EPA Buried Global Warming Study

[Coach]

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/23765754/hot-air.htm#q=global+warming+epa

Video

Al Gore really milked it for all it was worth!

[TheMojoPin]

It makes absolutely no sense for anyone in a position of power in America to "bury" anything that would say global warming isn't a serious problem or even really a problem at all. That would be fantastic news.

[HBox]

Yeah, I shut the video off right after they introduced James Inhofe. There's not a bigger idiot on the planet than James Inhofe.

[Dude!]

It makes absolutely no sense for anyone in a position of power in America to "bury" anything that would say global warming isn't a serious problem or even really a problem at all.

oh come on
are you naive
or feigning it?

[Coach]

It makes absolutely no sense for anyone in a position of power in America to "bury" anything that would say global warming isn't a serious problem or even really a problem at all. That would be fantastic news.
While I agree, Isn't there a big bill that is being pushed about global warming right now?

[TheMojoPin]

While I agree, Isn't there a big bill that is being pushed about global warming right now?

Yeah, and if global warming wasn't a problem they could pull back and say, "good news! We don't have to spend all this money and we don't have to regulate our industrial practices!" Why would pushing the bill through and all the politcal headaches that go with it be a better option?

[Snoogans]

advantage, mojo

[TheMojoPin]

oh come on
are you naive
or feigning it?

Spell it out for me, oh breathless one. Expose the secret cabal that somehow has more more money and power and influence than all the rich guys in charge right now who would love it if things could stay the same when it comes to the environment.

[Coach]

Yeah, and if global warming wasn't a problem they could pull back and say, "good news! We don't have to spend all this money and we don't have to regulate our industrial practices!" Why would pushing the bill through and all the politcal headaches that go with it be a better option?
Its the gov't! they are trying to turn us into a country where they have complete say over everything!MAAAAAAAANNNNNN!

[badmonkey]

Yeah, and if global warming wasn't a problem they could pull back and say, "good news! We don't have to spend all this money and we don't have to regulate our industrial practices!" Why would pushing the bill through and all the politcal headaches that go with it be a better option?


Pelosi Investment Shows Unlikely Energy Alliance (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121944622079465097.html)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband invested between $50,000 and $100,000 in T. Boone Pickens's Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which could benefit from legislation the California Democrat favors to boost U.S. use of natural gas.

The Pelosis got in on the ground floor at Clean Energy, purchasing shares in an auction when Mr. Pickens publicly launched the company on May 25, 2007. Clean Energy markets compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas as a fuel for motor vehicles. The investment was valued at $50,000 to $100,000 when the shares opened at $12.10 apiece, according to Mrs. Pelosi's financial disclosure forms. These forms list investments only as a range of values. The purchase is listed as stock held by the speaker's husband, successful financier and businessman Paul Pelosi.

The investment rose at the end of 2007, when shares closed at $15.14, to between $100,001 and $250,000. On Friday, the stock closed at $14.23 a share, down from a high of $20.64 in October.
Legislators Framing Climate Bills Hold Energy Stock (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/40285)
18 Jun 2009 // As Congress moves ahead with climate-change legislation touching almost every corner of the energy industry, a number of lawmakers shaping the debate have investments in companies that would be affected by the results.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.), one of the lead authors of a House bill that would favor alternative-energy sources, had investments of between $51,000 and $115,000 in the Firsthand Technology Value Fund at the end of last year. Three of the top 10 holdings in the Ohio fund are solar-energy manufacturers.

Maybe that has something to do with it?

[TheMojoPin]

Pelosi Investment Shows Unlikely Energy Alliance (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121944622079465097.html)



Legislators Framing Climate Bills Hold Energy Stock (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/40285)


Maybe that has something to do with it?

Probably not since far more Democrats would make much more money off of the "classic" way of things.

Besides, "clean energy" initiatives aren't hinged on evironmental reports about global warming. You can sell those these days just with the idea of getting us off the dependence of foreign oil.

[Fallon]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gO1PfMubzWM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gO1PfMubzWM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TheMojoPin]

"What is it, A UNITARIAN?!?"

[LordJezo]

Tee hee hee.. liberals here on the message board scrambling at the news that global warming is bullshit.

It's wonderful to see this happen but it's unfortunate the Obamagod gets what he wants, and if he says global warming is real, well, then it's real.

[TheMojoPin]

How is anyone "scrambling?"

[HBox]

I refuse to believe that anyone here actually thinks that the non-existent industries that might someday come to be in part because of this legislation has more money and influence THAN THE MOTHERFUCKING OIL AND COAL INDUSTRIES COMBINED!

[Snoogans]

I refuse to believe that anyone here actually thinks that the non-existent industries that might someday come to be in part because of this legislation has more money and influence THAN THE MOTHERFUCKING OIL AND COAL INDUSTRIES COMBINED!

Who by the way are the ones initially jumping on all that new shit, too, arent they?

[TheMojoPin]

I refuse to believe that anyone here actually thinks that the non-existent industries that might someday come to be in part because of this legislation has more money and influence THAN THE MOTHERFUCKING OIL AND COAL INDUSTRIES COMBINED!

Exactly. Plus it makes no sense that a global political and business AND scientific conspiracy would exist to "invent" global warming. How does that even work? That makes the massive 9/11 and JFK assassination conspiracy theories look compact and practical.

[KatPw]

Take anything that comes out of the Competitive Enterprise Institute with a gigantic grain of salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

[badmonkey]

Exactly. Plus it makes no sense that a global political and business AND scientific conspiracy would exist to "invent" global warming. How does that even work? That makes the massive 9/11 and JFK assassination conspiracy theories look compact and practical.

Either side of the global warming debate could be wrong without it being a conspiracy. Here's an interesting article concerning the EPA report and one about climate change policy in Australia.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml)

The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html)

[TheMojoPin]

Either side of the global warming debate could be wrong without it being a conspiracy. Here's an interesting article concerning the EPA report and one about climate change policy in Australia.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml)

The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html)

Sure, I'd welcome widespread conclusive findings that global warming isn't a serious problem, but that latter link is just an op-ed piece focusing on dissenters in regards to the generally held consensus amongts the majorioty of the scientific community in regards to global warming being a problem and what kind of problem it is. That's really nothing new at this point because those people have always been out there. The key is if we start seeing significant change in the world's scientific community. Pointing out that some of Australia's scientists are changing their minds is significant if their results consistently hold up: that many other Australians and their politicians are doing the same really is not.

The "buried" EPA report also bears further examination: (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/)

First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That's not necessarily a problem - perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? - but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don't know is a leading light of the Friends of Science - a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken's rambling magnum opus on the FoS site.

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West's statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this "evidence", they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

[badmonkey]

The guy that wrote the response about the EPA stuff has multiple math degrees and isn't a climatologist. He's a "climate scientist", which basically means the math he works with revolves around climates. He makes climate models. I'm just wondering do his models work? I'm always hearing that these models can't predict today's climate using data from the past. Not trying to slam him or anything. I'm sure he knows more about it than I do. I'm just curious, especially since his blog post sounds so condescending and arrogant.

[The Jays]

Tee hee hee.. liberals here on the message board scrambling at the news that global warming is bullshit.

It's wonderful to see this happen but it's unfortunate the Obamagod gets what he wants, and if he says global warming is real, well, then it's real.

Wow, do you bother to read what most of us say? Whether or not global warming is happening is still debatable, but the need to be free of non-renewable sources of energy is what the goal should be. You seem to be all for keeping us on foreign oil and fueling more terror against our country.

