But, to recap, here's the chain of events in a very simplified form:
a) Polaris, at least from what I've read, believes energy policy is #1 issue
b) Ron Paul supports energy policy X
c) Video supports energy policy X
d) Polaris supports Ron Paul
e) Polaris gets riled up about a video on energy policy X
f) inlet points out that Polaris supports Ron Paul who supports energy policy X
g) inlet explains that he wouldn't see this as hypocritical if Polaris wasn't so outspoken about energy policy X, making it seem as if that was Polaris' #1 issue
This portion basically says you don't think energy policy is really relevant and other matters are more important. Fair enough - I agree and so does the video. Another reason why you're upsetment on the video's take on energy policy makes little sense here. Not only do you support a candidate with the same take, but you say energy policy doesn't really matter. So, why get upset?
... i really can't believe you are arguing this ...
a) polaris has stated numerous times he does not agree with energy policy X
b) polaris also explains his choice for presidency despite the candidates energy policy ...
there is not even a hint of hypocrisy
and my position is that environmental issues are number 1 but everything works in conjunction ... nothing works in isolation ... and my point is simply that no candidate distinguishes themselves on this topic ... not that i don't care ... the fact you could come to that conclusion based on the words i wrote ... read it again ... i said that if there was one candidate that could move on that issue i would change my support ... how in earth do you read that i don't think it's a priority?
and for the record - despite the flowers in my avatar and my interest in feminist theory ... i am indeed a man ... not sure what would make satansbed think otherwise ...
Since, none of the politicians distinguish themselves on the topic of energy, let me just clarify a few things:
Polaris would be OK with doing away with all environmental-related subsidies, correct?
Polaris would be OK with more drilling at home, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing the federal tax on gas, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing any roadblocks for nuclear fuel or coal, correct?
Polaris would be OK with eliminating the EPA, correct?
Basically, you're fine with moving more and more to a free-market ideology when it comes to energy and the environment, correct?
Since, none of the politicians distinguish themselves on the topic of energy, let me just clarify a few things:
Polaris would be OK with doing away with all environmental-related subsidies, correct?
Polaris would be OK with more drilling at home, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing the federal tax on gas, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing any roadblocks for nuclear fuel or coal, correct?
Polaris would be OK with eliminating the EPA, correct?
Basically, you're fine with moving more and more to a free-market ideology when it comes to energy and the environment, correct?
:fp: ... really!?? ... this absurdity has gone too far ... it is no wonder you still think global warming is a hoax ... :(
But, to recap, here's the chain of events in a very simplified form:
a) Polaris, at least from what I've read, believes energy policy is #1 issue
b) Ron Paul supports energy policy X
c) Video supports energy policy X
d) Polaris supports Ron Paul
e) Polaris gets riled up about a video on energy policy X
f) inlet points out that Polaris supports Ron Paul who supports energy policy X
g) inlet explains that he wouldn't see this as hypocritical if Polaris wasn't so outspoken about energy policy X, making it seem as if that was Polaris' #1 issue
This portion basically says you don't think energy policy is really relevant and other matters are more important. Fair enough - I agree and so does the video. Another reason why you're upsetment on the video's take on energy policy makes little sense here. Not only do you support a candidate with the same take, but you say energy policy doesn't really matter. So, why get upset?
... i really can't believe you are arguing this ...
a) polaris has stated numerous times he does not agree with energy policy X
b) polaris also explains his choice for presidency despite the candidates energy policy ...
there is not even a hint of hypocrisy
and my position is that environmental issues are number 1 but everything works in conjunction ... nothing works in isolation ... and my point is simply that no candidate distinguishes themselves on this topic ... not that i don't care ... the fact you could come to that conclusion based on the words i wrote ... read it again ... i said that if there was one candidate that could move on that issue i would change my support ... how in earth do you read that i don't think it's a priority?
and for the record - despite the flowers in my avatar and my interest in feminist theory ... i am indeed a man ... not sure what would make satansbed think otherwise ...
you pee sitting down?
well we have gotten off topic considerably I suppose here.
Back on topic,
the video could have gone about it in a different way...I think it may have been motivated by the paul harvey speech from 1965 about the devil and america...but the point should be the same.
Unfortunately it seems both sides have just taken their ball and gone home in this argument.
I did find it interesting that Lovelock has admitted to being a bit of an alarmist. http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... hange?lite
I think unfortunately the alarmist talk and the unfortunate original title of Global Warming has created an environment ripe for skepticism. Couple that with the notion that it is awfully arrogant of mankind to think we can destroy the planet...we certainly can destroy ourselves, of this I have no doubt. But the planet will reject us long before we are able to damage it that badly.
The video attempts to equate working to preserve the environment or what is best for the planet to wanting America to fail. I don't see it that way. People always assume motivations that just aren't the way. Couldn't this video simply have discussed the idea that an open energy market is best of the country and here is x,y, and z as reasons?
I just think this video serves to reinforce those that agree, but I don't think it will do anything to convert people to their side.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
But, to recap, here's the chain of events in a very simplified form:
a) Polaris, at least from what I've read, believes energy policy is #1 issue
b) Ron Paul supports energy policy X
c) Video supports energy policy X
d) Polaris supports Ron Paul
e) Polaris gets riled up about a video on energy policy X
f) inlet points out that Polaris supports Ron Paul who supports energy policy X
g) inlet explains that he wouldn't see this as hypocritical if Polaris wasn't so outspoken about energy policy X, making it seem as if that was Polaris' #1 issue
This portion basically says you don't think energy policy is really relevant and other matters are more important. Fair enough - I agree and so does the video. Another reason why you're upsetment on the video's take on energy policy makes little sense here. Not only do you support a candidate with the same take, but you say energy policy doesn't really matter. So, why get upset?
... i really can't believe you are arguing this ...
a) polaris has stated numerous times he does not agree with energy policy X
b) polaris also explains his choice for presidency despite the candidates energy policy ...
there is not even a hint of hypocrisy
and my position is that environmental issues are number 1 but everything works in conjunction ... nothing works in isolation ... and my point is simply that no candidate distinguishes themselves on this topic ... not that i don't care ... the fact you could come to that conclusion based on the words i wrote ... read it again ... i said that if there was one candidate that could move on that issue i would change my support ... how in earth do you read that i don't think it's a priority?
and for the record - despite the flowers in my avatar and my interest in feminist theory ... i am indeed a man ... not sure what would make satansbed think otherwise ...
you pee sitting down?
well we have gotten off topic considerably I suppose here.
