US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yes, who would want tougher population standards for the cities they live in. Though, you are a hypocrite and live in a liberal city. Why not make your way down to one of these low taxing red states?

Tell me where yo live, I am happy to put lead or uranium into your water.

You haven't figured out where I live? I have lived in red states. I choose a liberal state because they allow gay marriage, sex toys, and nude sunbathing. Plus carrying concealed hanguns by anyone...is that liberal? And they had a law against abortion until 1973...is that liberal? They do not restrict cell phone use while driving and do not require you to wear motorcycle helmets, and it is even not against the law to cross a double yellow ine, but they recommend against it. Officially. You can get arrested for smoking marijuana IF you do it while walking down main street AND throw rocks at windows while you do it.

If you put anything in Lake Champlain, they will notice.

How am I a hypocrite for living in liberal open minded area? I think you are just jealous that I can live wherever I want.

Enough Americans will eventually realize that liberteapartians are batshit crazy. After all, the God of libertarians Ayn Rand had a lot to do with the current crisis, considering her biggest fan was in control of the fed for years.

By then they will figure out that there really never was any need to do anything about "global warming" because it does not exist. This is good news.

Lies, lies and more lies. Hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night. It'll be interesting to hear your take of things a decade from now as progress moves forward and leaves you in the dust.

If progress moves forward in the next decade, it will not be the doing of the Dems. Aren't you happy?

Economies overseas with significantly higher taxes are not tanked.

I am happy for them. maybe they can pick up some more of the Global Warming expense. maybe you will move there and help them pay their taxes? Maybe?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lies? Really? Prove it. Tell me how taxing every single aspect of our economy with a carbon tax won't tank the economy. Your deluding yourself.

There have been tax breaks and subsidies offered for greener technologies and guess who opposed them? The same obstructionists who tell us that cutting subsidies to corn and military defense contracts will cost jobs. The larger, more obvious point is that government policies can and do effect the economy. The battle is over which policies - ones that promote energy independence or the status quo? Guess who's for the status quo? You and the rest of the cynical denialists.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the US GDP has steadily dropped over the decade down to 19% of the world. In other words, there are plenty of countries to fund these measures.

It's why no one listen to folks like yourself anymore. We also insist you stay here.

In other words you have no formal education and basically talk out of your azz. You're originally Texan, so enough said really.

And I am very pleased to allow the other countries to pay for it. So that is actually very good news to me. Thanks.

You insist? Heck, I leave the country and return several times per week. Maybe pass it on to the CBP, OK?

There have been tax breaks and subsidies offered for greener technologies and guess who opposed them? The same obstructionists who tell us that cutting subsidies to corn and military defense contracts will cost jobs. The larger, more obvious point is that government policies can and do effect the economy. The battle is over which policies - ones that promote energy independence or the status quo? Guess who's for the status quo? You and the rest of the cynical denialists.

And now the obstructionists will control congress because Obama couldn't do his job and no one bought the propoganda you posted for two years. Happy now?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If progress moves forward in the next decade, it will not be the doing of the Dems.

Filibustering obstructionism is what is keeping us from moving forward towards energy independence in this country.

[Heracles 417]

.....

Off topic, where have you been abroad? Because clearly your perceptions of other countries and socialism, do not reflect realty. It seems you base a hell of a lot of your ideas of socialism and the first world on countries like the Ukraine. You realize Mexico's GDP per Capita is close to 3.5 times that of the Ukraine.

[^_^ 5,021]

... Mexico's GDP per Capita is close to 3.5 times that of the Ukraine.

Ouch.

[Heracles 417]

And I am very pleased to allow the other countries to pay for it. So that is actually very good news to me. Thanks.

You insist? Heck, I leave the country and return several times per week. Maybe pass it on to the CBP, OK?

Perhaps during your weekly trips, you should stop by countries that you would call socialist, that ironically have a GDP per capita close to double the United States. Then come tell me how much socialism sucks.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Heracles

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Filibustering obstructionism is what is keeping us from moving forward towards energy independence in this country.

YeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Expect more of the same in the future!

[Heracles 417]

Ouch.

I have a friend with an eastern blocker himself and he states the same ####### as a certain poster. Basis his views on what his spouse says. Assumes an eastern Block ex soviet country, is the same as Norway; a country with the highest standard of living in the world, even higher than AUS... Any country that high freagin commands respect.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Perhaps during your weekly trips, you should stop by countries that you would call socialist, that ironically have a GDP per capita close to double the United States. Then come tell me how much socialism sucks.

Perhaps I will. Does Canada count?

How about you post that article about all the Canadians NOT coming to Vermont for medical care like you said you would.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Off topic, where have you been abroad? Because clearly your perceptions of other countries and socialism, do not reflect realty. It seems you base a hell of a lot of your ideas of socialism and the first world on countries like the Ukraine. You realize Mexico's GDP per Capita is close to 3.5 times that of the Ukraine.

