Official "What are you thinking about right now?" (Political Version)

A lot of that sounds good, and I appreciate the tone of all this. I have to admit it gets very frustrating for me - climate change is something that (to me) has been known to be the result of human activity, and that's been in my psyche for over 10 years. While our current way of life continues unchanged, we progress further and further towards a tipping point that we could never recover from. And instead of all of us working together and doing something about it, we have politicians getting elected based on their staunch ignorance. Other countries are changing their policies and lifestyles, and hosting climate change conferences, and we're fighting over whether or not it's accurate.

I understand that carbon can't just go away, but I don't think the food analogy holds up. Humanity survived for thousands upon thousands of years without carbon-based transportation...so equating it with a pillar of necessity isn't quite fair. Carbon is more like speed - it's something we've been on for almost a century, it's improved some things while drastically hurting others, and now we have no easy way off of it. I know it's ingrained into our culture, for anyone born after 1910, but we have to realize this is not the way it has always been.

It's also fairly obvious that it's not permanent, since oil will eventually run out. so anyone thinking about it for more than a few seconds realizes that what we take for granted today is not infinitely sustainable - even if climate change didn't exist, and pollution and health consequence is ignored, and all that funding terrorism stuff - oil still won't work forever. So we need to work other solutions - and I prefer working them aggressively. There are other alternatives - wind is becoming bigger everyday, and is also a huge employment boost in the midwest. Solar is huge in China and Germany is way ahead of us in efficiency. But the focus is always on pipelines and drilling offshore, bringing in more oil or cheaper oil, when I think the money and focus should be on cleaner, non-exhaustible forms of energy.

Here's a good example for you - the Last Mountain. check out that story. Coal mining was working to strip every mountain in West Virginia to improve the coal haul. Coal's important - that's where most of our electricity comes from after all. But the mountain they were going to demolish was a prime site for Wind energy. It's an epic struggle here, between those that want to simply continue with the path we are on, and those fighting to think long-term and use the same money/energy/resources/focus on non-carbon alternatives. It comes down to getting x energy every year, for free, with no pollution, or getting 3x energy, once, and preventing that wind power from ever being realized.

That's the problem with the stance. That's the problem with focusing on oil and the status quo and ignoring all the other options until some arbitrary point where they are deemed singly as effective as oil or coal. By the time solar and wind and everything else is at that perfect level, all the mountains that would have been perfect for wind will be gone, and all the sunshine will be blacked out by smog making solar impossible, and we'll be up a creek without a paddle.

No one's stopping fossil fuels. No one is blockading ports. No one is charging $6 for gas in the US. The US generates more than what, 50% of its oil domestically now. And we collectively use less, and use it more efficiently than a just few years ago. So what exactly is the rush for more, more, more? Drill baby drill? Analysts say drilling offshore doesn't improve gas prices...screwing with Alaska to get a few more barrels doesn't solve anything. We're basically trying to stop the bleeding, and keep the focus where it should be - permanent, clean solutions. Maybe it's not possible this year, or next - but if we stop pushing, it never will be, and we'll be having the same conversation in 10 years when its much more likely to be too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

Acting like an adult means taking responsibility for what our actions do, like the pollution our lifestyle causes.

In the years of our debate here, your stance has shifted from "global warming is all a lie" to "show me there's a global consensus" to finally "the people that made that global consensus are using data that is too new or could be inaccurate".

There's a point of diminishing returns here where a stance can no longer be interpreted as simple ignorance or lack of education, and it's turned to willful ignorance. And I'm not talking just you - the country as a whole. The science has been around since the 60's, tested and found to be true time and time again. You see pictures of glaciers that melt and the earth changing over the last 30-40 years. Even absent all the science and consensus, one can think about the industrial revolution, and all the smokestack excrement that has gone into the atmosphere the past 200 years...and draw a very basic conclusion given a study of our atmosphere.

But instead we question, and say it's not definite - or if it is definite, that it's not us - or if it is us, then how much, really. We try to shield ourselves and stay in our head in the sand mentality, and hope we can get to a question that it will take science long enough to definitively answer so that we don't have to make any hard choices or lifestyle changes.

