Cap and Tirade: Bachmann Repeats Falsehood

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

Take a wild guess who funded the MIT study. Congress did. Which congress? The one that wants to implement the Cap and Trade. Hardly independant.

I think it would be worth your while to click here about Lindzen. He's been proven wrong on more than one occasion...

In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

Ok, I see, a study from MIT funded by congress is above reproach but a "skeptic" from MIT is automaticly disqualified from having any opinion of merit. Oh, and having a "speculation" proven wrong means nothing. I would say that any noted scientist would speculate something that is later proven wrong. Your total bias is funny to watch. You only believe what you want to believe.

I didn't say it's above reproach...those are your words. Go back to what Bill posted - a study on Cap and Trade financed by the energy industry....and my response to him was, "I put more trust in an independent MIT study on Cap and Trade than one paid for by the energy industry." As far as the funding for the MIT study - I have no idea where you are getting that it was paid for by Congress, but this study did pass the muster for the Republicans so I'm not sure why you are now trying to discredit the findings.

But above and beyond, both you and Bill don't even believe that Global Warming is being heavily impacted by man made CO2 emissions, so is there really any point in trying to debate the merits of a C & T on CO2 emissions with either one of you?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

Take a wild guess who funded the MIT study. Congress did. Which congress? The one that wants to implement the Cap and Trade. Hardly independant.

I think it would be worth your while to click here about Lindzen. He's been proven wrong on more than one occasion...

In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

Ok, I see, a study from MIT funded by congress is above reproach but a "skeptic" from MIT is automaticly disqualified from having any opinion of merit. Oh, and having a "speculation" proven wrong means nothing. I would say that any noted scientist would speculate something that is later proven wrong. Your total bias is funny to watch. You only believe what you want to believe.

I didn't say it's above reproach...those are your words. Go back to what Bill posted - a study on Cap and Trade financed by the energy industry....and my response to him was, "I put more trust in an independent MIT study on Cap and Trade than one paid for by the energy industry." As far as the funding for the MIT study - I have no idea where you are getting that it was paid for by Congress, but this study did pass the muster for the Republicans so I'm not sure why you are now trying to discredit the findings.

But above and beyond, both you and Bill don't even believe that Global Warming is being heavily impacted by man made CO2 emissions, so is there really any point in trying to debate the merits of a C & T on CO2 emissions with either one of you?

I thought we were debating how much the Cap and Trade tax was going to cost each household. What happened to that discussion, and whether or not the Republicans are pulling the number out of their collective asses, or whether that number can be supported?

Edited April 30, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[GaryC 7]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

Take a wild guess who funded the MIT study. Congress did. Which congress? The one that wants to implement the Cap and Trade. Hardly independant.

I think it would be worth your while to click here about Lindzen. He's been proven wrong on more than one occasion...

In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

Ok, I see, a study from MIT funded by congress is above reproach but a "skeptic" from MIT is automaticly disqualified from having any opinion of merit. Oh, and having a "speculation" proven wrong means nothing. I would say that any noted scientist would speculate something that is later proven wrong. Your total bias is funny to watch. You only believe what you want to believe.

I didn't say it's above reproach...those are your words. Go back to what Bill posted - a study on Cap and Trade financed by the energy industry....and my response to him was, "I put more trust in an independent MIT study on Cap and Trade than one paid for by the energy industry." As far as the funding for the MIT study - I have no idea where you are getting that it was paid for by Congress, but this study did pass the muster for the Republicans so I'm not sure why you are now trying to discredit the findings.

But above and beyond, both you and Bill don't even believe that Global Warming is being heavily impacted by man made CO2 emissions, so is there really any point in trying to debate the merits of a C & T on CO2 emissions with either one of you?

:A study financed by the energy industry is suspect because in your opinion it taints the study. Why wouldn't a study financed by congress (who wants to pass this ) be equally suspect?

Edited April 30, 2009 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

Take a wild guess who funded the MIT study. Congress did. Which congress? The one that wants to implement the Cap and Trade. Hardly independant.