Back on topic,
the video could have gone about it in a different way...I think it may have been motivated by the paul harvey speech from 1965 about the devil and america...but the point should be the same.
Unfortunately it seems both sides have just taken their ball and gone home in this argument.
I did find it interesting that Lovelock has admitted to being a bit of an alarmist. http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... hange?lite
I think unfortunately the alarmist talk and the unfortunate original title of Global Warming has created an environment ripe for skepticism. Couple that with the notion that it is awfully arrogant of mankind to think we can destroy the planet...we certainly can destroy ourselves, of this I have no doubt. But the planet will reject us long before we are able to damage it that badly.
The video attempts to equate working to preserve the environment or what is best for the planet to wanting America to fail. I don't see it that way. People always assume motivations that just aren't the way. Couldn't this video simply have discussed the idea that an open energy market is best of the country and here is x,y, and z as reasons?
I just think this video serves to reinforce those that agree, but I don't think it will do anything to convert people to their side.
I'm for "preserving" the environment and I don't want America to fail. So, yeh, I don't think all of those who are hoping to preserve the environment are hoping for America to fail. But, I do think, in most cases, those who enact government policies to "save the environment" often help to slow economic growth. Yet, they guilt people into it, which the video pointed out. There's certainly a trade-off, and who knows if these "pro-environment" policies actually do a lot of good for the environment, let alone "net good" (economic included). If you want both, what's the right mix? Further some could argue that more economic growth increases technological innovation, which will be the eventual cure for environmental problems anyway. So, in a sense, we could be doing a longterm disservice by focusing on policies that restrict economic growth.
Personally, I saw the video suggesting that "if" one wanted to have America (more concretely the vision of a free-market, capitalistic America) fail, energy would be a good place to start. The video was a way of opening eyes to the reality of TRADE-OFFS, and the reality that there's motivation for those who want big government in the environmental framework. When you decide to enact policies that seem good for the environment, you cost a little growth. Moreover, there are incentives for certain people - particularly, those of the socialist mindset - to embrace these environmental energy policies so that the government slowly gains more and more power to regulate (and control) private industries. That's just a reality - and certainly that's anti-free market, anti-capitalist... and to some... Anti-American.
I understand your point on no one "converting" based on this video. But, completely disagree about the target. The reality is - we, here, are people who may have thought about these issues a bit more than the average American. That video was targeting them, not us. It was targeting those who don't typically think about politics or the impacts of environmentalism.
Ironically, those opposed to the video will probably do more to increase views of these targeted people (who would otherwise not see it) than those supporting.
i've been studying global warming/climate change since 1993 and i would have never made the predictions lovelock made ... in any case - many believe that we we are experiencing now in terms of the impact of global warming as it relates to climate change is based on actions 30 years ago ... and that is the length of time it takes for the impacts to occur ... so, based on our influence 30 years ago we are seeing significant changes - it lends itself to the notion that it will only get worse ...
global warming is only an unfortunate title in so much as that people think less critically and are more ignorant now ... possibly more ignorant is wrong term but in so much as information now has many filters and not all of them are genuine ... it makes it harder to come to conclusions on topic ... is it any wonder that the US is pretty much the only country where there is a large populace still does not understand the concept of global warming!? ... a place where PR companies and money rule!? ... not a shock to me ...
I'm for "preserving" the environment and I don't want America to fail. So, yeh, I don't think all of those who are hoping to preserve the environment are hoping for America to fail. But, I do think, in most cases, those who enact government policies to "save the environment" often help to slow economic growth. Yet, they guilt people into it, which the video pointed out. There's certainly a trade-off, and who knows if these "pro-environment" policies actually do a lot of good for the environment, let alone "net good" (economic included). If you want both, what's the right mix? Further some could argue that more economic growth increases technological innovation, which will be the eventual cure for environmental problems anyway. So, in a sense, we could be doing a longterm disservice by focusing on policies that restrict economic growth.
Personally, I saw the video suggesting that "if" one wanted to have America (more concretely the vision of a free-market, capitalistic America) fail, energy would be a good place to start. The video was a way of opening eyes to the reality of TRADE-OFFS, and the reality that there's motivation for those who want big government in the environmental framework. When you decide to enact policies that seem good for the environment, you cost a little growth. Moreover, there are incentives for certain people - particularly, those of the socialist mindset - to embrace these environmental energy policies so that the government slowly gains more and more power to regulate (and control) private industries. That's just a reality - and certainly that's anti-free market, anti-capitalist... and to some... Anti-American.
I understand your point on no one "converting" based on this video. But, completely disagree about the target. The reality is - we, here, are people who may have thought about these issues a bit more than the average American. That video was targeting them, not us. It was targeting those who don't typically think about politics or the impacts of environmentalism.
Ironically, those opposed to the video will probably do more to increase views of these targeted people (who would otherwise not see it) than those supporting.
You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.
I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.
I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.
if we truly went to the free market ... we definitely wouldn't be using oil ...
You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.
I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.
if we truly went to the free market ... we definitely wouldn't be using oil ...
I don't know for sure, but I tend to agree with you.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm for "preserving" the environment and I don't want America to fail. So, yeh, I don't think all of those who are hoping to preserve the environment are hoping for America to fail. But, I do think, in most cases, those who enact government policies to "save the environment" often help to slow economic growth. Yet, they guilt people into it, which the video pointed out. There's certainly a trade-off, and who knows if these "pro-environment" policies actually do a lot of good for the environment, let alone "net good" (economic included). If you want both, what's the right mix? Further some could argue that more economic growth increases technological innovation, which will be the eventual cure for environmental problems anyway. So, in a sense, we could be doing a longterm disservice by focusing on policies that restrict economic growth.
