each other but gravitated to the EXACT same views because that is what their minds were molded to think. I've change my views from time to time because I don't let ego get into the way of what is right or wrong. When you side with either political gang, it's purely being brainwashed.
-
...Wha?? Who molded us?
You guys are too funny over here in your little sheltered colony, listening to each other say the same thing every day, then accusing everyone else of being automatons who were molded to think a certain way. It's pretty funny.
-
...Wha?? Who molded us?
You guys are too funny over here in your little sheltered colony, listening to each other say the same thing every day, then accusing everyone else of being automatons who were molded to think a certain way. It's pretty funny.
...Wha?? Who molded us?
You guys are too funny over here in your little sheltered colony, listening to each other say the same thing every day, then accusing everyone else of being automatons who were molded to think a certain way. It's pretty funny.
No Heck that is MY view not anyone elses, lol.
-
No, we didn't know each other. Sorry if this ruins some sort of conspiracy you've created in your head.
No, we didn't know each other. Sorry if this ruins some sort of conspiracy you've created in your head.
Earth to Hack, I mean Heck. We are the conspirators. As you say its is our safe little colony.
Continue on our wayward son.
-
OK.
So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:
So what?
Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.
WSS
Steve, I'm just trying to help them past the "Hey, it's snowing outside my house so global warming is hooey!" stage. And if you're still in that stage, there really isn't much point in debating what's beyond it, is there? It's like trying to debate the West Coast offense with someone who still doesn't understand what a quarterback does.
I mean, look at Sev in this thread. He actually knows this stuff, whereas all the other guys obviously don't, and have to cut and paste other people's opinions because their opinions are simply adopted from the political people they read or listen to. This should probably chasten them a bit, but it clearly doesn't. Once they're beaten, they just pick up another line and try that. And then the cycle repeats.
As for what comes next, I don't know what the point of your question is. Cap and trade is hanging in the balance, especially after a Brown win today, which he seems to be headed towards. And so you're faced with the prospect of EPA regulations, which nobody wants. So maybe you get some sort of watered down bill instead, which is all you can get out of Congress today. So there's a real prospect that greenhouse gas emissions will continue pretty much unabated, which is pretty bad news for the planet.
Besides, you're still stuck in your rut, which is to claim that there's no difference between emissions under a cap and trade system and emissions without one. So there's really no point in arguing with you either, which is why I don't, and periodically check in here to see what crazy people think is true this month.
As for what comes next, I don't know what the point of your question is. Cap and trade is hanging in the balance, especially after a Brown win today, which he seems to be headed towards. And so you're faced with the prospect of EPA regulations, which nobody wants. So maybe you get some sort of watered down bill instead, which is all you can get out of Congress today. So there's a real prospect that greenhouse gas emissions will continue pretty much unabated, which is pretty bad news for the planet.
Besides, you're still stuck in your rut, which is to claim that there's no difference between emissions under a cap and trade system and emissions without one. So there's really no point in arguing with you either, which is why I don't, and periodically check in here to see what crazy people think is true this month.
Actually my point is that the effect on emissions by a proposed carbon tax on US industry will be miniscule.
And I don't think you've had the moxie to state that it will be substantial.
So we spin our wheels.
But I'd bet it's in trouble even if Brown loses.
WSS
-
Nobody is proposing a carbon tax, Steve.
-
Nobody is proposing a carbon tax, Steve. Heck
*******************************************
So, even after you ran away and hid for a while, you are STILL all WET IN EGYPT?
Egads, you never cease to get worse and worse...
Perhaps you never heard of Rep John D. Dingell?
************************************************
http://www.house.gov/dingell/carbonTaxSummary.shtml
Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation Representative John D. Dingell
The earth is getting warmer and human activities are a large part of the cause. We need to act in order to prevent a serious problem. The world’s best scientists agree we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80 percent by 2050 in order to limit the effects of global warming and this legislation will put us on track to do just that.
This is a massive undertaking, and it will not be easy to achieve, but we simply must accomplish this goal; our future and our children’s futures depend on it.
In order to get to this end we need to have a multi-pronged approach. In addition to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, which would mandate a cap on carbon emissions, a fee on carbon is the most effective way to curb emissions and make alternatives economically viable.
Below you will find a summary of the carbon tax legislation I am working on. I invite you to comment on the proposal. Once I have received your comments, I will look at ways we can address the ideas and concerns brought to my attention by the American people.
We must remember we all have a common goal and are in this fight together. I look forward to hearing from you.
The legislation I am proposing would impose the following:
A tax on carbon content:
•$50 / ton of carbon (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation)
◦Coal, including lignite and peat
◦Petroleum and any petroleum product
◦Natural gas
A tax on gasoline:
•.50/ gallon of gas, jet fuel, kerosene (petroleum based) etc…(added to current gas tax) (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation)
◦Exemption for diesel – The fuel economy benefits of diesel surpass even its emissions benefits; it provides about a thirty percent increase in fuel economy and a twenty percent emissions reduction
◦Biofuels that do not contain petroleum are exempt. Biofuels blended with petroleum are only taxed on the petroleum portion of the fuel.
