House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change

[eagle]

Anyway - my few cents worth...I am sure there will be naysayers, but we have to start somewhere and I think at least getting the Americans to admit they are involved in the life of the planet is a good start.

Thats it. First step is admitting there is a problem. Its been denied for way too long. A few more severe storms or environmental disasters should drive the point home.

[Mustardeggs]

I 100% agree with anybody who says its needed to take steps in the right direction.

I have a son myself whos future I care about.

But this bill is not what they want to make us believe.

It ultimately destroys liberty and freedom, the little bit which was left after 9/11 .

It destroys jobs and increases prices on EVERYTHING that produces carbon they can even tax you for breathing by law! Like the new york times headlined.

It gives them ultimate power and they will use it against you like they always do. Of course they will use all their little dirty tricks to disguise and blame others.

There have always been storms and environmental disasters in the world, and now they tell you its manmade so you give them all your right and liberties to become the ultimate slave hahahaha come on.

They even have the technology to make earthquakes and tsunamis for that matter by themselves.

Anyway that propably doesnt belong in this thread.

The bottom line is that eagle is right, you must prepare for the future of your family now.

Buy food, non hybrid seeds and a atmospheric watergenerator or anything that ensures you clean water in times of crisis if you dont want to go to the fema camps which are setup all over the country.

Folks, the government is preparing for a crisis because they know its coming so you better do too.

Good luck

[digitalcat]

I 100% agree with anybody who says its needed to take steps in the right direction.

I have a son myself whos future I care about.

But this bill is not what they want to make us believe.

It ultimately destroys liberty and freedom, the little bit which was left after 9/11 .

It destroys jobs and increases prices on EVERYTHING that produces carbon they can even tax you for breathing by law! Like the new york times headlined.

It gives them ultimate power and they will use it against you like they always do. Of course they will use all their little dirty tricks to disguise and blame others.

There have always been storms and environmental disasters in the world, and now they tell you its manmade so you give them all your right and liberties to become the ultimate slave hahahaha come on.

They even have the technology to make earthquakes and tsunamis for that matter by themselves.

Anyway that propably doesnt belong in this thread.

The bottom line is that eagle is right, you must prepare for the future of your family now.

Buy food, non hybrid seeds and a atmospheric watergenerator or anything that ensures you clean water in times of crisis if you dont want to go to the fema camps which are setup all over the country.

Folks, the government is preparing for a crisis because they know its coming so you better do too.

Good luck

Dude you love ad should be:

21 yo single with kids - looking for soul mate... preferably into long talks, especially about conspiracy theories.

Must like Mustard and Eggs!

Please have all your teeth.

[zeusbheld]

I see the brainwashing worked with you.

I dont care who this guy is, I care about the content of this bill. That all.

You like beeing a slave?

You like having 14yo youthcorps brigades aka hitlerjugend with guns at your house inspecting your garbage?

You like beeing taxed for breathing?

You like paying 10$ for a gallon of milk?

Its that what you want? If so then yes this bill is indeed a step in the right direction.

Iam all for environmental protection and reduction of toxic waste but all this global warming talk is a big fat scam to make you pay carbon taxes.

Look at the sky, you see the big fat yellow ball there? Well THATS your reason its getting a BIT warmer.

Wake up man, they are laughing about us how stupid we are.

you're pulling 'information' directly out of your posterior and you're asking who's brainwashed?

right that wouldn't be you; your condition is better described as ass-washed.

please give sources other than conspiracy nutters and youtube videos if you want to persuade anyone who's not either retarded or off in their survivalist bunker already, busily hoarding canned goods.

[Alfy]

So are we getting closer to the sun because it's getting hotter... or is it a regular phenomenon that in the last 100 years the earth temperatures are rising rapidly?

Please do your research on human impact on this planet before you comment.

I would really like some one to produce the data supporting rapid rises in temperature over the last 100 years....and what exactly do you consider rapid?

