New Jersey to Pull Out of Cap & Trade (Cap & Tax)

From the Article:

In a blow to clean energy advocates throughout the Northeast, Gov. Chris Christie said this morning that the state will pull out of the region's cap-and-trade program by the end of the year.

"This program is not effective in reducing greenhouse gases and is unlikely to be in the future," Christie said at a press conference in the Statehouse.

More from the Article

Under the program, power plant operators buy credits at quarterly auctions for the carbon dioxide they emit. Proceeds are then to be used to pay for renewable energy initiatives. The program had raised more than $860 million through March.

Link to Full Article HERE

I saw New Jersey in the title and laughed.

Chris Christie has been a monumental joke. DroidPhysX

Translation: Chris Christie is considering running for president and can't win the Republican primary if he supports common sense, market driven, climate change control policy. Or even acknowledge that climate change exists at all.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Chris Christie has been a monumental joke. YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Chris Christie has been a monumental joke. DroidPhysX

Also, for myself, I'm still undecided on Christie. I like how he pushed back at the teachers union. Then there was the issue of calling off the train tunnel that was to be built between NY and NJ. I saw both sides of that arguement.

Worst Governor in the nation.

I hope he does run for President so he gets the hell out of my state.

He's personally resonsible for the huge unemployment rates amongst teachers in this state thanks to his stupid "cut everything you can find" agenda.

He's a guaranteed 1 term Governor either way.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]How so?

YellowOneKinobi

Also, for myself, I'm still undecided on Christie. I like how he pushed back at the teachers union. Then there was the issue of calling off the train tunnel that was to be built between NY and NJ. I saw both sides of that arguement.

Worst Governor in the nation.

I hope he does run for President so he gets the hell out of my state.

He's personally resonsible for the huge unemployment rates amongst teachers in this state thanks to his stupid "cut everything you can find" agenda.

He's a guaranteed 1 term Governor either way.

Netherscourge

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

Worst Governor in the nation.

I hope he does run for President so he gets the hell out of my state.

He's personally resonsible for the huge unemployment rates amongst teachers in this state thanks to his stupid "cut everything you can find" agenda.

He's a guaranteed 1 term Governor either way.

comp_atkins

And Governor Christie is also responsible for troubled cities like Camden having to cut police and firefighter payrolls to make up for the lack of funding from Trenton thanks to his lousy budget.

But he's staying FAT and happy up in his little Camelot surrounded by his rich buddies.

And Governor Christie is also responsible for troubled cities like Camden having to cut police and firefighter payrolls to make up for the lack of funding from Trenton thanks to his lousy budget.

But he's staying FAT and happy up in his little Camelot surrounded by his rich buddies.

Netherscourge

Translation: Chris Christie is considering running for president and can't win the Republican primary if he supports common sense, market driven, climate change control policy. Or even acknowledge that climate change exists at all.nocoolnamejim

Those laws are a waste of time. They cripple economies and raise the cost of living all based on inconclusive science theory.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Translation: Chris Christie is considering running for president and can't win the Republican primary if he supports common sense, market driven, climate change control policy. Or even acknowledge that climate change exists at all.QuistisTrepe_

Those laws are a waste of time. They cripple economies and raise the cost of living all based on inconclusive science theory.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Translation: Chris Christie is considering running for president and can't win the Republican primary if he supports common sense, market driven, climate change control policy. Or even acknowledge that climate change exists at all.-Sun_Tzu-

Those laws are a waste of time. They cripple economies and raise the cost of living all based on inconclusive science theory.

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Those laws are a waste of time. They cripple economies and raise the cost of living all based on inconclusive science theory.

QuistisTrepe_

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Except they don't cripple economies and the science is not inconclusive. We shouldn't be basing our energy policy on the very slim chance that the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong. Firebird-5

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

YellowOneKinobi

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Thanks :lol:

Ah, cap & trade, another idea that Republicans supported until Obama began supporting it.

I saw New Jersey in the title and laughed.

entropyecho

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

I saw New Jersey in the title and laughed.