Personally, I saw the video suggesting that "if" one wanted to have America (more concretely the vision of a free-market, capitalistic America) fail, energy would be a good place to start. The video was a way of opening eyes to the reality of TRADE-OFFS, and the reality that there's motivation for those who want big government in the environmental framework. When you decide to enact policies that seem good for the environment, you cost a little growth. Moreover, there are incentives for certain people - particularly, those of the socialist mindset - to embrace these environmental energy policies so that the government slowly gains more and more power to regulate (and control) private industries. That's just a reality - and certainly that's anti-free market, anti-capitalist... and to some... Anti-American.
I understand your point on no one "converting" based on this video. But, completely disagree about the target. The reality is - we, here, are people who may have thought about these issues a bit more than the average American. That video was targeting them, not us. It was targeting those who don't typically think about politics or the impacts of environmentalism.
Ironically, those opposed to the video will probably do more to increase views of these targeted people (who would otherwise not see it) than those supporting.
You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.
I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.
I think the tone was a direct response to the global warming community's tone - hence, why it was released on Earth Day. I'm sure you've seen that harsh tone by the global warming community here. I have - particularly, when I disagree with their take on certain issues. Their "tone" is typically not pleasant. If you respectfully disagree, you are a called a "denier", or worse. Condescension is the name of the game and it's evident in pretty much every thread on the subject at this forum. At least from what I've seen, the crowd is not even slightly open-minded. Yet, science, by definition, should be open-minded. To use your words - those in that community are "confrontational", and at least from my perspective their tone is often reminiscent of Evangelical Christians, except it's not religion (at least to me).
So, yeh, I think this might be a bit confrontational, but it's fighting fire with fire.
You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.
I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.
if we truly went to the free market ... we definitely wouldn't be using oil ...
I think the tone was a direct response to the global warming community's tone - hence, why it was released on Earth Day. I'm sure you've seen that harsh tone by the global warming community here. I have - particularly, when I disagree with their take on certain issues. Their "tone" is typically not pleasant. If you respectfully disagree, you are a called a "denier", or worse. Condescension is the name of the game and it's evident in pretty much every thread on the subject at this forum. At least from what I've seen, the crowd is not even slightly open-minded. Yet, science, by definition, should be open-minded. To use your words - those in that community are "confrontational", and at least from my perspective their tone is often reminiscent of Evangelical Christians, except it's not religion (at least to me).
So, yeh, I think this might be a bit confrontational, but it's fighting fire with fire.
your disingenuous nature on the subject is what sets the tone ... you post countless articles and opinions that suit your bias but you lack the objectivity to read the other side ... the side that is not perpetuated by your right wing biases ... you ask for an open-mind but you do not even understand what global warming is ... all you do is what everyone else does which is copy and paste articles sharing your opinion even when the articles are proven to be outright lies - you never ever take it back ... you just simply ignore and post another article ... and now - you are comparing us to evangelical christians when the reality is that it is the global warming skeptics that act most like those people ... no critical thinking whatsoever ...
look at extraction costs ... look at oil subsidies ... look at conversion efficiency ... these are all basic metrics one would use to determine the viability of an energy source ...
if you owned a home and needed energy right now - are you gonna go dig for oil and burn it? ... it makes no sense ...
look at extraction costs ... look at oil subsidies ... look at conversion efficiency ... these are all basic metrics one would use to determine the viability of an energy source ...
if you owned a home and needed energy right now - are you gonna go dig for oil and burn it? ... it makes no sense ...
always wondered why thses were needed (still) for companies that post record profit year after year. PERHAPS , if the were eliminated that would level the playing field for alternative forms of energy. Sustainable forms at that.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
always wondered why thses were needed (still) for companies that post record profit year after year. PERHAPS , if the were eliminated that would level the playing field for alternative forms of energy. Sustainable forms at that.
this industry can make gov'ts go to war ... if you take an honest look at the role of oil in us foreign policy from iraq, iran to saudi arabia - you will see how influential this lobby is ...
the biggest myth portrayed against the environmental movement is it's impact on the economy ... sustainability concepts make the most sense no matter how you look at it ... what it can do is inhibit unlimited profit ... when people make decisions - we don't just look at cost ... there are other factors - yet, we make most of our policy decisions strictly on the bottom line ...
I think the tone was a direct response to the global warming community's tone - hence, why it was released on Earth Day. I'm sure you've seen that harsh tone by the global warming community here. I have - particularly, when I disagree with their take on certain issues. Their "tone" is typically not pleasant. If you respectfully disagree, you are a called a "denier", or worse. Condescension is the name of the game and it's evident in pretty much every thread on the subject at this forum. At least from what I've seen, the crowd is not even slightly open-minded. Yet, science, by definition, should be open-minded. To use your words - those in that community are "confrontational", and at least from my perspective their tone is often reminiscent of Evangelical Christians, except it's not religion (at least to me).
So, yeh, I think this might be a bit confrontational, but it's fighting fire with fire.
your disingenuous nature on the subject is what sets the tone ... you post countless articles and opinions that suit your bias but you lack the objectivity to read the other side ... the side that is not perpetuated by your right wing biases ... you ask for an open-mind but you do not even understand what global warming is ... all you do is what everyone else does which is copy and paste articles sharing your opinion even when the articles are proven to be outright lies - you never ever take it back ... you just simply ignore and post another article ... and now - you are comparing us to evangelical christians when the reality is that it is the global warming skeptics that act most like those people ... no critical thinking whatsoever ...
I, for one, have never said man-made Global Warming does not exist with full certainty. I have said, however, I have serious doubts. Moreover, I am really pretty convinced it's not the horror show that environmentalists make it out to be. You, on the other hand, are 100% convinced of it and the horror show. I have not criticized you with on anything more than the fact that you're 100% convinced. You shouldn't be 100% convinced. There's not reason to be. Moreover, it's so incredibly evident that you feel so threatened by anyone who may disagree.
You feel you "know" with certainty because you've read articles and blogs on the subject. I've also read articles and blogs on the subject. Additionally, because I work in a similar field (and have published statistical research and created computer models, I know there are flaws with model-driven science). I also work in a field that teaches incentives, I know there are incentives for some to push climate change. Yet, you discount what I've read and my background... further my opinion.... that there's some reason to "not be convinced".