The media and governmental hype over a danger from global warming that already is allegedly causing the polar icecaps to melt and threaten a global climate catastrophe, looks more and more like the political hype it is. This year to date, snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) many American cities and towns have suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was - 0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in one hundred years. Temperatures in the normally mild south were low for so long that some middle-sized cities went weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has been hurt as home buyers have stayed home. In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, breaking the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in 1950.

Arctic Ice Melt has Reversed

One of the most dramatic results of the record cold over much of the planet is the reversal of the much-reported melt of the icebergs in the Arctic Ocean. Last autumn the world was alarmed to hear from certain climatologists that the ice in the Arctic had melted to its "lowest levels on record.? What was carefully omitted from those scare stories was the fact that those records only date back as far as 1972, and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

Now, as a result of the recent record cold weather, the ice is back. According to Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

What few people know and what the Global Warming lobby seems at pains to keep known is the fact that there is considerable seasonal variation in how much pack ice of the Arctic ice pack covers the Arctic Ocean. Much of the ocean is also covered in snow for about 10 months of the year. The maximum snow cover is in March or April ? about 20 to 50 centimeters over the frozen ocean. The thickness is not one of the universal constants, never was.

Admit flawed Climate Model

There is also admission by several intellectually honest climatologists that their predictive models are flawed. Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona, two very prominent climate modellers, recently admitted that the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (as in the fictional movie The Day After Tomorrow) are wrong. In a recent interview Russell said, ?It's not ice melt, but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of man-made warming on polar ice melt.? Now that?s very interesting.

When professors Toggweiler and Russell reprogrammed their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator, then back towards it again, the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the recent Arctic warming.

Russian climatologists believe recent weather changes around the globe are results of solar activity and not man-made emissions. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, calls the argument for man-made climate change "a drop in the bucket." His research shows that now the recent very active solar activity has entered an inactive phase. He advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

Kenneth Tapping of Canada?s National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

The Global Warming Geopolitics

The recent Global Warming hysteria is in reality a geopolitical push by leading global elite circles to find a way to get the broader populations to willingly accept drastic cuts in their living standards, something that were it demanded without clear reason by politicians, would spark strikes and protest. The UN?s latest IPCC report on Global Warming calls for diverting a huge 12% of global GDP to ?prevent the harmful effects of climate change.? The UN report, for example, estimated that its recommendations to reduce certain manmade emissions would cost about $2,750 per family per year in the price of energy.

Today there are two principal policy options of the Anglo-American power establishment to impose their further control over a world that is rapidly slipping out from under them. We might call them Plan A and Plan B for short.

The first, Plan A, was the option represented by Bush-Cheney and the big oil and military industrial complex behind them. Cheney and his close Houston friend, Matt Simmons, propagated the myth of Peak Oil to lull populations into accepting the inevitability of $100 a barrel or even higher oil prices. In the meantime, the relative strength of the Big Oil and the related US military establishment grew with higher oil prices.

Their global War on Terror provided a cover or pretext to justify military control over the major oil reserves and oil transit passages of the world. From Iraq to Afghanistan to Kosovo, the US and NATO agenda was aimed at future control of the extraordinary economic powers emerging from Russia to China to India to Brazil and Venezuela and beyond. Through China?s effective diplomacy in Africa, many African countries are on the brink of slipping out from under the US or British control into Chinese or more independent status.

If John McCain becomes the next choice of the US power elites to be President, that will signal that that military and oil agenda will escalate, especially as the USA sinks into a severe economic depression in coming months.

The second broad faction of maintaining their control over the greater part of the world economy, Plan B, sees Global Warming and ?soft power? as embodied in the organs of the United Nations and IMF and World Bank as the more suitable vehicle to convince people to willingly accept drastic reduction in living standards.

Barack Obama, the apparent choice of the same elites as a ?breath of change? to allow them to regroup after the debacle of the Bush-Cheney years, would likely opt for the second faction of the global elite?the Global Warming option to lowering general living standards, ?Plan B? of the Anglo-American establishment. In a recent campaign speech in Wallingford Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama replied to a question about Al Gore, the hero of Global Warming. As President, Obama said he would consider putting Al Gore in a Cabinet-level position?or higher. He stated, ?I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues but climate change is real."

