Comments on: Some on Left Join Fight to Expose the Lie that is Cap and Trade http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/ Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:06:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Fernao de Magalhaes, http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10570 Fernao de Magalhaes, Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:31:13 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10570 How can carbon be killing the planet when it is the dominate element on earth? Global warming and cooling have been taking place since there was a "globe". If I were a large corporation and the US Govt. started to implement this farce called "Cap and Trade", I would move my operations offshore. I am not a Ph.D. from Harvard or Yale, and if I can figure this out, then I am sure other corporate execs can too. How can carbon be killing the planet when it is the dominate element on earth?

Global warming and cooling have been taking place since there was a "globe".

If I were a large corporation and the US Govt. started to implement this farce called "Cap and Trade", I would move my operations offshore.

I am not a Ph.D. from Harvard or Yale, and if I can figure this out, then I am sure other corporate execs can too.

]]> By: Thomas Gray South Ca http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10502 Thomas Gray South Ca Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:19:36 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10502 To Claire Solt PhD, No I haven't seen Mr Gores new add but lets not confuse GLOBAL WARMING with ENERGY TAX, My understanding is the idea of carbon caps came from the ENRON energy company and Mr gore has made some business moves to gain income if his carbon cap plan is implemented, the greens want carbon caps so they are both pushing the GLOBAL WARMING LIE. This is a very complicated problem to address becouse the greens have tons of money and a big lobby in Washington and are currently dictating the energy policy for the entire U.S.A. To Claire Solt PhD,

No I haven't seen Mr Gores new add but lets not confuse GLOBAL WARMING with ENERGY TAX, My understanding is the idea of carbon caps came from the ENRON energy company and Mr gore has made some business moves to gain income if his carbon cap plan is implemented, the greens want carbon caps so they are both pushing the GLOBAL WARMING LIE. This is a very complicated problem to address becouse the greens have tons of money and a big lobby in Washington and are currently dictating the energy policy for the entire U.S.A.

]]> By: JeffT http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10490 JeffT Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:42:29 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10490 When all of this c(l)ap-trap backfires and we all freeze to death, will the perps be available for execution? This is the biggest fraud I've seen in my lifetime. People who don't know their axx from a hole-in-the-ground are going to "fix" the climate to their specifications. Just who are these "experts?" The U.N. has shown to be a complete boondoggle that is truly "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." And we are placing the fate of the World in their dirty hands? Other than UNICEF, what has the U.N. ever done right? When all of this c(l)ap-trap backfires and we all freeze to death, will the perps be available for execution? This is the biggest fraud I've seen in my lifetime. People who don't know their axx from a hole-in-the-ground are going to "fix" the climate to their specifications. Just who are these "experts?" The U.N. has shown to be a complete boondoggle that is truly "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." And we are placing the fate of the World in their dirty hands? Other than UNICEF, what has the U.N. ever done right?

]]> By: Don in Pennsylvania http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10483 Don in Pennsylvania Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:57:01 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10483 The article should have explained "cap and trade" a little better, for example: Company "A" emits 500 tons of GHG's Company "B" emits 100 tons of GHG's The cap is 300 ton's of GHG's Company "B" sells 200 credits to Company "A", through a Carbon Trading Company. Now both companies are "legal". What has transpired? Company "A" spent extra money Company "B" made extra money The carbon trading company(like Al Gore's) made money on the sale of the credits. Net GHG reduction.....absolute 0 Pretty cool scam. LOL The article should have explained "cap and trade" a little better, for example:

Company "A" emits 500 tons of GHG's

Company "B" emits 100 tons of GHG's

The cap is 300 ton's of GHG's

Company "B" sells 200 credits to Company "A", through a Carbon Trading Company.

Now both companies are "legal".

What has transpired?

Company "A" spent extra money

Company "B" made extra money

The carbon trading company(like Al Gore's) made money on the sale of the credits.

Net GHG reduction…..absolute 0

Pretty cool scam. LOL

]]> By: Claire Solt PhD http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10469 Claire Solt PhD Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:55:44 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10469 Have you seen algore's new ads under Repower America? He now claims that carbon is killing the planet. Sure it wasn't that fever? Have you seen algore's new ads under Repower America? He now claims that carbon is killing the planet. Sure it wasn't that fever?

]]> By: Thomas Gray South Ca http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10455 Thomas Gray South Ca Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:53:12 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10455 The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004). In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology, defined the “consensus” in a very limited sense, quoting as follows from IPCC (2001) – “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations COMMENT,, Human activities,, two facts and one opinion the opinion I disagree as the first fact is lacking another fact,, Human activities ... are modifying the concentration AND COMBINATION of unnatural and natural atmospheric constituents. It is agreed by " consensus" we are coming out of an ice age so the observed warming over the last 50 years is exactly what was supposed to happen until we begin to enter the next ice age. A percentage of influence " must" be admitted by ALL these facts and not just the contributions of man and it is likely mans contributions are very small. There is no scientific consensus on how much the earth has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all. Campaigners for climate alarm state or imply that there is a scientific consensus on all of these things, when in fact there is none. Let us take just one example. The UN’s latest report on climate change, which is claimed as representing and summarizing the state of the scientific “consensus” insofar as there is one, says that the total contribution of ice-melt from Greenland and Antarctica to the rise in sea level over the whole of the coming century will not be the 20 feet illustrated by Al Gore in his movie, but just 2 inches. Gore’s film does not represent the “consensus” at all. Indeed, he exaggerates the supposed effects of ice-melt by some 12,000 per cent. The UN, on the other hand, estimates the probability that humankind has had any influence on sea level at little better than 50:50. The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004).

