Want to have $5 dollar a gallon gas?

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

They are forcing a vote through while the bill is missing over 300 pages that 99.2% of the people voting have not seen LOL...also if you consider carbon dioxide a pollutant then we should no longer be able to exhale ..in other words you are anti life be it animal or plant.

 

[.::DuD3::. 10+ year member]

What you don't realize is the climate is not a linear system. Its a non-linear system in that if one thing changes, it can spark chaos in other parts of the system. So just a 1 degree change can give rise to DRASTIC changes in weather patterns.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

What you don't realize is the climate is not a linear system. Its a non-linear system in that if one thing changes, it can spark chaos in other parts of the system. So just a 1 degree change can give rise to DRASTIC changes in weather patterns.

Then cities should be destroyed because they are known to be warmer than out in the country and black top pavement should be a no no. There is nothing that suggests rhat this is man made climate change as there has been more drastic climate change when man was nowhere near the same industrial wise.

 

[Blue Fury 10+ year member]

Then cities should be destroyed because they are known to be warmer than out in the country and black top pavement should be a no no. There is nothing that suggests rhat this is man made climate change as there has been more drastic climate change when man was nowhere near the same industrial wise.

I really hope youre being sarcastic. And if you dont think that this climate is at least slightly influenced by man then youre seriously misinformed. Yes for the very most part its a cycle that is about to start again, but you cant seriously believe that man hasnt effected the ozone and such

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

I really hope youre being sarcastic. And if you dont think that this climate is at least slightly influenced by man then youre seriously misinformed. Yes for the very most part its a cycle that is about to start again, but you cant seriously believe that man hasnt effected the ozone and such

Actually based on how this bill was legally fought it had nothing to do with science (this is over CO2 nothing more). The government didn't fight or even use "global warming" as a reason to be able to sell carbon emissions as they would have had a very very tough time making the point because they couldn't prove it. Over 3100 very very prominent scientists disagree with this man made global warming theory. Some say it is because they don't work for a government but also know that opinions of federally employed/financed scientists were compromised with the threat of taking away federal funding if scientists didn't agree. This bill is not just over gas, oil or electricity it goes into the home building sector which effects another 15-20% of the economy.

This bill helps prop up Fannie and Freddie and yet again funds poor people the ability to get loans for even more expensive housing because California building standards would be nationwide. This over steps State and Local government. If a house in Illinios is not up to California code the home owner pays to have it brought up to code before they can sell it.

If global warming experts know so much about how things work why do their reversed forecasts over any ten year period in history fall short on being even semi accurate? Why do they seem to want you to think solar activity is a constant?

 

[Skip01 5,000+ posts]

There's nothin man can or has done that can effect our climate.

We are so insignificant to the earth its like a flea on a horse.

Global Warmin is the biggest hoax ever, were actually in a global cooling.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

There's nothin man can or has done that can effect our climate.
We are so insignificant to the earth its like a flea on a horse.

Global Warmin is the biggest hoax ever, were actually in a global cooling.

Environmentalists try to spew "facts" and wrong sub 3rd grade science to pass this. There is also no model global warming drones and scientists that can prove the percentage that this is indeed man made as they pretty much do not want to tackle anything outside of a few years of a cycle they made up yet cannot fully explain. They even concur this will cost Americans 2.5 million jobs a year and all they plan on doing is extended unemployment benifits to those workers. How will this effect Obama's spending and economic growth considering unemployment is allready over 1.5% higher than he "planned"? Adding another 1.X% unemployed to the mix yearly would be VERY bad.

On the flip side to those who think this is good for the environment, please explain to me why the EPA says this bill does nothing for a clean environment? If it does not do anything significant as they say, how is this just not a power grab by the government to control another 20+% of the economy. Under this bill we impose trade sanctions against countries who will not follow. China and India both gave it the finger and in turn they would place trade sanctions on us. Not only that but heavy industry would have no other alternitive but to go to those countries.

 

[Skip01 5,000+ posts]

The only thing I can hope to come from all this is that the Left is revealed as what they truly are.

