GW is a joke. I think its nothing more than a scare tatic. Is the earth warming? maybe.... but a few hundred years of records compaired to how old the earth is... mmmhh whatever.

Im all for going gren...hey thats great. BUT...and this is a big BUT

Make the stuff affordable before you force it on people. Me like many others struggle every winter if not in the summer because of high energy prices... and now you want to mess that up by giving me unreliable sources of energy that will cost even MORE to power.

Gonna tax me because I drive an older car? give me a car then that runs on bio fuel then. I cant afford it.

All this is gonna do is hurt the low income people and also affect the middle class.... if you can afford the green stuff then by all means go and get it...but to force me who cant afford it and then penalize me for not being able to do it is just...backwards

Public transport+bicycles are typically cheaper than a car, so if you can't afford to 'upgrade' to a green car, then downgrade to a green non-car. If you're too far away from work for those alternatives to be viable, then move closer.

Scientists generally agree that the earth is warming. They also generally agree that there is a fairly high likelihood a significant amount of the warming is due to greenhouse gases. Hence it is logical that if you can cut greenhouse gases at no cost to anyone, you should. From that you have the straightforward result that you will want to cut greenhouse gases up to the point where the cost is too high for the expected benefit (the probability of the cuts being effective and the saving that would then produce against the probability that they wouldn't be effective and the cost of the unneccessary cuts).

See that is one thing that all of your people say "move closer"

So

To do that

I have to screw up my life and the family setting for my kids. Yeah thats wonderful. Who give a hoot about my kids therapy... I mean its all for GREEN!

O and saving up the extra 1500 on top of paying normal bills! yep i got that under my bed!

Public trasportation? yeah  a cab that runs only in town!

Bike 30 miles a day? You do it first and we will talk okay

As you can see not everything can fit into your "perfect world" What looks good on paper well... is just that

Not true.  Key words being 'fairly high likelihood' and 'significant.'  Even if one grants the 'fairly high likelihood' part, which is uncertain at best, it still falls short of 'significant.'

Based on the false premise above.

Right, so everyone else should suffer because you decided to buy a house miles away from your job without any decent public transport links, and then decided to buy a polluting vehicle. I mean it couldn't possibly be your own fault for forcing yourself into that method of transportation now, could it?

When I'm looking for a house, the distance of it to my work is a significant factor. If I go for one further away it's cheaper, but it also limits my transport options. So if I do go for one that's further away, and benefit from getting a nicer house for the price I pay, I deserve to then lose out if cars are taxed appropriately for the damage they cause. In some ways it's the same as if I didn't purchase insurance for my home and it got burgled - I didn't pay insurance, meaning all the time I wasn't burgled I benefited by having more money than the person who did. Then I get burgled, and I end up worse off. Would you support a nice big cash handout to the burgled-non-insured person? I mean it's really screwed up that persons life to lose all their possessions and not have any money to replace them with.

Increase taxes on cars and public transport is made more viable (due to the increased demand for it). It may not be possible for every remote village everywhere, but for the major metropolitan areas it becomes much better.

Depends on what significance measure you use. Anyway you don't even need those. If there's no negative impact (other than the actual costs involved) of cutting emmissions, and there's a possible positive impact, you could have a very low likelihood, and a 'small/not that significant' impact, and then 'it is logical that if you can cut greenhouse gases at no cost to anyone, you should.'

Change the last word to 'can' and I'm with you.  The 'should' part is very shaky at best.  The 'at no cost to anyone' part is a pipe dream.

there is no such thing right now to cut emmisions right now without a STEEP cost to us.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/coldest-winter-in-10-years-bureau-20080530-2k0o.html

http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/beijing_winter.php

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2008/10/29/coldest-october-weather-for-34-years-61634-22140498/

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews

I know the rant - global warming is causing cold weather. And you can send me $10 with a return envelope for the secret to long life.

YOu can never win with the GW people if its warm its due to GW... if its cold its because of GW... they want the cake too... I have givin up and in fact for every "green" person that ticks me off I drive an extra 5 miles just for them

Hey NC, we could throw in a raffle to auction off some ocean front property in Arizona (that I have)?

Don't forget about Newsweek:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/23/christmas-snow-job/

It doesn't make sense to me at all either.  Overall global warming causes blizzards?  Huh?  Ever heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction?

Not to mention that anthropogenic climate change advocates were screaming that global cooling would kill us all, and not so long ago either.  Then it was global warming that would kill us all.  Then, to explain their previous hysteria, they say that global warming causes global cooling.

I am quite thoroughly convinced that the only reason that the media and a majority of scientists say global warming is a man-made problem is that they're on the gravy train.  Scientists get quite a bit of grant money to solve the global warming problem, and the media gets to run countless horror stories that grab people's attention.  Follow that up with the ignorance of the masses, and voila!  A global problem!

Agree is not know.  Not even close.  The first is generally true and has been happening for the last 10k years.  According to those same scientiests.  If there were green house gasses back then, they were not man's.

And most of the green house gasses today are not man's.  It seems you are arguing that they dont know what tehy are talking about.  And in that you got something right.

Doc, beans have been around for a LONG time!

Yep, here's some info on Global Warming LINK.

dont forget the tax on farmers for every cow that they have... after all the farts from cows also pollute the air too!

LINK Another reason why you stay away from the backend.