Did I state any perceptions of other countries and their GDP somewhere? Where? Did I say somewhere that Ukraine has a good GDP or a good government? Where?

YOU said YOU insist I "stay here" I said I leave the country and return several times each week (I have been out of the country and returned today as a matter of fact, I left at 11 am and returned at 1:30 from an international trip)

where did I say anything about GDP, socialism, yada, yada.

Why is it necessary for you to INVENT something I said in order to argue?

YOU said you were going to post an article that showed Canadians do not come to the US for medical treatment but you bever did. Do you EVER do anything you say? Or do you just invent things other people "said" and then argue with that?

I have a friend with an eastern blocker himself and he states the same ####### as a certain poster. Basis his views on what his spouse says. Assumes an eastern Block ex soviet country, is the same as Norway; a country with the highest standard of living in the world, even higher than AUS... Any country that high freagin commands respect.

Are all your friends idiots or just that guy? Please state the specific "same #######" and the specific poster or you are just blowing more smoke again. Include copies or links of the specific posters posts that are the "same #######" as the idiot friend.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[Heracles 417]

Perhaps I will. Does Canada count?

How about you post that article about all the Canadians NOT coming to Vermont for medical care like you said you would.

I am surprised you are off to Canada, as I thought they're socialist and poor. Strange to then turn around and conduct business with these same folks.

Are all your friends idiots or just that guy? Please state the specific "same #######" and the specific poster or you are just blowing more smoke again. Include copies or links of the specific posters posts that are the "same #######" as the idiot friend.

Gary you're like every Liberteapartian. One out of ten views are spot on, yet the other nine are just anti-government / stone age silliness.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am surprised you are off to Canada, as I thought they're socialist and poor. Strange to then turn around and conduct business with these same folks.

Gary you're like every Liberteapartian. One out of ten views are spot on, yet the other nine are just anti-government / stone age silliness.

Do you do all your thinking by assumption? Do business? I had a smoked meat sandwich at an awesome deli with chips and a pickle for $5.99 (Canadian) and visited with a friend over lunch, picked up some of Alla's favorite face cream at her favorite "Kozmetika" then drove back home. Socialists make damn good smoked meat sandwiches.."viande feu" we call it in Quebec. That's French. Holy #######, I speak French! Like a lot of libertarians I know. Canada's standard of living seems pretty good, maybe even higher than Australia. Great viande feu anyway!

You are like every liberal, make stuff up and argue it. Say you will do something...then don't. I am looking forward to the article, maybe you will post it today.

Anyway, all that aside... it makes no difference. Global Warming has hit the wall in the US as far as funding goes. Deal with it. Or not. I don't care.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Are you implying Rush Limbaugh, a radio talk show host, is in the league of some of those?

Some of the brainiacs on the list were from a totally different era. Certainly not some 2010 middle-American, truck driving, gun clinging, blue-collar republican equivalent.

I was making the point that to disregard or look down your nose at someone with your only stated reason being they're a drop-out is ignorant (not a personal attack really). You have other reasons to dump on Rush (I personally don't care for him) so use them.

Why does it matter what era they were from, they impacted the future in ways many highly educated people of today never will.

I guess my main point is that intelligence and ability are better measured by the totality of a person's life than by the diplomas they may have earned along the way.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Bob 4 Anna

[lostinblue 1,989]

There have been tax breaks and subsidies offered for greener technologies and guess who opposed them? The same obstructionists who tell us that cutting subsidies to corn and military defense contracts will cost jobs. The larger, more obvious point is that government policies can and do effect the economy. The battle is over which policies - ones that promote energy independence or the status quo? Guess who's for the status quo? You and the rest of the cynical denialists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/248797/shocker-billions-corn-ethanol-subsidies-havent-cut-oil-imports-greg-pollowitz

Despite Billions in Subsidies, Corn Ethanol Has Not Cut U.S. Oil Imports

In the next few weeks, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to rule on a proposal to increase from 10 percent to 15 percent the amount of ethanol that may be blended into gasoline. If the EPA approves the move, the U.S. motor-fuel market would yet again become the victim of misguided federal intervention.

Since the 1970s, Congress has justified subsidies to the corn ethanol industry with the oft-repeated claim that boosting domestic production of ethanol will increase America’s energy security by reducing U.S. oil imports.

That claim has no basis in fact.

Between 1999 and 2009, U.S. ethanol production increased seven-fold, to more than 700,000 barrels per day (bbl/d). During that period, however, oil imports increased by more than 800,000 bbl/d. (In addition, U.S. oil exports — yes, exports — more than doubled, to about 2 million bbl/d.) Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that oil imports closely track domestic oil consumption. Over the past decade, as oil demand grew, so did imports. When consumption fell, imports did as well. Ethanol production levels had no apparent effect on the volume of oil imports or on consumption.

