The top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
market authors
selected for publication
Wednesday, December 30 2009 |
01:47 EDT |
DJIA (DIA)
S&P 500 (SPY)
- Three-quarters of Americans support government regulation of greenhouse gases, and 62% feel that way even if it means higher taxes. A vote on cap-and-trade, which would have the government issue tradeable permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies could emit, could come as early as tomorrow.
Follow Market Currents on
Latest StockTalks
-
about 1 hour ago -
about 1 hour ago -
about 1 hour ago
-
about 1 hour ago
From our sponsors:
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See all
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This news story has 18 comments:
Stupid means unable to learn, that would be surprising.
The problem is more precisely unwilling to learn the truth because the propaganda is so much easier to believe. They are just plain lazy intellectually.
On Jun 25 09:37 AM Windsun33 wrote:
> Flawed poll, partly. Uninformed and/or ignorant people mostly. Or
> yeah, maybe just stupid.
Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Start listening to scientists.
Religious blather bad. Ann Coulter's pronouncements that people are here to "rape the Earth" bad.
I think all people who are against capping greenhouse emissions should be forced to live in a house made of asbestos and lead. Both were once thought to be cheap building materials that were perfectly safe to use and had no negative effects. Until the stupid hippie scientists proclaimed that they cause cancer. Well, if we don't care what they say on global warming, then why should we care about what they say about cancer.
On Jun 25 09:45 AM Machiavelli999 wrote:
> Actually no, the only brainwashed people are in this thread.
>
> Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Start listening to scientists.<br/>
>
> Religious blather bad. Ann Coulter's pronouncements that people are
> here to "rape the Earth" bad.
>
> I think all people who are against capping greenhouse emissions should
> be forced to live in a house made of asbestos and lead. Both were
> once thought to be cheap building materials that were perfectly safe
> to use and had no negative effects. Until the stupid hippie scientists
> proclaimed that they cause cancer. Well, if we don't care what they
> say on global warming, then why should we care about what they say
> about cancer.
A plurality of climatologists (polled a few months ago) say that there is no evidence to suggest CO2 contributes to "climate change." The EPA basically stated the same thing a month ago.
How's that for listening to scientists? Get your facts straight.
On Jun 25 09:45 AM Machiavelli999 wrote:
> Start listening to scientists.<br/>
There are just as many scientists that do NOT support global warming as do. Until there is predominate fact, the science does not support regulation. Sure, we should study it. Sure we should care about it. But to regulate without facts is just plain ignorant. When you regulate out of fear, which is what this is, it only leads to more regulation out of fear and then we will have given away everything that makes America the greatest country on earth.
You sir, are destroying one of the greatest countries on earth because you will not challenge the political lies and propaganda being fed to you on a daily basis. You are marching right where the socialists want you to and do not even know it. That is also ignorance. Just because you feel good doing it, does not make it right.
On Jun 25 09:45 AM Machiavelli999 wrote:
> I think all people who are against capping greenhouse emissions should
> be forced to live in a house made of asbestos and lead. Both were
> once thought to be cheap building materials that were perfectly safe
> to use and had no negative effects. Until the stupid hippie scientists
> proclaimed that they cause cancer. Well, if we don't care what they
> say on global warming, then why should we care about what they say
> about cancer.
"Cap and trade is not about saving the planet. It is about enriching government at the expense of private industry. Obama expects that selling of carbon credits will bring in hundreds of billions of dollars that will finance his health insurance power grab and other schemes. They are not interested in the science. They are interested in the dollars."
And the American family - to the tune of at least $1300 in increased energy bills - will pay for it.
Heck, here in Chicago, they cannot even predict rain accurately for tomorrow. What makes them think they can get global warming in 20 years right. Common sense should prevail here, except that it has been sucked out of most everyone that attended grammar school in the last 20 years.
On Jun 25 09:58 AM Clueless Wonder wrote:
> Without taking sides on
but apparently the greenhouse effect is a sham, this according to Neil459. You should hurry up and publish your study on it. I'm sure the "It's common sense" argument will sway everyone's opinion.
And whats with all the socialism talk around here? It is just funny to hear. It is as if people don't know what the word socialist implies in the context of government.
You don't need a planet for that demonstration though, you can use an overturned glass jar or bowl with a couple thermometers and mid-day sun or a sun lamp to figure it out on your own if you don't believe me.
Turn over a glass jar in the mid-day sun for a scientific demonstration? How do I reproduce the 90 atmosphere pressure of Venus. Venus has no Van Allen belts so how do I reproduce the overwhelming solar radiation? Oh, and Venus is really close to the sun? How do I get the backyard temperature to 700 degrees C?
I rarely call posters names on any website I visit but you are a scientific dolt. A nincompoop.
If you concur that carbon dioxide allows for the transmission of visible light and the absorbtion of infrared light, than you cannot possibly deny that carbon dioxide emissions can potentially play a part in increased heat retention in an environment.
Even if we assume that our current temperature state is nothing but a bump in a long, otherwise flat range of temperature gradients and will soon come back in to alignment with normal, whatever it may be, I think given the properties of carbon dioxide, it is worth trying to manage our output.