Comments on: Will Support for Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax Melt Away? It’s Costly and Won’t Help the Environment http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/09/01/will-support-for-cap-and-trade-energy-tax-melt-away-it%e2%80%99s-costly-and-won%e2%80%99t-help-the-environment/ Climate Change News & Analysis Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:44:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Auto worldhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/09/01/will-support-for-cap-and-trade-energy-tax-melt-away-it%e2%80%99s-costly-and-won%e2%80%99t-help-the-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-29178 Auto world Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:15:50 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=18996#comment-29178 I really liked your blog and bookmarked it I really liked your blog and bookmarked it

]]> By: Daisyhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/09/01/will-support-for-cap-and-trade-energy-tax-melt-away-it%e2%80%99s-costly-and-won%e2%80%99t-help-the-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-28744 Daisy Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:52:03 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=18996#comment-28744 The bill is not about science. It's about corporate welfare. The robber barons get rich, while they ship American jobs overseas. The bill is not about science. It's about corporate welfare.

The robber barons get rich, while they ship American jobs overseas.

]]> By: Rice A.http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/09/01/will-support-for-cap-and-trade-energy-tax-melt-away-it%e2%80%99s-costly-and-won%e2%80%99t-help-the-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-28735 Rice A. Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:34:53 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=18996#comment-28735 This is crazy! American can't afford to paid that much money! I just read what Bob R said. As of now he has a point. This is crazy! American can't afford to paid that much money! I just read what Bob R said. As of now he has a point.

]]> By: Bill Beckhamhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/09/01/will-support-for-cap-and-trade-energy-tax-melt-away-it%e2%80%99s-costly-and-won%e2%80%99t-help-the-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-28705 Bill Beckham Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:25:01 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=18996#comment-28705 Bob R is right. In any real science, proof must follow hypothesis which leads to the obvious conclusion that those that believe in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)are following it as a religion. No matter how much data is presented to disclaim AGW, it is ignored. This leads to the next axiom: follow the money. Those that are promoting 'Cap and Trade' to combat global warming are doing so for profit at the expense of the taxpayer. Bob R is right. In any real science, proof must follow hypothesis which leads to the obvious conclusion that those that believe in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)are following it as a religion. No matter how much data is presented to disclaim AGW, it is ignored. This leads to the next axiom: follow the money. Those that are promoting ‘Cap and Trade’ to combat global warming are doing so for profit at the expense of the taxpayer.

]]> By: Bob R Geologist, Tuchttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/09/01/will-support-for-cap-and-trade-energy-tax-melt-away-it%e2%80%99s-costly-and-won%e2%80%99t-help-the-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-28702 Bob R Geologist, Tuc Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:53:35 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=18996#comment-28702 ECI published a report around 2 weeks ago, about a total failure of over $30 billion of research dollars on climate modelling to prove the claim that any increase in our atmosphere's CO2 content would result in dangerous levels of global warming. They state that "no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made CO2 has a significant effect on the global climate." That would be the "kiss of death" to any ordinary science based hypothesis. The trouble with AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that it a baseless idea of some radical enviros that has gained the status of public POLICY and the love of politicians, industrialists and a few hundred climate scientists endowed with liberal research grants. I have been in a virtual war with my old geology department at U Chicago, who at first tried to win me over as I have been a donor for geology research. (I have long since forbid its use for anything to do with climate.) Anyhow, I think the claim that Cap & Trade is to save our planet, is now moot. ECI published a report around 2 weeks ago, about a total failure of over $30 billion of research dollars on climate modelling to prove the claim that any increase in our atmosphere's CO2 content would result in dangerous levels of global warming. They state that "no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made CO2 has a significant effect on the global climate." That would be the "kiss of death" to any ordinary science based hypothesis. The trouble with AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that it a baseless idea of some radical enviros that has gained the status of public POLICY and the love of politicians, industrialists and a few hundred climate scientists endowed with liberal research grants. I have been in a virtual war with my old geology department at U Chicago, who at

first tried to win me over as I have been a donor for geology research. (I have long since forbid its use for anything to do with climate.) Anyhow, I think the claim that Cap & Trade is to save our planet, is now moot.

]]>