[TheMojoPin]

The guy that wrote the response about the EPA stuff has multiple math degrees and isn't a climatologist. He's a "climate scientist", which basically means the math he works with revolves around climates. He makes climate models. I'm just wondering do his models work? I'm always hearing that these models can't predict today's climate using data from the past. Not trying to slam him or anything. I'm sure he knows more about it than I do. I'm just curious, especially since his blog post sounds so condescending and arrogant.

Nothing works harder or better than a model.

[boosterp]

Nothing works harder or better than a model.

And they can be fun to fuck.

[badmonkey]

Nothing works harder or better than a model.

yes... but... which model is his?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3022/2380205010_6ee9ea983f.jpg

or...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/Thirstyguy/american-flag-model-bikini.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

Those are both awful.

[badmonkey]

I tried. I'm at work so I wasn't able to do any serious looking around for hot chicks so I just used the first bikini chick i saw on the "global warming" bikini search in images on google. You will have to use a bit of imagination or refer to the hot chick game thread for improvements. :)

Oh wait! I won! You admit the guy is a fraud!

:drunk:

[A.J.]

At first glance, I was getting ready to blame epo.

[styckx]

Yeah..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

[The Jays]

It was a retarded document!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West's statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this "evidence", they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

Devastating eh?

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports….

[brettmojo]

Yeah, and if global warming wasn't a problem they could pull back and say, "good news! We don't have to spend all this money and we don't have to regulate our industrial practices!" Why would pushing the bill through and all the politcal headaches that go with it be a better option?
From what I understand, it'll expand government and increase taxes.

Win/Win for the government.

[styckx]

From what I understand, it'll expand government and increase taxes.

Win/Win for the government.

^ This.

Industry will be passing the carbon credit costs right down to the consumer.

[The Jays]

You've convinced me. Industry and businesses must continue to consume energy in large amounts provided by the burning of non-renewable fuels so as to make sure costs stay low and do not get passed onto to the consumer, because as we burn through our remaining supplies of non-renewable fuels and demand increases, the price of such fuels will go down.

[TheMojoPin]

From what I understand, it'll expand government and increase taxes.

Win/Win for the government.

How is that "win/win?"

[TheMojoPin]

It was a retarded document!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

I already posted that, you dirty copycat.

[The Jays]

I already posted that, you dirty copycat.

Yes, but the sections I quoted were slightly different, thus, I'm totally original.

[brettmojo]

How is that "win/win?"
Oh you're right, why would the government want more money from us or more ways to interfere with our lives especially if it means getting more money from us.

[Syd]

You've convinced me. Industry and businesses must continue to consume energy in large amounts provided by the burning of non-renewable fuels so as to make sure costs stay low and do not get passed onto to the consumer, because as we burn through our remaining supplies of non-renewable fuels and demand increases, the price of such fuels will go down.

it makes sense if you realize one of the major issues with global warming is the famine that is caused from desertification/lack of water

adios the southwest, midwest, southeast glad your futures are written so that people in the northwest and northeast can get sweet $500 42" lcd tvs

[TheMojoPin]

Oh you're right, why would the government want more money from us or more ways to interfere with our lives especially if it means getting more money from us.

There's a myriad of infinitely easier ways for them to raise taxes. And why would they pounce with their plan to raise taxes when the economy is bad and people are making less? And what does the government gain with "more ways to interfere with our lives?"

It's just that all the "schemes" to profit off of global warming seem pretty weak and really pale in comparison to the money that was and could be made off of the "old" ways of doing things.

[HBox]

Oh you're right, why would the government want more money from us or more ways to interfere with our lives especially if it means getting more money from us.

I'm sure that's what they are thinking. Not "How can we deal with this pressing problem in the most palatable way?" It's "How can we raise taxes and meddle in industry for no reason because that's totally how we can get re-elected!"

[Syd]

It's just that all the "schemes" to profit off of global warming seem pretty weak and really pale in comparison to the money that was and could be made off of the "old" ways of doing things.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6405/federalbudgetpiechart.jpg

[The Jays]

That's the problem with you libs. You always claim to be trying to solve the nation's problems, but you always tell us the price tag. Why can't you be more like us and hide the cost by deficit spending?

[brettmojo]

I'm sure that's what they are thinking. Not "How can we deal with this pressing problem in the most palatable way?" It's "How can we raise taxes and meddle in industry for no reason because that's totally how we can get re-elected!"
But that's not what they're doing... Right? They're just trying to save the Earth/free us from the tyranny of relying on the oil companies/foreign oil... MAAAAANNNNNNN!!!

Not saying there's a global warming conspiracy... But to be naive enough to not think that there will be those trying to take advantage of it? Come on.

[TheMojoPin]

Not saying there's a global warming conspiracy... But to be naive enough to not think that there will be those trying to take advantage of it? Come on.

Of course, but you have to weigh actual gain with the realistic expectations of who is going to profit and how much off of it. There's barely enough money going around out of this to think that people are signing up simply for the profits.

[styckx]

I bet within 10 years the U.S. has a value add tax in place.

[The Jays]

But that's not what they're doing... Right? They're just trying to save the Earth/free us from the tyranny of relying on the oil companies/foreign oil... MAAAAANNNNNNN!!!

Not saying there's a global warming conspiracy... But to be naive enough to not think that there will be those trying to take advantage of it? Come on.

The people who try to profit are businesses who actually develop "green" technologies, like building integrated PV, LED lighting, insulating materials with high R value, batteries, the design of buildings which passively heat and cool to reduce their HVAC loads. Those are businesses which already exist in the free market. It's naive to think that government would be the one to profit when those "green" businesses are how one would work with in order to get around these cap and trade costs.

[badmonkey]

The people who try to profit are businesses who actually develop "green" technologies, like building integrated PV, LED lighting, insulating materials with high R value, batteries, the design of buildings which passively heat and cool to reduce their HVAC loads. Those are businesses which already exist in the free market. It's naive to think that government would be the one to profit when those "green" businesses are how one would work with in order to get around these cap and trade costs.

The govt doesn't profit as "the govt". The members of the govt profit individually by writing laws that benefit their investments. It's like insider trading.

[TheMojoPin]

The piles of literally thousands of dollars off of this goldmine is just too much to resist.

[badmonkey]

The piles of literally thousands of dollars off of this goldmine is just too much to resist.

You mean hundreds of thousands to millions. You think they're investing $50-150k of their own money if they're only gonna get a couple bucks back? Are you saying that they aren't going to benefit at all from the legislation that they wrote and hammered through the House after investing in the ground floor of these companies?

[TheMojoPin]

You mean hundreds of thousands to millions. You think they're investing $50-150k of their own money if they're only gonna get a couple bucks back? Are you saying that they aren't going to benefit at all from the legislation that they wrote and hammered through the House after investing in the ground floor of these companies?

I'm saying that there's not nearly enough money to go around at this point that would sway enough politicians from the go-to sources of "sponsorship" that are already out there. Sure, there's definitely a few out there who are in on the ground floor and are going to milk this for all its worth, but as a whole if someone's goal is to go along with the "global warming hoax" or whatever it's called today to make money then they've likely chosen very poorly.

[tanless1]

dont start throw'n "lib / conservative" ... then nothin gets solved . we are "all" getting conned/ bamboozeld - this is an "we" problem. this bill will be used to determine " farm size , profitability - who will be allowed to proffit/ not profit . do your cow's fart to much( eat more soy;,, and soy is the greatest thing in the world for you) .... everything else has alleady been mentioned.
we put up a windmill 20 years ago. the only way to store the pwr us battery's . ive got a building full of them. the generater did not perform as promised, went through 2 inverters ( far from cheap) and went through a number of diodes. eventualy a neighbor built across the street and we were able to bring electric in for a reasonable price.

