What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
46 Comments
- novenator, on 10/01/2009, -7/+24Word of warning, if you thought the health care mobs were out of hand, just wait until the corporations rile up people with scare stories about what any climate bill will do. FreedomWorks will tell people that this will cost 20 million jobs, that it will be a tax on everyone, that whoever supports positive environmental regulation eats puppies and sacrifices cats. Prepare for the next ***** storm of hatred, because it's right around the corner.
- starlon2, on 10/01/2009, -2/+17This bill will eat puppies and sacrifice cats.
- Dinsdale77, on 10/01/2009, -6/+14I'm sure this has something to do with Nazis. Glenn Beck will make that connection for me.
- rynlnk, on 10/01/2009, -1/+8Google "global warming gestapo"
- jaybird2000, on 10/01/2009, -1/+7It is not so much what the big companies do. They know how to cheat and will do what ever they want to maximize bonuses. Here in Sugar Land, Texas our homeowner's association (FCCSA) forces us to wash our driveways regularly and cuts down tress when the are no longer 'pretty enough'. Pretty streets (and few minorities) keep the profits for the Realtors high. For 9,000+ families FCCSA's word is law or they take our houses away from us. They are a shadow government, they will be beyond the reach of any regulations. There are hundreds of these Associations in Texas. Telling millions of homeowners that resource conservation is prohibited.
- novenator, on 10/01/2009, -3/+9If shifting our power grid from foreign fossil fuels to green energy is considered a higher cost, then one needs to look at the tax incentives and corporate welfare given to big oil in the first place. IIRC, Bush gave them over $30 billion back when gas was $4-5/gallon at the pump. Of course there will be a cost to this, but I don't see that translating into higher taxes for you or me.
- proflacroix, on 10/01/2009, -0/+6don't get too excited, once congress works its magic on this bill we'll only be cutting CO2 emissions 7% by 2085.
- professor357, on 10/01/2009, -2/+7Nothing like going with 'feel-good' political correctness in running the country.
The EPA made carbon dioxide into a pollutant by claiming that it was causing global warming. Then they took the next step of claiming that the polar bear population in the Arctic is threatened by loss of ice, which they also claimed is essential to their survival. And the third step was to declare that the polar bear is a 'threatened' species, due to the logic in steps one and two.
We now have 10 years of temperature data indicating that the global temperatures are NOT continuing to increase, although the NOAA scientists charged with monitoring that data are doing everything in their power to make it look as though the global temperatures are still increasing. They are cherry-picking which data to include, and which to exclude, from the global records. They are ignoring obvious siting problems with stations across the country. They are biasing the data from properly sited sites to match the upward trends at compromised sites.
We have polar bear researchers who are ignoring the growth of almost all the polar bear populations, and ignoring the fact that the only populations decreasing in size are compromised by excessive hunting pressure, not loss of habitat. To further this viewpoint, they have prohibited an eminent researcher in the field from even attending their latest conference, because he does not ascribe to the 'man-made global warming is causing the problem' myth.
We have 'man-made global warming' scientists totally ignoring the evidence that Arctic sea ice is recovering from the 2007 summer minimum, even as the ambient CO2 record continues to increase. Meanwhile, Antarctic ice is increasing in extent and volume.
We have concrete proof that some of these same scientists cherry-picked critical tree ring data to indicate a rapid warming trend over the second half of the last century, in order to precipitate the U.N. IPCC into pushing for CO2 controls.
People, man-made global warming is a myth. Your government is now trying to put administrative regulations into place to force actions before the bubble bursts and the science proving it is a myth becomes generally known to the public. After all, once a government program is in effect, IT NEVER GOES AWAY. - ETBuzz, on 10/01/2009, -1/+5It is very sad to think these people run our country. If we were reading about this in our history books two hundred years from now the next chapter would be about the collapse of the corrupted federal government in the USA that led to the people finally taking control back of their own country. It may be difficult but we need to fire all the federal politicians and reboot the federal government. NO MORE PARTIES they just get in the way of progress.
- Barackalypse, on 10/01/2009, -6/+10Why would people be for granting a Government that spies on its citizens and performs secret renditions of suspects to foreign countries for interrogation and continues to rack up national debt want to grant that same Government more power over the economic viability of the nation?
- Bartboy919, on 10/01/2009, -3/+7Let the retarded yelling match begin.
