Cap and Trade

[wamster101]

Cap and Trade is essentailly a tax for breathing, since human beings exhale CO2, what else could it be ? Also check out Obama and Al Gore's connections to the Chicago Climate Exchange

Impeach Obama

[toxsickdog]

They are running out of things to Tax, pretty soon there will probably be a fart tax.

probably even special counters on all toilets to count flushings & tax accordingly,

the crap & fart tax if you will.

[bamagym]

thank you, you go girl!

[danielchristopher14]

Nice

[1965ace]

The un-democrat party aka the democrat party is full of bovine methane and I think that should be taxed.

[pg5861]

Conservative women... the new breed. This lovely woman can proudly say," I was conservative... before conservative was cool." More power to you young lady!

[TroutGalore]

Where were you when I was younger? To have a beautiful girl with brains would have been awesome! I love to hear the truth presented in such a clear and simple way! Keep telling em like it is Sista! Your awesome!

[TroutGalore]

Wow...where were you when I was younger? To have a beautiful girl with brains would be awesome! Keep telling it like it is...Sista!! God Bless!

I love to hear the truth!

[gilmanwi]

Good Job! God Bless You!

[Bushmaster73cuda]

Brains and beauty ;)

[JohnnySullivan]

I like Mark Levin's name for it better..he call's it "TAX AND KILL". And that's what this NOBAMA administration is trying to do. Oh well, at least more people are finally starting to wake up to this. But unfornately, there are still some people sticking their heads in the sand. And these same "stick head in sand" type of people are the types who won't fight for crap unless it comes knocking on their door. Cap and Trade has to take a bite out of what they make before they start to whine.

[flyers22]

You are correct, again.

[Noisycowonline]

What a class act - beautiful smart woman!!

Hope you have seen The Obama Deception!

[Kris246zl]

Trees need CO2 to breathe. Hippies spent all that time trying to save them and now they want them to suffocate? Driving a car creates CO2 and O3 (ozone). By liberal logic, shouldn't driving a car not only help save the trees AND fix those pesky holes in the ozone layer? And there's really nothing more all-natural than CO2. It's a good thing. This minor ice age we're in (that no politician is reporting on) is coming to an end and our planet is warming. Naturally. Liberals are drones.

[bigredbrain]

Oh no! Are you serious?! By science (not liberal logic, but maybe actual logic), we know there is too much CO2, and without cars there would still be more than enough for plants (or did you think trees didn't exist before cars?). As for ozone, low level ozone (that produced at ground level by sunlight reacting with hydrocarbons) does not magically go up into the ozone layer... it is a pollutant. As for everything else, you don't know what you're talking about. Go to school.

[Kris246zl]

If CFCs can magically get up to the ozone layer, why can't ozone (a lighter molecule)? And just how much CO2 are we supposed to have?

[Sugerrush1234]

Yes, all animals expel c02 naturally, but you seem to lack a basic grasp of scale. The average person expels about 150 pounds of CO2 total, including from food and waste, per year. The average car expels 6 tons in a year. Bit of a difference, eh?

[bigb3n011]

What about termite mounds and volcanoes and cattle? When you said bit of a difference you didn't even assign a value to "natural" things from which a comparison could be made. You're a liberal drone.

[Sugerrush1234]

I apologize for being a sheeple (sheerpson?), because obviously I am. I can't be human and simply have a differing opinion, because us liberals don't have our own opinions. I almost forgot about that.

Yes, cattle are big producers of methane, which many postulate contributes to global warming, but what I'm talking about are things we can change. We can establish legislation to reduce unnecessary C02 emissions, we can't ban cows from existing.

[bigb3n011]

what you mean to say is we can castrate our economy, in the hopes of preventing a disaster that some really shady half-assed science predicts? Don't forget the ice caps have made considerable gains since around 2002 and that we have been cooling down since then. It all links up with solar activity. It baffles me that there are this many morons in our country. You liberals are mostly good people, just horribly misled.