So despite more than three decades of subsidies costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, the ethanol industry cannot point to any decline in oil imports during the period when it experienced its most rapid growth. And yet:

Tax subsidies provided to corn ethanol producers have been larger than those given to producers of any other form of renewable energy.

Corn ethanol subsidies are now costing U.S. taxpayers about $7 billion per year, the Congressional Budget Office reported in July. The CBO found that producing enough corn ethanol to match the energy contained in a single gallon of conventional gasoline costs taxpayers $1.78.

Corn ethanol is a financially inefficient method of cutting carbon dioxide emissions, costing taxpayers $754 per metric ton of CO2 avoided, the Congressional Budget Office also reported.

The possibility that the EPA will mandate an increase in the ethanol content of fuel has drawn heavy opposition from numerous environmental and industry groups. In August, thirty-nine of them — ranging from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to the Natural Resources Defense Council — asked Congress to hold hearings on the matter.

The rest here.

Will Media Remember Gore's 1994 Tie-breaking Vote Mandating Ethanol?

By Noel Sheppard | April 22, 2008 | 18:57

As the international disaster of ethanol begins taking its toll on the planet -- and, maybe more important, as press outlet after press outlet finally begins recognizing it -- will media remember that Vice President Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate requiring this oxygenate be added to gasoline?

After all, regardless of recent reports blaming ethanol for world hunger problems, rising food costs, and increased greenhouse gases, it seems highly unlikely green media will want to tie any of these problems to Nobel Laureate Gore.

Yet, as inconveniently reported by States News Service on August 3, 1994 (no link available, emphasis added throughout):

In a move that enraged midwestern senators, Louisiana Democratic Sen. Bennett Johnston tried Wednesday to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from mandating the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline. The Senate narrowly killed the measure, voting to table it by a margin of 51 to 50. With the vote tied, Vice President Al Gore had to come in and cast the deciding vote. [...]

"This is really a gigantic flim flam to the American public," Johnston said. [...]

Under the Clean Air Act, the nation's nine smoggiest cities must begin reducing auto emissions by using a cleaner-burning fuel known as reformulated gasoline in January. Reformulated gasoline contains more oxygen than regular fuel.

Until the EPA announced its decision last month, oil refiners had a choice of boosting oxygen in reformulated gasoline with either ethanol or MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), a petroleum derivative. MTBE is made from natural gas. The nation's major oil companies have natural gas facilities, many of which are overseas. [...]

During the four-hour debate, opponents of the ethanol mandate said the measure contains hidden costs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the policy would cost the government $249 million during the next five years. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has predicted the ethanol rule would drain $545 million from the national highway trust fund each year.

"It's highway robbery," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. "It's nothing less."

Besides Gore, take a look at who else was DEAD wrong on this issue:

[Democratic Illinois Sen. Paul] Simon added that the ethanol mandate would not increase costs for consumers.

"The price of corn flakes isn't going to go up by one penny," he said. "Don't think you're helping consumers by voting for the amendment by my friend from Louisiana."

I beg to differ, Senator. As my colleague Paul Detrick reported on April 4 (emphasis added):

You're going to need a few extra bucks to pay for those corn flakes every morning.

CNN's senior business correspondent Ali Velshi let viewers in on an underreported fact about rising commodities prices: the government mandate for ethanol production is making corn and other agricultural products more expensive-making inflation a top priority for Americans.

"Several years ago, we made some decisions about how corn is going to be used to make ethanol, which is added to our gasoline," said Velshi on "American Morning" April 4. "A number of people think that that was meant to reduce our dependency on crude oil. What is does is it takes what is fundamentally a food source and makes it into a gasoline source. That's caused corn to go up."

He went on to explain that in the recent food commodities surge, which includes products like wheat, soybeans and rice, corn has gone up to $6 a bushel-making everything from animal feed to cereal more expensive.

Nice call, Sen. Simon!

For those interested, here's how the New York Times reported the news (emphasis added):

With a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Al Gore, the Senate upheld today an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring that ethanol and other renewable fuels get a share of the gasoline additives market.

The Senate voted 51-50 to table an amendment that would have denied financing to the agency to carry out a rule guaranteeing renewable fuels a 15 percent share of the lucrative fuel oxygenate market in 1995. That share rises to 30 percent in following years.

Under the Clean Air Act, oxygenates, which make fuel burn more cleanly, are to be added to gasoline in the nation's smoggiest areas.

Tabling the amendment, offered by Democratic Senators Bennett J. Johnston of Louisiana and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, in effect kills it and clears the way for E.P.A. to carry out its program.

All, in the end, thanks to Nobel Laureate Al Gore.

Of course, as the ethanol crisis widens, I'm sure media will be reminding the electorate of this pivotal vote fourteen years ago...not!