Climate change bill. Could it effect your life? [Archive]

Leader Desslock

June 27th, 2009, 07:22 PM

When I saw the title of this thread from the Main Board, I thought, "You know, that sounds like a waltsoph thread. I'll bet he's at it again."

Imagine how shocked I was when I clicked the link to the Off-Topic board and found that I was right.

So Walt's at it again. Imagine that. More listing to Glen Beck, more pulling stuff out of his butt, more believing nonsense without even pausing to consider whether he should think for a moment about the topic... Yep, Walt's fallen off the wagon once more.

Walt - remember that last thread about... something stupid I don't even remember... it was... AH! The Grand FDA Conspiracy. That was it. Remember how I challenged you to back up your paranoid delusions with documented fact and well-reasoned argument?

Yeah. Remember how, when I kept calling your bluff, you just ran away?

Have you even bothered to ask why I did that?

Trust me, it's not an ego trip. Highlighting the folly of your worldview isn't particularly challenging, and it's not a feather in my cap to say "Ha! I won a debate against someone who thinks like a six year old! Woo hoo!"

The reason I called your bluff and tried to make you acknowledge that your bluff had been thoroughly called was to stop the cycle of nonsense in which you're engaged. I thought that maybe, if someone finally got you to take a hard look at your own inability to support your ridiculous claims, then maybe that would inspire you to think for a moment the next time you heard something, to see if maybe your shouldn't believe it at face value. It might be the merest sliver of an infinitesimal chance, but if it made you actually use that melon on your shoulders for something other than a hatstand, it'd be worth it.

So what do you do? You merrily skip away from critical thought, pick up some other kernal of blessed wisdom from your favorite rabblerouser, then spew forth some doom scenario that is as uninformed as it is entirely bereft of logical consideration.

Bravo. My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

And..to anyone who want to start targeting me about this..please don't.
I'll stop calling BS on your fearmongering, paranoid rants just as soon as you start demonstrating that you've given your topic the tiniest morsel of rational thought.

All i wanted to do was share this information.
Bull ****ing Shite. You most certainly did not choose wording that indicates such a wonderfully altruistic (and entirely impartial) motive. Just look at how you worded it, Walt:

Now.i'm all for helping the planet but even that has its limits.

Question is..how will it effect your personal life because make no mistake it will.

Jesus, Walt - all you have left to do is play some tense music and jump out in a monster mask shouting "Booga booga!"

You got wound up by an 'entertainer', and now you're just trying to pass his fearmongering on to your peers. Do not attempt to pretend otherwise.

Hey! I've got an idea! How about if you go back to the other thread and (as you promised) you show us all how the latest move by the FDA to control the tobacco industry is evidence of one piece of a larger puzzle that paints a picture of conspiracy! Why, I think that'd be a capital idea! You said you'd do it, so... have at it, Cap'n!

Let's limit you to one nonsensical rambling at a time, Walt.

Yes, my energy bill will go up by 2 grand that does not count gas and the rise in other prices that will accompany this.
My energy footprint is pretty insignificant, and a rise in gas won't affect me at all, at least not directly. Obviously I'll be affected indirectly by the increased expense of goods and services, but... you know, if it's a cost that helps wean this country a few steps away from the oil-addicted lifestyle we generally live, I can't say I'm upset to pay it. Sure, it's a bad time with the economy the way it is at the moment, but... well, it's going to be painful no matter when we do it, so we might as well get the pain over with all at once.

The US eats way more than its share of the world's resources; I can't say I'd be upset to see that drop a bit.

Trefellin

June 27th, 2009, 07:26 PM

Walt, you need to go home and have your trousers mended by mum because you've just been raped right through them. :|

^_^

Exaggerating a bit but I've wanted to say that for awhile.

Bernard_Monsha

June 27th, 2009, 08:32 PM

My energy footprint is pretty insignificant, and a rise in gas won't affect me at all, at least not directly. Obviously I'll be affected indirectly by the increased expense of goods and services, but... you know, if it's a cost that helps wean this country a few steps away from the oil-addicted lifestyle we generally live, I can't say I'm upset to pay it. Sure, it's a bad time with the economy the way it is at the moment, but... well, it's going to be painful no matter when we do it, so we might as well get the pain over with all at once.

So you want us to go back to the Harrison administration? Diving horses and buggies and never traveling more than 30 miles from our place of birth? There is no way we can get off oil, not just for transportation, not just for energy, food, research and everything else in this country is run by oil. Even the horribly inefficient wind turbines and solar panels this is trying to force upon us are made from oil products and transported and assembled by people using oil. You are not going to get rid of it, you are simply shooting yourself in the foot and declaring a moral victory. I am not even getting into the ripple effects this will have around the world on countries that can ill afford the type of rises in price we are talking about.

The US eats way more than its share of the world's resources; I can't say I'd be upset to see that drop a bit.

I usually think of you as being rational, but advocating we cut off our technological/economic/agricultural wang because some other countries are jealous because it's too big is ridiculous.

Old Ape Face

June 27th, 2009, 08:35 PM

And yet knowing the people who voted for Obama this god saving bill will be passed onto law. Whether the republicans try as they may to get rid of it, there's just too much strength in propaganda right now.

Shiroiyuki

June 27th, 2009, 08:42 PM

Old Ape Face

June 27th, 2009, 08:44 PM

Bernard, I think Desslock was just saying to lessen our usage, not cut ourselves off completely.

He rides his bike as a means of transportation. We all could do this to get around town (10 miles or less) and it wouldn't hurt anything. It would promote fitness and help the environment, clear up the roads for emergency use vehicles, etc.

Right now the average person thinks driving five feet to check for mail is wonderful.

hehe turn an already 45 minuet drive to work, into a 1.5 hour mountain bike cross country event that would make most Marathon bikers want to quit.

And I only drive 200 feet to check the mail becuase I plan to go out further than 200 feet after, it's all in my, Kill 70 birds with one stone, trick.

neiru_3

June 27th, 2009, 08:51 PM

These politicians are insane...wtf is going on. We need to kick their *****.

f2akid

June 27th, 2009, 09:43 PM

Jesus, Walt - all you have left to do is play some tense music and jump out in a monster mask shouting "Booga booga!"

Gold. Pure Gold. This was long overdue.

Leader Desslock

June 27th, 2009, 09:51 PM

So you want us to go back to the Harrison administration? Diving horses and buggies and never traveling more than 30 miles from our place of birth?
Not at all. But then... I really can't say that suburban sprawl, bedroom communities and 30-mile commutes seeming 'normal' makes any more sense to me.

There is no way we can get off oil, not just for transportation, not just for energy, food, research and everything else in this country is run by oil. Even the horribly inefficient wind turbines and solar panels this is trying to force upon us are made from oil products and transported and assembled by people using oil.
I'm not saying "get off it"; I'm merely saying "cut back". Last I heard, conservation wasn't a bad thing.

Amazingly, when gas hit near $5/gallon, I saw people actually treating gas like a finite and conservable resource. They drove less, carpooled, they vacationed locally, they planned trips to conserve energy, they opened their windows when they could instead of running the A/C like it was free.... they did all the things we all know we should've been doing for years, but never bother.

Why does gas have to hit $5/gallon in order for people to conserve it? Why can't we just do it anyway?

I have the luxury of commuting by bicycle, so I sold the Jeep and that's what I do. Yes, it's damned inconvenient (and physically challenging) to bike in 110+ degree weather, but I do it.

It really wasn't hard for me to make that switch, when I realize that I had friends in the service, and they were being asked to put their lives on the line for reasons that are not limited to, but which definitely include Securing Oil Resources. I thought to myself, "If they can sacrifice, then it's not too big a sacrifice for me to cut back on it a bit." It might not be much, but it's what I can do for now.

I'm not buying into the whole "Go Green!" marketing thing, but I really don't see the problem with Americans cutting back on their energy/resource usage.

I usually think of you as being rational, but advocating we cut off our technological/economic/agricultural wang because some other countries are jealous because it's too big is ridiculous.
It's not even Jealousy. It's... we're a consumptive culture, and we've put ourselves in debt to those who produce. Back when we produced things here, that wasn't as bad; now that we've shipped most of our production overseas (thank you UNIONS), I just think it'd be in our best interests to cut back on how much of our money we're shipping overseas. Have you tried to find anything that wasn't made in China these days? It's sad.

I'd love for government to take action that would bring production back to the US for both large industries and consumer goods, but I'd also love to see American culture scale back from its materialist bent. I'd love to see this country be a world leader in recycling technologies and energy efficiency.

But instead I see a country full of people who really don't act like we're at war, or that the war we're in has anything to do with resource consumption.

waltsoph3

June 27th, 2009, 11:55 PM

Sigh..i knew it..i knew it some people just don't respect a persons sincere request. Oh well i'm glad to at least know some people understand why i posted this information. And thats all i wanted to do.

@ desslock

What if you heard this source from someone else besides beck..would it effect your thoughts on the story then?

May I ask you an honest and sincere question..Are you a socialist? If not whats your political affiliation. Dem.? Rep.? I'm just curious you don't have to answer it if you want.

Me..lol (shrug) i dunno what my place is in the political chart and frankly i don't care. I just happen to belive in certain common sense values and belive it or not you and me have more in common on that then you think..i'm being sincere and honest with that.

Oh yeah about that FDA thing don't worry i haven't forget..i gotta be honest i got bored, frustrated, and needed a break from it. You have no idea how difficult it is to find some positive feedback stories online . Heck only 30%+ in one arcticle i found trust the FDA. Thats sad.

I said i was gonna be fair and find 5 for both pros and cons..i'm lucky enough to find 1 positive story. Belive me i tried. But hey if anyone would like to share with me some positive FDA stories please post em in the do you trust the FDA thread. It would be a great help.

If I don't find something soon i'm just gonna post what i do have and let me tell ya..its a slam dunk for people who have lost trust in the FDA's abilities to operate and function. Because if you put that into the mix and then add into the factor of them running something they don't even have any experence in. maybee then you'll understand why I ponder the thought of them running it.

Btw..I agree with you. I will call the FDA thing a conspiracy theroy now..trust me when you see what i got..it will at least get people thinking. I promise you that.

Gray

June 28th, 2009, 12:30 AM

Sigh..i knew it..i knew it some people just don't respect a persons sincere request. Oh well i'm glad to at least know some people understand why i posted this information. And thats all i wanted to do.