[tanless1]

kick me the soap box Mo.

the point is the pwrs that are being grabed by both sides belong to us. we need to stand up and stop it.
these solutions are all somthing we can do on our own. we can make our own fuel by throwing rotten fruit in a vat and distilling....but youve got to have a permit from the atf and post a $2500 bond for road taxs... god forbid they get assed out.
its examples like that that remind me that its all about money and pwr, all solutions are invalid unless the govt gets their cut.

but lib/conservative wedges us apart and thats how the govt is able to consolodate the pwr.

[badmonkey]

I'm saying that there's not nearly enough money to go around at this point that would sway enough politicians from the go-to sources of "sponsorship" that are already out there. Sure, there's definitely a few out there who are in on the ground floor and are going to milk this for all its worth, but as a whole if someone's goal is to go along with the "global warming hoax" or whatever it's called today to make money then they've likely chosen very poorly.

This isn't about a "global warming hoax" but it's nice to see you throw out your own strawman for me to knock down. It is about politicians in both parties investing in companies and then legislating for the benefit of those companies rather than the American people that they represent.

[TheMojoPin]

This isn't about a "global warming hoax" but it's nice to see you throw out your own strawman for me to knock down. It is about politicians in both parties investing in companies and then legislating for the benefit of those companies rather than the American people that they represent.

So the same thing that's been done since day one.

Them's the breaks with free-market capitalism, y'all.

[badmonkey]

Maybe the democrats that voted against the bill can be trusted when they say that this bill sucks?

Bobby Bright (http://www.bright.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=210&Itemid=62)
"Tonight I voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, better known as Cap and Trade. There are many reasons I oppose this bill, but in short I cannot vote for any legislation that puts an additional economic burden on my constituents, especially during a recession. This bill will raise energy costs for consumers, small businesses, and farmers with no guarantee that it will achieve its goal of reducing the impact of global climate change. Frankly, it's a gamble I'm not willing to take at this time.

Parker Griffith (http://griffith.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=24&sectiontree=23,24&itemid=304)
“Under this bill, power companies in Alabama would be required to generate a certain percentage of the electricity they sell from a rigid definition of ‘renewable’ resources included in this legislation. Unfortunately nuclear power and existing hydroelectricity – two resources from which Alabama benefits greatly – are not included in this definition. This legislation would cripple Alabama utilities with high and swift taxes, forcing them to choose between going out of business or passing the cost onto Tennessee Valley consumers.

Ann Kirkpatrick (http://kirkpatrick.house.gov/2009/06/rep-kirkpatrick-opposes-waxman-markey-energy-bill-stands-up-for-rural-arizona-citing-rising-consumer.shtml)
“There has been plenty of bickering back and forth across party lines about the costs of this bill, but everyone agrees that folks will be spending more on basic services,” said Rep. Kirkpatrick. “People in my district are already fighting to stay in their homes and pay for gas, and a sudden increase would hurt our families in Greater Arizona. Our families just cannot afford this bill.”

Harry Mitchell (http://mitchell.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=488&Itemid=80)
"I approached this legislation with two questions in mind. First, would the bill fight global climate change and make the investments to deliver the results we need? Secondly, is this bill a good deal for Arizona? Unfortunately, the answer to both of these questions is no.

"This bill literally re-commits the United States to coal, a step backwards at a time when it is vitally important for us to move forward. Clean, renewable energy should be our chief priority, not fossil fuels.

"In Arizona, this bill asks us to pay more for our energy, but fails to deliver what is necessary to help us grow our emerging solar industry. I introduced an amendment to improve the bill to make financing more available for solar energy. However, my amendment was blocked and didn't receive a vote.

Mike Ross (http://ross.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=177&sectiontree=6,126,177)
We must be very careful in passing any climate change legislation to ensure that we do not enact policies that close our local factories and ship our jobs and carbon dioxide emissions overseas, which would do nothing for planet Earth. The reality is that between now and 2040, 97 percent of new carbon emissions will not be produced from the United States or Europe, but rather from places like China, India, and the Middle East.

Charlie Melancon (http://www.melancon.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1186&Itemid=1)
“I opposed this bill a month ago in the Energy and Commerce Committee because I believed it would hurt my district and the people I represent, and I voted against it today for the same reasons,” said Rep. Melancon. “The oil and gas industry is the engine driving south Louisiana’s economy, providing good-paying jobs to hundreds of thousands of our workers for generations.

“Rising sea levels and more frequent hurricanes are serious threats to south Louisiana, threats caused by climate change. We must work together as a nation to reduce the pollution causing this climate change, but not on the back of our energy industry in Louisiana. I will continue to use my vote in Congress to protect jobs and businesses in our state and create a brighter future for our children.”

Travis Childers (http://www.childers.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=202&Itemid=70)
"While I commend the Administration's and House leadership's commitment to legislation intended to promote conservation and energy independence, I could not in good conscience vote for a bill that could significantly raise costs for hard working American families and producers - specifically the agriculture industry - during today's difficult economic times.

"For American agriculture and American families, higher energy costs could considerably outweigh potential benefits. These costs will be passed on to agriculture's production inputs, and businesses will pass on the cost of emission allowances to consumers, creating a ripple effect that makes total costs and potential benefits impossible to measure. Having no way of knowing the ultimate cost for both families and industries, I felt it was irresponsible to vote for this bill.

"Additionally, the bill will likely have a disproportionate effect on energy consumers in the South. It is a well-known fact that Southern energy suppliers have fewer opportunities than their counterparts in other regions to develop alternative sources, which puts them on an unlevel playing field and creates higher bills for Southern families.

Gene Taylor (http://www.taylor.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=968)
I do not believe a cap and trade system is the approach that is best to reduce global warming gases. As a matter of fact I think it is a simple “Ponzi Scheme” that will increase energy prices. According to the Congressional Budget Office it will create a complex financial system that allows risky investment in the energy market increasing cost of living per household by $1600 per year. I also don’t like the idea that a factory in one state is cleaner than it has to be so that another factory is dirtier than it should be. This could potentially leave Mississippi with the cancer causing agents and other states with the credit.
Eric Massa (http://massa.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=24&sectiontree=23,24&itemid=331)
"Today I voted against the Cap and Trade bill because of several concerns," said Congressman Eric Massa. "Let me begin by saying that I know global warming is real and we must take steps to address this situation, however I don't think this proposal takes us in the right direction. I was also deeply concerned by the fact that hydrogen fuel cell technology did not receive any attention in this legislation. Additionally, my constituents have told me in overwhelming levels that they wanted me to reject this plan, and as their Representative, I take their opinions very seriously. I was also upset by how rushed this process was. We have a district work week coming up and I would have liked the opportunity to hold more townhall meetings while this issue is on the front burner to hear what the families of Western New York thought about Cap and Trade."

The rest of the list can be found here. (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/climate_bill_democrats/2009/06/28/229494.html) I'll let you look up the rest since it wouldnt' likely fit in one post anyway.

[badmonkey]

So the same thing that's been done since day one.

Them's the breaks with free-market capitalism, y'all.

Oh... I thought Pelosi was going to "clean up the house" and Obama was going to bring about "change", but what we're getting instead is the "same thing that's been done since day one".

Got it. Thanks.

[foodcourtdruide]

Maybe the democrats that voted against the bill can be trusted when they say that this bill sucks?

