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.
Here's what FACTCheck found quote]
...and the way Obama plans to reduce the impact to the American consumer (according to the left leaning FACTCheck.org that one poster seems to be enamored with) is this: OBAMA PLANS TO REBATE TO AMERICAN CONSUMERS THE DIFFERENCE IN ENERGY CREDITS. In other words, "Yes, it will cost more. But, hey, the government is becomming increasingly socialist, and they will take care of the costs to you (note: nothing is said about the costs to the overall economy) ....SOOOOO don't worry. Daddy Obama knows what's best."
Isn't that what FACTCheck.org REALLY said, but, of course, not in those words.
What is needed is a study from an economist--not from a political mouth piece.
Great, my graduate degree from the University of Chicago should carry us through. If not we can fall back on my engineering degree and 25 years experience with electric utilities.
When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
Quote:
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming.
Quote:
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years
All from the Wall Street Journal on June 26, 2009, page A12. Here.
LOL some RW blog claims that there are problems with data collection at a Tucson weather station. OHHHHH MY GOD. You've got us. 100% of the climate data that we have been using all these years have come from Tucson and we never realized it was wrong (Or you can substitute we knew and just lied). You're a trip Ferd. This pretty much made my day.
Hey want to buy a copy of President Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate? My wife's brother's pool boy got a copy from his cousin who is chief of police over there.
uhm... what I said was that I was right. changing thermometers can be a problem.
the link discribes it nicely. you can play it down all you want.... point is made.
Great, my graduate degree from the University of Chicago should carry us through. If not we can fall back on my engineering degree and 25 years experience with electric utilities.
...nope you are not an economist...and your fact base is distorted. The only reason you could possibly have for making the statements you make, if I assume you are truthful about your education is that you and your company will make millions of dollars off of global warming if you can keep it active in political decisions.
Restricting carbon emissions by cap and trade is probably not a good idea even in a booming economy. Many studies assessing the costs of mitigation of climate change (either through some cap-and-trade system or by means of a carbon tax) indicate that the losses in consumer welfare are likely to be enormous.
Per Dr. Sergey V. Mityakov Ph.D. Department of Economics, Clemson University.
You're not understanding...the scale was invented by a man, man is fallible, thus any such scale conceived of is fallible.
By the way, ice water must invariably be above 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius, or it would already be ice--if only by a few degrees.
The real point is that RLC is using ice and water to mis-direct.
the facts are, we have proof that the Tucson numbers were terribly skewed and never corrected. AND that those messed up numbers are being defended by AGW proponents.
PROOF however, fails because someone at NOAA or U of A Tucson dunked an electronic thermometer in boiling water.
All from the Wall Street Journal on June 26, 2009, page A12. Here.
First you quote the Daily Express and now you quote the WSJ. I thought you wanted economists?
I quote FACTCheck, which relied on MIT (strong economics) and the EPA which runs elaborate economic models for the impact of climate regulation.
Shouldn't you walk the talk. Who's next for you Limbaugh or Beck?
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.
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.
