Obama Sets Emission Rules

[FOTD]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30820631#30827496


This demon is waiting for the wingnutian exhaustive talking points from Guido, Conan et al.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/energy-environment/20emit.html?_r=1


Boss Limpbowel:" Now, I ask you: How are we going to grow the party if more and more moderate Republicans are going to suck up to Barack Obama, show up at his public appearances, endorse him, and campaign for him? How in the hell does that expand the Republican Party. You tell me how this is a recipe for expanding the Republican Party."
http://mediamatters.org/clips/200905190021


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30820631#30820631

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30820631#30820712

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30820631#30827496


Here is a head start on your talking points!
"There is so much to this debate, such as the whole man-induced global warming idiocy, the Federal government interfering with States Rights, government dictating policy even more to auto makers, particularly those who took bailout money, and, who is going to want these micro-mobiles, anyhow? Sure, a few will. But, the rest of will be left with no choice. I thought the Left was interested in choice?"
http://www.rightwingnews.com/author.php?id=34

[Conan71]

Limbaugh had a limpness problem, but it wasn't his bowel as I recall.

I think this is the latest in more window-dressing on the CAFE standard.  I can see there being compromise down the road as there has been in the past.  Cutting "greenhouse" emissions by 87% by 2050 is a total crack-pipe dream and a costly disaster for all Americans while the third world will be increasing their emissions. 

Hell, there's no conclusive link to emissions and "climate change" since the whole concept of climate change is so fraught with frauds and profiteers.

[nathanm]

Hell, there's no conclusive link to emissions and "climate change" since the whole concept of climate change is so fraught with frauds and profiteers.

I can't understand how an otherwise intelligent person can write that with a straight face.

[Hoss]

I can't understand how an otherwise intelligent person can write that with a straight face.

I think Conan is channeling his 'inner Inhofe'.

Messin' with ya, Conan.... 

[Conan71]

I can't understand how an otherwise intelligent person can write that with a straight face.

And I can't understand how anyone could promote such hysteria using questionable data.  Color us both perplexed.

For every scientist propagating this crap, there's one who can ably refute it.  Where's the truth and how do you know it to be true or how do I know it to be true?  Mass hysteria for profit makes me cynical and skeptical.

I believe in being a good steward to the environment but I'm adamantly against the flawed climatological analysis and absolute BS that's been pumped in the name of "global warming".  I have no doubt that cleaner air is healthier for all of us, but the bed-wetting nature of global warming alarmists is a total turn-off for thinking people and realists.

I work with clients daily on reducing their combustion emissions so I'm not exactly a rank amateur on the subject and yes, I work on the side of providing solutions to them to meet government regs.  I also have a front seat to see exactly what the cost is to my customer and eventually, their customer.  In spite of being able to attribute part of my income to increasingly tighter environmental regs, I do see the over-reaching nature of government and it's created a sense of cynicism in me.

[nathanm]

For every scientist propagating this crap, there's one who can ably refute it.  Where's the truth and how do you know it to be true or how do I know it to be true?  Mass hysteria for profit makes me cynical and skeptical.

Have you been listening to the right wingers on the radio again? It's simply not true that there is any significant dissent amongst climatologists about whether global warming is mostly man made. The only real disagreement is about what exactly the effects are, and most everyone agrees that if we keep doing what we're doing, it's going to be bad. There are just some folks who are saying the warming will cause catastrophic and irreversible damage.

Global warming deniers are like troofers, hanging on the words of the few tinfoil hatters who have credentials and disagree with the majority view. The difference is that the deniers have a well funded media machine to confuse the issue.

[TheArtist]

Spin the wheel... what are the odds? 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

[Conan71]

Have you been listening to the right wingers on the radio again? It's simply not true that there is any significant dissent amongst climatologists about whether global warming is mostly man made. The only real disagreement is about what exactly the effects are, and most everyone agrees that if we keep doing what we're doing, it's going to be bad. There are just some folks who are saying the warming will cause catastrophic and irreversible damage.

