Proposed climate bill a breath of fre...

Proposed climate bill a breath of fresh air

There are 91 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jun 26, 2009, titled Proposed climate bill a breath of fresh air. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The climate bill, with its cap-and-trade component, that is to go to the House floor for a vote Friday is that rare piece of legislation that has both environmentalists and heavy industry saying they can live with the result.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Tim

Bethlehem, PA

#64 Jun 26, 2009
kevlar128 wrote:
<quoted text>
Item two is incorrect. Reflected, not absorbed.
You are correct in the sense that the CO2 actually reflects sunlight.

What I meant to say is that the CO2 is the cause of the sunlight that is trapped on earth. The sunlight hits the ground, reflects, and then is reflected back by CO2. Therefore, the CO2 makes the earth "absorb" the sunlight, by keeping it from escaping.

So same, difference.

CO2 still causes a build-up of heat from the sun.
Tim

Bethlehem, PA

#65 Jun 26, 2009
ignorance is not bliss wrote:
<quoted text>
Tim--you basically negated your whole point with your own first line...Unless you have a degree in physics or chemistry, you opinion means as much as the piece of paper you are reading it from...
If global warming were as simple as you made it out to be--it wouldn't be an issue. There are however many unknown variables in the environment that good ol' Mother Nature doesn't want to share with us that none of the global warming theories out there truly take into account.
Believing as gospel what the newscasters or democrat or republican politicians tell you doesn't make you better informed or smarter--it only makes you look more and more like the rest of the sheep out there.
So i have a degree in physics. What is your degree in?
Katn

Union City, OH

#66 Jun 26, 2009
If Cap and trade passes you can kiss your jobs good-bye. They will be going to China.
Tim

Bethlehem, PA

#67 Jun 26, 2009
jmw wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like for you to cite for me the scientific causal proof that states there is a positive correlation between man made carbon emissions (38 molecules per 100,000 or 0.38%) and global warming. Please don't provide results of a model that makes numerous assumptions. Weather is an incredibly complex system and as I understand it there is not definitive proof. The assumptions that go into models drive the results. Faulty assumptions yield faulty results. This is not a derisive statement, just of reflection of fact. If you can show me this proof I will gladly change my opinion. It appears to me the science is not settled on this despite the overtly political position of many on the left including Al Gore who stands to make millions if not BILLIONS on this farce. Start looking for facts and not hyperbole.
Lets create an example:

Think of the earth as a big swimming pool filled with water.

The water is naturally increased when it rains, and it is naturally decreased from the sun that evaporates it.

Lets say that over a period of 30 thousand years, the water stays constant because the amount of water leaving the pool is the same amount that is added by rain.

Now lets add 1 drop of water extra ever minute.

That means that all of a sudden there is a net increase of 1 drop of water. That means every minute there is an increase of the amount of water by 1 drop.

The earth's temperature is VERY similar to this example.

Naturally CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and Naturally it is removed, but along comes man, who starts UNNATURALLY ADDING TO THE SYSTEM.

Do you people actually believe that man can add CO2 to the air, and NOT offset the natural balance even a little bit?

I think it is very obvious, but lets use some math:

(100,000 gallons of rain)-(100,000 of evaporations)= O change in total.

(100,000 gallons of rain)-(100,000 gallons of evaporation)+ 1 drop= 1 DROP IN CHANGE.

Yes, the earth will naturally change temperature, BUT IT WILL ALSO CHANGE TEMPERATURE IF WE ADD A SINGLE MOLECULE OF CO2 THAT WASN'T NATURALLY ADDED.

Sure, this change will mean nothing, but when you start adding millions of molecules a second, and removing plants and trees that would normally have helped to filter it, YOU GET A MUCH LARGER CHANGE THEN WOULD NATURALLY HAVE OCCURRED.

IT IS SIMPLE LOGIC, AND THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING. IF GLOBAL WARMING IS WRONG, THEN SO IS EVERY SCIENCE THAT WE USE THAT IS BASED OFF OF MATHEMATICS.
Tim

Bethlehem, PA

#68 Jun 26, 2009
Katn wrote:
If Cap and trade passes you can kiss your jobs good-bye. They will be going to China.
It will cost just as much to ship products from china back to america as it will to increase energy costs.