Sunsha

Hey! That's not fair! Except for Long Island, NY (where I live) there is no better place to dump a dead body than NJ.YellowOneKinobi

Ah, cap & trade, another idea that Republicans supported until Obama began supporting it.

GabuEx

I've always found this amusing. Wasn't it as recent as 2006 when Republicans were pushing cap and trade and Democrats were pushing something more aggressive. Then as soon as Democrats start supporting cap and trade, Republicans start opposing it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Ah, cap & trade, another idea that Republicans supported until Obama began supporting it.

chessmaster1989

I've always found this amusing. Wasn't it as recent as 2006 when Republicans were pushing cap and trade and Democrats were pushing something more aggressive. Then as soon as Democrats start supporting cap and trade, Republicans start opposing it.

Yup. This seems to be a pretty consistent trend, where Republicans push for an idea as a sensible, market-based solution, and then when Democrats say "OK, we'll go with that", they're all "LOL WE WERE JUST KIDDING THAT'S A TERRIBLE SOCIALIST IDEA".

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

QuistisTrepe_

A Pew Research Center survey of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found 84% of scientists found the case for anthropogenic climate change to be on solid footing, and that's with the caveat that geoscientists (including climatologists, who were the group most likely to accept anthropogenic climate change) were the least represented discipline in the survey.

If that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Those laws are a waste of time. They cripple economies and raise the cost of living all based on inconclusive science theory.

QuistisTrepe_

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

YellowOneKinobi

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Science is now determined by consensus. The things I learn at Gamespot.

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

I saw New Jersey in the title and laughed.

Sunsha

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Except they don't cripple economies and the science is not inconclusive. We shouldn't be basing our energy policy on the very slim chance that the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong. -Sun_Tzu-

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

So what you're saying is that if enough people believe something is true regardless of whether or not it passes the muster of the scientific method, then it must be true? Strange.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

QuistisTrepe_

Science is now determined by consensus. The things I learn at Gamespot.

is this the standard reply of anti-intellectual climate skeptics? forgive me for not knowing, but i've only met one other in my life.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Translation: Chris Christie is considering running for president and can't win the Republican primary if he supports common sense, market driven, climate change control policy. Or even acknowledge that climate change exists at all.QuistisTrepe_

Those laws are a waste of time. They cripple economies and raise the cost of living all based on inconclusive science theory.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

QuistisTrepe_

So what you're saying is that if enough people believe something is true regardless of whether or not it passes the muster of the scientific method, then it must be true? Strange.

now scientists, aren't scientists! the things i learn at gamespot. I find it easy to question opposing viewpoints when they are funded by institutions such as the Western Fuels Association

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Uh, yes it is. Man-caused global warming is inconclusive at best, and complete BS at worst. We shouldn't be radically altering economic policy based on gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks. You think goods and services cost a lot now? Wait until these kinds of laws really get going.

QuistisTrepe_

So what you're saying is that if enough people believe something is true regardless of whether or not it passes the muster of the scientific method, then it must be true? Strange.

is this the standard reply of anti-intellectual climate skeptics? forgive me for not knowing, but i've only met one other in my life.

Firebird-5

Then you need to get out more. The funny thing about bringing a claim is the party that makes the claim has the burden of proof. Non-sequiturs from those making outlandish claims about man-caused global warming have yet to make their case other than "a number of scientists believe such and such."

I suppose the concept of man-made global warming makes perfect sense if you completely ignore the history of the planet and all of the climate changes that have occured naturally and are still occurring to this day. But we sure wouldn't want facts getting in the way of government subsidized, agenda-driven environmental studies whose very funding is based on getting the desired results now would we?

