Global Warming Update

Maybe.... I don't think the price is appropriate at all.

I'm sure you've been to Adam...right? Those risks/costs are minimized by the govt/police..... and yet....same outrageous profit margin.

I just see a double standard with us stoners for the most part. Most RAIL against Big Oil ... who runs on about an 8% net profit, and then DEFEND and JUSTIFY sky high prices for weed and growing it as a career.

I don't abide double standards...and I'm sure my post rubs many against the grain. That's the way I roll though..... no double standards please.....grab a mirror next time you RAIL against business.

That's all.

ya obamas dream is to raise prices of gas

heres your proof, padawan, i can smell a hustle a mile away. ive done my research

heres a good clip for you to ponder, the ego has landed and he aint going anywhere for a while

[youtube]UryfqsEoJuI&[/youtube]

Dude...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade

I just had a few things I wanted to mention about your theory..

-Why would it be Obama's "dream to raise gas prices"? - now think about this for a second... has any American president needed to go to these extremes to impose a tax on the American people, ever? - that of initiating an entire global conspiracy with hundreds of scientific institutions and thousands of people involved?

I don't think you understand what "Cap and Trade" really is.

Economics of International Emissions Trading

It is possible for a country to reduce emissions using a Command-Control approach, such as regulation, direct and indirect taxes. The cost of that approach differs between countries because the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MAC) — the cost of eliminating an additional unit of pollution — differs by country. It might cost China $2 to eliminate a ton of CO2, but it would probably cost Sweden or the U.S. much more. International emissions-trading markets were created precisely to exploit differing MACs.

Example

Emissions trading through Gains from Trade can be more beneficial for both the buyer and the seller than a simple emissions capping scheme.
Consider two European countries, such as Germany and Sweden. Each can either reduce all the required amount of emissions by itself or it can choose to buy or sell in the market.

Example MACs for two different countries


For this example let us assume that Germany can abate its CO2 at a much cheaper cost than Sweden, e.g. MACS > MACG where the MAC curve of Sweden is steeper (higher slope) than that of Germany, and RReq is the total amount of emissions that need to be reduced by a country.
On the left side of the graph is the MAC curve for Germany. RReq is the amount of required reductions for Germany, but at RReq the MACG curve has not intersected the market allowance price of CO2 (market allowance price = P = &#955. Thus, given the market price of CO2 allowances, Germany has potential to profit if it abates more emissions than required.
On the right side is the MAC curve for Sweden. RReq is the amount of required reductions for Sweden, but the MACS curve already intersects the market price of CO2 allowances before RReq has been reached. Thus, given the market allowance price of CO2, Sweden has potential to make a cost saving if it abates fewer emissions than required internally, and instead abates them elsewhere.

In this example, Sweden would abate emissions until its MACS intersects with P (at R*), but this would only reduce a fraction of Sweden’s total required abatement. After that it could buy emissions credits from Germany for the price P (per unit). The internal cost of Sweden’s own abatement, combined with the credits it buys in the market from Germany, adds up to the total required reductions (RReq) for Sweden. Thus Sweden can make a saving from buying credits in the market (Δ d-e-f). This represents the "Gains from Trade", the amount of additional expense that Sweden would otherwise have to spend if it abated all of its required emissions by itself without trading.
Germany made a profit on its additional emissions abatement, above what was required: it met the regulations by abating all of the emissions that was required of it (RReq). Additionally, Germany sold its surplus to Sweden as credits, and was paid P for every unit it abated, while spending less than P. Its total revenue is the area of the graph (RReq 1 2 R*), its total abatement cost is area (RReq 3 2 R*), and so its net benefit from selling emission credits is the area (Δ 1-2-3) i.e. Gains from Trade


The two R* (on both graphs) represent the efficient allocations that arise from trading.

• Germany: sold (R* - RReq) emission credits to Sweden at a unit price P.
• Sweden bought emission credits from Germany at a unit price P.