The only thing that may happen is that things will be a bit more expensive. But how much is a dollar worth when all your kids get cancer from pollution?
jmw

Skokie, IL

#69 Jun 26, 2009
Tim wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide proof of the theory of relativity, or the theories behind black holes...
Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true. We just don't have the information to prove it just yet. That DOESN'T mean that the math and science used to come up with the theory is wrong.
Common sense tells us that if you add energy to a system, you change the system.
We are taking dormant energy and adding it to the atmosphere, that means that there MUST be a change in the atmosphere.
I never said that the earth is going to rise a degree a year, I just said that MAN IS ADDING TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH.
It may take many years for us to see the full effects, and we will have to wait for that for prove. Unfortunately, it will be too late by then.
That is why smart people with degrees are trying to tell stupid people that it is going to happen so that we can try and prevent it.
This is like a litmus test for scientific intelligence. Either you believe in global warming and you have a firm understanding of chemistry and physics, or you don't.
Please open up a science book to the energy chapter and start reading.
At one time the scientific belief that the earth was flat was widely accepted, although I hesitate to make that analogy as I repeat THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED ON THIS ISSUE.

I think your response provides a good understanding of the fallacy of the argument. I would like for you to cite me proof before I decide I am going to accept a political argument that will create a loss of jobs and raise energy costs that most of us can't afford. If you have a specific textbook in mind provide the reference and I will take a look. I would suggest removing your emotion from the argument and start taking a logical view of the world. To create a hysterical response to a "problem" that does not exist is foolhardy. There are many scientists that dispute the opinion that man's emission of carbon is leading us to disaster. Even if you were to shut off all carbon emission in the US China (with 4x the population of the US) and India will not sign on. Please take a rational view--I am not going to hurl insults no matter how much they appear to be deserved.
jmw

Skokie, IL

#70 Jun 26, 2009
Tim wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets create an example:
Think of the earth as a big swimming pool filled with water.
The water is naturally increased when it rains, and it is naturally decreased from the sun that evaporates it.
Lets say that over a period of 30 thousand years, the water stays constant because the amount of water leaving the pool is the same amount that is added by rain.
Now lets add 1 drop of water extra ever minute.
That means that all of a sudden there is a net increase of 1 drop of water. That means every minute there is an increase of the amount of water by 1 drop.
The earth's temperature is VERY similar to this example.
Naturally CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and Naturally it is removed, but along comes man, who starts UNNATURALLY ADDING TO THE SYSTEM.
Do you people actually believe that man can add CO2 to the air, and NOT offset the natural balance even a little bit?
I think it is very obvious, but lets use some math:
(100,000 gallons of rain)-(100,000 of evaporations)= O change in total.
(100,000 gallons of rain)-(100,000 gallons of evaporation)+ 1 drop= 1 DROP IN CHANGE.
Yes, the earth will naturally change temperature, BUT IT WILL ALSO CHANGE TEMPERATURE IF WE ADD A SINGLE MOLECULE OF CO2 THAT WASN'T NATURALLY ADDED.
Sure, this change will mean nothing, but when you start adding millions of molecules a second, and removing plants and trees that would normally have helped to filter it, YOU GET A MUCH LARGER CHANGE THEN WOULD NATURALLY HAVE OCCURRED.
IT IS SIMPLE LOGIC, AND THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING. IF GLOBAL WARMING IS WRONG, THEN SO IS EVERY SCIENCE THAT WE USE THAT IS BASED OFF OF MATHEMATICS.
Let's say.... your theory is wrong! You are laying out a theory that involves a number of assumptions that may or may not be true.
I am not willing to bet my future on this, whether you have a science degree or not.

