CAP and TRADE and LIES

Pocono Joe

Barack Obama says 95% of Americans (those who earn less than $250,000) will not pay any more in taxes. But in his speech to Congress, President Obama asked Congress "to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."

Enter CAP-AND-TRADE!

For those blinded by the light, our US president just committed himself to the largest annual tax increase in the history of America (based upon junk science in my opinion). And although it will be written as a tax to businesses, who here believes those businesses will not pass on these additional taxes to consumers?

Industries and businesses will be forced to pay for every ton of CO2 emissions they release – and those who pollute more (most probably over some arbitrary year’s gone by target, which nowhere resembles current usage) could purchase "carbon credits" from businesses that pollute less (hmmm… can those "businesses" possibly be Obama’s supporters in Labor and Teacher Unions, and lefty-owned fiscally unsound Green Industries?).

A cap-and-trade program creates a tax where none previously existed… therefore a TAX INCREASE... ergo the LIE of individuals not paying more taxes. But if we can all find a way to not use any energy at all, then I guess it wouldn’t be a tax increase. Unfortunately we don’t live in Oz.

The implementation of a cap-and-trade system would raise $300 to $330 billion in annual taxes per Obama’s administration estimates.

Brilliant! So in the most perilous economic times most of us will ever see, we will now be forced to make less, get less, and pay more. Sure don’t know about the rest of you, but I sure as hell didn’t vote for thousands of dollars in extra annual hidden taxes, a significant slow down the U.S. economy, increases in the cost of energy and consumer products, and disruption of international commerce.

OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA! Pass me more Kool-Aid please!

JohnMc1

I didn't vote for him. My conscience is clear and I sleep soundly at night because of it.

CaraFawn

Edited...

Well historically the largest taxe increase too place during the great recession (Which one again :-)) and WWI/WWII

# During World War I, the top rate rose to 77%; after the war, the top rate was scaled down to a low of 25%.
# During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the top rate was 75%. The top rate reached 94% during the war and remained at 91% until 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

We never know, but I suspect there is a good chance the taxes in the US (At least) will actually rise to Hell within 2 years max.

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

For those blinded by the light, our US president just committed himself to the largest annual tax increase in the history of America (based upon junk science in my opinion).

It is a business tax though and your opinion on junk science is pretty worthless unless you can explain exactly why you think so.

And although it will be written as a tax to businesses, who here believes those businesses will not pass on these additional taxes to consumers?

Any business raising prices now would be suicidal. I imagine the stimulus donkey will have cuts in other areas that will help offset business costs and in the end it will be the big businesses that pay.

Industries and businesses will be forced to pay for every ton of CO2 emissions they release – and those who pollute more (most probably over some arbitrary year’s gone by target, which nowhere resembles current usage) could purchase "carbon credits" from businesses that pollute less (hmmm… can those "businesses" possibly be Obama’s supporters in Labor and Teacher Unions, and lefty-owned fiscally unsound Green Industries?).

Maybe, although that would just be good business sense on their part. We're running out of fuel, no matter what way you look at it, we have a finite level of carbon based fuel here. The longer we leave a changeover, the more expensive carbon based fuels will become and the more it will damage the economy. A change to eco fuels now makes sense as we have the technology and we could really, really do with a new industry

A cap-and-trade program creates a tax where none previously existed… therefore a TAX INCREASE... ergo the LIE of individuals not paying more taxes.

It isn't an individual tax. You're being deceitful in your claims. That isn't an opinion on my part, by the way, that is me telling you not to mis-represent facts.

But if we can all find a way to not use any energy at all, then I guess it wouldn’t be a tax increase. Unfortunately we don’t live in Oz.

90% of my energy use comes from hydro-electric, wind or solar sources. My average monthly bill for a rather large house with two occupants is 15 dollars.
I live in America.

The most perilous economic times most of us will ever see, we will now be forced to make less, get less, and pay more. Sure don’t know about the rest of you, but I sure as hell didn’t vote for thousands of dollars in extra annual hidden taxes, a significant slow down the U.S. economy, increases in the cost of energy and consumer products, and disruption of international commerce.

Based on what? You're claiming a tax on people that doesn't exist, isn't real and is based on your assumption that businesses will pass it on, which would not be a smart move on their part. You also ignore other benefits to businesses in moving to greener policies.