The two major global factions

Today there are two major factions within the Western political power establishment internationally. They cooperate and share broad elitist goals, but differ fundamentally on how to reach these goals. Foremost is their goal of sharply controlling global economic growth and population growth. The first faction is best described as the Rockefeller Faction. It has a global power base and is today best represented by the Bush family faction which got their start, as I document in my book, as hired hands for the powerful Rockefeller machine. The Rockefeller faction has for more than a century based its power and influence on control of oil and on use of the military to secure that control. It is personified in the man who is since 2001 de facto President in terms of decision-making?**** Cheney. Cheney was former CEO of Halliburton Corp., which is both the world?s largest oilfield services company (now based in Dubai for tax reasons), and the world?s largest military base constructor.

The second faction might be called the Soft Power Faction. Their philosophy might be summed up that they think its ?possible to kill more flies with honey than with vinegar.? Their preferred path to global population control and lowering of the growth rates in China and elsewhere is through promoting the fraud of global warming and imminent climate catastrophe. Al Gore is linked to this faction. So is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. They see globalist institutions, especially the United Nations, as the best vehicle to advance their agenda of global austerity.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations Environment Programme. Its reports have been demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed in scientific methodology, yet they are aggressively being promoted as revealed truth by the powerful media behind this faction. Others in the circle include billionaire speculator George Soros, parts of the British Royal family and representatives of European ?old money.?

With the meteorological evidence of their claims for global warming dissolving as the ice forms anew, it is not surprising that news of the Arctic refreeze and other contrary evidence to their doomsday thesis are kept from mainline international media.

Global warming is a farce...I am not saying that we shouldn't be doing what we can to be good stewards of our environment but the fear mongering about global warming is ridiculous and as far as the bill is concerned: It's just like all the other legislation that has been passed in the last 5 years...it bloats the government and steals liberty from the people. I would go on but if any one even got to this part they are tired of reading already.

[Bruce551]

A few tid-bits:

u.s. federal energy and climate policies At the national level, U.S. energy policy has long favored fossil fuels and expanding energy production rather than improving energy efficiency and renewables. For example, between 1948 and 1998, the federal government spent $111.5 billion on energy research and

development programs. Of this amount, 60 percent, or $66 billion,

was dedicated to nuclear energy research, and 23 percent, or $26

billion, was directed to fossil fuel energy research.

Nuclear plants are such a looser.

Historically, the overwhelming share (currently about 80 percent) of tax dollars spent on transportation has gone towards the construction of roads and highways, not public transit. In 2009, Congress is slated to reauthorize the nation?s transportation policy and has an opportunity to redirect more resources towards public transit, though it remains to be seen whether the political will for such a shift exists.

Cars have ruined every nice city in Thailand.

In an effort to extend the life of the coal industry into a carbonregulated

future, the coal industry has successfully lobbied for generous public funding for thus far fruitless efforts to burn coal without emitting high levels of carbon dioxide (known as carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS). In 2008, the Department of Energy?s budget request raised funding for CCS-related programs by 26.4 percent to $623.6 billion while at the same time cutting renewable energy and efficiency research by 27.1 percent to $146.2 million.51 There are few indications that these subsidies will end or be reduced.

Shows the influence of the coal lobby in the US. I know Dr. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary and President OBama are going to support a much more sensible Renewable Energy policy, CSS is going to be to costly and requires suitable geology.

[Bruce551]

A few tid-bits:

u.s. federal energy and climate policies At the national level, U.S. energy policy has long favored fossil fuels and expanding energy production rather than improving energy efficiency and renewables. For example, between 1948 and 1998, the federal government spent $111.5 billion on energy research and

development programs. Of this amount, 60 percent, or $66 billion,

was dedicated to nuclear energy research, and 23 percent, or $26

billion, was directed to fossil fuel energy research.