Um, sorry, it dosen't work that way. You don't get to shout "listen to my rants, theories and opinions" and then add "but your not allowed to critisize me or challenge me or my opinions in any way".

Shiroiyuki

June 28th, 2009, 04:09 AM

Maybe you should start a blog, Walt, and just set it so people can't respond.

old hat

June 28th, 2009, 04:15 AM

You can also set it so that you must approve responses before they appear.

taily

June 28th, 2009, 06:19 AM

Far more money needs to be spent on Acheiving Full Fusion power, which is basically the answer to all our current energy problems.

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 08:58 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870&ei=2nhFSsnOLqOEqwPCteHDBg&q=global+warming+swindle
"hey guyz...we need to tax carbon cause it is like...the leading cause of global warming. What? We don't call it that anymore? It is "climate change" now?"

Volcanos, plants, and animals put out FAR FAR FAR more carbon than all the industry ever will.
One pound of rice will put out 10x the methane than one pound of beef as well.
Dead and rotting trees, which the hippies don't want cut down and destroyed put of carbon.
This is just more effing BS.
Instead of taxing everything, then more. We need to move towards energy independence and privatization of energy. Meaning private wind and solar generators, then add nuclear power plants. The private solar and wind will simply act as a supplement for main sources.

taily

June 28th, 2009, 09:07 AM

Whether or not you believe in Global warming the fact is we are running out of oils and at ever increasing rate.

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 09:18 AM

Whether or not you believe in Global warming the fact is we are running out of oils and at ever increasing rate.

North America has vast untapped oil reserves. But I personally think it is pretty damn stupid to "literally" burn your resources away. I also think it is stupid to use food to run your car (they call this "bio-diesel". I dont know what makes the other fuel none bio. Not like it was magically made in a lab).
Also, if the earth is getting warmer, how come it is -40 in winter, and I get blizzards that cover everything in 4 feet of snow in April? The Global Warming people keep changing their tone, yet have NOTHING to scientifically back it up.

Old Ape Face

June 28th, 2009, 09:45 AM

North America has vast untapped oil reserves. But I personally think it is pretty damn stupid to "literally" burn your resources away. I also think it is stupid to use food to run your car (they call this "bio-diesel". I dont know what makes the other fuel none bio. Not like it was magically made in a lab).
Also, if the earth is getting warmer, how come it is -40 in winter, and I get blizzards that cover everything in 4 feet of snow in April? The Global Warming people keep changing their tone, yet have NOTHING to scientifically back it up.

We are still in an ice age, "Or so my Anthropologist tolled me,"
with that said you are probably thinking of it backwards, we are slowly coming out of the winter weather, and moving slowly into more tropical weather. over many many years, not by the natural seasons.

But this is a natural phenomenon that no human on earth can stop.

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 09:49 AM

We are still in an ice age, "Or so my Anthropologist tolled me,"
with that said you are probably thinking of it backwards, we are slowly coming out of the winter weather, and moving slowly into more tropical weather. over many many years, not by the natural seasons.

But this is a natural phenomenon that no human on earth can stop.

Yes. Liek in the video i posted. During the Medieval ages the average temp was much warmer than it is currently. Then we hit "the Little Ice Age" Where the average temp was much much cooler.
This was before there were 6 BILLION people on earth, before cars, before industry all together.
Infact, the highest climb in average temp came BEFORE the 1940s when industry rapidly increased.

Old Ape Face

June 28th, 2009, 09:51 AM

Yes. Liek in the video i posted. During the Medieval ages the average temp was much warmer than it is currently. Then we hit "the Little Ice Age" Where the average temp was much much cooler.
This was before there were 6 BILLION people on earth, before cars, before industry all together.
Infact, the highest climb in average temp came BEFORE the 1940s when industry rapidly increased.

I blame the rotation of the earth and our axis slowly changing.

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 09:55 AM

I blame the rotation of the earth and our axis slowly changing.
I blame the sun.
"Hey guyz, cars are making our planet too warm, lets ban them"
"well, I think that GIANT BALL OF BURNING FIRE that is actually REALLY close to us is what is doing it."
Also, without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be fridged, as there would be no "blanket" to keep the suns radiation warmth in.

BRB, need to vote from rooftops.

Old Ape Face

June 28th, 2009, 09:57 AM

I blame the sun.
"Hey guyz, cars are making our planet too warm, lets ban them"
"well, I think that GIANT BALL OF BURNING FIRE that is actually REALLY close to us is what is doing it."
Also, without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be fridged, as there would be no "blanket" to keep the suns radiation warmth in.

BRB, need to vote from rooftops.

That's what I was getting at, the earth's rotation aided by that giant fire ball we call sun.

Hey here's an idea let's block out the sun, we'll be a whole lot cooler then.

Tidusauron12

June 28th, 2009, 10:17 AM

waltsoph fails a bit too often.

taily

June 28th, 2009, 10:32 AM

North America has vast untapped oil reserves. But I personally think it is pretty damn stupid to "literally" burn your resources away. I also think it is stupid to use food to run your car (they call this "bio-diesel". I dont know what makes the other fuel none bio. Not like it was magically made in a lab).
Also, if the earth is getting warmer, how come it is -40 in winter, and I get blizzards that cover everything in 4 feet of snow in April? The Global Warming people keep changing their tone, yet have NOTHING to scientifically back it up.

Oh the classic "I can walk down to my corner shop and get a big picture of the long-term average climate all over the world" I'm sorry to shatter your ego-boosting illusion but saying "it wos cold" does not count as damning scientific evidence.

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 10:34 AM

Oh the classic "I can walk down to my corner shop and get a big picture of the long-term average climate all over the world" I'm sorry to shatter your ego-boosting illusion but saying "it wos cold" does not count as damning scientific evidence.

You mean how there is no scientific evidence that carbon or other greenhouse gases made by humans are a factor of climate change?

RecentMidget

June 28th, 2009, 10:40 AM

Before this gets ugly...we know its getting hotter, we know it's getting colder. I would know, I work outside. What is causing it exactly, I have no idea. What i do know is that walt isn't getting the proper flaming he deserves for being stupid...so

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg183/carve037/yukari_killwithfire.jpg

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 10:44 AM

flaming? For pointing out a blatently pointless bill used to unconsitutionally tax citizens?

Old Ape Face

June 28th, 2009, 10:44 AM

You mean how there is no scientific evidence that carbon or other greenhouse gases made by humans are a factor of climate change?

I think it effects it only slightly, of cource burning pollution from factories does affect acid rain, why shouldn't gas production increase greenhouse gasses?

However, I don't believe we are the leading cause in global warming, like I said that's a natural phenomenon we could simply wait and see what happens.

Leader Desslock

June 28th, 2009, 10:56 AM

What if you heard this source from someone else besides beck..would it effect your thoughts on the story then?
Not at all. I view the bill in question as a bit clumsy, ill-timed and misguided, but since it's not so clumsy and misguided as the course this country is already on, I view it as the lesser of two evils.

May I ask you an honest and sincere question..Are you a socialist?
That's irrelevant, and a discussion of philosophical viewpoints is well beyond your capacity. But if you really must know the answer to that question, "No."

If not whats your political affiliation. Dem.? Rep.?
Also irrelevant, especially since your understanding of the political landscape is extremely limited. If you really must know the answer to that question, my political affiliation has always been listed as "Independent".

Oh yeah about that FDA thing don't worry i haven't forget..i gotta be honest i got bored, frustrated, and needed a break from it. You have no idea how difficult it is to find some positive feedback stories online.
But you're not trying to find positive feedback about the FDA. You are trying to support your earlier contention that the latest moves by the FDA are indicative of some puzzle piece falling into place as part of a larger conspiracy.

Showing 5 good and 5 bad stories about the FDA will be irrelevant, Walt. You need to support your contention that there's a larger conspiracy going on, and you need to show how the latest FDA changes are a part of that conspiracy. Either that, or you need to formally withdraw that contention and acknowledge it as the paranoid nonsense we all know it to be.

One way or the other, I'm going to make you realize what it means to think, Walt.

Btw..I agree with you. I will call the FDA thing a conspiracy theroy now..trust me when you see what i got..it will at least get people thinking. I promise you that.
Well, you've just repeated it. There's no going back now. You have to support that contention, since you're not going to withdraw it.

When you completely fail to support your position, you will look ridiculous, and you will never again have to ask why people don't respect your positions. It is my sincere hope that you learn the value of rational thought from this experience.

waltsoph3

June 28th, 2009, 10:59 AM

Um, sorry, it dosen't work that way. You don't get to shout "listen to my rants, theories and opinions" and then add "but your not allowed to criticize me or challenge me or my opinions in any way".

Being challenged and criticized is one thing..being dissed goes in lines of something else. I've seen too much trolling and people getting away with it.

waltsoph fails a bit too often.
Prefect example right here. Thank you for proving my point on trolling.

@ gohan remark uhm isn't some of that trolling too? But i do understand what you mean by working out in this stuff. It can suck. :(

Maybe you should start a blog, Walt, and just set it so people can't respond.

I do appricate the suggestion.

However why do i have to do that? Have you noticed some people just blaintly disrespects AN's forum rules and allow them to get away with it? I shouldn't have to do that. I believe everyone has the right to post what they want to post yet its important to try to respect the rules you guys have set up. Thats all i can ask..but i doubt its gonna make a difference. :(

About the blog thing..i do post sometimes on my visitor message thread. You guys are always more then welcome to read and post. Please just keep it civil if you can.

North America has vast untapped oil reserves. But I personally think it is pretty damn stupid to "literally" burn your resources away. I also think it is stupid to use food to run your car (they call this "bio-diesel". I dont know what makes the other fuel none bio. Not like it was magically made in a lab).
Also, if the earth is getting warmer, how come it is -40 in winter, and I get blizzards that cover everything in 4 feet of snow in April? The Global Warming people keep changing their tone, yet have NOTHING to scientifically back it up.
Very important things to consider.

Rember last year everyone? Last year gas went up to $5.00+ or even more in certain regions of the US. Remember how much economical damage it did epically to people lives? Fuel caused grocery prices to rise, electricity, and necessities rose in price. Why..maybe it was greed, but maybe there is one other huge factor instead people din't look into ...this is what made it insane..lack of preparation. It takes years for something to work its not gonna be a miracle over night.

