59 comments

  1. Chris says:

    So, um, are you new around there, or did you crawl out from behind a rock to begin FP posting again?

  2. Doug Deal says:

    Newt is like a teenager who wants to be in the “popular” clique. A policy idea doesn’t have to be good or make sense, it just has o be new and the popular people have to adopt it, then he becomes it’s biggest supporter.

    Stick to history, Newt.

  3. Gag Halfrunt says:

    Newt is to Democrats what Zell is to Republicans. The difference is that Democrats are smart enough to reject Newt.

    Usually.

  4. StevePerkins says:

    Yes, yes… climate change is a myth… as is evolution. The earth is only 5,000 years old, and more of you would understand all this stuff if only the ACLU hadn’t kicked God out of school and banned Christmas.

    Good grief. Not even the oil companies and the Bush administration argue with the science on this anymore. At this point, the only serious debate is whether to act more aggressively or less aggressively.

    Most of you guys who post crap like this don’t know or care one whit about facts or climate. All you know is that you don’t like left-wingers, and so anything that left-wingers rally behind must be opposed. All due respect, but that’s retarded… just pure outright ignorance, and Exhibit A in why I’m not a fan of the political party system.

  5. bird says:

    I 2d Steve’s points re: Global warming. Even ExxonMobile’s president has acknowledged that man-made carbon emissions are causing an increased warming of the Earth’s temperature that needs to be remedied.

    And to your point about the economy, that’s where some wingnuts are really missing the big picture. America is the best positioned to design and manufacture green technologies and export them to the world. We’re already the leader! The more other countries go green, the better America does.

    Many industrialized countries already import green technologies from the States. As we encourage manufacturing countries to adopt green technologies, we win, because Mexico, etc., has to get the tech from us.

    And pretty soon China will blow by the US to be the number one greenhouse gas emitter. It is in our interest to reign in China’s pollution. We already have the know how and resources to reduce our carbon emissions without taking a major hit to our economy. China doesn’t. We should join the international community on this and put China in a corner and ask that China makes sacrifices.

  6. rugby fan says:

    Looking at their website it appears as if they are trying to use the private sector to help with climate change, namely creating more jobs.

    The only reason one would say Newt is trying to “cripple the economy” is if you were ignoring facts, or relying on conservative boogeymen.

    Your pick Rogue.

  7. Rogue109 says:

    Even ExxonMobile’s president has acknowledged that man-made carbon emissions are causing an increased warming of the Earth’s temperature that needs to be remedied.

    So what? He’s the final word? And you believe him on this but DON’T believe him when he says that there is no price gouging going on?

    Is climate change happening? Sure! Is man causing it? That question is still far from answered!

  8. drjay says:

    obviously the global climate changes–we have had ice ages that last centuries and heat waves that last weeks and everything in between–the debate is whether man’s activity has any demonstrable or signifigant effect on it — and i have seen little to say w/ any degree of reliability that we do or don’t –clearly we should be good stewards of our planet — but the sun continues to be the main object of “climate control” for our planet–in fact my son has a book that says it will eventually go supernova (get real big) and swallow up half the planets in our solar system and no amt. of carbon credits will prevent that — there is a very faulty logic in trying to assign cause to decades long data collection to a system that develops over millennia–esp. when there are conflicting views over the interpretation of said data–in the 70’s it was “global cooling” that was going to do us in just recently the founder of the weather channel-who i admit to knowing nothing about but assume he is at least somewhat well versed on weather went on record basically calling the whole global warming scare a bunch of hooey–he jury is still out on this and clearly a solution (like kyoto)that hamstrings us while allowing “developing countries” like china and india to pollute until the cows come home is not even close to being a good policy choice…

  9. Rogue109 says:

    The only reason one would say Newt is trying to “cripple the economy” is if you were ignoring facts, or relying on conservative boogeymen.

    “The only reason,” eh? Don’t be so close-minded (grin)!

