Yeah, the cap and trade has always smacked of being a big swindle. Creating assets out of thin air (literally) does not go over well.

Of course, the way things are going it won't matter.

Being born in late '74, I'm not old enough to remember having experienced the economic turmoil that characterized the late 70's.

Nevertheless, with so many AGW fuckwits directing--or, in the case of the presidency, soon to direct--our energy policy, I'm thinking that "stagflation" may actually be far preferable to what we will be experiencing over the next four years.

Your thoughts?

This gimmick of cap and trade is another way of raising taxes on Americans. I was just reading the WSJ and they were saying that the democrats are already planning on how to spend the Trillions of dollars that it will bring in. Barbara Boxer is jumping for joy. I reckon we have to do the same as the immigration bill. Flood congress with E mails till they get the message. What idiots we have in congress!

Since McCain will undoubtedly be the next President, does anyone have any idea where he stands on this no drilling anywhere crappola. If he's for drilling wherever reserves exist, then we have no worries. If he's not, then we are screwed.

We strangled Germany and Japan during WWII by sinking their oil tankers.
At the end of the war, Japan did not have enough fuel oil to sail their biggest and best battleship to Okinawa with a round trip, they planned to sail it one way and scuttle it as an artillery platform. We sunk it before it got there anyway.

The world is awash with oil. The Liberals have decided that it is better to ride horse, bicycles and walk than to smell oil. There hasn't been a "big oil" in the USA since the government broke up Standard Oil that Rockefeller owned. [owns].

OPEC controls the supply and we buy at oil at what ever price they want. Since OPEC is Muslim controlled and they want us dead, they will happily bleed us to death.

Intersting thoughts Jim, but they don't all want us dead, just enslaved. They want us to do the work, and supply the wimin.

The liberals have actually propounded the Climate Security Act. Apparently we need to pass this or the polar bears will be killed off. SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!

Maybe I'll wear my T-shirt that says "Polar Bears: The Other White Meat".

Ray - McRINO is against drilling in ANWR. I don't know where he stands on offshore drilling. He also believes in manmade global warming. Except for his stand on the GWOT he may as well be a Dimocrat.

Herr Blücher - We're doomed!

What's really bothering me is the term "Climate Change". Their entire arguemnt is that excessive carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere is making the world warmer. Not colder.....just warmer. Why change the term from Global Warming to Climate Change?

Steve - becuase then every cyclone, hurricane, tornado, or moning dew can be made into a lightening rod that will further line the pockets or the carbon credit sellers.

Denny - did not know McCain was against drilling ANWR. that is very disappointing. fvck fvck fvck.

Denny: That's what I thought, though I prefer the phrase "proper fucked" to "doomed" in this situation.

Some McCainiac on another board boasted that McCain supports off-shore drilling--though the poster failed to provide a source for that claim, of course. Given his predilection for both increased gas taxes as well as the institution of a cap-and-trade system upon his election, the claim doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

We're proper fucked.

I'm reposting this here 'cause its applicable and I don't think the original will get noticed. I don't know if y'all'll chew me out for this but I want to see what y'all make of my post:

Why don't you guys leave supply-side economics to the people on the fed and in the gov't who actually have degrees in the field and institute some demand-side economic policies of your own. Driving less often and more conservatively will push demand down, lowering the price of gas, and putting fewer of your hard-earned American dollars into the hands of the terrorist-funding two-faced Saudis (shit I think the libs might take away my party card for that one). Alternative and sustainable energies further help drive down the cost of fuels by raising the supply of the entire market for fuel and bringing down the demand for any given source of fuel as well as further loosening the Saudis' grip on our national testicles. Can you disagree with that?

"Why change the term from Global Warming to Climate Change?"

Perhaps because "climate change" sounds more ominous, what with the increased number of storms and whatnot. Global warming just covers temperature change. Climate change -- or the ecotards other catchphrase climate crisis -- covers a lot more.

