Carbon tax would spike area power bills

Carbon tax would spike area power bills

There are 97 comments on the Thegleaner.com story from May 19, 2009, titled Carbon tax would spike area power bills. In it, Thegleaner.com reports that:

Power costs in Kentucky and Illinois would shoot up under federal carbon tax legislation targeting states heavily dependent on coal-fired electricity.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Thegleaner.com.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#64 May 23, 2009
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>Matty sees what he wants to see, his blinkers/blinders stop him from having a broader outlook.
There is always a few in every generation.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#65 May 23, 2009
uh oh wrote:
Climate change is "unequivocal" and it is 90 percent certain that the "net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a panel of more than 2,500 scientists and other experts—wrote in its first report on the physical science of global warming earlier this year. In its second assessment, the IPCC stated that human-induced warming is having a discernible influence on the planet, from species migration to thawing permafrost. Despite these findings, emissions of the greenhouse gases driving this process continue to rise thanks to increased burning of fossil fuels while cost-effective options for decreasing them have not been adopted, the panel found in its third report.
The IPCC's fourth and final assessment of the climate change problem—known as the Synthesis Report—combines all of these reports and adds that "warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change." Although countries continue to debate the best way to address this finding, 130 nations, including the U.S., China, Australia, Canada and even Saudi Arabia, have concurred with it.
"The governments now require, in fact, that the authors report on risks that are high and 'key' because of their potentially very high consequence," says economist Gary Yohe, a lead author on the IPCC Synthesis Report. "They have, perhaps, given the planet a chance to save itself."
Among those risks:
Warming Temperatures—Continued global warming is virtually certain (or more than 99 percent likely to occur) at this point, leading to both good and bad impacts. On the positive side, fewer people will die from freezing temperatures and agricultural yield will increase in colder areas. The negatives include reduced crop production in the tropics and subtropics, increased insect outbreaks, diminished water supply caused by dwindling snowpack, and increasingly poor air quality in cities.
Before talking about the IPCC reports you first need to read them. Then look up the fact who many of those "scientist" are. Many are not scientist but "experts" while many of the orginal climate scientist who orginally were backing it are not denoucing it for it's flaws. That is the reason why you hear so little about it any more.
uh oh

Lexington, KY

#66 May 23, 2009
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>How many climate scientists?
How many other scientists?
How many experts?
How many computer programmers?
How many editors?
How many hangers on?
Answer those questions and you have my attention.
(CNN)-- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#67 May 23, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
(CNN)-- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Soulnds like you still have the old poll numbers. So how old are they?
uh oh

Lexington, KY

#68 May 23, 2009
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>Soulnds like you still have the old poll numbers. So how old are they?
results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/...

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#69 May 23, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/...
Ya your evil leftwing friends at the leftwing CNN will support this leftwing WMD scam for all it's worth.
CNN, give us a break.
Even the NOAA has dropped the theory now because they actually post the cooling temps at their site:
Newest data from NOAA shows 11 years of cooling for the USA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/...
January 1997 - 2009 Trend =-0.86 degF / Decade
January 1998 - 2009 Trend =-2.33 degF / Decade
January 1999 - 2009 Trend =-1.86 degF / Decade
January 2000 - 2009 Trend =-1.75 degF / Decade
January 2001 - 2009 Trend =-1.53 degF / Decade
January 2002 - 2009 Trend =-3.60 degF / Decade
January 2003 - 2009 Trend =-2.64 degF / Decade
January 2004 - 2009 Trend =-3.84 degF / Decade
January 2005 - 2009 Trend =-13.69 degF / Decade
January 2006 - 2009 Trend =-26.33 degF / Decade
January 2007 - 2009 Trend =-2.20 degF / Decade
Just a reminder, when consultants dressed up in lab coats, politicians promising better weather with more taxes, PR firms and corporate leftwing media all agree on the same thing, be suspect, not a lemming.
Scientists Who Doubt the Theory of Death By SUV gas and Nature’s Plant Food:
• Yun Akusofu, Ph.D, University of Alaska
• Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director of Research, IBM (retired)
• Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
• J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
• Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
• Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
• Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
• David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
• John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
• Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
• Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
• Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
• John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
• Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
• Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
• Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
• Roger Cohen, Ph.D Fellow, American Physical Society
• Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
• Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
• Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
• Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D Past-President, Italian Geological Society
• Susan Crockford, Ph.D University Of Victoria
• Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
• James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
• David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
• Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
• David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
• Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
• Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
• John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
• Upon Tyne (retired)
Finally, tell us how this crisis has effected you personally over the last 23 years of climate crisis warmings please.
Insider