Nuclear plants are such a looser.

Historically, the overwhelming share (currently about 80 percent) of tax dollars spent on transportation has gone towards the construction of roads and highways, not public transit. In 2009, Congress is slated to reauthorize the nation?s transportation policy and has an opportunity to redirect more resources towards public transit, though it remains to be seen whether the political will for such a shift exists.

Cars have ruined every nice city in Thailand.

In an effort to extend the life of the coal industry into a carbonregulated

future, the coal industry has successfully lobbied for generous public funding for thus far fruitless efforts to burn coal without emitting high levels of carbon dioxide (known as carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS). In 2008, the Department of Energy?s budget request raised funding for CCS-related programs by 26.4 percent to $623.6 billion while at the same time cutting renewable energy and efficiency research by 27.1 percent to $146.2 million.51 There are few indications that these subsidies will end or be reduced.

Shows the influence of the coal lobby in the US. I know Dr. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary and President OBama are going to support a much more sensible Renewable Energy policy, CSS is going to be to costly and requires suitable geology.

[Alfy]

btw....building a bunch of nuclear power plants would go a long way towards emission control but we're not willing to do that even with the break throughs in nuclear dodder reprocessing but we want cap and trade on energy......

[zeusbheld]

the most baffling notion in the fight-climate-change arena is the one that biofuels are somehow carbon-free and 'green.' someone needs to explain to me how environmentally friendly (and human friendly and sane) it is to divert farmland from growing food to growing crops that are to be used for what is basically synthetic fossil fuels. did i miss something? i was under the impression that burning fossil fuels, not mining them, was the source of carbon emissions (among other things)?

as for the nuclear option, greenies baffle me here. yes there is a problem with nuclear waste but what's plan B then? cap-and-trade shell games? as far as i've seen most of the opposition to nuclear power is irrational, sort of like the knee-jerk, ill-informed opposition to 'frankenfoods.' ffs how many greenies do i have to run into who blather on about Gaia but a) don't know who James Lovelock is, or that he's the actual scientist behind the actual scientific "Gaia theory," and wouldn't believe he is pro nuclear power (and yes, he is) if he sat there, looked them in the eye or told them.

[Bruce551]

Ethanol will be burned in a car engine that is only about 25% efficient. Elecric car motors are 90% efficient, so an electric car charged by a 90% efficient biomass CHP plant can go about 22 times as far on an acre of corn as one burning fermented ethanol!

Corn ethanol is dead.

Biomass grasses can be grown on marginal land.

The private sector will not insure (Bonding) nuclear plant projects. Billions dollars have been lost on these projects.

Wind power costs less than nuclear, about $90 dollars per MWh,

nuclear costs $100 dollars per MWh,

Biomass Combustion costs $120 dollars per MWh.

Concentrated Solar (steam) $174 dollars per MWh

Energy Efficiency costs $30 dollars per MWh.

There's gonna be some new nuclear plants, but the U.S. Gov. will have guarantee them.

[Hobbes]

I'm aware that Mr. Lovelock has come out in support of nuclear power as a means to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and the output of greenhouse gases. He's of course entitled to his opinion even though I don't share it.

Even if one puts aside the whole messy conundrum as to what to do with all the nuclear waste from even more nuclear power stations if nobody has yet an answer as to what to do with the already existing waste (and that alone kills the whole nuclear argument for me anyway), the supply of Uranium in its form as base material for nuclear fuel, yellow cake, isn't exactly abundant either. Or more precisely in concentrations of uranium ore that provide a positive greenhouse gas balance on the use of nuclear power.