If the total cost for reducing a particular amount of emissions in the Command Control scenario is called X, then to reduce the same amount of combined pollution in Sweden and Germany, the total abatement cost would be less in the Emissions Trading scenario i.e. (X — Δ 123 - Δ def).
The example above applies not just at the national level: it applies just as well between two companies in different countries, or between two subsidiaries within the same company.

good luck with your moral compus and your ear for deception

you guys are getting played and in the process your gulibilty may impose this garbge on my family

you will see unfortunatly we will all probably see, and i wont have to say i told you so.

you will see it for yourself.

this will also make indoor cannbis more expensive to produce.

as well as EVERYTHING you pay for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do your research P.

Beginnersluck, you mentioned Jesus and then attending Town Hall meetings and Tea parties. All I can say to you is it's 95% propaganda and those meetings are detrimental to your success as an individual. They perpetuate lies and misinformation amongst a group of thousands of people. I've never seen any well organized right wing meeting that's actually actively working to solve the problems, instead what we get is people walking around with loaded automatic rifles, people wearing t-shirts that say things from "send the monkey back to the zoo!" to "Obama is a NAZI!"... and people who know absolutely fuckin' nothing about nothing with remarks about how the government needs to stay away from medicare...

Think for yourself, as an individual. Don't listen to any of those pundits. Research information, research bills, research topics and come up with YOUR OWN OPINION. Know the facts so you can inform other people.

dukeofbaja said:

So funny that when confronted with science that is undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably true, the CC deniers just insist that 'the emails are hidden deeper' and promptly change the subject. Keep doing what you have to do to convince yourself it is all a conspiracy. Just like all that evolution nonsense scientists keep babbling about

Click to expand...

Oh thats right a mighty being created us...What a fucking joke.

Illegal Smile
Mr.Ganja
Mr. Ganja
"Global Warming Update: still bullshit!" AMEN to that, and that is the hands down best avatar pic ever

CrackerJax said:

Maybe.... I don't think the price is appropriate at all.

I'm sure you've been to Adam...right? Those risks/costs are minimized by the govt/police..... and yet....same outrageous profit margin.

I just see a double standard with us stoners for the most part. Most RAIL against Big Oil ... who runs on about an 8% net profit, and then DEFEND and JUSTIFY sky high prices for weed and growing it as a career.

I don't abide double standards...and I'm sure my post rubs many against the grain. That's the way I roll though..... no double standards please.....grab a mirror next time you RAIL against business.

That's all.

Click to expand...

i would love to grow 10 times as much and charge a tenth the price. i just need to cover my costs. i drive an '01 truck. i own no gold jewelery. my seadoo is a '95.

i don't rail against anything, except child abuse.

PadawanBater said:

ya obamas dream is to raise prices of gas

heres your proof, padawan, i can smell a hustle a mile away. ive done my research

heres a good clip for you to ponder, the ego has landed and he aint going anywhere for a while

[youtube]UryfqsEoJuI&[/youtube]

Dude...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade

I just had a few things I wanted to mention about your theory..

-Why would it be Obama's "dream to raise gas prices"? - now think about this for a second... has any American president needed to go to these extremes to impose a tax on the American people, ever? - that of initiating an entire global conspiracy with hundreds of scientific institutions and thousands of people involved?

I don't think you understand what "Cap and Trade" really is.

Economics of International Emissions Trading

It is possible for a country to reduce emissions using a Command-Control approach, such as regulation, direct and indirect taxes. The cost of that approach differs between countries because the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MAC) — the cost of eliminating an additional unit of pollution — differs by country. It might cost China $2 to eliminate a ton of CO2, but it would probably cost Sweden or the U.S. much more. International emissions-trading markets were created precisely to exploit differing MACs.

Example

Emissions trading through Gains from Trade can be more beneficial for both the buyer and the seller than a simple emissions capping scheme.
Consider two European countries, such as Germany and Sweden. Each can either reduce all the required amount of emissions by itself or it can choose to buy or sell in the market.