Since: Jan 09

United States

#71 Jun 26, 2009
Tim wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets create an example:
Think of the earth as a big swimming pool filled with water.
The water is naturally increased when it rains, and it is naturally decreased from the sun that evaporates it.
Lets say that over a period of 30 thousand years, the water stays constant because the amount of water leaving the pool is the same amount that is added by rain.
Now lets add 1 drop of water extra ever minute.
That means that all of a sudden there is a net increase of 1 drop of water. That means every minute there is an increase of the amount of water by 1 drop.
The earth's temperature is VERY similar to this example.
Naturally CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and Naturally it is removed, but along comes man, who starts UNNATURALLY ADDING TO THE SYSTEM.
Do you people actually believe that man can add CO2 to the air, and NOT offset the natural balance even a little bit?
I think it is very obvious, but lets use some math:
(100,000 gallons of rain)-(100,000 of evaporations)= O change in total.
(100,000 gallons of rain)-(100,000 gallons of evaporation)+ 1 drop= 1 DROP IN CHANGE.
Yes, the earth will naturally change temperature, BUT IT WILL ALSO CHANGE TEMPERATURE IF WE ADD A SINGLE MOLECULE OF CO2 THAT WASN'T NATURALLY ADDED.
Sure, this change will mean nothing, but when you start adding millions of molecules a second, and removing plants and trees that would normally have helped to filter it, YOU GET A MUCH LARGER CHANGE THEN WOULD NATURALLY HAVE OCCURRED.
IT IS SIMPLE LOGIC, AND THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING. IF GLOBAL WARMING IS WRONG, THEN SO IS EVERY SCIENCE THAT WE USE THAT IS BASED OFF OF MATHEMATICS.
Very poor analogy that is missing much.

We are a part of the system, thus all of our activities result in "natural" additions. Further this pool of yours would not be constant unless you are suggesting no energy is radiated from the atmosphere.

Since: Jan 09

United States

#72 Jun 26, 2009
Tim wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets create an example:
Think of the earth as a big swimming pool filled with water.
The water is naturally increased when it rains, and it is naturally decreased from the sun that evaporates it.
Lets say that over a period of 30 thousand years, the water stays constant because the amount of water leaving the pool is the same amount that is added by rain.
Now lets add 1 drop of water extra ever minute.
That means that all of a sudden there is a net increase of 1 drop of water. That means every minute there is an increase of the amount of water by 1 drop.
The earth's temperature is VERY similar to this example.
Naturally CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and Naturally it is removed, but along comes man, who starts UNNATURALLY ADDING TO THE SYSTEM.
Do you people actually believe that man can add CO2 to the air, and NOT offset the natural balance even a little bit?
I think it is very obvious, but lets use some math:
(100,000 gallons of rain)-(100,000 of evaporations)= O change in total.
(100,000 gallons of rain)-(100,000 gallons of evaporation)+ 1 drop= 1 DROP IN CHANGE.
Yes, the earth will naturally change temperature, BUT IT WILL ALSO CHANGE TEMPERATURE IF WE ADD A SINGLE MOLECULE OF CO2 THAT WASN'T NATURALLY ADDED.
Sure, this change will mean nothing, but when you start adding millions of molecules a second, and removing plants and trees that would normally have helped to filter it, YOU GET A MUCH LARGER CHANGE THEN WOULD NATURALLY HAVE OCCURRED.
IT IS SIMPLE LOGIC, AND THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING. IF GLOBAL WARMING IS WRONG, THEN SO IS EVERY SCIENCE THAT WE USE THAT IS BASED OFF OF MATHEMATICS.
Simple logic leads in the opposite direction. A simplistic view is all you have provided.

Sorry.
Tim

Bethlehem, PA

#73 Jun 26, 2009
jmw wrote:
<quoted text>
At one time the scientific belief that the earth was flat was widely accepted, although I hesitate to make that analogy as I repeat THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED ON THIS ISSUE.
I think your response provides a good understanding of the fallacy of the argument. I would like for you to cite me proof before I decide I am going to accept a political argument that will create a loss of jobs and raise energy costs that most of us can't afford. If you have a specific textbook in mind provide the reference and I will take a look. I would suggest removing your emotion from the argument and start taking a logical view of the world. To create a hysterical response to a "problem" that does not exist is foolhardy. There are many scientists that dispute the opinion that man's emission of carbon is leading us to disaster. Even if you were to shut off all carbon emission in the US China (with 4x the population of the US) and India will not sign on. Please take a rational view--I am not going to hurl insults no matter how much they appear to be deserved.
I did use logic to prove that Global warming exists.

Who cares what China and India are doing. This is America, where we do what is right, and we lead by example.