ENERGY SECURITY AND URANIUM RESERVES by the Oxford Research Group

Global Uranium Supply and Demand by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Uranium Supply and Mining by an UK anti-nuclear campaign group but with plenty of linked sources

Secondly, nay-sayers of re-newable energies often like to point out that hydro, wind, solar, tidal, geo-thermic and other assorted back-of-the-shed-flower-power-hippies-and-dung-beetles-technologies are not capable of possibly supplying the amounts of energy needed. And those propagating the use and chances re-newable energy use offers are really trying to put civilisation back to the stone age. :roll:

Ok, here are a few titbits I have come across recently that ought to be able to put it all a bit into perspective even for the not-so-technical minded. Firstly a picture based on publications by the DESERTEC Foundation that shows how much area of the Sahara would have to be covered by Solar-thermal power plants to supply the entire energy demand at current levels for Germany / Europe & the entire World.

Sure it's not very practical to supply the whole world from the Sahara but it sure isn't that great an area in relation to how much sun-drenched desert there is. And solar-thermal power plants are not future technologies either but have been operating reliably for over 20 years in some cases in the deserts of California, Spain and other parts of the world. So, here we have a proven, available technology that could help supply energy needs now and in the future and cut drastically greenhouse gases.

Will it cost us? Sure it will but those nuclear power plants ain't small change either. The estimates for supplying solar power from the Sahara to Europe by Desertec are currently around Euros 400 Billion. No peanuts but then bailing out banks governments where falling over themselves to burn hundreds of Billions, so the cash can be made available if the crisis is big enough. :roll:

Next is a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America called Global potential for wind-generated electricity. The gist of this paper is that, looking at all the possible on-shore and off-shore potential world-wide for setting up existing 2,5MW wind turbines, how much energy could be generated? Their answer, surprisingly, was not 42 but 1.3 Million Terra-Watt-hours (TWh). Ok, so how much energy do us lot then use so per year? At present apparently around 15666 TWh or 1.2 % of aforementioned wind-energy potential.

Again, this isn't the most practical research on the topic but goes more to show what is possible in theory at least.

No single technology or form of re-newable energy on its own is the silver bullet to solving our problems but I hope the above does make it clear that re-newable energies are up to the task of providing our energy needs now and in the future away from coal, gas, oil and nuclear.

[digitalcat]

THANKS FOR RUINING THE TOPIC W EXTRA LARGE PHOTO

[Hobbes]

THANKS FOR RUINING THE TOPIC W EXTRA LARGE PHOTO

The Dude abides. :wink:

[LakeGeneve]

OK here goes - bring on the dead horse...and the whip!

Careful Greer, there are quite a few on this site who enjoy being flogged :wink:

I do have one pont that I need to clarify, because I don't quite understand, based on the graphs we saw posted by Bruce (I think), why Lake Geneve says that Australians are selfish...lets see.....Australia is not even on the map... The UK has a population of about 66 million, whereas Oz is less than a third of that in a land mass the size of the USA.

Two reasons.

1) we in OZ (although you and I don't really live there FT do we?) are in the top 5 in terms of GH , I think 2nd to the US 2-3 yrs ago, per capita which is always a more accurate reflection I do believe. If I was Japanese, I would have said Japan.

Some other examples, we also were number one a few yrs ago for household rubbish per capita and in the top 5ish for water consumption (again not the most recent data but I could look up the most recent UNEP State of the Environment Report to check).

2) In my response, I did not wish for the poster to think I was on a US bashing rant and being from Oz, and given our appalling stats, it seemed appropriate to characterise our collective behaviour on this issue as selfish. Selfish insofar as we have a good quality of life that has been based on unsustainable environmental & economic paradigms.

We have asked others to follow the same model but now we are coming to the Kyoto (or post Kyoto party) very late and saying sorry but we are not going to change our living standards and your - developing countries - not allowed to follow our model anymore.

Admittedly, I believe that on a per capita basis, the Aussies do have a fairly large carbon footprint, and that shocks me, but I also do believe that they are at least trying to do something about it...albeit slowly.

I am not trying to protect or stand up for Australia particularly, but I think the statement was not reasonable given the context, in that it almost implied that Australia was in the same league as the USA when it comes to actual Carbon output...which of course it doesn't by a long long way.

Yes mate, per capita we aint so good and we are in the same league. And yes, we should be shocked but we are all learning here.