And when I say I could easily just discount what you've read too. You get your panties in a bunch and typically begin the name calling or condescension (see above). Your typical line is "you don't even understand what global warming" is (see above). You immediately chastise articles, subject matter or even data that doesn't agree with your perspective. Sometimes this occurs so quickly that you clearly haven't even read it. Then you go to your global warming blogs to try to discount it ... because you feel they are "objective". When I point out they are not, you get more upset. Others follow and applaud your comments (see another post in this thread), sometimes with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter in discussion. You think you're winning an argument because you're staying 100% convinced. Yet somehow, you remain convinced you're being objective on the subject. You also, somehow, believe you're thinking critically by dismissing anything presented that opposes your current viewpoint.
Many in the global warming community are critical and have an abrasive tone when they feel threatened by the opposing viewpoints. Science should encourage new viewpoints, new hypotheses, new data. Not discourage it. Disagreement in science is a must. Yet, many in the global warming community continually discourage anything anything that doesn't align with their beliefs or their religion. If it doesn't fit, it's produced by "deniers". :fp:
To me - that's just plain scary and it's def. not thinking critically, nor scientifically.
and for the record - despite the flowers in my avatar and my interest in feminist theory ... i am indeed a man ... not sure what would make satansbed think otherwise ...
haha sorry it was just the impression i had, no offense meant.
and back to Paul on energy, if he is against subsidising green energy why isn't he against subidising oil production.
look at extraction costs ... look at oil subsidies ... look at conversion efficiency ... these are all basic metrics one would use to determine the viability of an energy source ...
if you owned a home and needed energy right now - are you gonna go dig for oil and burn it? ... it makes no sense ...
I think price is the most basic metric one would use.
I, for one, have never said man-made Global Warming does not exist with full certainty. I have said, however, I have serious doubts. Moreover, I am really pretty convinced it's not the horror show that environmentalists make it out to be. You, on the other hand, are 100% convinced of it and the horror show. I have not criticized you with on anything more than the fact that you're 100% convinced. You shouldn't be 100% convinced. There's not reason to be. Moreover, it's so incredibly evident that you feel so threatened by anyone who may disagree.
You feel you "know" with certainty because you've read articles and blogs on the subject. I've also read articles and blogs on the subject. Additionally, because I work in a similar field (and have published statistical research and created computer models, I know there are flaws with model-driven science). I also work in a field that teaches incentives, I know there are incentives for some to push climate change. Yet, you discount what I've read and my background... further my opinion.... that there's some reason to "not be convinced".
And when I say I could easily just discount what you've read too. You get your panties in a bunch and typically begin the name calling or condescension (see above). Your typical line is "you don't even understand what global warming" is (see above). You immediately chastise articles, subject matter or even data that doesn't agree with your perspective. Sometimes this occurs so quickly that you clearly haven't even read it. Then you go to your global warming blogs to try to discount it ... because you feel they are "objective". When I point out they are not, you get more upset. Others follow and applaud your comments (see another post in this thread), sometimes with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter in discussion. You think you're winning an argument because you're staying 100% convinced. Yet somehow, you remain convinced you're being objective on the subject. You also, somehow, believe you're thinking critically by dismissing anything presented that opposes your current viewpoint.
Many in the global warming community are critical and have an abrasive tone when they feel threatened by the opposing viewpoints. Science should encourage new viewpoints, new hypotheses, new data. Not discourage it. Disagreement in science is a must. Yet, many in the global warming community continually discourage anything anything that doesn't align with their beliefs or their religion. If it doesn't fit, it's produced by "deniers". :fp:
To me - that's just plain scary and it's def. not thinking critically, nor scientifically.
i've got a bachelor of environmental studies and i've worked for two different gov't agencies related to climate ... you make it sound like you post one blog and i post another ... this is where your disingenuous nature comes into play ... 98% of all scientific peer-reviewed articles all point to the same thing ... that is what is called a scientific consensus ... but feel free to post stuff funded by big oil ... you see the enemy you want to see ...
as for the critical thinking part ... the difference between you and i is i actually read your posts and i dissect them ... you on the other hand do not ... i've proven to you that your posts contain outward lies but you never acknowledge that ... you just simply ignore ...
just look at the conversation we had in this thread ... your absurdity knows no bounds ... you tried saying i don't think the environment is an important issue to i'm ok with more coal power ... keep slinging the mud ... hope it sticks ... feel free ... i'm ok with it ... maybe your words are convincing to other people ... or ... maybe not ...
and for the record - despite the flowers in my avatar and my interest in feminist theory ... i am indeed a man ... not sure what would make satansbed think otherwise ...
haha sorry it was just the impression i had, no offense meant.
and back to Paul on energy, if he is against subsidising green energy why isn't he against subidising oil production.
because the oil subsidies in that CR were actually tax credits/breaks, not subsidies in the traditional sense. Voting to end a tax credit is the same thing as voting a tax increase in Paul's mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb5qkrpKVWw
about two minutes in he addresses it
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I, for one, have never said man-made Global Warming does not exist with full certainty. I have said, however, I have serious doubts. Moreover, I am really pretty convinced it's not the horror show that environmentalists make it out to be. You, on the other hand, are 100% convinced of it and the horror show. I have not criticized you with on anything more than the fact that you're 100% convinced. You shouldn't be 100% convinced. There's not reason to be. Moreover, it's so incredibly evident that you feel so threatened by anyone who may disagree.
You feel you "know" with certainty because you've read articles and blogs on the subject. I've also read articles and blogs on the subject. Additionally, because I work in a similar field (and have published statistical research and created computer models, I know there are flaws with model-driven science). I also work in a field that teaches incentives, I know there are incentives for some to push climate change. Yet, you discount what I've read and my background... further my opinion.... that there's some reason to "not be convinced".
And when I say I could easily just discount what you've read too. You get your panties in a bunch and typically begin the name calling or condescension (see above). Your typical line is "you don't even understand what global warming" is (see above). You immediately chastise articles, subject matter or even data that doesn't agree with your perspective. Sometimes this occurs so quickly that you clearly haven't even read it. Then you go to your global warming blogs to try to discount it ... because you feel they are "objective". When I point out they are not, you get more upset. Others follow and applaud your comments (see another post in this thread), sometimes with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter in discussion. You think you're winning an argument because you're staying 100% convinced. Yet somehow, you remain convinced you're being objective on the subject. You also, somehow, believe you're thinking critically by dismissing anything presented that opposes your current viewpoint.
