Antarctic glacier melt maybe 'not due to climate change'

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

And it only takes a few thousand years to come back around...

AWESOME!

It's a natural cycle......would you rather we try to play God and mess with natural cycles?? I'm sure that will work out just fine now won't it?

Mankind and the Earth survived the last Ice Age. In fact, it probably had net direct positive impact on our species development. Looked at how fast Civilization blossomed after the last Ice Age.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Another new development in the understanding of glacial flow. While every eco-friendly citizen was certain that the climate was the culprit; it turns out the real reason for the relatively sudden increase in glacial flow to the sea has to do with the unknown fact that the river of ice had been slowed by rough mountainous terrain, and now, having past the 'speed bump' it is flowing unrestricted to the sea.

Mr. Gore's Nobel-Prize winning theory of climate change seems yet again, contradicted by fact... although in the conspiracy world some like to call it 'debunked.'

The climate may be changing. But the body of evidence that it is primarily a carbon problem seems to be shrinking by the day.

www.theregister.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Maxmars]

So "once again" Global Warming theory of CLIMATOLOGISTS [not, Al Gore -- he made a movie based on the work of SCIENTISTS] is MAYBE proved Possibly wrong due to an unproven theory.

Current could also be increasing -- do to the lack of ICE in the way. The "flow" being obstructed by undersea structures and "friction" -- seems to be a stretch, as we are talking about miles and miles of area. Other than the ice itself, the shape has not likely changed except for volcanic eruptions of the sea floor.

You've got a massive area here of ice and currents, and then at the base of that, underwater structures -- which again, doesn't seem to me like it would be a huge factor because its a small fraction of the overall area (in difference).

So, a million "MAYBE THIS IS FALSE" alerts, and based on the preponderance of "almost evidence" then you can discount Global Warming. Kind of like a smear campaign, and people point to all the smears as "evidence of foul play." Maybe we need a tally again of all the ANTI-Global Warming theories that haven't panned out, or the proponents who've been backed by oil companies and shills getting outed.

The anti-Global warming "science" started with liars and crooks caught red-handed and then it's spun off to slicker websites that don't make obvious errors of mentioning who backed them, and individuals who drink the Kool Aide.


>> Regardless of Anthropogenic Global Warming or not, we have to get off carbon-based fuels. WE have to clean up our act. And it's a really, really good idea for jobs and prosperity that we decentralize from Monopoly energy schemes like Nuclear power. Solar has the potential to harness many times more energy than we need and a malfunctioning solar collector doesn't destroy an ocean or radiate 100,000 square miles for a few thousand years.

So, if we just concentrate on what we should do to STOP Global Warming -- I think we are fine whether it is an issue or not. The alternative, is very useful for corporations that will make Billions each day they can stall us.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

And it only takes a few thousand years to come back around...

AWESOME!

It's a natural cycle......would you rather we try to play God and mess with natural cycles?? I'm sure that will work out just fine now won't it?

Mankind and the Earth survived the last Ice Age. In fact, it probably had net direct positive impact on our species development. Looked at how fast Civilization blossomed after the last Ice Age.

"Play God and mess around with Natural Cycles?"
OK, What???
That's what we ARE doing by NOT reducing our carbon footprint. Your point is the opposite of logical. WE are changing the planet and having a huge effect by NOT conserving energy and reducing emissions. If there were no people at all -- the cycle would be MORE NATURAL -- you know, the earth with just primitive creatures pooping and farting. Not destroying swamps and trees and acidifying the oceans.

But since you made a point like this which proves exactly opposite of what you are trying to say, I don't think you are going to understand my rebuttal.

The carbon dioxide level is measurable and has been proven to be historically very high -- the last time it was this high, there were dinosaurs on the planet. They had a different lifestyle -- but they weren't playing God I assume.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

So "once again" Global Warming theory of CLIMATOLOGISTS [not, Al Gore -- he made a movie based on the work of SCIENTISTS] is MAYBE proved Possibly wrong due to an unproven theory.

.....


So, a million "MAYBE THIS IS FALSE" alerts, and based on the preponderance of "almost evidence" then you can discount Global Warming. Kind of like a smear campaign, and people point to all the smears as "evidence of foul play." Maybe we need a tally again of all the ANTI-Global Warming theories that haven't panned out, or the proponents who've been backed by oil companies and shills getting outed.