Activists oppose new drilling and new pipelines because of the environmental impact, and because of the basic approach - you don't fix a heroin addiction by growing heroin in your garage. You find an alternate (methadone?) that is at least safer, or get help and get off of it. Otherwise we're just postponing the inevitable cold turkey episode, which could be one of the darkest periods in human existence.

---

There is nothing I can add to this that is either relevant or true. This is 150% correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

We can't predict the weather in the 10-day forecast but you want to place full faith in their ability to gauge climate data from millions of years ago, let alone thousands or hundreds??

---

I don't know why people claim that "we can't predict the weather." Weather forecasts are astoundingly accurate, given how many variables are involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

I don't know why people claim that "we can't predict the weather." Weather forecasts are astoundingly accurate, given how many variables are involved.

---

Sure a monkey with a banana up it's butt can predict San Diego weather.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

I don't know why people claim that "we can't predict the weather." Weather forecasts are astoundingly accurate, given how many variables are involved.

---

Because people don't understand what "forecast" and/or "prediction" mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

We can't predict the weather in the 10-day forecast but you want to place full faith in their ability to gauge climate data from millions of years ago, let alone thousands or hundreds??

---

Not sure I understand the correlation between forecasting weather ahead of time & gauging previous temperatures. That's akin to saying I can't predict this years World Series winner so I must not know who won previous World Serieses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

Not sure I understand the correlation between forecasting weather ahead of time & gauging previous temperatures. That's akin to saying I can't predict this years World Series winner so I must not know who won previous World Serieses

---

Well, there really was no correlation. It was a pointless non-sequitur.

Quote:

---

No one's stopping fossil fuels. No one is blockading ports. No one is charging $6 for gas in the US. The US generates more than what, 50% of its oil domestically now. And we collectively use less, and use it more efficiently than a just few years ago. So what exactly is the rush for more, more, more? Drill baby drill? Analysts say drilling offshore doesn't improve gas prices...screwing with Alaska to get a few more barrels doesn't solve anything. We're basically trying to stop the bleeding, and keep the focus where it should be - permanent, clean solutions. Maybe it's not possible this year, or next - but if we stop pushing, it never will be, and we'll be having the same conversation in 10 years when its much more likely to be too late.

---

I dig what u were saying until this. The gov't doesn't have the same goals you do, and neither does the World. Until everyone gets on the same page to develop the clean energy you want, to provide the jobs for everyone to make a living, this will never happen no matter the power you give up to the gov't to get what you desire.

I would really like if we can have all the things you want AND still have a job doing what I love to do. I don't see that happening and I definitely don't see the government coming to the rescue in that regard either until it is too late. And even if it too late, I doubt the powers that be in this ****ing joke of a political system we have will STILL do anything about it unless it lined their pockets no matter the cost to average people like me that just want to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I dig what u were saying until this. The gov't doesn't have the same goals you do, and neither does the World. Until everyone gets on the same page to develop the clean energy you want, to provide the jobs for everyone to make a living, this will never happen no matter the power you give up to the gov't to get what you desire.

---

This seems to be your attitude about a lot of things. It's a very dangerous attitude to have and if everybody thought the way you do, there would never be progress. Just because the entire world doesn't have the same view doesn't mean that people shouldn't fight for what they think is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

This seems to be your attitude about a lot of things. It's a very dangerous attitude to have and if everybody thought the way you do, there would never be progress. Just because the entire world doesn't have the same view doesn't mean that people shouldn't fight for what they think is right.

---

Nothing wrong with fighting for something you believe in unless you're the Occupy people. :sad:

Rage has grown very jaded and cynical over the last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Rage has grown very jaded and cynical over the last year.

---

Just glad I don't talk political stuff around my friends, I would be a real pleasure to hang around with. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Well, there really was no correlation. It was a pointless non-sequitur.

---

they are very relevant to each other. We are at times significantly inaccurate on tomorrows weather yet we want to place full faith in readings obtained with archaic methods as early as 20-30 years ago and getting much worse the older they get. We want to place full faith in weather models which show temperature hundred, thousands, and milllions of years ago. There is nothing wrong with questioning the accuracy of those numbers.