    To keep the conversation going, what facts am I ignoring?

  10. John Konop says:

    Investment in technology creates jobs. All countries are thirsty for solutions. We face a shortage in resources from clean air, enrgy, water…..

    The largest new car market is China and Europe and Japan are light years ahead of us on clean efficient technology.

    This is new frontier that America must embrace or we will once again be a slave to others like Middle East oil.

    It is clear oil companies and lobbyist have been driving policy at the expense of tax payers.

    The bio-fuel scam demonstrates how irrational policy would be put in place via lobbyist while tax payers get killed.

  11. Doug Deal says:

    Steve,

    Unlike you, I actually studied the very science in question, heat transfer, as a chemical engineer. Oh! But wait, I forgot. You first year law students are unquestioned experts on everything, so the rest of us should demure to your judgment.

    Did you know that the raw data for the Hadley Centre plot that is the most widely used reference on global atmospheric data is SECRET? The only data that t hey make available is the normalized data, filled with their own conclusions and speculations.

    The GISS data is more completely published, but the temperature data that their record is composed of is the “normalized” data. How do they “normalize it”. They tinker with numbers that they think were historically too high or low to get what they think is correct. In other words, they backfit the data to give data to support their pre-drawn conclusions.

    This does not mean that man is not influencing the climate. We definitely are in some way and to some degree. The problem is that we do not know with any certainty whether it is a significant amount compared to natural variation and whether it will actually be harmful in the long run.

    Super expensive public policy decisions should not be made on pure conjecture.

  12. John Konop says:

    FYI

    The Science of Global Warming

    Overview
    Consensus Versus Certainty in a Complex World
    What We Do Know about Climate Change
    Why the Climate Changes: Emissions of Heat-Trapping Gases and Aerosols
    Each Country’s Share of Global CO2 Emissions
    Has the Climate Changed Already?
    Future Projections of Climate Change
    The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Consensus in the IPCC — What Does It Mean?
    The Need for More Research and Clarification
    Sound Science for Public Policy and Decision-Making
    As a result of an enormous scientific effort over the past 10-15 years to better understand the climate system and its relationship to human activities, there now is a growing consensus among mainstream scientists about the reality of global warming. As Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in 2001,

    ” The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable.”

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html

  13. SpaceyG says:

    Oh yeah, one more thing… “cripple” the economy? Hahahahahah. The green movement is helping to create more new jobs than even the WPA ever did. There’s big bucks to be made in green stuff. Better get on the bandwagon, Rogue. Hon.

  14. ChuckEaton says:

    Dr. Jay-

    Great points. Climate change has been going on for a very long time. We’ve had ice ages, mini ice ages, and medieval warming periods.

  15. Progressive Dem says:

    The problem conservatives and libertarians have with climate change is that the solution is largely outside the private sector. Libertarians and many conservatives believe the free market is the solution to every problem, and government regulation is the source of most problems.

    Unfortunately it is the free market that has brought us to this point, and the free market has not curbed the problem. To admit that global warming exists or is caused by human activity will require conservatives and libertarians to recognize the need for government regulation and government action. This admission would show a fundmental flaw in their political philosophy. Conservatives and libertarians are in denial and locked in a political straightjacket.

    Newt is a pragmatist. He recognizes the scientific evidence and its impact upon public opinion. He is smart enough to see that conservatives are destroying their credibility with the vast numbers of younger Americans who are much more concerned about the environment then their parents and grandparents.

  16. John Konop says:

    FYI

    global warming solutions

    We have the technology and ingenuity to reduce the threat of global warming today. Solutions are already available that will stimulate the American economy by creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security. By investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and increasing the efficiency of the cars we drive, we can take essential steps toward reducing our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels that cause global warming.