Many in the global warming community are critical and have an abrasive tone when they feel threatened by the opposing viewpoints. Science should encourage new viewpoints, new hypotheses, new data. Not discourage it. Disagreement in science is a must. Yet, many in the global warming community continually discourage anything anything that doesn't align with their beliefs or their religion. If it doesn't fit, it's produced by "deniers". :fp:
To me - that's just plain scary and it's def. not thinking critically, nor scientifically.
i've got a bachelor of environmental studies and i've worked for two different gov't agencies related to climate ... you make it sound like you post one blog and i post another ... this is where your disingenuous nature comes into play ... 98% of all scientific peer-reviewed articles all point to the same thing ... that is what is called a scientific consensus ... but feel free to post stuff funded by big oil ... you see the enemy you want to see ...
as for the critical thinking part ... the difference between you and i is i actually read your posts and i dissect them ... you on the other hand do not ... i've proven to you that your posts contain outward lies but you never acknowledge that ... you just simply ignore ...
just look at the conversation we had in this thread ... your absurdity knows no bounds ... you tried saying i don't think the environment is an important issue to i'm ok with more coal power ... keep slinging the mud ... hope it sticks ... feel free ... i'm ok with it ... maybe your words are convincing to other people ... or ... maybe not ...
In pretty much every discussion I've had with you on the subject, I posted an article or blog or video that's new and I found interesting, so I wanted to share. You immediately snap, then try to say it's not true and chastise my character for even posting it as if I stole your heart. After you're done with your original outrage and you then go to your blogs and try to find a blog that wrote an piece against that article - as if that's proof of something. It's quite ridiculous. If you disagree with the substance of the post, fine... I mean, that's what this place is for. But, you take it a few steps further once you go after people's character. Hence, the point of the global warming community and their "tone".
As I've stated before, even if your numbers were right... 98% of a academic articles means 98% of scientists buy it, is plainly false. Moreover, what's it? Global warming? Man-made global warming? etc? As I've stated before, there are fields that are devoted to climate change, and as such are kept help afloat by producing research favorable to the subject. It's actually become a complete industry now. By their very nature, the field itself, could be said to be dependent on it. Saying 98% of academics in a field that is dependent on climate change mantra staying afloat... is not saying much, to me.
Moreover, even if you take issue with that, just because a majority agree on a subject, doesn't make them right. There was a time that the majority of the world thought the world was flat. The dissenters were also called deniers. Ironically, they were proven right in the long run. Science has a tendency of forcing "certain" people to eat shit.
So, my point is to say - there is no definitive answer here. Acting like there is, is problematic... particularly when trade-offs from pursuing policies associated with environmentalism act as a economic growth constraint.
I don't know the answer though... apparently you do. I'll be sure to check with you before posting anything whatsoever that you disagree with though...
... like i said - your absurdity knows no bounds ... you want to peddle big oil propaganda but at the same time call into question the scientists and academics that study this insinuating they are doing so just to have a job ... :roll:
like i said - you'd have some credibility in your position if you ever chose to actually read the counter points to the ones you are trying to make ... how many times has brianlux asked you to read up the stuff on realclimate.org or any other place!? ... have you once tried listening to the other side? ... if you did - perhaps it would help you articulate a position outside of ... hey, this article/video supports my position ... i will post it and say its "great" ... :fp:
Why even waste time with the left on this ? They won't believe anything until it comes back and bites them in their ass. I could go point by point with this video and give one example after another to prove that they are telling the truth.
So you think that groups like the EPA aren't trying to destroy Americas energy infrastructure ?
Inhofe to investigate EPA official’s ‘crucify them’ approach to oil and gas companies
Published: 3:13 PM 04/25/2012
By Caroline May - The Daily Caller
Bio | Archive | Email Caroline May
Follow Caroline May
Get Caroline May Feed
inShare
5
Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (Photo: AP)
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe took to the Senate floor Wednesday to announce an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s “crucify them” enforcement strategy to keep oil and gas producers in line.
Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, highlighted a recently discovered 2010 speech by Obama-appointed Region 6 EPA Administrator Al Armendariz, in which the EPA official described the agency’s enforcement philosophy.
“Oil and gas is an enforcement priority, it’s one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production. And I gave — I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said,” said Armendariz, according to Inhofe.
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them,” Inhofe quoted Armendariz saying. “And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there.”
Watch Armendariz’s comments here:
Inhofe said Armendariz’s words offer a “rare glimpse” into the Obama administration’s mindset, and pointed to examples of the EPA allegedly employing the strategy against natural gas producers in Parker County, Texas, Pavilion, Wyoming, and Dimock, Pennsylvania.
“In all three of these cases, before these investigations were complete, EPA made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming that hydraulic fracturing was the cause of water contamination,” he said, according to prepared comments, explaining in all three instances the agency later walk back their proclamations quietly.
The Oklahoma senator is launching an oversight investigation into the EPA’s handling of the three cases through the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
“Against the backdrop of recent events, and Administrator Armendariz’s admission that EPA is out to crucify natural gas companies, it’s clear that EPA did not base these three studies on sound science or engage in the proper scientific process; the agency has been using questionable authorities while usurping the rightful regulatory authority of states,” he said announcing the investigation Wednesday. “EPA clearly went through with these investigations based on preconceived conclusions with the explicit goal of tying potential environmental harms to hydraulic fracturing.”
Inhofe sent a 16 question letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson Wednesday quizzing the agency on its handling of the aforementioned Parker County, Texas case — in which the EPA issued an emergency order against the Range Resources drilling company for methane contamination in water wells only to quietly reverse their decision 15 months later.
“EPA needs to be held accountable,” Inhofe said on the floor. “The American people deserve to know exactly why EPA pushed ahead with such intensity to capture alarmist headlines, and then, when their investigations didn’t pan out the way they had hoped, they were forced to reverse their claims.”
