Scott versus Scott

Welcome to our blog. Here we will debate the days most serious topics and allow users the chance to discuss the topics as well. The range of topics will vary, but one thing will remain certain, the debate will rage on. Scott Lesinski is a proud conservative and Scott Jones is a proud liberal. However, the roles will switch on some topics. Stay tuned.

Scott Lesinski is currently an actuarial associate for a large human resources and insurance consulting firm in Saint Louis. He is also an avid student of US history and enjoys following current events, with an eye to their contextual relationship to the past. He is also, in fact, a former student of Mr. Scott Jones. Scott is working toward his FSA credentials, which is akin to earning a PHD in Actuarial Science.

Scott Jones is currently a high school social studies teacher at a high school in suburban St. Louis, MO. He teaches World History, AP American Government and Senior American Foreign Policy. He has a BS. Ed. (Secondary Social Studies) from the University of Missouri - Columbia and a M.A. (History) from Southeast Missouri State University. He is currently working on a dissertation in character education to earn a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Eco-Fascists true intentions

Anyone who pays the slightest attention to environmental politics has seen the picture of the innocent polar bear on his floating ice berg and heard the threats from “economic gurus” like Al Gore that if we don’t act swiftly to control our carbon emissions, this magnificent species could soon become extinct.

I’m sure you are aware of the “threats of inaction”: rising global temperatures, melting polar icecaps, rising sea levels, destruction of coastal lands and islands, mass extinctions, essentially, complete and utter catastrophe for all of mankind and other creatures that we are supposed to be protecting as stewards of the Earth.

Sounds pretty frightening right? I remember something Joe Biden said during the 2008 campaign. He was ranking different threats that America faces in today’s political environment. He ranked Global Warming and Twinkies above terrorism. Now if Joe Biden says it, it must be truly terrifying right? Hahaha!

Dear readers, what I am about to say might stun you.

Global Warming – as a man-made phenomenon – is a complete media hoax designed to frighten us, the public, into surrendering ever-increasing amounts of our freedom and liberty to the Eco-Fascists.

Who are these Eco-Fascists? I implore you to read on, and then, follow the money. The biggest culprit of all of this is none other than Al Gore. He has been parading around the world since the early 1990s warning that we only have ten years to act before we see catastrophic climate change resulting in the afore-mentioned disasters.

It’s been close to 20 years, and none of these disasters have happened. Al Gore has one of the largest “carbon footprints” of any human on the planet. He jets all around the globe in his private jet while condemning others doing the same. His seminal “Live Earth” concert series did more to pump out CO2 in a span of a few days than average Americans expel in a year. Why is Al Gore on this bandwagon?

Al Gore helped fund Generation Investment Management, an investment fund that, among other things, sells “Carbon Credits”. Al Gore justifies his titanic sized carbon footprint by claiming he buys equivalent carbon offset credits, which I guess this firm goes out and plants trees or whatever to be able to sell the credits. Al Gore buys the credits from the firm that HE FOUNDED in 2004 with partner David Blood. He stands to become a billionaire if this Cap and Trade tax scheme is passed.

What is Cap and Trade? In a nutshell, the idea of this tax is for the government to set artificial limits on the amount of “greenhouse gases” than anything (machine, business, individual) may emit in a given time period. If you emit less than your cap, you may sell credits to others so that they may emit more than their cap. The whole point, on the surface at least, is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Beneath the surface, this is the largest power grab and reduction of personal freedom and tax increase that we have seen in modern American history. Cap and Trade will be one of two major pieces of legislation that, if passed, will have the largest negative impact on the economy and our freedom, the other being Nationalized Healthcare.

The named bill is the Waxman-Markey Act. It is being advertised on television as if we are in the middle of a political campaign. It is dangerous. Here are some facts about this legislation, from the Heritage Foundation:

Cap and Trade is a massive energy tax
It will not make a substantive impact on the environment
It will kill jobs
It will cause electricity bills and gas prices to sharply increase
It will outsource manufacturing jobs and hurt free trade
It will force a choice between energy, groceries, clothing, and prescription drugs, etc.
It will be highly susceptible to fraud and corruption
It will hurt senior citizens, the poor, and the unemployed the most.
It will cost American families over $3,000 a year
President Obama admitted that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under a cap and trade program during the presidential primaries in January 2008.

This bill will cause real GDP losses of $9.6 trillion due to the stifling of economic growth and freedom. We will see an average loss of a million jobs even accounting for newly minted “green jobs”. Electricity rates will raise by 90%, gas prices by 74%, natural gas prices by 55%, and the average family’s annual energy bill will raise by at least $1,500.

But Scott, but Scott! There must be some environmental benefit to all of this, right? Wrong. Under the most optimistic forecasts, at BEST, we could see a reduction in global temperatures by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2050.

This bill is so insidious because the writers of the bill ACKNOWLEDGE within the language of the bill that it WILL cause the loss of jobs. There is a provision in the bill to provide a stipend of up to $1,500 annually for up to 3 years to help cover “re-education and relocation” costs during the job transition for anyone who loses their job “AS A RESULT OF THIS MEASURE”. (the quoted bit there is actual language in the bill!).

The costs to America will not end with what I’ve listed above. The loss of personal freedom will be profound. For example, Obama has already begun the process of developing and speaking on these so-called “smart meters” that will be put into our residences so that the government can offer us “friendly reminders” of peak energy use times so that we can turn off our lights and use less energy. This will lead to Obama dictating when we can have our lights on, what temperature our houses can be in the summer or winter, etc etc. Freedom lost.

We’ve seen the eco-fascists attempts to force us into these “cleaner” hybrid vehicles as a way of reducing our carbon emissions. One problem: the vast majority of Americans don’t want anything to do with these little lawnmowers with two seats on them! Through the end of April, based on data from Autodata Corporation, the number of SUVs sold was 226,057, whereas a mere 52,895 hybrids had been sold in the same time period. And that’s just SUVs! How many brand-new Ford, Chevy, Toyota, et al. trucks have you seen on the road these days? My point exactly. Americans WANT big cars, trucks, and SUVs. I’m not saying some don’t want the smaller cars, but the government should not be forcing us into them. They are MUCH more dangerous on the road, and can be very impractical. It just depends on what one’s wants/needs for an auto are, but Obama should not be telling us what we can and cannot drive.

However, the groundwork is being laid for taxing individual car emissions. If we do not stand up and tell Congress and Obama enough with the usurpation of personal liberty in the name of junk science, we deserve to have our liberties usurped.

The dirtiest little secret of all, dear readers, is the overt demonization of Carbon Dioxide. The EPA recently declared CO2 a greenhouse gas. One problem, ITS NOT! Historical increases in the levels of CO2 do not precipitate increasing global temperatures, rather it’s the other way around. But more to the point, CO2 is not bad for the environment; its necessary for life! I’m sure you know this but it bears repeating: We exhale CO2, plants “inhale” it, then expel O2, which we inhale. In greenhouses, they actually pump in higher amounts of CO2 to obtain optimal plant growth.