I think it would be worth your while to click here about Lindzen. He's been proven wrong on more than one occasion...

In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

Ok, I see, a study from MIT funded by congress is above reproach but a "skeptic" from MIT is automaticly disqualified from having any opinion of merit. Oh, and having a "speculation" proven wrong means nothing. I would say that any noted scientist would speculate something that is later proven wrong. Your total bias is funny to watch. You only believe what you want to believe.

I didn't say it's above reproach...those are your words. Go back to what Bill posted - a study on Cap and Trade financed by the energy industry....and my response to him was, "I put more trust in an independent MIT study on Cap and Trade than one paid for by the energy industry." As far as the funding for the MIT study - I have no idea where you are getting that it was paid for by Congress, but this study did pass the muster for the Republicans so I'm not sure why you are now trying to discredit the findings.

But above and beyond, both you and Bill don't even believe that Global Warming is being heavily impacted by man made CO2 emissions, so is there really any point in trying to debate the merits of a C & T on CO2 emissions with either one of you?

I thought we were debating how much the Cap and Trade tax was going to cost each household? What happened to that discussion, and whether or not the Republicans are pulling the number out of their collective asses, or whether that number can be supported.

How would you ever support a Cap and Trade on CO2 emissions if you don't think it's important for us to reduce CO2 emissions? That's what is really behind your objections just as those Republicans in Congress who are Global Warming Deniers.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Suit yourself, Gary. There's a difference between an independent MIT based study on Cap and Trade, and an MIT professor who is renowned as a global warming skeptic, giving his opinion or drawing his own conclusions from someone else's study.

Take a wild guess who funded the MIT study. Congress did. Which congress? The one that wants to implement the Cap and Trade. Hardly independant.

I think it would be worth your while to click here about Lindzen. He's been proven wrong on more than one occasion...

In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

Ok, I see, a study from MIT funded by congress is above reproach but a "skeptic" from MIT is automaticly disqualified from having any opinion of merit. Oh, and having a "speculation" proven wrong means nothing. I would say that any noted scientist would speculate something that is later proven wrong. Your total bias is funny to watch. You only believe what you want to believe.

I didn't say it's above reproach...those are your words. Go back to what Bill posted - a study on Cap and Trade financed by the energy industry....and my response to him was, "I put more trust in an independent MIT study on Cap and Trade than one paid for by the energy industry." As far as the funding for the MIT study - I have no idea where you are getting that it was paid for by Congress, but this study did pass the muster for the Republicans so I'm not sure why you are now trying to discredit the findings.

But above and beyond, both you and Bill don't even believe that Global Warming is being heavily impacted by man made CO2 emissions, so is there really any point in trying to debate the merits of a C & T on CO2 emissions with either one of you?

I thought we were debating how much the Cap and Trade tax was going to cost each household? What happened to that discussion, and whether or not the Republicans are pulling the number out of their collective asses, or whether that number can be supported.

How would you ever support a Cap and Trade on CO2 emissions if you don't think it's important for us to reduce CO2 emissions? That's what is really behind your objections just as those Republicans in Congress who are Global Warming Deniers.

That would be a new thread, I would suppose. I don't know what Gary thinks, but I am not a global warming skeptic, I just don't think it is going to be such a bad thing, taken in historical context. I think the overall benefits will outweigh the inconvenient displacements.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[natty bumppo 297]

so ... a farmer is penalized for the farm equipment used?

not given a credit by the oxygen his plants create?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so ... a farmer is penalized for the farm equipment used?

not given a credit by the oxygen his plants create?

It's more effective when you post as ZQT.

How would you ever support a Cap and Trade on CO2 emissions if you don't think it's important for us to reduce CO2 emissions? That's what is really behind your objections just as those Republicans in Congress who are Global Warming Deniers.

