This again leads back to my conclusion that people with a liberal mindset believe that resources are running out, and that they need to force change on other people. I'm not saying they're completely wrong, even though I am, but this belief in extreme resource scarcity is at the heart of this sort of logic. Besides, we can do what China is planning, nudge big rocks closer and mine off of them. If you're worried about the climate not staying exactly the same from one year to the next, you have picked the wrong planet to be born on.
The accusation that climate change alarmists are forming a secular religion I believe is not completely unfounded. Anyone who would follow the Goracle on the topic of climate change may not like it when the computer models are finally generated that finally reflect reality. It will be data gathered from satellites that I believe will finally put an end to playing climate games by sampling data in way that produces the desired results. Recent NASA data that shows more heat escapes into space than we previously thought is part of the point I'm trying to make here. I'm not pretending to be an expert on this topic, but I know more than enough to understand that there are people with a vested interest in perpetuating any narrative that casts CO2 as the enemy of man.
No, I don't believe the CBO numbers, but they are, at least, numbers, not scary claims about "useful to society jobs that we will destroy" that have no basis in any kind of analysis.
Jobs lost are a cost to society. A huge cost in fact, and if enough jobs are lost, you will make less in tax dollars, which will throw your cost models out the window anyway. Taking jobs that produce things we want and or need, to replace them with jobs that are chosen by the government simply ends in economic collapse as the market will always win. I know Pelosi already is chanting "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" and I agree with those 4 words, however I oppose the cap and trade for that very reason. [jobs created by government is not a net gain in jobs, just results in less money in the private sector].
The point is that economic analyses, like the CBO's and the MIT study's, are much more speculative than the climate science that you attack.
While everyone would agree they are just guessing the numbers for the costs, the climate side is just as much of a guess. If anything it really does look just like fluctuating noise. Many have pointed out potential problems with the model for global warming, not even attacking the model, but where and when the measurements are taken! Urban centers get hotter and retain more heat then rural areas. There's just no accounting for all the sources of error, no matter what your model. Even if we are getting slightly warmer, it's been pointed out, there's a net benefit for humanity because of it.
And yet you dismiss both economic analysis and climate science in favor of, I guess, your vague feeling that doing anything will be really, really hard and will cost
The world we live in is based on economics. If you wanted to make widget X, and it cost your $35 to make it in the US, and $14 to make it in oh let's say China, where will you make the most profit on widget X? That means that there will be workers employed in China to make widget X, while unemployment will continue to be a problem in the US. Your belief in CBO numbers and happy flying unicorns actually figuring out the actual cost is way off basis. Yes, the DOLLAR amount will be an actual number, and perhaps they'll get close. We can say yes we spent this amount on cap and trade, and it was a good deal, we came in under budget. However, we are in a global economy, we have to compete to earn money. There are costs involved when you destroy jobs that drive our economy.
Oh, and reducing CO2 will hurt the carnation industry.
This one made me smile. When you turn your lights off when you leave the room... please, won't you think of the poor carnations you may be hurting?
Global warming is a scam.
9/11 was allowed to happen.
More than likely not, but I can't prove it one way or another.
Electric cars are a bad idea.
I think they're a pretty good idea! (Please note, I'm the guy advocating more CO2 in the atmosphere, as opposed to less) Just don't subsidize them and let them compete on the market. For some people they make sense, for others they won't. Just don't force them on people and we'll get along fine! (there also maybe a breakthrough in energy density which will make them more competitive eventually)
GWB is a war criminal.
An interesting statement, but I don't believe he is actually a war criminal. I seem to have more disdain for Cheney who seems like he was running the show more than golfer/vacationer Bush. That being said however, the unfortunate torture events will set us (The USA) back far from the high place some people had held for us in terms of the US following it's own laws and the Geneva convention, and provide lots of ammo that foreign regimes can use to incite their people against us. Still, not a war criminal.
Obama is GWB's evil twin.(transparent government my ass that why he covers up sick freak who like to torture people.) Wake up and smell the bullshit you arn't Obamas's buddy he won't help you out for turning a blind eye on his and GWB crimes.
While I will admit the difference between Obama and Bush is about the same as Pepsi and Coke... The real reason for his sudden want to keep Guantanamo Bay is the very elaborate judicial system that was set up down there. I didn't agree with it first either, however there is no where good to put these people, and their trials, at least some of the trials, simply MUST remain secret, unless we want to recall all of our spys/intelligence resources who will be outed during the trial. It's not a good situation, but still , Obama is not turning a blind eye to war crimes. Obama is just accepting reality. As far as transparency in gov't... They are making efforts, and I think they're trying to follow through on their campaign promises by posting vast numbers of documents in one location [at least that was the last plan i heard] to make it easier to access what the government is doing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for Obama/Bush, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, and ended up tossing my vote to the constitutional party, with about 100,000 other people. I do believe that we have already forsaken the next generation with our spending, and the debt that will have to be paid back. The bailouts were a miserable mistake, the auto bailout I believe will never work, and at the very best, will simply soften up those auto companies that are still standing. We are chasing out investors, and business [even evil Microsoft will expand overseas, and not here if we keep going] faster than we can tax those that are here. It's becoming a sad state of affairs, and the cap and trade, if I had to pick one bill that will finally push the US out of world power status, would be it. Say goodbye to manufacturing [and it's jobs] and say hello to increased costs of living [as if they aren't high enough]. If anyone has a list of countries to move to, I'm open to hearing them.
Finally, the U.S. proposals, and the assumptions about effort elsewhere, are extended to 2100 to allow exploration of the potential role of these bills in the longer-term challenge of reducing climate change risk. Simulations show that the 50% to 80% targets are consistent with global goals of atmospheric stabilization at 450 to 550 ppmv CO2 but only if other nations, including the developing countries, follow suit.
Just the lunacy of focusing on CO2. There have been studies on plants, and they are practically STARVING for more CO2. If anything we should be looking for more ways to get MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, no I'm serious! Apparently the yield increases in plants may have had something to do with the slight increase in CO2 we have managed over the past 100 years. Colorado University agrees with me on this anyway.
Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.
So if we cut CO2 levels we might not be able to squeeze as much yield out of our fields as we are currently doing. Well it's a good thing we're moving to more ethanol bases products. Oh wait, hold on a second...
When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy