Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,301
#3,301
BartW said:
Again your post is completely devoid of substance. You're not supporting your argument, you're just grasping at straws. The Reagan administration let refineries trade pollution credits to phase out leaded gasoline. He also signed the Montreal Protocol which established a cap-and-trade system for CFCs. Look it up :yes:

"If we’ve learned any lessons during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that preservation of our environment is not a partisan challenge; it’s common sense. Our physical health, our social happiness, and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources."

— Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


You just banter on and on. You're like a barking dog. You and all your statist drones are on the Reagan bandwagon. Whatever it takes, huh? Again, do you understand the concept of private property rights?
 
#3,302
#3,302
I thought this thread was dead by now. Nothing has been accomplished in here. All fighting & name calling from both sides. It's gotten to where each of you posters are acting & sounding like 5th graders.
 
#3,303
#3,303
Sandvol said:
You just banter on and on. You're like a barking dog. You and all your statist drones are on the Reagan bandwagon. Whatever it takes, huh? Again, do you understand the concept of private property rights?
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Are you saying Ronald Reagan is a statist now?

And I would *love* to hear your spiel on private property rights (/sarcasm). Do you know the sic utere principle?
 
#3,304
#3,304
World Council Of Churches Divests From Fossil Fuels

The World Council of Churches, which represents over 500 million Christians in more than 110 countries, has decided to divest from fossil fuels, reports The Guardian.

The WCC Central Committee, which includes religious leaders from around the world, voted to include fossil fuel companies in the sectors that WCC will not invest in on ethical grounds, according to a statement from 350.org, an international enviromental campaign.

A report from the WCC's finance policy committee simply states, "The committee discussed the ethical investment criteria, and considered that the list of sectors in which the WCC does not invest should be extended to include fossil fuels."

350.org founder Bill McKibben said, "The World Council of Churches reminds us that morality demands thinking as much about the future as about ourselves–and that there’s no threat to the future greater than the unchecked burning of fossil fuels." He added, "This is a remarkable moment for the 590 million Christians in its member denominations: a huge percentage of humanity says today ‘this far and no further.’”
Click to expand...
 
#3,306
#3,306
BartW said:
I'm confused. Are you saying Ronald Reagan is a statist now?

And I would *love* to hear your spiel on private property rights (/sarcasm). Do you know the sic utere principle?
Click to expand...

We don't need cap and anything. Carbon is not a problem. If it does become a problem the free market will solve it.
 
#3,307
#3,307
Bart's continued yapping about cap and tax and it is what Reagan would have done is a coordinated propaganda by the left. Just do a Google search. It is on all the left wing sites. A bunch of drones. This is a stealth tax under the name of selling emission permits to raise over $650 billion in federal taxes to help fund huge increases in government spending.

It will impose a huge cost on business and consumers. The resulting higher costs for many goods and services would equal to a $1,100 tax on a family of four and these costs would continue to rise.

If it's a market based solution Bart then why do we need the government? And, why do we need a solution for something the American people don't consider a problem?

You see the statists lost the battle on their global warming propaganda so they just switched their tactics to already presuming we need a solution on this non problem and they are proposing a conservative market based solution. B.S!
 
Last edited:
#3,308
#3,308
The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works

The latest numbers from Statistics Canada show that B.C.’s policy has been a real environmental and economic success after six years. Far from a being a “job killer,” it is a world-leading example of how to tackle one of the greatest global challenges of our time: building an economy that will prosper in a carbon-constrained world.

B.C.’s tax, implemented in 2008, covers most types of fuel use and carbon emissions. It started out low ($10 per tonne of carbon dioxide), then rose gradually to the current $30 per tonne, which works out to about 7 cents per litre of gas. “Revenue-neutral” by law, the policy requires equivalent cuts to other taxes. In practice, the province has cut $760-million more in income and other taxes than needed to offset carbon tax revenue.

The result is that taxpayers are coming out ahead. B.C. now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada (with additional cuts benefiting low-income and rural residents) and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America. You shouldn’t need an economist and a mining entrepreneur to tell you that’s good for business and jobs.

At the same time, it’s been extraordinarily effective in tackling the root cause of carbon pollution: the burning of fossil fuels. Since the tax came in, fuel use in B.C. has dropped by 16 per cent; in the rest of Canada, it’s risen by 3 per cent (counting all fuels covered by the tax). To put that accomplishment in perspective, Canada’s Kyoto target was a 6-per-cent reduction in 20 years. And the evidence points to the carbon tax as the major driver of these B.C. gains.

Further, while some had predicted that the tax shift would hurt the province’s economy, in fact, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since 2008.

With these impressive results, B.C.’s carbon tax has gained widespread global praise as a model for the world – from organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank and The Economist. But in the rest of Canada, it is less heralded, which is a shame. Because when you look beyond the political rhetoric and examine the facts, B.C.’s experience offers powerful, positive lessons for Canada.
Click to expand...
 
#3,309
#3,309
wsjcartoon.jpg


FLASHBACK: The Wall Street Journal Wanted Cap-And-Trade
 
#3,310
#3,310
Also, if you read the article by Newell and Rogers of MIT about the leaded gasoline phase down Reagan's EPA allowed small refineries in the 1980's to trade their permits so to average the amount of lead in gasoline because some of the smaller refineries were having trouble reducing their lead. This really has nothing to do with free market solutions or anything of the sort. And, has nothing to do with the cap and tax system the Obama administration is proposing which is a big government revenue producing monstrosity.
 
#3,311
#3,311
Sandvol said:
Also, if you read the article by Newell and Rogers of MIT about the leaded gasoline phase down Reagan's EPA allowed small refineries in the 1980's to trade their permits so to average the amount of lead in gasoline because some of the smaller refineries were having trouble reducing their lead. This really has nothing to do with free market solutions or anything of the sort. And, has nothing to do with the cap and tax system the Obama administration is proposing which is a big government revenue producing monstrosity.
Click to expand...

You're a hoot Sandvol :eek:lol:

This is precisely the essence of cap-and-trade. The one-size-fits-all command and control regulation of the '70s gave way to cap-and-trade because it's cheaper for some polluters to reduce emissions than others. Those who can reduce their emissions at the lowest cost can sell their excess permits to those who cannot cut emissions as cheaply. This ensures that the necessary reductions are made in the most cost-effective manner possible.

Way to prove you have no clue what you're talking about, again
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,312
#3,312
BartW said:
You're a hoot Sandvol :eek:lol:

This is precisely the essence of cap-and-trade. The one-size-fits-all command and control regulation of the '70s gave way to cap-and-trade because it's cheaper for some polluters to reduce emissions than others. Those who can reduce their emissions at the lowest cost can sell their excess permits to those who cannot cut emissions as cheaply. This ensures that the necessary reductions are made in the most cost-effective manner possible.

Way to prove you have no clue what you're talking about, again
Click to expand...

Glad I amuse you. But, the permitting process was independent of the trading process. Reagan had nothing to do with the permitting. His agency just allowed trading late in the process (many years later) probably because of political pressure because if they'd shut all those refineries down there would have been hell to pay. But to use that as an example of Reagan being in favor of cap and trade is B.S. I totally disagree with carbon permitting in the first place because its just another statist scheme to control the economy and hurt free market capitalism and because its unnecessary -there isn't a CO2 problem.
 
#3,316
#3,316
Sandvol said:
Glad I amuse you. But, the permitting process was independent of the trading process. Reagan had nothing to do with the permitting. His agency just allowed trading late in the process (many years later) probably because of political pressure because if they'd shut all those refineries down there would have been hell to pay. But to use that as an example of Reagan being in favor of cap and trade is B.S. I totally disagree with carbon permitting in the first place because its just another statist scheme to control the economy and hurt free market capitalism and because its unnecessary -there isn't a CO2 problem.
Click to expand...
:popcorn:

Sorry, but you're dead wrong again. The only real difference between the lead phase-out mechanism and later versions of cap and trade is that there was no hard cap -- the amount of lead permitted in gasoline was expressed in grams Pb/gallon (in this regard it's analogous to the carbon tax).

The first leaded gasoline standard was enacted in 1979. In 1982, Reagan tightened the standard and introduced permit trading (hardly "late in the process, many years later"). He continued ratcheting down faster than planned and the program was completed in 1987: the same year Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol, which established a cap-and-trade system for CFCs. What a dirty statist!

And you've got it ass-backwards when you say you think it's a statist scheme because CO2 isn't a problem. In reality, you've decided CO2 cannot be a problem because you think the solutions are statist schemes. The issue with that is you're as clueless about the political history of cap-and-trade as you are about climate science.

Fractal-wrongness.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,317
#3,317
Kentucky GOP lawmaker defends coal: ‘We all agree’ Mars is the same temperature as Earth

A coal plant-owning Kentucky Republican offered an out-of-this-world argument against new EPA carbon emissions regulations.

State Sen. Brandon Smith (R-Hazard) joined other lawmakers in attacking the Obama administration and EPA regulations July 2 in a meeting of the Interim Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Environment.

“I won’t get into the debate about climate change,” Smith said. “But I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”
Click to expand...

:blink:
 
#3,318
#3,318
BartW said:
:popcorn:

Sorry, but you're dead wrong again. The only real difference between the lead phase-out mechanism and later versions of cap and trade is that there was no hard cap -- the amount of lead permitted in gasoline was expressed in grams Pb/gallon (in this regard it's analogous to the carbon tax).

The first leaded gasoline standard was enacted in 1979. In 1982, Reagan tightened the standard and introduced permit trading (hardly "late in the process, many years later"). He continued ratcheting down faster than planned and the program was completed in 1987: the same year Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol, which established a cap-and-trade system for CFCs. What a dirty statist!

And you've got it ass-backwards when you say you think it's a statist scheme because CO2 isn't a problem. In reality, you've decided CO2 cannot be a problem because you think the solutions are statist schemes. The issue with that is you're as clueless about the political history of cap-and-trade as you are about climate science.

Fractal-wrongness.jpg
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the same thing. The Clean Air Act was signed into law by Johnson, you know Mr. Great Society. Once into law the statists over at the EPA could do just about anything they wanted just like they will do with Carbon. I understand it was permitted in grams and the EPA kept lowering the limit. That's got nothing to do with anything. The permitting process was already in place when Reagan came into office. His EPA allowed refineries to use trading later in the process so they could continue to operate. That was market friendly. This does not mean that Reagan would be in favor of a carbon tax today-another big government statist scheme. You're saying because this carbon permitting plan allows trading it is a conservative free market idea. It isn't. Especially since CO2 is not a problem-CARBON DOES NOT NEED TO BE PERMITTED. And, the Montreal Protocol was a blemish on Reagan's record. No one knows why Reagan signed the protocol. I think he just finally succumbed to the liberal onslaught. You guys never give up. That is what conservatives fail to understand. Just like with healthcare. You will eventually see it implemented no matter what the American People want. Our side is about the markets, liberty, property rights, free enterprise and capitalism. Your side is about controlling everyone, growing government, entrenching your policies more and more into the fabric of America. That is all you do and all you care about. "Fractal Wrongness" -funny how you paint a picture of yourself in an attempt to describe someone else. You statists are fractally wrong until you utterly destroy everything. You can't see your own mental defect. Bunch of lemmings. Now go back and huddle with your society destroying buddies. Your "it's what Reagan would have done" idea isn't resonating with anyone.
 
Last edited:
#3,320
#3,320
Sandvol said:
You keep repeating the same thing. The Clean Air Act was signed into law by Johnson, you know Mr. Great Society. Once into law the statists over at the EPA could do just about anything they wanted just like they will do with Carbon. I understand it was permitted in grams and the EPA kept lowering the limit. That's got nothing to do with anything. The permitting process was already in place when Reagan came into office. His EPA allowed refineries to use trading later in the process so they could continue to operate. That was market friendly. This does not mean that Reagan would be in favor of a carbon tax today-another big government statist scheme. You're saying because this carbon permitting plan allows trading it is a conservative free market idea. It isn't. Especially since CO2 is not a problem-CARBON DOES NOT NEED TO BE PERMITTED. And, the Montreal Protocol was a blemish on Reagan's record. No one knows why Reagan signed the protocol. I think he just finally succumbed to the liberal onslaught. You guys never give up. That is what conservatives fail to understand. Just like with healthcare. You will eventually see it implemented no matter what the American People want. Our side is about the markets, liberty, property rights, free enterprise and capitalism. Your side is about controlling everyone, growing government, entrenching your policies more and more into the fabric of America. That is all you do and all you care about. "Fractal Wrongness" -funny how you paint a picture of yourself in an attempt to describe someone else. You statists are fractally wrong until you utterly destroy everything. You can't see your own mental defect. Bunch of lemmings. Now go back and huddle with your society destroying buddies. Your "it's what Reagan would have done" idea isn't resonating with anyone.
Click to expand...

good-good-let-the-jimmies-rustle-through-you.png



Ronald Reagan
Statement on Signing the Montreal Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances
April 5, 1988

I am pleased to sign the instrument of ratification for the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The protocol marks an important milestone for the future quality of the global environment and for the health and well-being of all peoples of the world. Unanimous approval of the protocol by the Senate on March 14th demonstrated to the world community this country's willingness to act promptly and decisively in carrying out its commitments to protect the stratospheric ozone layer from the damaging effects of chlorofluorcarbons and halons, but our action alone is not enough. The protocol enters into force next January only if at least 11 nations representing two-thirds of worldwide consumption of chlorofluorcarbons and halons ratify the agreement. Our immediate challenge, having come this far, is to promote prompt ratification by every signatory nation.

I believe the Montreal protocol, negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, is an extremely important environmental agreement. It provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect a vital global resource. It requires countries that are parties to reduce production and consumption of major ozone-depleting chemicals by 50 percent by 1999. It creates incentives for new technologies-chemical producers are already working to develop and market safer substitutes-and establishes an ongoing process for review of new scientific data and of technical and economic developments. A mechanism for adjustment of the protocol is established to allow for changes based upon the review process. The wisdom of this unique provision is already being realized.

Data made available only during the last few weeks demonstrate that our knowledge of ozone depletion is rapidly expanding. For our part, the United States will give the highest priority to analyzing and assessing the latest research findings to assure that the review process moves expeditiously.

The Montreal protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its causes and its effects. The protocol is the result of an extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business and environmental communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental achievement.
 
#3,321
#3,321
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,322
#3,322
BartW said:
good-good-let-the-jimmies-rustle-through-you.png



Ronald Reagan
Statement on Signing the Montreal Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances
April 5, 1988

I am pleased to sign the instrument of ratification for the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The protocol marks an important milestone for the future quality of the global environment and for the health and well-being of all peoples of the world. Unanimous approval of the protocol by the Senate on March 14th demonstrated to the world community this country's willingness to act promptly and decisively in carrying out its commitments to protect the stratospheric ozone layer from the damaging effects of chlorofluorcarbons and halons, but our action alone is not enough. The protocol enters into force next January only if at least 11 nations representing two-thirds of worldwide consumption of chlorofluorcarbons and halons ratify the agreement. Our immediate challenge, having come this far, is to promote prompt ratification by every signatory nation.

I believe the Montreal protocol, negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, is an extremely important environmental agreement. It provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect a vital global resource. It requires countries that are parties to reduce production and consumption of major ozone-depleting chemicals by 50 percent by 1999. It creates incentives for new technologies-chemical producers are already working to develop and market safer substitutes-and establishes an ongoing process for review of new scientific data and of technical and economic developments. A mechanism for adjustment of the protocol is established to allow for changes based upon the review process. The wisdom of this unique provision is already being realized.

Data made available only during the last few weeks demonstrate that our knowledge of ozone depletion is rapidly expanding. For our part, the United States will give the highest priority to analyzing and assessing the latest research findings to assure that the review process moves expeditiously.

The Montreal protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its causes and its effects. The protocol is the result of an extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business and environmental communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental achievement.
Click to expand...

Canned speech by a speechwriter. Again, it was a major blemish on his record. And, no one knows why he did it.
 
#3,323
#3,323
Sandvol said:
Canned speech by a speechwriter. Again, it was a major blemish on his record. And, no one knows why he did it.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:

"Nobody knows".... except the 197 countries and 100 US senators that unanimously approved it. Maybe you should ask chemistry Nobel laureates Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland?

:post-4-1090547912:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,324
#3,324
Mark Levin on statists. Does this remind you of anyone?

Pointing out that the classical definition of “liberal” is directly opposite to today’s authoritarian liberals, Levin prefers the term “Statist.” The word is a cogent description of the American left’s “insatiable appetite for control.” Says Levin of the Statist: “His sights are set on his next meal before he has fully digested his last. He is constantly agitating for government action…concocting one pretext and grievance after another to manipulate public perceptions and build momentum for the divestiture of liberty and property from its rightful possessors.” That constant agitation, he notes, is wrapped always in tones of moral indignation.

Levin is an originalist, viewing the Constitution as the philosophical bedrock on which America is built. “It is—and must be—a timeless yet durable foundation that individuals can count on in a changing world.” Issue by issue, he provides the reader an X-ray of Statism gone wild.

One issue is free market economics. This is an era when the president of the United States has fired the head of General Motors and a Rasmussen poll claims only 53 percent of the American people prefer capitalism over socialism. It is no small thing, then, for Levin to patiently explain that the “key to understanding the free market is private property.” He connects the dots among Statists, government, and recent disasters featuring Fannie Mae, the Federal Reserve, and the financial tool known as the derivative, a child of government intervention in the marketplace.

Nor is he afraid to connect the dots in the environmental struggle with Statists. Levin explodes the myth that conservatives reject science. Whether discussing the use of DDT as an insecticide, global warming, or automobile technology, Levin moves effortlessly from core principle to scientific fact, statistics, and research. He deconstructs the Statist reliance on bad science or no science, emotionalism, and faddishness. The latter could not have a better illustration than Levin’s recounting of Newsweek magazine’s alarmist 1975 article on the looming perils of “The Cooling World.” Said the magazine breathlessly: “The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” By 2008, Newsweek was insisting that “Global Warming Is a Cause of This Year’s Extreme Weather.” Oops. In a flash of his radio show humor, Levin runs a two-and-a-half-page list of every phenomenon attributed by alarmists to global warming, from “better beer” to “gingerbread houses collapse” to “short-nosed dogs.”
 
#3,325
#3,325
BartW said:
:eek:lol:

"Nobody knows".... except the 197 countries and 100 US senators that unanimously approved it. Maybe you should ask chemistry Nobel laureates Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland?

:post-4-1090547912:
Click to expand...

Isn't Obama a Nobel laureate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top