Dems control everything now so there's no more excuses for why everything is gonna go wrong, no "rich white" Republicans to blame anythin on.

Obama 7 months in is still blaming Bush for a lot its laughable.

They are trying to destroy this country in a few years what it took decades to build up from our ancestors.

Claimin America is arrogant and what not, as if this is the greatest country on earth because of favortism or something.

Like all other poor and undeveloped

countries just got a bad stick in lifes straw game.

Welp that's my vent for the day.

Keep Liberty and Freedom ALIVE!!!!

 

[.::DuD3::. 10+ year member]

Environmentalists try to spew "facts" and wrong sub 3rd grade science to pass this. There is also no model global warming drones and scientists that can prove the percentage that this is indeed man made as they pretty much do not want to tackle anything outside of a few years of a cycle they made up yet cannot fully explain. They even concur this will cost Americans 2.5 million jobs a year and all they plan on doing is extended unemployment benifits to those workers. How will this effect Obama's spending and economic growth considering unemployment is allready over 1.5% higher than he "planned"? Adding another 1.X% unemployed to the mix yearly would be VERY bad.
On the flip side to those who think this is good for the environment, please explain to me why the EPA says this bill does nothing for a clean environment? If it does not do anything significant as they say, how is this just not a power grab by the government to control another 20+% of the economy. Under this bill we impose trade sanctions against countries who will not follow. China and India both gave it the finger and in turn they would place trade sanctions on us. Not only that but heavy industry would have no other alternitive but to go to those countries.

Why don't list these 'facts' and put it out in the open so everyone who seems to disagree with you will have some basis for argument. I see where you are coming from, but your opinion seems very biased. Coming from an aspiring Engineer/Scientist, I won't consider your argument until I see the facts that you claim.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/06/climate_bill_analysis_part_xii.shtml

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407.cfm

2. Negligible Environmental Benefit

The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little, if any, environmental benefit. In fact, analysis by the architects of the endangerment finding, the EPA, strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2095.[2]

Some environmental alarmists believe saving the environment should come at any cost, but when the benefit is barely noticeable, such an extreme viewpoint still cannot be justified.

3. Lack of Scientific Consensus

The decision to regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases was supported by supposed compelling scientific evidence. For example, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson "relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [iPPC]."[3] Additionally, the EPA cited harmful impacts including increased droughts, floods, wildfires, heat waves, and sea level rises as a result of climate change. But the reality is that natural disasters are just that--they occur with or without global warming.

The scientific consensus behind global warming, especially the seriousness of the impacts, is anything but strong. Last December, the U.S. Senate Minority released a report that included 650 dissenting scientists refuting claims made in the IPCC report.[4] That number has grown to over 700, more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.

If a scientist did not believe in global warming they could not be part of the IPCC report

http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm#36

LIST OF OVER 31,000 SCIENTISTS WHO SAY MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS ********

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

audiolife, i hope im not out of line asking you what you do for a living and what your education background is like? I dont mean it as a challenge, im just curious what the background is like for someone who is so opinionated about such technical and complex topics.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Why don't list these 'facts' and put it out in the open so everyone who seems to disagree with you will have some basis for argument. I see where you are coming from, but your opinion seems very biased. Coming from an aspiring Engineer/Scientist, I won't consider your argument until I see the facts that you claim.

People should research the bill and actually look at the history behind the science of global warming. Since you say I am full of bs why can you not say anything "scientific" to disprove me? You would be hard pressed to find anything that supports your side that is not biased:laugh:. Some of these nuts claimed we would all be eaten alive by acid rain in the 80's (we should already be dead)

Also according to the UN 1/3 of global warming is from cows:laugh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR2007040800758_pf.html

Read it all and notice the failures of it in Europe.

"Europe has already hit a few bumps with its program. There's the Dutch silicon carbide maker that calls itself the greenest such plant in the world, but now can't afford to run full-time; the French cement workers who fear they're going to lose jobs to Morocco, which doesn't have to meet the European guidelines; and the German homeowners who pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did before -- even as their utility companies earn record profits."