Example MACs for two different countries


For this example let us assume that Germany can abate its CO2 at a much cheaper cost than Sweden, e.g. MACS > MACG where the MAC curve of Sweden is steeper (higher slope) than that of Germany, and RReq is the total amount of emissions that need to be reduced by a country.
On the left side of the graph is the MAC curve for Germany. RReq is the amount of required reductions for Germany, but at RReq the MACG curve has not intersected the market allowance price of CO2 (market allowance price = P = &#955. Thus, given the market price of CO2 allowances, Germany has potential to profit if it abates more emissions than required.
On the right side is the MAC curve for Sweden. RReq is the amount of required reductions for Sweden, but the MACS curve already intersects the market price of CO2 allowances before RReq has been reached. Thus, given the market allowance price of CO2, Sweden has potential to make a cost saving if it abates fewer emissions than required internally, and instead abates them elsewhere.

In this example, Sweden would abate emissions until its MACS intersects with P (at R*), but this would only reduce a fraction of Sweden’s total required abatement. After that it could buy emissions credits from Germany for the price P (per unit). The internal cost of Sweden’s own abatement, combined with the credits it buys in the market from Germany, adds up to the total required reductions (RReq) for Sweden. Thus Sweden can make a saving from buying credits in the market (Δ d-e-f). This represents the "Gains from Trade", the amount of additional expense that Sweden would otherwise have to spend if it abated all of its required emissions by itself without trading.
Germany made a profit on its additional emissions abatement, above what was required: it met the regulations by abating all of the emissions that was required of it (RReq). Additionally, Germany sold its surplus to Sweden as credits, and was paid P for every unit it abated, while spending less than P. Its total revenue is the area of the graph (RReq 1 2 R*), its total abatement cost is area (RReq 3 2 R*), and so its net benefit from selling emission credits is the area (Δ 1-2-3) i.e. Gains from Trade


The two R* (on both graphs) represent the efficient allocations that arise from trading.

• Germany: sold (R* - RReq) emission credits to Sweden at a unit price P.
• Sweden bought emission credits from Germany at a unit price P.

If the total cost for reducing a particular amount of emissions in the Command Control scenario is called X, then to reduce the same amount of combined pollution in Sweden and Germany, the total abatement cost would be less in the Emissions Trading scenario i.e. (X — Δ 123 - Δ def).
The example above applies not just at the national level: it applies just as well between two companies in different countries, or between two subsidiaries within the same company.

good luck with your moral compus and your ear for deception

you guys are getting played and in the process your gulibilty may impose this garbge on my family

you will see unfortunatly we will all probably see, and i wont have to say i told you so.

you will see it for yourself.

this will also make indoor cannbis more expensive to produce.

as well as EVERYTHING you pay for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do your research P.

Beginnersluck, you mentioned Jesus and then attending Town Hall meetings and Tea parties. All I can say to you is it's 95% propaganda and those meetings are detrimental to your success as an individual. They perpetuate lies and misinformation amongst a group of thousands of people. I've never seen any well organized right wing meeting that's actually actively working to solve the problems, instead what we get is people walking around with loaded automatic rifles, people wearing t-shirts that say things from "send the monkey back to the zoo!" to "Obama is a NAZI!"... and people who know absolutely fuckin' nothing about nothing with remarks about how the government needs to stay away from medicare...

Think for yourself, as an individual. Don't listen to any of those pundits. Research information, research bills, research topics and come up with YOUR OWN OPINION. Know the facts so you can inform other people.

Click to expand...

Ahh I love "progessives"

BeginnersLuck said:

My .02

I believe that global warming is a world wide agenda to have americans pay for more.. Its to bad Obama doesnt think the same way I do. How many days of this left... 4 years 24 days..

Where I come from we just had 6 consecutive months of the coldest on record. Everywhere Obama goes they get blizzards.. DC had the coldest winter on record, So did Chicago. Think some higher power is trying to tell some ego maniac something?

Im not sure what way rollitup leans but I can only imagine.. I am betting I will get some hate over this comment but I speak the truth...

Thanks for taking the time to read this..

Cheers



Beginner

ps until we are on the earth for 4 billion years and have that much data I aint buying it. Remember Pangea the world is constantly evolving and going through cycles.

Click to expand...

