'Global Warming' is all about money.

Government spending, especially beyond the local level, usually is, carpro. This monstrosity is no different.

 

One of many sad things about this is it introduces yet another market for intangible paper verses some tangible goods or services. It's bad policy from start to finish except there will be no finish!

 

The best thing to do here is contact your senators (especially those up for re-election) and ask them if they are willing to support the biggest federal tax increase in U.S. history by supporting this bill?

I contacted Elizabeth Dole's office and told them that she is on the wrong side on this issue and if she continues to support Warner-Lieberman she will loose my vote in November.

 

Let's keep the issue seperate from each other here - the title of this thread risks getting them mixed up with each other. On the one hand, there is the question as to whether global warming is real and whether we have contributed to it. On the other hand, there is the issue of how to deal with it if it is real.

It may well be that politicians are using global warming as a tax grab. But the mere fact that they do this does not means that global warming is not occurring or that we are not responsible for it. Or that "global warming" has been "invented" in order to justify grabbing more taxes.

The following suggestion fromt the article seemed wise to me:

 

I have 5 acres of land. For $500.00 American, I will plant a tree. You will then get a picture of your planted tree and a certificate stating that you have one carbon credit toward the offset of your carbon foot print. :wavey:

If it is about the money then count me in.

 

How many trees do you think you can plant on them there 5 acres?

 

If I plant slash pines spaced about 6ft apart in rows of 20 and each row 10ft apart with 50 rows that would equal about 1000 trees.

 

When you begin this "business venture" can I be one of your salesmen? Sounds like an opportunity to make some pretty good $$. But I can only work part time.
--And not on Sundays - I'm already busy that day.
--And not on Saturdays - family time!
--And not on Mondays or Tuesdays - other obligations.
--Not Wednesdays either - you know that other job I have on Wednesday evenings.
--Maybe I can fit in a few hours on Thursdays and Fridays.
BTW, what's the pay?

 

Are you kidding me? This is about saving the earth! Why would YOU be so selfish as to think that YOU should get paid for it?

 

And you're not???? Share the wealth, brother!

 

Oh I will. :thumbs:

 

Which stocks do you recommend to 'buy into' 'Global Warming'?

If it is making money, I want my cut.

 

One easy way to lose friends is to give stock buy or sell recommendations!

 

That drive to address the problem will include the use of an international taxing agency to tax every citizen according to their carbon usage. Does anyone remember when Al Gore proposed a tax on British Thermal Units (BTU's)?

 

Plant them 1 inch apart, take the money and run to the Pacific Northwest. You would be more honest than these people running this scam.

 

All the global warming scare mongering is all about politics, taxes, and power both nationally and internationally. Nothing more nothing less.

 

As a counterpoint to your position on this matter, I present the following extract from wikipedia and leave it to the reader to judge between Revmitchell's qualifications in respect to climate science and those of the bodies offering a contrary position to his. To be fair, the following material could indeed be a pure fabrication, and all these agencies could be collaborating in a massive world-wide conspiracy to raise taxes and play power games. Again, I hope that the reader will reach his own conclusions on how likely that scenario is.

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century, and its projected continuation.

The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't these some of the same people that were predicting a global ice age back in the 1970's?