Global warming deniers are like troofers, hanging on the words of the few tinfoil hatters who have credentials and disagree with the majority view. The difference is that the deniers have a well funded media machine to confuse the issue.

And from my perspective, Global alarmists are like troofers.  There's plenty of credible evidence for belief or doubt on the issue.

Here Nathan, put this in your crack pipe and smoke it:

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

"Media Darling James Hansen Hypes Alarmism

As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the number-one global warming media darling, NASA's James Hansen. The increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many scientists. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N39/EDITB.jsp Hansen's increasingly frightening climate predictions follow his 2003 concession that the use of "extreme scenarios" was an appropriate tactic to drive the public's attention to the urgency of global warming. See: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html Hansen also received a $250,000 grant form Teresa Heinz's Foundation and then subsequently endorsed her husband John Kerry for President and worked closely with Al Gore to promote his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." See: http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6 & http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf"



More to come...

[TheArtist]

Notice the continued use of the term "alarmist". There are people on both sides of the issue who make mistakes or selectively pull out a piece of info here or a bit of data there and blow it out of proportion and wrongly extrapolate too far with it. And why on earth the mention of the 70s global cooling thing? That issue has been addressed time and time again. The fact that this article pulls that straw man out and the bogeyman of Al Gore lol, definitely gives one the slant on this article. That kind of stuff has no place in a real discussion. That article isn't a scientific paper, nor does it offer any real information. Its blatant political and ideological game-playing and cherry picking.  "well this part of the earth or antarctica is cooling therefore...." which is just as wrong as saying "well this part of the earth or antarctica is warming therefore...". The sun issue has been adressed before on this forum as well. How many times do we have to go over the same shat on here lol? Its absurd lol. All ya have to do is look this stuff up, and please, that doesnt mean blogs or commentary sites and the like lol.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

[Conan71]

I cited a piece from the U.S. Senate, not a news outlet or blog spot to prevent further filtering.  Yes, it's from when the GOP was the majority in the Senate.  I would well-imagine there's contradictory testimony now posted on the Senate web site.

My point is simply: This is not an absolute scientific conclusion.  For it to be absolute, there would not be dissention within the scientific community.  This has been made into a political and profit-driven issue.  It's being used as a means of higher taxation (without calling it taxes) and for people and companies to profit off fear.  Don't get me wrong, I like green renewable energy technology, I like breathing better air, and I like the idea of not being dependent on foreign oil.  I simply don't believe it's within the pervue of elected officials to promote special interests by using mass fear of climatological change.

I can make a hypothesis that the sun will turn pink in 200 years and I can support that hypothesis by interpreting and manipulating data to prove my point.  If I wanted to set out to prove global warming was a real phenomena I could do that just as easily as I could prove it's all a hoax.  There is no way to prove it absolutely either way.

[rwarn17588]

I cited a piece from the U.S. Senate, not a news outlet or blog spot to prevent further filtering.  Yes, it's from when the GOP was the majority in the Senate. 

Boy, that doesn't help your credibility. The filtering in the Senate was every bit as biased at the time.

Even now, good luck in finding a Republican lawmaker who believes in climate change. They're out there, but as rare as a black KKK member.

[Conan71]

Boy, that doesn't help your credibility. The filtering in the Senate was every bit as biased at the time.

Even now, good luck in finding a Republican lawmaker who believes in climate change. They're out there, but as rare as a black KKK member.

And, as I said, I would imagine there's plenty of fodder promoting global warming in the Senate record since the Dems took control. Based on your logic, how does that help credibility FOR global warming?

[Hoss]

Boy, that doesn't help your credibility. The filtering in the Senate was every bit as biased at the time.

Even now, good luck in finding a Republican lawmaker who believes in climate change. They're out there, but as rare as a black KKK member.

Didn't McCain state that he believed in it?

[rwarn17588]

Didn't McCain state that he believed in it?

Yes. And now he's pretty much persona non grata in the GOP. Mainly for the cardinal sin of losing, however.

[Hoss]

Yes. And now he's pretty much persona non grata in the GOP. Mainly for the cardinal sin of losing, however.

That and being a 'maverick'...