There are still countries that are not even industrialized, by your logic we should stop so they can catch up.
Tim

Bethlehem, PA

#74 Jun 26, 2009
jmw wrote:
<quoted text>
At one time the scientific belief that the earth was flat was widely accepted, although I hesitate to make that analogy as I repeat THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED ON THIS ISSUE.
I think your response provides a good understanding of the fallacy of the argument. I would like for you to cite me proof before I decide I am going to accept a political argument that will create a loss of jobs and raise energy costs that most of us can't afford. If you have a specific textbook in mind provide the reference and I will take a look. I would suggest removing your emotion from the argument and start taking a logical view of the world. To create a hysterical response to a "problem" that does not exist is foolhardy. There are many scientists that dispute the opinion that man's emission of carbon is leading us to disaster. Even if you were to shut off all carbon emission in the US China (with 4x the population of the US) and India will not sign on. Please take a rational view--I am not going to hurl insults no matter how much they appear to be deserved.
That is the difference between a parrot and a scientist. I parrot has to read something word for word for it to be true. A scientist reveiws the facts and creates an answer.

If I told you that A=4, B=7, and C=A+B, you would say that:

"C=A+B"

If I told a scientist that A=4, B=7, and C=A+B, he would say that:

"C=11"

That is because someone with intelligence has the ability to think beyond each part to see the whole picture.

If I say that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and that burning oil releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, you would say:

"There is no evidence that the atmosphere is increase in temperature."

When someone with intelligence can easily add up the facts and realize that there HAS TO BE A CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE IF ALL THE FACTS ARE TRUE.

Remember, back then we couldn't prove that the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun, but smart people figured it out, and eventually we proved it.
Tim

Bethlehem, PA

#75 Jun 26, 2009
kevlar128 wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple logic leads in the opposite direction. A simplistic view is all you have provided.
Sorry.
Not simple enough for you to understand huh?
Tim

Bethlehem, PA

#76 Jun 26, 2009
kevlar128 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very poor analogy that is missing much.
We are a part of the system, thus all of our activities result in "natural" additions. Further this pool of yours would not be constant unless you are suggesting no energy is radiated from the atmosphere.
We are part of the system, but the oil that we dig up and burn is not. The cows that we raise would never naturally increase in numbers without our protection.

My pool was a closed-system example. Of course this is much more to it then that, but I wanted to make it simple enough for even you to understand.
Tim

Bethlehem, PA

#77 Jun 26, 2009
jmw wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's say.... your theory is wrong! You are laying out a theory that involves a number of assumptions that may or may not be true.
I am not willing to bet my future on this, whether you have a science degree or not.
But you are betting your future on it.

You are betting that all science and logic is wrong just so that you can save a few bucks.

When you lose this bet, you will have your $200 a year extra, but you will also have grandchildren, or great grandchildren, dying of cancer from the pollution you "saved money" creating.
jmw

Skokie, IL

#78 Jun 26, 2009
Okay dude, you win! Based on Tim's (who has a science degree) analogy of a swimming pool (that is overly simple compared to the incredibly complicated global weather system) I am on board with a massive disincentive for US business to continue to operate here.

I am certain that China and India will get on board by our example, as Iran and N. Korea will start threatening people due to our willingness to talk to them. I am afraid we are all going to have to learn by hard experience if this is any indication of the thought process going on now in this country.

Since: Jan 09

United States

#79 Jun 26, 2009
Tim wrote:
<quoted text>
We are part of the system, but the oil that we dig up and burn is not. The cows that we raise would never naturally increase in numbers without our protection.
My pool was a closed-system example. Of course this is much more to it then that, but I wanted to make it simple enough for even you to understand.
Tim = Fail.

Your challenge was met.

Your example sucked.

The lame attempt at an insult was predictable.

The oil is also part of the same system.

Who was protecting the bison for thousands of years before they were nearly hunted to extinction so that they could become the most numerous species of large wild mammal?

What you call logic isn't.

Den C

Chicago, IL

#80 Jun 26, 2009
AntonioSosa wrote:
They are desperate to get their killing done before people realize what's happening!
No patriotic and informed American can support the ACES Act (global warming/cap and trade scam), a huge Ponzy scheme that will kill the U.S. economy.
Cap and Trade "would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification," says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.
Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class while further empowering and enriching Obama and his fraudulent billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, the United Nations, etc.)-- all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/vie...
Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." http://www.petitionproject.org
Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to "prevent global warming" are behaving like the most primitive human beings who were duped into believing that human sacrifices would ensure them good weather. Human beings don't have the power to control climate! And killing the economy will not help the environment. Poor countries can't protect the environment. Just look at Haiti!
Please do what you can to defend your family and your country. Write to your representatives and ask them to defend us from Obama’s criminal scheme -- https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.s...
A great synopsis of the issue and right on point. This bill will severely damage this country but the Triboma says it is a good thing.
su par

