http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGjUp1zoov8&feature=PlayList&p=6E23BDC1D20C0969&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=28

IPCC is done. Countries are going after them and anybody that helped them for fraud to eco terrorism. Some even want Gore. You dont here about it in the US but get on the net its all over. S.773 wants to stop this
New Zealand has a carbon tax and its wiping out farmers and people are paying higher energy bills.
Every County that has been checking the data is finding out HUMANS are not the cause.
30000+ scientists told Obama not to go to Copenhagen the data doesnt show what their claiming. Him and 60 of his cabinet. Pelosi and 164 others went and it cost 1.1 mil of tax payers money. (“I can’t believe that,” Rep. Waxman said. “I can’t believe it, but I don’t know.” CBSNews) That was after the treaty was leaked that the CO2 tax money was going to BANKS to get their 30% cut of trillions and the third world countries didnt get any. Many countries dropped out right then.
Go Green you dont need to tax it. BUT they cant build a electric car that charges itself?

BANKERS MEETING SECERT IN AUSTRIALA…..WAHT THE FK IS ALL THE SECERT BULSHT…YOU PEOPLE BETTER START DOING THE RIGHT THING……..

every bill on here the people are telling you no and you keep passing sht the people don’t want…..ARE YOU AMERCIANS OR ARE YOU UN BITCH BOYS AND GIRLS….FKIN GET SOME BALLS SUIT BOYS….STOP LINNING YOUR POCKETS STEP UP AND FIGHT THIS TRYANNY THE GLOBAL BANKS ARWE TRYING TO IMPOSE ON US…..EVERYTHING IS BEING STAGED BY THEM……WAKE UP SUIT BOYS….BETTER GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER..

http://www.planetxvideo.com/intro.php

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/america_will_strike_april_15_2008.html

A floor tax on gasoline is a direct method of giving a market signal to big energy companies to invest in clean, more efficient modes of transportation. For example, say oil costs 100 dollars a barrel nowadays. Now, the government mandates that we will not pay less than this for imported oil – if oil drops to 90 dollars a barrel, then we impose a tariff of $10 to bring it back up. That way, regardless of the price of oil, energy companies that want to invest in renewables but haven’t been able to because of the vulnerability of the market to rapid fluctuations in oil prices know for sure that oil will always cost at least this much. They’ll be able to make secure, profitable investments in renewable energy that they know will pay them back in the long term.

Sure. First of all, the reason why the UK and most of Europe use diesel cars is because these countries impose high tariffs on gasoline – gas is very expensive there! Diesel cars are a good alternative to regular gasoline powered cars because they are much, much more fuel efficient making their emissions much less than gasoline cars. Diesel fuel contains more energy per liter than gasoline. Have you ever been to Europe? From my experiences, most people drive small, compact cars that are very fuel efficient, or small motor scooters – you don’t see any cumbersome gas guzzlers on the road. So a transition to more diesel vehicles would also be beneficial, although moving to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles skips that altogether and works very nicely as we transition to a “super grid” that utilizes two-way communication between electricity providers and their customers.

Please explain more about the floor tax for gasoline. Is this similar to the program that the UK has in place? There, the “petrol” tax has fueled a massive increased in the use of diesel cars, not necessarily hybrids or electric cars.

A valid and informed opinion. I suppose you are one of those people,that want Cap & trade, Obamacare & more gimme gimmie.More Government in my Life, I don’t Need.! Ther is NO SUCH thing as a FREE LUNCH.

ok good, for a little while there I thought you might actually have a valid or informed opinion about this issue or were relatively sane. this comment confirms that you are either under 10 years old, have never read a book or attended school, or…i dunno, are from the deep south. oh just one thing – 8 years of deregulated markets under Bush caused this economic disaster, not Obama. It had already started when he took office, and he had to take all the flak for trying to improve the economy.