Quote:

---

A lot of that sounds good, and I appreciate the tone of all this. I have to admit it gets very frustrating for me - climate change is something that (to me) has been known to be the result of human activity, and that's been in my psyche for over 10 years. While our current way of life continues unchanged, we progress further and further towards a tipping point that we could never recover from. And instead of all of us working together and doing something about it, we have politicians getting elected based on their staunch ignorance. Other countries are changing their policies and lifestyles, and hosting climate change conferences, and we're fighting over whether or not it's accurate.

---

I agree with the political climate and it is lying politicians using this issue for votes that is misleading the public. I take issue with "climate change is something that (to m) has been known to be the result of human activity..) That speaks in defiance of the current scientific thought. Climate change has occurred many times throughout our earths history long before human activity. I don't see how that can be denied. While I question the accuracy of older weather instumentation, means and methods of measuring weather and sea data...i don't question that there has been major climate shifts long before human activity. If you believe the scientists are telling us, our current global warming cycle began before the industrial revolution and any significant manmade impact. Now it has spiked in the past 100 years pretty significantly. 100 years though is such as small insignificant blip in the history of our world, how do we truly know this type of radical change hasn't happened before mans involvement? There's no way of knowing with certainty. That said, I think there's enough evidence to base an educated opinion that CO2 emissions have risen significantly in the past 100 years as has global temperatures and I dont think it unfair to draw a comparison there. How much are we involved in that? I don't know. It's fair to say though that stripping the earth of all we do and putting pollutants into the air is a bad thing.

Quote:

---

I understand that carbon can't just go away, but I don't think the food analogy holds up. Humanity survived for thousands upon thousands of years without carbon-based transportation...so equating it with a pillar of necessity isn't quite fair. Carbon is more like speed - it's something we've been on for almost a century, it's improved some things while drastically hurting others, and now we have no easy way off of it. I know it's ingrained into our culture, for anyone born after 1910, but we have to realize this is not the way it has always been.

---

Transportation?????? You really don't believe that transportation is all we use oil for do you? I don't believe there is one piece of the computer you typed that on which wasn't manufactured with something that required lubrication or that was built with equipment that required oil of some capacity. Forget about how we communicate globally for now or the effects on our economy which would basically be beyond devastating. Yes, we lived for thousands of years without oil. The first known drilling operation thats been documented I believe was around 500AD. Mankind can and would find a way to survive w/o it but it would cost the lives of millions. For starters, we couldn't produce enough food w/o oil to feed our masses.

Quote:

---

It's also fairly obvious that it's not permanent, since oil will eventually run out. so anyone thinking about it for more than a few seconds realizes that what we take for granted today is not infinitely sustainable - even if climate change didn't exist, and pollution and health consequence is ignored, and all that funding terrorism stuff - oil still won't work forever. So we need to work other solutions - and I prefer working them aggressively. There are other alternatives - wind is becoming bigger everyday, and is also a huge employment boost in the midwest. Solar is huge in China and Germany is way ahead of us in efficiency. But the focus is always on pipelines and drilling offshore, bringing in more oil or cheaper oil, when I think the money and focus should be on cleaner, non-exhaustible forms of energy.

Here's a good example for you - the Last Mountain. check out that story. Coal mining was working to strip every mountain in West Virginia to improve the coal haul. Coal's important - that's where most of our electricity comes from after all. But the mountain they were going to demolish was a prime site for Wind energy. It's an epic struggle here, between those that want to simply continue with the path we are on, and those fighting to think long-term and use the same money/energy/resources/focus on non-carbon alternatives. It comes down to getting x energy every year, for free, with no pollution, or getting 3x energy, once, and preventing that wind power from ever being realized.

That's the problem with the stance. That's the problem with focusing on oil and the status quo and ignoring all the other options until some arbitrary point where they are deemed singly as effective as oil or coal. By the time solar and wind and everything else is at that perfect level, all the mountains that would have been perfect for wind will be gone, and all the sunshine will be blacked out by smog making solar impossible, and we'll be up a creek without a paddle.

