Cap And Trade

[vbnautilus 48]

No mom...

hey at least I didn't say the bridge thing.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

About 22%¹. We are the largest producer of carbon emissions in the world. Hint: really really big.http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics...54_Analysis.pdf[/url]

From your link:"The data considers only carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, but not emissions from deforestation, and fossil fuel exporters, etc. These statistics are rapidly dated due to huge recent growth of emissions in Asia. The United States is the 10th largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions per capita as of 2004.[1] According to preliminary estimates, since 2006 China has had a higher total emission due to its much larger population and an increase of emissions from power generation. "I'm not going to comment on the science because I am not a scientist as has already been pointed out. However, I do have a lot of common sense, and it doesn't take much to realize a 41 year projection by the people who can't predict the weather next week should carry some skepticism. We can agree that emissions need to be reduced, I just don't think this bill is a catastrophic failure in its attempts at that.

[Balloon guy 158]

hey at least I didn't say the bridge thing.

You just wanted to use that Far Side picture...I know you.

[Balloon guy 158]

From your link:"The data considers only carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, but not emissions from deforestation, and fossil fuel exporters, etc. These statistics are rapidly dated due to huge recent growth of emissions in Asia. The United States is the 10th largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions per capita as of 2004.[1] According to preliminary estimates, since 2006 China has had a higher total emission due to its much larger population and an increase of emissions from power generation. "I'm not going to comment on the science because I am not a scientist as has already been pointed out. However, I do have a lot of common sense, and it doesn't take much to realize a 41 year projection by the people who can't predict the weather next week should carry some skepticism. We can agree that emissions need to be reduced, I just don't think this bill is a catastrophic failure in its attempts at that.

Some of my favorite Dennis Miller lines:

There's a lot of differing data [about global warming], but as far as I can gather, over the last hundred years the temperature on this planet has gone up 1.8 degrees. Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable? I could go back to my hotel room tonight and futz with the thermostat for three to four hours. I could not detect that difference."

As Miller says, the entire argument is based on the temp going up a degree or two over the past century, and we both wonder if they had a reliable measuring system in 1907. As Miller puts it:

They were still (going to the bathroom) in the woods yet we're supposed to believe they had a stranglehold on the Fahrenheit at the Earth's magma.Ezekial, put the candlewick down the gopher hole, we need to lay down the empirical baseline for future generations, hurry up, you gotta go churn some butter, and I'm due at the doc's for a leechin'.Do you suppose that during the dust bowl they blamed global warming, or did they just say, "You know, it hasn't rained in a while"?I remember, when I was young...I remember the sun was hot...it was really hot.

"Hey, Ezekiel, put the candlewick down the gopher hole, let's lay down an empirical baseline for future generations."That's GOLD

[vbnautilus 48]

From your link:"The data considers only carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, but not emissions from deforestation, and fossil fuel exporters, etc. These statistics are rapidly dated due to huge recent growth of emissions in Asia. The United States is the 10th largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions per capita as of 2004.[1] According to preliminary estimates, since 2006 China has had a higher total emission due to its much larger population and an increase of emissions from power generation. "I'm not going to comment on the science because I am not a scientist as has already been pointed out. However, I do have a lot of common sense, and it doesn't take much to realize a 41 year projection by the people who can't predict the weather next week should carry some skepticism. We can agree that emissions need to be reduced, I just don't think this bill is a catastrophic failure in its attempts at that.

Per capita we are lower on the list but we are probably still #1 in terms of total man-made emissions, with the possibility that China has surpassed us. Nevertheless the point remains that we make a significant contribution to the global carbon emissions; to say that if we reduced our emissions it would have no effect is wrong. Weather prediction is pretty accurate where I come from, but I guess all they have to do is slap one of those sun graphics up and they're probably right. But the modeling done does take into account economic factors, and before it was dismissed offhand I'd have to see a real criticism of it. Until then I'll go with the EPA scientists on the emissions effects (not that this decides the policy issue).

