The point here is that climate legislation is based on iffy science, and will be the most intrusive government legislation ever passed. No-one knows how much this will cost, but if history is a guide, it will cost more than congress estimates.

So, what's the point of this article.. that this is good and necessary legislation? The cost argument from both sides, in my opinion, is a red herring.

This is stupid legislation, that will shackle American industry and business with onerous regulations and taxes that China and India (just to name two) have already said they will not agree to nor sign.

It's a suicide pill.

"The point here is..."

As the headline says; "GOPers Keep Using Debunked Climate Legislation Talking Point."

Got it?

nmg_no makes a hell of a lot more sense than the delusional Silly Sarvis.

Got it?

You have to catapult the propaganda.

- GWB

Jeffy, you speakng about what does and does not make sense is in and of itself nonsensical.

"The CBO report found that households in the highest income quntile will likely see a net cost increase of $245 per year as a result of the Waxman-Markey bill"

That is not true. They found that that would be a likely number if some proposals to return the money to the people were accepted.

"Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support in March, Terry M. Dinan, a senior adviser for the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, conceded that price increases from a cap-and-trade system would increase energy costs for American households. According to Dinan's testimony, a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could run the average household about $1,600 (in 2006 dollars). The range: $700 for the average household in the lowest one-fifth of all households, according to income, to nearly $2,200 for households in the highest quintile. "

Climate change is going to be the undoing of this retarded administration.

Use your head, dumbasses: how many of you would change your lifestyle for $245 a year? would you drive less? Do the math: how does $245 per year per household translate to 3 million new well-paying green jobs?

Stupid.

The figures I have seen have home energy prices increasing about 130% or so as a result of this legislation. That translates to a HELL of a lot more than $245 per year.

Always funny to me to uses dishonesty to show others dishonesty.

#6 | Posted by salamandagator

How true.

The GOP is taking liberties with the math to make the number bigger than it actually is likely to be.

The Dems are doing to exact same thing, but trying to make the number smaller than it actually is likely to be.

As the headline says; "GOPers Keep Using Debunked Climate Legislation Talking Point."

Got it?

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Which is exactly the same thing as the Dems are doing on this. Do you fail to see that?

The point here is that climate legislation is based on iffy science

about as iffy as that whole science of gravity stuff. Thousands of unpaid (you read that right, the IPCC scientists are on loan from their universities, labs, etc. to do the work)scientists, tons of data going back over a century and you klowns swallow what the Shell Answerman and Daddy Rush sells you. No friggin' wonder you're still glued to FOX, waiting to see all those nukes and missiles Saddam had hidden.

You righties have got to get on with the new denier spin, now that the science has been accepted outside the creationist community-man made increases of CO2 are real, but they're GOOD for you.

Like nicotine!

about as iffy as that whole science of gravity stuff. Thousands of unpaid (you read that right, the IPCC scientists are on loan from their universities, labs, etc. to do the work)scientists, tons of data going back over a century and you klowns swallow what the Shell Answerman and Daddy Rush sells you. No friggin' wonder you're still glued to FOX, waiting to see all those nukes and missiles Saddam had hidden.

translation = I don't know shit about science so I will choose to believe the scientists who tell me what I need to believe (because I am an extreme partisan) rather than accept that the matter is still being debated and there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of all sides in this debate.

Eberly: I actually do know a bit about science and I do work with several PHds working on air pollution issues.
As for it being "debated", so is the Holocaust. And guys like the Mises or Heritage Institutes are about as credible as President Amandapajamas and David Duke.

Evolution is also being "debated" by a few creationist cultists, are you seriously saying you believe The Flintstones was reality TV? 9-11 and even Apollo 11 have their diubters. You joining Bob and Jeff there too?

As far as "partisanship", there are plenty of folks on both the left and right (the GOPpers even ran one for President and even saint george eventually admitted its reality) who acknowledge global warming, but only righties denying it.

So doesn't that make YOU the extreme partisan?

Or do you have to wait for today's Daddy Rush talking points? Or feel free to just insert an "algore" comment, which passes for debate amongst the smart set on the right.

So doesn't that make YOU the extreme partisan?

no. you are the one who is seemingly comparing climate change debate with the holocaust deniers and the Flinstones.

That would make YOU the extreme partisan. But I didn't need you to post further proof of it.

