Carbon tax would spike area power bills

May 19, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Thegleaner.com

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

Comments (Page 5)

Showing posts 81 - 97 of97
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
uh oh

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
May 24, 2009
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
So, climate mitigation is just a sham? Why don't we put our energies into removing particulates and toxic combustion byproducts?
No, I believe that global warming exists. No dependance on foreign oil is the ultimate goal.
uh oh

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
May 24, 2009
 
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Nobody knows for sure exactly what will happen or how long it will take. There is widespread agreement that average global tempatures are increasing. No predictions are good if tempatures continue to rise.
uh oh

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
May 24, 2009
 
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>My original questions were:
<quoted text>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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002, released the first of 21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded:

Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone).... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.
In a May 29, 2008 assessment, they stated:

It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases )

There is a lot of politics involved. And a huge amount of money. I hope somebody keeps track of where the money goes.
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
May 24, 2009
 
uh oh wrote:
Nobody knows for sure exactly what will happen or how long it will take. There is widespread agreement that average global tempatures are increasing. No predictions are good if tempatures continue to rise.
Exactly, nobody actually knows anything for sure.
There is agreement that global temperature is on the rise and that's a bit of good fortune, because the alternative would be even more scary!

The unknown is by how much the temperature will increase, so we're all in the dark as far as that's concerned, even the scientists who study climate carefully don't know for sure.
They're playing with computer models and leave it to some politicians to tell us that the end is nigh if we don't pay up and look pleasant.

You either believe that mankind will continue along the same path he is now, or you have faith in change and a bright future that has already happened and will continue to happen.

Worrying about it doesn't help, only action helps, as it always has.
What good do you think we're doing here, just discussing it, like a few people sat in a bar?
Nothing.
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
May 24, 2009
 
uh oh wrote:
There is a lot of politics involved. And a huge amount of money. I hope somebody keeps track of where the money goes.
I had already read that link and I agree with your above comment.

But it goes no way to answering my original questions about numbers of scientists involved.
uh oh

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
May 24, 2009
 
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>I had already read that link and I agree with your above comment.
But it goes no way to answering my original questions about numbers of scientists involved.
No, it doesn't say. The survey was done by email, they asked 9 questions. Less than half of scientists working in the crude oil industry believe in global warming.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
May 24, 2009
 
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well if you read about this doomsday prediction of CO2 30 years ago, doesn't that disqualify the theory since you cannot tell me about your personal experience with this climate crisis we are having? And then you just jump onboard with the “they say”?
Majority of scientists? Why do you just lie down like a plugged lemming when "they say" is repeated over and over again? You can Google anything you want so if you WANT to believe in death by SUV gas, you can. Can you think for yourself?
We deniers DO NOT believe in the theory since we have waited as you say: 30 freaking years! Is it not more likely, that this doomsday prediction is a media and cultural and political wet dream for all involved?
Let me clue you in: Paid consultants dressed up in white lab coats, PR firms, politicians promising to make better weather with more taxes, hysterical corporate media, consensus popular science, the "what's hot and what's not" mentality of news consumers like you and a warped definition of the word “scientist” are the real consensus.
You warmies will be cursed soon as it becomes more and more evident that this ridiculous global warming theory is taking away from responsible environmentalism. The global warming theory fails to target CO2 as a pollutant that will bring a 5 billion year old planet to its knees and 23 years of UN and IPCC predictions proves it.
Are you able to discus this dead theory out side of the "they say"? Have you read the IPCC reports? Have you even bothered to educate yourself on both sides of an issue that says our kids are going to die on a dead planet?
Can we at least agree to preserve our planet instead of saving it with fear from a myth?
Let me speak your language with the “they say…”:
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

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
May 24, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

E'ling;

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_fi...

"With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90%
of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the
total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory."
Disgusted

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
May 24, 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.
I see you never mention solar activity in your essay and I can understand why since it would blow your whole theory
Deeper

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
May 24, 2009
 
Buy your carbon credits here at the Al Gore store. Yeah that will fix it. SUCKERS
Fun Facts

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
May 24, 2009
 
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Cleaning up our environment is a good idea, cap and trade is a very bad idea.

You should not 'believe' the media, you should know. 40% of the arctic has not melted. The arctic ice cap melts every summer.

Here's some a report from 1922. Scroll down to changing arctic.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-0...

Here's a fun look at the media headlines, 1895 forward.

http://www.almanac.com/timeline/index.php

And here is a couple of temp charts from your area. I could not find charts for your exact location, I attempted by lat/long to get close.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
May 25, 2009
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Cleaning up our environment is a good idea, cap and trade is a very bad idea.
You should not 'believe' the media, you should know. 40% of the arctic has not melted. The arctic ice cap melts every summer.
Here's some a report from 1922. Scroll down to changing arctic.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-0...
Here's a fun look at the media headlines, 1895 forward.
http://www.almanac.com/timeline/index.php
And here is a couple of temp charts from your area. I could not find charts for your exact location, I attempted by lat/long to get close.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gis...
I agree cap and trade would be bad for the enviroment since it would cause industry to mave anything it could outside of the US boarders where concern for the enviroment is low.

Also liked the links to the past and how what is considered new is actually very old.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
May 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

They distract us with CO2; "Watch this rare, colorless, odorless gas over here." The other hand sneaks to our wallets.

It's called misdirection.
Al Gore

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
May 25, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Global Warming….OOPS…make that ah…I KNOW!!! CLIMATE CHANGE…yeah so no matter what happens we’re covered.
Now how can I make some money out of this and get the noble peace prize. I’ll make a fictional movie with lots of BS that I can peddle since I’m a former politician and everyone knows we don’t lie. Then I’ll invent something called carbon credits that don’t really do anything but make me money. SUCKERS!

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Dec 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

litesong is right, carbon dioxide isn't rare. We need CO2 for life.
I stand by my post, it's essential for life.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
Dec 23, 2012
 
steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
litesong is right, carbon dioxide isn't rare.
Of course, I am right. Human beings dump CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate of 3 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand Kg per 100 year period & increasing. Human beings are well on their way to placing 1000 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 100+ years, & other pollutions into the air, like 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster wants. Of course, that would cause isolated interior living spaces to retain CO2 at a level of 4000 to 5000ppm, which would be detrimental to the health of many people.

"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" is not only a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener, he advocates poisoning our atmosphere.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Dec 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

litesout wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, I am right. Human beings dump CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate of 3 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand Kg per 100 year period & increasing. Human beings are well on their way to placing 1000 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 100+ years, & other pollutions into the air, like 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster wants. Of course, that would cause isolated interior living spaces to retain CO2 at a level of 4000 to 5000ppm, which would be detrimental to the health of many people.
"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" is not only a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener, he advocates poisoning our atmosphere.
On Fantasy Island maybe.Your a pinhead remember.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 81 - 97 of97
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••