Cap and Trade is DEAD..............

[aussiekeeper]

Kim Strassel: Cap and Trade Is Dead - WSJ.com

No new carbon taxes, fuel taxes, KYOTO, No more global warming nonsense.
I wonder if Gore's investors will line up to sue him over this? There are literally billions at stake here. Will he be pressed to tell what he knew?

 

[StromBusa]

Gee, and the UN is usually so on top of things ??? I think the whole thing still has allot of momentum. US is BSing like a 20% reduction in 10 years. More blankets anyone?

 

[BusaWhipped]

Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn't toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view.

This isn't limited to Gobal Warming.

 

[brpo]

Thank goodness we don't have to spend a gilzillion dollars on something we may not even be able to control!

 

[captain]

Man for a second there I thought you were talking about something else.. No one told me !

 

[aussiekeeper]

No Cap it isn't..........Trade the Cap......It's Cap and Trade.

 

[Mr Bogus]

China and India are clear they won't join the West in an economic suicide pact.

Gee sounds like what people have been screaming here at Mr "I invented global warming" Gore...

Now you need to get CA back into the real world..

 

[theskaz]

Now you need to get CA back into the real world..

GL with that......

 

[Dino]

We do know the difference between an OpEd piece and a news story, right? The Op = opinion, actually the WSJ is kind enough to print "opinion" right at the top of the page.

This on the other hand is a news article: Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"

 

[Tufbusa]

I believe the emails speak for themselves! When I read the "Smear Campaign" it strikes me as being a very weak attempt at defending the emails. Surprisingly, no denial of facts? You might say, it was one of those "For sure not me" after one was caught with the hand in the cookie jar?

 

[Dino]

I believe the emails speak for themselves! When I read the "Smear Campaign" it strikes me as being a very weak attempt at defending the emails. Surprisingly, no denial of facts? You might say, it was one of those "For sure not me" after one was caught with the hand in the cookie jar?

So you have seen the emails, or have you decided to stick with someone elses opinion over multiple peer reviewed studies?

 

[Lycan]

Gee sounds like what people have been screaming here at Mr "I invented global warming" Gore...

Now you need to get CA back into the real world..

I hate to correct you Bogus...but...he invented the INTERNET

 

[Projekt]

I hate to correct you Bogus...but...he invented the INTERNET

Was that why he got a Nobel prize?

 

[lavinrac]

We do know the difference between an OpEd piece and a news story, right? The Op = opinion, actually the WSJ is kind enough to print "opinion" right at the top of the page.

This on the other hand is a news article: Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"

I'm sorry Dino I your a good person but you my friend are as opinionated as you claim everyone else is that doesn't fit your thoughts.

You are correct it does say title.. The only OPINION given by the paper is the title.

I guess since the wsj quoted a couple people(whose thoughts could be opinion) and stated what a few groups are CURRENTLY doing or have done(FACT) means its all opinion(meaning incorrect).

While your beloved reuters quoted a couple of people(whose thoughts could be opinion) and stated what a few people are CURRENTLY doing or have done(FACT) means its not opinion(Thus correct).

I don't really see how you come to that conclusion there buddy... aren't ALL news stories filled with quotes and things that have happened. Wouldn't that make them ALL OPINION? or just the ones you don't agree with?

 

[F=MA]

The WSJ article is an op-ed piece showcasing two opinions...the opinion of the writer, and the opinion of one senator from a part of the world not exactly known for producing or valuing science...their neighbor Kansas is still struggling with teaching science based evolution.

Oklahoma also has a substantial amount of investment in the fossil fuels industry. What else should one expect its elected representatives to say but "global warming is not caused by what puts bread on the table of many Oklahomans"?

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe 200 peer reviewed papers written by scientists than one politician in Oklahoma whose pockets have been lined with campaign contributions from the refining industry for years. Others will have different methods of assessing credibility.

It is unfortunate that a small percentage of overzealous scientists apparently felt the need to enhance data to produce more compelling results.

