The Zogby poll results mirrors the recent Gallup poll It’s the economy, stupid. Even so, with opinion on Cap and trade in the minority it seems plans are in place to move forward.
On Earth Day, Secretary Chu warmly embraced the administration’s cap-and-trade proposal, stating, “We must state in no uncertain terms we have a responsibility to our children to curb emissions from fossil fuels…”
Q. President Obama wants to impose cap-and-trade laws that would limit the total carbon dioxide emissions allowed to be released into the environment. These laws would turn carbon dioxide into a commodity allowing those that pollute less to sell credits to those that pollute more. These credits would be traded on commodities markets. According to congressional testimony given by the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, “decreasing emissions would also impose costs on the economy – much of those costs will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices for energy and energy intensive goods.” Some have estimated these costs to be $800 to $1300 more per household by 2015. Knowing this, do you support or oppose cap-and-trade laws?
Support 30%
Oppose 57%
Not sure 13%
Q. Which course of action should America take with regards to energy
policy?
Make energy cheaper by developing all sources of U.S. energy, including coal, nuclear power, offshore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 54%
Reduce America’s production of fossil fuels that might cause global warming 40%
Not sure 6%
The O’Leary Report/Zogby poll was conducted April 24-27 of 3,937 voters nationwide and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.6 percentage points. Slight weights were added to party, age, race, gender, education to more accurately reflect the population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.
Brad O’Leary is publisher of “The O’Leary Report,” a bestselling author, and is a former NBC Westwood One talk show host. His new book, “Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech,” is now in bookstores. To see more poll results, go to www.olearyreport.com.
Well perhaps people are beginning to see that yet again, those “crazy conspiracy kooks” are actually ahead of the curve in their access to true information and that all this Climate Alarmism really IS an excuse to tax and control us all.
O/T but, by their behaviour shall ye know them.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/who-owns-these-two-houses/
Far be it from me to post anything positive about former President Bush, A man whom I consider to be a war criminal, but, The ACTIONS tell us a LOT more about them than their words.
Gore is a lying hypocrite who shows us, by his own actions, that climate change is NOT an impending disaster and he KNOWS IT!
They really are a joke! An expensive joke!
Against very stiff competition, I must say that Chu earns the prize as the saddest and most clueless sock puppet to ever hold his current office.
Apparently, the adminstration went looking for an amiable pedigreed dunce who would read any piece of paper set in front of him while feigning seriousness. Chu has fit the bill perfectly.
Another interesting link on the business behind cap-and-trade:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20090429/bs_ibd_ibd/20090429issues01;_ylt=AiMtDQWwAHdHTLUx_xuS99SyBhIF
That is indirectly controlling prices. Let the market decide what energies will be the chosen ones, the one or ones freely selected by the people.
Are you americans not longer living in a free economy anymore?, I just can’t believe it because YOU were the ones who through the “Washington Consensus” promoted the free market and free economy. Come on!..tell me it’s a joke,.you must be cheating us!!..don’t tell me now you are adopting Higo Chavez’ s “The New Millenium Socialism”. NO, I don’ t believe it!
Here’s how I think it will play out. They will water down the bill substantially to attract more Dem votes in the House. They want to drive this to a close vote to “go to the mat” for the far left.
Yet they don’t want this thing to actually pass, at least not in it’s present form, because it will (1) be killed in the Senate and (2) lead to such a backlash as to lose enough seats in the House to lose control, as in the 1994 Hillary Care debacle.
It is obvious that sites like this have an impact, as do your letters and phone calls. Keep pouring it on.
Is this really surprising? When AGW is an intellectual game or a moral “look at me I care about the planet” issue it tends to garner public support. With cap and trade and other such programs, there is now a concrete cost and actual sacrifice for these environmentally feel good positions. 30% support now – 15% support if it passes.
Good news! Somebody alert the politicians.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Do you believe most Americans were in favor of prohibition? Not really, but those who didn’t want it didn’t speak out.
Like all politicians, President Obama is surrounded by sycophants. The administration is in its own bubble, that contradictory information has no chance to pierce.
They are doing what they think they have to do. Their vast new social agenda needs the new cap-and-trade indirect tax. It’s damn the torpedoes, we are doing all this for the greater good of the unwashed masses that don’t know anything. We are taking care of you. Trust us.
Problem is, the torpedoes are circling around and coming back…
It’s exactly what the previous administration was doing, but at the other end of the pendulum.
The Chinese, Indians and Brazilians must be laughing at those Americans and europeans who willingly self-inflict damage to their economies in a futile fight about a non-existent threat.
wwelvaert (07:41:31) :I saw the link…It is like Brutus after killing Julius Cesar:
“It is not that I loved Cesar less but I loved Rome more”
Shakespear, William: Julius Cesar
Ummm –
Zogby ain’t the best name in polling.
And the “question” you quoted would earn you a failing grade in “Introduction to Polling” at Midvale State U.
A basic problem in polling something like “Cap and Trade” is that few people in the general public are aware of the details. Whenever you start to define an issue within the question, you are introducing massive bias. And the last sentence about cost is just laughable – not the cost, but in terms of polling design.