According to former NASA climatologist Roy Spencer at the University of Huntsville, Alabama, the biggest contributing factor (on Earth, at least) to global climate is precipitation systems and water vapor. However, these systems do not act to warm the surface of Earth, rather, they act to cool it. Without the CO2 and water vapor, the clouds and precipitation systems driving climate throughout the world, our Earth would be MUCH hotter, up to 140 degrees Fahrenheit in most areas. The number one driver of global climate is the Sun. 90% of the change in our climate is directly correlated with solar activity.

The point in all of this is simple. Obama wants to control our lives. Congress wants to control our lives. Al Gore wants to earn billions from his “carbon credit” scheme. And scientists want to keep getting their federal research grants. So we will continue to see some percentage of the scientific community claim “the debate is over” on man-made global warming. Follow the money.


  1. To be honest, I am not as up-to-date on this topic as you are, but I would like a few clarifications...

    The U.S. GDP for 2008 was $14.33 trillion. You claim a $9.6 trillion reduction in the GDP of cap and trade policies become law. So are you claiming a 67% decline in our economy? Since health care and education make up 40% of our economy and those two won't be affected by cap and trade (I did look that up), your numbers don't work. Maybe a typo or an overexaggerated scare tactic (not that conservatives would do that :) )?

    One byproduct of this that you didn't mention (I agree with the global warming stuff not being as big of a problem as it is portrayed), is the reduction of ground level ozone that this measure would help bring under control. Ground level ozone is the biggest threat to humans as far as pollution is concerned. The new auto standards as well as this cap and trade proposal will go a long way to cleaning the air we breathe (just as important as the air we exhale). Since conservatives have failed to bring forth a proposal to remedy this health hazard caused by unregulated capitalism, the cap and trade system is the only proposal on the table to help fix this. It is not perfect, but I have heard nothing from the right about this other than let the market fix it, which it hasn't since the time that Engels wrote about Industrial Manchester.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Scott, how in the HELL will installing smart meters in our homes lead to Obama "dictating when we can have our lights on, what temperature our houses can be in the summer or winter, etc etc.".

    Do you even know what a smart meter is? Or how one works? You must not, because I don't know how you could draw the conclusion that installing smart meters will allow Obama to tell us how much electricity we can use. If you can please elaborate more on what led you to that conclusion, that would be helpful.

  4. And how has anyone been "forcing" people to buy hybrids? By marketing them and selling them to people that want to buy them? Scott, it's pretty ignorant of you to label hybrids as "little lawnmowers with two seats on them". In fact, it's completely ignorant. Most hybrids available now are just a different version of a car that is currently available. What about the Cadillac Escalade hybrid? Or the Ford Escape hybrid? Or the Chevy Silverado or Tahoe hybrids? Are those what you would call 2-seater lawnmowers? They sound more like the opposite to me...

    And I don't think you can use those SUV vs. hybrid sales numbers to support your theory that Americans don't want fuel-efficient cars. In fact, I think that's one of the mistakes you're making. You're making it seem that the only "eco-friendly" cars out there are hybrids, which is not the case. There are plenty of cars out there that are simply more fuel efficient, and Americans DEFINITELY want them. This comes from the Wall Street Journal: "It's not as if American consumers won't buy efficient vehicles. Seven of the top-10-selling vehicles in April were cars that average 29 miles per gallon on the highway or better. The top seller was the Honda Accord, which gets 30 mpg on the highway in its four-cylinder version."

    I think an explanation for why hybrid sales are low (from the numbers you presented) is the state of the economy right now. Hybrids are generally more expensive than their non-hybrid counterparts. When the economy was booming (several years ago), sales of hybrid cars were increasing much faster than other cars. But when the economy is tanking, people are buying less cars, and they are especially buying less of those that are more expensive, which includes hybrids.

    Autodata Corp.'s sales data shows that through April, compared to 2008, car sales are down 35.7%, while truck sales are down 38.9%. Now, I'm assuming that "car" includes all cars big and small, and that "truck" includes SUV's, pickups, etc., but I'm not sure.

    I just plain don't think you're correct when you claim that the "vast majority" of Americans are not interested in owning more fuel-efficient vehicles.

    Also, you stated that "They are MUCH more dangerous on the road, and can be very impractical." Um, please, just reason me through either one of those. If you're referring to hybrid vehicles, then how is a Toyota Camry Hybrid any more dangerous than a Toyota Camry? Are you using the idea of more fuel-efficient cars being smaller, and that makes them more dangerous? Wouldn't that mean that the reason they're more dangerous is because of the other drivers out there that are driving larger trucks and SUV's??

    And, please, impractical? Don't make me pull out my dictionary again...

  5. Andrew for the win!

    We have TWO Honda Fits. We bought them because they are Hondas (so good quality and long lasting), were dirt cheap compared to any other decent new car, and the gas mileage is incredible. They aren't even hybrids and we get at least 35 mpg with them. Unsafe and not practical? Hardly, they are incredibly safe and since we are expecting a baby I was just reading in Parents magazine what a great family car they are. I used to have an Accord and because of the configurations of our Fits, I can fit WAY more things in them and of much larger size.

    I see no downside!

  6. Okay, okay, I think we need to corral this conversation back to the point. Discussing cars is great, but I was merely making a point about the level of control our government, lead by Obama, wants to have in our day-to-day lives.

    Not all hybrids are unsafe and impractical. The big ones are fine. I'll admit having a conceptual view of those dinky smart cars in my mind when I wrote that sentence. And you're right Greiner, I'm sure a large contributing factor to the poor sales of hybrid cars is the exhorbitant cost compared to regular cars. I never said people DONT WANT fuel efficient cars, rather I don't want the government legislating what kinds of cars can be made available to the market.

    Cafe standards are killing the auto industry, along with the UAW, and they are not doing us any good. The intention is to get better gas mileage to conserve energy. We are sold on these standards by saying we'll save money. But once we start using less, government will raise taxes on gasoline to make up for the lost revenue anyways, so we get screwed coming and going.

    Its not about protecting the environment; its about control.

    Greiner, if you want to buy a smart meter so you can find out your old fridge burns too much electricity, be my guest. But don't tell me that I must have one installed in my house. Its no business of yours, AmerenUEs, or Obama's how much electricity I use, so long as I pay for it. My implication of Obama dictating to us energy use is not really that far of a stretch given the level of influence he has exercised in the auto industry and banking sector, now that he "owns" part of both.

    The man is a pure leftist socialist. Apparently, so are you. I do not believe that government can better decide how the resources of our economy can be used than we can all decide for ourselves, and that includes energy use.

    How about this for an energy policy:

    Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.

    The US has enough oil to power ourselves for the rest of all of OUR lifetimes, but we lock it away in offshore reserves, keeping oil prices artificially high and ourselves overly dependent on middle-eastern and venezuelan oil.

    You want to buy an Accord, go ahead? Just don't do it for the enviroment's sake. Trust me, it doesn't need your (vain) help.

  7. Something else I forgot to mention, SJ.

    The Heritage study was on lost GDP over the next 20 years. $500 billion lost each year for 20 years. If you ask me, its ridiculous to think that we would impose such absolutely stupid restrictions on our businesses to reduce the global temp by .2 degrees C in 40 years.

    None of you seem to be arguing the benefits of Cap and Trade (except saying that Ozone is going to kill us. SJ, our air quality is great. If you need fresher air still, move to the country.)

    Remember, this energy bill is NECESSARILY going to send jobs overseas, increase all of our energy costs, and reduce our freedoms. We already see it with those stupid and dangerous compact fluorescents and the ban of incandescent bulbs. One thing the ecophiles forgot (or left out!) is that those curlycue lightbulbs contain mercury vapor...which IS harmful to humans. But in the spirit of "saving energy" we are going to endanger ourselves even more because in 2012, those wonderful, clear yellow burning 40, 60, and 100 watt bulbs will be a thing of the black market.

  8. Oh and an aside...smaller cars do get better mileage than say, an escalade. But put your baby in the accord, I'll put mine in an escalade (I don't have a baby, its for the argument's sake), and we can see who has a better chance of surviving when we crash the two together. Bigger cars are safer, all other things considered. That was my meaning. But I digress.

  9. Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less? We have enough for our lifetime?

    What happens when we run out Scott? Still not a sustainable way to live!

    And while I agree with you in regards to global warming, and I am well educated in regards to some "green" initiatives are anything but green... I still believe we have a responsibility to do right by our Earth, to maintain it, to protect it, to cherish it. It is our only home at present. So, I believe in sustainable living and being conscious about the things that we're doing to our Earth (like the ocean "dead zones" filled with all our garbage that we have nowhere to put, harming sea life). You may as well agree with me, but I think it important to remember that even if global warming is a hoax, we should not let that belief hinder us in cleaning up our act in other ways. If global warming isn't a real threat, there are a ton of other things that actually are.

    I do like by the way that you recognized how important it is to follow the money trail. I don't think enough people realize this in our society. I just wish people would apply it to all areas like healthcare for example...

  10. "What happens when we run out Scott?"

    You don't have to run out of oil to make it uneconomic!!!

    Comon now, do you honestly believe that if we drill here and now and can be independent from foreign oil almost completely that nobody would be doing research for alternatives? Even if we had more oil than we could use for two hundred years, if someone found say an alternative that could run on water they'd be gazillionaires! There is still an ENORMOUS incentive to finding an alternative!

    We didn't advance out of the stone age because we ran out of stone, we had advances in technology.

  11. Scott, while I can't say that Cap and Trade is the "perfect solution", I think that NOT doing anything to curb global emissions is horribly irresponsible and ignorant. You cite Mr. Spencer's climate research regarding CO2 and how it's actually good for the planet, but I hope that you can at least admit that completely unregulated emissions would be a bad thing for the planet, right? Have you seen smog in NYC, Chicago, and LA (and countless other big cities in the US)? Do you remember olympians wearing the surgical masks in Beijing? It's pretty darn hard to ignore the effects that factory, power plant, and automobile emissions are having on our environment. In fact, I get absolutely disgusted when I see/hear certain conservatives (I saw several on Fox News on Earth Day) deliberately WASTING (and telling their viewers to do the same) electricity, fuel and water just to spite those of us that actually CARE about this damn planet and want to make it a livable place for future generations. Now, I know this is not how most conservatives behave, but it seems that there's becoming a general disregard for well being of our planet on their part. To me, it's ignorant and irresponsible. Something needs to be done, and we CANNOT count on individuals or companies to take responsible steps in reducing their emissions alone. Government regulation IS needed.

    Yes, the Cap and Trade system as it is currently proposed has some obvious economical consequences, but we need to start somewhere. Maybe if we made significant modifications to the Cap and Trade system, it might not have so many downfalls. To be honest with you, I have absolutely no idea how to improve the Cap and Trade system as it stands, nor do I have any other reasonable alternatives for curbing emissions. So for now, I support Congress and the President in their development of this legislation, and I hope that the end product is beneficial for Americans and the environment.

    Since you obviously don't support the Cap and Trade system, what alternatives do you support? Are you at least in favor of enacting legislation to curb emissions? Can you think of a better starting point for legislation?

    If you are against any government regulations regarding emissions, I hope you can give a logical justification for that (is there one?).

  12. What I'm trying to say is, the potential economic consequences you presented are indeed frightening, and those are absolutely issues that must be considered when creating this legislation. And it is obviously hard for anyone to support a measure that would have such pernicious economic consequences. But we HAVE to start somewhere. I don't think the bill will be passed as it is currently presented. There are obviously going to be significant changes to it. That is why those numbers are not nearly as frightening. Trust me, if any members of Congress want to be reelected, the bill would not pass as you described it.

    But what truly frightens me is, as I described before, what seems to be a growing sense of carelessness among many Americans. While some of the initial claims made about global warming may not be true, to say that emissions have had no effect on the planet is just downright ignorant. I hope that you're in favor of SOME sort of government action with respect to protecting the environment.

    People and companies, as a whole, are not going to do what's best for the earth on their own. Yes, some will. But for most people and businesses, being "environmentally responsible" is expensive and time-consuming, and the consequences are obviously not immediately seen. Government regulation IS necessary.

    Sometimes, a "reduction in freedom" (as you call it) is necessary, but maybe you have to look at it as an increase in the freedoms of others. This will probably be another one of the fundamental differences between us, but I think that government intervention is needed to protect people's health (both today's generations and tomorrow's) and the environment. I am completely in favor of smoking bans. Look at it this way, smokers have less freedom to smoke in a public restaurant. But now, I have more freedom to enjoy that restaurant without either the immediate discomfort or long-term health effects from second hand smoke. So if we reduce the freedom of factories, power plants, and people driving their cars to pollute the air, then we increase the freedom of future Americans to enjoy this place without the harmful effects of emissions. To me, it's being responsible and considerate.

  13. "Its not about protecting the environment; its about control."

    "The point in all of this is simple. Obama wants to control our lives. Congress wants to control our lives."

    Scott, be honest with me. Do you REALLY think this is the intent behind the legislation?

    Like, really?

    I agree with Obama's stance, that it is a matter of protecting the well-being of current and future Americans and the environment that the government step in and regulate.

    Come on, Scott, quit making the argument about something other than the issue at hand. The issue at hand here is the environment. Either argue that regulations aren't necessary, or talk about some alternatives.

    I don't understand WHERE you're getting this "control" thing from. Is it simply because the government is creating legislation (one of its central purposes and powers given to it by the Constitution)?

    So, you're telling me that when Congresspeople propose legislation that proposes to limit "marriage" between one man and one woman, it's not about whether they ACTUALLY support heterosexual marriage, it's really just about control?

    Give me a break Scott. Stick to the argument, and stop trying to add irrelevant little quips that do NOTHING to further your argument.

  14. Now about those Smart Meters...

    I personally don't see them as an "encroachment of freedom", as you seem to. I first have to point out, Scott, that it IS AmerenUE's business how much electricity you use (literally). I'm pretty sure they have EVERY right to monitor how much electricity you're using at different times. They would probably use that information to form better pricing policies and to more accurately prepare their systems for peak demand times (just guessing). As a regulated utility company, though, they wouldn't be able to charge you unreasonable prices, but they might be able to charge you for unreasonable usage...

    I don't think Ameren or the government would ever tell you how much electricity you can or cannot use, but Ameren might be allowed to charge you a reasonable price for it.

    I think one of the most significant benefits of Smart Meters is to the consumer. It provides people with more and better information about their home's utility consumption, thus allowing them to make more educated utility choices.

    I have not seen or heard of any indication from the Obama administration that these Smart Meters would be used to tell people how much power they can or cannot use. They will, however, allow businesses and consumers to make better decisions about energy use. What's not to like?

  15. Would the Obama administration come right out and say they were going to use the smart meters as a way to dictate usage? Probably not before all the smart meters are actually installed. I think it very well could be out of control, but you did list some other uses for them, Greiner, that could be legit.

    I would think, Wardo, that there would be more of an incentive if we were dependent on foreign oil to find an alternative, but no, I don't think the incentive would disappear completely. The problem with the general American public is that the intelligence is lacking to comprehend finite amounts of oil.

    Interestingly, there are already alternatives that have been discovered, but they have been squashed from companies interested in the monetary gains from oil. Watch the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?

  16. I guess I feel that if people weren't uselessly driving a huge Escalade around, I wouldn't have to worry about crashing into one, huh? Or more likely, them crashing into me as that's how it usually goes. I have a Fit now simply BECAUSE a Suburban literally drove right into my Accord and totaled it. However, I got up and walked away just fine, even after hitting a tree, airbags going off, etc. I guess I will continue to trust the Accords, et al. safety.

    How many people who drive monster SUVs like that actually need them? Or how many of us can AFFORD to drive that car? I sure know I can't! Between the cost of gas and cost to purchase or lease it.

    Check out some of the safety ratings in cars like smaller Hondas, apparently you think I would put my child in a death trap, but you'd be mistaken.

  17. Katie,
    I totally agree with you that we should do our part to keep our environment clean and pollute less. We are stewards of the Earth and should behave that way. I am angered just as strongly as anyone when I see someone throw their cigarette butt out of their window or dump their trash on the road.

    However, there is a difference between being an environmentalist, a true conservationist, and falling for the trap of the global warming alarmists that would have us so drastically limit ourselves as to destroy our economy for such a small, almost undetectable difference in the global climate. That is what I am talking about.

    As for oil, Jon makes a brilliant point. Technology: true, viable, marketable new technology will someday replace oil and coal as our top energy sources. You mentioned the electric car. I have two points of contention:

    1) Oil companies, who are in the business of selling oil, would obviously not want for electric cars to become popular. But alas, this kind of competition is not new!
    2) If electric cars could be produced at an affordable price, could travel truly practical distances (many people need or want a car that doesn't necessary have to stop and refuel every 40 miles), and were generally desired in the marketplace, then they would have a niche market and gain a foothold. To date, such a car does not exist. It is not the role of government to pick winners by either subsidizing one technology it deems more worthy nor artificially increasing the cost of another technology it deems "evil". (I speak of extra gasoline taxes which are currently being discussed and of the so-called "windfall profits tax" that so many congressmen have eagerly supported, and of the government subsidies for corn based ethanol, which has proven to be inefficient and harmful to engines, not to mention has a very adverse effect on the price of food).

    We have enough oil in this country alone to power ourselves for a hundred years, but it is locked up by federal mandate. Our government is literally keeping us oil-dependent on Venezuelan oil ON PURPOSE.

  18. The thing that really frustrates me the most is the fact that the only reason cars are considered "less safe" than trucks or SUV's is the existence of these trucks and SUV's. Countless studies have shown (but it's practically a no-brainer) that SUV's and trucks impose an extremely high risk on drivers of cars, especially compared to the risk that cars impose on trucks and SUV's.

    In other words, I have to buy an SUV simply so that I can have a statistically better chance of survival when another SUV crashes into me.

    Or, in even more other words, I am less safe on the road because, as Scott puts it, certain "Americans WANT big cars, trucks, and SUVs".

  19. Greiner,

    I reject your premise that we must "do something!" to curb emissions. Our air has constantly been improving since we've enacted all these policies in the 70s and we've done enough. Besides, you are still talking about forcing reduced CO2 emissions, but yet you have accepted the notion that CO2 itself is not the problem.

    Like I stated above, I agree that we ought not pollute excessively. That being said, the cities you discussed are filled with smog not simply because we haven't got stringent enough cafe standards or "cap and trade"; rather its the heavy population centers themselves. Whenever such large populations form, unless you ban all cars (that is to say, you ban the actual pollution, not just tax CO2), government action will have negligible effect. There are various ways, such as the idea of a peak-traffic tax, which they do have in cities like London. In London, if you want to drive in the city proper during peak times, you have to pay something like 25 pounds a month, which is a pretty hefty sum. I'm in no way purporting that as a good option, but its the sort of thing you would need to do if you really care about seeing smog levels in those areas decrease.

    Cap and trade has been demonstrably shown as a failure, other countries that have it in place are acknowledging its ineffectiveness on the climate. This is due to a couple of reasons:
    1) Cap and trade taxes CO2 emissions, which have almost zero effect on climate. Water vapor is thousands of times more effective at trapping in heat, but nobody is suggesting we tax water vapor emissions. So the treatment is not treating the cause.
    2) Cap and trade (or cap and tax, as many on my side call it) is exactly that, a tax! It is meant only as a power/money grab on behalf of government. Like the Heritage study points out, Cap and trade is ripe for fraud, with government handing out "carbon credits" to those it desires to pay back for campaign contributions, etc.

    But even more to the point of this thread:

    Global warming is not man-made.