The anti-Global warming "science" started with liars and crooks caught red-handed and then it's spun off to slicker websites that don't make obvious errors of mentioning who backed them, and individuals who drink the Kool Aide.


>> Regardless of Anthropogenic Global Warming or not, we have to get off carbon-based fuels. WE have to clean up our act. And it's a really, really good idea for jobs and prosperity that we decentralize from Monopoly energy schemes like Nuclear power. Solar has the potential to harness many times more energy than we need and a malfunctioning solar collector doesn't destroy an ocean or radiate 100,000 square miles for a few thousand years.

So, if we just concentrate on what we should do to STOP Global Warming -- I think we are fine whether it is an issue or not. The alternative, is very useful for corporations that will make Billions each day they can stall us.

I offer you part of a previous post of mine in this thread:

My problem is more with the Gorian solution than the climate inconsistencies itself. I have found that much of the industries around the globe who will benefit from the carbon trading market are strongly avoiding any issues that cast the appearance of incompleteness to the scientific inquiry.

Occasionally, some scientist or group of scientists dare to point out that we are no where near understanding the forces, constants, and variables in this issue; whereas I keep getting the resounding message from the administration, the bankers, and the globalist corporate world that this carbon scheme will go a long way in making everything better.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by Xeven
I do not understand people who can harbor hate for a man for wanting to save our planet regardless of if he is right or wrong where does that hate come from?

I'm not so sure I would call it hate as much as either intolerance for stupidity or anger over an alternate agenda. The idea of our money, our time, our effort etc. being spent wastefully on "the boy who cried wolf" is where this anger comes from. Then you have the democratic party, too embarrassed to contradict Mr. Gore, that they decide to continue support for the error (or lie) to avoid him being shamed. Hey...too f'ing bad! If someone is wrong, for the right reasons...they are still wrong. The stupidity of supporting an incorrect situation, and all that would have to be done to correct it, is...stupid.

But that is the current administration and "those in power". It doesn't matter what is right and wrong, so long as it supports their continued power and avoids...AT ALL COSTS...making any of the look stupid.

I don't know about you, but if I spend time and money on something and then realize my analysis of the situation was wrong...I stop spending time and money on it...take my licks...admit I screwed up and continue from there. That is character...that is honesty...that is respectable. This is not.

The alternative purpose, which I am sad to say I am almost starting to believe, is that the goal of some of these people is to actually destroy the country. Either financially, morally or whatever. For me...what could be stupidity is slowly beginning to look like too much stupidity to just be stupidity...and that maybe it is actually a plan. In other words...this administration is f'ing up too much for it to simply be ignorance. Now THAT is scary. Most of us know they like to take from the HAVES and give to the HAVE NOTS. Is America now the target...the HAVE that is going to be leveled to the plateau of the rest of the HAVE NOTS in the world? Would that make America less of a threat, and more of a friend?

Originally posted by Maxmars
I offer you part of a previous post of mine in this thread:

My problem is more with the Gorian solution than the climate inconsistencies itself. I have found that much of the industries around the globe who will benefit from the carbon trading market are strongly avoiding any issues that cast the appearance of incompleteness to the scientific inquiry.

Occasionally, some scientist or group of scientists dare to point out that we are no where near understanding the forces, constants, and variables in this issue; whereas I keep getting the resounding message from the administration, the bankers, and the globalist corporate world that this carbon scheme will go a long way in making everything better.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Maxmars]

I see your point. It's definitely a good idea to follow the money in situations like this.

However, you should keep in mind that Exxon has pumped a lot of money into debunking MMGW. If you're going to follow the money, make sure you follow all of it.

Everyone involve in the climate debate is trying to profit from it. All of the big players anyway. As long as that's the case, I'm going to support the side that is pushing for more green tech and sustainable resources.

reply to post by Maxmars

My problem is more with the Gorian solution than the climate inconsistencies itself. I have found that much of the industries around the globe who will benefit from the carbon trading market are strongly avoiding any issues that cast the appearance of incompleteness to the scientific inquiry.