[CaneBrain 95]

Only the water on golf courses.I lost 6 balls yesterday playing the Pete Dye at Mission hills. Of course there are 14 holes with water, 12 of which are on the left.But still...2 sleeves? That is ridiculousAnd nobody tell checky about this, cause he's brutal about my golf game.

Pete Dye is an evil prick. That is all.

[Balloon guy 158]

Pete Dye is an evil prick. That is all.

again we find a common ground amidst the debate.How's the new job?

[CaneBrain 95]

again we find a common ground amidst the debate.How's the new job?

Not bad. My firm is (surprisingly) very slammed with work which is both very good and a bit annoying. Sucks to have to study for the Bar at night but oh well.I dont think I will be having any time to play Dye courses (or any other courses) for quite a while. It is too hot in Miami to do anything outdoors right now anyway.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not bad. My firm is (surprisingly) very slammed with work which is both very good and a bit annoying. Sucks to have to study for the Bar at night but oh well.I dont think I will be having any time to play Dye courses (or any other courses) for quite a while. It is too hot in Miami to do anything outdoors right now anyway.

About 105 here now, but much easier with really low humidity. I went out yesterday at 2:30, but it was so hot I only smoked two cigars on the course, which is half of normal

[El Guapo 8]

About 105 here now, but much easier with really low humidity. I went out yesterday at 2:30, but it was so hot I only smoked two cigars on the course, which is half of normal

That's it? It was 108 here 2 days ago at 7PM in the shade.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Man made CO2 accounts for less than .2% of total greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. If, over the same 30 year horizon, we were magically able to cut human CO2 emissions by 10% (something this bill doesn't even pretend to be able to get close to since we won't be able to even touch developing asia in emissions over the related time horizon), we have reduced the human CO2 impact by .02% at a cost to the US of NINE TRILLION DOLLARS.

ok, to me, this is the biggest point made in this thread, and I don't think I saw anybody respond to it at all. first off, is the data correct? that our CO2 output only makes up for .2% of total greenhouse gases? if it is correct, and we have that little impact on the atmosphere in the first place, and even if the bill somehow works amazingly well (which is impossible given we cannot govern the entire world's CO2 output, and other less developed countries have vowed NOT to limit it) and we reduce a huge amount, say 80% of our CO2 output, is it still worth nine trillion dollars (just to the U.S. mind you) to reduce total CO2 in the greenhouse by .16% or so? please answer fully and show your work.

[Balloon guy 158]

ok, to me, this is the biggest point made in this thread, and I don't think I saw anybody respond to it at all. first off, is the data correct? that our CO2 output only makes up for .2% of total greenhouse gases? if it is correct, and we have that little impact on the atmosphere in the first place, and even if the bill somehow works amazingly well (which is impossible given we cannot govern the entire world's CO2 output, and other less developed countries have vowed NOT to limit it) and we reduce a huge amount, say 80% of our CO2 output, is it still worth nine trillion dollars (just to the U.S. mind you) to reduce total CO2 in the greenhouse by .16% or so? please answer fully and show your work.

Not to change the subject but I am doing a party in a couple weeks with a Hurricane theme and for the center bar I proposed a bar that is a damaged shack with the roof partly blown off and wind damaged sides and porch etc.Any chanceyou could post a picture of your house so I can show my prop builder what I want?

[Sal Paradise 57]

god damnit.

[strategy 4]

ok, to me, this is the biggest point made in this thread, and I don't think I saw anybody respond to it at all. first off, is the data correct? that our CO2 output only makes up for .2% of total greenhouse gases? if it is correct, and we have that little impact on the atmosphere in the first place, and even if the bill somehow works amazingly well (which is impossible given we cannot govern the entire world's CO2 output, and other less developed countries have vowed NOT to limit it) and we reduce a huge amount, say 80% of our CO2 output, is it still worth nine trillion dollars (just to the U.S. mind you) to reduce total CO2 in the greenhouse by .16% or so? please answer fully and show your work.

there is no agreement on the issue at all, despite what both sides like to try to say. this quote from NC is what I was talking about when I said I'd put my money on the scientist over the accountant.

