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

[Mr Bogus]

...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.

boy aint that the truth...

Or you could go work for the Govt in a little cubical tucked away doing useless work for years and years so you can live in a subsidized world of a "free" America..

Every time I am in LA, I look at the 405 as the epitome of the problem.. 10's of thousands all riding alone clogging the arteries of the American machine..

Suppose it will fix itself when gas does hit $10-$14 a gallon (figure it is not that far away) Then it will be "their" fault again (or still)

 

[Dino]

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.

Lav,

You are missing the whole point. The WSJ article is someomes OPINION. It is meant to influence you. The author has a belief and provides quotes and builds a case for their belief. You can choose to accept it or not.

The Reuters article is simply reporting, there is no overt attempt to influence you. That is not to say it might be without bias but that is not the primary goal of the article.

I am not expert at climate science so I must rely on experts to form an opinion. This requires a critical eye and OpEd pieces can almost always be quickly discounted as relavant, but they can be a good start for critical study (unless of course you agree with them from the onset).

Whether or not the earth gets warmer is not really a concern of mine, nature has a way of balancing things out and man has a way of blaming everything but himself. It will all work out in the end, I just hope humans are around to see it.

 

[tclause]

Alright your all in time out