Honestly, what I wouldn't give for a rationale, intelligent analysis of Obama's term to date, rather than the platitudes or nonsense rhetoric that we currently see.

Pocono Joe

GuanYin wrote: »

It is a business tax though and your opinion on junk science is pretty worthless unless you can explain exactly why you think so.

Yes, in my opinion (and many others I might add) that it is a business tax that will be passed on to consumers like you and me.

The Earth’s temperatures have held steady since 2001, yet CO2 levels continue to rise every year. CO2 accounts for less than 3% of all greenhouse gases, and only 6% of atmospheric CO2 is produced by human activity. That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels. The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, which evaporates from oceans, lakes and rivers. Water vapor accounts for up to 90% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Atmospheric water vapor levels – like natural CO2 emissions from volcanoes and animals – rises and falls with changes in solar activity. To put it another way, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is the result of changes in solar activity, not the cause of it.

So to tax businesses on the basis of CO2 emission, as a punishment for their contribution to global warming is based on junk science in my opinion. If the government wants to fund new methods of energy then I say take from the excesses and items that do not create jobs in the stimulus package and budget and utilize it. Don’t tax businesses which will pass the tax increases onto consumers who can ill afford to pay more at the current time.

Any business raising prices now would be suicidal. I imagine the stimulus donkey will have cuts in other areas that will help offset business costs and in the end it will be the big businesses that pay.

Of course business will pass on tax increases to consumers. They have no choice because most have cut expenditures to the bone already. Except to maybe cut even more jobs and things like research and development. But wouldn’t that be a catch 22 dilemma, unless you have sources that substantiate the idea that the "stimulus donkey" (excellent pun... can I use it?) will hep offest costs.

Maybe, although that would just be good business sense on their part. We're running out of fuel, no matter what way you look at it, we have a finite level of carbon based fuel here. The longer we leave a changeover, the more expensive carbon based fuels will become and the more it will damage the economy. A change to eco fuels now makes sense as we have the technology and we could really, really do with a new industry

"We have the technology?" Who, what, where? But what exactly should they fund in this horrible economic downturn? What has the best viability for the future of energy and the economy?

It isn't an individual tax. You're being deceitful in your claims. That isn't an opinion on my part, by the way, that is me telling you not to mis-represent facts.

I disagree. The businesses will pass on the increased tax to consumers. If a business charges $100 for energy it costs them $90 to produce, then the government taxes them an additional $15 in taxes making it cost $105... do they still charge only $100? No, they pass on the tax increase to consumers by charging $115, effectively making the payments for the tax increase an individual burden. I will post several sources if you so wish to support my opinion, can you say the same?

90% of my energy use comes from hydro-electric, wind or solar sources. My average monthly bill for a rather large house with two occupants is 15 dollars.
I live in America.

Wow, maybe we should move to where you live (how would you like to have me as a neighbor?). I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m guessing your model is not something the rest of the country could utilize on a grand scale, or I’m thinking we would already have done so. We have a local dam near to where I live. They are considering generating hydro-electric energy, but they have estimated it will cost far more to produce energy than they can charge. The idea has pretty much been shelved at this point.

Based on what? You're claiming a tax on people that doesn't exist, isn't real and is based on your assumption that businesses will pass it on, which would not be a smart move on their part. You also ignore other benefits to businesses in moving to greener policies.

What immediate benefits, and what moves to what policies? Again, it is my opinion that business will pass on these tax increases to consumers. Want to make a bet that they pass on the taxes to you and me? Please show me legit sources that agree with your opinion that this tax won't be paid by you or me?

Honestly, what I wouldn't give for a rationale, intelligent analysis of Obama's term to date, rather than the platitudes or nonsense rhetoric that we currently see.

Look at the stock market... not pretty is it? There is no better gauge of a presidents economic policies. If I didn’t care, I would sit back and watch the republicans gain power again in 2010 and 2012 as a result of devistating liberal economic spending policies. I want our president to succeed, but I don’t think it will happen in his current course of action. Hopefully he and his administration will realize what the market and the people are saying and change course before it’s too late.

The Mad Hatter

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The Earth’s temperatures have held steady since 2001, yet CO2 levels continue to rise every year. CO2 accounts for less than 3% of all greenhouse gases, and only 6% of atmospheric CO2 is produced by human activity. That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels. The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, which evaporates from oceans, lakes and rivers. Water vapor accounts for up to 90% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Atmospheric water vapor levels – like natural CO2 emissions from volcanoes and animals – rises and falls with changes in solar activity. To put it another way, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is the result of changes in solar activity, not the cause of it.