    Using energy more efficiently and moving to renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, and bioenergy) would significantly reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases. The United States currently produces 70 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil, but only two percent from renewable sources. Since the burning of fossil fuels releases large amounts of carbon dioxide—the leading cause of global warming—but renewable energy does not, increasing the share of our electricity generated from renewable resources is one of the most effective ways to reduce global warming emissions.

    Cars and trucks are another significant source (25 percent) of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. A serious effort to address global warming must therefore reduce emissions from cars and trucks. Many technologies already exist that can do this, while also creating new jobs in the U.S. automotive sector and other industries throughout the country. In addition, American consumers would save billions of dollars on gasoline, and we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

    By putting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and vehicle technology solutions in place at the federal level, we can reduce our contribution to global warming while creating a stronger, healthier, and more secure nation.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/

  17. StevePerkins says:

    The head of ExxonMobile is on record as saying that man-made carbon emissions are causing an increased warming of the Earth’s temperature that needs to be remedied. However, because liberals say that he lies about price-gouging, that means he must be lying about this too.

    I know that the former “lie” is in his best interests, whereas the latter “lie” runs completely counter to his best interests. However, don’t worry about it… Intelligent Design explains the discrepancy.

    You hardcore diehards still clinging to this do so ONLY because you are knee-jerk opposed to the leftists on the other side of the coin. If liberals were skeptical about climate change, you would rally around it like gospel. I note that the first impulse out of Doug’s mouth was to note that I’m currently in law school (lawyers are liberal!)… despite the fact that we both have science degrees.

  18. Doug Deal says:

    Steve,

    Yes, I did go to the law student well, but you have to admit that the stereotype generally fits.

    As for lawyers being liberal, I disagree with that statement, and have never made such a claim. My wife, Clarence Thomas, Scalia and Erick Erickson are lawyers, none of them could be classified as liberal.

    I spend a great deal of time researching claims about global warming. I do this because I am actually open minded about the issue, instead of people who just want to look at the political affiliation of people on either side and make their choice based on who they like better.

    I personally want to look at the evidence and in a sense “peer review” the data. I want to understand the scale of mans influence on the climate (there is no question there is SOME effect, but how much and what kind?).

    Just because man changes the environment, does not make it evil and does not mean it needs to stop. Building a house changes the environment. Building farms, building roads and even building a solar electric generation station does as well. Change on its own is not disaster, or we should all be living in caves, picking berries and grubs and limiting out number to about 10 million people. Is this what environmental extremists want?

    Carbon dioxide is clearly rising at a predictable rate. It is, however, far below its historic mean, and temperatures are actually on the cool side as the history of the planet goes (just not on recent scales).

    How much did the pollution controls instituted since the 70’s contribute to the current apparent rise in temperature? How much do the fudge factors used by climate researchers to “normalize” temperature data contribute? Why is the southern hemisphere showing a relatively flat temperature anomaly (going negative on some reports) while the northern hemisphere is showing an increase, if it is all about CO2 levels?

    Look at two of the more respected temperature records (top one ground, bottom one satellite) and find the month of March. UAH has the Satellite with the world at +0.1 C above average, with the Southern Hemisphere at -0.24C and the Northern at +0.43C. Hadley has the world at +0.43, with the southern hemisphere at +0.14 and the Northern Hemisphere at +0.72.

    Hadley Centre
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

    Satellite data
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    So, which is it? They disagree by an amount equal to the reported anomaly. So, is any anomaly reported just within the “margin for error”?

    I could go on for hours about uncertainties, but it would do nothing more than bore most PP readers.

  19. Doug Deal says:

    My comment was cached because of the use of links (I am guessing) so here it is without the links.

    Steve,

    Yes, I did go to the law student well, but you have to admit that the stereotype generally fits.

    As for lawyers being liberal, I disagree with that statement, and have never made such a claim. My wife, Clarence Thomas, Scalia and Erick Erickson are lawyers, none of them could be classified as liberal.