"In some ways, Europe's program has been a success. It covers 45 percent of the continent's emissions, 10,000 companies and 27 European Union countries. It has built registries that list carbon dioxide emissions for every major plant.

In other ways, the approach has been a bureaucratic morass with a host of unexpected and costly side effects and a much smaller effect on carbon emissions than planned. And many companies complain that it is unfair."

AHH its a good thing that they cover so many companies so the can BILL THEM yet it is not cutting emissions as much as needed.

"Consider the plight of Kollo Holding's factory in the Netherlands, which makes silicon carbide, a material used as an industrial abrasive and lining for high-temperature furnaces and kilns. Its managers like to think of their plant as an ecological standout: They use waste gases to generate energy and have installed the latest pollution-control equipment.

But Europe's program has driven electricity prices so high that the facility routinely shuts down for part of the day to save money on power. Although demand for its products is strong, the plant has laid off 40 of its 130 employees and trimmed production. Two customers have turned to cheaper imports from China, which is not covered by Europe's costly regulations."

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Why don't list these 'facts' and put it out in the open so everyone who seems to disagree with you will have some basis for argument. I see where you are coming from, but your opinion seems very biased. Coming from an aspiring Engineer/Scientist, I won't consider your argument until I see the facts that you claim.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that people ought to be have the facts before they express an opinion on something. Applying that same rationale, I would think that you would agree that Congress should not vote on a bill that none of them have actually read, let alone studied and debated.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

audiolife, i hope im not out of line asking you what you do for a living and what your education background is like? I dont mean it as a challenge, im just curious what the background is like for someone who is so opinionated about such technical and complex topics.

Actually I am starting to wonder why they do not encourage free thinking in school anymore. When I started college I was 23 and every asshat 18-19 year old thought they knew everything ESPECIALLY in lab ( Was a really fun time being their manager on 3 final exam projects and my opinion was 1/2 of their final exam grade and for some reason. Only 2 major classes I was not in the top 3 grade wise and those two classes were Quick Basic and Basic Circuit Design, both outdated both worthless and both had Profs that spoke English VERY poorly. I finished 2 years at IPFW and starting my 3rd I was in a car wreck that put me out of work and school for 8 months. GPA on a 4 point scale was a 3.17. I didn't go back because I found a really good job in the industry and the way that I left school and fought to get my refund, did not make anyone too happy. They (insurance, doctor and school) had me on pain killers and the first 2 prescriptions I was allergic too and my "doctor" tried to have me exercise while not checking for any nerve damage or check for soft tissue damage in my neck. Plus I am also old enough to remember "the man made ice age theory", "acid rain will kill us" "cfc will destroy the ozone before 2000"....... That is the crap they tried to brainwash us in school with.

Do I think man made global warming is a problem? Maybe but the science behind saying it is VERY weak and it is never up for open debate (never meets opposition). The global warming people can not come up with an accurate model of past history so common sense tells me HOW can they predict the future with faulty science? They are predicting weather and climate changes 100 years from now and scientists can't predict the weather and climate accurately for 30 days in advance. Why is everything being done now with huge government take overs with 0 over site and no real debate? I thought the public could look this stuff over for 4 or 5 days? Why should some UN knucklehead from a 3rd world nation have a say so on what our country does? There was not 1 person who voted for this bill who read it or knew what it all contained (was modified at 3:09 am friday and was still being put together during and after the debate). Why does this change need to be done in the slowest least efficient way known to man kind? If government was more hands on with the IT side of things in the 80's and 90's like they are with global warming we would still be using 286 computers. After all this is the SAME government that screwed up the economy, totally screwed Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and wants to create a single pay health care system . Funniest part is our President "champions" governmental health care yet openly admitted since he has money would use/ and prefers the private system government officials use (their insurance is better than most any). He also champions the public school systems yet his children go to private school.


T

he private sector of business and technology can make everything better, faster and more cost effective than our government. The thing that no one wants to look at or accept is government often penalizes the private sector so it can't press forward. I must say the Democratic party has wanted to take a majority control on just about every aspect of our lives for a VERY long time (over 120 years). An example: Who passed CAFE standards on the auto industry that cost the big 3 auto makers $110 billion dollars to retool over drastic swift measures in 2007? Where are they now? 2 are government owned/controlled. How is this not a power grab?

