Did you even read the article? Apparently not. Fine, disagree with my sentence about potential deriviative market abuses. I'll agree to disagree because I feel that the CDS swaps are not the only example of derivative market manipulations, though the CDS swaps were obviously the most economically devestating But that has nothing to do with the article, which simply discusses how expensive this would actually be. No comments on that? Oh yeah, you didn't read the article. I don't spend much time in here, but the few times that I have you appear to be one of the "argue as much as I can" guys.
just explain the potential corruption please, the article doesn't thanks. all you've done is insult me in when i challenged a statement from the article you posted. why so angry?
Northside, the reason that chart is wrong is that it only looks at emissions. Water vapor represents over 90% of greenhouse gases. So you are looking at a chart that breaks up what's left. Kinda irrelevant...
Regardless, 2% is significantly off the mark. And water vapor is somewhat irrelevant, as it is part of the NATURAL greenhouse gas effect. The important thing is the human effect on this equilibrium. Arguing that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases are irrelevant indicates a bit of ignorance when it comes to the topic as a difference of two or three degrees (something shifts in CO2 levels can certainly cause) would cause severe global havoc. A shift of ten degrees once wiped out 95% of all life on Earth. There's a cautionary tale in this.
I guess the whole "I don't really want to get into a debate on derivatives" statement failed to deter you. Sigh... Obviously the cap and trade legislation will create a new market for carbon derivatives. If the government does not regulate it properly, speculation and manipulation can potentially run rampant. EDIT: and I'm not "angry". this is just a message board I don't have time (at work) to get into it, but here is an article talking about it http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/06/could-cap-and-trade-cause-another-market-meltdown While the article obviously paints a haunting picture, it does appear to be a worst case scenario. However, there are a lot of good points as to why this could be troubling...
Actually, 2% is a commonly accepted figure -- please spend some time researching it. The irony of your counter argument is that you state that water vapor is natural, but CO2 is not. Are you aware that CO2 is released by the oceans, as they warm? Are you aware that we exhale CO2? Oopsie. There are around 20 major factors that impact temperature, with CO2 being just one sliver. Let me ask you, how many coal-fired power plants were up and running when this 10 degree temperature shift occurred and wiped out 95% of Earth's life? Ha! The irony is that despite increases in CO2 concentrations since 2001, we've actually seen a cooling of the earth. Those facts render your argument totally invalid. Bottom line is CO2 is a miniscule amount of the total greenhouse gases, it's not a pollutant, it is a lagging indicator of warming (since the oceans release CO2 as they warm), and it's one of 20 major contributors to temperatures. IT'S IRRELEVANT. Making policy based on this crazy guesswork of environmental science is sheer lunacy. Crippling our economy based on scientific conjecture is just plain irresponsible.
Yeah, commonly accepted by who? The 9%-26% I referenced was from the American Meteorological Society. If the who you are referring to excludes the most prestigious climate organization in America, by all means, provide me with a better source. Well, no s***, but if you were look back at the chart you dismissed as irrelevant, you would quickly realize that energy-based CO2 emissions represent nearly 80% of the pie...and natural CO2 emissions are slightly below the 2% you espouse as your limit of relevance. Of course there are multiple factors that affect climate, but CO2 level is a significant one that is within our control. Oh really, Jorge, because nature unleashed a once in a billion year event directly correlated with something humans can control is your excuse for why we shouldn't do it? Well, let's not bother doing anything, because who knows, maybe a meteor will strike us and end civilization as we know it. Where in the hell do you get your sources from? Please provide me the links so I can make sport of the Shell logos subtly displayed. http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83 http://nsidc.org/sotc/intro.html Sigh. Even the subtle effect of one or two degrees, which means about 5% of the total effect of water vapor (which has been theorized to account for 30 degrees in temperature) would be disastrous. This is within our control unlike volcanoes and meteors. When this happens, we will only have ourselves to blame. Scientific conjuncture. I feel like I'm in the 1600s. Scientific "conjucture" defines our entire world. Don't let the word theory fool you, Einstein's relativity and the fluid laws of quantum mechanics are all theories but they run our world. The very fact you are typing on a computer and using electricity are all based upon scientific principles that are defined as theories. Hell, gravity is still a theory. If in this day and age, you think that basing decisions upon scientific facts (rather then god knows what sort of alternative...old folk tales and personal anecdotes?) is invalid, then you don't belong in the business world.