Obama and his radical “environmentalists” worship “mother earth” via “climate change” and “global warming”.All of obama’s activities are centered around his “voodoo economics” of saving the earth. Obama can be thought of as the witch doctor of failure. Everyday he is trying to conjure some spell up about global warming and tying it into the economic disaster he has created. What will the voodoo whitch doctor priest obama do next. American business are afraid to hire or plan for the future because of obama voodoo economics.
Obama is America’s "earthquake disaster

http://www.prisonplanet.com/#

PASS NEW LAW …NO MORE LYING TO THE PEOPLE CALLING IT PLOITICS……YOU PEOPLE ARE NOTHING BUT SCUMMMM…..BANKER BOY MINUIONS…BANKERS STAGEING EVERYTHING…BUILDERBURGS,,,BOHEMMINE GROVE ,,,ALL BEING STAGED…….THE PEOPLE ARE AWAKE TO YOUR BULSHT……WE KNOW YOU GRAVLE TO THE BANK…KEEP PULLING YOUR FALSE FLAG EVENTS…THE LOWER IN THE POLLS THIS PUPPET GET THE MORE THEIR GOING TO STAGE TERROR ATTACKS…….EVERYBODY SEES YOU…!!!!…KEEP IT UP ..!!

Of course there are better ways than cap and trade- I’d advocate a floor tax for gasoline – that way, energy companies know that gasoline prices will not drop below a certain level as they did after the Arab Oil Embargo, and are confident in making informed decisions to invest in renewable sources of energy. But the committees in congress have determined that cap and trade is the most politically viable option, considering the massive opposition to any environmental reforms by the republican party. What we need are clean energy job creation in the next decade, increased incentives for companies to invest in renewable energy technology, and a marked decrease in U.S. C02 emissions. This bill will aid in the process of achieving these goals, and that’s why I support it.

How can investors have any confidence in putting their money into renewable energy if there is no government guarantee that the renewable energy market will be competitive in the near term? Right now, because of the way our economy works and the way our energy production and distribution works, fossil fuels are cheaper to use than renewable fuels. So without intervention from the government that creates an economic incentive to decrease fossil fuel dependence (cap and trade, floor tax on gasoline, flat-out emissions caps), companies are not going to change their habits until they have to, and this is not an acceptable scenario if we want emissions to peak in 2015 and then decline afterwards in order to prevent a global surface temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius this century.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
When you say that “The claim that too much CO2 is a problem can also be said of too little CO2,” you’re making an apparent logical fallacy. First of all, you aren’t even denying that too much C02 is a problem. Instead, you’re looking at the reverse and pointing out that too little C02 is also a problem, which is true. But the fact that we dump over 90 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year at present indicates a “too much CO2” scenario. So I’m going to use your own fallacious argument against you. The claim (that you apparently support) that too little C02 is a problem can also be said of too much C02!!! We are going to see catastrophic effects if C02 emissions continue to increase at present levels – that’s just what the science says.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
In the atmosphere yearly, human emissions of CO2 account for 100 times the amount contributed by volcanic eruptions – after these eruptions, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly. That CO2 is a pollutant (as observed in studies of ocean acidification) is not the main issue with it. Its harmful amplification of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is the reason it is causing accelerated warming. You are exactly right that some of “Our planet’s coldest years have occurred when less CO2 was present.” However, I fail to see how this supports your argument. This simply agrees with the assertion that climate is sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Environmentalists predict doomsday global warming scenarios at the hands of carbon dioxide released by mankind. They attempt to classify carbon dioxide as ‘a planetary problem’ but a number a factors are in dispute. In addition, the planet naturally gives off carbon dioxide, like volcanoes, and it is not bad for the Earth. The claim that too much CO2 is a problem can also be said of too little CO2. Our planets coldest years have occurred when less CO2 was present.

It would definitely be beneficial to move away from fossil fuels. We will eventually run out of accessible fossil fuels (not for a while, but why not plan ahead?) and there is a significant portion of the scientific community, that believes there is a strong correlation between carbon emissions and climate change. Simply because it has not been proven yet (the IPCC states only that it is “very likely” that humans have had an impact) does not mean that we cannot move towards responsible change. If we could find a way to do so that stimulates our free market economy while maintaining a limited government, we could please both sides of the political spectrum.