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] If you want to call decades of peer-reviewed research as "gut feelings and little hairs on the back of our necks" have at it, but in actuality it is pretty damn conclusive. Why should we be basing our energy policy on the views of a very small minority of climatologists? The vast majority of climatologists say global warming is happening and that we our the primary cause. There's not one national or international scientific organization that dissents from the mainstream view on global warming. Yet I'm guessing this means nothing to you, and instead will retort with vague, unsubstantiated statements about how none of this matters, how the jury is still out, that a plethora of peer-reviewed research amounts to inconclusive BS, so we should just twiddle our thumbs as we continue to do irreperable damage to our environment and our way of life. The effects of global warming are going to inflict much more harm on the world's economies than cap and trade could ever inflict (and the cost of cap and trade really isn't that much at all)

-Sun_Tzu-

So what you're saying is that if enough people believe something is true regardless of whether or not it passes the muster of the scientific method, then it must be true? Strange.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, by leaving it at that since it's pretty much what you said in a nutshell.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

is this the standard reply of anti-intellectual climate skeptics? forgive me for not knowing, but i've only met one other in my life.

QuistisTrepe_

Then you need to get out more. The funny thing about bringing a claim is the party that makes the claim has the burden of proof. Non-sequiturs from those making outlandish claims about man-caused global warming have yet to make their case other than "a number of scientists believe such and such."

I suppose the concept of man-made global warming makes perfect sense if you completely ignore the history of the planet and all of the climate changes that have occured naturally and are still occurring to this day. But we sure wouldn't want facts getting in the way of government subsidized, agenda-driven environmental studies whose very funding is based on getting the desired results now would we?

Why do you insist on believeing that you are in a better position to make a judgement about climate change than someone who has studied it and the related sciences for years, and works in the field? there is plenty of evidence out there that basically proves you are just wrong, misinformed, naive, however you want to put it.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

So what you're saying is that if enough people believe something is true regardless of whether or not it passes the muster of the scientific method, then it must be true? Strange.

QuistisTrepe_

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, by leaving it at that since it's pretty much what you said in a nutshell.

There's not one national or international scientific organization that dissents from the mainstream view on global warming. Yet I'm guessing this means nothing to you, and instead will retort with vague, unsubstantiated statements about how none of this matters, how the jury is still out, that a plethora of peer-reviewed research amounts to inconclusive BS, so we should just twiddle our thumbs as we continue to do irreperable damage to our environment and our way of life. -Sun_Tzu-

So what you're saying is that if enough people believe something is true regardless of whether or not it passes the muster of the scientific method, then it must be true? Strange.QuistisTrepe_

Ooh, you're good.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

is this the standard reply of anti-intellectual climate skeptics? forgive me for not knowing, but i've only met one other in my life.

Firebird-5

Then you need to get out more. The funny thing about bringing a claim is the party that makes the claim has the burden of proof. Non-sequiturs from those making outlandish claims about man-caused global warming have yet to make their case other than "a number of scientists believe such and such."

I suppose the concept of man-made global warming makes perfect sense if you completely ignore the history of the planet and all of the climate changes that have occured naturally and are still occurring to this day. But we sure wouldn't want facts getting in the way of government subsidized, agenda-driven environmental studies whose very funding is based on getting the desired results now would we?

Why do you insist on believeing that you are in a better position to make a judgement about climate change than someone who has studied it and the related sciences for years, and works in the field? there is plenty of evidence out there that basically proves you are just wrong, misinformed, naive, however you want to put it.

Then why is the concept of man caused global warming still a consensus of believers if it is such an indisputable truth?

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Then you need to get out more. The funny thing about bringing a claim is the party that makes the claim has the burden of proof. Non-sequiturs from those making outlandish claims about man-caused global warming have yet to make their case other than "a number of scientists believe such and such."

I suppose the concept of man-made global warming makes perfect sense if you completely ignore the history of the planet and all of the climate changes that have occured naturally and are still occurring to this day. But we sure wouldn't want facts getting in the way of government subsidized, agenda-driven environmental studies whose very funding is based on getting the desired results now would we?

QuistisTrepe_

Why do you insist on believeing that you are in a better position to make a judgement about climate change than someone who has studied it and the related sciences for years, and works in the field? there is plenty of evidence out there that basically proves you are just wrong, misinformed, naive, however you want to put it.