Bobby Bright (http://www.bright.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=210&Itemid=62)


Parker Griffith (http://griffith.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=24&sectiontree=23,24&itemid=304)


Ann Kirkpatrick (http://kirkpatrick.house.gov/2009/06/rep-kirkpatrick-opposes-waxman-markey-energy-bill-stands-up-for-rural-arizona-citing-rising-consumer.shtml)


Harry Mitchell (http://mitchell.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=488&Itemid=80)


Mike Ross (http://ross.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=177&sectiontree=6,126,177)


Charlie Melancon (http://www.melancon.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1186&Itemid=1)


Travis Childers (http://www.childers.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=202&Itemid=70)


Gene Taylor (http://www.taylor.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=968)

Eric Massa (http://massa.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=24&sectiontree=23,24&itemid=331)


The rest of the list can be found here. (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/climate_bill_democrats/2009/06/28/229494.html) I'll let you look up the rest since it wouldnt' likely fit in one post anyway.

I don't get it. Some democrats were against the bill. What's your point? If I countered this post with democrats who said positive things about the bill what would happen?

[FMJeff]

I think the Democrats missed a huge opportunity to frame the battle over global warming in a much more attractive package.

Without even debating over whether or not its true, why not just focus on green technologies exclusively?

Pump billions into it, create a gigantic American industry producing innovative products THAT SAVE PEOPLE MONEY ON ENERGY.

Don't even mention global warming. Break it down to nickles and dimes. That's all people care about.

Just the other day, Obama wanted to apply a mandate to lamps or light bulbs in an effort to convert them into a more energy saving apparatus. The estimated savings from this efficiency totaled in the billions...and that's just one very small iota.

The fact of the matter is it doesn't take much to affect significant cost savings as it relates to energy. Ideas like this are incredibly simple. Most of our rampant energy use is thrown away as waste...leaky roofs...leaky windows...lights left on all day...air conditioning left to run in an empty room etc.

If you start by addressing these issues, you can demonstrate in dollars and sense why its a good idea to invest in energy saving products and services.

Oil is expensive. It's expensive to environment, its expensive to ship, store, process, deliver, and pump. It's a security risk, as our entire country is dependent on this lifeline from an area of the world where people hate us and where our enemies around the world jockey for position.

Coal is expensive. It's expensive to mine, ship, store and burn.

Natural gas is expensive. It's expensive to survey, drill, pump, store, distribute and burn.

With the money involved in this latest clean air bill passed by the House, we could revolutionize clean, green fuels. Wave, wind, bio diesel, solar...the technologies to harness them are ours for the taking...if we want it.

The cost savings in energy would be astronomical. We would be a stronger country, less dependence on foreign oil, less dependence on fossil fuels with a new industry the developing world will pay for because they want to save money too.

And not a word about climate change would ever have to be uttered, and this ridiculous cap and trade program wouldn't even become an issue.

I don't understand why they can't just do that. It makes perfect sense to me. :furious:

[badmonkey]

I don't get it. Some democrats were against the bill. What's your point? If I countered this post with democrats who said positive things about the bill what would happen?

The point is not that they voted against the bill. The point is WHY they voted against the bill. Some democrats were agains it? There were enough against it that without 8 republicans, the bill wouldn't have passed. You get stuck too much on the democrat vs republican crap and miss the details.

The bill doesn't count hydroelectric power as renewable energy? Why the fuck not?
Why does it recommit us to coal but not address solar power in Arizona? Why did the congress block the Arizona rep's amendment addressing solar?

None of that seems odd for an energy bill that addresses climate change and global warming? This "at least he's doing something" argument is meaningless if the "something" is going to have the opposite affect or no affect at all. A little common sense will carry you a long way.

[boosterp]

I don't get it. Some democrats were against the bill. What's your point? If I countered this post with democrats who said positive things about the bill what would happen?

Those democrats make sense, did you read the comments? Did you click on the link?

[foodcourtdruide]

Those democrats make sense, did you read the comments? Did you click on the link?

There were some I agreed with and some I didn't. I did not click the newsmax link at the bottom.

[TheMojoPin]

Oh... I thought Pelosi was going to "clean up the house" and Obama was going to bring about "change", but what we're getting instead is the "same thing that's been done since day one".

Got it. Thanks.

I know you want Obama to be the Messiah, but I've got bad news for you...

Besides, why are you so anti-success?

[foodcourtdruide]

The point is not that they voted against the bill. The point is WHY they voted against the bill. Some democrats were agains it? There were enough against it that without 8 republicans, the bill wouldn't have passed. You get stuck too much on the democrat vs republican crap and miss the details.

The bill doesn't count hydroelectric power as renewable energy? Why the fuck not?
Why does it recommit us to coal but not address solar power in Arizona? Why did the congress block the Arizona rep's amendment addressing solar?

None of that seems odd for an energy bill that addresses climate change and global warming? This "at least he's doing something" argument is meaningless if the "something" is going to have the opposite affect or no affect at all. A little common sense will carry you a long way.

I just don't see why pointing out quotes from opposing democrats makes a difference. You say I'm getting stuck too much on dem vs republican thing, but I was just asking why you were specifically singling out democratic voices against the bill.

The bill is definitely shaky and I agree with the points that you've been making. I don't like the midnight additions to the bill at all. Things like that frustrate me beyond belief.

[TheMojoPin]

I really wish utilizing and developing nuclear power more as an energy source wasn't so verboten.

[badmonkey]

There were some I agreed with and some I didn't. I did not click the newsmax link at the bottom.

The newsmax link at the bottom was just a list of 44 Democrats that voted against the bill and 8 Republicans that voted for it. Let me see if I can find a liberal blog with the list for you.

Here... how about this:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml

NOES = against

[foodcourtdruide]

The newsmax link at the bottom was just a list of 44 Democrats that voted against the bill and 8 Republicans that voted for it. Let me see if I can find a liberal blog with the list for you.

lol thanks. i'd appreciate it.

[boosterp]

I really wish utilizing and developing nuclear power more as an energy source wasn't so verboten.

I agree, we have proven it to be safe. Also, I know some states do not have the landmass to do so but Texas has demonstrated the effectiveness and success of wind power.

[TheMojoPin]

I agree, we have proven it to be safe. Also, I know some states do not have the landmass to do so but Texas has demonstrated the effectiveness and success of wind power.

Definitely. Nuclear power has just been too successfully demonized over the last 30 years that I really can't see any significant political movement willfully pushing for it.

[Syd]

its not really landmass its the stability of it -- only coastal states and a few inland states have any usable power

either way, things like this are going to be a pretty huge boon to renewable energy industries and there are a significant amount of companies here that manufacture them

[brettmojo]

Definitely. Nuclear power has just been too successfully demonized over the last 30 years that I really can't see any significant political movement willfully pushing for it.
Isn't it the waste that's the big issue? Other than the possibility of the meltdown?

[TheMojoPin]

Isn't it the waste that's the big issue? Other than the possibility of the meltdown?

That and the various teenage mutant ninja animals that go along with it.

[brettmojo]

That and the various teenage mutant ninja animals that go along with it.
http://wildlifemysteries.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/montauk-monster.jpg

[badmonkey]

I know you want Obama to be the Messiah, but I've got bad news for you...

Besides, why are you so anti-success?

You're the one that said it was the same old same old. They're the ones that made "change" and "cleaning up the house" such a big deal. Where's all the transparency? I know you don't care about any of that because it's a democratic majority. I don't want you to defend Obama and Pelosi. I want you to defend the practice of consistently claiming we have a crisis and then using that crisis to create thousands of pages of new legislation with billions of dollars of spending. Do you really think it's ok that they keep ramming through all this massive legislation without even reading it? If you honestly don't see the problem with that, then just say so.

Why are you so anti-common sense?

[HBox]

http://wildlifemysteries.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/montauk-monster.jpg

nevermind. On second look that's a pig.

[TheMojoPin]

You're the one that said it was the same old same old. They're the ones that made "change" and "cleaning up the house" such a big deal. Where's all the transparency? I know you don't care about any of that because it's a democratic majority. I don't want you to defend Obama and Pelosi. I want you to defend the practice of consistently claiming we have a crisis and then using that crisis to create thousands of pages of new legislation with billions of dollars of spending. Do you really think it's ok that they keep ramming through all this massive legislation without even reading it? If you honestly don't see the problem with that, then just say so.