    We have been fed a media hoax that has had some scientists purporting its merits. Al Gore claims "consensus", but even if it was true, which it is not, the truth doesn't need consensus to win out! It merely needs to be what it is, true! We have not been warming since 1998 and as you may have noticed, the nomenclature has, in recent years, shifted to "global climate change". Well of course! The climate of Earth has been in constant change for millions of years! None of it was affected or caused by human activity. Short of nuking the Earth, we cannot have a noticeable effect on Earth's climate.

    This is why I say to you Greiner that no, we don't "have to do something!" We have to stop and evaluate the information we're being told and the effects the treatment is claimed to have.

    Think about this: In the 1970s, Newsweek ran a cover that warned us of the coming ice age. What could have possibly happened in the past 35-40 years to switch us over to global warming that is going to doom the planet with floods, droughts, famine, etc etc? Bear in mind that in this same time period, we have made constant efforts to reign in our CO2 emissions with the EPA and the Clean Air and Water Acts. So let me get this straignt: In 1970 we have a looming ice age and 20 years later, Al Gore begins his Global Warming Crisis parade, all while our CO2 emissions were reduced and people became ever more environmentally conscious. I mean, if that is true then what happened? I don't believe the premise, but even if it WAS true, the only thing that could switch us over from Ice Age to Global Warming that threatens the cute and not-so-cuddly polar bears in 20 years is...

    the Sun.

  20. As to the car discussion:

    Baby Peach, first of all, I just have to comment that it wasn't "A SUBURBAN" as you put it that drove straight into you, it was another driver. I love how these SUVs and trucks seem to take on a life of their own in such tales.

    Heres the thing about trucks and SUVs Greiner:

    1) They are necessary for many people's livelihoods. Every carpenter, plumber, handyman, etc has a practical need for trucks/SUVs. Also, many families choose to purchase SUVs because of the needed space for passengers and belongings. But more to the point, we have every right to buy products that we want or need that are legal. If I want to go buy the biggest damned badass black Chevy Silverado 3500 series quad cab and tool around America by myself, I will do it. (I'll put a lot of folks to work by doing so, btw)

    Look, I don't have it out for small cars or hybrids, I just don't want the government deciding what I can or can't buy based on some screwed up faulty notion that larger cars are destroying the planet. They simply are not doing anything of the sort. If I want a Hummer that gets 8 mpg, and I can afford the gas money, then you better believe I'm buying that Hummer. That being said, if I want a Honda Accord (a great car btw, you all just assumed that I had it out for this auto, I do not) so I can save gas money and get a great value, then I'm going to do that! But Obama motors corp is planning on picking winners and losers based on what his Car Czar Steve Ratner and Obama "feel" is best for America. Screw that, give me the freedom of choice!

  21. Finally, on the notion of the smart meter and whether Obama would use it to control our energy consumption.

    Greiner, you mentioned that you didn't see anywhere where Obama has said this is his intention. You are right. But consider this, are we wise to so blindly trust this man, given all that he has done and said in his short tenure?

    He never SAID that his goal in forcing banks to take TARP money to prevent financial ruin was in actuality a clever scheme to nationalize the banking industry, yet Obama now owns substantial parts of many of our largest banks and has bank execs living in such abject terror of government action that he may as well be CEO himself.

    He never said that his goal in promoting these auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler was to take control of the American car industry, fire the CEO of GM, slash Chrysler's advertising budget in half, pick winners and losers among Chrysler's many dealerships, sell Chrysler's assets to a foreign owned auto company and effectively strong arm shares of both companies away from their debt-holders and put the United Auto Workers in charge of these companies!

    Anything the man says is totally suspect, as we have seen. In point of fact, the only thing we can take to the bank on Obama is his ultra leftism. He has either succeeded in or tried to do pretty much everything he talked about in the campaign, much to the chagrin of many of the conservative "intellectuals" and many moderate Democrats who seem so surprised that they elected a Statist.

    So no. I do not think it is unrational to be very skeptical of Obama's ulterior motives when it comes to these "smart meters".

    Like I said before, if you want to buy one to help you with energy conservation in your house, be my guest, its (sort of) a free country still. But from my perspective:

    My bill from Ameren is about $45 per month. In summer, it may get as high as $75-$80. I live in a 1200 sq ft house with a basement. If I replaced all my appliances with "energy star" ones, it would cost thousands, but my energy savings per month would not come anywhere close to making up the difference, even in the long term. So go ahead, do what you want, just don't force me to have one.

  22. Greiner

    If you understand what a smart meter is, then you understand exactly what Scott was saying. The meter will beep to let us know when to turn off our lights, because it is not necessary to have them on, after all, it's 8 o clock and still light out.

    If I want to have my lights on 24 hours a day, make the biggest damn carbon footprint possible, and drive my gas guzzling SUV. Guess what, I PAY THE PRICES FOR ALL THOSE
    not mother nature


    The problem with "green" investments is 2 things
    1) We're not advanced enough to make perfect use from these green energies.

    Ethanol requires far too much corn/water to produce a single gallon of gas. To run strictly on ethanol would requite the entire US to produce corn to meet the demands of our gas usage.
    Windmills are extremely dangerous. They literally kill people by hurling shards of ice to the ground and impaling people, not to mention they are very loud and only work when it is windy. Not even green Ted Kennedy wanted windmills where he lived.
    Electric cars get poor milage meaning they would work for people who travel very little in a day.
    Hydrogen cars are the most dangerous since the slightest mishap would cause the entire thing to explode.

    We have some secure energies though, COAL and NUCLEAR. Let's use those while we "research" not "convert" to green energies. In fact, let's fire the DoE and rehire them to research Green energies! Might actually get a use out of that damn waste of a department.
    2) The way green energy is being thrown at us is going to put more people out of work than there are being jobs created.

  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

  24. Scott, I gotta ask. You said:
    "He never SAID that his goal in forcing banks to take TARP money to prevent financial ruin was in actuality a clever scheme to nationalize the banking industry, yet Obama now owns substantial parts of many of our largest banks and has bank execs living in such abject terror of government action that he may as well be CEO himself."

    Please, please, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't TARP (and the first $250 spent through the program) enacted while Bush was in office? In fact, wasn't TARP originally called the "Paulson proposal" as it was created by Hank Paulson? And as soon as it was proposed, wasn't it immediately backed by Bush? Where does Obama fit into all of this? I thought that at that time he was busy kicking McCain's ass on the campaign trail...

    Anyway, if you say that Obama's plan was to nationalize the banking industry, can you at least give the guy some credit and throw Paulson and Bush's names in there too? I suppose we ought to throw all of the members of Congress at the time it was passed in there as well. Which, I guess includes Obama, so maybe it was all his idea. But wait, that includes McCain too! And he even voted for it! Didn't you vote for McCain? Does that mean you voted for a guy that voted to enact the legislation that gave Obama the power to become the CEO of this new nationalized banking industry??