Btw..these fuel price rises happened before cap and trade was even introduced. Now with these carbon taxes businesses will have to compensate. Just imagine how much money each person will spend on bills and necessities alone.
Oh yeah also i think this bill makes it to where you know something like A/C at your home..if you turn it above the eco recommended settings you will have to pay even more extra fees on that electric bill courtesy of the cap and trade bill. At least thats what a few experts say.

Speaking of bicycles...I LOVE to ride a bike it is a good way to excersie and a way to save up. :)
But gee its over 100+ degrees here in texas right now.. trust me you won't be able to endure that for long without antiquate hydration. However riding my bike is my choice...
bills like this however may soon make it to where driving a simple cheap car would be more of a luxury choice to use as a method of trasportation. Just a thought to consider.

Again some people here understand what this bill will do and some others ..well your just gonna have to learn it in the old..action speak louder then words scenerio. Its your call guys to decide what you want.

Again all i wanted to do was just let you'll know about this headline. Its not a stunt for my own gain..its just sharing important information. thats all.

RecentMidget

June 28th, 2009, 11:06 AM

Being challenged and criticized is one thing..being dissed goes in lines of something else. I've seen too much trolling and people getting away with it.

Prefect example right here. Thank you for proving my point on trolling.

@ gohan remark uhm isn't some of that trolling too? But i do understand what you mean by working out in this stuff. It can suck. :(

I do appricate the suggestion.

However why do i have to do that? Have you noticed some people just blaintly disrespects AN's forum rules and allow them to get away with it? I shouldn't have to do that. I believe everyone has the right to post what they want to post yet its important to try to respect the rules you guys have set up. Thats all i can ask..but i doubt its gonna make a difference. :(

About the blog thing..i do post sometimes on my visitor message thread. You guys are always more then welcome to read and post. Please just keep it civil if you can.

Very important things to consider.

Rember last year everyone? Last year gas went up to $5.00+ or even more in certain regions of the US. Remember how much economical damage it did epically to people lives? Fuel caused grocery prices to rise, electricity, and necessities rose in price. Why..maybe it was greed, but maybe there is one other huge factor instead people din't look into ...this is what made it insane..lack of preparation. It takes years for something to work its not gonna be a miracle over night.

Btw..these fuel price rises happened before cap and trade was even introduced. Now with these carbon taxes businesses will have to compensate. Just imagine how much money each person will spend on bills and necessities alone.
Oh yeah also i think this bill makes it to where you know something like A/C at your home..if you turn it above the eco recommended settings you will have to pay even more extra fees on that electric bill courtesy of the cap and trade bill. At least thats what a few experts say.

Speaking of bicycles...I LOVE to ride a bike it is a good way to excersie and a way to save up. :)
But gee its over 100+ degrees here in texas right now.. trust me you won't be able to endure that for long without antiquate hydration. However riding my bike is my choice...
bills like this however may soon make it to where driving a simple cheap car would be more of a luxury choice to use as a method of trasportation. Just a thought to consider.

Again some people here understand what this bill will do and some others ..well your just gonna have to learn it in the old..action speak louder then words scenerio. Its your call guys to decide what you want.

Again all i wanted to do was just let you'll know about this headline. Its not a stunt for my own gain..its just sharing important information. thats all.

http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp11/Kehotik_Angel/Anime%20and%20Cartoons/Dale.jpg

The Million Dollar Prons

June 28th, 2009, 11:12 AM

Gohan has beaten this thread and therefore the stimulus bill will now pay off his outrageous cellphone debt.

Leader Desslock

June 28th, 2009, 11:22 AM

Being challenged and criticized is one thing..being dissed goes in lines of something else. I've seen too much trolling and people getting away with it.
FYI: Posting unsupported flamebait topics one after the other, then completely ignoring any/all feedback you get - that's a form of trolling as well.

Yes, people are taking potshots at you. That's AN's way of telling you "Hey, you know the last hundred times we told you to support your position with a facts and rational thought? Yeah, how about this time, you go ahead and do that?"

So how about it, Walt? How about you actually demonstrate the capacity to rationally analyze a topic? If you do it, the peanut gallery will stop tossing peanuts at you on stage. If you don't do it, I'm pretty sure the projectiles will escalate into something more watermelony.

Speaking of bicycles...I LOVE to ride a bike it is a good way to excersie and a way to save up. :)
But gee its over 100+ degrees here in texas right now.. trust me you won't be able to endure that for long without antiquate hydration.
Lightweight. :rolleyes:

I biked about 20 miles in 115 degree heat yesterday. And the heat of summer has only just started.

RecentMidget

June 28th, 2009, 11:29 AM

i have been working over 8 hours in well over 100 degree weather. does it suck. oh yes. But I need money otherwise bills will pile up. Do I hydrate myself. you bet. INB4 walt agrees unnecessarily.

taily

June 28th, 2009, 12:07 PM

You mean how there is no scientific evidence that carbon or other greenhouse gases made by humans are a factor of climate change?

Why on earth are you even in this discussion.

anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.pn g why else would temperatures sudennly shot up just as human started producing large amounts of greenhouse gas? This could be a coincidence if it didn't fit the theory of global warming (which has had no valid flaws pointed out that I know of) exactly.

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 12:17 PM

Why on earth are you even in this discussion.

anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.pn g why else would temperatures sudennly shot up just as human started producing large amounts of greenhouse gas? This could be a coincidence if it didn't fit the theory of global warming (which has had no valid flaws pointed out that I know of) exactly.

Cause there is no connection to human made greenhouse gases and global warming. The warming started way way before industry popped up.
Obviously you didnt watch the video I posted, which has REAL scientists and totally busts this hippy crude.

taily

June 28th, 2009, 12:38 PM

Did you even read my post you ninny. Try clicking on the links once in a while huh.

Shiroiyuki

June 28th, 2009, 01:02 PM

flaming? For pointing out a blatently pointless bill used to unconsitutionally tax citizens?

Keep it up, Mr. Troll; I need a good reason to ban someone today.

Jae Hoon

June 28th, 2009, 01:12 PM

Bernard, I think Desslock was just saying to lessen our usage, not cut ourselves off completely.

He rides his bike as a means of transportation. We all could do this to get around town (10 miles or less) and it wouldn't hurt anything. It would promote fitness and help the environment, clear up the roads for emergency use vehicles, etc.

Right now the average person thinks driving five feet to check for mail is wonderful.

I doesn't lessen our usage, it takes more oil to run those then it would just use oil normally. This is nothing more then Obama giving money to the people who funded his election. This is the government telling you how you will live your life. It isn't up to them to tell you to exercise, that is for Nanny States.

Leader Desslock

June 28th, 2009, 01:22 PM

I doesn't lessen our usage, it takes more oil to run those then it would just use oil normally.
Could you identify the pronoun target of "those"? Those what? Given the context, it sounds like you're talking about bicycles.

Shiroiyuki

June 28th, 2009, 01:24 PM

However why do i have to do that? Have you noticed some people just blaintly disrespects AN's forum rules and allow them to get away with it?

It isn't against AN's rules to add your two cent's worth to a discussion; opinions are perfectly fine excuses to flap your gums. Flaming, hate speech, trolling, and the like ARE against the rules -- but pointing out the blatantly obvious and calling someone's bluff is fair game.

Um, if you haven't noticed everyone and their mother will post their opinions in any given thread, without remorse or hesitation. Some topics, however, are more powerful magnets to this sort of activity (as you already know) and such comments are almost guaranteed. If you ‘want to keep it civil’, find another family of topics to post about. Cute bunnies, or fluffy stuff.

I grew up knowing that there were three things you never talked about in social gatherings: money, politics, and religion.

These are the most heated topics you can bring up and tend to generate the fasted, rudest, ignorant/egotistical comments around. They can turn lifetime friends against you in a heartbeat.

You seem to want to talk about all three only, one way or another.

So, if even after knowing all this you still decide to post a thread about one of those three topics, you have to be able to follow through and accept the comments which are bound to result. You already know what kind of responses you get from these threads, don't act so surprised.

If you are currently unhappy with the turnout, you should take me up on the suggestion and start a blog.

I shouldn't have to do that. I believeeveryone has the right to post what they want to post yet its important to try to respect the rules you guys have set up.

You have to realize that others will not always share your opinions, and while you believe your stand wholeheartedly, they do have the right to disagree.

Therefore, posting your own personal blog and setting the restrictions high so no one can comment (or so that you can prune the comments before they are posted) would be a good idea for you.

You cannot stop people from posting their opinions; it's an unstoppable force of nature.

But you can get around them if you only put in that extra effort.

Jae Hoon

June 28th, 2009, 01:34 PM

Could you identify the pronoun target of "those"? Those what? Given the context, it sounds like you're talking about bicycles.

Lol yeah I can see why you would say that, I figured it was self explanatory. Running the wind mills actually takes more oil then using it naturally, as does thing like using corn as a fuel. I am all for trying to lessen the dependence on oil but not in a Nanny State, like I said he is just doing this as a kick back to his supporters. I do not want to have to pay an extra 90 pct on my Electricity Bill just because Obama wants Wind Mills that take oil to use.

What we really need to do is let them drill offshore and not leap such heavy restrictions upon oil in the US. We still have alot of oil in the US itself that everyone is afraid to touch atm.

Shiroiyuki

June 28th, 2009, 01:39 PM

^Well, considering you quoted what I said when I in no way was referring to wind mills, not really hard to see why your post was confusing :lol:

Leader Desslock

June 28th, 2009, 01:40 PM

^ To follow up on that point, it's not just the volatile topics he chooses. It's the way in which he brings those topics up.

He jumps to outrageous conclusions about the simplest of topics without supporting those conclusions in any way. Even if he wasn't talking politics, he'd be catching flak from people who expect a participant in an online discussion to support his viewpoint with a deliberate, rational consideration of the facts at hand.

He doesn't do that, and even if the rest of his threads involve the Fluffy Bunny Conspiracy, he's still going to catch flak for that discussion style.

Of course, since he seems to view a certain media entertainer as the One True Prophet, that doesn't exactly help matters.

He's been told this countless times by countless people in a variety of non-subtle ways. So... it's hard to feel sorry for him, you know? He's been told that smearing himself with blood and jumping into the shark tank is a bad idea. He's been bit doing it any number of times before. So if he starts smearing blood on himself and walking toward the tank and claiming, "This time will be different!", it's hard to feel sorry for what he should know will happen next.