Why are you so anti-common sense?

Common sense never bought me a shiny new rocket-car! YEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAWWWWWWWWW!!!

I already said that pushing the bill through with all those last minute add-ons was shady as fuck. Nobody in their right might would think otherwise, ah-doy.

[TheMojoPin]

nevermind. On second look that's a pig.

I thought it was declared to be a raccoon.

[brettmojo]

I thought it was declared to be a raccoon.
I still say dog.

[boosterp]

Definitely. Nuclear power has just been too successfully demonized over the last 30 years that I really can't see any significant political movement willfully pushing for it.

Isn't it the waste that's the big issue? Other than the possibility of the meltdown?

The waste issue has been taken care of thank you to a few unused mines and salt domes. The difficulty is getting the federal government's approval. A few years ago here in Texas we wanted to build another plant, we have the disposal site taken care of in West Texas, but it would take at least 7 years to go through the permit process. Ultimately it was not approved.

[styckx]

Nuclear is the only way to go right now

To bad the U.S. condemns anyone but themselves who builds a reactor. WEAPONZZ Z ZNZNZ

Which would end up making us look like assholes if we suddenly tossed up some new plants.

[FMJeff]

Nuclear is the only way to go right now

To bad the U.S. condemns anyone but themselves who builds a reactor. WEAPONZZ Z ZNZNZ

Which would end up making us look like assholes if we suddenly tossed up some new plants.

It's really not the only way to go. We have a chance here to develop fuels that have no waste...that require no disposal. Nuclear is just another "fossil fuel" IMHO. The uranium has to be mined, transported, stored, refined, split, and disposed of. It's coal...it's oil...its just not the result of carbon under pressure over time.

Wouldn't it make more sense to develop the fuel sources that require no such expensive processes?

[boosterp]

Nuclear is the only way to go right now

To bad the U.S. condemns anyone but themselves who builds a reactor. WEAPONZZ Z ZNZNZ

Which would end up making us look like assholes if we suddenly tossed up some new plants.

World Domination Card Holder #13 checking in budayyyy.

[TheMojoPin]

It's really not the only way to go. We have a chance here to develop fuels that have no waste...that require no disposal. Nuclear is just another "fossil fuel" IMHO. The uranium has to be mined, transported, stored, refined, split, and disposed of. It's coal...it's oil...its just not the result of carbon under pressure over time.

Wouldn't it make more sense to develop the fuel sources that require no such expensive processes?

Yes, but nuclear power would be an excellent bridge in the meantime. It's vastly different from the other fossil fuels in how much power it provides and for how long with realtively so little of the "fuel" and in how the waste is far less than the other fossil fuels.

[FMJeff]

Yes, but nuclear power would be an excellent bridge in the meantime. It's vastly different from the other fossil fuels in how much power it provides and for how long with realtively so little of the "fuel" and in how the waste is far less than the other fossil fuels.

You're limiting your vision though to power plants, where I'm saying let's attack every wasteful energy leak in the country. Seal people's roofs, windows and doors. Offer more energy efficient appliances, light bulbs, entertainment devices. Develop more alternative fueled automobiles, buses, and trains. In Malaysia, I believe, there is a skyscraper that gets its power, for the most part, from a wind turbine mounted on the building itself. Make solar panels cheaper, easier to acquire for the home. Further research new building materials and methods to create more energy efficient homes.

A lot of these things we're already doing, but we can do more. Some we're not doing at all.

My point is...this is what we should be focusing on and not useless cap and trade and other economic measures of its ilk. It's a stop gap, and not a solution. It's just unfair to force companies trying to stay afloat in already uncertain economic times to accept additional costs aimed squarely at their bread and butter. The solution is to replace these companies with something cleaner, something cheaper...but it takes money to make these technologies viable on a large scale...like the money in this ludicrous bill.

[TheMojoPin]

You're Jezo's worst nightmare.

My issue with your plan is that most of that technology simply is not at the scale, cost or efficiency that a country of this size needs to implement such sweeping changes. Obviously, money and support should put into conquering those issues, but you'll need a bridge in the meantime that can power the country and start seriously weaning us off foreign and ineffeicient energy dependence: hence nuclear power.

[Gvac]

Radically changing our main sources of fuel is an incredibly expensive and time consuming undertaking. It won't be done cheaply, or overnight.

Furthermore, all of the "green" technologies have serious shortcomings. Bio-diesel, for example, freezes below 20 degrees. A school system in Minnesota found this out the hard way over the winter. They were so proud to be the first in the nation to have their buses powered by bio-diesel, until the fuel turned into solid sludge and shut them down.

Scientists in Washington state have reported wind mills are responsible for the deaths of thousands of bats. Apparently the wind currents cause them to fly toward the rear, and the wind is sucked out of their lungs.

We have to study these alternative sources intensely before jumping aboard thinking they're the cure all.

[Syd]

Radically changing our main sources of fuel is an incredibly expensive and time consuming undertaking. It won't be done cheaply, or overnight.

Furthermore, all of the "green" technologies have serious shortcomings. Bio-diesel, for example, freezes below 20 degrees. A school system in Minnesota found this out the hard way over the winter. They were so proud to be the first in the nation to have their buses powered by bio-diesel, until the fuel turned into solid sludge and shut them down.

Scientists in Washington state have reported wind mills are responsible for the deaths of thousands of bats. Apparently the wind currents cause them to fly toward the rear, and the wind is sucked out of their lungs.

We have to study these alternative sources intensely before jumping aboard thinking they're the cure all.

so its better to just study them and run out of fuel in 3 decades?

nothing is going to change at all, we know every method of creating energy in the universe and the options we have now our are only options, there's no deus ex machina for this problem

[badmonkey]

so its better to just study them and run out of fuel in 3 decades?

nothing is going to change at all, we know every method of creating energy in the universe and the options we have now our are only options, there's no deus ex machina for this problem

A little studying ahead of time could have prevented crap like Gvac's example of buses that don't run cuz their fuel turned to useless sludge. Doing the wrong thing to solve a problem so that you can be seen doing "something" is not always better than doing nothing at all.

[boosterp]

A little studying ahead of time could have prevented crap like Gvac's example of buses that don't run cuz their fuel turned to useless sludge. Doing the wrong thing to solve a problem so that you can be seen doing "something" is not always better than doing nothing at all.

Words of wisdom.

[The Jays]

I hate to cite Europe, but, in terms of solar, countries have place a line of solar panels along the highways and in areas of open space where solar energy falls, basically claiming every bit of energy on every bit of available space. That solar energy can go directly into the grid or be stored in batteries. We could be doing that as well.

[boosterp]

I hate to cite Europe, but, in terms of solar, countries have place a line of solar panels along the highways and in areas of open space where solar energy falls, basically claiming every bit of energy on every bit of available space. That solar energy can go directly into the grid or be stored in batteries. We could be doing that as well.

Here in Texas they have it set up that if you generate solar power you get a credit, if you generate more solar power than you can use it goes back into the grid and you get paid. I wish I could afford panels up at my property, who does not need an extra $100 a month?

[The Jays]

I believe it works like that here in New York as well. I think that should be something promoted more.

[brettmojo]

I hate to cite Europe...
Why?

[The Jays]

Because some people seem to loathe any mention of Europe, because they jump on the slippery slope and think I'm suggesting socialism.

[keithy_19]

Why?

Cause they suck.

[keithy_19]

Because some people seem to loathe any mention of Europe, because they jump on the slippery slope and think I'm suggesting socialism.

