Cap and Trade is not for me...in spite of the nice theories
The idea that mankind is the cause of global warming is one of the greatest sales jobs of “snake oil” that the world has ever seen. It is a farce and should be treated as such.
I am opposed to the U.S. committing to help fund $100B per year over the next 10 years to manage climate change.
I am opposed to all Cap and Trade taxes that are tied to global warming and/or climate change.
Every sovereign nation has the right to pursue industrial output. Yes, we must be good stewards of the earth and clean up after ourselves, but this is no excuse to cap our ability to produce and trade it for new taxes.
I am boggled by the conclusion of global warming science when I consider such common thoughts as these:
Evolution is the foundation of life vs. global warming is killing off vital species; or is mother-nature simply creating new species and is using global warming and climate change to do so? We should stop evolution in its tracks? Right…
The scientific method says we must test the hypothesis. This is commonly done by creating a “control group” and testing against this control group in a controlled environment to validate the new theory. Ideally you test one variable at a time. Well, we only have one earth and there is no control group to test against. The theory of mankind as the cause of global warming or climate change is impossible for science to validate.
Science tells us that ice ages have come and gone in the history of the earth. Really? Did we also cause those changes in climate?
Science says the earth is millions and millions or billions of years old. Okay – so the 100 years or so in which we have been measuring temperature is such a small fraction in time that we have no idea whether the current temperature swings are in fact “normal” and healthy for the planet.
Let’s not flatter ourselves into thinking that we are the cause of temperature swings on planet earth.
www.electiangilyeat.com
I am opposed to the U.S. committing to help fund $100B per year over the next 10 years to manage climate change.
I am opposed to all Cap and Trade taxes that are tied to global warming and/or climate change.
Every sovereign nation has the right to pursue industrial output. Yes, we must be good stewards of the earth and clean up after ourselves, but this is no excuse to cap our ability to produce and trade it for new taxes.
I am boggled by the conclusion of global warming science when I consider such common thoughts as these:
Evolution is the foundation of life vs. global warming is killing off vital species; or is mother-nature simply creating new species and is using global warming and climate change to do so? We should stop evolution in its tracks? Right…
The scientific method says we must test the hypothesis. This is commonly done by creating a “control group” and testing against this control group in a controlled environment to validate the new theory. Ideally you test one variable at a time. Well, we only have one earth and there is no control group to test against. The theory of mankind as the cause of global warming or climate change is impossible for science to validate.
Science tells us that ice ages have come and gone in the history of the earth. Really? Did we also cause those changes in climate?
Science says the earth is millions and millions or billions of years old. Okay – so the 100 years or so in which we have been measuring temperature is such a small fraction in time that we have no idea whether the current temperature swings are in fact “normal” and healthy for the planet.
Let’s not flatter ourselves into thinking that we are the cause of temperature swings on planet earth.
www.electiangilyeat.com
Posted by Ian Gilyeat at 1/8/2010 10:36 AM 
Categories: Cap and Trade, Global warming
Tags: Climate change Global warming Cap and Trade
Categories: Cap and Trade, Global warming
Tags: Climate change Global warming Cap and Trade
Ian, please advise which candidates for US President you supported in the 2008 primary election, which presidential candidates you supported in the November 2008 election, and why.
A couple more questions:
1.) Do you consider the United States to still be a democracy?
2.) Accordiing to the US Constitution, which kinds of problems/issues should by addressed by the FedGov as opposed to those which should be addressed by the individual states?
3.) Which federal regulatory agencies would you support abolishing?
4.) Would you support doing away with the requirement for a permit for concealed carry of a gun?
5.) In 2008 I was a candidate for the "House" knowing I didn't stand a prayer's chance in a barroom of being elected. What do hope to accomplish even if you are not elected?
Reply to this
Happy to respond to each of the questions although I'd be interested in knowing what you are attempting to decipher in the first question. Please keep in mind that I am registered as an Independent and have been for many years.
Q0: Of the four Republican candidates I was most in favor of Mitt Romney because of his private sector experience. I will also tell you that I disagree completely with what little I know of the Massachusetts health care plan that was approved while he was the Governor of that state.
Q1: I don't believe the United States was intended or designed to be a Democracy as such I don't believe it "still is" since that would suggest that it previously was. In my view, the United States is a republic, which means that the basis of power rests with the people and that it is carried out by representative government. In the U.S. this includes the House of Representatives and the Senate, which was originally structured to represent and protect the rights of the states. However, the 17th Amendment has changed the country and moved our government towards more of a democratic position reflecting popular vote instead of representation of the states.
Q2: I don't claim to be a scholar of the Constitution although I am a student of it. Some will tell you that 20 specific powers have been granted to the Federal Government; all others remain with the states and the people. Whether we agree that 20 have been granted or not, I believe that it is a limited set and that their primary focus is on the protection of life, property and individual freedom. All others devolve to the states and the people that are represented by the government.
Q3: I have not made a short list of which ones to abolish and since this is not a one person decision, since even as a Senator it's not a decision I get to make. However, I will tell you that regulatory agencies should stand or fall according to what is structured in the Constitution. Limited government is the right answer and even if agencies cannot be abolished, their powers should be limited and curtailed as much as possible. Unfortunately many people in the electorate do not agree with this position and want the Federal Government to protect themselves from their own foolishness and ignorance. I do not share this view. We should succeed and fail based upon our own merits.
Q4: Good question. Don't know yet. I need to assess the issues more closely before I form an opinion on this one. However, I am strongly in favor of the right to bear arms.
Q5: I have not set any fall back goals for failing to win. My mind and thoughts are on winning and those are the things I am thinking about. I am not planning to lose. My plans are about winning. Although I recognize losing is a possibility and that I am a long-shot, my thoughts and plans are all about winning. I believe it is far more pragmatic and productive to spend my time planning to win.
Hope this helps...
Ian
Reply to this
I feel I must state that I found Mitt Romney much more disappointing than you did. Not only did he initiate a mandatory socialist healthcare program that deprived MA residents of a certain amount of freedom, or free agency, but when asked if he would need to seek authorization from Congress to attack Iran, in obvious ignorance of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that states "Congress shall have the Power...To declare War,..." he erroniously replied: "You sit down with your attorneys and [they] tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress..."? Ron Paul's quick response was dramatic and predictable: "This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. [But] We've never had that happen in 220 years.... The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way." I hope you see that Romney, like all Republican candidates besides Ron Paul, seems to lack the intellect to fully understand the Constitution and its principles and/or the integrity to be guided by it. I wonder if you are aware of his egregious statement "I don't know that he (God) has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others.", which was a major misrepresentation during a televised interview of a major tenet of his Mormon faith. (http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story/Romneys-statement-on-prophets-may-contradict-LDS/CasD_7-hPUKNC-0BjQO_MQ.cspx ) In addition, he has not yet been able to bury his support of homosexual interests in past years while in Massachusetts.
Re. Q2, I contend that if a problem/issue involves foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes at sea, immigration and naturalization, etc), it should go to the FedGov. All other powers belong with the states.
Your answers to the questions I asked tell me a lot about you.
Reply to this