We are in the midst of the deepest recession since the great depression brought on by Wall Street traders doing shady inside deals and the country is litterally livid about the mess these clowns made along with the pain and suffering they have caused millions of people. For the life of me, how can congress look us in the face and tell us we have to pay a new toll to these traders for the air we breathe rather than impose something as simple as a carbon tax? Congress surely knows that cap and trade turned into a windfall for energy intensive industries in Europe. They must know that cap and trade pays a windfall to Russia for its inefficiencly in the Soviet era and that to meet carbon emissions guidelines they have to have an umbilical chord to Russian gas which the Russians are more than willing to shut off over minor disagreements. What motivates Congress to impose a complex solution, ripe for corruption and influence pedaling when there is a simple alternative? It’s certainly not the interest of the American people. (Please understand I’m not advocation for a carbon tax but it is clearly the lessor of two evils.)
If Americans did not want ridiculous global warming legislation they should not have voted for Barack Obama.
Adolof…
Yes, Barrack Hugo Hussein Obama was voted in by 57% of the American people. The free market for the future is government owned and ran. 57% want a handout at any cost and look just about beyond their noses. No long term vision what so ever. I could go on, they won’t allow it here.
That darn ice is not melting very fast, this has to be an error here! After all, CO2 is 100 ppm higher than 1945
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Well then the parallel universe over at RealClimate.org has their work cut out for them.
Their new “Hit the Brakes” on CO2 campaign needs a makeover.
John Egan (07:56:57) :
Ummm –
…
A basic problem in polling something like “Cap and Trade” is that few people in the general public are aware of the details.
That may well be the case, John.
However, the word “costs” does tend to concentrate the mind of the “general public” wonderfully.
Be glad that you still live in a democracy where you can have a say on such matters. Here, my electricity and gas bills have almost doubled in a year – without so much as a by-your-leave prior to the last election – just so Gordon Brown can throw my hard-earned cash at “renewables”.
But, that’s Europe for you.
Steven Hill (08:01:03) :
Yes, Barrack Hugo Hussein Obama was voted in by 57% of the American people.
Um, no. 53%, actually, and it was not 53% of “the American people,” it was 53% of those that chose to vote. That works out to about 40% of registered voters, probably less than 30% of eligible voters, and less than 25% of “the American people.”
Mark
It is not only about you…These are the final chapters of what history will call:
The Rise and Fall of the Occidental Civilization
What you are not taking into account is that the “third world” is inhabited by human people also, people who can think (and laugh, indeed, of your stupidity), and who like spectators of a Tragicomedy play are just awaiting the end.
However, as seen from the balcony, there are two acts left:
1. Climate change summit at Washington.
2. Copenhaguen UN on Climate Change
Crying aloud Chorus: The prophet et al. during next NH summertime.
The hoax is needed to be able to use guilt to justify the new extreme taxes.
How could any carbon life-form not understand the role of CO2 in life on planet earth. It just boggles the mind.
How do we know that the current CO2 levels are too much, and not too little.
“Researchers from Yale and George Mason Universities recently published results from a poll of more than 2000 Americans on a wide range of questions related to climate change.”
“61% supported building more nuclear power plants yet only 53% supported a cap and trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/how-many-americans-believe-tha.html
Considering that China, Russia and India have all made it very clear they will be increasing, rather than decreasing their emissions, It is completely illogical for the current administration to continue to move forward with any GHG legislation.
But, then again, buzzing the Statue of Liberty with AF1 wasn’t a good idea either.
John Egan (07:56:57) : “…Ummm – Zogby ain’t the best name in polling…”
Aha! Yes, whip out the old argument ad hominem, right off the bat. You have learned well, grasshopper. Except for saying ‘ain’t, of course.
“A basic problem in polling something like “Cap and Trade” is that few people in the general public are aware of the details.”
Yes, and that’s why we have to get the message across. The Greenshirts are trying to shove Cap & Trade down North America’s throat before the public gets wise.
“…And the last sentence about cost is just laughable…”
I agree. That cost estimate is only a half to a third of the actual value. Current Supply minus verboten coal supplies = steeply accelerating prices or steeply dropping economic health.
A bit off subject, but I referenced this and other pools in my letter to the CO2 endangerment comments. Here is my note, I’m no expert, most of what I’ve learned in the last 2 years has been here – I hope I didn’t fudge it up too badly. I’ll accept all criticism. I thought it might serve to motivate others and I didn’t know how else to post it.
To Whom It May Concern:
Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere are currently estimated at 385 ppm, that is parts per million. That means (as sited in WIKIPEDIA) 0.0385% of the atmospheric make up. Carbon Dioxide has no toxic effects to plants or animals at these levels – none if they double – none if they triple or none that are known if levels increase 10X to 0.385%. I do not believe the endangerment finding is justified.
OSHA begins imposing exposure limits above this 10 X figure at 0.5% and that is an absurd number that cannot be shown to cause any negative effects. I believe the main concern for OSHA is that commercial greenhouses are controlled from 0.5% CO2 up to 2% in some cases and this allows OSHA to mandate exposure levels. Toxicity to plants has not been defined in any study that I am aware of – it acts as a fertiller to increase plant growth and thus the increased demands retards further atmospheric growth as a negative feedback. I believe estimates of toxicity concerns for animals start around 5% of the atmosphere, but this is also challenged by geological studies that show animal life thriving for MILLIONS of years where atmospheric CO2 remained between 5-7% of the composition. Again, I do not believe the endangerment finding is justified.