Until he can be bothered to hold up his own in a discussion, let him continue to be ridiculed for the nonsense he spouts, I say.

Jae Hoon

June 28th, 2009, 01:44 PM

I like Glenn Beck, he has been saying stuff like this since Bush was in office. Just then it was acceptable since well Bush was in office. He can not say that about the Anointed One though.

Bernard_Monsha

June 28th, 2009, 01:47 PM

Not at all. But then... I really can't say that suburban sprawl, bedroom communities and 30-mile commutes seeming 'normal' makes any more sense to me.

Which explains your stance. My choice is either live 30 miles away, live in the ghetto so I can commute, or pay outrageous prices for an apartment. If your saying I should live in a place Snake Plissken should go or pay more for a 2 bedroom apartment than I pay for my mortgage then I will tell you were you can sit and spin.

I'm not saying "get off it"; I'm merely saying "cut back". Last I heard, conservation wasn't a bad thing.

We have cut back, use has never recovered since the price went to $4. Producers have cut production causing the rise in prices.

Why does gas have to hit $5/gallon in order for people to conserve it? Why can't we just do it anyway?

Because they have to make a 30 mile commute and don't want to be caught in a skateboard with a motor attached when they have an accident. Either that or they cannot go out and drop 15-30 grand to buy a new car especially those who make under 40K a year.

I have the luxury of commuting by bicycle, so I sold the Jeep and that's what I do. Yes, it's damned inconvenient (and physically challenging) to bike in 110+ degree weather, but I do it.

Good for you, however I am not going to bike 60 miles a day in all weather. I am also not going to buy a deathtrap or motorcycle either.

It really wasn't hard for me to make that switch, when I realize that I had friends in the service, and they were being asked to put their lives on the line for reasons that are not limited to, but which definitely include Securing Oil Resources. I thought to myself, "If they can sacrifice, then it's not too big a sacrifice for me to cut back on it a bit." It might not be much, but it's what I can do for now.

What? Your sounding more like Waltsoph.

I'm not buying into the whole "Go Green!" marketing thing, but I really don't see the problem with Americans cutting back on their energy/resource usage.

They already do the market has seen to that. Desslock if you have not noticed there is a sharp rise in home gardening, urban chicken keeping, and old fashioned canning like grand-ma used to do. That signals a change in attitude vs the buy prepackages X-Y-Z from the supermarket.

I'd love for government to take action that would bring production back to the US for both large industries and consumer goods, but I'd also love to see American culture scale back from its materialist bent. I'd love to see this country be a world leader in recycling technologies and energy efficiency.

Then they need to do the opposite of what they are doing, punishing companies and businesses and making the US business unfriendly. We cannot compete with India and China unless we level the playing field with somehting like the Fair Tax that will make the US attractive to companies again.

But instead I see a country full of people who really don't act like we're at war, or that the war we're in has anything to do with resource consumption.

We only take about 10% of our oil from the middle east, the rest comes from Canada, Mexico and South America. We could easily make this up by drilling in our own reserves but we refuse to do it.

Oh the classic "I can walk down to my corner shop and get a big picture of the long-term average climate all over the world" I'm sorry to shatter your ego-boosting illusion but saying "it wos cold" does not count as damning scientific evidence.

So fantasy hockey sticks and half truths suddenly make a scientific fact? Critical thinking does not come into play until adulthood see you in 8 years.

I doesn't lessen our usage, it takes more oil to run those then it would just use oil normally. This is nothing more then Obama giving money to the people who funded his election. This is the government telling you how you will live your life. It isn't up to them to tell you to exercise, that is for Nanny States.

DING! DING! DING! The administration needs to pay off it's supporters in a big way. Jae did you see the study in Spain about Green Jobs taking several million dollars a piece and destroying 4 other jobs to make one "Green Job"

Leader Desslock

June 28th, 2009, 02:04 PM

Running the wind mills actually takes more oil then using it naturally, as does thing like using corn as a fuel.
Ah,. Yeah, that makes much more sense. ^_^

I'm all for solar and wind farms in some areas where they make sense, as a supplement to the power grid. We have a lot of desert in Arizona, and I don't see any great harm in putting a few power stations out in the middle of nowhere.

The problem of solar and wind is that it isn't really a big solution. It's good for small use in certain locations, and not much else. "The nation's" energy demand isn't going to be met with a few windmills and solar panels.

Mind you - "The nation's" oil dependency isn't going to be solved by me selling my Jeep and individually riding a bicycle, either. But individual efforts, added together, can often make a difference.

Trying to hook up my city to an out0of-town solar power generation system wouldn't work - but if enough individuals started rigging their houses to run on a lower voltage power system that could be powered by roof-mounted solar panels - THAT could make a difference.

But the problem there is that it would require a fundamental change. We couldn't all be driving SUVs and coming home to watch satellite broadcast sports on that new 50" plasma TV and home theater system. That lifestyle can't be supported by solar power alone. Solar power only works with a more modest, less conspicuously consumptive lifestyle.

Until Americans are prepared to make that change, I don't think we should tap the Arctic reserves. I don't think government should encourage that whole lifestyle, and making more energy available more cheaply is just going to encourage people to consume more. I think we should be doing just the opposite.

What we really need to do is let them drill offshore and not leap such heavy restrictions upon oil in the US. We still have alot of oil in the US itself that everyone is afraid to touch atm.
I am all for offshore drilling - as long as it is coupled with a very comprehensive plan to reduce oil (and other energy) dependency across the board in the US.

Anything else would be 'delaying the inevitable', and I don't see the point in that. This country needs to fundamentally change its resource consumption, and I don't see that being any easier when the day comes when we don't have any left of our own to consume.

So now, while we have enough of our own oil left to get us through any bumps in whatever Grand Plan is devised to change our country into one that requires a great deal less energy to support, let's start that change and leave the untapped oil reserves as a last resort.

Jae Hoon

June 28th, 2009, 02:06 PM

Which explains your stance. My choice is either live 30 miles away, live in the ghetto so I can commute, or pay outrageous prices for an apartment. If your saying I should live in a place Snake Plissken should go or pay more for a 2 bedroom apartment than I pay for my mortgage then I will tell you were you can sit and spin.

We have cut back, use has never recovered since the price went to $4. Producers have cut production causing the rise in prices.

Because they have to make a 30 mile commute and don't want to be caught in a skateboard with a motor attached when they have an accident. Either that or they cannot go out and drop 15-30 grand to buy a new car especially those who make under 40K a year.

Good for you, however I am not going to bike 60 miles a day in all weather. I am also not going to buy a deathtrap or motorcycle either.

What? Your sounding more like Waltsoph.

They already do the market has seen to that. Desslock if you have not noticed there is a sharp rise in home gardening, urban chicken keeping, and old fashioned canning like grand-ma used to do. That signals a change in attitude vs the buy prepackages X-Y-Z from the supermarket.

Then they need to do the opposite of what they are doing, punishing companies and businesses and making the US business unfriendly. We cannot compete with India and China unless we level the playing field with somehting like the Fair Tax that will make the US attractive to companies again.

We only take about 10% of our oil from the middle east, the rest comes from Canada, Mexico and South America. We could easily make this up by drilling in our own reserves but we refuse to do it.

So fantasy hockey sticks and half truths suddenly make a scientific fact? Critical thinking does not come into play until adulthood see you in 8 years.

DING! DING! DING! The administration needs to pay off it's supporters in a big way. Jae did you see the study in Spain about Green Jobs taking several million dollars a piece and destroying 4 other jobs to make one "Green Job"

I did not, a source would be greatly appreciated.

Desslock: I agree that we need alternate energy, the only problem is Solar is probably our best bet atm. Right now it is far to expensive and is not at the point that it can be used for everyday living for most people. However the bill that Obama is passing through is not the answer.

Leader Desslock

June 28th, 2009, 02:28 PM

If your saying I should live in a place Snake Plissken should go or pay more for a 2 bedroom apartment than I pay for my mortgage then I will tell you were you can sit and spin.
That's just the thing - the reason you're in that situation is because our current culture is built around that idea.

That's part of what I think needs to change.

People have left the cities to Snake Plissken and his bunch because long distance commuting is perfectly viable. Companies located themselves in cities where their employees don't live because - hey, they can commute.

If long distance commuting wasn't such an easy option, companies would have to locate near their potential employees. Employees would make more use of public transit. There'd be greater efforts put toward urban renewal, because more people who lived there would actually take an interest in the environment.

That's not the general direction we're headed, and I think it should be.

We have cut back, use has never recovered since the price went to $4.
When gas spiked, I saw tons of people (even teenagers) on scooters, I saw kids walking back and forth, I saw parents making their weekly trips to the store rather than wasting gas on nightly trips, etc.

Now, things are pretty much back to the way they used to be. I see fewer scooters, I see kids out "just driving around" 'cause they can afford to, and... eh, a bit of griping about gas prices but not enough to change behavior.

Stick gas back at $5/gallon, and people will begin to conserve it again. Until then, they won't care.

They already do the market has seen to that. Desslock if you have not noticed there is a sharp rise in home gardening, urban chicken keeping, and old fashioned canning like grand-ma used to do. That signals a change in attitude vs the buy prepackages X-Y-Z from the supermarket.
Very minimal efforts so far. A few folks who regard it as "trendy", and a few folks who've been doing it all along, but that's it.

We only take about 10% of our oil from the middle east, the rest comes from Canada, Mexico and South America.
I can't say I'm any happier giving oil money to Chavez than I am to see it go to the middle east.

Desslock: I agree that we need alternate energy, the only problem is Solar is probably our best bet atm. Right now it is far to expensive and is not at the point that it can be used for everyday living for most people. However the bill that Obama is passing through is not the answer.
Well, maybe by screwing things up royally (but with good intent), maybe this will make folks get off their backsides and come up with a better solution.

As I said, I feel it's the lesser of two evils.

Soluzar

June 28th, 2009, 02:31 PM

I agree that we need alternate energy, the only problem is Solar is probably our best bet atm. Right now it is far to expensive and is not at the point that it can be used for everyday living for most people. However the bill that Obama is passing through is not the answer.
This is basically the thread in a nutshell. Alternatives to oil would be lovely, but nothing so far is going to work out unless major improvements are made. I heard there were some incredible breakthroughs with solar power, but they are still years away from coming to market, and I don't see how they can power cars that way ever. Unless by converting water to hydrogen, but I'm still not sure...

goddessofanime

June 28th, 2009, 02:40 PM

Obama is making a huge mistake.

