Arizona Looks to Outlaw Global Warming Legislation

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.dailytech.com/Arizona+Looks+to+Outlaw+Global+Warming+Legislation/article15523.htm

-S

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/11439_state-flag-arizona.jpeg

[SteamWake]

Yea ... good luck with that. The only way they would be able to enforce this would to be to succede from the union.

Cap & Trade is about to be rammed down our throats.

The only real action we can take is to call your senators and tell them what you think.

[AVGWarhawk]

At least someone is standing up and asking WTH:06: I feel like a goat on it's way to slaughter.

[Buddahaid]

Maybe it's my background, but Ive never quite understood why some people seem to endorse polluting. Yes I understand there is the cost of changing one's ways, but shouldn't it at least be a goal for everyone's current and future welfare? I'm tired of picking up other peoples trash around my house and putting easy stuff in recycling bins that others put in the garbage, even when the fricking can is right there next to the garbage. I know the subject is a bit different than that, but the mentality is similar.

Buddahaid

[SteamWake]

Maybe it's my background, but Ive never quite understood why some people seem to endorse polluting.

Yes of course we love polluting :rotfl:

Im all for dirty water, grey skys, and the end of the earth as we know it.

Unfortunatly I seriously doubt mankinds ability to alter the climate.

[mookiemookie]

FTFA:

A recent report challenging AGW theory showed significant support (http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Debunking+UNs+Global+Warming+Alarmism+is+Ba cked+by+31478+US+Scientists/article15467.htm) with 31,478 U.S. researchers and scientists, many of whom hold Ph.D's,

Many? How many ls "many"? Are they peer reviewed? Who are the ones who don't hold PhD's? And the ones who hold PhDs, what are their PhD's in? If I hold a PhD in child psychology, does that mean I'm qualified to speak on climate change issues? Why were these scientists included? Was it opt-in or were their opinions unsolicited? How do they qualify who is a "scientist"? How much weight does their opinion hold? These are the same people that argued secondhand smoke isn't harmful; why should we believe them on this?

When your articles can be sourced to more reputable folks, they may hold more water.

[August]

Maybe it's my background, but Ive never quite understood why some people seem to endorse polluting. Yes I understand there is the cost of changing one's ways, but shouldn't it at least be a goal for everyone's current and future welfare? I'm tired of picking up other peoples trash around my house and putting easy stuff in recycling bins that others put in the garbage, even when the fricking can is right there next to the garbage. I know the subject is a bit different than that, but the mentality is similar.

Buddahaid

I wish it were that simple.

The problem, as I see it is that no legislation enacted or proposed is going to solve or even have an effect on global warming. Not because it's not happening, but rather because none of it ever addresses the underlying cause, that there are over 6 billion freaking people on this planet and that number continues to grow.

The various proposals all amount to one thing. Somebody trying to justify making a buck off of someone else.

[Buddahaid]

I wish it were that simple.

The problem, as I see it is that no legislation enacted or proposed is going to solve or even have an effect on global warming. Not because it's not happening, but rather because none of it ever addresses the underlying cause, that there are over 6 billion freaking people on this planet and that number continues to grow.

The various proposals all amount to one thing. Somebody trying to justify making a buck off of someone else.

Too many people. Let's have a war! :rock: Seriously, I don't care if you can prove or disprove humanities impact on global conditions. In a free market, I would choose the one with the lesser environmental impact. Sure it costs more, but we all pay anyway cleaning up the mess later. Tainted water, loss of health, increased governmental fiscal burdens cleaning superfund sites, etc. Yeah, much too simpleminded, I'll just go eat my mercury laced fish and heavy metal water, then play with my five legged cat. :salute:

Buddahaid

[August]

Tainted water, loss of health, increased governmental fiscal burdens cleaning superfund sites, etc. Yeah, much too simpleminded, I'll just go eat my mercury laced fish and heavy metal water, then

If the pending or proposed legislation addressed any of that I might agree with it but it doesn't. You'll end of paying more alright but it will be just as bad and it will get worse as the population increases.

[Tchocky]

Not the most mature approach to government.

[AVGWarhawk]

Too many people. Let's have a war! :rock: Seriously, I don't care if you can prove or disprove humanities impact on global conditions. In a free market, I would choose the one with the lesser environmental impact. Sure it costs more, but we all pay anyway cleaning up the mess later. Tainted water, loss of health, increased governmental fiscal burdens cleaning superfund sites, etc. Yeah, much too simpleminded, I'll just go eat my mercury laced fish and heavy metal water, then play with my five legged cat. :salute:

Buddahaid

Here is the thing Buddahaid, the cost of everything will be driven up and this includes the tax you pay. Now, in good faith you and me believe this tax collected is going to help continued studies on alternative fuels and other environment saving things. Reality is the money will go to other project we lovingly call pork or earmarks. The latest stimulus spending needs to be paid for. So, sugar coating this cap & trade as being do-gooders and saving the world is a bit far fetched. Let's throw in the Obama healthcare plan that also needs funding. No one here promotes polluting. What people do not support is this wholesale idea that we as humans have created this global warming (although signs of cooling are present and shhhh, we ain't telling anyone) but we can support we contributed to polluting the planet. It all started with R12 refrigerant removed from the market years ago. It is also the fact that Al Gore will make billions on this bill if passed. Furthermore, General Electric is in deep with this legislation. General Electrics existence hinges on this bill passing. There is to many fingers in the pie who will be making billions on what I consider a market were a market should not be.

Anyway, I do not support this bill nor do I support my cost for energy to go up $2000.00 to $4000.00/ year. That is ridiculus especially considering the cost of electricity in the state of Maryland have gone up 175%. Five years ago I could cool my house for $50.00/month. I now spend $250.00/month. Now uncle Sam wants to tack on another $150.00/month....during a recession to boot? To further that notion two days ago I'm listening on the radio to a commentator explaining there are new studies on cows burps and they are looking to genetically alter cows so their burbs are 24% less CO2. WTH? Are you serious. And, this bill will go after farmers like there is no tomorrow. As far as Al Gore is concerned cow manure is a big no no. Ok, so do we now alter the cows so they do not poop? Nope, we go after the farmer who is already in the tank financially. Really, it is very bad bill.

Let's talk clean coal technology! What a farce. Since when could coal ever be clean? Start with stripping the land to get at the coal and go from there. Windmills, do you want them in your backyard going swoosh swoosh swoosh 24/7 365? Me neither. Nor do the Kennedys want them in the water off Marth's Vineyard because it ruins their ocean view. Give me a break. Just another sloppy bill much like the stimulus bill.

[SUBMAN1]

Not the most mature approach to government.

Why? Why not outlaw a lie? That is the most mature thing I've seen a Government do in many years instead of legislating on emotion.

-S