  25. "Anything the man says is totally suspect, as we have seen. In point of fact, the only thing we can take to the bank on Obama is his ultra leftism."

    Boy oh boy, you sure have a way with words. Totally suspect? My goodness. Those are some pretty serious claims you're throwing out there Scott.

    Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion. But I personally don't think the conclusions you're drawing about Obama's intentions are even slightly rational. The administration is trying to deal with probably the worst set of circumstances any President has ever inherited, and I think they're doing a better job than anybody else could do.

  26. And Scott, I also hope this is another one of your opinions:
    "Global warming is not man-made."

    Neither one of us is a climatologist, or any other sort of environmental scientist. While I can't completely prove to you that global warming is man-made, you can't prove the contrary. I think it's rather naive to just flat out state that humans have had no effect on the global climate.

  27. Greiner,

    Yeah, you're right about TARP. But Scott has said he didn't like that Bush did that! He was not acting as a conservative. Here you go again thinking that just because Bush did it that we're cool with it. The big thing is Obama will not let banks who took the money give it back! If they still have government money, Obama still has control.

    "Totally suspect?"

    Well, even you didn't have anything to say about the auto industry. Sounds like a HUGE reason to be pretty suspect to me.

    "I think it's rather naive to just flat out state that humans have had no effect on the global climate."

    I think it's rather arrogant to think that we KNOW that over the last 20 or 30 years WE are the ones making the earth warmer. The earth has been here for 4.5 BILLION YEARS! How do you, or any climatologist for that matter, know that this last 200 years or so is even the normal temperature for the earth?

  28. Scott,
    Yes, I agree we are being kept dependent on foreign oil absolutely on purpose. We are also being kept from aternative technologies on PURPOSE. My example of the electric car was not to suggest that we are yet ready for an electric car (though the qualifications you listed for an electric car do exist- there is a model that can go 450 miles, not 40). I think there would be a lot of problems with an electric car. I simply mean the "concept" of an alternative to dependence on oil that the electric car provided was purposefully extinguished by big business that have a vested interest in oil. This is what the movie about the electric car sheds light on. I do not like being dependent on foreign oil, but I do not like the idea of drilling for oil in the United States as it still doesn't solve our problem. It will last for 100 years or so, but that's just putting the issue off for future generations to deal with.

    If we drill here and the gas prices subsequently go down, the American public in general will rejoice and go out and by more gas as they can now afford it without any thought or consequence as to why it is cheaper. My concern is that alternatives to oil will continue to be supressed in the name of profits; we will continue to use up finite resources; and one day we will be screwed. Just because new technology could make someone a gazillionare doesn't actually mean it will come to pass.

    I don't like much government regulation or control and I certainly don't like the government deciding which technologies are better. I do not believe this is a valid function of the government. It's not the government that needs to make changes for the benefit of our environment; it is the people and that happens through education (though not our sorry excuse of public education, but that is obviously a different topic).

    Perhaps large vehicles are not destroying the planet, but consumerism sure is. The instant gratification of the here and now, buy something because I can and want to is literally destroying the planet. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't buy either. That's an infringement of our freedom, but where is the personal responsibility. People get what they want now and don't think about the later. So, if the government does a poor job of regulating and people lack crucial foresight, who is there left to preserve our planet? When will it stop being our "right" to buy the things we want? When all our resources are consumed?

    In addition, there is so much emphasis put on our economy as to what is good and bad for it at a direct cost to what is actually good for our planet. As long as people have jobs and are spending money, then we think all is well. That's just plain ignorance.

  29. Todd,
    What I actually said was that this new fad of green technology is actually anything but green. A lot of the hoppla that goes on is just more schemes and less solutions. So, yes the things that you mentioned are not feasible, nor am I actually for those technologies per se. Wind turbines present a good alternative to windmills however. You mention two energies coal and nuclear. I say why not solar!? We have great solar technologies coming out. There's also a concept of a car that can run on water, salt water included. While some of our green technologies are certainly not there yet, yes some of them are and we to need to keep doing research. Being environmentally conscious myself, I look not at "being green", but at what is healthy and what is sustainable. Things we are doing are having a direct impact on human health, and the way of life we are living will not be able to be continued forever.

    So, while ths new fad of being green makes me a bit nauseous because it's not actually all it's cracked up to be, doesn't mean that we can stop trying to find alternatives to the way that we are living.

    And even though I do not support global warming, if it draws people's attention to issues of our planet and helps people to be more conscious of how they make an impact, then I am all for that. I don't believe the notion of global warming in and of itself is necessarily dangerous. It's simply when the government seizes the opportunity to make a crisis out of it while sneakily restricting our freedoms and making undue money off of it is when there becomes a problem. Which is one the points I think you were trying to make Scott.

    But just because there is no global warming, there still is ocean dead zones, unsustainable amounts of waste, pollution, deforestation, etc. We mustn't forget these issues.

  30. Call me naive, but thank god most people aren't as paranoid about President Obama's supposed ulterior motives as some people here are. You'd think he was a sith lord in disguise or satan's child by some people's comments here.


    In response to your comment about paying the price for your waste of resources, you do not necessarily pay the price for them if the price does not accurately reflect the cost. This is known as a negative externality, and thus the price for your use should actually be higher (perhaps through taxes).

    Also, I believe there is some citation needed for your windmills-killing-people-with-ice-shards comment. The idea that windmills only work when it is windy is also misleading, as most windturbines used for generating electricity stand high enough off the ground such that there is practically always air movement (the problem is mostly whether there is TOO MUCH).

  31. David, I hang out with several of these boys on a regular basis. They truly think Obama is the next Hitler. I still have faith that he can only be there for 8 years. I don't think he can convince the country to get rid of term limits :). So if he is really like "He Who Must Not Be Named" like these boys suggest, after 4-8 years he will no longer be in charge. I also haven't seen him throwing all non-African Americans into confinement camps. Thank goodness ;)

    I think Al Gore's selling of his carbons is a crime in and of itself. And I would have voted for the guy if I could have when he ran against George Dub way back before we knew how dumb the guy really was. The whole selling your carbons is silly. My dad always said if he would have started this he would have been thrown in jail.

    With that being said, we cannot believe we are having NO effect on the climate. The Earth obviously goes through warming and cooling stages naturally (HELLO the Ice Age). But can we not believe we as humans are speeding up this process? Do you not think killing the ozone layer and other natural things on this Earth is affecting the climate? I have skimmed numerous amounts of articles that have suggested that we are not the only reason for the Earth's warming temperature, but we aren't helping things with our H3s. I mean who really needs those things beside the military? Though that is a little hypocritical of me since I did rent a H3 limo for one of my best friends bachelorette party.

    We may not be the one and only cause for the climate change, but we are definitely not helping matters with our careless need for huge ass trucks in the middle of the city. Those things used to be saved for the farms and pulling campers :)

  32. "Those things used to be saved for the farms and pulling campers."