In ten years, so called "climate change" will be remembered in the same way we remember eugenics today. Fortunately, the internet remembers dumbasses like Northguy, so we can be sure to never take him seriously again.

Good eye Doc...just more misinformation from the Rtards trying to skew the vote.

SOP for GOPers!

That would make YOU the extreme partisan. But I didn't need you to post further proof of it.

yeah, Eberly, there's a vast left to right of center wing conspiracy (including many corporations, well known for their socialist behavior)that's been going on for more than a century. Thankfully there are a small band of well-lectured righties who are willing to keep an open mind about the impossibly slim possibility that this conspiracy doesn't really exist. You're not extreme partisans though, everybody else is. Especially GWB and McCain, well known Trotskyites and tree huggers.

And they're all out to get you. Must suck to be on the wrong side of history.

Again.

You're not extreme partisans though, everybody else is.

keep illustrating it dunce. accusing me of "denial" when my original point was that I am open to both sides.

you are as closeminded as possible and accuse anybody else who doesn't choose to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "I'm not listening to you!!!!".

That rigid, closeminded position is fine with me.

what makes you a 100% moron is that, while taking a position like that, accuse others of being "deniers".

I can see why the debate has really taken hold.....with folks like you who attend the global warming church daily.

Global warming is the single biggest lie since romance.

Global warming is the single biggest lie...

Yes, it's a MASSIVE conspiracy, done by Governments of every persuasion, executed by researchers and scientists in every country on the planet. It's stunning how well they've pulled it off, with only the noble few fighting off the destruction of every economy on Earth.

/snark

It's not a conspiracy, Yav. It is PHD welfare the United Nations realized could extort money out of the American government.
It is fraud, not conspiracy.

PhD extortionist welfare scheme? Orchestrated by the U.N. against the U.S. no less?

Yeah, so glad you pointed out how absurd calling that a conspiracy is just crazy talk.

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

It is fraud, Yav. You will see that once the cap'n crunch trade bill takes its toll.

P.S., Yav, I never wrote the U.N. "orchestrated" it. They merely took advantage.

about as iffy as that whole science of gravity stuff. Thousands of unpaid (you read that right, the IPCC scientists are on loan from their universities, labs, etc. to do the work)scientists, tons of data going back over a century and you klowns swallow what the Shell Answerman and Daddy Rush sells you. No friggin' wonder you're still glued to FOX, waiting to see all those nukes and missiles Saddam had hidden.

The figures I have seen have home energy prices increasing about 130% or so as a result of this legislation. That translates to a HELL of a lot more than $245 per year.

a) cost increases of your local school system's energy for heating, cooling - add higher fuel cost for busing too

b) cost increases of your city's energy for heating cooling - add higher fuel cost for police, fire, & EMS

c) cost increases of your county government's (offices, courts, etc) energy for heating cooling - add higher fuel cost for metro transit and road crew/snow removal

d) cost increases of your State government's (a shitload of offices, courts, highway maint, etc) energy for heating cooling - add higher fuel cost State Police, road crews, all other vehicles in the "state fleet"

e) will the Feds exempt themselves from these taxes? (just kidding - not likely)

- - -anyway - kindly get up from your computer . . walk to your bathroom sink
now . . looking straight ahead, you see the person who will pay for ALL those costs

did I mention that a prelim study group for a regional "wind turbine farm" has found that they can nearly double the Kwatt output for the same cost using turbines from India

green jobs that could never be outsourced??

we'll see how that works out :(

We pay either way. That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans hate regulation, Democrats know it's necessary. The same failed ideology that wrecked the economy is trying to assert itself regarding the financial impact of cap and trade. Cap and trade isn't new, and we have other countries to evaluate the impact and effectiveness.

Fundamental problem - you shot your credibility wad already.

Generally I stay away from discussions about policy and carbon, sticking to the research aspects, but the counterpoint from the right is causing me to investigate the subject a bit more. It's not looking good for the right, IMHO. More hyperbole, lying and distortion. That isn't the way to win the argument.

yeah and we get the same treatment when bringing up the over 700 scientist who continue to want to at least talk about global warming...and they had better do it soon since the earth is in a cooling mode......................

No bigger lie than global warming was ever invented. It is pagan nature worship in extreme.