You are.

[boosterp]

Because some people seem to loathe any mention of Europe, because they jump on the slippery slope and think I'm suggesting socialism.

Well also you have to remember that most of Europe is socialist by definition and parliamentary styled government. It is difficult on a politically philosophical and practical basis to compare that to the US.

[brettmojo]

Because some people seem to loathe any mention of Europe, because they jump on the slippery slope and think I'm suggesting socialism.
Oh of course, it's all about the USA!!! FUCK YEAH!!! GREATEST NATION ON EARTH!!!

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R1cSngpUiow&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

[epo]

Radically changing our main sources of fuel is an incredibly expensive and time consuming undertaking. It won't be done cheaply, or overnight.

Furthermore, all of the "green" technologies have serious shortcomings. Bio-diesel, for example, freezes below 20 degrees. A school system in Minnesota found this out the hard way over the winter. They were so proud to be the first in the nation to have their buses powered by bio-diesel, until the fuel turned into solid sludge and shut them down.

Scientists in Washington state have reported wind mills are responsible for the deaths of thousands of bats. Apparently the wind currents cause them to fly toward the rear, and the wind is sucked out of their lungs.

We have to study these alternative sources intensely before jumping aboard thinking they're the cure all.

But you can't argue that we need to do something. Can you, Harmonica?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Jasonrobards.JPG

[The Jays]

You are.

How am I suggesting socialism by remarking on a smart idea to install solar panels along the sides of highways? I'm trying to stir up thoughts on improving our energy situation; you're trying to go all Glenn Beck on me and suggest I'm a socialist because I noticed this great idea they have in Europe.

Offer up your thoughts on what you think is a good idea in terms of renewable energy. I dare you.

[Syd]

A little studying ahead of time could have prevented crap like Gvac's example of buses that don't run cuz their fuel turned to useless sludge. Doing the wrong thing to solve a problem so that you can be seen doing "something" is not always better than doing nothing at all.

a little studying? ever since diesel was invented in the late 1800s everyone knew it'd freeze in the winter unless you had added anti-gelling agents to it because diesel is basically oil

its not as simple as "don't ignite gas vapors" but its pretty close

[The Jays]

A little studying ahead of time could have prevented crap like Gvac's example of buses that don't run cuz their fuel turned to useless sludge. Doing the wrong thing to solve a problem so that you can be seen doing "something" is not always better than doing nothing at all.

How do you figure out what is the wrong way to solve a problem if you don't learn through trial and error? For example, we learned from Iraq to not depose the government of a Third World nation that had lied about its WMDs for the sake of perpetuating an illusion of strength to their sworn enemy, because instability could bring urban warfare from a civilian insurgency fueled by extremist ideologues. Trial and error.

Sometimes you don't know that you had the wrong solution to a problem until you try to solve it. No society generates perfect ideas whose solution will work.

[brettmojo]

Why can't we just start using dilithium crystals? It's the cleanest and safest source of energy there is.

[foodcourtdruide]

Why can't we just start using dilithium crystals? It's the cleanest and safest source of energy there is.

I vote for the thing inside Iron Man's chest.

[badmonkey]

How do you figure out what is the wrong way to solve a problem if you don't learn through trial and error? For example, we learned from Iraq to not depose the government of a Third World nation that had lied about its WMDs for the sake of perpetuating an illusion of strength to their sworn enemy, because instability could bring urban warfare from a civilian insurgency fueled by extremist ideologues. Trial and error.

Sometimes you don't know that you had the wrong solution to a problem until you try to solve it. No society generates perfect ideas whose solution will work.

You're right! I don't know why I didn't see it before! The important thing is not that you try to figure out what will solve the problem. The important thing is that we DO SOMETHING NOW!!! It's unsustainable! We can't go on like this! We have to fix it immediately through trial and error!

Please fix healthcare next through trial and error. That's gonna be amazing to watch. I mean, they've done such a fantastic job fixing the auto industry, the housing market, the economy, and everything else they've touched so far with this scientific trial and error method.

We might as well replace congress with magic 8-balls.

[badmonkey]

a little studying? ever since diesel was invented in the late 1800s everyone knew it'd freeze in the winter unless you had added anti-gelling agents to it because diesel is basically oil

its not as simple as "don't ignite gas vapors" but its pretty close

Everyone obviously did not know that or you wouldn't have had a fleet of buses immobilized by biojelly.
Sounds like proof that it's not such a good idea for politicians to rush to a solution without doing a little reading on the subject.

[boosterp]

Everyone obviously did not know that or you wouldn't have had a fleet of buses immobilized by biojelly.
Sounds like proof that it's not such a good idea for politicians to rush to a solution without doing a little reading on the subject.

Agreed.

[Syd]

Everyone obviously did not know that or you wouldn't have had a fleet of buses immobilized by biojelly.
Sounds like proof that it's not such a good idea for politicians to rush to a solution without doing a little reading on the subject.

so, better to not do anything, run out of carbon based energy and die off slowly

unless we go all woody allen and go to sleep for the next few million years there aren't really going to be any new energy sources available

[badmonkey]

so, better to not do anything, run out of carbon based energy and die off slowly

unless we go all woody allen and go to sleep for the next few million years there aren't really going to be any new energy sources available


Yes. It's all so very unsustainable. Must act now. Couldn't possibly wait til we have a plan that fits the specific needs of a community. Surely a one-size fits all bandaid would solve everything. You know what.. how about bicycles for everyone? That would get us all in shape, reduce co2 emissions, and eliminate our dependency on foreign oil for transportation. Issue resolved. And now on to healthcare. My "suck it up and deal with it" plan is a one size fits all plan that will eliminate healthcare costs by eliminating healthcare completely. Got a headache? Suck it up and deal with it! Got a cold? Suck it up and deal with it! Got cancer? Suck it up and deal with it!

These solutions haven't been tried but... you know... gotta do something cuz the current status quo is unfuckingsustainable!

Taking the time to do it right is not the same thing as sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the problem doesn't exist and will go away on it's own. I would rather they take their time to do it right than have them create a whole shitload of new problems that they didn't see because of their lack of forethought and research.

[boosterp]

Throw a bunch of money at it and hope it works policy.

[Syd]

There's not really much time, the time to begin thinking about acting was in 1979 during the energy crisis but no one wanted to do anything. Now we're stuck with less than 2 decades till peak oil production and we're just now getting ready to reduce oil usage. So, your bicycles for everyone plan isn't entirely impossible.

There's really very, very little oil left and a great deal of it is being pumped out by dumping tons of seawater into a field. I don't think you really understand the concept of finite non-renewable resources and America's voracious appetite for them. In under a decade when the reality of $150/bbl due to scarcity not speculation will set in and everyone will realize the folly of believing we can just ride it out.

[badmonkey]

There's not really much time, the time to begin thinking about acting was in 1979 during the energy crisis but no one wanted to do anything. Now we're stuck with less than 2 decades till peak oil production and we're just now getting ready to reduce oil usage. So, your bicycles for everyone plan isn't entirely impossible.

There's really very, very little oil left and a great deal of it is being pumped out by dumping tons of seawater into a field. I don't think you really understand the concept of finite non-renewable resources and America's voracious appetite for them. In under a decade when the reality of $150/bbl due to scarcity not speculation will set in and everyone will realize the folly of believing we can just ride it out.

Don't be so critical of Bicycles for Everyone. It hasn't been tried yet. How do you know it wont work til we at least try it? I don't think you understand the concept of "unsustainable status quo". We can't just sit around doing nothing. Your fear-mongering isn't a solution. Bicycles for Everyone is a solution. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to switch everybody to bicycles within a couple months. Especially once we've outlawed cars, which are the real fucking problem, people will be standing in lines begging for bicycles. I don't see any solutions from you, just bitching about how my solution isn't any good and tears about the empty oil fields.

