U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-13-2014, 05:42 PM
 
3,530 posts, read 2,180,751 times
Reputation: 2636

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
I dont know about what you are referring to specifically but the concept of a cap and trade policy seems really stupid to me. Id be more likely to support a simple "cap" policy than a "cap and trade" policy which sounds to me like a way for politicians to squeeze money out of businesses.
What kind of commie nonsense is this? How would the "cap" work? Is it a cap per person, or per country? If we cap CO2 as a country, how do we decide who gets to use up the cap? Best bribery?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2014, 05:45 PM
 
28,411 posts, read 14,178,103 times
Reputation: 19545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18 View Post
Actually.. I'll weigh in on this one.. the current sun cycle has been one of the least active for quite some time.

Sun's Solar Maximum of 2013 Is Weakest in 100 Years | Space.com
Oh, you mean cycle 24. The low cycle that coincided with no significant surface temperature increases?
Why did Earth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 05:46 PM
 
28,411 posts, read 14,178,103 times
Reputation: 19545
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
If we cap CO2 as a country, how do we decide who gets to use up the cap? Best bribery?
Yes, as indicated by the "trade" part of "cap in trade". It essentially means you can buy yourself out of the cap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Cold Springs, NV
4,576 posts, read 9,102,677 times
Reputation: 4997
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
ROFLMAO. You won't debate this because you are getting your tail handed to you.
this is pretty funny, and you bring a new meaning to pompous. I've disproven your claims, and you hope to replay you flawed theory with no possible result? Is there a point? You failed!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 06:04 PM
 
8,205 posts, read 6,043,242 times
Reputation: 10586
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
First, can you tell me, in the chart you posted, which century had greater activity than from 1900 to 2000?

Now, let's jump to your assertion that it's not really valid data because we have better techniques for collected data now.

So, do we collect data on temperature and CO2 levels now than how we collected them say 50,000 years ago? We are getting that 50,000 year old data via things like ice core samples, tree rings, etc. Is that how we are collecting them for today's records? No.

So, since you reject the sunspot data showing the last 100 years was greater than the centuries proceeding it, do you also reject other data collected other ways?

It's nice and convenient to choose the data you get to use, isn't it?
I didn't reject it. I simply stated that we have more accurate measuring tools currently. We have satellites that stare at the sun 24 hours a day that are dedicated to measuring and counting sunspots. So.. Do you think we're going to count less of them today than the single scientist who was counting them in 1750?

Observing something, in this case at least, doesn't change the outcome. We may very well have the same number of sunspots (what I am using to define solar activity) today that we had on March 15, 1836.. But, there may have been 0 recorded on March 15, 1836 because noone was looking. Just because they weren't looking doesn't mean they didn't happen.

What you appear to be arguing here.. Is that if I count cars on a specific road for a day, and my count is 50.. You count the cars on the same road the next day and the count is 700. I only counted from 8am to 10am while you counted all 24 hours. So, the conclusion is that there was a massive increase in the number of cars on the road.

No. That's not right. I was looking at a much smaller sample than you were. In actuality, because I only watched 2 hours, if we extrapolated, we could assume that 50*12 2 hour periods would mean that 600 cars went on that road the day I watched.. Does that mean 600 cars went on that road? Nope. so, you have to be careful with the data that you do use and understand when the data is not accurate. You then have to either reject the old data entirely, or make adjustments to attempt to compensate(Which is dangerous). Accepting numbers that you know cannot be right as fact doesn't help anyone.

What can be inferred from the data, or a question to ask based on the data.. Why do cooling events consistently correspond to solar minimal periods?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 07:15 PM
 
2,079 posts, read 3,242,711 times
Reputation: 1552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ten Cat View Post
I totally agree with you.

However, here is an Evangelical Xtian who does believe in climate change

Katharine Hayhoe | Climate Scientist, Communicator, Educator

Conservative Christians and climate change: Five arguments for why one should care about global warming.

