The cap and trade scheme is not going so well in the Senate
Eight Senate Democratsare opposing speedy action on President Barack Obama’s bill to combat global warming, complicating prospects for the legislation and creating problems for their party’s leaders.
The eight Democrats disapprove of using the annual budget debate to pass Obama’s “cap and trade” bill to fight greenhouse gas emissions, a measure that divides lawmakers, environmentalists and businesses. The lawmakers’ opposition makes it more difficult for Democratic leaders to move the bill without a threat of a Republican filibuster.
They aren’t necessarily against cap and trade, but, they believe that the issue should be debated, not fast tracked (like they want to do with healthcare legislation, as well,) since it will f*ck up basically the entire economy. Oh, and for no reduction of CO2 output.
However much the oceans riseby the end of the century, add an extra 8 inches or so for New York, Boston and other spots along the coast from the mid-Atlantic to New England. That’s because of predicted changes in ocean currents, according to a study based on computer models published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Oh, OK. Crystal ball time. I’d believe them if they could come out with models that were at least 90% accurate for the 10 day weather report. Heck, the 7 day. Hell, the 5 day. But, it is easy to make these types of scare-mongering predictions, since they won’t be around to be called to account 90 years from now.
Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. Â
The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA. Â
But, they are skeptics, so, we probably shouldn’t listen to them. Snark off.
I’m just wondering if any True Believer can explain why 1990 is the best point to reduce CO2 to. Why not 1976, when the media was concerned about an ice age? How about 1850, when we were in between the end of the Little Ice Age and the beginning of another warm period?
Teach,
Since, you’ve claimed to be so interested in constructive criticism, rather than “personal insults”, I’m going to provide you with rebuttals. I assume you’ll actually honor them with your own counter points?
How is this? Caps would be set for large companies to meet. If they can’t, they trade with other more efficient companies. However, the caps would continue to decrease, so that the cost of trading soon outweighs the cost of reducing emissions. This provides a market-based incentive for companies to reduce emissions. As caps are lowered, emissions decrease. That’s simple math.
You do realize that weather models are very different from climate models, right? There is a big difference between forecasting specific conditions in a locale, based on chaotic weather patterns, and providing long-term projections, based on previous climate trends applied to various future scenarios.
This is an emormously misleading statement that you have taken at face value. Only a handful of the “700” are actually climate scientists, much less those who have recently conducted any scientific research on the subject. Also, the “52” number only considers the summary of one working group’s report. What about the full report, the research that was used in the report, and the other two working groups’ reports? By the time you’ve considered all of these reports and their supporting data, you have a number of scientists that is much greater than anything Inhofe could come up with, but he’s not going to want you to know that.
1990 is used as a baseline for various reasons, but primarily because this was determined to be the earliest point at which a considerable amount of data was available. You must also know that 1990 is not necessarily used as a “best point to reduce CO2 to”. This depends on the timeframe you’re considering. Some have called for reductions to levels much lower than 1990 (stated as a percentage of 1990 levels) by 2050.
Please respond to these rebuttals. Don’t just let them go unanswered like every other time.
Cap and trade, as I have explained before, is a farce, designed simply to raise money. It will not reduce CO2 output, but, it will raise consumer cost.
Weather models are more basic then climate models, and are very similar. Ask a climatologist or weatherperson. So, how can you know what is going to happen in 50-100 years, using climate models that are not all inclusive, do not take the full measure of the Sun and water vapor, into account? And, consider that weather is what makes climate. But, it is a nice talking point, always saying that the models are different.
And how many of those signing the IPCC are actually climate scientists, Reasic? How many who create the IPCC reports are actually climate scientists? Again, nice talking point, but, you folks will listen to any person, regardless of their qualifications, such as Al Gore, who pushes your Beliefs.
So, 1990 is basically an arbitrary point, right? Thanks.
Teach, I’ve refuted your argument. In a debate, the opposing side should then counter the rebuttal, not restate their original argument. What I’d like to see is some explanation as to HOW C&P will not reduce CO2 output.
I HAVE consulted climatologists, and they’ve said that their models work differently, which is plainly obvious. You’re trying to put the cart before the horse here. True, climate is technically an average of the weather conditions for a particular area. However, changes in climate are not driven by any changes in chaotic weather patterns.
Teach, you need to exercise some critical thinking here. Don’t just skim the surface of everything and oversimplify the issue. Be sure that what your understanding of the issue is relevant to the discussion.
I don’t have the exact numbers, but I can tell you that the number of actual climate scientists is FAR GREATER than that on any list Inhofe has come up with. I’ve told you many times that Al Gore has NOTHING to do with my understanding of global warming. It’d be nice if you didn’t keep repeating false claims.
It’s answers like this one that make me wonder if you even read my responses. What drivel. Don’t you have any respect? Don’t you want to at least make sure that your responses are relevant, and maybe somewhat thoughtful? 1990 is a baseline. If you don’t understand what that means, just say so. It doesn’t matter if you use the year 1990, 1995, 1985, or any other year, as long as there was an adequate amount of emissions data during that year. The baseline is then used to determine our goals. The goal may be 1990 itself or 50% below 1990.
So, no, the IPCC has not set an arbitrary goal.