No one's stopping fossil fuels. No one is blockading ports. No one is charging $6 for gas in the US. The US generates more than what, 50% of its oil domestically now. And we collectively use less, and use it more efficiently than a just few years ago. So what exactly is the rush for more, more, more? Drill baby drill? Analysts say drilling offshore doesn't improve gas prices...screwing with Alaska to get a few more barrels doesn't solve anything. We're basically trying to stop the bleeding, and keep the focus where it should be - permanent, clean solutions. Maybe it's not possible this year, or next - but if we stop pushing, it never will be, and we'll be having the same conversation in 10 years when its much more likely to be too late.

---

I again see your point but think you are missing the big picture. I agree we need to increase clean energy sources. I think mining to knock down a few hills which could've been used for wind power is very insignificant to the discussion. I don't think anyone is saying we have to "focus on oil and the status quo and ignore all the other options". Nobody. Activists however are the only ones out there saying to ignore something, and thats exploration and new production of fossil fuels.

You are correct, to my knowledge anyway, that the US is doing more domestic drilling and using it more efficiently than ever. You agree that we can't do away with fossil fuels overnight. We won't see the end of fossil fuel use in its entirety for generations. If we say we are going to drill in Alaska or offshore, we aren't saying we want to do that for todays purposes. It takes almost a decade plus before those things start generating a drop of oil when you consider mobilization, construction, and red tape. We can't look at todays needs, we have to look at tomorrows. We have to maintain our presently viable method of fossil fuel usage until an alternative can replace it fully and we aren't close to that. Our current wells won't pump product forever. There's only so much money one can throw at alternative energy. Time to develop the technology is something that we'll have to have patience to wait for.

Now if you don't think we have time. If you think the world will end tomorrow due to global warming. If you think the human race won't survive or that the earth will self-destruct.....i don't know. I think there's just as good a chance an asteroid hits the earth, the sun explodes, or the rapture and armegeddon ensues. We can't control those things. We can try to lessen the manmade effects of global warming and should however we should not sacrifice millions in doing so in an abrupt manner without forethought seeing as we have no way of truly knowing if the changes we implement will reverse the global warming that is taking place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I agree with the political climate and it is lying politicians using this issue for votes that is misleading the public. I take issue with "climate change is something that (to m) has been known to be the result of human activity..) That speaks in defiance of the current scientific thought. Climate change has occurred many times throughout our earths history long before human activity. I don't see how that can be denied. While I question the accuracy of older weather instumentation, means and methods of measuring weather and sea data...i don't question that there has been major climate shifts long before human activity. If you believe the scientists are telling us, our current global warming cycle began before the industrial revolution and any significant manmade impact. Now it has spiked in the past 100 years pretty significantly. 100 years though is such as small insignificant blip in the history of our world, how do we truly know this type of radical change hasn't happened before mans involvement? There's no way of knowing with certainty. That said, I think there's enough evidence to base an educated opinion that CO2 emissions have risen significantly in the past 100 years as has global temperatures and I dont think it unfair to draw a comparison there. How much are we involved in that? I don't know. It's fair to say though that stripping the earth of all we do and putting pollutants into the air is a bad thing.



Transportation?????? You really don't believe that transportation is all we use oil for do you? I don't believe there is one piece of the computer you typed that on which wasn't manufactured with something that required lubrication or that was built with equipment that required oil of some capacity. Forget about how we communicate globally for now or the effects on our economy which would basically be beyond devastating. Yes, we lived for thousands of years without oil. The first known drilling operation thats been documented I believe was around 500AD. Mankind can and would find a way to survive w/o it but it would cost the lives of millions. For starters, we couldn't produce enough food w/o oil to feed our masses.



I again see your point but think you are missing the big picture. I agree we need to increase clean energy sources. I think mining to knock down a few hills which could've been used for wind power is very insignificant to the discussion. I don't think anyone is saying we have to "focus on oil and the status quo and ignore all the other options". Nobody. Activists however are the only ones out there saying to ignore something, and thats exploration and new production of fossil fuels.