Wonder why Rush/Hannity et al has never had her on their shows?
Actually, literally years ago - like 3 or 4 years ago when this issue started to really gain momentum, I was heartened to read some article where some southern Evangelical ministers and churches were actually teaching the moral imperative to do something about global warming, to care, to actively work on this problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,402 posts, read 6,817,046 times
Reputation: 14467
The "climatic fanatics" can take heart because their persistence has at least, from their point of view, caused a larger segment of the public that CO2 content probably affects climatic conditions (but I first heard of the subject back in 1961 as a sixth-grader, BTW, and heard it brought up by several hard science majors with whom I roomed during my undergraduate years).

But they appear to be losing in the court of public opinion precisely because they assumed a "we know better than those peons" attitude; because, like people in Left Field everywhere, they directed emotional appeals to children and technophobes, played the usual class-warfare card against large corporations whom they resent because there are no high-paying "soft" jobs for would-be gadflies, and whom they seek to depict as representing all entrepreneurship, and chose a completely unscrupulous political hack who never met a bureaucracy he didn't adore to head the sham.

Were they truly interested in the future, they would place those among us who recognize the issue, but understand the need for market, rather than bureaucratic remedies at the forefront, but they cannot afford to do this precisely because their bureaucratically-obsessed allies would quickly lose interest.

You played the cards, ladies and gents, and you lost. You can try again in twenty years or so, but only if the pollution called "progressivism" is not given center stage.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 05-13-2014 at 09:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Northern Maine
9,525 posts, read 14,321,983 times
Reputation: 9014
Climate change is caused by the sun. Always has been; always will be. The occasional large meteor or volcanic eruption will cause cooling as did Krakatoa and Pinatubo. Anyone who thinks we can control either the sun or weather is simply delusional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Cold Springs, NV
4,576 posts, read 9,102,677 times
Reputation: 4997
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
The "climatic fanatics" can take heart because their persistence has at least, from their point of view, caused a larger segment of the public that CO2 content probably affects climatic conditions (but I first heard of the subject back in 1961 as a sixth-grader, BTW, and heard it brought up by several hard science majors with whom I roomed during my undergraduate years).

But they appear to be losing in the court of public opinion precisely because they assumed a "we know better than those peons" attitude; because, like people in Left Field everywhere, they directed emotional appeals to children and technophobes, played the usual class-warfare card against large corporations whom they resent because there are no high-paying "soft" jobs for would-be gadflies, and whom they seek to depict as representing all entrepreneurship, and chose a completely unscrupulous political hack who never met a bureaucracy he didn't adore to head the sham.

Were they truly interested in the future, they would place those among us who recognize the issue, but understand the need for market. rather than bureaucratic remedies at the forefront, but they cannot afford to do this precisely because their bureaucratically-obsessed allies would quickly lose interest.

You played the cards, ladies and gents, and you lost. You can try again in twenty years or so, but only if the pollution called "progressivism" is not given center stage.
So your argument is to label this issue to a bunch of left wing wacko's? In sarcasm I would say I agree. The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 was signed by Eisenhower.

Air Pollution Control Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This lead to the Clean Air Act of 1963 signed by Johnson.

Clean Air Act (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was revised in 1970 signed by Nixon.

Again in 1977 signed by Carter.

Then the most comprehensive revision in 1990 signed by HW Bush (I voted for him). This was cap and trade.

So, in sarcasm, thank goodness this didn't have support from all Americans, and it's just a left wing wacko issue.

Honestly, today it's a small percentage that are against it, and a majority believe the proven science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 08:58 PM
 
Location: NJ
22,750 posts, read 28,631,495 times
Reputation: 14650
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
What kind of commie nonsense is this? How would the "cap" work? Is it a cap per person, or per country? If we cap CO2 as a country, how do we decide who gets to use up the cap? Best bribery?
while I dont buy into "global warming" I do acknowledge that you dont want unlimited pollution in the air. you can see with the water that you can only put so much garbage in it before the fish are dying and you are swimming in filth on the beach. so reasonable caps do seem to fit somewhere in the picture for me.

but the "trade" piece sounds like an insane money making game. I find it hard to believe that politicians would support it if they weren't getting their pockets lined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top