Anyway - my few cents worth...I am sure there will be naysayers, but we have to start somewhere and I think at least getting the Americans to admit they are involved in the life of the planet is a good start.

Greer

Your 5 cents are at least worth something which is more than one can say for some who just post dribble and want to stick their head in the sand. It is a complex issue but at the end of the day the planet can take much more of how we humans have been treating it in the last 50 yrs.

[Mustardeggs]

I see the brainwashing worked with you.

I dont care who this guy is, I care about the content of this bill. That all.

You like beeing a slave?

You like having 14yo youthcorps brigades aka hitlerjugend with guns at your house inspecting your garbage?

You like beeing taxed for breathing?

You like paying 10$ for a gallon of milk?

Its that what you want? If so then yes this bill is indeed a step in the right direction.

Iam all for environmental protection and reduction of toxic waste but all this global warming talk is a big fat scam to make you pay carbon taxes.

Look at the sky, you see the big fat yellow ball there? Well THATS your reason its getting a BIT warmer.

Wake up man, they are laughing about us how stupid we are.

you're pulling 'information' directly out of your posterior and you're asking who's brainwashed?

right that wouldn't be you; your condition is better described as a*s-washed.

please give sources other than conspiracy nutters and youtube videos if you want to persuade anyone who's not either retarded or off in their survivalist bunker already, busily hoarding canned goods.

The youthcorps comment I read in the new york times times. They bragged how they train with teenagers with guns and make it look as it is something good.

The further part is part of the new bill, they can now inspect your property to check if your energy sufficent. You can google that.

The taxing for breathing comment was also new new york times headline!

The 10$ per gallon milk comment came from me talking to a farmer in the us who told me that it is possible that with the new bill their expenses could be rise so much that we might have to pay that price for milk. That also makes perfect sense if you know the actual content of the bill.

[Mustardeggs]

Dude you love ad should be:

21 yo single with kids - looking for soul mate... preferably into long talks, especially about conspiracy theories.

Must like Mustard and Eggs!

Please have all your teeth.

i think my profile is fine as it is, appreciate your concern

[Mustardeggs]

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

ima gonna quote a shout roundup of the study but everyone please read it before you comment, also read the second link to see how EPA tried to supress the study

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations? 2007 ?Fourth Assessment? report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

[GoodKarma]

I see the brainwashing worked with you.

I dont care who this guy is, I care about the content of this bill. That all.

You like beeing a slave?

You like having 14yo youthcorps brigades aka hitlerjugend with guns at your house inspecting your garbage?

You like beeing taxed for breathing?

You like paying 10$ for a gallon of milk?

Its that what you want? If so then yes this bill is indeed a step in the right direction.

Iam all for environmental protection and reduction of toxic waste but all this global warming talk is a big fat scam to make you pay carbon taxes.

Look at the sky, you see the big fat yellow ball there? Well THATS your reason its getting a BIT warmer.

Wake up man, they are laughing about us how stupid we are.

you're pulling 'information' directly out of your posterior and you're asking who's brainwashed?

right that wouldn't be you; your condition is better described as a*s-washed.

please give sources other than conspiracy nutters and youtube videos if you want to persuade anyone who's not either retarded or off in their survivalist bunker already, busily hoarding canned goods.

The youthcorps comment I read in the new york times times. They bragged how they train with teenagers with guns and make it look as it is something good.

The further part is part of the new bill, they can now inspect your property to check if your energy sufficent. You can google that.

The taxing for breathing comment was also new new york times headline!

The 10$ per gallon milk comment came from me talking to a farmer in the us who told me that it is possible that with the new bill their expenses could be rise so much that we might have to pay that price for milk. That also makes perfect sense if you know the actual content of the bill.

hey mustard just saying..

no one saying you can't have an opinion..dude i respect your opinions.how do you expect people to listen to you if you come off so agressive.

agressive negative words turns off your reader in a debate.they won't even listen to you at all if you dont respect their point of view and you might even have something good to say.

all he's saying is stick to the facts back them up tell where they came from. just because they come from a syndicated periodical doesn't necesarily make them right either. I read the NY times some of their stuff I love some is just total bull sh@t. but I like them because they don't fit a mold. you know news that is fair and bull sh*t opps I mean fair and balance...lol....