You do know that all this rubbish was released by PR companies hired by oil and coal companies, right?

I do like how you present it as though it's something you looked into yourself, though.

I don't have any online sources to support me atm - I'll try to look some up.

banquo

RON PAUL.

ffs.

Pocono Joe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I do like how you present it as though it's something you looked into yourself, though.

I don't have any online sources to support me atm - I'll try to look some up.

So you think I make all this up, then go out and try to find sources to support scientific data that mysteriously pops into my head... I may be good, but I’m not that good. No, GuanYin stated "your opinion on junk science is pretty worthless unless you can explain exactly why you think so." So I found information and posted it, which supported numerous and various reports I have heard and read over the years.

Here another one you can jump on if you so wish... it’s an article from yesterday that pretty much supports my opinion regarding cap and trade as a tax which will be passed on to individuals. (I’ll help you out... it was printed a day after my comments... Oh the horrors! How do you think I pulled that one off?)
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/OPINION01/903040314/1008

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Yes, in my opinion (and many others I might add) that it is a business tax that will be passed on to consumers like you and me.

If it is, it is life, It is bad business, but it isn't an Obama tax on individuals, That is spin. Obama has no control on how companies do business. They can choose to pass on or not. There is nothing to suggest they will, but if they do, it STILL isn't an individual tax.

The Earth’s temperatures have held steady since 2001, yet CO2 levels continue to rise every year. CO2 accounts for less than 3% of all greenhouse gases, and only 6% of atmospheric CO2 is produced by human activity. That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels. The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, which evaporates from oceans, lakes and rivers. Water vapor accounts for up to 90% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Atmospheric water vapor levels – like natural CO2 emissions from volcanoes and animals – rises and falls with changes in solar activity. To put it another way, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is the result of changes in solar activity, not the cause of it.

Can I have the source of a scientific peer reviewed journal for this?

Sorry, but the majority of what you quoted is sourced from Big Oil-funded work. Almost every independent, no-agenda research conducted has disputed these claims. I know my science, so I'll expect something a little better if you please.

So to tax businesses on the basis of CO2 emission, as a punishment for their contribution to global warming is based on junk science in my opinion. If the government wants to fund new methods of energy then I say take from the excesses and items that do not create jobs in the stimulus package and budget and utilize it. Don’t tax businesses which will pass the tax increases onto consumers who can ill afford to pay more at the current time.

Your opinion of what is junk science doesn't hold much esteem here I'm afraid. I measure the science I read in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The science you quote is not from these sources, or where it has made it into these journals it has disclosures listed against it.

Of course business will pass on tax increases to consumers. They have no choice because most have cut expenditures to the bone already. Except to maybe cut even more jobs and things like research and development. But wouldn’t that be a catch 22 dilemma, unless you have sources that substantiate the idea that the "stimulus donkey" (excellent pun... can I use it?) will hep offest costs.

Again, this is conjecture on your part. As I said, even if they do "pass on the tax" it is still not an individual tax.

"We have the technology?" Who, what, where? But what exactly should they fund in this horrible economic downturn? What has the best viability for the future of energy and the economy?

I can think of two local research laboratories working on green-energy (Boulder, Colorado - you'd love it there). If you read the literature, even the popular scientific press, you will see clearly that we are making advances in fuel efficiency, hybrid technology and energy storage sciences, as well as in material sciences that will facilitate this research.

I disagree. The businesses will pass on the increased tax to consumers. If a business charges $100 for energy it costs them $90 to produce, then the government taxes them an additional $15 in taxes making it cost $105... do they still charge only $100? No, they pass on the tax increase to consumers by charging $115, effectively making the payments for the tax increase an individual burden. I will post several sources if you so wish to support my opinion, can you say the same?

You want me to find sources for my disagreement on your conjecture of future occurrences? Let me fire up my flux capacitor.

While I'm sure you're quoting some business model, I don't believe that most of these models work in the current economic climate (or businesses wouldn't be crashing down around us). But sure, go and post your sources so we can see if they apply.