BeginnersLuck said:

Big I disagree with you... We wont see, the opposition is to strong and growing by the day. Their agenda has stalled and will only fall apart completely.. Obama is all about the re-distribution of wealth and given my nation a black guy. I am going to a town hall meeting tomorrow and I am gonna ask my senator why he wont listen to us. What is their problem and give him some ear cleaners. That should be fun, I email him every morning and he has never replied back... I aint buying it one bit and in fact have done all I can to support the TEA party.

Even though this is a climate change aka global warming thread its important to mention that deception that Obama is trying to pull on the american public and world.


Cheers

Beginner

Click to expand...

Ok sorry I forgot

***** Disclaimer *****

This is a public forum and these are merely my own personal opinions and are not actual facts unless you look really closely..

Please direct any and all comments to Oh wait thats what I really ment LOL

BeginnersLuck said:

Ahh I love "progessives"

Click to expand...

Oh yeah and now we are comparing the US to Germany France and England or sorry the swedes... right ... WHAT!

Ok ok ok sorry last little tid bit on this cause I dont like the way I left it. I am not a mean spirited or confrontational guy. But the simple fact that I cant think for myself cause I dont share someone else same views is ridiculous and the reason that I voted republican in 2008 for the first time ever and until the liberal progressives in America change their ways I will continue to do so.. I will continue to shout MY VOICE when I believe there is in-justice. Furthermore I mentioned a higher power and never once mentioned god or jesus... There are many higher powers in my opinion.

Thanks

cheers... anyone seen my rifle laying around here

Such an artful dismantling of absolutely nothing.

I'm still waiting for someone to clearly articulate how this 50-years-in-the-making global conspiracy was just uncovered by Fox News.

dukeofbaja said:

I'm still waiting for someone to clearly articulate how this 50-years-in-the-making global conspiracy was just uncovered by Fox News.

Click to expand...

It was actually conceived in 1848. That's, 162 years in the making.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

if you believe in gorbal warming you also believe in the tooth fairy and santa . there would be no talking to someone dumb enough to believe in global warming. how could you even speak to em really? I HOPE THERE IS A PILE OF CO2 IN THE AIR....its good for my plants. the more there is the more my plants breath up of it.

fdd2blk said:

i would love to grow 10 times as much and charge a tenth the price. i just need to cover my costs. i drive an '01 truck. i own no gold jewelery. my seadoo is a '95.

i don't rail against anything, except child abuse.

Click to expand...

Hey, just skip over the part where I said i wasn't talking about you personally. Feeling guilty? (I know you don't, that's clear)

max420thc said:

if you believe in gorbal warming you also believe in the tooth fairy and santa . there would be no talking to someone dumb enough to believe in global warming. how could you even speak to em really? I HOPE THERE IS A PILE OF CO2 IN THE AIR....its good for my plants. the more there is the more my plants breath up of it.

Click to expand...

I think you find the same types of ppl who believe in UFO's, 9/11 truthers, believe in man made global warming. It comes down to having a certain gullibility.

its gonna be a global swarming of your bank account

CrackerJax said:

I think you find the same types of ppl who believe in UFO's, 9/11 truthers, believe in man made global warming. It comes down to having a certain gullibility.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you need to be gullible o side with 90% of the scientific community, now don't ya?

So let me get this straight: I make a simple request for a brief, high-level overview of how this centuries in the making conspiracy of man made climate change was perpetrated. The response: You're the conspiracy theorist!

For fuck's sake, would someone please grow a pair and explain this whole conspiracy to me? Or do you fear you will look like the outlandish conspiracy theorist?

I also requested someone to tell me how scientists got these things like longwave radiation or 29,000+ independent data sets all wrong, no one has come forth to tell me why. WIll someone who denies man made climate change please step forward and say something substantive?

dukeofbaja said:

Yeah, you need to be gullible o side with 90% of the scientific community, now don't ya?

So let me get this straight: I make a simple request for a brief, high-level overview of how this centuries in the making conspiracy of man made climate change was perpetrated. The response: You're the conspiracy theorist!