>> And what industry benefits from the Status Quo? Anytime you change ANYTHING -- some company is going to move to take advantage. Companies like BP are investing in buying up fresh water sources. Haliburton is buying up old folks homes since that will be a growing more than prisons and mercenaries in the near future.

Nice words like "scientific inquiry" are great to throw around. We believe science and when the Monsanto spokesman says that we have nothing to worry about with transgenic gene migration -- it's complicated, don't bother your pretty head. And we believe the science that tells us "there is natural oil leakage" -- those tar balls are all "natural" -- it wouldn't possibly be the result of a lot of oil wells that blew up and were just left to spew toxins -- no, believe the SCIENCE!

We believe science when it tells us that depleted Uranium is just fine - but don't pay attention to those troops complaining of brain trauma and compromised immune systems -- they are just hypochondriacs.

The SCIENCE is believed when it makes a multinational a profit and it is in doubt when it might infringe on that profit. The churches are all about morality when it's to PROTECT THE CHILDREN from the internet "freedom" and stop condom use in the city because it corrupts morality. But they are all about the need to protect the valuable church, when it's found they are involved in molestation and maybe child trafficking. All of a sudden, we don't need to be irresponsible with unfounded accusations.

Here's MORE SCIENCE folks -- we are all about SCIENCE! Don't you believe in it? Why are you anti-vaccine you fool when we can shovel out Tamiflu with no proven use? Why aren't you considering that the sun is hot, or that the ocean is rough and smooth -- THAT means we can dump another trillion tons of Benzine into your fuel tank that has no use in moving your car -- there isn't a strong enough SCIENTIFIC link between crap in the coal and gas and you getting cancer.

So you need PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY when you get cancer, and we need the benefit of the doubt when we get caught dumping carcinogens into your air and water. SCIENCE! Or THE CHILDREN, Or MORALITY -- the Hippies and Environmentalists are making a dirty stinking profit -- THEY must be poor, so we can say they are conducting class warfare.

Yeah, I hear so much about science and morality from the Robber Barons and the people who sound just like them.

Originally posted by suicydking

Originally posted by Maxmars
I offer you part of a previous post of mine in this thread:

My problem is more with the Gorian solution than the climate inconsistencies itself. I have found that much of the industries around the globe who will benefit from the carbon trading market are strongly avoiding any issues that cast the appearance of incompleteness to the scientific inquiry.

Occasionally, some scientist or group of scientists dare to point out that we are no where near understanding the forces, constants, and variables in this issue; whereas I keep getting the resounding message from the administration, the bankers, and the globalist corporate world that this carbon scheme will go a long way in making everything better.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Maxmars]

I see your point. It's definitely a good idea to follow the money in situations like this.

However, you should keep in mind that Exxon has pumped a lot of money into debunking MMGW. If you're going to follow the money, make sure you follow all of it.

Everyone involve in the climate debate is trying to profit from it. All of the big players anyway. As long as that's the case, I'm going to support the side that is pushing for more green tech and sustainable resources.

We need to keep in mind that Exxon was caught RED HANDED funding the anti-global warming propaganda -- and that they got 500 signatures from SCIENTISTS and half the people didn't even know they were on the list. The 2nd time -- the lists of scientific controversy, were signed by people who knew they were signing it -- so they got BETTER. 2,000 knuckle-headed websites questioning Global Warming can't be wrong folks!

FOLLOW THE MONEY! Al Gore or Michael Moore might make $50,000 in speakers fees -- Oh. My. Gawd! Some company MIGHT trade carbon offsets -- it might make a profit selling solar cells -- can't you see the corruption!

Companies are only allowed to make money with proven, credible toxins that kill 19,000 people a year with Coal -- but we damn sure care about life when we consider that windmills fans can cut birds. Don't you CARE?

--- I'm so sick of this.... someone will ALWAYS make a profit. You want to follow the money? It went from Saddam Hussein to Dick Cheney trading oil with Iraq during the embargo and that scum sucker becomes the Vice President. Not a whole lot of dots to connect between unregulated offshore oil, the meth and orgies and the Bush appointed regulators. Not a lot of dots to connect the Astro Turf and Exxon.

But just because a dozen or so shills, websites and scientists have been caught being on the payroll -- doesn't mean the next starry eyed theory that exonerates Human impact on the planet might not be correct. We'll find ways to blame illegal Mexican workers, Al Qaeda, and Hippies when the water rises.