 

[Tufbusa]

So you have seen the emails, or have you decided to stick with someone elses opinion over multiple peer reviewed studies?

Man made Global Warming is not among my specialties and I suspect it's not among yours either? I don't know if the earth is warming or not, nor do I know if man has any effect on warming if it does exist! From what I have read and heard, there are just as many, maybe more, scientist who disagree with Global Warming as the number who are screaming "Gloom and Doom!

Is your argument that the emails do not exist?

I have not heard a word disputing the authinticity of the emails or disputing their validity?

Am I wrong?

 

[jdsbusa]

Remind me again of this global warming come January when my area goes into that 3 week mercury hibernation where the temp doesn't rise above 20 below during daylight hours and dips into the -30 to -40 range at night for 3+ weeks!

 

[Mr Bogus]

The WSJ article is an op-ed piece showcasing two opinions...the opinion of the writer, and the opinion of one senator from a part of the world not exactly known for producing or valuing science...their neighbor Kansas is still struggling with teaching science based evolution.

Oklahoma also has a substantial amount of investment in the fossil fuels industry. What else should one expect its elected representatives to say but "global warming is not caused by what puts bread on the table of many Oklahomans"?

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe 200 peer reviewed papers written by scientists than one politician in Oklahoma whose pockets have been lined with campaign contributions from the refining industry for years. Others will have different methods of assessing credibility.

It is unfortunate that a small percentage of overzealous scientists apparently felt the need to enhance data to produce more compelling results.

I think there is a contingent of "lets hug a tree and cut the arms and legs off American industry" attitude that prevails with a few..

We can ill afford to make moves that are questionable and then leave China and India to do things their own way.. We are working in an economic climate that just wont allow us to do that and still compete in a world market.. It would help if everyone was playing by the same set of rules.. (my CA remark was based on that)

I am more concerned with the decimation of our fisheries and rain forests.. Those are things I can look at knowing full well what happened to them.. not much debate about that pair of items


hey Lav...

 

[Dino]

I'm sorry Dino I your a good person but you my friend are as opinionated as you claim everyone else is that doesn't fit your thoughts.

You are correct it does say title.. The only OPINION given by the paper is the title.

I guess since the wsj quoted a couple people(whose thoughts could be opinion) and stated what a few groups are CURRENTLY doing or have done(FACT) means its all opinion(meaning incorrect).

While your beloved reuters quoted a couple of people(whose thoughts could be opinion) and stated what a few people are CURRENTLY doing or have done(FACT) means its not opinion(Thus correct).

I don't really see how you come to that conclusion there buddy... aren't ALL news stories filled with quotes and things that have happened. Wouldn't that make them ALL OPINION? or just the ones you don't agree with?

Lav it would be nice to discusse the information in the two works rather than resort to personal attacks to try to add credability to your postion. That said, can you honestly not read both articles and tell the difference? The Reuters story simply reporting information the author dose not inject opinion. The WSJ article as F=MA points out is bias because it only presents one side and then injects a huge dose of the author's opinion.

F=MA does a great job discussing it.

When I develop an opinion I try to do so based upon digging a little below the surface and looking with a critical lens. In general I try to back up my points with citations to support my position. I will never claim that I am 100% correct and when presented with factual information contrary to my position I am happy to admit I am wrong. I generally shy away from OpEd piece because they are not designed to inform you their intent is to influence your beliefs. That is not to say that some of the information is not factual, but in many cases facts taken out of contex are meaningless.

 

[Dino]

Man made Global Warming is not among my specialties and I suspect it's not among yours either? I don't know if the earth is warming or not, nor do I know if man has any effect on warming if it does exist! From what I have read and heard, there are just as many, maybe more, scientist who disagree with Global Warming as the number who are screaming "Gloom and Doom!

Is your argument that the emails do not exist?

I have not heard a word disputing the authinticity of the emails or disputing their validity?

Am I wrong?

Nope not an expert but I have greater faith in multiple peer reviewed studies than a handfull of quotes from emails with no context. If there is no context there is nothing to dispute.