- Barackalypse, on 10/01/2009, -8/+12I'm getting sick of Federal power grabs into all sectors of the economy. The Feds now have majority ownership of one automaker, partial ownership of another, have lent hundreds of billions to inept financial institutions, are trying to grab an even greater percentage of health care (Medicare is already the largest health insurance program), and now they're basically trying to tax carbon emissions (through offset credits).
- novenator, on 10/01/2009, -2/+6Well, but your standards, we should just stop enforcing any environmental regulations all together on coal plants. That worked great for the potash spill in Tennessee, didn't it? And the coal plants were so eager to pick up the bill for it too.
Will there be some job loss in the coal industry? Sure, but there will be a job boost in green energy as a result of this bill that should more than make up the difference. Further, if invest heavily in research and development, we can start *exporting* wind generators, solar panels, and other things, which would be a big revitalization of our manufacturing sector. - Barackalypse, on 10/01/2009, -3/+6What has China done exactly?
- badfrog, on 10/01/2009, -3/+6Sir, your facts are not welcome in this retarded hippie shouting match!
- niccha, on 10/01/2009, -10/+12What, who's arguing? We're only like the last developed country in the world to address climate change in a real way.
- EricSchC1, on 10/01/2009, -10/+12Because a considerable portion of the population are selfish, ignorant self-centered *****, who use said traits for self profit or un-wittingly for someone else.
- marx2k, on 10/10/2009, -0/+2Oh no! Big brother federal building inspectors.
- marx2k, on 10/10/2009, -0/+2Are you not happy with the length of the bill? Is 821 pages an issue for you? And if so, why?
- Ferretman, on 10/01/2009, -2/+4Nothing but words.
- jerrdalton, on 10/01/2009, -2/+4Why not, right? Bailouts, TARP, socialized medicine and now an economy destroying climate bill. This will be the death knell.
But, hopefully, common sense Americans will stop this like we did the ridiculous govt option. - Ferretman, on 10/01/2009, -2/+4What a sad mess of a bill.
Vote this turkey down pronto and move on to some REAL issues, please. - Nateon, on 10/01/2009, -7/+9Why would people be against making the world a better, healthier place?
- Nateon, on 10/01/2009, -3/+5My ***** sensory detectors are working overload on this statement
- gfryesc, on 10/01/2009, -4/+6the entire economy runs on energy, novenator. So yeah, you'll have to pay more for your own personal energy use [because a government mandate forces people to do what they otherwise wouldn't... ie buy more expensive energy].
and then you'll pay it a second time whenever you buy anything because energy is required to produce and transport everything.
in short, this oughtta be the final nail in economy's coffin. - Bartboy919, on 10/01/2009, -3/+4They have surprisingly curbed some of it, or are starting to at least.
- rynlnk, on 10/01/2009, -6/+7It creates a national building code and federal inspectors will go through your house without a warrant.
- Bartboy919, on 10/01/2009, -2/+3Not Wiskers!!!
- Ferretman, on 10/01/2009, -2/+3Actually, that's an old and inaccurate figure, novenator.
Look at the NEW scientific facts and you'll find a much different view than the standard HuffPo talking point position. - johnnysaucepn, on 10/01/2009, -2/+3No, not stupid enough. Smart enough.
- marx2k, on 10/10/2009, -0/+1HOA's... why would you ever move into a neighborhood with one?
- marx2k, on 10/10/2009, -0/+1you stopped the common option? really? How was this done?
- marx2k, on 10/10/2009, -0/+1Idiots need to know which team they're on and which team they're against.
- Ferretman, on 10/01/2009, -2/+3I don't know that anybody is--but this won't do it, and will just hurt the ability of everybody else to do it too.
- Trent1492, on 10/01/2009, -3/+3"We now have 10 years of temperature data indicating that the global temperatures are NOT continuing to increase,..."
This data and conclusion comes from where? I ask because when I go to NASA I find the following:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
"In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008."
"..although the NOAA scientists charged with monitoring that data are doing everything in their power to make it look as though the global temperatures are still increasing."
So let me see NOAA and NASA are involved in a conspiracy to defraud the public, do I got that right? But the data you have access too provides evidence for a cooling world and a conspiracy to defraud the public. So now I am going to ask you for primary evidence of this assertion.