In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology, defined the “consensus” in a very limited sense, quoting as follows from IPCC (2001) –

“Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

COMMENT,, Human activities,, two facts and one opinion the opinion I disagree as the first fact is lacking another fact,, Human activities … are modifying the concentration AND COMBINATION of unnatural and natural atmospheric constituents. It is agreed by " consensus" we are coming out of an ice age so the observed warming over the last 50 years is exactly what was supposed to happen until we begin to enter the next ice age. A percentage of influence " must" be admitted by ALL these facts and not just the contributions of man and it is likely mans contributions are very small.

There is no scientific consensus on how much the earth has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.

Campaigners for climate alarm state or imply that there is a scientific consensus on all of these things, when in fact there is none.

Let us take just one example. The UN’s latest report on climate change, which is claimed as representing and summarizing the state of the scientific “consensus” insofar as there is one, says that the total contribution of ice-melt from Greenland and Antarctica to the rise in sea level over the whole of the coming century will not be the 20 feet illustrated by Al Gore in his movie, but just 2 inches. Gore’s film does not represent the “consensus” at all. Indeed, he exaggerates the supposed effects of ice-melt by some 12,000 per cent. The UN, on the other hand, estimates the probability that humankind has had any influence on sea level at little better than 50:50.

]]> By: Thomas Gray South Ca http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10448 Thomas Gray South Ca Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:38:20 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10448 New jobs = pollution, Carbon caps are an idea that should not be allowed to start becouse the root of this idea global warming is by my study a lie. the truth is an on going climate change that I have read understandable reports from various institutions. The experament here is a very expensive effort to change the climate and to take control of the allowed amounts of greenhouse gases emissions as a way to do the experament. For all the trouble this is going to cause as it appears the new pres supports the lie I have not read one report on what this effort is going to do, we can deal with the weather lets just forget all three of these ideas and go and try to help with the jobless situation. doc 2 of 5, new jobs = pollution. Thomas Gray. New jobs = pollution,

Carbon caps are an idea that should not be allowed to start becouse the root of this idea global warming is by my study a lie.

the truth is an on going climate change that I have read understandable reports from various institutions. The experament here is a very expensive effort to change the climate and to take control of the allowed amounts of greenhouse gases emissions as a way to do the experament.

For all the trouble this is going to cause as it appears the new pres supports the lie I have not read one report on what this effort is going to do, we can deal with the weather lets just forget all three of these ideas and go and try to help with the jobless situation.

doc 2 of 5, new jobs = pollution. Thomas Gray.

]]> By: R. Pettingill, Annap http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10446 R. Pettingill, Annap Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:30:59 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10446 CAP & TRADE will only lead to a more bloated government with resultant increase in taxation and very minimal impact of gloable warming. Modifying tax policy with quicker write off's of much more efficient equipment will foster private production which will enhance our economy and it will have a significantly greater impact on the economy and the enviornment. Forty +/- years ago the Energy Department evolved with the mission of energy independence when our nations import of oil was relatively insignificant. Today Oil Imports have created an economic mess of our economy while the bloated Energy Department has a budget of $25,000,000,000 (That's Billions of Dollars). Big Government Craziness is not the answer. Common sense is missing from the discussion of global warming. CAP & TRADE will only lead to a more bloated government with resultant increase in taxation and very minimal impact of gloable warming.

Modifying tax policy with quicker write off's of much more efficient equipment will foster private production which will enhance our economy and it will have a significantly greater impact on the economy and the enviornment.

Forty +/- years ago the Energy Department evolved with the mission of energy independence when our nations import of oil was relatively insignificant. Today Oil Imports have created an economic mess of our economy while the bloated Energy Department has a budget of $25,000,000,000 (That's Billions of Dollars).

Big Government Craziness is not the answer. Common sense is missing from the discussion of global warming.

]]> By: Some on Left Join Fight to Expose the Lie that is Cap and Trade « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10407 Some on Left Join Fight to Expose the Lie that is Cap and Trade « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:29:04 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/#comment-10407 [...] Good intentions to limit big polluters in some countries but not others will turn any meaningful cap into Swiss cheese. It can be avoided by relocating existing and new production of various kinds of CO2-emitting industries to jurisdictions with no or virtually no limits. This is known as carbon leakage, and it leads to trade anarchy. Continue reading . . . [...] [...] Good intentions to limit big polluters in some countries but not others will turn any meaningful cap into Swiss cheese. It can be avoided by relocating existing and new production of various kinds of CO2-emitting industries to jurisdictions with no or virtually no limits. This is known as carbon leakage, and it leads to trade anarchy. Continue reading . . . [...]

]]>