Let's fact it, it's all a marketing thing. This whole global-warming-climate-crisis-change has little to do with concern for the environment and everything to do with dishonest, snake-oil selling opportunists led by failed Presidential candidate algore deceiving a bunch of dimwitted Chicken Littles and lining their pockets in the process. It's all about the money. Nothing more.

To be fair, you must admit that global warming does in fact signify a much greater change than just a few ticks on a thermometer. Unfortunately you are correct that many on the libs' side are money-grubbing opportunists, but the same is certainly true for for the rightwingers on this issue.

What I don't get about the whole climate thing is where the argument is coming from. I mean people can't be arguing about the facts right? The facts are that global temperatures are on the way up rather drastically, which is having the already noticeable expected effect of lowering global freshwater levels, except in areas of landlocked freshwater glaciers which are few and far between . The facts are that CO2 and other emissions are not solely responsible, but they are primarily responsible for these temperature changes. I have read the scientific articles on the issue, and all of the unbiased raw data points in that direction: that we are having a noticeable and worrying effect on the environment.

So since people can't possibly be arguing about those points, as they are hard and immutable fact, they must be arguing about what policy actions to take in response, right? Or perhaps whether or not policy actions are warranted. Well, I think that's where your personal politics step in, and I'm not sure myself what the best course of action is on the issue.

And no I haven't seen algore's film, but I do think he's an idiot whose somewhat unfortunately latched himself onto an important issue.

sherpa - a few points.

- this was a damn cold winter. snow in Iraq. weird? if there is global warming, and its been ebbing and flowing for milleniums, how much is the sun and volcanos vs. SUVs? stick around a while, we may get you over to the dark side young skywalker

- lessening economic output WILL diminish global wealth. It MIGHT help "warming". and who is going to feel the brunt of the lessened economic output? answer - the poor.

- and I will NEVER leave the supply side ideas to the double digit iq's in washington DC. What have they done right in my 44 years?

- no argument on reducing consumption. fine as long as its voluntary.
- there is no conceivable way we will not be an oil based economy for the next 10 - 20 years. so drill for the damn oil and keep working on cold fusion.

sherpa - Since 1998 we have been experiencing global cooling and now the alarmists are saying that the next 10 years will continue to cool but look out after that. These are people who cannot accurately predict weather two days from now and we're supposed to believe they can predict weather for the next 20 years?

As to your other comment, are you talking about rocket scientists like Maxine Waters? BWAHAHAHAHA! The market is working right now to reduce demand. People are dumping their SUVs and are driving less. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't open up ANWR and drilling off the coast. China is drilling 50 miles off our coast and our stupid gummint is not allowing us to. Now whom do you think will do a better job of safeguarding the environment? The Chinese or American oil companies? I vote American.

Sherpa.......