    Pulling campers...from the middle of the city.

    "I mean who really needs those things beside the military?"

    I still don't get why that matters. If someone wants to drive that around but also have it for weekend camping or for pulling a boat they should be able to! Are you going to force them to buy ANOTHER car to drive when they're not hauling a boat??? You know, I don't even NEED as big of a car as I have now, and with most cars seating five or six, MOST of us wouldn't NEED as big of a car as we currently drive. But you know what? I got a great deal on my car! I saved well over $20,000 on buying a new say Civic Hybrid. My car doesn't really get great gas mileage; probably not even as good as some trucks. Let's outlaw the Mercury Grand Marquis!!! If I want to have a truck for it's practicality of being able to haul things then it's my choice! Please stop making the argument of need, it's truly ridiculous.

    "I also haven't seen him throwing all non-African Americans into confinement camps."

    Comon, I don't think he's the next Hitler. Quit using Hitler as an adjective to define a politician one disagrees with.

    "I think Al Gore's selling of his carbons is a crime in and of itself."

    Yeah, and this is what Waxman-Markey aims to do! But when you have people acting so frantically as Greiner saying, "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!" that's what you end up with!

    "Do you not think killing the ozone layer and other natural things on this Earth is affecting the climate?"

    From what I know and what I've read I'm pretty sure that CFC's, not CO2, were the big problem regarding the ozone as they essentially turn ozone molecule in to oxygen which does not protect us from UV rays. I wasn't able to find anything about CO2 depleting ozone. And according to the EPA's list of Class I and II substances of ozone-depletion potential, CO2 was nowhere to be found. We have already taken care of the CFC's by banning them as a propellant.

    So, in regards to your comment, "But can we not believe we as humans are speeding up this process?"

    What process are we speeding up? The warming of the earth? Because the temperature has gotten cooler over the last 10 years.

  33. It just seems to me that when we find something that can actually be proven to affect things (CFC's) that we DO take meaningful action.

    On a side note, I somehow changed my display name from baseballjw to like it!

  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

  35. Martha, don't make stupid hyperbole claims. It does nothing for the argument. Conservatives got all upset when far lefters claimed W. was like Hitler. Don't be a hypocrite.

  36. "While I can't completely prove to you that global warming is man-made, you can't prove the contrary." ~Greiner

    So what you're saying is that we are to act to prevent man-made global warming based on our faith that it exists and not on hard scientific facts? Sounds a little too like religion coming from you Andrew.

    You say you can't prove its happening, yet I sit here and present you with fact after fact and argument after argument that completely debunks any notion that man has caused global warming (or global climate change, as it is now being called...kinda threw a wrench into Al Gore's argument when we stalled out on warming since 1998), and all you can tell me is that I am being naive to think such things. I have made my arguments based on logic and research from real climatologists who are not being paid to find the "results" that the environmentalists want so they can push their socialist agenda.

    Go to that list of ten statements I made about Waxman-Markey and debate me on the merits of my argument, not on your own faith that its just so obvious that man must be doing something wrong to screw up the world.

    You accept that CO2 is not the problem, yet you still support Cap and Trade because "we have to do something!", even after you acknowledge that it will have devastating effects on our economy for decades to come. And if I misunderstand and you don't any longer support Cap and Trade, then what do you suggest we do to help the environment?

    Listen, I have stated before that I am a conservationist. I want to keep this world around for me and my children and on and on, and I want it better for them than it was for me. I have explained the difference between actual pollution and CO2 emissions and I have agreed that the actions taken in past years to curb real pollution have been beneficial. Sauget, IL used to pollute Saint Louis so badly that one would have to breath through a handkerchief to avoid having your eyes water (anecdotal story from my father's cab-driving days, I wasn't around when this was the case). THAT was bad. We fixed that.

    Cap and Trade is a socialist power grab and a massive tax that will undercut our economy almost as bad as nationalized healthcare. It will do virtually nothing to affect the climate of Earth. Why "must we do it"?

  37. Scott L, don't claim to be a "conservationist" when you aren't one. You are definitely a conservative, but I would debate whether you are a conservationist.

    To show you why I feel this way, I'll pull out my little dictionary yet again...

    Conservationist: "a person who advocates conservation especially of natural resources"

    Conservation: "a careful preservation and protection of something ; especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect"

    Hmmm... These quotes come from you:
    "If I want a Hummer that gets 8 mpg, and I can afford the gas money, then you better believe I'm buying that Hummer."
    "Americans don’t want anything to do with these little lawnmowers with two seats on them!"
    "Its no business of yours, AmerenUEs, or Obama's how much electricity I use, so long as I pay for it."
    "How about this for an energy policy:
    Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less."
    "But more to the point, we have every right to buy products that we want or need that are legal. If I want to go buy the biggest damned badass black Chevy Silverado 3500 series quad cab and tool around America by myself, I will do it."

    If you really WERE a conservationist, you wouldn't be such an advocate for allowing people to buy cars that use excessive amounts of fuel simply because "they want to".

    Just because you're a conservative, doesn't mean you're a conservationist. So quit claiming to be one.

  38. Well, I bet you feel great about that last point Greiner. One problem, you are again taking my statements out of context. All of those statements that you quote are in the context of freedom of choice. I personally do not own a gas-guzzling SUV. I do all of the "right" things.

    I recycle (although I'm not convinced that this actually does anything beneficial, but its so easy to do that I go ahead and do it).
    I conserve water.
    I conserve electricity in my home and at work.
    I use only what I need.
    I drive a car that gets about 24 mpg, and quite frankly, I don't have the money to go and buy a Prius (nor would I really want to drive one anyways).

    Besides, as I have stated, I believe in the freedom of the individual to choose what he or she wants to do or buy. So I stand by my comment that I live my life in a conservation oriented way.

    But more to the point of this thread. Why is it that after the pages of evidence and logical debate I have offered as arguments against Cap and Trade, all you have are ad hominem attacks against me? Are you conceding that this boondoggle of a bill should be defeated because it will do nothing but destroy our economy (and in a disproportionately larger way to the poor and middle class)?

  39. Sorry to come back to this 3 weeks later, but I just came back to the site haha. I try not to read it because it makes my heart race and I have plenty of other things to do that for me at the moment.

    My comment about you boys and thinking Obama is Hitler is due to the fact everytime I hear you talk about it you act like he is going to make things happen in this country as horrific as that man. For real you act like he will be here so long that he will cause our country to be overturned by China immediately. I was just saying that Americans will not let him undo term limits like Hitler, Chavez, and others alike. That was what that statement was coming to. You guys do act like the man is Lord Voldermort. You act like you should make a bomb shelter immediately.

