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

[F=MA]

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...

I have serious doubts you'll find any serious tree huggers on a message board that caters to a common interest in the world's fastest production motorcycle. I realize the debate is far more titilating when one labels one's opponent as having extremist viewpoints, but the reality here is none of us are here because we'd be happy riding 250cc Honda Rebels or Vespa scooters.

I agree that it would be in everyone's interest to bring China and India along with any effort to be more environmentally responsible...though India's CO2 emmisions are at present 1/4 of what the U.S. produces.

 

[tclause]

There were global climate changes well before man, warming and cooling trends.

 

[Mr Bogus]

Lav 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. That is not to say that some of the information is not factual, but in many cases facts taken out of contex are meaningless.

Reuters writer not injecting opinion? Neither do writers from the BBC, FOX or MSNBC....

shy away from OpEds? I am sure that is really a wise move.. When people are paid to research, write and publish OpEds, there is usually a reason..

If it was just to stroke readers, anyone could do them.. These people are often privy to things the rest of us are not or have expertise in the field...

Sometimes their "employer" should be considered but if what they put out is complete garbage, they get called out by their peers.. (well unless you work for the DNC or Moveon.. they are of course above reproach)

BTW WHO do you work for? so we can temper what you say..


maybe you should be feeding us all the news we need so we can form the same opinions you have.....

Is your signature meant as a satire?

 

[Dino]

Reuters writer not injecting opinion? Neither do writers from the BBC, FOX or MSNBC....

shy away from OpEds? I am sure that is really a wise move.. When people are paid to research, write and publish OpEds, there is usually a reason..

If it was just to stroke readers, anyone could do them.. These people are often privy to things the rest of us are not or have expertise in the field...

Sometimes their "employer" should be considered but if what they put out is complete garbage, they get called out by their peers.. (well unless you work for the DNC or Moveon.. they are of course above reproach)

BTW WHO do you work for? so we can temper what you say..


maybe you should be feeding us all the news we need so we can form the same opinions you have.....

Is your signature meant as a satire?

You are welcome to point out the opinions presented by the author of the Reuters article.

 

[Mr Bogus]

I really do not need to... most intelligent readers can find where omissions and injections are possible... (those could/would be considered bias in writing in case you were not aware)

 

[Dino]

I really do not need to... most intelligent readers can find where omissions and injections are possible... (those could/would be considered bias in writing in case you were not aware)

I did not ask you to point out bias, I asked you to point out where the author injected opinion. The intelligent reader would know the difference.

 

[Mr Bogus]

you gotta be kidding me...

I figured even you would know that opinion can be injected by exclusion or inclusion in a writing... (fancy skool stuf I lernteded)

I see we skipped the "who we work for" part.. sure wouldnt want to color the nature of your interests...

anyway, you kill me with the "Admit to being wrong" thing...

will send you a box of crayons and helmet if I can afford them after the tax increases over the next couple years..

 

[Tufbusa]

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.

Dino, Dino, Dino :stirpot:

It appears you only give credibility to one side of the debate? YOUR SIDE!

I have a feeling no one will win this argument with Dino no matter what these email communications between your peers indicate? Further debate would be like arguing with a sign board I had painted myself!

 

[lavinrac]

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.

If you notice Dino I had no position to add credibility to. I was merely stating what I have noticed. (My opinion of course)

Either way lets talk about the weather then.. You obviously don't believe the WSJ, while you would rather believe Routers.(For this weather story)

Since you do like "digging a little below the surface and looking with a critical lens" I am sure you came across information that would prove the IPCC is either right or wrong.

You may look at this site.. Facts about Climate Change Science, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics It is about scientific fact and past events. It is a good read if you have the time. I am sure you will find some opinion in there such as "It is generally accepted that the Earth has been much warmer than today." I believe you may like the read, I did.


So at the end of it all Climate change appears to be a naturally occurring event that will continue whether man/woman is here or not.


