Most people in the United States will be screwed by Cap & Trade ... when energy inflation meets Cap & Trade and people are forced to make a decision between driving to work, heating/cooling their homes, or feeding their families.

It will be interesting to see what the secondary moves of the Congress will be ... Most likely as companies make the rational decision to move to lower-cost environments the government will be forced to act, and their action will probably be a Tariff on all goods imported from countries that don't have similar (moronic) legislation; these countries will then (probably) then impose their own tariffs on all goods imported from the United States creating another penalty on business in the US.

Basically, it is quite likely that companies based in other countries will be forced to face "Fair" competition in the United States while having a very "Unfair" advantage in domestic (and other) markets.

Look, I agree that Wikipedia is far from a paragon of neutrality on some issues, global warming very notably among them.  But this is a simple statement of fact that IF UNTRUE ought to be easily proven so.  And if it's NOT untrue, then your complaint is irrelevant.  

Please put up or shut up.   

[edit:  I admit that "easily" may be an exaggeration.  Also, "the editor"?  As in there's only one?  I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, because what it sounds to me like you're saying makes no sense.]

Yeah... Ohio tends to get screwed by everything.

I mean if you haven't noticed we just lost some big buisness out of Ohio because other states are using their stimulus money to offer them new buildings for free to leave ohio.

Yeah, that's what the stimulus money was meant for.

Anyway you should lower your emissions, the us is one of the countries that pollutes more per habitant, sometimes economy is not the most important thing, but innovatig in new clean tech will help economy in the long run and the enviorment.

Wow, I had no idea there were this many zealous conservatives on VGchartz. How annoying. I'm not going to waste the text to argue, it's completely pointless.

Well the article he posted seems to suggest that some groups disagree, no?

Largely the problem is... when people disagree they are kicked out... or ignored.  Like the UN report everyone likes to claim... where a large number of people claimed the results weren't accurate and changed to be sensational.  They wanted their names off the paper.  Didn't happen.  Few people even bothered to cover the fact that a decent amount of the scientists wanted out.

Focusing on alternative energy and getting people to conserve are universally good things afterall.  Scaring to get people there not so much.

But think about it.  What happens if Man Made Global Warming gets debunked like Man Made Global Cooling?

No pressure put on auto industries to develop alternative fuels, no pressure on anyone, less funding (and it's not funded enough as it is) less demand... all and all alternative energy grinds to a halt.  People start burnging oil again like crazy.

We hit peak oil eventually and have to resort to more and more costly measures to get oil and have to restart the alternative energy research.,, if people are even willing to beleive in peak oil.

scientific individuals != scientific organizations
(ditto "groups of scientific individuals")

The US should lower emissions. But taxing energy companies that use coal is not the way to do it.

We just spent $800 billion dollars to create jobs. Now we are taking some of those jobs away by destorying the electric generation industry in parts of America, favoring jobless 'green' alternatives that are inefficient. It seems that this move is totally counter to the economic crisis we are in.

If Obama was really worried about emissions, why didn't he earmark that entire stimulus bill, or major swaths to green energy research and production? For $800 billion we could have modernized the electric grid, introduced space-based solar energy via space elevators, and made America the kingpin of renewable energy. Instead, we half-ass it by giving people money that don't need it, and then take it away from people and places that do.

pastro - this isn't a means to create more efficient energy, but rather bankroll renewables that don't quite work yet. You don't improve efficency by forcing green solutions onto people and companies. Instead, you promote it with R&D initiatives. When we wanted to beat the Soviets, we poured money into NASA. If we want to beat global warming/non-renewable resources, we invest, not take away, mandate, and destory.

The Polish Academy of Sciences isn't a scientific orginzation?

Also... don't a group of scientific indivudals = a scientific organzation anyway?

I mean, if you have 800 Scienfitsts who don't believe in global warming for example... is that really less credible then an orginzation of 30 sceintists who do believe in it?

Now this is an actual answer.  I'll look into it.  

Not if the group doesn't comport itself as a scientific organization, despite its members.  Like, say, a jogging club (just for random example).  If the "group" in the article is basically a bunch of petitioners, I wouldn't call that a scientific organization.  

As for the last one ... Are you bringing this down to popularity contest?  Organizations are usually held to a certain standard for official positions they hold, while people (even scientists) can believe whatever.