I'm all for conversation but adding another tax especially when the economy is so bad is only going to make people more p'od. Like me.

RecentMidget

June 28th, 2009, 02:52 PM

AsukaxSohryux

June 28th, 2009, 02:57 PM

Obama is making a huge mistake.

I'm all for conversation but adding another tax especially when the economy is so bad is only going to make people more p'od. Like me.
Tax increase is good...wth you smoking.

Jae Hoon

June 28th, 2009, 04:48 PM

america has a bill to pay. We need to pay it. Clinton raised taxes for a while, and look what happend! Awesomeness, thats what. Economy was good and he got head. Obama might be trying the same thing, but taking an environmentaly friendly turn to it as well. two birds one stone. (like walt, I didn't think about what i was saying, but i will heartily take any flames coming my way.)

Yeah not quite, Billary set up an economic structure that was made to fail in acouple of years. Sure it looked good when he was in office but he knew it was going to collapse as did every strategist out there. Not to mention he is the main cause of our current housing market.

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 05:37 PM

I like Glenn Beck, he has been saying stuff like this since Bush was in office. Just then it was acceptable since well Bush was in office. He can not say that about the Anointed One though.

I very much agree. This is not a Republican thing at all. In fact, it has no party really. If i have a credit card debt...It is a bad idea to go and borrow MORE money. Beck was criticizing Bush and he was applauded for it. Yet now if you say anything bad about Obama, you are branded an antiAmerican, or a terrorist.
Yes, many would consider me a bit "crazy". But I think it is quite safe to question what big brother is doing. More and more and more taxes are NOT the answer to this. Especially since taxing carbon will only increase prices of essentials, making us pay more not only in taxes, but for everyday goods. This is definitely something we should not be doing with the economy how it is.

Yeah not quite, Billary set up an economic structure that was made to fail in acouple of years. Sure it looked good when he was in office but he knew it was going to collapse as did every strategist out there. Not to mention he is the main cause of our current housing market.

This too. Bush became quite unpopular, yet Obama is doing many of the same things, and has broken many promises already. The ones who point that out, and deemed racist, or crazy rightwing terrorists.

If the federals want to take more of my money, they better have a DAMN good reason.

Bernard_Monsha

June 28th, 2009, 06:12 PM

I did not, a source would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

That's just the thing - the reason you're in that situation is because our current culture is built around that idea. .

Not wanting to be robbed, killed or pay overpriced rents?

People have left the cities to Snake Plissken and his bunch because long distance commuting is perfectly viable. Companies located themselves in cities where their employees don't live because - hey, they can commute.

That and they get fat incentives to locate in urban areas, as well as pressure from government and lobbying groups.

If long distance commuting wasn't such an easy option, companies would have to locate near their potential employees. Employees would make more use of public transit. There'd be greater efforts put toward urban renewal, because more people who lived there would actually take an interest in the environment.

That's not the general direction we're headed, and I think it should be.

Urban renewal is a myth, you are not going to get anything done until you move the unsavory people out. How are you going to achieve that? Are you going to have a mass exodus from the ghetto? Were will you put them? Do you think anyone else will open their doors to them?

When gas spiked, I saw tons of people (even teenagers) on scooters, I saw kids walking back and forth, I saw parents making their weekly trips to the store rather than wasting gas on nightly trips, etc.

Now, things are pretty much back to the way they used to be. I see fewer scooters, I see kids out "just driving around" 'cause they can afford to, and... eh, a bit of griping about gas prices but not enough to change behavior.

Usage is still down, expense for everything else including food and plastics is still up. Dismissing it for what amounts to Buffy blowing her dad's cash vs people actually trying to cut their household cost is insulting.

Stick gas back at $5/gallon, and people will begin to conserve it again. Until then, they won't care.
Very minimal efforts so far. A few folks who regard it as "trendy", and a few folks who've been doing it all along, but that's it.

If you stick it back at five dollars a gallon you will create another crisis as industry and consumers lock up again.

I can't say I'm any happier giving oil money to Chavez than I am to see it go to the middle east.

Chavez has no one else he can sell to, he may act goofy and put, and stomp his feet, but he knows were his bread is buttered and were he will go if he ever pisses us off enough to stop oil shipments.

Well, maybe by screwing things up royally (but with good intent), maybe this will make folks get off their backsides and come up with a better solution.

You what good intent paves the road too. No solution willl be found except for pointing fingers as to what got us there.

america has a bill to pay.

And they should pay it by cutting their spending, not looting from productive people who don't run up 60K cell phone bills.

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 06:22 PM

And they should pay it by cutting their spending, not looting from productive people who don't run up 60K cell phone bills.

Wow. Burn.
I am definitely more careful with my money. Now, I drive for work, so part of my gas is covered by work, but it is still quite expensive. My knees and back and bad, so I cant bike everywhere either. It hurts even to go a few miles.
I try to give plasma as much as I can. I have not been able to due to a protein abnormality (wut?) and a work injury though.
I also do not buy anything that isnt on sale for a reasonable price.
Spending money, to save money is just well....stupid.

Soluzar

June 28th, 2009, 06:24 PM

And they should pay it by cutting their spending, not looting from productive people who don't run up 60K cell phone bills.
So... I can agree with that. Now is the time to cut back on spending, since as I said to Jon recently (when he expressed some concerns) I believe the concept of low taxation is too deeply entrenched in the American mindset for most of them to accept any sudden grab for their hard-earned cash.

Since you said it though... where to cut spending? I assume that should America's involvement in Iraq end, that will cut the defence budget, but there's never a good time to cut too far back on defence. Spending on energy is high and likely to remain so. Sourcing more of the products and services you require domestically would be nice, but America's manufacturing industries seem to have been systematically emasculated in much the same way as those of Great Britain. Seriously, I'm asking not because I think you're wrong but simply because I want to know your answer.

Where exactly do the cuts go, that they won't be too painful?

Incidentally, I'm well aware that only the first of those things that I mentioned is directly tied to the federal government's budget, but the latter two are aspects of economy which have a vast knock-on effect on the government's wealth in the system with which I'm familiar. Cutting spending in those areas or bringing spending 'back home' will definitely contribute to the fullness of the federal purse.

Honestly I'm just not sure how exactly the federal purse strings can be tightened. I'm sure you can tell me, I found your links regarding the 'fair tax' somewhat intriguing. When you said 'cut spending', I sort of heard 'increase the available budget without raising taxes', and that's not quite accurate but still... the point remains that I'm curious to know if you have specific ideas.

Jae Hoon

June 28th, 2009, 07:28 PM

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 07:32 PM

Soluzar you would be surprised how much wasteful spending the Gov does. First this private/public business **** needs to stop, you are one or the other. You should not get both and then get to live under private rules. No funding to radical organizations like The Feminist/Acorn/Peta/Greenpeace/NAACP/ACLU etc etc and yes they are all radical organizations. No free gas for gov employees, yes they all get free gas that is why they all have personal jets. Quit stupid spending, we spend like 200 mill a year on **** like sea lions. Do we really need to spend that right now on crap like that. Those are just off the top of my head, there is much much more wasteful spending.

Lets not forget the 800 billion for CEO bonuses. :naughty:;)
The anti Greenhouse gas and all that is also a political movement, as the facts actually go against them. But that doesnt mean I think we should not cut back our oil usage. Like I said before, there are better way than BURNING our natural resources.
Quit stupid spending,.

Focusing on this alone...all I can say is "too late". The Green movement are in full motion. We will only spend MORE on seals in the coming years.

goddessofanime

June 28th, 2009, 07:39 PM

Mosinmatt

June 28th, 2009, 07:48 PM

Don't forget we need all that money so we can do research on stupid crap like ketsup

catsup....

goddessofanime

June 28th, 2009, 07:56 PM

You say catsup I say Ketsup

CrossboneGundam

June 28th, 2009, 08:02 PM

You are not going to get rid of it

That is what we're doing when we use it. You don't really think that stuff is going to power unlimited economic growth forever, do you?

Soluzar you would be surprised how much wasteful spending the Gov does. First this private/public business **** needs to stop, you are one or the other. You should not get both and then get to live under private rules. No funding to radical organizations like The Feminist/Acorn/Peta/Greenpeace/NAACP/ACLU etc etc and yes they are all radical organizations. No free gas for gov employees, yes they all get free gas that is why they all have personal jets. Quit stupid spending, we spend like 200 mill a year on **** like sea lions. Do we really need to spend that right now on crap like that. Those are just off the top of my head, there is much much more wasteful spending.

Except the top of your head isn't a reliable, verifiable source.

Also lol @ the dreaded terrorist radical organization FEMINIST.

And last time I checked, the NAACP and ACLU were respected organizations in good legal standing. The ACLU being made up of lawyers and all, even.

Consarn all those galldern womens and constitutions getting all plum uppity and trying to take the place of guns and god as the basis for govmint!

But yeah, I agree. Women are perfectly adequately represented by middle aged, wealthy white males in congress, they don't need equal representation or equal rights! They only make 70 cents on the dollar compared to men because they're simply not good enough, right? And obviously male executives are totally objective in hiring and promotion decisions and the subconscious mind has no effect on them because they've mastered vulcan techniques to surpass emotion.

The fact that domestic violence exists is proof of our society's egalitarianism.

Just like using our system's legal channels like bringing suit in order to ensure enforcement of the US constitution is dangerous radicalism which needs to be stopped before it kills god.

Jae Hoon

June 28th, 2009, 08:32 PM

Tenken's Smile

June 28th, 2009, 09:13 PM

This bill is imperfect, AND AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY! Please write and call your congress people!
Without this bill in hand, the chances that the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) will fail go up dramatically with drastic consequences. The 2009 International Scientific Congress concluded that climate change is happening faster than the worst-case scenarios. But we can make a huge difference with current technology, political will and personal choice. If we fail, the consequences will make our current recession seem paltry, dwarfing the cost of WWII. This is our Pearl Harbor! Will you join me in committing to making a change to a low-carbon future? http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/

Some good articles to look at:
http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/Lovinsforweb.pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-climax-of-humanity

Holy Knight

June 28th, 2009, 09:37 PM

^ That premise hinges on the idea that the new, more efficient energy source is just that -- more efficient than current energy generators.