For fuck's sake, would someone please grow a pair and explain this whole conspiracy to me? Or do you fear you will look like the outlandish conspiracy theorist?

I also requested someone to tell me how scientists got these things like longwave radiation or 29,000+ independent data sets all wrong, no one has come forth to tell me why. WIll someone who denies man made climate change please step forward and say something substantive?

Click to expand...

duke pls lets not be coy ok lol


i have this on 40 posts per page, at 16 pages now, you got 640 posts to sift through get to work and sharpen your pencil this time

i dont think you got it the first round. just keep re-reading the thread until you get tired of askin

I have read every post in this thread, and have seen many rantings of a global conspiracy designed to convince us that climate change is man made and take our money. What I have yet to see articulated is exactly how this is all going to work. Not even a high-level summarization, either. Just paranoid conspiracy theory rantings, certainly nothing substantive. If I am so gullible, why don't you just spell it out to me for the benefit of everyone? I have certainly articulated why I am with 90% of scientists, and am still waiting for someone to refute their findings on stuff like longwave radiation and those pesky 29,000+ data sets. Still waiting....

dukeofbaja said:

I have read every post in this thread, and have seen many rantings of a global conspiracy designed to convince us that climate change is man made and take our money. What I have yet to see articulated is exactly how this is all going to work. Not even a high-level summarization, either. Just paranoid conspiracy theory rantings, certainly nothing substantive. If I am so gullible, why don't you just spell it out to me for the benefit of everyone? I have certainly articulated why I am with 90% of scientists, and am still waiting for someone to refute their findings on stuff like longwave radiation and those pesky 29,000+ data sets. Still waiting....

Click to expand...

read the thread its all in there, you made your position i make mine


lets watch it all unfold and see whos right. ill be here

so i'm watching this show on UFO's early. the history channel or something. dude in mexico took a bunch of pics of a UFO from his back patio. he says 3 pics were taken within 5 mins of each, from his cell phone. he takes an american investigation crew thru what happen. shows them where he stood. gives them a step-by-step walk-thru.

so the US dudes download the pics onto their comp and go analyze it. turns out the time stamps from the phone are 40 something minutes apart. not 5 mins. then they do some color changing on the pic. like when you make something reversed negative or whatever. there is a perfect rectangle with different sized pixels surrounding the UFO. it was photoshopped, and obviously.

so they go back to dude who took the pics and tell him this. "top sceintists have debunked your pics".

he tells the computer expert that he is wrong. that the pics were 5 mins apart and the time has been altered.

they go to a head mexican UFO dude. he says it's all "real".

turns out the aliens alerted the pics. so they all insist.

everyone down there still stands behind the kid who took the photos, 100%.

i found it very interesting.

dukeofbaja said:

Yeah, you need to be gullible o side with 90% of the scientific community, now don't ya?

So let me get this straight: I make a simple request for a brief, high-level overview of how this centuries in the making conspiracy of man made climate change was perpetrated. The response: You're the conspiracy theorist!

For fuck's sake, would someone please grow a pair and explain this whole conspiracy to me? Or do you fear you will look like the outlandish conspiracy theorist?

I also requested someone to tell me how scientists got these things like longwave radiation or 29,000+ independent data sets all wrong, no one has come forth to tell me why. WIll someone who denies man made climate change please step forward and say something substantive?

Click to expand...

when i was a kid growing up in oregon the US government was paying scientists to find big foot..over a million dollars a year to find big foot...you know what..those scientists you trust so much swore and be damned that THERE IS A BIG FOOT AND THEY WERE GOING TO FIND HIM..almost everyone who grows up on the great north west KNOWS there is no such thing as big foot..but if someone was paying me a million dollars to find him id swear and be damned there is a big foot and i would find him..
all scientists are are fucking WHORES who work for government money.
just like your gorbal warming scientists.
if they ever said there is no such thing as gorbal warming the money supply from the tax payers would dry up...its all a SCAM..a two trillion dollar derivative market would be made by cap and trade and al gore and his buddies would be some of the wealthiest people on the plant..and you the consumer would get to pay the cost of this scam in the form of higher energy and product prices.