-- can you tell that I'm being a bit sarcastic?

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


We spend MONEY on Climatology and seeing how to conserve resources? Oh -- say it isn't so!

You are saying, that Al Gore MIGHT be wrong - and the Democratic party cannot admit that he MIGHT be wrong, or they might look like fools?

Geez -- they'd probably steal a lot of Republican votes if they looked like complete fools, we can't have that.

You know, because the $10 Billion we spent on alternative energy and climate research -- that's wasted. But thank Gawd that BP didn't have to waste money on a Blowout Preventer when drilling a few miles under the ocean!

Yeah, those damn liberals are wasting SO MUCH MONEY. How much is the Gulf Oil Gusher projected to cost us? $1.4 Trillion... and we can't give money to the poor or unemployment -- it MIGHT get wasted. How much did the "accident" on Wall Street cost us (so far) -- about $16 Trillion. And we can't wait to check out the Weapons of Mass destruction -- if they are in Ira or Iraq or downtown New Orleans --- we need to spend $750 Billion each year IN CASE al Qaeda gets a hold of some box cutters again.

I feel so damn safe, knowing that there are people out there who protect me from guys in caves and make sure that the BP oil executives get a fair hearing -- that of course will put down TOUGH REGULATIONS so this sort of thing NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. And how dare that Socialist Obama shake down a large multinational corporation for $20 Billion! Why, it's robbery!

Much better to keep calm, and let a few million people on the Gulf go rapidly into poverty and suck down tainted oysters.

Climate Change science is NOT Al Gore -- or the next person who sticks their head up. It's science. We have a bunch of people who "aren't so sure about Evolution" and vote for what a moral church tells them to vote for, yet they get the immunizations, and they believe in Social Darwinism. If they are required to believe up is down, and that someone bringing peace to the Middle East is the son of satan -- they are ready for some of that action too.

This country is circling the drain, and we've got CEO's voting themselves million dollar bonuses because they cut costs at the company. The COSTS were pollution controls and jobs of US citizens and leaving a huge mess for the state to clean up -- but, they will INVEST wisely in their Senator's campaign this November. Make sure we don't give HANDOUTS to the poor -- because we CARE about Personal Responsibility. Of course, when Tony is in front of Congress -- we care dearly about Due Process and not swearing people in -- Tony is ONLY HUMAN, and he made a mistake.

The same mistake that allows oil to gush for 30 years in Africa because they don't have Al Gore, Michael Moore or Green Peace to get in the way of all that prosperity. Thank Gawd, that these damn Liberals weren't getting in the way of employment and profits in Haiti -- otherwise they would have pushed things like building codes like they do in California. Do you realize how EXPENSIVE building codes and regulations are?

Reply to post by Xeven

People do not like gore because he's always in it for the get rich quick angle. Oh and maybe his incident at a book signing. He's not exactly the nicest guy ever like the dems and his followers like to pass off.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by HunkaHunka

And it only takes a few thousand years to come back around...

And exactly where did you draw that conclusion? If the first set of steps you gave are supposed to happen over a span of mere years, why would the second set of steps I gave, the exact inverse of yours, take thousands?

Or are you saying that it will take thousands of years for the Global Warming catastrophes to occur now?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by A Novel
Reply to post by Xeven

 

People do not like gore because he's always in it for the get rich quick angle. Oh and maybe his incident at a book signing. He's not exactly the nicest guy ever like the dems and his followers like to pass off.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

ANYONE, who is not giving the Corporate cool Aide to the public, is hurting the Advertisers of the news agencies and of course - we don't LIKE them for some reason.

If you die of lung cancer, at least you will know that hating Al Gore will have given your life some purpose as a champion of not breathing. Because --- I don't want to breathe air if it is supported by people who annoy me.

Al Gore is almost as rich now as every other Republican in the Senate -- damn that greedy bastard!

The planet's ecosystem may collapse or we may just have a billion tons of dead fish on the beach -- but as long as we can make sure that AL GORE doesn't make a fast buck -- you know, because we really, really care about good science and making sure people DESERVE all the money they get. The CEO's of BP and Exxon of course -- are above reproach and even that guy at United Health care that got a 40% raise after their premiums went up 40% -- but I'm sure that's because a few states haven't implemented torte reform.