According to Inhofe, it is imperative that the EPA answers for their apparent hostility to oil, gas and coal producers.
“[T]wo things are clearly incontrovertible,” he concluded. “1) the Obama Administration has done everything it possibly can to destroy domestic production of oil, gas and coal. And 2) the Obama Administration now is successfully carrying out its admitted plan to ‘boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe’ and make energy prices ‘necessarily skyrocket.’ Fortunately for the American people, they have yet to fully achieve their goal and we have got to stop them.”
... like i said - your absurdity knows no bounds ... you want to peddle big oil propaganda but at the same time call into question the scientists and academics that study this insinuating they are doing so just to have a job ... :roll:
like i said - you'd have some credibility in your position if you ever chose to actually read the counter points to the ones you are trying to make ... how many times has brianlux asked you to read up the stuff on realclimate.org or any other place!? ... have you once tried listening to the other side? ... if you did - perhaps it would help you articulate a position outside of ... hey, this article/video supports my position ... i will post it and say its "great" ... :fp:
I'm just curios do you use any of these products? Of course you do.. Just so you know they come from " Big oil"
:shock:
Return
A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Solvents
Diesel fuel
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Ink
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Boats
Insecticides
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Dresses
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Cassettes
Dishwasher parts
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Clothesline
Curtains
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
Linings
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Slacks
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
Footballs
Combs
CD's & DVD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste
Gasoline
Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than
250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel.
the EPA is not the face of the environmental movement ... anyone who thinks they are is not paying attention ... the EPA similar to the FDA and whatever A are corporate shills posing as gov't agencies ... corporations run the gov't ... so, while you free market types like to think the problem is big gov't you don't realize that the ones expanding the scope of gov't is actually corporations ... corporations that want favourable policies and inside track to all your "stolen" wealth ...
the EPA is not the face of the environmental movement ... anyone who thinks they are is not paying attention ... the EPA similar to the FDA and whatever A are corporate shills posing as gov't agencies ... corporations run the gov't ... so, while you free market types like to think the problem is big gov't you don't realize that the ones expanding the scope of gov't is actually corporations ... corporations that want favourable policies and inside track to all your "stolen" wealth ...
right, you are right. So why not kill two birds with one stone. Smaller government intervention in the markets, less of a chance for government to be manipulated by the players...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the EPA is not the face of the environmental movement ... anyone who thinks they are is not paying attention ... the EPA similar to the FDA and whatever A are corporate shills posing as gov't agencies ... corporations run the gov't ... so, while you free market types like to think the problem is big gov't you don't realize that the ones expanding the scope of gov't is actually corporations ... corporations that want favourable policies and inside track to all your "stolen" wealth ...
The problem is big government. Big government provides a fertile ground for corruption, similar to what you mentioned. Moreover, with small government, the government can't provide special interests with as much handouts, etc.
I can't see how anyone in their right mind could believe what you just mentioned and be pro-big government. It doesn't make sense.
right, you are right. So why not kill two birds with one stone. Smaller government intervention in the markets, less of a chance for government to be manipulated by the players...
because the problem isn't gov't ... the problem is who controls gov't ... we already have enough proof that left to its own devices corporations will exploit and choose profit above everything else ... societal impacts are of little concern ... there has to be a level playing field - you require rules and enforcement and that is what gov't is for ... amongst other things ...
Comments
Since, none of the politicians distinguish themselves on the topic of energy, let me just clarify a few things:
Polaris would be OK with doing away with all environmental-related subsidies, correct?
Polaris would be OK with more drilling at home, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing the federal tax on gas, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing any roadblocks for nuclear fuel or coal, correct?
Polaris would be OK with eliminating the EPA, correct?
Basically, you're fine with moving more and more to a free-market ideology when it comes to energy and the environment, correct?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
:fp: ... really!?? ... this absurdity has gone too far ... it is no wonder you still think global warming is a hoax ... :(
you pee sitting down?
well we have gotten off topic considerably I suppose here.
Back on topic,
the video could have gone about it in a different way...I think it may have been motivated by the paul harvey speech from 1965 about the devil and america...but the point should be the same.
Unfortunately it seems both sides have just taken their ball and gone home in this argument.
I did find it interesting that Lovelock has admitted to being a bit of an alarmist.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... hange?lite
I think unfortunately the alarmist talk and the unfortunate original title of Global Warming has created an environment ripe for skepticism. Couple that with the notion that it is awfully arrogant of mankind to think we can destroy the planet...we certainly can destroy ourselves, of this I have no doubt. But the planet will reject us long before we are able to damage it that badly.
The video attempts to equate working to preserve the environment or what is best for the planet to wanting America to fail. I don't see it that way. People always assume motivations that just aren't the way. Couldn't this video simply have discussed the idea that an open energy market is best of the country and here is x,y, and z as reasons?
I just think this video serves to reinforce those that agree, but I don't think it will do anything to convert people to their side.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm for "preserving" the environment and I don't want America to fail. So, yeh, I don't think all of those who are hoping to preserve the environment are hoping for America to fail. But, I do think, in most cases, those who enact government policies to "save the environment" often help to slow economic growth. Yet, they guilt people into it, which the video pointed out. There's certainly a trade-off, and who knows if these "pro-environment" policies actually do a lot of good for the environment, let alone "net good" (economic included). If you want both, what's the right mix? Further some could argue that more economic growth increases technological innovation, which will be the eventual cure for environmental problems anyway. So, in a sense, we could be doing a longterm disservice by focusing on policies that restrict economic growth.
Personally, I saw the video suggesting that "if" one wanted to have America (more concretely the vision of a free-market, capitalistic America) fail, energy would be a good place to start. The video was a way of opening eyes to the reality of TRADE-OFFS, and the reality that there's motivation for those who want big government in the environmental framework. When you decide to enact policies that seem good for the environment, you cost a little growth. Moreover, there are incentives for certain people - particularly, those of the socialist mindset - to embrace these environmental energy policies so that the government slowly gains more and more power to regulate (and control) private industries. That's just a reality - and certainly that's anti-free market, anti-capitalist... and to some... Anti-American.