United States

#70 May 23, 2009
artic ice wrote:
<quoted text> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_... .
In comparison to just volcanoes, the emission of carbon dioxide by human activity compared to volcanoes has us producing about 130 times more than volcanoes. Scientists calculated that volcanoes produce about 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 each year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991) compared 27 billion tonnes produced my human activity ( Marland, et al., 2006).
What a crock
puh-lease

Brownsville, TN

#71 May 23, 2009
Walther wrote:
Here's your hope and change you morons! Voted for Obama? You are officially an idiot and you hate America. Do you see what you've done? Do you see the millions of people out of work because of Obama and the Democrats? Do you see how your taxes keep going up and up? Do you see how you've totally destroyed this country? Nice work fu__ckwads!
And I suppose Palin would've been the savior bastion.
Give me a f**king break. Want real change, try looking to vote for the several other parties out there instead of the usual two-party dictatorship we have now.
patriotcountrybo y

United States

#72 May 23, 2009
If everyone would stop breathing just think of how much you would benefit the environment
Disgusted

United States

#73 May 23, 2009
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya your evil leftwing friends at the leftwing CNN will support this leftwing WMD scam for all it's worth.
CNN, give us a break.
Even the NOAA has dropped the theory now because they actually post the cooling temps at their site:
Newest data from NOAA shows 11 years of cooling for the USA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/...
January 1997 - 2009 Trend =-0.86 degF / Decade
January 1998 - 2009 Trend =-2.33 degF / Decade
January 1999 - 2009 Trend =-1.86 degF / Decade
January 2000 - 2009 Trend =-1.75 degF / Decade
January 2001 - 2009 Trend =-1.53 degF / Decade
January 2002 - 2009 Trend =-3.60 degF / Decade
January 2003 - 2009 Trend =-2.64 degF / Decade
January 2004 - 2009 Trend =-3.84 degF / Decade
January 2005 - 2009 Trend =-13.69 degF / Decade
January 2006 - 2009 Trend =-26.33 degF / Decade
January 2007 - 2009 Trend =-2.20 degF / Decade
Just a reminder, when consultants dressed up in lab coats, politicians promising better weather with more taxes, PR firms and corporate leftwing media all agree on the same thing, be suspect, not a lemming.
Scientists Who Doubt the Theory of Death By SUV gas and Nature’s Plant Food:
• Yun Akusofu, Ph.D, University of Alaska
• Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director of Research, IBM (retired)
• Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
• J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
• Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
• Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
• Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
• David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
• John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
• Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
• Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
• Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
• John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
• Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
• Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
• Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
• Roger Cohen, Ph.D Fellow, American Physical Society
• Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
• Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
• Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
• Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D Past-President, Italian Geological Society
• Susan Crockford, Ph.D University Of Victoria
• Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
• James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
• David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
• Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
• David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
• Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
• Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
• John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
• Upon Tyne (retired)
Finally, tell us how this crisis has effected you personally over the last 23 years of climate crisis warmings please.
Friend, I took the time to read what you’ve written here and I agree. Remember that you are dealing with a generation that on the most part are public school educated and can’t concentrate or comprehend anything more than a sound bite.
www.infowars.com
SAD

Clarksville, TN

#74 May 23, 2009
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>Soulnds like you still have the old poll numbers. So how old are they?
The communist told us years ago,(the USA) they would defeat us without firing a shot. Look where we are now,Green Piece of crap.
Disgusted

United States

#75 May 23, 2009
puh-lease wrote:
<quoted text>
And I suppose Palin would've been the savior bastion.
Give me a f**king break. Want real change, try looking to vote for the several other parties out there instead of the usual two-party dictatorship we have now.
wwww.infowars.com