You are correct, to my knowledge anyway, that the US is doing more domestic drilling and using it more efficiently than ever. You agree that we can't do away with fossil fuels overnight. We won't see the end of fossil fuel use in its entirety for generations. If we say we are going to drill in Alaska or offshore, we aren't saying we want to do that for todays purposes. It takes almost a decade plus before those things start generating a drop of oil when you consider mobilization, construction, and red tape. We can't look at todays needs, we have to look at tomorrows. We have to maintain our presently viable method of fossil fuel usage until an alternative can replace it fully and we aren't close to that. Our current wells won't pump product forever. There's only so much money one can throw at alternative energy. Time to develop the technology is something that we'll have to have patience to wait for.

Now if you don't think we have time. If you think the world will end tomorrow due to global warming. If you think the human race won't survive or that the earth will self-destruct.....i don't know. I think there's just as good a chance an asteroid hits the earth, the sun explodes, or the rapture and armegeddon ensues. We can't control those things. We can try to lessen the manmade effects of global warming and should however we should not sacrifice millions in doing so in an abrupt manner without forethought seeing as we have no way of truly knowing if the changes we implement will reverse the global warming that is taking place.

---

Transportation is 70% of our oil usage and there are, in place, working alternatives driving next to you everyday dickay. Nobody is saying we need to cut off oil right now , right away. We need to increase the standard of fuel economy to at least 60mpg. This is done by political pressure and has worked many times in the past to raise it against the will of the industry. We need to increase public transportation and build compact communities that cut down on car usage. We need to fund bio-fuel research and much, much more. There are tons of things we can do to improve the efficacy of the system and we don't need new tech to do it. But we will produce new tech and in combination of the actions I stated above will make a big difference for the health of our children and the quality of life of Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guidi2009

We need to increase the standard of fuel economy to at least 60mpg. This is done by political pressure and has worked many times in the past to raise it against the will of the industry. We need to increase public transportation and build compact communities that cut down on car usage. We need to fund bio-fuel research and much, much more. There are tons of things we can do to improve the efficacy of the system and we don't need new tech to do it. But we will produce new tech and in combination of the actions I stated above will make a big difference for the health of our children and the quality of life of Americans.

---

I agree with all of this, but at the same time think we can and should expand our oil reserves and capacity to obtain oil as well as other types of sources such as natural gas/shale/coal/nuclear/etc. A. We will need it, not short term but long term. B. We should reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil for a myriad of reasons.

There will be a time and place to begin reducing our fossil fuel creating capacity. Today isn't it. We need to do it safely while at the same time reduce our consumption as much as feasible and do all we can to move towards green renewable energy sources.

Romney? More like R-Money

http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/u...4983953920.jpg

The problem is very seldom the tool, more often the user...

I was going to ask WTF is wrong with Missouri with Santorum leading, but I am noticing something. Hardly anyone is voting. You have 37% of precincts reporting and only 100k have voted. This seems ridiculously low. I thought that maybe this is just how it is, but just to be safe, went and looked at the 2008 results in Missouri and total votes were close to 600k. So if anything this year looks on pace to be just above half the turnout as 2008.

I think I will look at all the States right now and compare.

Sigh, looking at the results for Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, it looks like more people are buying into their BS.

Florida 2008: 1.949.498
Florida 2012: 1.468.495

Iowa 2008: 119.188
Iowa 2012: 121.501

South Carolina 2008: 445.677
South Carolina 2012: 600k plus (i deleted it on my calc)

So I guess I will ask wtf is wrong with Missouri and Minnesota. Binglebop is supposed to help Mitt win, not Santorum.

There's a lot of other factors. Caucus' are usually party only and primaries in SC and Florida I believe are open to all voters. As well as the fact Missouri is a non binding caucus and no delegates are at stake

YEAH! My candidate finished in 5th in the Minnesota caucus. Total Write-Ins is still hanging on! Vote TWI!

Gary Johnson is the man, donated to his campaign. They are on all the ballots for the 50 states, so I hope it's money well spent. Better than the other two tubs of crap I guess.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...28264162_n.jpg

Why Democrats should fear Gary Johnson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichelleWie

Why Democrats should fear Gary Johnson.