I understand your point on no one "converting" based on this video. But, completely disagree about the target. The reality is - we, here, are people who may have thought about these issues a bit more than the average American. That video was targeting them, not us. It was targeting those who don't typically think about politics or the impacts of environmentalism.
Ironically, those opposed to the video will probably do more to increase views of these targeted people (who would otherwise not see it) than those supporting.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
global warming is only an unfortunate title in so much as that people think less critically and are more ignorant now ... possibly more ignorant is wrong term but in so much as information now has many filters and not all of them are genuine ... it makes it harder to come to conclusions on topic ... is it any wonder that the US is pretty much the only country where there is a large populace still does not understand the concept of global warming!? ... a place where PR companies and money rule!? ... not a shock to me ...
You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.
I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
if we truly went to the free market ... we definitely wouldn't be using oil ...
I don't know for sure, but I tend to agree with you.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think the tone was a direct response to the global warming community's tone - hence, why it was released on Earth Day. I'm sure you've seen that harsh tone by the global warming community here. I have - particularly, when I disagree with their take on certain issues. Their "tone" is typically not pleasant. If you respectfully disagree, you are a called a "denier", or worse. Condescension is the name of the game and it's evident in pretty much every thread on the subject at this forum. At least from what I've seen, the crowd is not even slightly open-minded. Yet, science, by definition, should be open-minded. To use your words - those in that community are "confrontational", and at least from my perspective their tone is often reminiscent of Evangelical Christians, except it's not religion (at least to me).
So, yeh, I think this might be a bit confrontational, but it's fighting fire with fire.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
explain...
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Herd mentality at its finest.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
your disingenuous nature on the subject is what sets the tone ... you post countless articles and opinions that suit your bias but you lack the objectivity to read the other side ... the side that is not perpetuated by your right wing biases ... you ask for an open-mind but you do not even understand what global warming is ... all you do is what everyone else does which is copy and paste articles sharing your opinion even when the articles are proven to be outright lies - you never ever take it back ... you just simply ignore and post another article ... and now - you are comparing us to evangelical christians when the reality is that it is the global warming skeptics that act most like those people ... no critical thinking whatsoever ...
look at extraction costs ... look at oil subsidies ... look at conversion efficiency ... these are all basic metrics one would use to determine the viability of an energy source ...
if you owned a home and needed energy right now - are you gonna go dig for oil and burn it? ... it makes no sense ...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
this industry can make gov'ts go to war ... if you take an honest look at the role of oil in us foreign policy from iraq, iran to saudi arabia - you will see how influential this lobby is ...
the biggest myth portrayed against the environmental movement is it's impact on the economy ... sustainability concepts make the most sense no matter how you look at it ... what it can do is inhibit unlimited profit ... when people make decisions - we don't just look at cost ... there are other factors - yet, we make most of our policy decisions strictly on the bottom line ...
I, for one, have never said man-made Global Warming does not exist with full certainty. I have said, however, I have serious doubts. Moreover, I am really pretty convinced it's not the horror show that environmentalists make it out to be. You, on the other hand, are 100% convinced of it and the horror show. I have not criticized you with on anything more than the fact that you're 100% convinced. You shouldn't be 100% convinced. There's not reason to be. Moreover, it's so incredibly evident that you feel so threatened by anyone who may disagree.
You feel you "know" with certainty because you've read articles and blogs on the subject. I've also read articles and blogs on the subject. Additionally, because I work in a similar field (and have published statistical research and created computer models, I know there are flaws with model-driven science). I also work in a field that teaches incentives, I know there are incentives for some to push climate change. Yet, you discount what I've read and my background... further my opinion.... that there's some reason to "not be convinced".
And when I say I could easily just discount what you've read too. You get your panties in a bunch and typically begin the name calling or condescension (see above). Your typical line is "you don't even understand what global warming" is (see above). You immediately chastise articles, subject matter or even data that doesn't agree with your perspective. Sometimes this occurs so quickly that you clearly haven't even read it. Then you go to your global warming blogs to try to discount it ... because you feel they are "objective". When I point out they are not, you get more upset. Others follow and applaud your comments (see another post in this thread), sometimes with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter in discussion. You think you're winning an argument because you're staying 100% convinced. Yet somehow, you remain convinced you're being objective on the subject. You also, somehow, believe you're thinking critically by dismissing anything presented that opposes your current viewpoint.
Many in the global warming community are critical and have an abrasive tone when they feel threatened by the opposing viewpoints. Science should encourage new viewpoints, new hypotheses, new data. Not discourage it. Disagreement in science is a must. Yet, many in the global warming community continually discourage anything anything that doesn't align with their beliefs or their religion. If it doesn't fit, it's produced by "deniers". :fp:
To me - that's just plain scary and it's def. not thinking critically, nor scientifically.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
haha sorry it was just the impression i had, no offense meant.
and back to Paul on energy, if he is against subsidising green energy why isn't he against subidising oil production.
he didn't vote to end them in may when he had a chance (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... subsidies/)
I think price is the most basic metric one would use.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i've got a bachelor of environmental studies and i've worked for two different gov't agencies related to climate ... you make it sound like you post one blog and i post another ... this is where your disingenuous nature comes into play ... 98% of all scientific peer-reviewed articles all point to the same thing ... that is what is called a scientific consensus ... but feel free to post stuff funded by big oil ... you see the enemy you want to see ...
as for the critical thinking part ... the difference between you and i is i actually read your posts and i dissect them ... you on the other hand do not ... i've proven to you that your posts contain outward lies but you never acknowledge that ... you just simply ignore ...
just look at the conversation we had in this thread ... your absurdity knows no bounds ... you tried saying i don't think the environment is an important issue to i'm ok with more coal power ... keep slinging the mud ... hope it sticks ... feel free ... i'm ok with it ... maybe your words are convincing to other people ... or ... maybe not ...
because the oil subsidies in that CR were actually tax credits/breaks, not subsidies in the traditional sense. Voting to end a tax credit is the same thing as voting a tax increase in Paul's mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb5qkrpKVWw
about two minutes in he addresses it
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
In pretty much every discussion I've had with you on the subject, I posted an article or blog or video that's new and I found interesting, so I wanted to share. You immediately snap, then try to say it's not true and chastise my character for even posting it as if I stole your heart. After you're done with your original outrage and you then go to your blogs and try to find a blog that wrote an piece against that article - as if that's proof of something. It's quite ridiculous. If you disagree with the substance of the post, fine... I mean, that's what this place is for. But, you take it a few steps further once you go after people's character. Hence, the point of the global warming community and their "tone".