[Sugerrush1234]

This isn't a freaking liberal or conservative issue, it's an issue of science. No, it won't castrate our economy, and no, thousands of scientists and their studies are not shady half-assed science. It's hard to be shady over and over and over again in peer-reviewed journals. And no, I once again ask you to search for the "keeling curve."

[Sugerrush1234]

First, the study you are referring to measures ice coverage, which varies a great deal yearly and can be counted "covered" if it's only inches deep. Permanent ice shelves have been decreasing consistently in volume.

[Sugerrush1234]

Second, it was done by the Heartland Institute, which a while ago claimed the "support of 500 climate scientists" in calling global warming a hoax. Well, their list featured not only included 45 scientists who immediately asked their names to be removed because they disagreed entirely and were not consulted, but also an astrologist and several invented or deceased names. Not exactly a reputable source.

[bigb3n011]

you're still dodging the point that co2 is a trace gas and that its increase lags behind temperature, therefore, by sound logic you would realize this is a political movement. How do you think a scientist gets funding? Back in the 1970's alot of these very same scientists were saying that all of this added greenhouse gas was going to cause an ice age; those scientists received more fuding as a result of their outlandish claims which were highly contended among other experts.

[Sugerrush1234]

Trace gas? Yes. Irrelevant gas? Not at all. Remember, we're looking at CO2 over the entire atmosphere here. A small percentage of a huge amount is still a lot, and current changes of a few degrees are enough to be damaging. And no, you can't say that its increase lags behind temperature, there's so much variation that while a relationship can be established, you can't say one lags behind the other. Global warming isn't assured, just so likely that it's worth taking action just in case.

[bigb3n011]

If it's not assured;especially if it's not assured that it's co2 ( you can tell me that it is until you're blue in the face, but the actuallity of it is that there is no way to tell because we have had those lags that you and I referred to.) Why pass a bill that won't affect China or India or any of the other developing nations? China is the number one polluter, not us, and they have turned down the Kyoto treaty just the same. Bottom line- co2 is an irrelevant gas according to climatologists.

[Sugerrush1234]

Wait...you just said that there's no way to tell, and then you said CO2 has lagged behind...? No, again, the yearly variations are great enough that it's only possible to determine a relationship. And which climatologists declared CO2 irrelevant? Care to cite any studies?

The reason we should pass a bill is the same reason you should do good even if not everyone does. If every time you had the opportunity to help someone in need you said, "someone else didn't, why should I?" where would we be?

[bigb3n011]

So...you acknowledged that they aren't for sure on the co2 causal effect, and yet you propose we do the 'right' thing even if everyone else doesn't. You insight right and wrong in a debate that is supposed to be centered on around sound logic. Sound logic is how we determine what is right and wrong in the context of a leadership position. If the debate were really over, the naysayers climate models would do a better job on predictions. They can't get basic precipitation right!!! Look it up

[Sugerrush1234]

First off, I'd just like to say I've enjoyed thoroughly our debate so far. I disagree with your opinions, but you're always relatively eloquent with them.

Anyways, nothing is ever sure unless it's math. Most of the field of statistics is based around that fact that the best we can do is try and be confident beyond a reasonable doubt. The scientific community is confident beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean proof.

[bigb3n011]

Back at you on this being a good debate. I would like you to remember that as a conservative I do believe in the green movement, and whether or not our increased co2 output will cause a catastrophy, we should try to be more eco-friendly, I just don't believe the government should be the primary force of action. Free markets have decided on their own that this is the 'right' thing to do, and we WILL see gradual improvements with or without the governments of the world getting involved.

[Sugerrush1234]

See, being a liberal doesn't mean I love throwing money away, but it does mean that as little faith as you have in government action I have in the private sector. What would cause a change of heart and a shift in the way major industrial companies do business? It's easy for a firm like Google or a bank to be eco friendly because it costs them nothing more than a fancy building, but to make a conscious decision to reduce net production in favor of less pollution is much tougher act.

[Sugerrush1234]

This brings us back to the video. She seems to cast Cap and Trade as an attempt to cripple businesses and lay another evil tax on everyone. Not true. In fact, the whole thing avoids individuals. It simply adds business incentives to reduce carbon emissions by being able to sell those extra credits for more cash to a company that can't. Private-sector competition, just with a new dimension. These bills are often more bipartisan than many would believe, because the free market does the work.