To be fair about Global Warming you must first ascertain if there really is a significant increase in Global Warming of more then historical proportion, then you must examine the real cause for this occurance.No one can show this to be true , in fact just the opposite is true.
It seems to me you are one of those who have reached a conclusion for which there is no basis in fact & to justify that belief you suggest proactive efforts on our part to slow down or modify the conclusion you believe though nothing suggests it is valid or the efforts you propose will be of any consequence.
The one point you make which I wholeheartedly agree with is Algore is an Idiot. I disagree quite strongly that it is an important issue.
First what is the normal temperature range for this Planet?.....No one really knows , we do know it has varied both higher & lower then current ranges with results both positive & negative depending where you happen to be. This has occurred prior to we being a species on this Planet, while we were here & will do so long after we are gone.
Secondly this is also true for the fluctuations of Co2 as well as other trace gases, higher & lower without mankind even being here.
Third ,what are the normal sea level`s for this Planet? What we have now? What is was 12,000 years ago when it was 300 feet lower or higher if that occurs? Actually there is no valid answer.
Fourth, what is the normal radiant energy we recive from the Sun? Is the waxing & waning experienced down thru this Planets existance normal? If not, what caused variations down thru the ages? By the way, we are now in a period of diminished solar activity which should continue to further the decline in mean temperature which is now lower then any time in recent history.
Fifth, are you aware the very same global Warming Proponents just several decades ago were predicting a new iceage, starvation, droughts, pestilence & massive migrations for surviving humans?.....It did not happen, so now we should accept their new prognostigation without any valid proof just because they say so?
There is a governing principle on this Planet ........ it is called change & in response Species evolve or die out. In fact however sobering this may be, Scientists believe at a minimum 95% or higher of all species which have ever evolved have perished due to the inability to adapt to change.This is called Evolution & has been the response to planetary change since life developed on this Planet.
As all the evidance which the current Global warming /change experts cite as proof have happened many times down thru the history of this Planet ....most of it without we even being here, it would seem to me the belief we are the cause is more then a little farfetched. Consider if you will allow yourself all of the natural occurances for volcanic events, ice ages, droughts, sea.level changes, droughts, heat waves, population shifts , add into the mix Solar fluctuations & cosmic catastrophies then maybe you can grasp the fact the current Global warming/change fad is just a lot of BS. I think most of these Global warming/climate change experts are a little enamored with themselves to the point reality does not compute.
Mankind alone among all of the species has achieved the ability to think & reason giving it the only species with an ability to adapt to change whatever that may be including the ability to leave this Planet in the not so distant future.
You see in the greater sense , it is more important to recognize change is inevitable,prepare for that change & adapt.To waste time & effort in futile flights of fantasy are doomed to failure & I want my descendants to survive. I would think most people of reason whic hagee with that wish, where do you fit in?

Dudley1…once again you put into words things that I cannot. Kudos!

Kerrcarto....

Thank you.....Sorry I screwed up the last sentence, it should have read " I would think most people of reason would agree with that wish,where do you fit in? ". Apparently I have a problem at times putting into legible words what I am trying to post.

I really love latter day liberal Environmentalists fresh out of Liberal Science Fantasy 101. It is not their fault mush occupies the space below hat level, but this is what our liberal educational system churns out as being educated .....more like being indoctrinated.

Sherpa, welcome, and thank you for asking a thoughtful question without resorting to derogatory comments as many of your liberal bretheren are like to do.

i always find it amusing that so many liberals assume that "The facts are that global temperatures are on the way up rather drastically."

the facts are that we don't have enough data points to know such things, and that, frankly, as dudley said above, we've been cooling for the past 10 years. i think it is a bit presumptuous of us, and quite short sited, to think that we can have any significant effect on something as massive and complicated as climate.

as dudley mentionned above, many of the same people/institutions that are now favoring AGW in the 1970s thought that food shortages would have arrived by now. any warming that has occured (whether with man's contribution or not) has perhaps prevented much in the way of famine. if you examine temp est over millenia, you will find that we are nearer the higher end of temp ranges (though there certainly have been many higher time periods), and that might frankly be a good thing. i think that another ice age will eventually occur, and i just hope that our technology will be advanced enough at that time to produce enough food in the cold to support the population of that time (many years in the future).

but, again, i don't see that whether it gets warmer or cooler, we are contributing to it. and as someelse here said, the weather in two days can't be predicted, how are we to believe forecasts for years in the future? we didn't go to a fair this past weekend, because that morning the prediction was for thunderstorms throughout the day. turned out to be sunny without interuption.

my reading of the available data (and i am a scientist), is that there is certainly no proof that there is any human contribution to climate issues. i'm not an economist, but i don't see any proposition from supporters of AGW that would do anything other than harm the poor (particularly with respect to food -- eg corn based ethanol).

anyway, thanks for your thoughts. i hope you stick around b/c it is nice to have a reasonable discussion with a lib, though so few here have been able to maintain a sense of reasonableness.

cheers, pip