So far, only nuclear energy is better than oil (hydroelectricity being bound by geography). Problem is, it's not considered "environmentally friendly", nor does it solve current use of oil which is absolutely necessary for other products.

This bill isn't a very good idea simply because current technology doesn't support the figure it wants to pump out. It assumes that efficiency will be a by-product, when this isn't assured at all.

Really, it's a pretty dumb motion to push it through right now just to appease radicals and pay off key individuals, though I can't argue the intent is a good one. Businesses are going to be scrambling for a good while, however.

Tenken's Smile

June 28th, 2009, 09:46 PM

This bill isn't a very good idea simply because current technology doesn't support the figure it wants to pump out. It assumes that efficiency will be a by-product, when this isn't assured at all.
If you understand the "efficiency" of our current technology, you won't be saying that.

http://i41.tinypic.com/20fuiox.jpg

Power plants and buildings waste huge amounts of heat, cars and trucks dissipate most of their fuel energy, and consumer appliances waste much of their power (and often siphon electricity even when they are turned off).
If nothing is done, the use of oil and coal will continue to climb, draining hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the economy as well as worsening the climate, pollution and oil-security problems.

From Scientific American:
Eliminating the need for a heating system reduced construction costs by $1,100 (in 1983 dollars). I then reinvested this money, plus another $4,800, into equipment that saved half the water, 99 percent of the water-heating energy and 90 percent of the household electricity. The 4,000-square-foot structure—which also houses the original headquarters of Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), the nonprofit group I co-founded in 1982— consumes barely more electricity than a single 100-watt lightbulb. (This amount excludes the power used by the institute’s office equipment.) Solar cells generate fi ve to six times that much electricity, which I sell back to the utility. Together all the effi ciency investments repaid their cost in 10 months with 1983 technologies; today’s are better and cheaper.

Cap and trade would reduce pollution from utilities, manufacturers and other companies by slowly lowering the number of permits available for emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. One permit would allow a company to emit one ton of greenhouse gas emissions. Companies would be allowed to trade or sell the permits to each other on an as-needed basis.

Me, I'm very happy and proud that my University has started to use Wind Energy since last year!

Holy Knight

June 28th, 2009, 10:10 PM

^ Which doesn't solve the problem. Making things more energy efficient is applying a patch to extend the amount of time we have before we run out of current resources. Considering the exponential rise in yearly demand, the reduction of, say, 20% of current consumption isn't going to do much in the grand scheme of things, especially since oil is a non-renewable resource. I also question the amount of resources necessary to make things more efficient. Is it worth it in the first place?

Also, wind energy is terrible for the following reasons:

- Requires a huge amount of space.
- Can't be used everywhere
- Disrupts wind patterns
- Visual pollution
- Isn't all that efficient in converting wind energy to electricity. (:P)

And so on.

Don't get me wrong. Less waste, recycling, and more efficient methods are always a good thing, as well as being simply common sense, but they don't necessarily solve the problem.

AsukaxSohryux

June 28th, 2009, 10:25 PM

Leader Desslock

June 28th, 2009, 10:38 PM

Id rather look at giant fans than choke on smog. I am also sure windmills and wind power dont disrupt wind patterns in a disastrous way.
Actually, that's one reason I'm not all for Wind Energy.

Think about it - any amount of energy that's produced from a wind farm is energy that's taken out of low-level atmospheric wind patterns. A single windmill to provide intermittent mechanical power to a remote farm or settlement isn't going to be noticeable, but a large-scale wind farm built in the wrong place could produce undesirable side-effects.

I'd rather see tidal-power generation systems put into place. Sure, those could potentially disrupt surface currents (just like windmills disrupt air currents), but there's a lot more energy in the oceans, and a whole lot more of it to disrupt before there'd be a noticeable difference.

Pessimist

June 29th, 2009, 08:59 AM

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870&ei=2nhFSsnOLqOEqwPCteHDBg&q=global+warming+swindle)

I'm afraid the swindle you advocate is nothing but a swindle in itself. Please procede by reading the contents of these three links;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-real-global-warming-swindle-440116.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/carl-wunsch-i-should-never-have-trusted-channel-4-440245.html

May I ask you an honest and sincere question..Are you a socialist? If not whats your political affiliation. Dem.? Rep.? I'm just curious you don't have to answer it if you want.

I highlight, the following comment is strictly my personal view on this matter; With the creation of the Internet, I have been able to witness in the first hand how people all around the world with different backrounds and views have been able to discuss with one and another. However, what I have also discovered is that those who can describe their political, religious, ideological - affiliation and belief in the form of just one word are either; lacking in common sense or being grossly misinformed.

Regarding windmills;
The visual issues are issues of getting used to seeing and hearing them. Based on various articles found in science magazines, I will overly simplify the matter by saying how bigger is better. Windmills can be made more efficient by increasing the size. Of course building and maintaining is going to cause costs but wind is still free.

Just like we have many different unrenewable sources of energy - we are going to need many different renewable sources of energy to cut down the dependancy on the unrenewable ones.

Well, this certainly is one topic where I can go on and on. But I already have...

taily

June 29th, 2009, 09:25 AM

good greif, it happened again, the elfs came and stole my post! :O

I bet it was some wannabe-internet rebel messing around.

waltsoph3

June 29th, 2009, 09:58 AM

Just to clear this up. I don't need to hide what i have to say. So to answer your question on Mosinmatt being me in disguise its 100% NO. That would be breaking the AN rules. If you think i'm a liar have the mods check it out. I've got nothing to hide. :mad:

Mosinmatt is also not an accomplice I don't even know this person...yet.

It seems though we both happen to agree on certain things in this topic. Is that wrong for people to have something in common?

Also seems to me there are people again that understand the importance of this information i've shared at the beginning of the making of this thread. And thats all it was. I had no agenda motive in mind here ok.

Yes I fail but no ones perfect either. Every time someones post a waltsoph fails thing..all you do is make yourselves look unintellectual in my eyes. At least Desslock even though sometimes i can't stand him..he says why he disagrees with me in a civil way.

When i post..its never been about being perfect, mr right, my views are the only RIGHT views. Some people may like my points of views and others will not. Thats fine .

Its never been about winning threads to me like i said in the past.
Its all about letting people just speak out on the topic,make up there own minds on the topic itself ,...and sometimes prepare to feel the crashing wave as another mod here said it best.

Ok and now with that said..I do have something to add that are words of my own opinion regarding this thread and i'm prepared to eat another bashing barrage from my comments so bring it on.

The last thing anyone wants is more taxes. Taxes=Bad
Don't we already have enough taxes as it is? Heck whats our tax code book look like again? The simpler the tax code..the better. And again more taxes means less for business profits witch means less hiring and upgrading. For people its less in your wallet to spend for you or a family you support.

Heres another thing since some here have brought up the wasteful spending situation (yes i will agree on that we are wasting money) regarding Pres. Obama. I bet probably some of you don't remember this but I do..when he was campaigning for the office he made a promise to "cut spending". And how? He said he would go through the treasury book and page by page of it cut or terminate failing projects funded by the tax payers...why hasn't he done that yet? I mean sure thats gonna take some time but i thought that was a good idea.

Since we are talking about carbon emissions and cap and trade.
I wonder.....how much would a hospital visit cost once this is implemented?
(wait for it......)

Yeah!! I got you there guys didn't I!?^_^...I'm surprised no one even mentioned that one in this thread.

So why bring that up? Hospitals have huge capacities and require energy non stop 24/7 . How much.."emissions" does a hospital produce and more importantly how much "emission fines" would they have to pay if it goes over the emission's limit?

Just give those 2 opinions i pointed out some thought.

Anyways thats all i got to say for now. Thank you.

f2akid

June 29th, 2009, 10:16 AM

^ waltsoph3, you just made a long post and I read every single word of it without losing my attention at all (that's a first for me when it comes to your posts). You are starting to write more clearly now by stating your logical opinions (thinking for yourself) and instead of telling us how much you've fallen for something, you ELABORATED on it.

Keep writing with whatever mentality you had while writing that post and you probably won't have to put up with people here flaming you for much longer :).

Jae Hoon

June 29th, 2009, 10:21 AM

Clowns are evil, they caused global warming.

Mosinmatt

June 29th, 2009, 10:31 AM

No, Walt is not me, I am not him. I have never met him in person, nor on the internet.
I am simply an American that wants the BS to stop. I want our constitution to stop being used as politicians toilet paper. I want to keep the money I work hard for. I want to be able to be free to do what I want, with out the government asking me why.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9062/t34957asm53712.th.jpg (http://img151.imageshack.us/i/t34957asm53712.jpg/)

Pessimist

June 29th, 2009, 10:31 AM

Reuters - Obama urges passage of "historic" climate change bill (http://www.reuters.com/article/ELECTU/idUSN238569420090624?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10531).

Waltsoph3, simple question, have you read the actual bill? If you have - mind providing a link?

Goodnight.

Old Ape Face

June 29th, 2009, 10:45 AM

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9062/t34957asm53712.th.jpg (http://img151.imageshack.us/i/t34957asm53712.jpg/)

And that is what a lot of people in this country do not understand, They believe the only person capable of making their lives better is the one and only President of the United States, as if he is there shoulder to hold on to when they're forced to face up to something they don't like.

As that comic states, the only ones who are capable of making their lives better, are themselves alone, the government is there to abide by the people and work with them instead of be out ruling and use the people to it's advantage.

But people are still lazy, they would rather be pulled along by a string then to be the ones doing the pulling.

Mosinmatt

June 29th, 2009, 10:49 AM

And that is what a lot of people in this country do not understand, They believe the only person capable of making their lives better is the one and only President of the United States, as if he is there shoulder to hold on to when they're forced to face up to something they don't like.

As that comic states, the only ones who are capable of making their lives better, are themselves alone, the government is there to abide by the people and work with them instead of be out ruling and use the people to it's advantage.

Problem is, people don't want to make their lives better. They want someone else to make it better. People have become bloated and lazy. Their refuse piles around them, and they become sick on themselves. They don't want to admit that they are the main cause of their problems. So they look to politicians, people that are more bloated with blood covered hands, to make it all better.
They are mesmerized by talks of change, when they really don't see that they are the ones that need to change. They have become so used to their sheltered lives, that they don't even see the uniforms marching up to their doors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg-OL7nsMEo&feature=related related

DavenIII

June 29th, 2009, 10:59 AM

I didn't read any of this, including the OP, I voted no, I don't want any of my tax money going towards saving the environment at all...so I think my stance is pretty clear.

taily

June 29th, 2009, 11:02 AM

^ Elaborate. Do you simply not care or not believe in Global warming?