---

Ron Paul with a lot less crazy yet, somehow, the inability to attract as many progressives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I was going to ask WTF is wrong with Missouri with Santorum leading, but I am noticing something. Hardly anyone is voting. You have 37% of precincts reporting and only 100k have voted. This seems ridiculously low. I thought that maybe this is just how it is, but just to be safe, went and looked at the 2008 results in Missouri and total votes were close to 600k. So if anything this year looks on pace to be just above half the turnout as 2008.

I think I will look at all the States right now and compare.

Sigh, looking at the results for Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, it looks like more people are buying into their BS.

Florida 2008: 1.949.498
Florida 2012: 1.468.495

Iowa 2008: 119.188
Iowa 2012: 121.501

South Carolina 2008: 445.677
South Carolina 2012: 600k plus (i deleted it on my calc)

So I guess I will ask wtf is wrong with Missouri and Minnesota. Binglebop is supposed to help Mitt win, not Santorum.

---

Yeah well, if you were a Republican and your choices were between these 4 losers, would you drop everything to make a choice?

Great Article with some ownage.

Quote:

---

In the 1800s, the Supreme Court ruled (during Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that corporations were legal personalities. Corporate power over free speech was further advanced during 2008's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling. By labeling corporations as “people,” they are thereby entitled to the same rights as protections as any other “person.” Thus, they are entitled to not only the same freedom of speech as any other citizen but also an increased ability to donate funds to any variety of political causes.
Allow me to preface what is to follow by saying I am not anti-corporation. I drive a car manufactured by Chevrolet, listen to my music on an iPod, and when I am sick I take medications manufactured by corporate entities. Overall, I think such organizations have been positive influences in the development of the United States; they provide consumers with jobs, quality products, and familiarity in a world often filled with uncertainty.
What I don’t agree with is the notion of corporate person-hood, a concept that has not been warmly received by the public. Despite harsh admonition from voters, neo-conservatives generally dismiss criticism of corporate person-hood as being purely the stomping ground of liberals. This really isn’t the case, however, as many of those within the Republican Party and other Rightist movements are adhering to a strange double standard, one that conflicts with the principles of their own ideology on several fronts.
First there is the Religious Right. The surprising thing is that many of the advocates of corporate person-hood whom I have met not only identify themselves as political conservatives, they also count themselves among the ranks of God-fearing Christians. As someone who believes that all spiritual matters should rest in a personal relationship between a man and his maker, I should make it clear that I am not in the business of debating the sincerity of any individual's faith. That being said, I am somewhat baffled at the notion that any person who embraces one of the Abrahamic faiths, be they a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, could embrace the concept that a corporate entity is equal to a human.
After-all, Christ taught his flock that humans were unique among God's creation. They are the only benefactors of His grace, infused with a soul, modeled in their maker's image, and subject to the law that only the Creator can give or take life. In other words, God holds the monopoly on people making. Period.
From a religious standpoint, this belief is irreconcilable with the concept of corporate person-hood. How can a business entity, crated by human beings with the sole intention of generating a profit, enjoy the same rights as a person who was given life by an omniscient maker? In labeling a corporation as a person, one is either elevating that entity's status to be on par with God's creation, or denigrating His own handiwork to the level of mere human tinkering, a concept that is borderline heretical.
This argument has apparently never entered the minds of the masses on the Religious Right. Perhaps their Golden Calf, the almighty Republican Party, has blurred their ability to formulate their own opinions?

---

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-blo...232042379.html

Supreme Court is a bunch of fagets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...28264162_n.jpg

---

right, because only those regional environmental groups and community activists stand to benefit. Its not like there aren't billions upon billions to be made by companies promoting fuel efficiency, alternative energy products or by those making parts for those products or installing them or that matter. It's not like the govt. isn't giving money away to companies like Solyndra. its not like politicians stand to benefit greatly by taking the "green" "save the earth" position and we all know they have no money to throw around. Its not like politicians trying to create a commodity out of cap and trade policies have anything to gain. It's not like wall street has anything to gain by a new growing marketplace filled with new govt. subsidies.