That would be a new thread, I would suppose. I don't know what Gary thinks, but I am not a global warming skeptic, I just don't think it is going to be such a bad thing, taken in historical context. I think the overall benefits will outweigh the inconvenient displacements.

So then the question is fair to ask you....and your answer is?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

so ... a farmer is penalized for the farm equipment used?

not given a credit by the oxygen his plants create?

It's more effective when you post as ZQT.

How would you ever support a Cap and Trade on CO2 emissions if you don't think it's important for us to reduce CO2 emissions? That's what is really behind your objections just as those Republicans in Congress who are Global Warming Deniers.

That would be a new thread, I would suppose. I don't know what Gary thinks, but I am not a global warming skeptic, I just don't think it is going to be such a bad thing, taken in historical context. I think the overall benefits will outweigh the inconvenient displacements.

So then the question is fair to ask you....and your answer is?

The whole thing is a scam. That is the bottom line. All trading carbon credits has done so far is make weathly liberal do gooders feel good about wasting resources 100 times faster than Joe Citizen. What makes you think the same thing won't happen on a coporate/government/worldwide level? (Hint: It already has, and is.)

Edited April 30, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so ... a farmer is penalized for the farm equipment used?

not given a credit by the oxygen his plants create?

It's more effective when you post as ZQT.

How would you ever support a Cap and Trade on CO2 emissions if you don't think it's important for us to reduce CO2 emissions? That's what is really behind your objections just as those Republicans in Congress who are Global Warming Deniers.

That would be a new thread, I would suppose. I don't know what Gary thinks, but I am not a global warming skeptic, I just don't think it is going to be such a bad thing, taken in historical context. I think the overall benefits will outweigh the inconvenient displacements.

So then the question is fair to ask you....and your answer is?

The whole thing is a scam. That is the bottom line. All trading carbon credits has done so far is make weathly liberal do gooders feel good about wasting resources 100 times faster than Joe Citizen. What makes you think the same thinkg won't happen on a coporate/government/worldwide level? (Hint: It already has, and is.)

Thanks for your answer. There's no point then in arguing with you the merits of a Cap and Trade on CO2 emissions when you don't believe CO2 emissions are something to be concerned about.

[GaryC 7]

How would you ever support a Cap and Trade on CO2 emissions if you don't think it's important for us to reduce CO2 emissions? That's what is really behind your objections just as those Republicans in Congress who are Global Warming Deniers.

And when you discount any POV from a skeptic just because he is a skeptic, how can you discuss anything without your bias getting in the way? Just look at the terms you use. "Global Warming Deniers" is used to denegrade and shut off any discussion. Any coincedence that is sounds like "holocost denier"? You don't want a discussion, you want to dictate.

And BTW, don't tell me what my "real" objections are. I don't like cap and trade because it is a very bad idea. It will be a huge tax on everyone and from what we see in Europe it will not stop CO2. I don't see how you can support something that has already been shown to be a failure.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

so ... a farmer is penalized for the farm equipment used?

not given a credit by the oxygen his plants create?

It's more effective when you post as ZQT.

How would you ever support a Cap and Trade on CO2 emissions if you don't think it's important for us to reduce CO2 emissions? That's what is really behind your objections just as those Republicans in Congress who are Global Warming Deniers.

That would be a new thread, I would suppose. I don't know what Gary thinks, but I am not a global warming skeptic, I just don't think it is going to be such a bad thing, taken in historical context. I think the overall benefits will outweigh the inconvenient displacements.

So then the question is fair to ask you....and your answer is?

The whole thing is a scam. That is the bottom line. All trading carbon credits has done so far is make weathly liberal do gooders feel good about wasting resources 100 times faster than Joe Citizen. What makes you think the same thinkg won't happen on a coporate/government/worldwide level? (Hint: It already has, and is.)

Thanks for your answer. There's no point then in arguing with you the merits of a Cap and Trade on CO2 emissions when you don't believe CO2 emissions are something to be concerned about.

Okay Steve. I am going to make my dinner, and you can continue to avoid the original discussion.