They don't want to admit that they are the main cause of their problems.

Good god the irony.

Jae Hoon

June 29th, 2009, 11:04 AM

Even NASA doesn't believe in global warming. In the 70s and 80s there was something very similar to this called Global Cooling and everyone was freaking out the same way, come to find out it was just a cycle. That is all this will be as well.

DavenIII

June 29th, 2009, 11:05 AM

^ Elaborate. Do you simply not care or not believe in Global warming?

A little of both...I don't feel he need to Elaborate though, I think it's pretty Clear.

It's MY money, and I want it, I don't care nor do I believe in Global Warming....

I mean I understand the "Globe" is "Warming", but its not faster nor more intense then other cycles our planet has gone through in the past, there are Ice-Ages and there is Global Warming....the planet can fix itself....it's done so before and will do so again....and there is really nothing we can do about it either way.

I mean there is already solid evidence to prove that the Magnetic Field of the Earth is switching (for no apparent reason) you think Global Warming is bad wait until we have much less protection from the Suns Rays for a few months while the poles reverse lol.

Humans meddle too much, we think we are capable of destroying/Saving this planet...we are not, nothing we can do can kill this planet, and nothing we can do can save it...we should worry about living our own lives and let the planet do its thing....

taily

June 29th, 2009, 11:08 AM

^2 Maybe, but I still think there is a reasonable chance we could be endangered from it. Better safe than sorry, so we might as prepare. And besides by investing in methods like Fusion power we will be able to acheive far cheeper, reliable and more energy. even if the whole thing turns out to be a cycle.

DavenIII

June 29th, 2009, 11:14 AM

^2 Maybe, but I still think there is a reasonable chance we could be endangered from it.

we definitely could, but I don't think there is a way to start or stop these cycles so we'd be better off preparing for what will happen then trying to prevent it from happening.

Better safe than sorry, so we might as prepare. And besides by investing in methods like Fusion power we will be able to acheive far cheeper, reliable and more energy. even if the whole thing turns out to be a cycle.

Fine, but Private Companies are already researching that, I don't see the need for the government to get involved...especially if they are going to take my money and invest it in things I simply do not care about.

Bernard_Monsha

June 29th, 2009, 12:27 PM

So... I can agree with that. Now is the time to cut back on spending, since as I said to Jon recently (when he expressed some concerns) I believe the concept of low taxation is too deeply entrenched in the American mindset for most of them to accept any sudden grab for their hard-earned cash.

Considering we had a revolution on you people taxing us to much I fail to see why you are surprised. America is one of the few countries that realize that financial freedom is the cornerstone of all other freedoms.

Since you said it though... where to cut spending?

I would start by dissolving the Department of Education and putting severe cuts into HUD, and the IRS.

That is what we're doing when we use it. You don't really think that stuff is going to power unlimited economic growth forever, do you?.

No, but there is no viable alternative. We run on oil, everyone of us (even the Unabomber used plasticss and coal oil) there is no feasable way to get off it at this point. We can extract substatutes from coal and kerogen but people belonging to certain lobby groups on both sides refuse to allow it.

This bill is imperfect, AND AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY!

No, it's not. Even at the highest estimates it will not make a difference in global CO2, Methane, and other greehouse gases. What it will do is allow whomever is in power to punish those who choose not to vote for them or contribute to their campaigns.

I'd rather see tidal-power generation systems put into place. Sure, those could potentially disrupt surface currents (just like windmills disrupt air currents), but there's a lot more energy in the oceans, and a whole lot more of it to disrupt before there'd be a noticeable difference.

The only place you will be able to do that effectively is the tip of Florida were it would potentialy generate tons of power. However I am sure the NIMBYs will be out in force and the enviromentalist will claim it causes a rise in dolphin rape, manatee depression, and whale nuerosis.

Clowns are evil, they caused global warming.

No clowns bites are the leading cause of syphilis.

Even NASA doesn't believe in global warming. In the 70s and 80s there was something very similar to this called Global Cooling and everyone was freaking out the same way, come to find out it was just a cycle. That is all this will be as well.

I remebr having to learn in the early 90's that the entire artic circle would melt by 2010 making the US coastline move in 300 feet.

Soluzar

June 29th, 2009, 12:37 PM

Considering we had a revolution on you people taxing us to much I fail to see why you are surprised. America is one of the few countries that realize that financial freedom is the cornerstone of all other freedoms.
Did I give the impression I was surprised? Not at all, I'm aware of the American mindset regarding taxation. Jon was expressing the view that a greater tax burden might be implemented by the current administration, I said that it's my view that Americans in general would sooner revolt than pay much more tax.

I would start by dissolving the Department of Education and putting severe cuts into HUD, and the IRS.
I suppose I can't really argue with HUD, it's actually a pretty decent place to start cutting costs, not to mention implementing wholesale reforms. I profess my ignorance of the costs of the IRS, but I'm somewhat fascinated by your intent to dissolve the Dept. of Eductation. Does that mean then that you believe all education should be a matter for private concerns? I see significant risks in that. Perhaps I misinterpret and you meant to say that it should be dissolved so that it could be built again from scratch. If so I must point out that the same could be said of HUD.

Again please understand that I'm merely trying to gain insight into what you feel should be the areas of decreased government spending. It is fascinating to me since I live in a culture at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, where taxation is high and public spending is astronomical.

Elaborate. Do you simply not care or not believe in Global warming?
It's hardly an unpopular view. I can see why, after all it is the view which is most comforting and which requires that nothing be done. If that view should happen to be wrong, then... probably by the time it affects any of us the people that currently hold it will all be dead anyway.

Trefellin

June 29th, 2009, 12:42 PM

Clowns are evil, they caused global warming.

Clowns are a necessary evil. Without them, who would scare the children?

Mosinmatt

June 29th, 2009, 12:48 PM

Clowns are a necessary evil. Without them, who would scare the children?

**** Cheney?

Bernard_Monsha

June 29th, 2009, 04:00 PM

I suppose I can't really argue with HUD, it's actually a pretty decent place to start cutting costs, not to mention implementing wholesale reforms. I profess my ignorance of the costs of the IRS, but I'm somewhat fascinated by your intent to dissolve the Dept. of Eductation. Does that mean then that you believe all education should be a matter for private concerns? I see significant risks in that. Perhaps I misinterpret and you meant to say that it should be dissolved so that it could be built again from scratch. If so I must point out that the same could be said of HUD.

The Department of Education was formed in the Carter Administration and has consistantly seen that test scores and curriculums drop in quality year by year. It was not necessary to begin with and does what government does best, eat money and suck horribly at it's set task.

Old Ape Face

June 30th, 2009, 06:59 AM

I remebr having to learn in the early 90's that the entire artic circle would melt by 2010 making the US coastline move in 300 feet.

It is 2009, and I'm still breathing what seems to be air, Seems like someone was wrong back in the 90s. <_<

and what happened to Skynet?

Gray

June 30th, 2009, 07:09 AM

and what happened to Skynet?

I think you're getting fantasy and reality confused again.

Soluzar

June 30th, 2009, 07:12 AM

The Department of Education was formed in the Carter Administration and has consistantly seen that test scores and curriculums drop in quality year by year. It was not necessary to begin with and does what government does best, eat money and suck horribly at it's set task.
Oh wait I forget the way America works, again. You're saying that the federal level of oversight is unnecessary and that things should be handled at the school district level?

Old Ape Face

June 30th, 2009, 07:14 AM

I think you're getting fantasy and reality confused again.

I know it's just a badass story, but come on, hehe

Anything futuristic now would be set like in the year 3000

CrossboneGundam

June 30th, 2009, 02:22 PM

NAACP and ACLU have not been respected organizations for quite sometime. They are very far left organizations that only push their agenda and when someone actually needs their help they are nowhere to be found unless it fits into their little public interest box.

And most Feminists organizations are radicals organizations, it long past the point of just wanting equal right some years ago. Nice try trying to troll though, keep your trolling out of this thread from now on.

Working within the law and established political systems is not very radical.

So what's your evidence of all this? You're the one who volunteered the claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove that organizations that work within the law and women who stopped burning bras thirty years ago are dangerous radicals who are a threat to everything america stands for.

Trefellin

June 30th, 2009, 03:45 PM

Working within the law and established political systems is not very radical.

I don't think it is inaccurate to call a group "radical" if they seek to drastically alter society, regardless of their methods.

Soluzar

June 30th, 2009, 04:59 PM

I don't think it is inaccurate to call a group "radical" if they seek to drastically alter society, regardless of their methods.
I thought the term for that was "progressive" in that they seek to bring a form of "progress" to the society in which they live. The term "radical" seems better fitted to those whose goals might be described in a similar way, by those sympathetic to the cause, but who would take "radical" action to achieve their form of "progress".

I've got to admit, I've got some limited sympathy for Jae's statements. The NAACP and the ACLU may have admirable stated goals, but if they aren't living up to those ideals then they won't achieve much respect. Separate the goal from the group trying to achieve it and you often see a different picture. Not a very pretty one.

animeotaku99

July 3rd, 2009, 12:47 PM

OK, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet... but

"Hey guize, remember that Cap-and-Trade legislation the House just passed? In that bill is a mandate that every house in America must be inspected to ensure that it is energy efficient.

has this been voted on by the Senate yet?

Bernard_Monsha

July 3rd, 2009, 01:43 PM

Oh wait I forget the way America works, again. You're saying that the federal level of oversight is unnecessary and that things should be handled at the school district level?

The state should be the highest authority overall but the local school districts should have the most control. Putting power closer to the people is a good thing.

I think that is only if you are planning to sell and is voluntary. They do have a welfare program for people makeing under 20K to off set the price of energy, one to give a higher earned income tax credit to single people, and it allows SSI to raid the general fund to replenish itself at will due to lost revenue. The last thing is admitting they know that we will lose jobs due to this.

waltsoph3

July 3rd, 2009, 01:53 PM

Pessimist

July 4th, 2009, 07:09 AM

Just give those 2 opinions i pointed out some thought.

That's easily said and done:

Taxes ? Bad.
Simple tax code ? Fewer taxes.