Green energy is the next huge market as created almost entirely because of the threat global warming presents. If science were to show that stripping the earth of these fossil fuels and blowing them into the air was likely not causing additional harm, and this threat not as persistent does anyone think that market would be growing at anywhere close to it's current rate? Big Oil has had a stranglehold on the oil marketplace for years. A new market with limitless potential and public & govt. support would likely interest many investors.

I'm not saying global warming isn't happening or isn't man made or is a hoax....i'm saying lets get past the BS that so few stand anything to gain by lying about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

It's not like the govt. isn't giving money away to companies like Solyndra.

---

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...s.-Renewables/
http://www.greentechmedia.com/conten...-subsidies.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

ts not like politicians stand to benefit greatly by taking the "green" "save the earth" position and we all know they have no money to throw around.

---

And if politicians had so much to gain by taking the "green" stance, why are so few doing so? It's surely not related to the absurdly powerful lobbying efforts of gigantic oil corporations that refuse to let progress get in the way of their business model, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

If science were to show that stripping the earth of these fossil fuels and blowing them into the air was likely not causing additional harm, and this threat not as persistent does anyone think that market would be growing at anywhere close to it's current rate?

---

No, and that's pretty much the point. A new market is being created due to what science has discovered, not due to any insane conspiracy theory claiming that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by nearly the entire scientific community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

i'm saying lets get past the BS that so few stand anything to gain by lying about it.

---

Thing is....when facts are so overwhelmingly in your favor, you don't need to lie.

http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/u...4/Untitled.jpg

http://georgia.usembassy.gov/securit...e02152012.html

Quote:

---

The U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi reminds U.S. citizens in Georgia to remain vigilant in light of recent security incidents in Georgia. On February 13, Georgian police defused an explosive device in Tbilisi attached to the vehicle of a Georgian staff member of the Israeli Embassy. On February 14, in an unrelated incident, the Georgian Ministry of the Interior detained a man suspected of plotting the bombing of a market in Zugdidi.

---

Santorum Proves Unfitness for Presidency with Bible Attack

Quote:

---

Speaking in Ohio, Santorum revealed his inability to govern a pluralistic society. The truth emerged in the context of an attack on President Barack Obama, whose agenda he claimed is "about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology," according to the Associated Press.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

Santorum Proves Unfitness for Presidency with Bible Attack

---

Santorum's a loon.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/up-with-c...ayes/46438704/

http://i41.tinypic.com/2rqd2bo.jpg

I really don't understand how people can be happy Bill Mahr donated a cool mil to Obama's Super Pac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I really don't understand how people can be happy Bill Mahr donated a cool mil to Obama's Super Pac.

---

I really don't understand why anybody cares. Bill Maher's not a journalist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

I really don't understand why anybody cares. Bill Maher's not a journalist.

---

For a guy that criticizes a lot about government, I think it sends a wrong message to do things that influence the corruption in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

For a guy that criticizes a lot about government, I think it sends a wrong message to do things that influence the corruption in it.

---

What? Seriously, I don't know what this means.

Also, judging by what Maher actually says, I think this donation was less to make sure Obama wins and more to make sure the Republican nominee loses. Maher seems to loathe Republicans a hell of a lot more than he likes Democrats. I'm the same way, TBH. I don't particularly care for Democrats, but I'll vote for them every time, because I absolutely detest the modern Republican party. Pandering to bigots and Jesus freaks doesn't go far with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

What? Seriously, I don't know what this means.

Also, judging by what Maher actually says, I think this donation was less to make sure Obama wins and more to make sure the Republican nominee loses. Maher seems to loathe Republicans a hell of a lot more than he likes Democrats. I'm the same way, TBH. I don't particularly care for Democrats, but I'll vote for them every time, because I absolutely detest the modern Republican party. Pandering to bigots and Jesus freaks doesn't go far with me.

---

It sends a bad message that it is perfectly ok to have these Super Pacs and to donate unlimited money to it. Bill Mahr is a comedian, but what he does say holds value to people and to encourage the process like this is wrong to me. It doesn't matter whether its for Obama or whatever dick Republican, it's still bad either way.