Honestly, your group would not be considering such action without the THEORY of AGW, which has only been actively studied for 30-40 years. At this point in scientific study of the human body and medicine – leeches were probably the common practice. With modern tools, one can argue our “learning curve” is better, but not by much! The tools are mostly just exagerating AGW claims so far and they are being rewarded with increased funding. If NASA reversed it’s politically motivated activism, they could expect their budget to be cut 100-300 million per year.
The IPPC predicted 15 years ago that CO2 would rise and temperatures would rise as well. In the last 15 years, we saw temps rise for 8 years after this prediction, then fall for the next 7 – Globally, even while CO2 levels rose! This result is way outside of their 90% confidence levels – even their most conservative “C” estimate – yet they say it’s accelerating. I believe they understanding the window is closing to even have an AGW THEORY and that this will soon be a footnote in history. This data of cooling is NOT disputed by all 4 governing data sets – throw out NASA who alone says only 4 years of cooling – as they have demonstrated political activism, inconsistent methodolgy and “manipulated data”. Addionally, the cooling of the last 7 years has “overpowered” the rate of warming of the previous 13 years, so that these same 4 groups show a net cooling 20 year trend for the Globe over the last 18 months.
If justification for endangerment is around “Greenhouse Effect”, water vapor contributes 60-90% of this Effect, again undisputed (but not fully defined in this “baby” science), can we regulate that? Obviously lower our atmosphere’s moisture would be a terrible thing, so would lowering CO2. CO2 is 97% naturally occuring, 3% man made – is further controlling 3% of 0.0385% a control we need? If temperatures continue to cool, CO2 natural inputs will go down (less will evaporate) far in excess of any modest cuts that developed nations can contribute.
The word is getting out – slowly, due to Media bias and Political Agendas, but as a “protection agency” you need to try and hold yourself to a higher than political standard. You’re paid to protect us from harmful emmissions, not enable excess taxes! Less than 38% of Americans polled favor the belief that environmental legislation of this type is needed – after it’s devastating effects are felt – believe me that number will plunge. President George Bush had way over 60% in favor of the Iraqui conflict, popular opinion changes once costs are understood!
If Congress commits political suicide with “energy legislation”, that is their concern and they will be replaced if (when) they are (shown) wrong. If your agency finds “endangerment” on a non-toxic, naturally occurring component of the air we breathe – when they are replaced – your group will suffer as well in the new political environment, rightly so as you will have not done your duty in today’s environment.
Please protect us as is your mandate, limit SO4 or NO2 or any toxic gases necessary that are justifyable by scientific study – we really might need CO2 levels to be higher and to act as fertilizer for the biosphere if the Global Cooling rate of 3.4 degrees per century continues or accelerates. At the current rate, Canada will not be growing wheat in 10 years, this is where study needs to take place, based on data not on Theories that spin out for 100’s of years and failed in predictions during their first decade of existence.
If you check the research, you will find the Artic Ice is presently at a 8 year high and has been growing since 2007 – which was only at a low point since 1959. Antarctica’s Ice and greenland’s Ice are both above 20 year norms and the Ocean’s level has had no recorded rising in the last 3 years – does this really sound like acceleration of an “urgent” problem? I ask you to question these facts and what you’ve been told and make an honest assessment.
Sincerely,
Dave DXXXXXXXX – my real last name was in the doc I sent!
Moderator, if I’ve sinned by wandering too far, maybe I could send this to start another blog?
Hey wake up people and smell what you’re shoveling. Free market ideology has had a very long run and has led us straight to the crapper. It was Bush not Obama who started this bailout business and it is the same economist BS’ers that had stupidly pushed non-interference dogma who are now stupidly advising exactly the opposite. Don’t blame the politicos – they are merely being stupid to believe that the people who got us into this mess can somehow get us out again.
Adolfo, The Washington consensus was tried everywhere by the World bank and the IMF in a one-size-fits-all manner and it failed everywhere; most especially in the poster child of Argentina. This is all admitted by the World bank and the IMF’s own reports. The Washington consensus made people poorer – it’s a proven fact. There’s a reason that South America swung to the left and it was because the forced sales of national assets such as water and fuel to disastrous monopolists like Enron made them poorer and hungrier. It’s time to get off your comfy pedestals, look at the real world and see what happened. The debt disaster took longer to arrive to the US and Europe than it should have, but it was inevitable. Unbelievably the only real economic success stories are China and Russia, thanks to tight state control.
On the Bush home, ignore Gore’s obvious hypocrisy for a moment and have a look at what we could all be doing if we invested money in geothermal heat pumps instead of buying a depreciating SUV.
Texas Aggie (07:44:48) : “…Yet they don’t want this thing to actually pass…because it will…lead to such a backlash as to lose enough seats in the House to lose control, as in the 1994 Hillary Care debacle.”
Texas, you’re assuming there will still be an election in November, 2010. If the polls show the Republicans likely to take control of Congress, the election will be “postponed” until after “the crisis” is over.
Dave D,
You can’t pay for health care with your letter and the facts, the truth is not what Obama is interested in.
JamesG (09:14:29) :
The free market has provided its users with the world’s highest standard of living, and the best medical care, and a greatly increased life expectancy.
A good example is North Korea vs South Korea. Your “tight state control” [communism] vs the free market [capitalism].
I am always astonished that some people would actually rather live under a system like North Korea’s, rather than a system like South Korea’s.
@ $1300 per year, the poll question is letting the AGW camp off the hook lightly.
That price tag per individual will cost a heft sum more, and take a lot of jobs & productivity with it. The hidden costs will at least double it.