US Census estimates that there are between 411,000 and 750,000 people over the age of 16 who ride bicycles more miles than any other vehicle to get to work during an average week. We will

Bicycle: $200
US Population: 306,798,000
US Bike Commuter Estimate: 750,000 (taking higher census number since every bike owner doesn't commute... yet)

306,798,000 - 750,000 * 200 = $61,209,600,000

If you don't like those numbers try these:

Bicycle: $200
US Population: 306,798,000
US Bike Ownership Estimate: 44,700,000

306,798,000 - 44,700,000 * $200 = $52,419,600,000

What is 52 billion if we're going to spend the money anyway? It's not like saving the planet isn't a good cause. We will also create a shitload of jobs in bicycle manufacturing and maintenance. Besides, if it doesn't work... this is trial and error. We can always try something else.

[boosterp]

Besides, if it doesn't work... this is trial and error. We can always try something else.

Besides the obvious sarcasm you make a good point and your conclusion (last sentence) is spot on.

[badmonkey]

Besides the obvious sarcasm you make a good point and your conclusion (last sentence) is spot on.

You have obviously allowed Fox news and other right wing conservative propaganda make you irrational.

[boosterp]

You have obviously allowed Fox news and other right wing conservative propaganda make you irrational.

I laugh, I hate Fox news and I am not some blinded right-wing bat; hell I am more moderate than anything.

[Syd]

l o l

pretty pointless but whatever, the corpulent american lifestyle is coming to an end

keep joking, it will make it that much more funny when it happens

[TheMojoPin]

The EPA has released a picture of the author of this "buried" report:

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsA/653-7175.gif

[keithy_19]

The EPA has released a picture of the author of this "buried" report:

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsA/653-7175.gif

It's true. This man has no dick.

[foodcourtdruide]

It's true. This man has no dick.

Hahaha. Nice.

[The Jays]

You're right! I don't know why I didn't see it before! The important thing is not that you try to figure out what will solve the problem. The important thing is that we DO SOMETHING NOW!!! It's unsustainable! We can't go on like this! We have to fix it immediately through trial and error!

Please fix healthcare next through trial and error. That's gonna be amazing to watch. I mean, they've done such a fantastic job fixing the auto industry, the housing market, the economy, and everything else they've touched so far with this scientific trial and error method.

We might as well replace congress with magic 8-balls.

Your head is buried in the sand.

[badmonkey]

Your head is buried in the sand.

Trial and Error is not a valid policy for anything in the office of the President of the United States. Your head is buried in the clouds.

[Gvac]

We just finished the coldest June on record here in the New York/New Jersey area.

If this doesn't prove global warming exists I don't know what does.

[Serpico1103]

We just finished the coldest June on record here in the New York/New Jersey area.

If this doesn't prove global warming exists I don't know what does.

I am not an expert, but I think "Global Warming" is really a misnomer. It is more a moderation of the climate or a change of any kind in the climate. Disrupting the temperature affects many things, most importantly I think currents and winds.

I think scientists have moved towards "Climate Change" because they are unsure what the changes will be.

[brettmojo]

Trial and Error is not a valid policy for anything in the office of the President of the United States.
What country have you been living in? Are you talking about the same USA?

[Freakshow]

There's a myriad of infinitely easier ways for them to raise taxes.

Temporary refund adjustment?

[The Jays]

Trial and Error is not a valid policy for anything in the office of the President of the United States. Your head is buried in the clouds.

Alright, so I shouldn't have suggested that trial and error is a policy. Forgive me, I did not believe that you would take my Iraq example seriously. What I meant was that you can't sit on the sidelines and do nothing just because there's the possibility that it might not work. There is decades of science behind this bill, there is already a market for carbon trade offs. Your head is where the sun don't shine if you believe it's better to sit and watch fossil fuel prices climb higher and higher as supplies get lower and lower and our enemies get richer and richer, when we have something we can do about it.

[badmonkey]

Alright, so I shouldn't have suggested that trial and error is a policy. Forgive me, I did not believe that you would take my Iraq example seriously. What I meant was that you can't sit on the sidelines and do nothing just because there's the possibility that it might not work. There is decades of science behind this bill, there is already a market for carbon trade offs. Your head is where the sun don't shine if you believe it's better to sit and watch fossil fuel prices climb higher and higher as supplies get lower and lower and our enemies get richer and richer, when we have something we can do about it.

That is the dumbest thing ever. Everybody panic! Everybody freak out! Run around in circles! Do SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!!

When you come up on a car wreck, you may think that the best thing to do is get the person out of the car. When you move them, you end up paralyzing them due to the neck injury that you couldn't see. The important thing is that you didn't just sit on the sidelines doing nothing just because there's a possibility that it might not have worked. Luckily all you ended up doing was more damage and leaving them paralyzed for life...it could have been so much worse if you'd done nothing.

I didn't bother with your Iraq example as it was irrelevant when compared to your opinion that it's better to look busy than accomplish the task.

[brettmojo]

I didn't bother with your Iraq example as it was irrelevant when compared to your opinion that it's better to look busy than accomplish the task.
It's better to just vacation in Crawford, TX and see how things pan out.

[TheMojoPin]

It doesn't have to be based out of panic, silly.

[badmonkey]

It's better to just vacation in Crawford, TX and see how things pan out.

When did Obama buy a house in Crawford, TX?

[The Jays]

That is the dumbest thing ever. Everybody panic! Everybody freak out! Run around in circles! Do SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!!

When you come up on a car wreck, you may think that the best thing to do is get the person out of the car. When you move them, you end up paralyzing them due to the neck injury that you couldn't see. The important thing is that you didn't just sit on the sidelines doing nothing just because there's a possibility that it might not have worked. Luckily all you ended up doing was more damage and leaving them paralyzed for life...it could have been so much worse if you'd done nothing.

I didn't bother with your Iraq example as it was irrelevant when compared to your opinion that it's better to look busy than accomplish the task.

Now, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You've now compared cap-and-trade to me moving someone after a car wreck and paralyzing them for life. So, in your world, this new policy is going to cripple the United States for all eternity.

There is actual science behind this bill. People have been working for decades to back up what is inside of this bill. My opinion is not "to look busy" as a matter of policy. We have good ideas that can be enacted, that have a good chance of doing good, of getting us off of foreign oil and non-renewable fuels. Non-renewable fuel prices are going higher, CO2 levels are increasing, global temperature is going higher, climate change is occuring. We have things that we can do to combat all four of those. But you'd rather have us sit out this one, because even though we could be enacting policy that has a good chance of working, you'd rather do nothing because there is a lesser chance that it doesn't work.

You keep twisting what I say to fit into your little argument of people worrying about the sky falling.

[Serpico1103]

Everything you do is trial and error. You wake up at a certain time, because you tried it before (trial) and it worked (error).
You eat certain food because you tried them (trial) and you liked them (error).

Our system is broken (trial), we must try something new.
It is a FACT, yes FACT, that socialized medicine provides better medical services for the people.
If you want to argue that an unhealthy citizenry is better for our country, I am happy to hear the arguments.

[badmonkey]

Now, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You've now compared cap-and-trade to me moving someone's after a car wreck and paralyzing them for life. So, in your world, this new policy is going to cripple the United States for all eternity.

There is actual science behind this bill. People have been working for decades to back up what is inside of this bill. My opinion is not "to look busy" as a matter of policy. We have good ideas that can be enacted, that have a good chance of doing good, of getting us off of foreign oil and non-renewable fuels. Non-renewable fuel prices are going higher, CO2 levels are increasing, global temperature is going higher, climate change is occuring. We have things that we can do to combat all four of those. But you'd rather have us sit out this one, because even though we could be enacting policy that has a good chance of working, you'd rather do nothing because there is a lesser chance that it doesn't work.

