Economic Suicide
 

All 3 current candidates like this bill. It will raise taxes not quite $7 trillion, provide for global welfare & raise gas $1.50 per gallon. What a plan!

I started to see TV ads asking you to call you rep and vote yes on this. Bend over and pray. But according to Joe Libermann, it will only raise the cost of a gallon 2 cents, just 2 little pennies. He said the people would "welcome" this little increase for a better world. Yea right. Another Gov't tax and spend. :eek:

What bill?

http://entrepreneur.typepad.com/phot...zed/mrbill.jpg

Sorry
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA570.html

Thanks, I'll give it a read. :)

Why don't you link to the bill itself, or a neutral summary of it, instead of to the most biased negative argument you can find?

Just like a lib. Do it for me!

Normally, the poster who is trying to start a serious discussion will post meaningful links and thoughts to get it started.

You prefer a one-sentence rant and a crap link.

I guess you just like to hear yourself talk.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009740

Cap and Charade

The political and business self-interest behind carbon limits.
WSJ, March 3, 2007

That one actually made me laugh. Funny stuff guys!

The link Ron provided is interesting, as expected. The link provided by Mule is drivel, as expected. Mule, there are certain reports that seem to have been written starting with the conclusion, and then working backward through the "facts." You call this "research," I imagine. I occasionally find them useful for purposes of entertainment. Which, think, is also your interest, really.

In college (yeah, I know......just a bunch of liberal fruitcakes indoctrinating young people in communism but you know what......that's where YOUR beloved "scientists" got their degrees. Those who have degrees), it's pretty easy to find a discussion about connecting environmental costs to production costs. You see, the problem has been that certain environmental disasters have been created by businesses who sold the products and did not include the cost of environmental cleanup in their productions costs, or in the selling price. Later, the taxpayer comes in and spends bazillions (maybe even as much as a gazillion or two) to do the cleanup. Conservative economists (yeah, right. there's an oxymoron) are not comfortable with the production and sale of products at costs lower than the full actual cost of production, including environmental cleanup.

Yes, legislation is needed in order to include cleanup costs with production costs. Again, I am still thinking of environmental damage that cannot be denied (pool of PCB's under the manufacturing plant, for example) or dismissed. Of course, you guys love to dismiss environmental damage that cannot be photographed and proven.

If anybody chimes in with the "global warming is a hoax" deflection, I'm going to regard them as someone who does not understand the topic of this thread. The hoax deflection is not a way of addressing the topic of this thread but rather, a way of evading the topic altogether. The topic of this thread is the "cap and trade" legislation under consideration. If you don't understand, just read.....don't write.

And BTW, the bill has nothing whatsoever to do with "global welfare" or "raise gas $1.50 per gallon."

More hubub about carbon credits, taxpayer abuse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7436263.stm

If climate alarmism is not a hoax, then why won't manbearpig's daddy, Algore, accept the challenge to debate the guy from the Weather Channel, shutting up me, the 31,000 scientists and everybody else? Then he can show the world that Algore is "super awesome! Excelcior!"

BECAUSE IT'S A GD HOAX, THAT'S WHY!

Is that the best you got, Mule? I mean, I'm not doubting that it is......just checking. I thought you started this thread to discuss this piece of legislation. And now you don't want to talk about that any more? You wanna talk about global warming being a hoax? I guess then that we agree the legislation is good legislation, if we assume that billions of tons of hydrocarbon smoke actually impacts the environment?

Short thread.

Better yet, can we assume that the 864.938 mile wide ball of nuclear fire that provides all out light & heat, just may, have more to do with earths temperature than suvs? Wait, but that wouldn't require us to submit to socialism. Scratch that!

Algore will soon become a pariah!

Come on, let's knock the rust off the brain of steel!

As for the bill, a $7 trillion dollar tax increase must give you lefties more wood than Jenna Jameson!

Jenna still does a better job than $7 trillion. By the way, $ and "dollars" are interchangeable. You don't have to say "dollars" when you've used the $ sign.

Liberals believe in the Sun. No quarrel there. We just have not seen the data showing the increase in nuclear fusion there that has resulted in the warming trends. Without that data, we would assume the Sun's warming effect to be relatively stable. Carbon emissions however, have been changing lately. Coincidentally, so have Earth surface temperatures. And lastly, there is the question of whether it passes the straight face test to say "Sure, we're placing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere but.....it's not impacting the environment."

In any case, at least now I have an image to use in these discussions. I did not know what you look like, Mul. The blanket looks nice. Nice touch.

That's like if you shot someone in self defense but couldn't mention the self defense part to anyone who asked.

Hmm, Einstein said "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." and that seems to be what Nasa is doing to give us our warming data.

From: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/page2.html

So how does NASA's data compare with other temperature sources? As we explained in our earlier article, NASA data is derived from a grid of ground-based thermometers. During the last thirty years, we also have the benefit of more sophisticated technology - satellites which can indirectly record temperatures across most of the planet. The satellite data is from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

In 1998 (left side of the graph below) NASA and the satellite data sources RSS and UAH all agreed quite closely - within one-tenth of a degree. Ten years later - in March 2008 - NASA is reporting temperature anomalies more than 0.5 degrees warmer than UAH. The divergence between NASA and UAH has increased at a rate of 0.13 degrees per decade (red lines below.) In contrast, RSS has converged with UAH over the period and is now within 0.02 degrees (blue lines below.)

Viewing the NASA 250-mile map for March below, what immediately grabs the attention is that NASA has essentially no data (gray areas) in most of Canada, most of Africa, the Greenland ice sheet, and most of Antarctica. This begs the question, how can one calculate an accurate "global temperature" while lacking any data from large contiguous regions of three continents?

So what was NASA missing?

Not surprisingly, the missing areas in Canada and Africa were cold. The NASA data thus becomes disproportionately weighted towards warm areas

SmileWavySmileWavy