Deland, FL

#81 Jun 26, 2009
The United States is being carved up like a roast. The crazies running Washington are on the brink of passing a law that actually taxes the air we breathe. The laws we have enacted over the last few decades has made it almost impossible to compete. Where are we going to create new jobs if this keeps up. We are in a Depression and the solution is to charge people more for their survival. One day we might wake up and end this.
Cryos

Eden Prairie, MN

#82 Jun 26, 2009
Cryos wrote:
Gotta love the propagandists like An Honest Conservative.
Guess what "discussing" it for 2 months says NOTHING about knowing the provisions on the bill or that 11pm changes won't be made to undercut it. Look at the stimulus.
Explain a few simple things in your infinite wisdom. There are many more but here are some starters. "Just believing" in the liberal idealist utopian RELIGION does not suffice for an answer.
1. Why do IPCC climate models assume positive feedbacks reign and are an anomaly as compared to feedback models in other climate and scientific modeling?
I have never heard an answer for this and it is VERY relevant since with IPCC modeling the earth would not sustain life and the ONLY way that CO2 makes any significant difference is when using skewed positive feedback models.
2. If the problem is TRULY scientific why are all the proposed solutions political?
3. Is it just coincidence the same people that advocate strict IPCC rules also:
- Support prohibiting the US from using viable current low carbon energy sources like nuclear
- Support global wealth distribution and particularly target the US
- Many previously supported things like the World Energy Tax
4. If "the debate is over" how come scientists missed some basic logic and science 101 things. Example permafrost. They recently had to revise their warming estimates from melting permafrost. Why? They didn't factor in the extra plant growth from unfrozen ground would mitigate some of the gases released.
5. Why doesn't the media report things like more and more former IPCC scientiss and AGW supporters have become skeptics as more evidence comes out?
I just looked back at this thread now. Tim and An Honest Conservative or other AGW proponents please feel free to respond to the points in this post; particularly #1 and #4.

The CO2 versus water vapor negative feedback -

Tim you seemed to simplify the situation to burning fossil fuels --> heat and co2 --> global warming. However here is one fatal flaw in your thinking that applies directly to #1 and feedbacks.

Molecules absorb energy over specific wavelengths. This is one of the basic premises underlying why all greenhouse gases are not equal. I assume you will concede that.

In the case of CO2 a very large percentage of its absorbtion bandwidth overlaps water vapor (the #1 greenhouse gas). As a result, CO2 contributes little or none to warming in the presence of water vapor due to bandwidth saturation.

These are the types of negative feedbacks that the IPCC models minimize.
Cryos

Eden Prairie, MN

#83 Jun 26, 2009
Tim wrote:
<quoted text>
We are part of the system, but the oil that we dig up and burn is not. The cows that we raise would never naturally increase in numbers without our protection.
My pool was a closed-system example. Of course this is much more to it then that, but I wanted to make it simple enough for even you to understand.
One of the nice things about systems like the earth are they are resilient. That is how they support life. Relatively stable systems like earth have feedback mechanisms to help bring things back into balance.

The question is how resilient and that is where shoddy science of the IPCC comes into play.

Analogy (not great but good enough)-

A small number of people have hemophilia so their blood does not clot well. Even a small cut can be fatal if not treated. However most people do not have hemophilia.

The IPCC treats the climate models like you must assume everyone has hemophilia and even the smallest cut would mean their death. In general I would argue that most people will not die if they receive a paper cut.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Exelon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Irish envoy joins call for immigration reform (Feb '14) Feb '14 wild child 8
News Few nuclear shutdowns to cap fuel prices (Sep '13) Sep '13 BDV 1
News Nuclear Industry Withers in U.S. as Wind Pummel... (Mar '13) Mar '13 ioconnor 1
News The energy 'regulatory climate' is changing too (Feb '13) Feb '13 Bernard Forand 9
News Exelon's 'Nuclear Guy': No New Nukes (Mar '12) Mar '12 BDV 2
News Exelon to update earthquake risk at nuclear plants (Feb '12) Feb '12 Sonic Booms 1
News Reactor shuts down, releases steam at Illinois ... (Jan '12) Jan '12 Magic UndergarMitt 3
More from around the web