    And with George W and Hitler? When did I ever say that? I said the man was dumb as a box of rocks. I couldn't listen to a presidential address for 8 years because he stumbled over his words all the time. Now I can't say he is that dumb. He is probably smarter than me. But dear goodness the man had speech writers that should have just quit because he never read them.

    And I never said I was for this bill. Go back and read my post...I said selling carbons is STUPID! I know nothing about this bill, but if it is selling carbons that is moronic. I DID say on the other hand that we are depleting the ozone layer and you can't say we aren't affecting the climate. That is what I said. Not that it was carbons, not that we were making it warmer (believe me STL has been cold as hell the past 3 winters), but I did say we are affecting climate. We are POLLUTING.

    And about the trucks. Not everyone that drives a truck drives it to pull a camper. And you don't need a Hemi to pull a camper. A station wagon would probably pull one :)

    I will stick with my Honda Civic, and maybe a Honda Accord soon. I love the good gas mileage and the fact that I could save the Earth from a little more pollution since some insist on driving their Hemi from Wentzville to downtown STL daily.

  40. "And with George W and Hitler? When did I ever say that?"

    Uhh, you didn't, when did I ever say you did???

    "I couldn't listen to a presidential address for 8 years because he stumbled over his words all the time."

    You ever hear President Obama w/o his bff Teleprompter?

    "And I never said I was for this bill."

    Again, you are right, you never said that, and I never said you were for it either.

    "And you don't need a Hemi to pull a camper. A station wagon would probably pull one :)"

    Scott L's dad ruined a transmission in a mini van pulling our scout trailer, which probably weighed less than a camper.

  41. I think cap and trade is a big energy tax. I think that the whole trade thing is just a waste because all they can't do once their allowance is up than they can buy more and that's stupid!trading the good of the enivorment with money.

  42. Scott I don't see how you assume that Obama and Congress are trying to control you? Did you ever think that maybe Obama and Congress have more important things to worry about then the temperature you keep your house at? These meters are to help people make better decisions about energy usage. But I'm sure your right... Obama is going to monitor your house and the amount of electricity you use. Please Scott seriously?

    And about the Global Warming situation. It is not a man-made phenomenon or a complete media hoax. It is real and it is serious. Yes our government might make it sound more threatening to us than it really is but they are only trying to scare us to prevent it from getting worse in the future. The government could easily find a better way to control you or get your money Scott. I seriously doubt they are tying to control you and the vehicle you drive. They are just trying to keep life on our planet a little longer!

  43. Is this Esvan?

    Anyways, you contradicted yourself.
    "It is not a man-made phenomenon" say this, yet you then say that our government wants to scare us into giving up more freedom to keep it from getting worse...

    If its not man-made, then we can't stop it.

    You doubt they want to control us?

    They set CAFE standards that are going to cripple the auto industry EVEN MORE than it is already. They have been waging war against the SUV for at least two decades. Obama even said that we aren't going to be able to keep our homes at 72, drive what we want, eat what we want...These are paraphrases of things he has said.

    No, it IS about control. Its about increasing taxes without calling it that. Its about limiting freedom.

  44. No this is not Esvan?

    I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that our government is looking out for us in the future. If that means that you can't keep your house at the temperature you want it and you can't drive that big deisel truck you want then so be it. I would rather give up a few things in my life to ensure life in the future.

    I am not saying anything about increasing taxes because obviously nobody wants that.

    Maybe some people could use a little bit of limitation on their freedom???

  45. Alright Josef. You give up YOUR freedoms first. I'm keeping my truck, and keeping my house however the hell damned hot or cold I want it. Because global warming/cooling/climate change/the sun exploding are all totally out of my hands. Man cannot control the climate. We could nuke ourselves all into a short nuclear winter. Might kill off most of mankind. But we can't destroy the planet by driving SUVs or air conditioning our homes.

    Plus, like i've pointed out before and will again because it seems you didn't read my post...Cap and Trade will cap CO2 emissions.

    CO2 is necessary for life and is NOT a greenhouse gas (that is, more CO2 in the atmosphere DOES NOT precipate higher global temperatures. The two are correlated, but its more the other way around: higher temperatures seem to be the driver of higher CO2 levels.)

    Besides, if it gets a little warmer, maybe we could grow peaches and oranges in Missouri. Or life in Siberia. Or northern Canada, eh?

  46. Global warming has gotten out of control. I do not think we will ever be able to control it. I think it is going to be a devastating loss for everyone, and everyone will be involved. I am a huge animal lover and I feel an enormous amount of sadness for the polar bears. They are suffering right now due to global warming. I wish there was something that we could do. I think this problem is so huge now that no one knows what to do. I think the green cars are a good idea. I think at this point anything we do should help.

  47. MMW, did you just watch Algore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth?

    You want to check out this link and realize that you can't just believe something because Algore said it.

  48. I completely agree with MMW....
    I too am a huge animal lover and it makes me sick knowing about the Polar Bears with this whole global Warming thing. I wish there was something more that we could do. I do think the hybrid cars are great thing you can afford them.

  49. I personally think cap-and-trade is a bad idea, even if it had good intentions behind it. I can't see how it could possibly be enacted in any meaningful way. The science behind global warming, however, cannot be pushed off to the side as just "conspiracy theory." I hear people who have no scientific knowledge of how the greenhouse effect works saying that it is made up by the government, but the facts tell a different story. It is not so much the acute accumulation of atmospheric gases from cars and refrigerators that trap heat that is worrisome, it is the risk of "runaway greenhouse effect" that needs to be staved off. This is not a made-up idea; planetary scientists have a really good model of what could happen from our neighbor Venus. Venus has a similar composition and size as Earth, but looks very different. Based on its proximity to the sun, Venus should only be a little warmer than Earth, but it is actually much hotter. Water vapor and carbon dioxide create dense, thick clouds that trap the heat from the sun, creating more clouds, trapping more heat...etc. It is a cyclical cycle that makes the planet extremely toxic and uninhabitable by any lifeform that we know of. The reason why this matters for Earth is because most of the molecules that would make huge heat-trapping clouds is actually "sequestered" in our oceans. Unfortunately, the physics of all dissolved gases ensures that as temperatures increase, more gases will be released (think of what happens when you leave a coke bottle in a warm place). Scott is right in saying that the human-made temperature changes by themselves are not going to kill us as long as we don't continue the trend. The problem is, our emissions are growing as the world population grows and more countries become industrialized. The small incremental changes will make the weather act funny and kill off a few species (which is admittedly bad), but the real danger is the accumulation of those small changes tipping off a runaway greenhouse effect that we have no way of fixing. Once it gets to that point, small changes such as fuel-efficient cars will do little to make a difference. That's why it IS VERY IMPORTANT to think about ways to control greenhouse gas emissions right now. It's bigger than personal rights; it's about global responsibility.