The massive expansion of the bureaucracy with this bill remains one of my few apprehensions about it. Why not simply provide stimulus for independent movement towards energy reform rather than encumbering the move with unweidly, unproductive federal bureaucracy?

I really appreciate the change in your tone. Thank you! I will check out Friedman’s book.

I have a question — what does Cognress mean about geologic sequestration of carbon emissions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22S2TNMf8v4&feature=player_embedded

More than one third of the remaining nuclear power workforce in the U.S. is eligible for retirement by 2012. There are under 30 nuclear-engineering degree programs in the U.S. today. Also, bottlenecks in the supply chain for fissible materials required for nuclear plants, as well as the materials required to build the reactors, make this option very unfriendly to investors. For example, there is only one company in the world capable of building one of the parts needed for a nuclear reactor containment vessel, in Japan, and it can only produce 4 of these parts per year. There are many more factors that make nuclear power an unfeasible option, all combining to explain why the industry has been stagnant for so long.

The research into “viable, economically feasible alternatives” has already been done. Wind, solar and geothermal technology are all ready for mass integration in to our electrical grid. Nuclear power is actually the least economically feasible alternative – which is why the nuclear industry in the U.S. has been in steady decay for the last couple decades. First of all, it’s incredibly expensive to build just one nuclear power plant: over 4 billion dollars. It’s also exceedingly difficult to secure locations to destroy the harmful radioactive waste produced by these plants for long periods of time. Public opposition to nuclear power is strong, due to the tragedies at Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl.

I just can’t say any more about this. I can’t explain it in easier terms: We are dumping over 90 million tons of greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere per year, and the growing concentration of these gases (CO2, methane, black carbon, halocarbons and other industrial pollutants) is causing the earth’s atmosphere to trap much more heat than during pre-industrial levels. Again, the scientific consensus states that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the recent warming. Not one scientific article published in a refereed, peer-reviewed journal refutes this claim. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion – but not their own facts.

If you want to read about the issue without needing a good scientific understanding of what’s at stake, check out some of the following books:
Hell and High Water by Joe Romm
Our Choice by Al Gore
Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman is the book that got me motivated to work in renewable energy tech. Friedman does a great job of showing how reducing our dependence on foreign oil and investing in clean energy technology as well as significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a plan to make America stronger and more secure as well as to preserve the Earth’s diverse ecosystems and stop the most sever effects of climate change.

Sure, try any of these:
www.copenhagendiagnosis.com
That website offers a report with comprehensive analysis of the science post-IPCC’s report. It’s from a team of scientists who make up the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of South Wales in Sydney. It was drafted before the conference in Copenhagen to inform policymakers about the state of climate science after the IPCC’s report, and points out several key underestimations in the IPCC report including showing how quickly arctic ice melt has accelerated since that 2007 report. It’s long, but it’s very helpful.

While cap-and-trade may cause energy utilities and corporations to change their policies in order to lower carbon emissions in the near term, requiring expenditures, the impact on our economy that staying dependent on fossil fuels will have is far worse. Sure, it will require adjustments, but over the next decade if we commit to changing we will create millions of green jobs, spur innovation in the energy industry which will attract investors, lower our energy costs dramatically, and prevent some of the disastrous economic impacts that U.S. Global Change Research Program says climate change will have on our country. Energy from the sun is free. Energy from the wind is free. Energy from the earth is free. Think about it.

Your first claim is easily refuted. Read, “There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated.” That’s Hansen, director of GISS. So you are right, the tropical El Nino cycle can cause year-to-year temperature changes, but it’s apparent that it can’t possibly be responsible for the rapid change in temperature over several decades that we’ve seen since the 1970s.

Carbon emissions are naturally present. This doesn’t preclude us from seeking alternate fuel sources; it’s always a good economic idea to have multiple products available. However, there doesn’t seem to be just cause yet to go on a witch hunt against oil companies and the corporations. Let’s focus on using taxpayer money to fund research into a viable, economically feasible alternative rather than harming our already struggling economy. Nuclear power perhaps?