OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While?

[Casca]

CO2, plants need it to breath. It’s part of the mirical of photosynthesis. I pity the fool taught by a union-thug educrat.

[scaredyclassic]

tax policy affects behaviors. To argue otherwise kind of ignores reality. If they put a 10 dollar tax on gasoline per gallon, people would drive less. period.

“jobs lost” is not a compelling argument. If cigarettes were criminalized, there’d be lots of “jobs lost”. So what. Mere job loss is not what’s at issue. It’s the social benefit of the activity and whetehr it should be encouraged or discouraged. I have no particular opinion on cigarettes. i’ve recently had a strong urge to Start Smoking but am waiting for mroe research.

As to cars, emissions, C)2, industry…it’s open to debate, but it’s not some crazy wacko idea that GW is occuring, that we could be screed, and while it might be expensive to do soemthing about it, we should. I’m not saying we should, just that it’s not a wacko idea. Now, smoking giving you cancer, THAT’S a wacko theory that’s never really been proven…

[scaredyclassic]

tax policy affects behaviors. To argue otherwise kind of ignores reality. If they put a 10 dollar tax on gasoline per gallon, people would drive less. period.

“jobs lost” is not a compelling argument. If cigarettes were criminalized, there’d be lots of “jobs lost”. So what. Mere job loss is not what’s at issue. It’s the social benefit of the activity and whetehr it should be encouraged or discouraged. I have no particular opinion on cigarettes. i’ve recently had a strong urge to Start Smoking but am waiting for mroe research.

As to cars, emissions, C)2, industry…it’s open to debate, but it’s not some crazy wacko idea that GW is occuring, that we could be screed, and while it might be expensive to do soemthing about it, we should. I’m not saying we should, just that it’s not a wacko idea. Now, smoking giving you cancer, THAT’S a wacko theory that’s never really been proven…

[scaredyclassic]

tax policy affects behaviors. To argue otherwise kind of ignores reality. If they put a 10 dollar tax on gasoline per gallon, people would drive less. period.

“jobs lost” is not a compelling argument. If cigarettes were criminalized, there’d be lots of “jobs lost”. So what. Mere job loss is not what’s at issue. It’s the social benefit of the activity and whetehr it should be encouraged or discouraged. I have no particular opinion on cigarettes. i’ve recently had a strong urge to Start Smoking but am waiting for mroe research.

As to cars, emissions, C)2, industry…it’s open to debate, but it’s not some crazy wacko idea that GW is occuring, that we could be screed, and while it might be expensive to do soemthing about it, we should. I’m not saying we should, just that it’s not a wacko idea. Now, smoking giving you cancer, THAT’S a wacko theory that’s never really been proven…

[scaredyclassic]

tax policy affects behaviors. To argue otherwise kind of ignores reality. If they put a 10 dollar tax on gasoline per gallon, people would drive less. period.

“jobs lost” is not a compelling argument. If cigarettes were criminalized, there’d be lots of “jobs lost”. So what. Mere job loss is not what’s at issue. It’s the social benefit of the activity and whetehr it should be encouraged or discouraged. I have no particular opinion on cigarettes. i’ve recently had a strong urge to Start Smoking but am waiting for mroe research.

As to cars, emissions, C)2, industry…it’s open to debate, but it’s not some crazy wacko idea that GW is occuring, that we could be screed, and while it might be expensive to do soemthing about it, we should. I’m not saying we should, just that it’s not a wacko idea. Now, smoking giving you cancer, THAT’S a wacko theory that’s never really been proven…

[scaredyclassic]

tax policy affects behaviors. To argue otherwise kind of ignores reality. If they put a 10 dollar tax on gasoline per gallon, people would drive less. period.

“jobs lost” is not a compelling argument. If cigarettes were criminalized, there’d be lots of “jobs lost”. So what. Mere job loss is not what’s at issue. It’s the social benefit of the activity and whetehr it should be encouraged or discouraged. I have no particular opinion on cigarettes. i’ve recently had a strong urge to Start Smoking but am waiting for mroe research.

As to cars, emissions, C)2, industry…it’s open to debate, but it’s not some crazy wacko idea that GW is occuring, that we could be screed, and while it might be expensive to do soemthing about it, we should. I’m not saying we should, just that it’s not a wacko idea. Now, smoking giving you cancer, THAT’S a wacko theory that’s never really been proven…

[blahblahblah]

I would be all for a new “carbon tax” on fuel IF the money went into a fund that could only be used to build things like: electric railways, nuclear power plants, wind/solar energy plants, energy-efficient public transportation systems, etc…

However, that is not what’s going to happen. They’re going to take that $$$ and throw it in the general fund with your Social Security and Medicare money and spend it dropping bombs on third world people and bailing out their criminal buddies on Wall Street. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

[blahblahblah]

I would be all for a new “carbon tax” on fuel IF the money went into a fund that could only be used to build things like: electric railways, nuclear power plants, wind/solar energy plants, energy-efficient public transportation systems, etc…

However, that is not what’s going to happen. They’re going to take that $$$ and throw it in the general fund with your Social Security and Medicare money and spend it dropping bombs on third world people and bailing out their criminal buddies on Wall Street. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

[blahblahblah]

I would be all for a new “carbon tax” on fuel IF the money went into a fund that could only be used to build things like: electric railways, nuclear power plants, wind/solar energy plants, energy-efficient public transportation systems, etc…

However, that is not what’s going to happen. They’re going to take that $$$ and throw it in the general fund with your Social Security and Medicare money and spend it dropping bombs on third world people and bailing out their criminal buddies on Wall Street. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

[blahblahblah]

I would be all for a new “carbon tax” on fuel IF the money went into a fund that could only be used to build things like: electric railways, nuclear power plants, wind/solar energy plants, energy-efficient public transportation systems, etc…

However, that is not what’s going to happen. They’re going to take that $$$ and throw it in the general fund with your Social Security and Medicare money and spend it dropping bombs on third world people and bailing out their criminal buddies on Wall Street. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

[blahblahblah]

I would be all for a new “carbon tax” on fuel IF the money went into a fund that could only be used to build things like: electric railways, nuclear power plants, wind/solar energy plants, energy-efficient public transportation systems, etc…

However, that is not what’s going to happen. They’re going to take that $$$ and throw it in the general fund with your Social Security and Medicare money and spend it dropping bombs on third world people and bailing out their criminal buddies on Wall Street. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

[felix]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=GoUSC]
GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.[/quote]

I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.

Is it:

-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?

-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?

-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in. [/quote]

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[felix]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=GoUSC]
GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.[/quote]

I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.

Is it:

-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?

-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?

-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in. [/quote]

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[felix]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=GoUSC]
GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.[/quote]

I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.

Is it:

-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?

-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?

-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in. [/quote]

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[felix]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=GoUSC]
GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.[/quote]

I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.

Is it:

-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?

-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?

-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in. [/quote]

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren’t even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don’t even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can’t be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[Author]

Posts