The why is the concept of man caused global warming still a consensus of believers if it is such an indisputable truth?

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Then you need to get out more. The funny thing about bringing a claim is the party that makes the claim has the burden of proof. Non-sequiturs from those making outlandish claims about man-caused global warming have yet to make their case other than "a number of scientists believe such and such."

I suppose the concept of man-made global warming makes perfect sense if you completely ignore the history of the planet and all of the climate changes that have occured naturally and are still occurring to this day. But we sure wouldn't want facts getting in the way of government subsidized, agenda-driven environmental studies whose very funding is based on getting the desired results now would we?

QuistisTrepe_

Why do you insist on believeing that you are in a better position to make a judgement about climate change than someone who has studied it and the related sciences for years, and works in the field? there is plenty of evidence out there that basically proves you are just wrong, misinformed, naive, however you want to put it.

The why is the concept of man caused global warming still a consensus of believers if it is such an indisputable truth?

...because it's not in everyone's interest to implement policies that deal with it?

What I find hilarious is that you basically took peer-reviewed studies, backed up by a multitude of scientific bodies, and insinuated that it 'doesn't pass the scientifi method'. and then you put words in people's mouth.

Why is Mars experiencing global warming similar to the Earth?

YellowOneKinobi

Here you go:

"The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concludingthe correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations."

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

Why do you insist on believeing that you are in a better position to make a judgement about climate change than someone who has studied it and the related sciences for years, and works in the field? there is plenty of evidence out there that basically proves you are just wrong, misinformed, naive, however you want to put it.

Firebird-5

The why is the concept of man caused global warming still a consensus of believers if it is such an indisputable truth?

...because it's not in everyone's interest to implement policies that deal with it?

What I find hilarious is that you basically took peer-reviewed studies, backed up by a multitude of scientific bodies, and insinuated that it 'doesn't pass the scientifi method'. and then you put words in people's mouth.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Why is Mars experiencing global warming similar to the Earth?

-Sun_Tzu-

Here you go:

"The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concludingthe correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations."

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

The why is the concept of man caused global warming still a consensus of believers if it is such an indisputable truth?

YellowOneKinobi

...because it's not in everyone's interest to implement policies that deal with it?

What I find hilarious is that you basically took peer-reviewed studies, backed up by a multitude of scientific bodies, and insinuated that it 'doesn't pass the scientifi method'. and then you put words in people's mouth.

I looked at your list. I'm sorry, I thought it was a joke, seeing as many of them are funded by fuel-related big business.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

The why is the concept of man caused global warming still a consensus of believers if it is such an indisputable truth?

YellowOneKinobi

...because it's not in everyone's interest to implement policies that deal with it?

What I find hilarious is that you basically took peer-reviewed studies, backed up by a multitude of scientific bodies, and insinuated that it 'doesn't pass the scientifi method'. and then you put words in people's mouth.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

...because it's not in everyone's interest to implement policies that deal with it?

What I find hilarious is that you basically took peer-reviewed studies, backed up by a multitude of scientific bodies, and insinuated that it 'doesn't pass the scientifi method'. and then you put words in people's mouth.

Firebird-5

I looked at your list. I'm sorry, I thought it was a joke, seeing as many of them are funded by fuel-related big business.

A) Provide a broader list

B) Go through the other list provided and pick it apart one by one (and not make a general, unsubstantiated statement like "many of them are in the pocket of liberal think tanks")

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Ah, cap & trade, another idea that Republicans supported until Obama began supporting it.

GabuEx

I've always found this amusing. Wasn't it as recent as 2006 when Republicans were pushing cap and trade and Democrats were pushing something more aggressive. Then as soon as Democrats start supporting cap and trade, Republicans start opposing it.

Yup. This seems to be a pretty consistent trend, where Republicans push for an idea as a sensible, market-based solution, and then when Democrats say "OK, we'll go with that", they're all "LOL WE WERE JUST KIDDING THAT'S A TERRIBLE SOCIALIST IDEA".