Wow, maybe we should move to where you live (how would you like to have me as a neighbor?). I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m guessing your model is not something the rest of the country could utilize on a grand scale, or I’m thinking we would already have done so. We have a local dam near to where I live. They are considering generating hydro-electric energy, but they have estimated it will cost far more to produce energy than they can charge. The idea has pretty much been shelved at this point.

I don't know, our model has existed for decades, we (the town) have two employees who live at the HE station full time and the rest we generate through our excess solar and wind energy generation. I'm thankful that the founders of the area I live in had the foresight to go these routes, I'm sure other cities and states could benefit from a similar approach.

What immediate benefits, and what moves to what policies? Again, it is my opinion that business will pass on these tax increases to consumers. Want to make a bet that they pass on the taxes to you and me? Please show me legit sources that agree with your opinion that this tax won't be paid by you or me?

Well if we're going by burden of proof, you are the one making the claim so you must prove the future . I can't prove that they won't pass on the cost, I can't prove that they will. I can say in a fickle economy they would not be smart to do so. And even if they do, it is not an Obama tax on individuals.

Look at the stock market... not pretty is it? There is no better gauge of a presidents economic policies. If I didn’t care, I would sit back and watch the republicans gain power again in 2010 and 2012 as a result of devistating liberal economic spending policies. I want our president to succeed, but I don’t think it will happen in his current course of action. Hopefully he and his administration will realize what the market and the people are saying and change course before it’s too late.

Please, the stock market was in trouble before Obama went anywhere near the oval office. I'm pretty sure my stock broker called me long before the election to suggest moving stocks (in fact I have the dates in front of me).

The fact of the matter is, Obama's tax is a long term benefit goal. It could and should stimulate the economy in the long term by creating investment areas. As the stimulus package is going to kill our economy for years, such measures are needed.

Obama cannot control what businesses do. We live in a capitalist society. Are you suggesting that either:

A) Obama should dictate his policies on how businesses might treat consumers?

or

Obama should intervene and tell businesses when they can and cannot raise prices?

Neither of these scenarios is the America I live in.

If businesses raise prices on these issues, they will fail in my opinion and they will deserve to do so. Blasting Obama for "taxing individuals" is dishonest, deceitful and conjecture.

Pocono Joe

GuanYin wrote: »

Can I have the source of a scientific peer reviewed journal for this?

Sorry, but the majority of what you quoted is sourced from Big Oil-funded work. Almost every independent, no-agenda research conducted has disputed these claims. I know my science, so I'll expect something a little better if you please.


Your opinion of what is junk science doesn't hold much esteem here I'm afraid. I measure the science I read in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The science you quote is not from these sources, or where it has made it into these journals it has disclosures listed against it.
Obama cannot control what businesses do. We live in a capitalist society.

Well GY, I doubt any of my individual choices would meet with your approval, so is there anything here, from the links provided, that floats you boat? (not a scientific site, but does provide links to them.)
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

Pocono Joe

GuanYin wrote: »

Obama cannot control what businesses do. We live in a capitalist society. Are you suggesting that either:

A) Obama should dictate his policies on how businesses might treat consumers?

or

Obama should intervene and tell businesses when they can and cannot raise prices?

Neither of these scenarios is the America I live in.

If businesses raise prices on these issues, they will fail in my opinion and they will deserve to do so. Blasting Obama for "taxing individuals" is dishonest, deceitful and conjecture.

I pick option C)... It is the job of the president to estimate what effects and consequences his or her policies have on affected entities, that's why he has a cabinet and advisers.

Maybe the person claiming no one making under $250,000 will pay additional taxes, while knowing full well businesses will pass on the cap and trade taxes to individuals like you and me is the real person guilty of being "dishonest, deceitful."

I guess we will just have to wait and see if businesses pass on cap and trade taxes to individuals. But seeing as it’s hard to argue future facts when they have yet to occur, betting might be best… you know the old saying "Put your money where your mouth is." Say $100 that the majority of business affected with extra taxes from cap and trade legislation DO pass it on to individuals like you and me?

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Well GY, I doubt any of my individual choices would meet with your approval, so is there anything here, from the links provided, that floats you boat? (not a scientific site, but does provide links to them.)
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

Nothing there floats my boat (something that may soon become easier with Global Warming).

I generally look to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There work tends to tread on the conservative side of estimates on climate change and their last major report predicted a rise of anywhere between 2 °C and 6.4 °C by 2100. Their reports laid the blame firmly on humankind for these issues.
You can get the report at the IPCC website.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I pick option C)... It is the job of the president to estimate what effects and consequences his or her policies have on affected entities, that's why he has a cabinet and advisers.