Hence, the opposition.
Most Americans have already witnessed what high gas prices did to them and every aspect of their lives. Cap & Trade will be just as bad or worse, and they know it.
Aah, Chu !
Hansen1, Nonsense1.
Best science blog or best political science blog?
Reply: Notice that this article is filed under “politics.” ~dbstealey, mod.
Slightly OT – and I find this hard to believe, but the high school athletic association in my state in the US has canceled all high school playoff events this weekend due to the swine flu pandemic. I find it hard to fathom that with 236 cases confirmed by the WHO worldwide, along with 7 deaths, out of 6,000,000,000 people on this planet, that a state agency would cancel athletic events when there is not even one confirmed case of swine flu in the state because they are concerned that swine flu will sweep through the athletic field and stands.
More and more we are kowtowing to the state on mathematically insignificant risks, whether it be AGW, swine flu, or the ludicrous mass evacuations from perfectly safe areas in the “path” of a hurricane.
Risk is an inherent feature of life. Whether or not we act HAS to be determined by first analyzing the risk to confirm its level, and next determining the cost of an “action” designed to minimize the risk.
Currently we just strive for zero risk in the face of the perceived threat without ANY analysis of the costs or consequences of the actions taken to minimize the risk.
For AGW, there is debate as to whether there even is any risk, and people are FINALLY actually looking at the cost of cap and trade. For these mass evacuations in the face of hurricanes, some hurricanes actually wind up with more deaths FROM THE EVACUATION than from the storm surge or falling trees.
We need more scientific method and less emotion in governmental affairs.
Tight State Control?
So a repressed country has less reduction in living standards because of government control than a free country. Great! So their standard of living only went from 11% of a free country to 10%, while the free country dropped a full ten percent.
Absolute insanity, this is what I am watching. Cap and Trade is not even remotely understood by the general population, and I think the point of this poll is that EVEN WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IT, the majority are against it.
There is a quote from whoever the lefty is saying “If the Republicans manage to paint this as a tax, we’re sunk”, or words to that effect. I read that as, “If our opposition manage to educate the rubes, we’re sunk”.
There should be rules and laws limiting the power of ANY administration, banning them from these sort of decisions. Oh yeah, there are! One particular side simply ignores them. Go Figure.
I know it sounds like hyperbole, but watching this administration waltz in has been like watching a particularly fantastic episode of the old Twilight Zone. They are so absolutely clueless, and the people who voted them IN appear equally clueless, that it is downright frightening.
The original intent of “cap-n-trade” was as a means to fund the UN Millennium Development Goals. It was the vehicle for funding Sen. Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” that was left to die on the Senate floor last year after clearing committee.
But like all ideas that are left to fester, Global Poverty has been supplanted by “government poverty” .. err .. lack of revenue.
““We must state in no uncertain terms we have a responsibility to our children to curb emissions from fossil fuels…”
The dumb communists have the RESPONSIBILITY to our children to provide a decent standard of living and a healthy economy. Not to address some completely unproven boogieman. How the hell can a man with the credentials of Chu not “notice” that the emperor has no clothes. No statistically sig. warming for 12 years and a strong COOLING for 5-6 years. The leftists are absolute socialistic morons. IMHO.
JamesG (09:14:29) :
Your analysis has not taken into account the countries where the washington consensus was a great success, like Chile and Peru; this last country GDP last year’ s growth was of 9.84%.
In 1992 when economic policy changed, millions were left jobless but…those millions left jobless, 16 years after, the majority of them turned into private entrepeneurs, because there was nothing more, no other alternatives, left. Some of these micro, small, medium and now big companies now succesfully struggle in the international arena. These are the men and women who will substitute all those others in the world who changed their mind choosing the herd, the bee hive, the ant’s hill, not the open fields of freedom and humanhood.
Neo is right. Former UN Sec-Gen Kofi Annan repeatedly proposed a “World Tax” equal to 0.7% of the developed countries’ GDP. The U.S. cost would be about $140 billion annually. About $1,600 per taxpayer per year.
Kofi Annan’s mistake was to call it a tax. That was later rectified by morphing it into the UN’s “Millennium Development Goals.” But it’s the same thing: a proposal to tax the G-8 countries and redistribute their wealth.
The problem with this proposal [other than the fact that the taxpaying citizens would strongly oppose it] is that the world’s poor are not poor because of the U.S. The world’s poor are poor because of their governments.
Singapore has no natural resources. Japan has very few natural resources. Yet both countries are wealthy. Africa has numerous destitute countries, from Algeria to Zimbabwe, which are rich in natural resources but have extreme poverty. The only difference is in their governments.
If the UN actually cared about the poor, it would insist that those countries reform their governments. But of course the UN only cares about taking the wealth from the well run countries, and handing it over to the leadership of poor countries — with the UN as the tax collecting intermediary, accumulating power by taking its cut of the proceeds.
Obama wants to do this. From Wiki: “Had [the proposal] come up for a final vote on the Senate floor, it would have been the one and only piece of legislation which passed with Sen. Barack Obama as the chief sponsor.”
Hmm, so the fact that Bush started the ball rolling with a stupid $700 billion is justification for Obama and the lefty loons to quintuple the bad idea. Now THAT’S shoveling some crap!
Had the free market ideology been firmly in place, no bailouts would have happened. Had the free market ideology been firmly in place, banks would not have been forced to make loans to people who people who could not pay them back (Community Reinvestment Act).