I thought you were just yelling out at me and they were opinions that you made up yourself.

I should have said something about it but I listen to people even their heated words. discussions get heated especially topics on religion politics sports. because the other person really believes in their point of view. even though -( its wrong<~~joke) examples of your words.. brain washing,hitler,slaves,how stupid we are. mustard did you know our garbage that you put out is already inspected that is nothing new. your web searches your emails that you send etc. are also monitored..

lighten up dude. discussions are for making sense out of something that usually doesn't make any sense at all. and it is very hard to listen to someone that I wouldn't go so far as call them cheap shots but making very negative inuendos. bring on the facts dude put in the links where you got the info and people will read them and of course decide weither they make sense or they are just smoke... take it easy dude hope you enjoy your day... 8)

[eagle]

the most baffling notion in the fight-climate-change arena is the one that biofuels are somehow carbon-free and 'green.' someone needs to explain to me how environmentally friendly (and human friendly and sane) it is to divert farmland from growing food to growing crops that are to be used for what is basically synthetic fossil fuels. did i miss something? i was under the impression that burning fossil fuels, not mining them, was the source of carbon emissions (among other things)?

as for the nuclear option, greenies baffle me here. yes there is a problem with nuclear waste but what's plan B then? cap-and-trade shell games? as far as i've seen most of the opposition to nuclear power is irrational, sort of like the knee-jerk, ill-informed opposition to 'frankenfoods.' ffs how many greenies do i have to run into who blather on about Gaia but a) don't know who James Lovelock is, or that he's the actual scientist behind the actual scientific "Gaia theory," and wouldn't believe he is pro nuclear power (and yes, he is) if he sat there, looked them in the eye or told them.

I think the Corn industry is behind the whole ethanol thang. First they came up with high fructose corn syrup when the soy bean industry took a chunk out of their market in the 70s and now they have ethanol. Corn is good for corn bread and the indians did ok but in modern times its a waste of good crop land imo but its an industry making lots of cash and the Feds subsidize the sh*t out of it.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2004/112-14/spheres.html

As for the GMOs they are suspect in the disappearing honey bees although I haven't seen concrete evidence as of yet.

http://www.celsias.com/article/european-bees-taking-a-nosedive/

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/sustainable-agriculture/

According to the latest national geographics article on world food production agriculture is moving away from the heavy chemical based methods of the past. It destroys arable land and the chemicals are killing people. I have no problem with crossbreeding plants but sticking chemicals in the genes to ward off pest sounds like a disaster waiting to happen imo , if it f*cks you up on the outside of the plant maybe putting it on the inside isn't such a good idea? we do eat this stuff. Even if the gene modifying isn't harmful roundup all over the crops isn't a good thing. They say its harmless but I've heard it makes people sick if exposed.

As for the Nuclear "industry" Well it makes a lot of power and man makes a lot of mistakes. If man was more responsible I'd support it myself but not. One oops at a nuclear plant is a huge one. And then yes the waste is good for dumping on Iraq. Maybe thats their reason for dumping tons of depleted uranium shells on Iraq. Is that illegal dumping naw its war. They built a Nuclear plant on top of a fault line in California right on the coast also. Diablo Canyon was doing well except for the greenie hippie protestors. A disgruntled plant employee finally succumbed to guilt and blew the whistle that no foundation supports were installed and they had to spend millions in construction costs and as punitive damages to the surrounding communities they insulated thousands of houses for free etc. Still not a good place to build one imo. People don't want to hear use less and conserve especially in america but its not so bad. Houses can be built to use solar and geothermal and it should be part of modern construction imo. pricing is coming down and it works. Anyway i feel you give a go ahead to Nuclear plants and we will get a bunch of time bombs and waste and Halburton will be building them. Ohh that was Cheney ..mmmm

[Bruce551]

Data Point Wind Power:

by Jeff Anthony, American Wind Energy Association

The U.S. wind energy industry in 2008 shattered previous records by installing 8,435 MW of new generating capacity (generating enough electricity during a year to serve more than 2 million homes), making wind power a mainstream generating technology for electricity. New wind projects completed in 2008 accounted for more than 40 percent of the entire new power-producing capacity added nationally last year.