Maybe the person claiming no one making under $250,000 will pay additional taxes, while knowing full well businesses will pass on the cap and trade taxes to individuals like you and me is the real person guilty of being "dishonest, deceitful."

I guess we will just have to wait and see if businesses pass on cap and trade taxes to individuals. But seeing as it’s hard to argue future facts when they have yet to occur, betting might be best… you know the old saying "Put your money where your mouth is." Say $100 that the majority of business affected with extra taxes from cap and trade legislation DO pass it on to individuals like you and me?

And you think he hasn't checked with his advisors and is doing this on his own? I'm sure there are a team of advisors who have gone through this with a fine comb who have a far greater grasp of economics than you or I.

As for you and I, I don't believe we fit in the same demograph as I already have additional taxes to look forward to with Obama.

Pocono Joe

Well GY, I’ll give you this at least... the IPCC wasn’t one of the numerous eminent scientific organizations that predicted global cooling and a new ice age in the 1970’s.

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Well GY, I’ll give you this at least... the IPCC wasn’t one of the numerous eminent scientific organizations that predicted global cooling and a new ice age in the 1970’s.

So that is your argument? Some scientists got it wrong before so we won't believe them now?

Do you apply that to all sciences and medicine such as pharmacology, cancer biology, disease research, bio-weapons defense, etc, etc, etc.. or just the ones that you can use as a political ruse?

I can give you hundreds of examples of disasters and failures in every field of science in the last decade. Will that stop you using medicine, receiving medical treatment?

If you want to have a debate with me, at least make a sensible point.

The Mad Hatter

New term for climate change deniers. Have to say I'm quite fond of it.

Victor

Pocono Joe wrote: »

A cap-and-trade program creates a tax where none previously existed… therefore a TAX INCREASE... ergo the LIE of individuals not paying more taxes. But if we can all find a way to not use any energy at all, then I guess it wouldn’t be a tax increase. Unfortunately we don’t live in Oz.

"Read my lips, no new taxes" - George H. W. Bush

He then increased taxes.

GuanYin

Victor wrote: »

"Read my lips, no new taxes" - George H. W. Bush

He then increased taxes.

It was under huge pressure from a democratic congress.

Pocono Joe

GuanYin wrote: »

If you want to have a debate with me, at least make a sensible point.

I'll try.

Jump on me all you want, but lets face it, the global warming issue has benefited from one of the greatest public relations and marketing efforts in recent history. Scientists have reaped millions from their global warming "research." They've turned supporting global warming, despite plenty of data to support otherwise (regardless of what you think), into a pseudo-religion (cash cow).

My point was that some of the same scientists who were trying to convince us the world was cooling just a few decades ago when the grant money was there, are the same ones touting global warming today (follow the money).

Just a few points I’ve read recently:
Global Warming on Mars Jupiter, Pluto and Jupiter’s moon Triton strongly points towards the Sun or Some other cosmic force being the cause of the recent global warming on Earth.
MIT on Pluto, "the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years."
National Geographic on Mars, "Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."
There is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?

You may not agree, just like Al Gore who just again the other day refused to debate and declined to take any questions from reporters at the Wall Street Journal’s Economics conference in California. He stated "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue." He went on to say "It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake."

Well, call me tiresome if you wish, but I don’t think the debate is over. And I certainly don’t think it wise to make people pay hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of carbon emissions as the cause to global warming. I have said many times we need to find alternate forms of energy, but I resent getting that money in a manner that is both dishonest and disingenuous.

Why not stop all the earmarks, the spending that doesn’t create jobs, and the just plain waste in the stimulus bill and budget… and funnel it to research. I would go for that.

And if you are wrong, after individuals pay tens of thousands in bogus taxes, what is your recourse… OOPS? Well, oops won’t cut it with me, not when we end the scientific debate prematurely.

Okay, I rescind the "junk science" statement. Let’s call it inconclusive science or questionable science... sound better?

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I'll try.

Thank you for the effort.

Jump on me all you want, but lets face it, the global warming issue has benefited from one of the greatest public relations and marketing efforts in recent history. Scientists have reaped millions from their global warming "research." They've turned supporting global warming, despite plenty of data to support otherwise (regardless of what you think), into a pseudo-religion (cash cow).