It was the politicos who created the mess with their interference in the free markets. And then our ignorant American masses believe all the nonsense put forth by the MSM. The AGW hype is just symptomatic of the broader intellectual laziness of people who accept the MSM mantras, “CO2 is bad,” “the science is settled”, “free markets are bad,” “evil Wall Street.” It’s all the same thing.
Heck, when Vladimir Putin starts lecturing us about the dangers of going down the socialist path, as he did in February, we ought to wake up!
What motivates Congress to impose a complex solution, ripe for corruption and influence pedaling …
I think the motivation is to buy and sell favors.
Just a thought, but since we’re bandying numbers about, my understanding was that Cap&Trade was supposed to generate at least $650 billion in the first year. Assuming there were 250 million tax payers, that’d be $2,600/tax payer. To get just $1,600/tax payer you’d need 406 million people chipping in.
It’ll also be fun to see how this proposal can be revenue neutral and fund national healthcare simultaneously.
JamesG (09:14:29) :
One more point. Countries where the washington consensus did not have success were those where it was not applied properly.
Thanks.
@ JamesG (09:14:29)
Wow, there were so many incorrect facts in your post it’s little wonder your conclusions are 540 degree off the mark (that’s a complete circle and a half).
Was it non-regulation when the Federal Reserve increased the money supply so banks had more money to lend? (BTW, the POTUS does not run the Fed.)
When Bush and other members of his administration warned about the abuses of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and tried to get Congress to reign them in, was that deregulation?
How about the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks make loans to the poor? Or how about Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac telling lenders not to worry, the US Treasury will back up these loans, make all you want?
No, that was INTERFERENCE in the free market. Ethical capitalism is the worst economic system ever, except for all the others, of course. Why do you oppose free people trading freely?
And China is succeeding because they are embracing capitalism, not because they are controlling their economy. China does not have central control of it’s economy. Communism kept China in the dark ages while the rest of the world advanced through the 20th century and into the 21st.
BTW: The worst environmental disasters in the world have been perpetuated by the Communists. Remember eastern Europe during the Soviet era? Which was less polluted, western Europe or Communist Europe? In which countries were people free to express themselves, petition the government and speak out in favor of cleaner air and water? Chernobyl didn’t happen in a free country.
It was Lenin who allegedly coined a phrase for people who worked for their own destruction by supporting Communism. I won’t use it to describe you, but you should look it up.
Mike86 (10:40:34) :
Just a thought, but since we’re bandying numbers about, my understanding was that Cap&Trade was supposed to generate at least $650 billion in the first year. Assuming there were 250 million tax payers, that’d be $2,600/tax payer. To get just $1,600/tax payer you’d need 406 million people chipping in.
It’ll also be fun to see how this proposal can be revenue neutral and fund national healthcare simultaneously.
When politicians say cap-and-trade will be used to fund social programs, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Cap-and-trade can’t both decrease emissions and pay for other programs. If cap-and-trade works, it will bring in less money each year, while the money spent on those social programs will continue to increase.
No, it’s just a money grab and a power grab. They want to take money from people they don’t like and give to people they like better (their voters). This used to be called theft.
Mutual caressing and self indulgement are the characteristics of a feeble personality. You achieved what you achieved because you chose liberty.
Reread Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass”, specially the “Song to Myself”..
and cry upon you…if you still can.
I am of old and young, of the foolish as much as the wise,
Regardless of others, ever regardful of others,
Maternal as well as paternal, a child as well as a man,
Stuff’d with the stuff that is coarse and stuff’d with the stuff
that is fine,
One of the Nation of many nations, the smallest the same and the
largest the same,
A Southerner soon as a Northerner, a planter nonchalant and
hospitable down by the Oconee I live,
A Yankee bound my own way ready for trade, my joints the limberest
joints on earth and the sternest joints on earth,
A Kentuckian walking the vale of the Elkhorn in my deer-skin
leggings, a Louisianian or Georgian,
A boatman over lakes or bays or along coasts, a Hoosier, Badger, Buckeye;
At home on Kanadian snow-shoes or up in the bush, or with fishermen
off Newfoundland,…etc.
Dissing Zogby is not ad hominem.
I am not attacking the person – I am questioning the reliability of the polls done by the Zogby International which, by chance, has the same name as its founder.
Here’s what the Wall Street Journal had to say recently –
(BTW – the WSJ isn’t exactly “Mother Jones”.)
“During a campaign, pollsters can build credibility by forecasting election results accurately. Afterward, they can build revenue by using that credibility to attract private clients. These private surveys often have an agenda, and their numbers can’t be tested against an objective standard, such as votes. Such surveys can test pollsters’ standards of conduct.”
“Zogby International recently conducted a survey for a critic of president-elect Barack Obama and then, together with the sponsor, interpreted the numbers from the survey in a misleading fashion.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/zogbys-misleading-poll-of-obama-voters-459/
The above question is, similarly, a classic example of “Push Polling” – where the pollster influences the choices the respondent makes. I have no great love for Cap-and-Trade, but to wave a poorly done poll by a pollster with a questionable recent record does one’s argument no good.
Stick with Gallup and Rasmussen – to mention a few good pollster.
The next financial bubble has already started
“How to profit from carbon trading”
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/how-to-profit-from-carbon-trading.aspx
“Carbon funds: funds set up not just to trade, but also to create credits in emerging markets (with a view to selling them on when the price rises).”
