"Cap and Trade" versus Carbon Tax

<p>
[quote]
But how can anyone say that Global Warming is not proven. The fact that there are people saying it's false is only a representation of a perverse PR campaign by oil and coal corporations. That was what happened in the 80s about smoking. Except instead of lung cancer we'll get global famine and 100x Katrinas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right... human caused global warming also killed all the sabertooth tigers and wooly mammoths.</p>

<p>The planet Earth has been around long before humans, and will continue to exist long after humans have gone. Humans have two choices during their time on Earth: adapt or die.</p>

<p>that just amused me, "adapt or die"</p>

<p>I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense.</p>

<p>But in traditional terms of evolution, individuals can't adapt, only species. And all humans will eventually die during their time on Earth.</p>

<p>Global Warming is a piece of crap and is a giant fraud, and all it is a bunch of whiny liberals trying to invent a problem so they can "punish" those "evil corporations".</p>

<p>I think the fact that dems buy into this nonsense proves their intelligence as a group (or lack thereof), and shows how jealous they are of other people who have worked harder than them. America is the last best hope on earth to avoid this socialist/collectivist bullcarap.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/WeatherData190.jpg%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/WeatherData190.jpg&lt;/a>
As you can see, despite the "warming", the climate is still below the average temp in the last 5000 years.</p>

<p>Either way, government should have nothing to do with the climate or whatnot. Government should not have anything to do with about 95% of what it has its greedy hands in. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves. We need Ron Paul (or Mark Sanford) in 2012.</p>

<p>Some people are surprisingly close minded, and others are taking statements completely out of context.
No doubt fossil fuels pollute. But people tend to overlook the natural consequences of 7 billion people just living and the non fossil fuel waste they produce. It is staggering how much oxygen 7 billion people consume, and oxygen is by no means infinite. Having so many people in one world causes enviornmental strains, even if the world ran on clean energy. Climate change has occurred before human, and before huge populations existed, so it is unwise to overlook that fact. Also, current scientific research is suggesting that a phase of global cooling is happening. The human population has skyrocketed and resources such as land, water and oxygen are limited, and these constraints caue exploitation that would not occur if there was a much smaller population. No doubt that having hundreds of millions of people choosing cars over public transportation, wasting natural resources, using substanitial amounts of energy/electricity strain the enviornment, but a lot of it could be solved if people were less selfish. Even the people who claim to be green in many cases fail to try and conserve, as many of the green advocates in my high school drove instead of taking the school bus.
The only thing I have a problem with is when people plead that the government should force companies to cut back when they refuse to cut back at all themselves.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But in traditional terms of evolution, individuals can't adapt, only species. And all humans will eventually die during their time on Earth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. Humans will all die.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the next ice age will be the biggest environmental threat to the human species (aside from large meteor impact)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Global Warming is a piece of crap and is a giant fraud, and all it is a bunch of whiny liberals trying to invent a problem so they can "punish" those "evil corporations".</p>

<p>I think the fact that dems buy into this nonsense proves their intelligence as a group (or lack thereof), and shows how jealous they are of other people who have worked harder than them.

[/quote]
If your reasoning at this point is Liberals = Stupid, that makes you look stupid yourself and then no one takes you seriously. I'm not one of those go-greeners myself, but I acknowledge the fact that there are intelligent scientists on both sides of the spectrum. Oh yeah, and many of the anti-global warming scientists are getting paid by oil companies and many of the pro-global warming scientists just happen to be affililated with the "green" movement. Many educated, highly intelligent Ph.D's/Professors are Liberal, as well as ignorant people who don't know what they're talking about. Many Conservatives are the dumb, bible-beating homosexuals-killed-the-dinosaurs types, and then there's the smart ones. Acknowledge there's intelligence and stupidity on both sides of the political spectrum, or else you become a joke like Ann Coulter. </p>

<p>The current Libertarian party is a joke, about as valid as the Green Party - sure, the odd person here and there votes for them. But maybe the Repubs will finally align with them this century and there might be hope to get a moderate Libertarian in the White House. Ron Paul is a Republican, isn't he? I think someone more moderate than him would work if they were actually looking to get elected.</p>