[Balloon guy 158]

That's it? It was 108 here 2 days ago at 7PM in the shade.

You being a seller of financial things, I read your post as:That's it? It was 98 here 6 days ago at 3PM on the asphalt.

[vbnautilus 48]

ok, to me, this is the biggest point made in this thread, and I don't think I saw anybody respond to it at all. first off, is the data correct? that our CO2 output only makes up for .2% of total greenhouse gases? if it is correct, and we have that little impact on the atmosphere in the first place, and even if the bill somehow works amazingly well (which is impossible given we cannot govern the entire world's CO2 output, and other less developed countries have vowed NOT to limit it) and we reduce a huge amount, say 80% of our CO2 output, is it still worth nine trillion dollars (just to the U.S. mind you) to reduce total CO2 in the greenhouse by .16% or so? please answer fully and show your work.

You can't be fooled by those numbers. First, read my numbers above -- U.S. accounts for 22% of man-made carbon emissions and the EPA projects the bill leads to over 80% reduction over 50 years -- that's a reduction of 18% of the world's C02 output. Second, we have to understand that very small changes can have very big effects in a dynamical system. Changing atmospheric levels of a gas by .2% could have a huge effect on climate. It's the same trick with the 1 degree temperature change. It sounds small, but it would only take a few degrees of temp change to kill off most of the life on the planet.

[hblask 1]

It sounds small, but it would only take a few degrees of temp change to kill off most of the life on the planet.

This is a flagrant lie. The temperature of the earth has varied by far more than a few degree many many times during the history of life, yet life is still here. Anyone who would make such a claim is a kook.

[El Guapo 8]

You being a seller of financial things, I read your post as:That's it? It was 98 here 6 days ago at 3PM on the asphalt.

I see how could infer that, but Sunday was that hot, it was miserable. I had to turn the AC all the way down to 72. I am guessing since it was Sunday, there were an extraordinary amount of people burning in Hell in my vicinity, which was the primary cause. Have we looked into this for a reason behind global warming? Seems like there are more and more heathens like VB sprouting up every day.

[vbnautilus 48]

This is a flagrant lie. The temperature of the earth has varied by far more than a few degree many many times during the history of life, yet life is still here. Anyone who would make such a claim is a kook.

Ok, I probably exaggerated that point. But my main point is that apparently small changes can have large effects, though complex feedback cycles. The effects of the average earth temp changing just a degree are pretty large, even though it wouldn't seem so since its "only a degree". I'm trying to find some decent data on long-term temperatures of the earth but I'm not having luck. Certainly in the last few thousand years it hasn't changed by more than a degree or so.

[vbnautilus 48]

I see how could infer that, but Sunday was that hot, it was miserable. I had to turn the AC all the way down to 72. I am guessing since it was Sunday, there were an extraordinary amount of people burning in Hell in my vicinity, which was the primary cause. Have we looked into this for a reason behind global warming? Seems like there are more and more heathens like VB sprouting up every day.

hmm, I thought hell was in New Jersey.

[El Guapo 8]

hmm, I thought hell was in New Jersey.

I am guessing there are access points all over the world. And with all the sodomites in California, I am sure we have more than most.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

the figures i was quoting were from the EPA scientist's report that wasn't allowed out before the C&T window passed because they were contrary to the position the EPA was trying to present. they were supposedly published in several newspapers and i heard multiple people use that figure throughout the day when the story was breaking, so I figured it to be relatively accurate. my apologies if it was not, I didn't read his entire report as some of it is pretty far over my head.none of this changes the economic reality of this plan being far more than any democrat wants to talk about, or the shady manner in which it has been pushed through so far.

[El Guapo 8]

For some reason I cannot find if this has passed anything or not yet. What is going on with this?

[Balloon guy 158]

hmm, I thought hell was in New Jersey.

No, but that is where all the giant enemas get sent for some reason

[Balloon guy 158]

For some reason I cannot find if this has passed anything or not yet. What is going on with this?

Passed house 219-207Still has to get through the senate