Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jun 25, 2013.
so is China shutting down their coal plants?
You have good company on this board.
which gas is more damaging? methane or CO2?
climate changes. polar caps are melting on mars too. saying that the climate is changing due to manmade behaivor is far from settled science nomatter how many people want to believe otherwise. look up a study on the greening of the world in arid regions. increased co2 levels are resulting in additional/enhanced greening of the plant which is consuming the additional co2. it doesn't happen voernight, these cycles are decades and centuries but some want to take a select group of years that fits their political agenda and cram it down everybody else's throat with scare tactics and demagogury. MSN linked a story last week saying oceans were going to rise 6 feet in this century and Miami was going to be underwater. bs nonsense but somebody believes it and MSN was stupid/culpable enough to link it. most experts in anything are usually just that. ex spurts. spent too much time in depositions with "experts" who don't have a clue (but they have a phd so they must be smart) to trust anything an "expert" says anymore. the science is not settled and the lead trumpeteers contantly try and demonize any opposition. 0 is a trumpeteer and making the cost of electricity go up as coal is marginalized is in no way shape or form good for this country.
I can tell you I can model a 25 year 3 day storm event over a 1000 acre stormwater system and change the stage by over 2 feet if I want to and still have all my input parameters within the bounds of reasonable engineering judgement and my discharge rate the same. modeling the climate of the planet is a joke to even think it could be done accurately. way too many variables and unknowns. they can't model a hurricane 5 days out with any degree of accuracy but we are expected to believe that the "experts" can model the global climate out 100 years. amazing that some can even say it with a straight face let alone that so many are willing to believe it. tell me again how accurate their models have been so far. :no: you can't because they have been so far off yet you still want to believe. faith is a hard thing to give up when you get too invested in it.
They would think it is a shell of its formal self.
If by "shell" you mean, larger in population & size, more prosperous, more powerful, more influential and more free in many ways, I suppose you are right.
This amounts to an illegal tax. He won't get away with it this time.
Per molecule or in total?
I am aware of these arguments, but again, the scientists that are most educated on these topics, and also quite familiar with these arguments, overwhelmingly agree with the anthropogenic climate theory. The fact that the climate has changed in the past or on Mars does not in any way discount that humans can influence the greenhouse effect.
As we've talked about a few times before, climate is vastly easier to model than weather. Again, when rolling dice, I can't predict what number you will roll next (weather), but I can pretty easily predict the overall results of your next 1,000 rolls (climate). As for predicting 100 years out, of course this is a dicey proposition, but you shouldn't think that you are the only person to notice this. The climate scientists themselves are quite forthcoming with values of confidence and uncertainty.
Is this just an effort to get me to spend hours trying to get you geniuses to look up the definition of the word "tax" again?
Typical disingenuous liberal crap speak.
Yes, that is what would surprise them.
We know Rick is a Pub. But, haven't you said you are one as well? Or that you vote Pub somewhat often?
Pretty sure Im not making that up.
I have never seen you post anything but bedwetting liberal talking points.
Gun control is probably my most conservative issue (aside from that I am probably more socially liberal than most democrats), but most fiscal and spending issues I'm relatively conservative on. I'm a registered Republican and tend to vote for them (I won't vote for people whose whole platform is social conservatism though).
I think I fairly frequently come across as arguing "against" things that I actually largely agree with on this board, just I tend to support things for a different reason than a lot of the other people on this board may, and I think the Republican Party tends to try to sell good ideas with arguments that are frankly more often than not a load of crap and are either playing into voter stupidity or don't stand up to much scrutiny. I try to correct some of those awful arguments that get spread on this board because, more often than not, there's also an argument in favor of that position which doesn't rely on just making stuff up.
I'm a Republican who doesn't appreciate the Republican Party making a concerted effort to be the party of stupid, in short.
(In fact the post you just quoted, I made in reference to about a 40 post sequence of me agreeing that something was a bad idea, but trying to point out that it wasn't actually a tax so that in particular wasn't a very good argument against it).
Like I have been writing for a few months now...Due to obstructionist GOP in the house you can count on Obama using two main means at his disposal. Both of which are entirely constitutional.
1. Exec orders--by simply enforcing laws already passed into law by congress and a POTUS(either himself or a previous POTUS) he can accomplish much without being blocked by GOP house. Much as Gatorbill and others may whine---he is not going contrary to constitution or going against congress. He is simply enforcing laws that congress had already approved. If his use of a exec order strays too far from the bill it draws upon then GOP or other can then bring their grievance to the people and the USSC.
2. Bully pulpit--even though a bunch of cons on the message board have been crowing about Obama approval rating and job approval rating being weak. His approval rating and job approval rating is still much higher than GOP in the house. So bully pulpit os still a viable option
Gatorbill, you can cite Faux news op-eds all you want. But bear in mind Fox deliberately deceived conservatives for the last few years on candidates, polls, etc to create an illusion much many Republicans naively believed without question.
would have though that you and others would wise up. Sadly for you that is not the case.
---fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
song lyric goes---'we won't be fooled again'
But cons got fooled by Fox and blame it on Obama. And it looks like you are being fooled again by Fox. And no doubt will try to blame it on Obama again.
Would have though your responsible nature would prevent you from being conned by Fox even more.
song dedicated to the board's cons-
'Life of Illusion' by Joe Walsh
To be very honest, I think that our country's exceptional wealth, prosperity, and elite world standing would surprise the heck out of them. I know we tend to ascribe to the founders superhuman powers, but there was really no way to know what was to become of this country. Even at the turn of the last century, very few would have believed what would happen after WWII.
And this isn't "liberal crap speak", it is actually much more like conservative American exceptionalism. I know that most of the people on this board believe that we are seconds away from complete breakdown, but this in most aspects, the pinnacle of our nation's history. This place is still pretty special.
is 0 the first president ever to have a house/senate that did not follow his every wish and desire? others in similiar circumstances have found ways to compromise and be effective without circumventing the separation of powers but this divider in chief does not understand compromise. pathetic that his defenders keep acting like poor ol divide and conquer nobama can't get anybody to compromise and play nice with him after he trashes them and threatens them.
exceptional wealth? really? have you checked the balance sheet lately? is the guy living in a million dollar house driving a porshe on the verge of foreclosure and having his car repossessed wealthy?
we are poor, we are just too stupid and short sighted to realize just how poor our balance sheet really is.
and this doesn't include the off the books debt like SS , unfunded public pensions, medicare, etc
Obama-care is a TAX!
What do you call increases in doing business? And what does the government call this revenue?
A revenue is a tax when said revenue goes to the government. A revenue increase is a tax increase.
So simple... even a Dem like you can get it. :wink:
Obamacare sort of is because Roberts, CJ, said so, but I don't think that's what either of our debates have been about, haha.
To be fair I did not see Obama's speech today so maybe I missed something, but I don't see how these are revenue raising. They certainly have compliance costs, but those are typically paid to other private entities for various stuff that you would need to comply.
That is your view, but I think your perspective is skewed. Go to India where many don't have running water, and tell them your sob story about how our porshes are getting repossessed. Then you might begin to see how insanely wealthy we are here. We have people we consider "poor" with multiple HDTVs in their house. In the Congo, the average citizen couldn't afford such a thing if they saved for year.
Sure we have debts, but as Adam Smith nicely points out in the Wealth of Nations, wealth isn't the dollars in our pockets; its the knowledge and capability of our people. If we have debt, it is because we traded future wealth for current wealth, but we didn't destroy our wealth producing machine, which is magnificent.
It's an illegal carbon tax! Obama can't increase or make a new tax without the Congress. Specifically the House of Representatives. The House is the only place a tax law can originate from.
I think the idea is to put new emissions requirements in place, not a carbon tax. It's sort of funny because it's arguably a more draconian way of achieving carbon reduction (less market-based, essentially the government sets the level instead of letting people make a price-benefit analysis for themselves with a tax system), but it's what EPA has preexisting authority to do and doesn't require congressional action, so it's the direction they'll go.