Yup. We might not breathe too good -- but at least we will have our integrity intact. And did you know that Michael Moore is a bad tipper? And Al Gore got a divorce? How can we follow science and put a clamp on corruption when Liberalism has leaders who get divorced and annoy us?

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

FOLLOW THE MONEY! Al Gore or Michael Moore might make $50,000 in speakers fees -- Oh. My. Gawd! Some company MIGHT trade carbon offsets -- it might make a profit selling solar cells -- can't you see the corruption!

Companies are only allowed to make money with proven, credible toxins that kill 19,000 people a year with Coal -- but we damn sure care about life when we consider that windmills fans can cut birds. Don't you CARE?

The problem is that Mr. Gore is making much much more from carbon trading than speaker's fees. He is heavily invested in carbon trading itself, and will become an instant billionaire should Cap & Trade be passed in the USA. Now exactly how is that different from Cheney's involvement in Iraqi oil? Both used (and are using) public office for personal gain; both are working behind the scenes to bring about changes which will directly profit them privately; both are in it for the money.

The only difference I can see is that you support one and do not support the other. Why that is, I have no idea. I personally consider both Gore and Cheney to be scum.

The Republicans and the Democrats are like a two-headed snake. Either will bite you, just as viciously and as terribly. Both are using faux science to try and achieve their ends: Global Warming is only one of the many facets of control being implemented on the people of the world by their manipulations.

Science is facts and provable results, not political agendas and wild unverifiable predictions based on hidden algorithms and suspect data.

TheRedneck

You know... the climate change deniers are going to be telling us all it doesn't exist even as the water washes over their ankles.
Honestly, at this point denying climate changes is like denying evolution, you can do it, but don't really expect thinking folks to take you seriously.
Problem is though, that since we're a representative Democracy some of the deniers find themselves in a position to stall climate change legislation that might actually have a small impact for the better.
And that's a tad upsetting, as well as unsettling.
Teach the controversy my butt, how about accept the science and let's get to work.

reply to post by kenochs

Teach the controversy my butt, how about accept the science and let's get to work.

Hey, nobody's stopping you! Go right ahead:

• The next time you pay your power bill, send in double the amount they say you owe.
  
  
• The next time you buy gasoline, pay double what the pump says.
  
  
• Limit yourself to only driving, say, 500 miles per month. If you run out early, you have to stop driving for any reason. That includes going to work, going to get food, driving to a doctors office... any reason.
  
  
• Set your thermostat to 50°F in the winter and 90°F in the summer.
  
  
• Remember to pay double for your groceries too, since they are grown with equipment that uses *gasp* fuel.
  
  
• Don't buy anything that wasn't produced completely within 200 miles of your location. All those trucks are destroying the environment.

Let us 'deniers' know how that turns out for you and maybe we'll join in after a month or three.

Oh, wait... you want others to do that first? No, thanks, I like my life just fine.



TheRedneck

reply to post by kenochs


O... Come on.

Nobody here is a climate change denier. We all see it is different from the past.

The problem is that any solution presented to reduce, stop or prevent change.
Well... We need to pay. Okay makes sense, right ?

Only the ones doing the polluting are hardly effected and even profit from our payments.
This is a scam to enslave us and make us pay for the very air we breath and Co2 we exhale.

Why ?
We do contribute a lot of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. This will probably effect the climate.
Methane that is released by the melting of once frozen swamps and currently maybe even the Gulf of mexico will make our solution useless.

The big container ships or just 9 or 10 release more Co2 in the atmosphere then all the cars in the world combined in a year. They run on what is left from refined oil the absolute waste we don't use for anything else...

Water vapor is the most abundant green house gas on Earth. Do the math.
More heat, more vapor more warming even without our help.

An increase in heat could cause an ice age. Do to disruption of the Thermohaline Circulation.
Like what happened in the Younger Dryas period.

We could still be in an ice age and we are living the last hick ups of it.

We just do not know what causes the warm up. The climate model has been sabotaged.
In favor of cap'n trade legislation.