If you reply "It was Bush!" and actually think that is the answer to all of this you are a fool beyond recognition. I say this as a former Democrat (no longer claim to be since August 2008) and a disliker of Bush since 2000.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

If I understand correctly, you are saying that people ought to be have the facts before they express an opinion on something. Applying that same rationale, I would think that you would agree that Congress should not vote on a bill that none of them have actually read, let alone studied and debated.

YES! I also think the American people should get to form an opinion on this. IT IS THE LARGEST TAX bill in American history and it gets pushed through quietly? It received more publicity after it passed than it did getting brought up:crazy: How can you trust that? There is no transparency there.

 

[.::DuD3::. 10+ year member]

People should research the bill and actually look at the history behind the science of global warming. Since you say I am full of bs why can you not say anything "scientific" to disprove me? You would be hard pressed to find anything that supports your side that is not biased:laugh:. Some of these nuts claimed we would all be eaten alive by acid rain in the 80's (we should already be dead)
Also according to the UN 1/3 of global warming is from cows:laugh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR2007040800758_pf.html

Read it all and notice the failures of it in Europe.

"Europe has already hit a few bumps with its program. There's the Dutch silicon carbide maker that calls itself the greenest such plant in the world, but now can't afford to run full-time; the French cement workers who fear they're going to lose jobs to Morocco, which doesn't have to meet the European guidelines; and the German homeowners who pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did before -- even as their utility companies earn record profits."

"In some ways, Europe's program has been a success. It covers 45 percent of the continent's emissions, 10,000 companies and 27 European Union countries. It has built registries that list carbon dioxide emissions for every major plant.

In other ways, the approach has been a bureaucratic morass with a host of unexpected and costly side effects and a much smaller effect on carbon emissions than planned. And many companies complain that it is unfair."

AHH its a good thing that they cover so many companies so the can BILL THEM yet it is not cutting emissions as much as needed.

"Consider the plight of Kollo Holding's factory in the Netherlands, which makes silicon carbide, a material used as an industrial abrasive and lining for high-temperature furnaces and kilns. Its managers like to think of their plant as an ecological standout: They use waste gases to generate energy and have installed the latest pollution-control equipment.

But Europe's program has driven electricity prices so high that the facility routinely shuts down for part of the day to save money on power. Although demand for its products is strong, the plant has laid off 40 of its 130 employees and trimmed production. Two customers have turned to cheaper imports from China, which is not covered by Europe's costly regulations."

I'm not trying to disprove you, all I'm saying is for as much evidence that you have to disprove global warming, there is as much evidence to prove it. I'm not condoning either, in fact I don't really choose to give my opinion on the matter.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that people ought to be have the facts before they express an opinion on something. Applying that same rationale, I would think that you would agree that Congress should not vote on a bill that none of them have actually read, let alone studied and debated.

Yes I agree with you, but too bad its already passed the House. But I'm not sure if it will pass the Senate even though the democrats have majority.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

I'm not trying to disprove you, all I'm saying is for as much evidence that you have to disprove global warming, there is as much evidence to prove it. I'm not condoning either, in fact I don't really choose to give my opinion on the matter.

Yes I agree with you, but too bad its already passed the House. But I'm not sure if it will pass the Senate even though the democrats have majority.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d24-Is-the-EPA-suppressing-or-withholding-information-on-global-warming

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d25-The-EPAs-internal-nightmare-over-global-warming-Part-1

 

[MmatsDude 10+ year member]

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d24-Is-the-EPA-suppressing-or-withholding-information-on-global-warming
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d24-Is-the-EPA-suppressing-or-withholding-information-on-global-warming

interesting

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

i accidently double posted the same links there are supost to be two different links which they are now

 

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

I dont know about your towns but none of the newspapers here even mentioned the bill. They do cover the more important stuff like Michael Jacksons death.

Dam media control.

FYI I daydream about teabagging Pelosi