To suggest that scientists support global warming for money is a rather cynical and quite a silly argument. For starters, there would be far more money and funding available from big oil and industry to deny global warming - if they were supporting it to keep their funding alive they would not be after government funding. If the NIH can barely keep afloat with funding (which has been the case recently) then there is no way that public funds for environmental sciences is a sensible target.

On top of that all work is peer reviewed. It is difficult to explain the peer review process, but in effect both the research and the reviewer of the research are judged in every peer review process. There are checks and marks and unless EVERY environmental researcher in the world was part of the mass global conspiracy, bar the few dissenting voices, it would never hold up to any scrutiny. It wouldn't be worth the risk to be caught, you only have to see the recent high-profile cases in genetics to understand that.

My point was that some of the same scientists who were trying to convince us the world was cooling just a few decades ago when the grant money was there, are the same ones touting global warming today (follow the money).

I followed up on this and asked yo a direct question. I actually wanted an answer. Instead you ignore my reply and ask the same question again? So I will ask again. Do you feel the same about all sciences. Do you use medications? Do you realize that you have most likely used a medication by a company that has got it so wrong, that people have died in clinical trials? Will you now stop using modern medicine?

Again, you are showing ignorance of how the scientific community self-regulates if you believe that the opinions are changing with funding, nor do you realize exactly how much funding is available.

Just a few points I’ve read recently:
Global Warming on Mars Jupiter, Pluto and Jupiter’s moon Triton strongly points towards the Sun or Some other cosmic force being the cause of the recent global warming on Earth.
MIT on Pluto, "the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years."
National Geographic on Mars, "Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."
There is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?

Yes, I've observed these types of comments being thrown about climate debates and it is very easily and quickly debunked.

I can tell you in my home state, the temperatures have risen 20 degrees celcius over the last 6 weeks. Of course, we call this event a change in season. Now, consider that Pluto has a year that is equal to 248 Earth years.
Can you guess what might have caused the temperature change? I could go into exact details about methane ice-gas exchange rates and energies and the lag time on these and how it might be seen to cause such shifts, but I think the 248 year orbit of the Sun should ring alarm bells for any intelligent person.

You will notice that your unnamed MIT researcher doesn't actually mention climate change, merely a rise in temperature.

Don't you think that if solar changes were really the cause of these phenomenon, then ALL planets and ALL Moons would have rising temperatures, not just a select few, far apart and unconnected? Interestingly, since the late 70's when we started monitoring Solar energy outputs (ie. changes in temperature output) there has been no change in the Sun's activity. So if it isn't registering on our equipment, how is the Sun managing this? (hint: It isn't).

As for Abdussamatov, he is a known climate change denier and there are many HUGE holes in his theories which have been countered by every reputable scientist in the field. Most of the changes in Mars temperature can be attributed to axial "wobble" and the changes have been calculated to roughly match changes in Earth climate due to our own axial "wobble" in the Milankovitch cycle (the natural rhythmical earth wobble that occurs over 200K years, give or take). The lack of a martian moon means it's wobble are bigger and therefore the changes more dramatic. Then we have Abdussamatov's dismissal of greenhouse gases in altering Earth temperature. This is just absurd as it is the greenhouse effect that actually allows Earth to stay warm enough to allow life. If we did not have "some" greenhouse effect we'd be a ball of ice.

And of course, we can go back to the fact that the solar energy output hasn't changed.

So yes, you've been reading scantly through propaganda material that doesn't give near enough detail and is designed to dupe the reader into believing a side of a story without presenting the facts. It has either worked, or you are deliberately presenting the deceit.

There are plenty of unknowns in the current climate change models, which is why we need the research, but we do know that all available, impartial evidence is agreed to point towards an unprecidented man-made rise in our planets temperature which will, even at conservative estimates, negatively alter the planets eco-system in the next 100 years.

You may not agree, just like Al Gore who just again the other day refused to debate and declined to take any questions from reporters at the Wall Street Journal’s Economics conference in California. He stated "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue." He went on to say "It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake."

Al Gore is not someone I'm likely to defend or listen to, using him as a pawn of debate just isn't cool. I'm super cereal.