Unlike sub-prime mortgages which are secured on a property (a real commodity)
“A carbon credit is not a real, deliverable commodity.”
When the carbon bubble bursts, carbon credits will worth nothing not in 10years, 20years, 50years, not even in a 1000years. If you have got the balls to invest in these credits get in first take a quick profit and head for the hills.
I’m sure just one of many,
http://www.climatechangecapital.com/home.aspx
O/T….Oh NO! The horror!
Electric cars: the shocking truth
http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-42252-178.html
At the end of the test, the BMW returned a shocking gas mileage of just 19.4 miles per Imperial gallon. The eco-friendly Prius returned an impressive 17.2 mpg. Err, right. So if I want to save the planet, I need a fast BMW rather than a rather sad hybrid econo-box.
Ignoring the pathetic gas mileage, the Prius also uses highly-toxic rare metals that have to be shipped halfway round the world to be refined, then halfway round again to be screwed together into a car.
The carbon footprint of this ‘green’ vehicle is astonishingly-large. Taking the energy costs and emissions of building the thing and then safely disposing of the noxious components in its batteries into account, you’d have to drive it to Venus and back before you saw any real planet-saving gains.
Prediction: This will drive a LOT more traffic to WUWT over the next year as people start to become more engagaed & want to see what their representatives are signing them up for.
The irony of this is that cap & trade is essentially a very regressive tax being imposed by a liberal administration. The fact that the Green left could convince the Dems to push this agenda, which is basically a raw deal for their core constituency, is really amazing to me. I wonder how many of our reprresentatives understand the science of AGW , how many are accepting AGW as fact without research & how many would still support cap & trade if they knew the science, given the huge political liability it represents.
“much of those costs will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices”
Much??? Who’s picking up the tab for the rest of the costs if not the consumers. I guess it could be taxpayers, but they are just a subset of consumers.
Anyone have a clue why Foxnews isn’t all over this? It seems like their kind of story. They spent hours of air time on some stupid DHS memo that, by my reading anyway, didn’t say what they said it said. Actually it didn’t really say much of anything. However, much like Clinton lobbing bombs during the Lewinski days, it is distracting the populace and media from the more important story.
Escribo en mi idioma,el espanol,convencido de la veracidad de estadisticas que indican que “es el idioma mas estudiado en el pais del Norte”.Y conciente ademas de que transito por un ligar selecto,culto;en en que las elites intelectuales ilustran con su conocimiento a personas como yo;un ciudadano “de a pie”.
Primero;sorprendido y desencantado por lo vicario de los comentarios hayados en mi busqueda de consejos sabios,de humanismo y progresismo en tema tan trascendental.
Segundo:Me habre confundido y,producto de ello,ingresado al Web Site del Partido Republicano o-me atravieza hasta la empunadura, como una helada daga el temor-al Web Site de Dick Cheney…quizas al de “W”?.
Tercero:No.La presencia de partidarios de la razon,de la sensatez en las politicas energeticas,me tranquiliza.Si,hay quienes superando la estupidez,
el utilitarismo mas burdo,la ceguera boba;el cretinismo hecho politica;opinan en la misma direccion del HOMBRE DEL SIGLO XXI.No son los “antropofagos que quieren que en su digestion diaria este presente carne de tiranosaurios y de trilobites.Aquellos Jurasicos Republicanos que desean agotar,hasta las eses y otros detritus de sus congeneres.
Cuarto:Los Estados Unidos de America tienen la suerte de ser hoy comandados por una suerte de Mesias inspirado que sabe que hacer y como hacer.
Las politicas del Sr Barack Obama en todos los campos y,dentro de estos,el sector energetico nos dan la certeza,mas que la simple esperanza,que los tiempos de la barbarie estan por llegar a su fin.En lo propuesto como targets hay tanto de humanismo como de criterio de realidad sano,puro;extensivo al mundo,al planeta en su totalidad.Obviamente alla,a la distancia;se perciben los alaridos,los graznidos,los mugidos de satrapas heridos,insensatos sectarios Republicanos fuera de Epoca,de ese inmundo lumpen,aquellas sedimentaciones de oscuras cloacas que aun reptan por tierras de libertad.
Entonces Barack ya podra decir aquella sentencia del Quijote:Los perros ladran Sancho;senal de que avanzamos.
JamesG
What happens when 100% of the world’s HVAC systems are installed as geothermal heating-cooling systems, and causes the earth’s crust to rise 3.5 degrees c??
Our economy is still on life support. More recently, some of the economists think we’ll be seeing more bankrupt applications due to more layoffs. When that happens some or many of the banks will come begging for more funds to stay afloat. How many more times will the feds print more greenbacks to hand out? In the meanwhile Congress is still on track to finance a health system, bail out Social Security and try to pass Cap and Trade. Utterly stupid Democrats!!
Ooops! I need to clarify–the bankrupt applications are for individuals who have lost their jobs and can no longer pay off their credit cards. These are large amount of revenues lost to the banks, many of whom are all ready in red ink.
OT Our old Sun is about to write down a bankrupt application..while you discuss trival issues :). It has a 23/24 cycle spot right now.(it has not decided yet)
Carbon credits and carbon shares…pouring the empty into the void…
dark matter indeed!
Ad hominem, in any language remains only that.
Where is your data, sir?
The only thing you seem to have done correctly is to compare the President’s quest to that of Don Quixote.