As for peer review, ONLY the U.S. data set is available, while the global data set is NOT disclosed for peer review. You only see the graphs that have been released. So I personally would not put to much faith in it.

 

[Dino]

you gotta be kidding me...

I figured even you would know that opinion can be injected by exclusion or inclusion in a writing... (fancy skool stuf I lernteded)

I see we skipped the "who we work for" part.. sure wouldnt want to color the nature of your interests...

anyway, you kill me with the "Admit to being wrong" thing...

will send you a box of crayons and helmet if I can afford them after the tax increases over the next couple years..

good answer .....

Dino, Dino, Dino :stirpot:

It appears you only give credibility to one side of the debate? YOUR SIDE!

I have a feeling no one will win this argument with Dino no matter what these email communications between your peers indicate? Further debate would be like arguing with a sign board I had painted myself!

good answer....

 

[Lurch]

How can building and Island in the ocean off of your coast with incinerated garbage so you can build luxury housing be a GOOD THING? Wouldn't this add to global warming and reduction in the surface area of the oceans, thus again adding to global warming?

Just a question I have after seeing a story on TV

 

[lavinrac]

How can building and Island in the ocean off of your coast with incinerated garbage so you can build luxury housing be a GOOD THING? Wouldn't this add to global warming and reduction in the surface area of the oceans, thus again adding to global warming?

Just a question I have after seeing a story on TV

I am not sure about the whole global warming thing but from the displacement of the water to build said island it would prolly raise the sea levels by .000000001mm

 

[Mr Bogus]

How can building and Island in the ocean off of your coast with incinerated garbage so you can build luxury housing be a GOOD THING? Wouldn't this add to global warming and reduction in the surface area of the oceans, thus again adding to global warming?

Just a question I have after seeing a story on TV

depends on what the garbage that was incinerated was made from.. you can burn all the wood, paper, and organic matter you want and be carbon neutral..

 

[MarkZ28]

Hmmm, wonder how the glaciers during the many ice ages melted? Bet those clever cavemen driving their SUV's and running their coal plants caused the Earth to warm up 100,000 years ago and destroyed the planet then to, lol. Those poor mammoths and giant sloths had no chance at the hands of greedy caveman. There may be global warming(Now they say its climate change since its actually getting cooler) but its not affected by man enough to do squat. This cap and trade crap and all the hype over a hoax is just a way to get tax money from the people, nothing else. Once we can control continental drift, ocean currents, volcanic activity(the real global warming devices), the planet's position to the sun, planetary position in the solar system, solar flares, etc. then they can control global warming. So far, only God can do that.

 

[dadofthree]

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

Peer reviewed studies

 

[dadofthree]

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.

It's hard to argue either side based on what I have read so far. Both sides are protecting their jobs and the large sums of money they make. So I don't think you can say one side is any worse than the other.

 

[Mr Bogus]

It's hard to argue either side based on what I have read so far. Both sides are protecting their jobs and the large sums of money they make. So I don't think you can say one side is any worse than the other.

oh so right...... after you get past the political motivations? there is nothing left to do except go jump in your Hummer and burn gas as fast as possible before it goes back to $5 a gallon again...

 

[Dino]

Peer reviewed studies

Wow. You do know what a peer reviewed study is, right?

 

[F=MA]

oh so right...... after you get past the political motivations? there is nothing left to do except go jump in your Hummer and burn gas as fast as possible before it goes back to $5 a gallon again...

...then complain about "big oil", "the government", "the arabs", "those greedy gas stations", or "speculators"...never once pausing to look in the mirror at the real problem.

 

[Dino]

Dino, Dino, Dino :stirpot:

It appears you only give credibility to one side of the debate? YOUR SIDE!

I have a feeling no one will win this argument with Dino no matter what these email communications between your peers indicate? Further debate would be like arguing with a sign board I had painted myself!

Tuf, So far neither you nor Bogus have presented a side to give credability to.