Well, call me tiresome if you wish, but I don’t think the debate is over. And I certainly don’t think it wise to make people pay hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of carbon emissions as the cause to global warming. I have said many times we need to find alternate forms of energy, but I resent getting that money in a manner that is both dishonest and disingenuous.

You haven't shown me any reason not to. You've shown the same type misleading propaganda/bad science that white supremacist's use to tell us that white people are genetically superior and that white people evolved more intelligent/stronger/healthier/better lovers etc etc. I'll be clear, I'm not likening you to a white supremacist, I'm merely saying you are employing the same fog of war, selective scientific quoting to make a false case.

Why not stop all the earmarks, the spending that doesn’t create jobs, and the just plain waste in the stimulus bill and budget… and funnel it to research. I would go for that.

I would to. I don't like the stimulus bill one bit. I get far less from it than you do. I still think you should attack it on it's lack of merits instead of making up disingenuous claims that it is a tax on individuals when it clearly isn't. Or that it is based on false science when it isn't. Incomplete science, yes, but then ALL science is incomplete.

And if you are wrong, after individuals pay tens of thousands in bogus taxes, what is your recourse… OOPS? Well, oops won’t cut it with me, not when we end the scientific debate prematurely.

Okay, I rescind the "junk science" statement. Let’s call it inconclusive science or questionable science... sound better?

That is good of you.

Pocono Joe

GuanYin wrote: »

I followed up on this and asked yo a direct question. I actually wanted an answer. Instead you ignore my reply and ask the same question again? So I will ask again. Do you feel the same about all sciences. Do you use medications? Do you realize that you have most likely used a medication by a company that has got it so wrong, that people have died in clinical trials? Will you now stop using modern medicine?

Yes I know scientists get things wrong. Yes I take medications. Yes I realize people have died in clinical trials. No, I will stop using modern medicine... I just won’t pay the proverbial $300 billion for them when I don’t think it will work or feel it won't do much good.

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Yes I know scientists get things wrong. Yes I take medications. Yes I realize people have died in clinical trials. No, I will stop using modern medicine... I just won’t pay the proverbial $300 billion for them when I don’t think it will work or feel it won't do much good.

And that stance I can accept, butthat is a alot different to what you posted in your previous posts and more honest that trumpeting a false stance.

I hope I've prompted you to do some further reading on climate change

Silly boy throwing pseudo science at the science mod *grumble*

Pocono Joe

GuanYin wrote: »

Silly boy throwing pseudo science at the science mod *grumble*

Yeah… thanks for the serving of Humble Pie.

So next you'll be going Paranormal on me?

Pocono Joe

I hearing now that Obama says we'll only get that $500 $400 tax credit if Congress passes his cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions ($600 billion tax increase on energy production). I know some here might disagree, but I think we will end up paying more in increased energy costs than we would get back from the tax credit.

Anybody else hear this?

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I hearing now that Obama says we'll only get that $500 $400 tax credit if Congress passes his cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions ($600 billion tax increase on energy production). I know some here might disagree, but I think we will end up paying more in increased energy costs than we would get back from the tax credit.

Anybody else hear this?

No, do you have a source?

I tend to not look so much because... well.. I'm screwed by the IRS under Obama either way....

Pocono Joe

Sorry to hear about your taxes GuanYin. You know what they say... The major difference between death and taxes is that Congress can't make death any worse than it is.

Here is where I saw it (sourced through RCP again… sorry). Not much more than a blurb in the middle of the article through... that's why I asked if anybody heard more or could substantiate it.
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Obama's+budget:+Wanton+recklessness&articleId=676648dc-69e6-4b50-bfda-a50bdfff8179

Pocono Joe

GuanYin wrote: »

I hope I've prompted you to do some further reading on climate change

Well GuanYin, I am doing as you said, but it seems for every pro I find - there is also a con. What do I do with something like this link... which looks pretty legit to me, the non-scientist? Do I just write this off as bunk, view it with merit, or use it to balance out other claims of global warming?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4990704/Nobody-listens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.html

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Well GuanYin, I am doing as you said, but it seems for every pro I find - there is also a con. What do I do with something like this link... which looks pretty legit to me, the non-scientist? Do I just write this off as bunk, view it with merit, or use it to balance out other claims of global warming?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4990704/Nobody-listens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.html

It's an opinion piece by a journalist. What's it got to do with peer-reviewed science?