You are still wrong on your greenhouse gas composition statistics. Below please see why you are wrong on temperature levels: Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising. http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/27/global-warming-has-paused/?opinion This is all over the internet and is extremely well sourced. Tough titty -- we had the coldest winter in recent memory in 2008 and the global warming trend pretty much stopped in 2001.... but those are just the facts. Stop with the sensationalist nonsense that is just parroting Al Gore's lies.
Trader_Jorge - although I am a capitalist genius, I am very generous, so I will offer you this advice for free: get out of the oil trading and start looking at green sources of energy, or the repo man is going to come take your Escalade.
Really Jorge. I'm wrong, eh? Just like that. Well, tell that to the American Meteorological Society, because I'm done debating on this particular issue. And if you refuse to accept any of my evidence and facts, then why should I accept yours on this topic? As a final aside though, I will personally destroy your argument by using each one of the sources your precious climate researcher mentions and which I assume you take as legitimate. Enjoy. http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...al-warming-link-to-increased-rain-458348.html http://bx.businessweek.com/asia-ren...23209006789-2b36510978071d27716df3b2be2dce2c/ Last time I checked, slowing was good. But last time I checked, lying was bad. How's that? This study being cited in your argument that the world is getting colder and that global warming "stopped" when any 5 year old can comprehend the difference between slowed and stopped. Let's continue. From our good friends at the NOAA. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html http://global-warming.verticalnews.com/articles/1161143.html The University of Alabama (wth? since when is a community college a source of authority on anything? I digress though...) is about the closest thing you'll find to support...and even they acknowledge man-made global warming. http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=291 As for our nice friends at NASA... http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
Northside, none of that evidence refutes the fact that temperatures really haven't risen since 2001 and the link between CO2 concentrations and temperatures has been broken.
Seriously, one of the articles the guy is citing as a "reversal/stoppage of global warming" pointedly says that global warming is continuing. I really don't think this source is legit. Anyways, coming back to a source from before, as I'm too lazy to now research fresh sources... And that IPCC Fourth Assessment Report...that's VERY well cited. That said, I really want to get off this forum for a bit XD. Hopefully, I've changed the opinion of someone out there (though I somewhat doubt it.)
I would have rather seen a carbon tax, but this is acceptable. The goofy whining from the misinformed right is rather hilarious to watch, in a sad sort of way.
Just FYI, this Bill is DoA in the Senate. Too many Dems from purple states there that can't afford to have their names attached to a national energy tax. Also, the CBO report was really poorly thought out. It looked only at the year 2020, because that was when they estimated that all the costs associated with better compliance would be passed along to the consumer. Furthermore, in 2020, over 80% of the carbon credits are still being given away. By 2035 that number decreases to near zero. As such, by 2035, costs of electricity and manufacturing will have skyrocketed compared to the scored year of 2020. And listen to the President himself on the costs of Cap-and-Trade <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HlTxGHn4sH4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HlTxGHn4sH4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
^^^ Like clockwork. And the myth of american voting "choice" is further eroded. There is only one party, which Gore Vidal correctly labeled the "Property Party".
So, I go to the link expecting to find some solid links to science sites. All I find is what appears to be a letter to the editor of the Fairbanks, Alaska local newspaper. Doing a little more digging (and I think we've already addressed this exact issue in one of the other similar threads here) we find this on the Hadley Centre's own page... So, to put it generously, the guy who wrote the op-ed for the Fairbanks newspaper erroneously interpreted the effects of La Nina to mean that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Or, he could just be straight up manipulating the results to make a political point by hoping deniers are so stupid that they would read warming has stopped when he slyly just says trends, even though that is wrong as well. Here's an article talking about people like your letter writer... Tha Hadley Centre also addresses this little piece of willful ignorance.. Please try to not confuse weather with climate again. It makes you look foolish.
Previous thread with similar posts... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=143631&highlight=Largest+1-year+Climate+Change