**The .50 gas tax is in addition to what is derived from the per ton carbon tax in the previous bullet.
-
Heck = Owned
-
What I'm saying is that we're not debating a carbon tax and never have been. We're debating a cap and trade proposal. That's the only game in town. The bill that passed the House and is currently before the Senate is not a carbon tax. It's a cap and trade bill.
Dingell is on his own, doing the bidding for Detroit. There is no real discussion of a carbon tax in Congress. And I don't think Steve knows the difference between the two proposals, because he seems to think that they're the same thing when they're not.
But you can do a victory dance if it makes you feel good, as if Steve was really talking about the idea Dingell has, and not the bills that are before Congress. I won't stop you.
-
They are both f*cked Heck.
Under Obama's 2010 budget plan, the government would auction off all emission credits, generating as much as $650 billion in government revenue between 2012 and 2020.
Auction off? Then they can sell off surplus allowances? Yea that won't cause problems. Bribery and all that other shit.
In the end, consumers are going to be paying more for all products and lose jobs. Yea it's not the carbon tax, but in the end, they are basically going to jack prices up and pretend they are "giving" back that tax to the middle income people.
"The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them)."
"But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade -- Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey -- come from California or the Northeast."
"Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class. What industry does Heck and Sev work in? JK.
Artificially injecting the economy just like the housing boom. It's a bad idea and causes way to much red tape to already over bearing, bloated government.
-
Yes, of course they should auction them off. The alternative is to give them away, which results in a huge windfall for the people doing the polluting at the expense of taxpayer, who reap the benefit of an auction through tax refunds. I know you don't know any of this because you're a cut and paste guy, and you just went out and found a new cut and paste about this, but it's funny because the article you did find was supposedly in support of the little guy, the working man, while you argue for a policy that is worse for working class Americans. You also seem to be worried about political interference in the process while arguing for a policy that would clearly be subject to even more political interference.
As for the wealth redistribution crap, save it for Glenn Beck. The goal isn't some socialist fantasy world. That's just what nutcases tell themselves so they can go on believing everyone is a commie but them. But hey, that's what happens every time a Democrat gets into office, so it's not like the rest of us are surprised.
The goal is to minimize the effects of global warming, full stop. If that sometimes involves taxing money from polluters like the US and China and funding efforts in places where climate change will be the most drastic, so what? It's as simple as taxing the people who cause the problem and helping those who will live with it. It's not that complicated or foreign a concept. If you want you can go see it working in court rooms all across the country, and every day.
`But what's the point in arguing remedies for a problem you deny exists in the first place? It's not like you're honestly debating the merits of one plan versus the other, or proposing an alternative. Because that would be interesting.
Why don't you tell me how cold it is somewhere in America right now? Or you can say global warming is caused by solar flares because a Polish scientist says so. And then Sev will tell you why it isn't. Then you can say that global warming is caused by water vapor, according to a scientist in New Zealand. And then Sev will tell you why it isn't. And then...
-
There are many famous names who admired and supported the green movement way before Al Gore showed up. Does Hitler or Stalin ring a bell?
The Free Market and Its Enemies
Socialists and Communists alike march to support the global warming agenda.
-
Sorry, Heck, but you are riding the goofy and corrupt Obamao leftist goofy train.
I'd jump at the nearest station to the ground and run.
Leftists' profs' anti-everything dogma won't cut it in THIS country.
-
What I'm saying is that we're not debating a carbon tax and never have been. We're debating a cap and trade proposal. That's the only game in town. The bill that passed the House and is currently before the Senate is not a carbon tax. It's a cap and trade bill.
Dingell is on his own, doing the bidding for Detroit. There is no real discussion of a carbon tax in Congress. And I don't think Steve knows the difference between the two proposals, because he seems to think that they're the same thing when they're not.
But you can do a victory dance if it makes you feel good, as if Steve was really talking about the idea Dingell has, and not the bills that are before Congress. I won't stop you.
What I'm saying is that we're not debating a carbon tax and never have been. We're debating a cap and trade proposal. That's the only game in town. The bill that passed the House and is currently before the Senate is not a carbon tax. It's a cap and trade bill.
Dingell is on his own, doing the bidding for Detroit. There is no real discussion of a carbon tax in Congress. And I don't think Steve knows the difference between the two proposals, because he seems to think that they're the same thing when they're not.
But you can do a victory dance if it makes you feel good, as if Steve was really talking about the idea Dingell has, and not the bills that are before Congress. I won't stop you.
I did indeed call cap and trade a tax and rightly so.
One reason discussions become so dreary is that you insist on word games.
Here's just one hit
http://www.gop.gov/wtas/09/06/25/wsj-the-cap-and-tax
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login