You keep twisting what I say to fit into your little argument of people worrying about the sky falling.

I didn't mention cap and trade. Your argument wasn't about cap and trade. Your argument all along is that it's better to do SOMETHING, than nothing at all... even if it doesn't work. I'm just saying that instead of doing something for the sake of doing something, how about we do a little research and try and do the right thing. There's countries that have already tried some of this crap and are abandoning it because it's not working.

Cap and Trade (since you brought it up) doesn't do anything to solve the problem. If you go over your cap, you can give the govt money. If your cap isn't high enough, you can move your pollution to another state. It's a shell game that just moves the pollution around.

You want to get us off foreign oil, then lets drill more here to offset the imports while we invest in alternative fuels. Oil is used for a lot more than fuel and lubricants. We will always need oil as long as we need plastic even if we aren't using it for fuel. We should be building more nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. We should be doing a lot of things, but shifting pollution around is not one of them.

I'm all for reducing pollution, but I don't see how it helps to clean up one place if we're just going to increase the pollution somewhere else.

[TheMojoPin]

Fuck more drilling.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEC-Fc-xXHA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEC-Fc-xXHA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[badmonkey]

Everything you do is trial and error. You wake up at a certain time, because you tried it before (trial) and it worked (error).
You eat certain food because you tried them (trial) and you liked them (error).

Our system is broken (trial), we must try something new.
It is a FACT, yes FACT, that socialized medicine provides better medical services for the people.
If you want to argue that an unhealthy citizenry is better for our country, I am happy to hear the arguments.

Let's hear about incentives to make healthy choices rather than punishments for making unhealthy choices. I don't need the govt to make these choices for me. You wanna reward me for making healthy choices fine but I'm not interested in the nanny state deciding for my own good what I am allowed to eat or drink. Here in America, we have the right to make shitty choices and the right to suffer the consequences of those shitty choices. It is not the job of the government to protect me from myself. I trust me to make decisions about my life a hell of a lot more than I trust a politician from ANY party to make those decisions. I'm not interested in the government doing cost/benefit analysis when deciding how to handle my health care thanks.

[Syd]

Let's hear about incentives to make healthy choices rather than punishments for making unhealthy choices. I don't need the govt to make these choices for me. You wanna reward me for making healthy choices fine but I'm not interested in the nanny state deciding for my own good what I am allowed to eat or drink. Here in America, we have the right to make shitty choices and the right to suffer the consequences of those shitty choices. It is not the job of the government to protect me from myself. I trust me to make decisions about my life a hell of a lot more than I trust a politician from ANY party to make those decisions. I'm not interested in the government doing cost/benefit analysis when deciding how to handle my health care thanks.

That's fine but make sure you're not using up any public resources at any point because i'd prefer it if your bad decisions didn't negatively affect society

you can make all that bad decisions you want but at some point your choice will hurt others

It isn't the government deciding what is for your own good it is the government deciding what you're doing is wrong and damages society. In the real world there are consequences to anyones actions and in modern society these can be far-reaching.

[Serpico1103]

Let's hear about incentives to make healthy choices rather than punishments for making unhealthy choices. I don't need the govt to make these choices for me. You wanna reward me for making healthy choices fine but I'm not interested in the nanny state deciding for my own good what I am allowed to eat or drink. Here in America, we have the right to make shitty choices and the right to suffer the consequences of those shitty choices. It is not the job of the government to protect me from myself. I trust me to make decisions about my life a hell of a lot more than I trust a politician from ANY party to make those decisions. I'm not interested in the government doing cost/benefit analysis when deciding how to handle my health care thanks.

The government currently subsidizes many programs that are unhealthy for people. Most farming subsidizes go to foods that are unhealthy for you. Where are the Republicans, who always say they are for smaller government, when it comes to farm subsidizes?
How about subsidizing healthy food.
One of the main problems in America is that healthy appears to cost more than unhealthy food.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that "your" life, is not yours to do with as you wish. If the government decides that a certain diet is healthier for you, it is its objective to force that diet on you. A healthier you, is a healthier society.
I don't care if you eat yourself to death, society cares if one of its parts is not operating efficiently.

[badmonkey]

You seem to have a hard time understanding that "your" life, is not yours to do with as you wish. If the government decides that a certain diet is healthier for you, it is its objective to force that diet on you. A healthier you, is a healthier society.
I don't care if you eat yourself to death, society cares if one of its parts is not operating efficiently.

I don't think it gets much scarier than knowing that people like you think this way. My life is mine to do with as I wish. That's what living in a free country is about. My life does not belong to the state. My life does not exist to glorify the state. If the it is the objective of govt to force a diet on me because they've decided it's good for me, then where does that end? That's not freedom. If you want to live like that, there are plenty of places to go have all your decisions made for you. Feel free to go live there if that's how you want to live. I'm an adult and I think I will stick to making my own decisions thanks.

[Serpico1103]

I don't think it gets much scarier than knowing that people like you think this way. My life is mine to do with as I wish. That's what living in a free country is about. My life does not belong to the state. My life does not exist to glorify the state. If the it is the objective of govt to force a diet on me because they've decided it's good for me, then where does that end? That's not freedom. If you want to live like that, there are plenty of places to go have all your decisions made for you. Feel free to go live there if that's how you want to live. I'm an adult and I think I will stick to making my own decisions thanks.

You are not "free to do as you wish." What is scarier is that you believe in that simplistic idea.
Try committing suicide, try speeding, try not paying taxes, try renovating without getting government approval, etc.

Whatever freedom you do have is allowed merely to protect society. Example, If you had no freedom of speech, it would be suppressed, fester and grow into a revolution.

You are a part of a system, that system's objective is to run efficiently. Anything that helps that -freedom or restriction- is a tool of the government.

[keithy_19]

You are not "free to do as you wish." What is scarier is that you believe in that simplistic idea.
Try committing suicide, try speeding, try not paying taxes, try renovating without getting government approval, etc.

Whatever freedom you do have is allowed merely to protect society. Example, If you had no freedom of speech, it would be suppressed, fester and grow into a revolution.

You are a part of a system, that system's objective is to run efficiently. Anything that helps that -freedom or restriction- is a tool of the government.

There's a difference between breaking laws that can potentially harm others and chosing what you want your diet to be.

But it is true that the main goal of government, in it's purest form, is to keep everything running smoothly and keep citizens safe.

[Serpico1103]

There's a difference between breaking laws that can potentially harm others and chosing what you want your diet to be.

But it is true that the main goal of government, in it's purest form, is to keep everything running smoothly and keep citizens safe.

Try to draw that line. How does suicide harm others any differently than a diet that will cause a premature death?

[Bob Impact]

Wow this topic drifted.

[keithy_19]

Try to draw that line. How does suicide harm others any differently than a diet that will cause a premature death?

Saying you can't have a cheeseburger and telling people to put down the gun to their head are completely different.

[Gvac]

Saying you can't have a cheeseburger and telling people to put down the gun to their head are completely different.

I'd rather have someone blow their brains out than eat a cheeseburger.

I think cheese is gross.

I guess that means I should support the government taxing the fuck out of it.

[Coach]

Just to keep this going..I heard at the Gym on one of the news stations that ends in an N and begins with a M... that the Polar Bear Population is at the highest in 50 years. Discuss.

[mikeyboy]

Just to keep this going..I heard at the Gym on one of the news stations that ends in an N and begins with a M... that the Polar Bear Population is at the highest in 50 years. Discuss.

Was this Jezo's gym?