[Sugerrush1234]

Secondly, I was using right and wrong as an analogy for acting to slow or halt anthropogenic global warming. My apologies for not making that more clear.

Finally, using precipitation as an analog for general climate trends is a straw man argument and you know it. Minute weather patterns are very, very difficult to predict day to day, but general trends not as much. You can't predict when you'll win big at roulette, but you do know over the long haul Vegas wins more than it loses.

[bigb3n011]

Oh but it has lagged behind temperature.

[bigb3n011]

search the IPCC while you're on your fact finding mission, and don't get me started on non reputable sources.

[2012revelations]

Ummm... yeah, GE has big weapons contracts with the U.S.

[bigredbrain]

LOLOLOL....

Is this like a Stephen Colbert kinda thing where someone pretends to be conservative just to show how ignorant their opinions are?

[Sugerrush1234]

Haha bigred, totally with you.

[Ironbob2006]

I think the problem is that it's not her ignorance but your own stupidity that keeps you from following what she's saying.

[bigb3n011]

good joke, but you are avoiding their points of contention altogether. What's ignorant about stating the fact that plants need co2? What about the fact that we have gone through periods of earth history where tropical rainforests have spanned the globe; without human existence! What spurred on that? Small minded liberal idiots.

[Sugerrush1234]

More than enough CO2 is available for plants naturally without our interference.  If you had 30 lbs of pasta, would you eat it all? No, you'd eat as much as you needed, but having more is unnecessary. Also, major climate change occurred naturally over millions of years, but we have noticeable differences recorded over the past several decades (search "keeling curve").

Sidenote, Pangea was a single landmass, tropical rain forests have never spanned the earth in its current configuration.

[bigb3n011]

not true. watch the earth science special on national geographic. don't forget also about the supervolcanoes that were pumping out 6 times the co2 of the current rate, and it was during an ice age!!! Have you noticed also that the movement has changed names because they aren't so sure anymore about the co2 link? it was called man made global warming now it is referred to as just climate change. a lot less dramatic- looks like a retreat to me.

[Sugerrush1234]

Dude, "climate change" is a political term coined by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, look it up. Scientists still refer to it as global warming.

[bigredbrain]

Plants do need CO2, but it's not relevant. There will be plenty CO2 without our factories and cars. Just because you have 2 facts, that we produce CO2 and that plants need CO2, does not mean you can come to the correct conclusion... there's a lot more information out there and I really hope you start using more than your intuition to understand complex scientific matters.

[bigb3n011]

I know the other information. Oceans trap co2 and release it as the oceans heat up;but If you actually listen to atmospheric scientists you will be baffled by the stupidity of this doom and gloom movement. They will tell you that co2 is a trace gas and that even a substantial increase doesn't pose real danger. Your keeling curve is fundamentally flawed because throughout earths history co2 LAGGED behind temperature change by up to 800 years.

[Sugerrush1234]

Wait, what? How is the Keeling Curve flawed again? Are you insinuating that scientific data is flawed merely because it does not agree with your views? Even so, you completely misread the purpose of the chart. The fact that it rises is one thing, but it's the projection that's the scary part. It's an exponential curve, which means if nothing changes we're screwed.

[bigb3n011]

that keeling curve is a hockey stick graph. anytime you see such a thing you should be skeptical. Look up the critique on that graph and keep your mind open.

[Sugerrush1234]

It can't be a hockey stick graph if it's based on measured rather than predicted data. It's data taken consistently on top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii for the last 50 years, not projected backwards based on probable scenarios.

[anonkll]

Another spot on video by this gorgeous woman :)

[Jkl9559]

this is amerriccaaaa, coommuuunits, blah blah.Little rich kid gets to look at her air brain videos after somehow finding the intelligence to get them on youtube. Next time just stand there with your tits out.

[anonkll]

You're a bafoon

[hrosemd]

Bingo.