Regarding the hospital comment. I have to admit how I've not been able to find the bill online, unfortunately.

I do find it highly unlikely that hospitals would have to pay emission fines directly since it is much easier to monitor and fine the emissions caused by the energy production and industry itself. Thus it is not farfetched to expect a rise in the energy bill and possibly a rise in the hospital bills. However, I doubt the rise will be astronomical in the already astronomical fees.

In addition, "emission fines" are used to "encourage" to upgrade and change into more environmentally friendly options. After all the nature of these fines should be; The less you cause, the less you have to pay.

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2009/05/25
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2009/05/26
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2009/05/27
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2009/05/28

Soluzar

July 4th, 2009, 07:19 AM

The state should be the highest authority overall but the local school districts should have the most control. Putting power closer to the people is a good thing.
Once I remembered that, I suddenly realised why it's a good idea. :)

It's a complete waste to have federal oversight over things that the state government could run effectively. It basically amounts to spending twice on the same thing, which is a quick way to lose money. After all, the electorate for the state still have power to control their local government, so that should be enough of a safeguard against bad decisions.

Victory

July 4th, 2009, 08:39 AM

On the subject of the general idea of the bill, basically, there are so many variables to the problem it is trying to solve, it makes my head hurt.
-What are the cost/consequences of global warming in the coming years?
-What is the effect of this bill on the economy?
-Is there value to slowing global warming besides human consequences?
-How effective will emissions limits/emissions trading be at curbing these consequences?
-Should we shift towards green energy sources? What is the cost of that? How effective is the technology that will be financed by the sale of emissions
credits?
-What kind of employment opportunities will arise from green energy? What jobs will be lost elsewhere if any?
-Etc.

Uhn but this thread doesn't address the substance of the bill only its nature.

In my mind, there is no doubt we have to do "something" to limit global warming. The cost of weathering (no pun intended) rapid climatic change seems too great. Also pushing green and renewable energy would be great too with positive consequences not strictly related to global warming. Photochemical smog is bad. Acid rain is bad. Combustion motors smell bad and make the air difficult to breathe. Fossil fuels are limited. Not changing anything now would force our descendants to do it. It'll create new jobs. And so on.

In that light, I would be in favor of the idea of the bill.

Dismissing the very idea of doing anything because it requires an initial investment seems like a very superficial way of thinking about this issue.

To summarize what you should retain from my post: IT'S A TAX! BOOGA-BOOGABOO!

Bernard_Monsha

July 4th, 2009, 01:06 PM

Soluzar

July 4th, 2009, 01:14 PM

In my mind, there is no doubt we have to do "something" to limit global warming.
Improvement in efficiency is the only thing I see working right now. When you burn oil (in any form) most of the energy is lost. It varies due to the specific process, but still... how is that acceptable if we could do better? I'd put my money there if I... had any.

Victory

July 4th, 2009, 09:02 PM

^
It will make a nominal reduction that even the rabid Al Gore types admit won't make a difference. So you can throw any arguments for that out the window.Hm should they reduce emissions even more then? Wouldn't that make the bill even less likely to be accepted?

They also know demand will not go down significantly you will simply see us importing gasoline when it becomes to expensive to produce it domestically. It won't create new jobs, every time a green job is created it destroys two others.I don't follow you on the gasoline thing. The idea is to produce less greenhouse gases not less gasoline?
edit: OK I just reread, I was confused by "consumption" and "production". Hm no the idea would indeed be to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Why can't it work?

If you have a source on the lost jobs claim I would like to read it. If it is true would helping the environment be worth losing jobs for? I really think quantifiying exactly how much the environment is affected versus how the economy is affected is both key and very difficult to do.

Improvement in efficiency is the only thing I see working right now. When you burn oil (in any form) most of the energy is lost. It varies due to the specific process, but still... how is that acceptable if we could do better? I'd put my money there if I... had any.I'm not sure if I'm following you here but improving combustion motor efficiency is not the only thing we can do.

-Public transportation
-Walking/biking
-Hybrid/electric/hydrogen cars

-Buying local
-recycling, reusing, consuming less

-Wind/solar/nuclear power
-Using biomass
-Modernizing factories to improve energy efficiency (you could keep the same motors but use less fuel by minimizing heat loss through better insulation for example)
and so forth.

By the way one way of telling if a given product or technology is environmentally profitable (for example: "is one kWh of wind power really cleaner than one kWh of gas power?") is by using life cycle assessment. Maybe I should blog on this but wikipedia has an article on it.

master terrence

July 5th, 2009, 11:31 AM

^

It will make a nominal reduction that even the rabid Al Gore types admit won't make a difference. So you can throw any arguments for that out the window. They also know demand will not go down significantly you will simply see us importing gasoline when it becomes to expensive to produce it domestically. It won't create new jobs, every time a green job is created it destroys two others.

It's not EVERY TIME. The data was taken from a study done in Madrid. Spain and America are independent regardless of how similar the situation might be. I'm not saying green jobs won't cause a loss of jobs even greater than 2.2 (maybe it'll cost 10 jobs, frankly IDK,) but I would like to see a 90% Confidence Interval taken from American data before I hear about a 1:2 trade-off. I have a feeling it's going to be really different from Spain considering the difference in size and geography (there is a big difference.)

blackknight

July 6th, 2009, 07:38 PM

I still can't get past every time Nuclear Fission-based Power is mentioned people freak out, saying it is "Dangerous" or "Eco-unfriendly". Nuclear power emerged when, the 1950's? And there have been how many devastating meltdowns around the world? Officially, two. In actuallity? None. Chernobyl was not constructed the way other fission plants are, and was designed to harness a different kind of energy (basically harnessing the power of a nuclear bomb). Three-Mile Island didn't even fully meltdown, as it meted only about half-way through the containment shield, which was exactly what said shield was designed for.

We will never be weaned off of oil. Never. Oil as a source of electrical power, however, can be removed with the implementation of nuclear power plants in place of oil plants. Than the oil which is being used for power can be put towards the other things for which it is needed (transportation, plastics, etc).

Gray

July 6th, 2009, 07:45 PM

blackknight

July 6th, 2009, 07:52 PM

I'd really like to hear your plan for the safe disposal of spent fuel rods then. :)

So far the "Bury it in the desert" method seems to be working out, but alternatively, given the rate we've been laucnhing **** into space, fire em up there and give em a push towards the sun.

Clearly I'm no engineer and thus lack the values for the efficency of such a tactic. Still, it seems like it could work, in theory.

The Million Dollar Prons

July 6th, 2009, 07:53 PM

animeotaku99

July 6th, 2009, 08:29 PM

I'd really like to hear your plan for the safe disposal of spent fuel rods then. :)

Make weapons out of them

and Obama now wants to bypass the Constitution to pass some sort of disarmament thing....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negotiators-under-the-gun-might-temporarily-bypass-senate-ratification-for-treaty.html

Yeah this isn't good... It's getting really red in here

Bernard_Monsha

July 6th, 2009, 09:14 PM

It's not EVERY TIME. The data was taken from a study done in Madrid. Spain and America are independent regardless of how similar the situation might be. I'm not saying green jobs won't cause a loss of jobs even greater than 2.2 (maybe it'll cost 10 jobs, frankly IDK,) but I would like to see a 90% Confidence Interval taken from American data before I hear about a 1:2 trade-off. I have a feeling it's going to be really different from Spain considering the difference in size and geography (there is a big difference.)

Yes, in the US it will be 4:1 because of more area and heavier oil and coal processing capacity.

More garbage from the horses mouth. (http://www.happyplanetindex.org/public-data/files/happy-planet-index-2-0.pdf)

:lol:

Being poor and third world means the earth loves you and life is wonderful (unless you are from an African country) and being white and not poor makes you unhappy, miserable, and evil. :lol:

Victory

July 6th, 2009, 09:39 PM

masterterrence do you have the madrid document thing?

bernard monsha what do you think the US government should do about global warming?

Till

July 6th, 2009, 09:48 PM

I still can't get past every time Nuclear Fission-based Power is mentioned people freak out, saying it is "Dangerous" or "Eco-unfriendly".

Nuclear power plant's dont freak me out. It's the almost complete lack of competent young people with experience in the field that freak me out.

master terrence

July 6th, 2009, 09:53 PM

2^ he's probably going to say they shouldn't do anything about it. Global warming is big and very natural anyways. Just like global cooling is natural (which has been a part of many studies that focus on global warming.)

the study:

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

skip down to stock per capital worker on page 38. That's the important piece. It's a business study btw.

it has lots of observed data... if you know what I mean.

Bernard_Monsha

July 6th, 2009, 09:58 PM

bernard monsha what do you think the US government should do about global warming?

Nothing right now. At this point there is nothing you can do to control it any reductions we make will be made up for and exceeded by India, China and the third world as they industrialize.

Pessimist

July 6th, 2009, 10:59 PM

So far the "Bury it in the desert" method seems to be working out, but alternatively, given the rate we've been laucnhing **** into space, fire em up there and give em a push towards the sun. |Snip|

Burrying them in a bedrock granite is a lot better option than dumbing them into some piece of a desert. As for firing things up in the space. I acknowledge you are no engineer. Nevertheless, I have to admit how it is a notion of a nature that some might consider it wiser to have you castrated for it.

With the present technology and the rate we've been firing satellites, telescopes and stuff into space, it is economically more feasible not to take a part in that great adventure.

In addition, uranium and plutonium tend not to sprout from trees and bees. Tend to be just like fossil fuels on the unrenewable side of things. While getting them tends to leave something of a mess behind. That mess is one of the reasons why some are not so fond of the Power of Atom!

But on the good side of things. You can use those rods for a fairly long time and I'm under the impression that those are replaced with new ones when it becomes inefficient, not impossible, to use the rods.

Edit:
Nothing right now. At this point there is nothing you can do to control it any reductions we make will be made up for and exceeded by India, China and the third world as they industrialize.

But whem partying in a group, ordering smaller dishes tends to make the total bill smaller. Even if just out of consideration towards the ones who are going to be paying for it. Also, if you are doing something yourself, it becomes more plausible to require everyone else to do the same.

And for one thing, Chinese Goverment is not pretending there is no threat in global warming. But the top is having some troubles with the bottom on this issue, or so I hear.

Edit:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/ScienceAndMechanics/2-1952/pocket_uranium.jpg