Why don’t you plow the ground and harvest the grain instead and nourish mother earth with drops of healthy sweat.
The result of the poll is quite interesting. 40% want to reduce carbon footprint in general, when no consequences are assumed. But when costs are made aware, the percentage drops to 30%. Maybe this is a sign that the AGW war will be lost as people become aware what is it all about: getting more money (and power) for polititians.
Marco:
“Los Estados Unidos de America tienen la suerte de ser hoy comandados por una suerte de Mesias inspirado que sabe que hacer y como hacer.”
Beware of the Messiahs when they reach power. They are the worst of all, as History has proved time after time. Fortunately, I am confident Mr. Obama doesn’t see himself as the Messiah you’d like him to be.
More Obama Tricks to regulate the climate and the people:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/obama-administration-push-major-inititative-fight-global-warming/
We may have to have more-not less children,who is goning to pull the plow and the cultivator.If cap and trade is enacted no one could afford a Mule…
John Egan (07:56:57) :
“Ummm –
Zogby ain’t the best name in polling.
And the “question” you quoted would earn you a failing grade in “Introduction to Polling” at Midvale State U.”
While I hate Cap-n-Tax and all naively constructed policies like it, I have to agree here – heavily biased wording in these polling questions.
The problem, of course, as many have indicated is that the details of Cap-n-Tax are fairly complex to the average person on the street. In fact if you did a street survey and asked the question “What is Cap and Trade?” – I suspect you would get a very low percentage of people who got even close…
Nice write up on Cap and Trade in the Washington Examiner today
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamas-energy-climate-plans-would-drag-US-back-to-1905–or-1862–44042137.html
JR (09:44:01) : “I find it hard to fathom that with 236 cases confirmed by the WHO worldwide, along with 7 deaths, out of 6,000,000,000 people on this planet, that a state agency would cancel athletic events when there is not even one confirmed case of swine flu in the state because they are concerned that swine flu will sweep through the athletic field and stands.”
That ought to stop those rude “tea parties!”
James Egan –
Dissing Zogby is not ad hominem.
I am not attacking the person – I am questioning the reliability of the polls done by the Zogby International which, by chance, has the same name as its founder.
From Wikipedia –
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
James – By your own description, you are questioning the source of the claim rather than addressing the substance or producing evidence against the claim, It’s an ad hominem argument.
Until you understand why your argument is illogical, you’re not going to be able to improve upon it.
BTW – Here’s what the Wall Street Journal had to say recently –
(BTW – the WSJ isn’t exactly “Mother Jones”.)
This is known as inverse ad hominem or appeal to authority, it also has the potential to be fallacious.
While the survey’s questions may be effecting the outcome, it is also true that the average person on the street has little understanding of what cap and trade is all about.
I am not sure how someone would go about doing such a survey without communicating the fact there there are significant costs to the consumers of energy – Simply because the average person doesn’t realise this!
I think that we can all agree that if the general public understands what cap and trade is really about (and the costs) there would be a very low level of support. Unfortunately I think that we all know that our President intends to try to inact this policy and will do his best to prevent the average person from having a level of understanding that would allow an informed opinion.
Smokey (09:33:09) :
JamesG (09:14:29) :
Hey wake up people and smell what you’re shoveling. Free market ideology has had a very long run and has led us straight to the crapper… the only real economic success stories are China and Russia, thanks to tight state control.
The free market has provided its users with the world’s highest standard of living, and the best medical care, and a greatly increased life expectancy.
A good example is North Korea vs South Korea. Your “tight state control” [communism] vs the free market [capitalism].
I am always astonished that some people would actually rather live under a system like North Korea’s, rather than a system like South Korea’s.
East Germany vs West Germany….
My bet is the 30% are firmly ensconced in the 52% that brought us “The Won” and his cabal of trained monkeys.
Amazing how many people are starting to sober up; the problem is this ball of stupidity has so much inertia that slowing it will be nearly impossible. It’s especially worrisome now that idealogues inhabit the EPA – appointed positions that have no oversight.
“”” Ken Hall (07:27:45) :
Well perhaps people are beginning to see that yet again, those “crazy conspiracy kooks” are actually ahead of the curve in their access to true information and that all this Climate Alarmism really IS an excuse to tax and control us all.
O/T but, by their behaviour shall ye know them.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/who-owns-these-two-houses/
Far be it from me to post anything positive about former President Bush, A man whom I consider to be a war criminal, but, The ACTIONS tell us a LOT more about them than their words.
Gore is a lying hypocrite who shows us, by his own actions, that climate change is NOT an impending disaster and he KNOWS IT! “””
Well Ken, I don’t want to lenghten any off topic political debate; but just in case youmight have forgotten the Congress of the United States voted three times to declare war. The first time they voted by a vote of 534:1 to declare war on international terrorism and the one dissenting voter was by a somewhat slow learner California Congressperson who didn’t understand that to vote to NOT do that which is “necessary and appropriate”, is a pretty good definition of Insanity.
The Congress then subsequently voted by quite substantial margins to declare war on the Taliban in Afganistan and then subsequently to declare war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Only the US Congress is empowered to Declare war and they did that three times. So it wasn’t the doing of President Bush; and the Congress had all the same intelligence or lack thereof that the Bush Administration recived from the Clinton administration. So you throw the words war criminal around pretty loosely.
And as for Actions probably snctioned by the Bush administration; none of those actions are covered under any Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war; so you have no basis for declaring that a war crime.