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Well GuanYin, I am doing as you said, but it seems for every pro I find - there is also a con. What do I do with something like this link... which looks pretty legit to me, the non-scientist? Do I just write this off as bunk, view it with merit, or use it to balance out other claims of global warming?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4990704/Nobody-listens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.html

While I will agree that Global Warming is a political tool, I'm going to call you on the double standards and hypocrisy in your posts.

First you make claims that scientists are claiming there is an issue in order to con research money, ie. they have vested interests. Then you post about a conferences organized and funded by the Heartland Institute.

In case you weren't aware, they are a conservative lobbyist group who are funded by Big Oil and Big Tobacco. Among their main stances are anti-Global Warming and the claim that cigarettes have no proven negative side effects (and you'll love this bit) and that scientific data on the dangers of smoking are a conspiracy of the medical field aimed at conning money from government funding agencies......

Anyone with a brain can tell that the conferences mentioned in that article will conflict, just read the titles. It is amusing that the name dropping was all one sided and that the the dismissal of the IPCC conference was so casual. Probably because it was a policy meeting and not a conference, it was a pre-cursor to the later meetings and a discussion by the organization heads and policy makers on the existing data presented.

In short, a terrible piece of journalism, biased and misleading. If you're going to use Heartland as the source of your "scientific" reading, we may as well end this discussion now. It would be akin to me taking a republican Irish newsletter for my source of information while trying to impartially discuss the issues in Northern Ireland.

Pocono Joe

What, have I blasphemed and offended the new religion of global warming? So in this new religion it is better to Berate than Excommunicate?

OB & GY, I believe it has to do with Politics, not pier-review science, that’s why it is posted here. Today, I read three articles regarding global warming. All were questioning the finality that humans are the cause of global warming. (I tried some scientific journals, but they’re above me). I wonder if it’s because of President Obama’s call for Cap and Trade legislation that we are now seeing more and more pieces like this, or is it because many in the world are questioning the foregone conclusions?

I didn’t know the Heartland Institute was a conservative lobbyist group who are funded by Big Oil and Big Tobacco. That’s why I inquired… sure won’t make the mistake of asking anything that questions this new religion... well here anyway. But I sure will tackle Cap and Trade!

If you think you can win over people who are torn on the global warming issue by belittling them with snarky comments, then good luck with the cause. I guess when non-scientific individuals see conflicting stories about global warming, and wonder what is right and wrong, we just need to tell them stop questioning, buy into the fact that humans are killing the world, and just drink the green Kool-Aid.

And if I understand you correctly, if you (or people like me) question the fact that the warming of the earth is soley the result of human interatction, we are in fact... stupid?

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

What, have I blasphemed and offended the new religion of global warming? So in this new religion it is better to Berate than Excommunicate?

OB & GY, I believe it has to do with Politics, not pier-review science, that’s why it is posted here. Today, I read three articles regarding global warming. All were questioning the finality that humans are the cause of global warming. (I tried some scientific journals, but they’re above me). I wonder if it’s because of President Obama’s call for Cap and Trade legislation that we are now seeing more and more pieces like this, or is it because many in the world are questioning the foregone conclusions?

I didn’t know the Heartland Institute was a conservative lobbyist group who are funded by Big Oil and Big Tobacco. That’s why I inquired… sure won’t make the mistake of asking anything that questions this new religion... well here anyway. But I sure will tackle Cap and Trade!

If you think you can win over people who are torn on the global warming issue by belittling them with snarky comments, then good luck with the cause. I guess when non-scientific individuals see conflicting stories about global warming, and wonder what is right and wrong, we just need to tell them stop questioning, buy into the fact that humans are killing the world, and just drink the green Kool-Aid.

And if I understand you correctly, if you (or people like me) question the fact that the warming of the earth is soley the result of human interatction, we are in fact... stupid?

Hrmmm

1. Are you suggesting that because something is political, it is ok to abandon the best source of facts to further your point?

2. Scientific American, Discover, New Scientist, National Geographic among others are mainstream scientific periodicals that summarize the latest scientific journals in lay terms. They are all reputable.

3. Three, playing the wounded party isn't actually helping your point. We're all intelligent people here, we can all see through the victim crap.

Pocono Joe

President Obama admits the additional costs of Cap and Trade legislation will be passed on to consumers.
(This is an economic comment only, not the global warming issue.)

Play the audio.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/03/cap-and-trade-gets-big-pushback-in-senate/