Since: May 09

United States

#76 May 23, 2009
When I went to school we were told of a possible ice age.Now it's global warming.Someone make up your mind,do I need to gear up for antartica or invest in sunscreen?This is the biggest joke going,Lol!!!
Lynnie

Ransom, KY

#77 May 23, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
(CNN)-- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
How many scientists have a different opinion? Think about it....if we don't keep saying we have a global warming crisis all the climatologists, etc. will be out of work. What would you say if your income depended on it?
SAD

Clarksville, TN

#78 May 23, 2009
25or6to4 wrote:
When I went to school we were told of a possible ice age.Now it's global warming.Someone make up your mind,do I need to gear up for antartica or invest in sunscreen?This is the biggest joke going,Lol!!!
You need to quit listening to these fools that are spewing all this crap. They have proven NOTHING.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#79 May 23, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
(CNN)-- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Consensus science, the bottom of the barrel. You can find an original publication of this research here: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_fi...

I don’t like the lack of detail in the study, and the author’s bias is clear.

“Manuel said con artists try to reassure consumers that the scheme is legitimate by using ``shills''-- decoys who are paid by the company to say they made huge profits in the scheme.”
http://www.cbintel.com/pyramidfraud.htm
uh oh

Lexington, KY

#80 May 23, 2009
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya your evil leftwing friends at the leftwing CNN will support this leftwing WMD scam for all it's worth.
CNN, give us a break.
Even the NOAA has dropped the theory now because they actually post the cooling temps at their site:
Newest data from NOAA shows 11 years of cooling for the USA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/...
Finally, tell us how this crisis has effected you personally over the last 23 years of climate crisis warmings please.
A big majority of scientists believe that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming. Some are now predicting a cooling trend for the next 10 years, but that's not a proven fact. What happens in 50-100 years is what's important.
Even if there is no global warming, there are good reasons to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. Less air pollution for one thing. Also fossil fuels are limited in quanity and will be gone someday.
The carbon tax will probably hurt the economy some in the short term. I don't think it will kill the economy.
I remember reading about global warming in elementary school over 30 years ago (public school). Since then (if you can believe the liberal left-wing media) about 40 percent of the arctic ice cap has melted.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#81 May 24, 2009
uh oh wrote:
...Even if there is no global warming, there are good reasons to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. Less air pollution for one thing. Also fossil fuels are limited in quanity and will be gone someday...
So, climate mitigation is just a sham? Why don't we put our energies into removing particulates and toxic combustion byproducts?
Earthling

Spain

#82 May 24, 2009
uh oh wrote:
(CNN)-- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
My original questions were:
How many climate scientists?
How many other scientists?
How many experts?
How many computer programmers?
How many editors?
How many hangers on?
Answer those questions and you have my attention.
You mention a (CNN) figure of 3,146 scientists, but no figure as to how many of them are actually climate scientists or climatologists.

So 97% of how many 'climatologists' agree?

We're getting blurry figures all the time about how many climate scientists actually exist and it would appear that no one really knows.
Earthling

Spain

#83 May 24, 2009
uh oh wrote:
A big majority of scientists believe that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming. Some are now predicting a cooling trend for the next 10 years, but that's not a proven fact. What happens in 50-100 years is what's important.
If you don't believe that the prediction of a cooling period is possible for ten years, how can you expect anyone to predict what might happen in the next 50 to 100 years?

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.

Illinois Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Budget fight leaves Illinois stuck with overdue... 6 hr Nortonville miner 19
News Bernie Sanders surprises Hillary Clinton in Mic... 13 hr RMGHispanic Causi... 39
News AP Exclusive: Union members appointed after $10... (Mar '08) May 21 Edmund Ruffin 7,573
News Illinois Republicans divided on same-sex marria... May 21 LeDuped 3
News What to watch in Kentucky, Oregon primaries May 18 yrveikuti7 5
News Former Hells Angels Leader Sentenced (Nov '06) May 18 Tony 190
News Judge: Law doesn't cover gay hate crimes in ex-... May 16 NE Jade 3
More from around the web