U.S. wind energy generating capacity stands at 25,246 MW, producing enough electricity each year to power the equivalent of some 7 million households and strengthening the nation's energy supply with a clean, inexhaustible, homegrown source.

*25,246 MW is equal the electric power generation capacity of Thailand.

* Some Wind projects are on hold because Grid needs to be upgraded to enable wind generated power to be better directed for power consumption.

[eagle]

Data Point Wind Power:

by Jeff Anthony, American Wind Energy Association

The U.S. wind energy industry in 2008 shattered previous records by installing 8,435 MW of new generating capacity (generating enough electricity during a year to serve more than 2 million homes), making wind power a mainstream generating technology for electricity. New wind projects completed in 2008 accounted for more than 40 percent of the entire new power-producing capacity added nationally last year.

U.S. wind energy generating capacity stands at 25,246 MW, producing enough electricity each year to power the equivalent of some 7 million households and strengthening the nation's energy supply with a clean, inexhaustible, homegrown source.

*25,246 MW is equal the electric power generation capacity of Thailand.

* Some Wind projects are on hold because Grid needs to be upgraded to enable wind generated power to be better directed for power consumption.

If all new homes had a wind turbine on the roof with solar panels and old ones fitted imagine the power that the utilities couldn't charge for. Thats been the biggest draw back imo. Carter was laughed at with his solar panels on the white house roof and still is but he was right. We should have been doing it 30 years ago and we would already be independent of oil but greed got in the way. :twisted:

[GoodKarma]

You know I have read the bill again it doesn't really affect consumers as much as it would of owners of already standing big building high rises..or landlords..It wouldn't even affect the construction business because they would just have to rework how they build houses no real altercations there.

Pres said white house changing lighting standards.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062902499_pf.html

[eagle]

You know I have read the bill again it doesn't really affect consumers as much as it would of owners of already standing big building high rises..or landlords..It wouldn't even affect the construction business because they would just have to rework how they build houses no real altercations there.

Pres said white house changing lighting standards.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062902499_pf.html

I like to hear this serious get down to it attitude about the environment. I'm hearing a lot of fear that it will cost us all a fortune and maybe it will be its way over due and the hogs have been at the trough for waaaaay to long.

[GoodKarma]

You know I have read the bill again it doesn't really affect consumers as much as it would of owners of already standing big building high rises..or landlords..It wouldn't even affect the construction business because they would just have to rework how they build houses no real altercations there.

Pres said white house changing lighting standards.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062902499_pf.html

I like to hear this serious get down to it attitude about the environment. I'm hearing a lot of fear that it will cost us all a fortune and maybe it will be its way over due and the hogs have been at the trough for waaaaay to long.

ditto~eagle~I agree..

conservation and enviormental protection has never been popular for any president. they are usually put out to the slaughter Teddy Roosevelt lost a lot of popularity believe it or not when he preserved a lot of national parks.

I recall you mentioning Carter in a previous post. Carter didn't have a lot accomplishments while in office but you are right he did push the turn down the thermostat movement back then. which if followed back then up until now would have done a lot of good.

the attached link is a hidden gem on the web an article written back in 2005 from the cleveland plain dealer very interesting. Ironically Iran is acting up again? give it a read..

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/9657

[Mustardeggs]

@ good karma

I understand how my posts sounded like its just merely an opinion made up out of nothing. People who know me know that I dont make things up which I just over heard or read somewhere. When I hear or read about something I usually research the case to make my opinion. I reallize thats not the case on this internet forum. Point taken.