But let’s get back to climate issues.
Smokey, Graeme Rodaughan
Touche!
James G – if you had written something like …”Hey wake up people and smell what you’re shoveling. Tight state control has had a very long run and has led us straight to the crapper…the only real economic success stories …Free market ideology etc etc” in a country that actually had tight state control – they would be tracking you (and your family) down right now.
What was that term Lenin used? Oh yes – Useful idiot
Great (short) video clip -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT10TBOgvXE
The big push to get cap n trade done is that they need to get in place before the cooling becomes obvious. When CO2 eventually drops they can credit cap n trade for that too. Then there is this little issue of them not being able to fund their socialist schemes without carbon taxes.
“Free market ideology has had a very long run and has led us straight to the crapper.”
“Unbelievably the only real economic success stories are China and Russia, thanks to tight state control.”
Apparently this is the far left garbage that they are teaching instead of common sense and history. With extremism like this being taught to our next generation, it is not surprising that people actually support the new prez and his regressive schemes like cap n trade. I would love to debate this guy on the merits of the free market and government regulation.
Any government that still thinks they’ll be able to persuade voters to pay higher taxes to fight global warming, is skating on very THICK ice.
Marco,
El proposito de ciencia es pensar con la cabeza y no con el estomago. Donde esta la ciencia que soporta sus opiniones? O los del Salvador Obama?
dgallagher
Sorry, but it is NOT ad hominem.
You clearly do not understand the framing of ad hominem in the context of polling.
The validity of any polling depends upon accurate sampling and control for bias.
Since the internals of any specific poll are usually proprietary, previous egregious failures by the polling firm do influence the manner in which later polls are received. And sources do matter. The “New York Times” is generally considered a more reliable source than the “National Enquirer” – MIB notwithstanding. That’s what a polling firm sells – its reputation for rigor and accuracy. I am not attacking Mr. Zogby or anyone in the polling firm, I am challenging the methodology of the firm’s polling – which is NOT ad hominem.
Speaking of rigorous –
It’s “John” not “James”.
And it’s “affecting” not “effecting”.
“Effecting” means bringing into being.
For ex. – “The EPA will begin effecting the new CO2 policy on January 1, 2010.”
And “inact” is not a word – it is “enact”.
PS – FYI – I follow the British/Canadian usage for final periods outside of quotation marks when not part of the actual quotation.
PPS – Didn’t you say,
“Until you understand why your argument is illogical, you’re not going to be able to improve upon it.”?
realitycheck –
Isn’t “Cap-and-Trade” a clause in all New York Yankees’ contracts that requires players to return their uniforms – including their Yankees caps – if they are ever traded?
John Egan –
Sorry, not James, it’s late here. It doesn’t have anything to do with my spelling, punctuation etc. They don’t have any bearing on the issue, which is why, like ad hominem, they don’t make a logical point. If you have a problem with the poll that was published, you can’t just say “Ummm – Zogby ain’t the best name in polling.” Zogby isn’t that great a name period (glad it’s not mine) – ad hominem is not always a fallacy, but it is always ad hominem. It can be rational, yet not be logical. Zogby may have never done an accurate survey, ever, and you may be completely justified in having no faith in the results, but when you knock the source rather than contradict the claim itself, well, you know.
What followed that (in the original post) was a logical argument – and to an extent I agree with it. It’s possible that the framing of the question had the effect of affecting the outcome, but what good would the poll be if you didn’t provide that information? I believe that we both agree that most people don’t understand what the results of cap and trade will be. I personally don’t care what their opinions are, unless and until they are framed with the knowledge that a considerable amount of money is going to be coming out of their pockets.
Perhaps it would have been better if the survey just asked ” Do you support Pres. Obama’s plan to enact a Cap and Trade system to reduce CO2 emissions?”. Then followed up with “Would you still support it you knew that it would cost you at least $800-$1300 per year?”. That way you wouldn’t be offended by the survey methodology, and we would all find out something meaningful – are Americans ready to shell out big bucks for carbon reduction?
I don’t think that the survey question asked did bias the results much – I find it quite credible that 57% would oppose paying $800-$1300, and the followup question roughly coorelates – Americans want cheaper energy more than CO2 reduction.
BTW – I agree that Rassussen is generally more reliable than Zogby, Gallop not so sure about that, a few years back, sure, but anymore.., NYT get real. Frankly all of them routinely blow it by far more than the stated margin of error, which is just a statisical calculation based on sample size vs. the total population. It is really only meaningful when you are plucking colored marbles out of jar. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.
Well said to both of you!
Marco Antonio Rios Pita G
Que basura, flaco.
Jodete
Sometimes the best solution is for the greedy and corrupt, along with their kool-aid drinkers (actually, it should be Flavor Aid), to have their way.
It would be ironic if: they imposed the cap-and-trade on us and CO2 levels dropped (but really due to a global recession, not the cap-and-trade). The temperatures began dropping, resulting in them proclaiming how they have saved the world (although the drop was a result of a natural climate shift). But the temps continued to drop, sending us into a mini-Ice Age, and global suffering.
They would go down in history as ‘causing’ an ice age with their tinkering of the climate. Once the whole con was investigated, many could enjoy the controlled climate of a government facility.
Our effect on climate has the impact of an electric fan blowing against a tornado.
Juanito:Bingo!!.Acabas de dar tu coprolalica respuesta.Que mas se podia esperar de ti?