Is the U.K' Hadley center involved in this conspiracy too?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bi ...
FTA:
"The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures."
So now we have Hadley, NASA and NOAA involved in this conspiracy. Where will this international conspiracy of geophysicist end? I mean assuming you got primary evidence for this conspiracy.
"They are ignoring obvious siting problems with stations across the country."
Because we all know that science conducted by blogs with pictures confined to a country with 3% of the Earth
surface is more reliable than those nasty evil scientist.
"We have polar bear researchers who are ignoring the growth of almost all the polar bear populations, and ignoring the fact that the only populations decreasing in size are compromised by excessive hunting pressure, not loss of habitat."
Could you please present evidence from a peer reviewed journal published by an accredited wildlife biologist of this assertion? I ask because when I look at what the polar bear specialist say I find the following:
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-releases/1 ...
"Reviewing the latest information available the PBSG concluded that 1 of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining."
"To further this viewpoint, they have prohibited an eminent researcher in the field from even attending their latest conference, because he does not ascribe to the 'man-made global warming is causing the problem' myth."
How do you determine he was imminent?
"We have 'man-made global warming' scientists totally ignoring the evidence that Arctic sea ice is recovering from the 2007 summer minimum, even as the ambient CO2 record continues to increase."
So you think a record should be set every year, year after year? Am I correct? You expect no internal variability in the system and it to increase linearly? Do you have any clue what the words "trend", "noise" and "variablity" mean? Really this is pitiful.
"Meanwhile, Antarctic ice is increasing in extent and volume."
No.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent ...
Look I presented peer reviewed information and you present?
So now I am guessing , in your opinion, we have a conspiracy involving Polar Bear Specialist, the British Arctic Survey, NASA, NOAA and the U.K Met Center. But you know the truth.
"We have concrete proof that some of these same scientists cherry-picked critical tree ring data to indicate a rapid warming trend over the second half of the last century, in order to precipitate the U.N. IPCC into pushing for CO2 controls."
Are you even slightly aware that paleoclimatologist uses other proxies such as coral, bore holes, foraminerfra , oxygen isotopes to read past climates and that they are in rough agreement?
"People, man-made global warming is a myth. Your government is now trying to put administrative regulations into place to force actions before the bubble bursts and the science proving it is a myth becomes generally known to the public. After all, once a government program is in effect, IT NEVER GOES AWAY."
This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobile.
- badfrog, on 10/01/2009, -3/+3I think you've had way too much kool-aid.
- LackyB, on 10/01/2009, -3/+3@ Bartboy:
You mean: they placated the liberal masses without really changing anything. - novenator, on 10/01/2009, -7/+7Barackalypse, this is not a 'federal power grab'. This is our elected officials standing up to do the right thing for the planet and for our country. If you deny the science behind climate change, then of course you will see this as unnecessary, but the science is there, and it is real. So say 97% of the world's publishing climatologists: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_acti ...
We need to do our part, as a good neighbor to clean up our energy production. - jakewhitcomb, on 10/01/2009, -4/+3they are the largest CO2 producer in the world, but they also have some ambitious plans to curb their emissions, including this (http://digg.com/d31649s) solar project that's 20-times larger than any solar farm ever built. cool?
- LouisCipher777, on 10/01/2009, -2/+1that might actually be the nicest thing it does.
- DrNemo, on 10/01/2009, -5/+4Save me, government!
- Snuffs, on 10/01/2009, -7/+6smells like bs
- Barackalypse, on 10/01/2009, -9/+7He probably doesn't view the cost of compliance or buying offsets as a tax, just like Obama doesn't believe fining people for not buying health insurance is a tax.
- funkeepickle, on 10/01/2009, -6/+3Facts? All I read were the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist with no proof to back any of his accusations up.
- Barackalypse, on 10/01/2009, -11/+4Surely you aren't stupid enough to believe that an 821 page bill establishing caps on CO2 emissions won't result in either lost jobs or increased costs on things that pollute (remember, a large percentage of our electricity comes from coal powered plants, so anything that uses electricity produced by those plants will become more expensive if those plants have to buy offset credits or install expensive pollution control measures). Its rather trivial to move manufacturing to China or Mexico, why would you want to give people more reason to do that?
- inactive, on 10/01/2009, -11/+3Uhh, you're saying there won't be taxes?.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is