As I've stated before, even if your numbers were right... 98% of a academic articles means 98% of scientists buy it, is plainly false. Moreover, what's it? Global warming? Man-made global warming? etc? As I've stated before, there are fields that are devoted to climate change, and as such are kept help afloat by producing research favorable to the subject. It's actually become a complete industry now. By their very nature, the field itself, could be said to be dependent on it. Saying 98% of academics in a field that is dependent on climate change mantra staying afloat... is not saying much, to me.
Moreover, even if you take issue with that, just because a majority agree on a subject, doesn't make them right. There was a time that the majority of the world thought the world was flat. The dissenters were also called deniers. Ironically, they were proven right in the long run. Science has a tendency of forcing "certain" people to eat shit.
So, my point is to say - there is no definitive answer here. Acting like there is, is problematic... particularly when trade-offs from pursuing policies associated with environmentalism act as a economic growth constraint.
I don't know the answer though... apparently you do. I'll be sure to check with you before posting anything whatsoever that you disagree with though...
...
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
like i said - you'd have some credibility in your position if you ever chose to actually read the counter points to the ones you are trying to make ... how many times has brianlux asked you to read up the stuff on realclimate.org or any other place!? ... have you once tried listening to the other side? ... if you did - perhaps it would help you articulate a position outside of ... hey, this article/video supports my position ... i will post it and say its "great" ... :fp:
So you think that groups like the EPA aren't trying to destroy Americas energy infrastructure ?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/inhof ... companies/
Inhofe to investigate EPA official’s ‘crucify them’ approach to oil and gas companies
Published: 3:13 PM 04/25/2012
By Caroline May - The Daily Caller
Bio | Archive | Email Caroline May
Follow Caroline May
Get Caroline May Feed
inShare
5
Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (Photo: AP)
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe took to the Senate floor Wednesday to announce an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s “crucify them” enforcement strategy to keep oil and gas producers in line.
Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, highlighted a recently discovered 2010 speech by Obama-appointed Region 6 EPA Administrator Al Armendariz, in which the EPA official described the agency’s enforcement philosophy.
“Oil and gas is an enforcement priority, it’s one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production. And I gave — I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said,” said Armendariz, according to Inhofe.
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them,” Inhofe quoted Armendariz saying. “And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there.”
Watch Armendariz’s comments here:
Inhofe said Armendariz’s words offer a “rare glimpse” into the Obama administration’s mindset, and pointed to examples of the EPA allegedly employing the strategy against natural gas producers in Parker County, Texas, Pavilion, Wyoming, and Dimock, Pennsylvania.
“In all three of these cases, before these investigations were complete, EPA made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming that hydraulic fracturing was the cause of water contamination,” he said, according to prepared comments, explaining in all three instances the agency later walk back their proclamations quietly.
The Oklahoma senator is launching an oversight investigation into the EPA’s handling of the three cases through the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
“Against the backdrop of recent events, and Administrator Armendariz’s admission that EPA is out to crucify natural gas companies, it’s clear that EPA did not base these three studies on sound science or engage in the proper scientific process; the agency has been using questionable authorities while usurping the rightful regulatory authority of states,” he said announcing the investigation Wednesday. “EPA clearly went through with these investigations based on preconceived conclusions with the explicit goal of tying potential environmental harms to hydraulic fracturing.”
Inhofe sent a 16 question letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson Wednesday quizzing the agency on its handling of the aforementioned Parker County, Texas case — in which the EPA issued an emergency order against the Range Resources drilling company for methane contamination in water wells only to quietly reverse their decision 15 months later.
“EPA needs to be held accountable,” Inhofe said on the floor. “The American people deserve to know exactly why EPA pushed ahead with such intensity to capture alarmist headlines, and then, when their investigations didn’t pan out the way they had hoped, they were forced to reverse their claims.”
According to Inhofe, it is imperative that the EPA answers for their apparent hostility to oil, gas and coal producers.
“[T]wo things are clearly incontrovertible,” he concluded. “1) the Obama Administration has done everything it possibly can to destroy domestic production of oil, gas and coal. And 2) the Obama Administration now is successfully carrying out its admitted plan to ‘boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe’ and make energy prices ‘necessarily skyrocket.’ Fortunately for the American people, they have yet to fully achieve their goal and we have got to stop them.”
I'm just curios do you use any of these products? Of course you do.. Just so you know they come from " Big oil"
:shock:
Return
A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Solvents
Diesel fuel
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Ink
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Boats
Insecticides
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Dresses
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Cassettes
Dishwasher parts
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Clothesline
Curtains
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
Linings
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Slacks
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
Footballs
Combs
CD's & DVD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste
Gasoline
Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than
250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel.
Thanks for continuing to bump this thread, so more people can see the video. :corn:
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
the EPA is not the face of the environmental movement ... anyone who thinks they are is not paying attention ... the EPA similar to the FDA and whatever A are corporate shills posing as gov't agencies ... corporations run the gov't ... so, while you free market types like to think the problem is big gov't you don't realize that the ones expanding the scope of gov't is actually corporations ... corporations that want favourable policies and inside track to all your "stolen" wealth ...
right, you are right. So why not kill two birds with one stone. Smaller government intervention in the markets, less of a chance for government to be manipulated by the players...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The problem is big government. Big government provides a fertile ground for corruption, similar to what you mentioned. Moreover, with small government, the government can't provide special interests with as much handouts, etc.
I can't see how anyone in their right mind could believe what you just mentioned and be pro-big government. It doesn't make sense.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
because the problem isn't gov't ... the problem is who controls gov't ... we already have enough proof that left to its own devices corporations will exploit and choose profit above everything else ... societal impacts are of little concern ... there has to be a level playing field - you require rules and enforcement and that is what gov't is for ... amongst other things ...