The money gets sucked from our bank account. It goes to those that pollute.
1 & 1 = still 2

The best way to fight it is at home.
Don't buy new when the old is not broke. Be thoughtful of consumption of everything.
Bang ! 2 birds in a single blow.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Another new development in the understanding of glacial flow. While every eco-friendly citizen was certain that the climate was the culprit; it turns out the real reason for the relatively sudden increase in glacial flow to the sea has to do with the unknown fact that the river of ice had been slowed by rough mountainous terrain, and now, having past the 'speed bump' it is flowing unrestricted to the sea.

Mr. Gore's Nobel-Prize winning theory of climate change seems yet again, contradicted by fact... although in the conspiracy world some like to call it 'debunked.'

The climate may be changing. But the body of evidence that it is primarily a carbon problem seems to be shrinking by the day.

www.theregister.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Maxmars]

No its not shrinking. You choose to believe its shrinking and choose to ignore the increasing evidence.

Just a slight note : they DO NOT say its not due to climate change but that it MAY not be due to climate change. So we still don't know but it doesn't stop you skeptics from exaggerating the news to your own ends does it!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by kenochs

Teach the controversy my butt, how about accept the science and let's get to work.

Hey, nobody's stopping you! Go right ahead:

• The next time you pay your power bill, send in double the amount they say you owe...

Are you ever shocked by your electric bill? Or are you justed used to it?
The price of Kwh has always gone up not down, More consumers every year. If we can find a cheaper, cleaner way....why not at least try?

The next time you buy gasoline, pay double what the pump says..

Or rather take a moment to contemplate the literal hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars each year you and I pay in defense spending that go toward securing oil from the most volatile region on the planet..or more importantly the lives of US soldiers and citizens it costs...

Maybe test your math skills while waiting at the pump trying to figure out what that gas really costs and ask yourself ...If we are really the America we are supposed to be, why aren't we trying something new rather than writing checks to the Middle east for 50 years?

Limit yourself to only driving, say, 500 miles per month. If you run out early, you have to stop driving for any reason. That includes going to work, going to get food, driving to a doctors office... any reason.

You mean the Oil Crisis of the 1970's? When OPEC showed us who our daddy was? How about this...find a different way and tell our dealer to ef off.

Set your thermostat to 50°F in the winter and 90°F in the summer..

Given the recent economic crisis and the average utility bill I know folks who are doing just that and it has nothing to do with politics.

Remember to pay double for your groceries too, since they are grown with equipment that uses *gasp* fuel...

Well you could eat local produce when possible. That would reduce transportation costs and fuel expense and support your local farmers to boot.

Or you can buy the cheapest Monsanto engineered crap you can find that was trucked from a couple of states over and believe them when they tell you that poison for bugs on crops is just fine for people to eat on a regular basis.

Don't buy anything that wasn't produced completely within 200 miles of your location. All those trucks are destroying the environment.
Let us 'deniers' know how that turns out for you and maybe we'll join in after a month or three.

Yes and you can continue to live just the way you want, go out and buy whatever you want, it's America! let the car run in the driveway just for the pleasant smell of the exhaust on a hot summer day. Rev the engine for fun and smile and look your son, brother, friend square in the eye and tell them that the war they are going to go fight half way around the world in the desert is for a really good cause and your proud of them.

But whatever you do....don't look for a better way...innovation and inventiveness isn't American anymore, it's just another word for "Progressive"...the way Glen Beck uses the word...ya know...like facist, communist, socialist and all those other "ists" that get tossed about whenever anyone wants to try something new or look for a better way.

reply to post by Maxmars


Max...

You are right. The situation is such where any genuine scientist with legit doubts about the AGW science is quickly lumped in with the propagandists and is at risk of ridicule by thier peers. It is not "climate" for good science.

It has been heavily politicized to everyone's detriment.

Cap and trade...Sure it will be exploited...but look at the status quo? Surely Cap and trade does not afford as much opportunity for exploitation and corruption as the current scenario has evolved to be?
A lesser of evils in my opinion.

Even if it was equal, I would take the system that at least in small measure returns the cost of polluting to the actual polluters, rather than us in the form of federal clean-ups and medical bills. The free ride should end. You and I subsidize these companies every time dump pollution into the air or water. They need to carry the actual cost of production.

And I appreciate you owning up to your "zealotry"...I will work harder to do the same