    I spend a great deal of time researching claims about global warming. I do this because I am actually open minded about the issue, instead of people who just want to look at the political affiliation of people on either side and make their choice based on who they like better.

    I personally want to look at the evidence and in a sense “peer review” the data. I want to understand the scale of mans influence on the climate (there is no question there is SOME effect, but how much and what kind?).

    Just because man changes the environment, does not make it evil and does not mean it needs to stop. Building a house changes the environment. Building farms, building roads and even building a solar electric generation station does as well. Change on its own is not disaster, or we should all be living in caves, picking berries and grubs and limiting out number to about 10 million people. Is this what environmental extremists want?

    Carbon dioxide is clearly rising at a predictable rate. It is, however, far below its historic mean, and temperatures are actually on the cool side as the history of the planet goes (just not on recent scales).

    How much did the pollution controls instituted since the 70’s contribute to the current apparent rise in temperature? How much do the fudge factors used by climate researchers to “normalize” temperature data contribute? Why is the southern hemisphere showing a relatively flat temperature anomaly (going negative on some reports) while the northern hemisphere is showing an increase, if it is all about CO2 levels?

    Look at two of the more respected temperature records (top one ground, bottom one satellite) and find the month of March. UAH has the Satellite with the world at +0.1 C above average, with the Southern Hemisphere at -0.24C and the Northern at +0.43C. Hadley has the world at +0.43, with the southern hemisphere at +0.14 and the Northern Hemisphere at +0.72.

    So, which is it? They disagree by an amount equal to the reported anomaly. So, is any anomaly reported just within the “margin for error”?

    I could go on for hours about uncertainties, but it would do nothing more than bore most PP readers.

  20. Doug Deal says:

    John,

    “Renewable” energy has its problems, which people seem to gloss over.

    About 1.3 KW of solar energy per m^2 (~10 ft^2) reach the upper atmosphere, of which a maximum of about 1 KW reaches the surface at the equator on a crystal clear day at high noon.

    As a general average, accounting for weather, and seasonal changes, about 6kWh strike every m^ of the surface each day over most of the US. With 20% efficient solar panels, that means that this 10 ft^2 area will produce 1.2 kWh of energy on average each day, or about 400 kWh a year.

    The USA uses 4 trillion kWh per year, so that means a total of 10 billion of these 10 ft^2 areas, or 100 billion ft^2. That is 3,500 square miles of nothing but solar panels. Or to visualize it further, the states of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. This is to design for the AVERAGE consumption, not worst case. This will be ridiculously expensive to build and maintain, and you still have to have conventional power generation as a back-up for those storms of the century.

    Wind power is also expensive to build and maintain. Those mW wind mills are 300 feet high. It would take 1,000 of them to equal one nuke plant, and since wind power is unreliable, you still have to have conventional power to serve as a backup when one of your crew mates shoots an albatross.

  21. John Konop says:

    Doug Deal

    I do think clean energy saving products is a great investment. Yet we do have to careful with scams like bio-fuels and carbon trading.

    I have look at a placing my own money in a view different concepts. Yet as country we are falling behind the world.

    I think of this issue in terms of national security via safety and our economy.

  22. Doug Deal says:

    John,

    If liberals would not have demonized nuclear power, we would not be discussing this now.

    Nuclear power is as much of a renewable resource as solar, wind, geo-thermal or wave power, as the supply of uranium and thorium in the earth’s crust is enough to last humanity longer than the sun is expected life span, which is the source of wind, solar and wave power.

    Geo-thermal is actually a form of nuclear power, as that is where the “hot spots” get their energy.

  23. John Konop says:

    Doug

    You are right about nuclear power. Under the right safety controls which we had, we should have been investing in it years ago. But the agenda has cut both ways with to much influence from lobbyist funding campaigns from all sides. One only needs to read the last energy bill to see no lobbyist was left behind via tax payer’s expense.

  24. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Either way you look at the climate crisis…we can on long afford to make decisions for next quarter. We need to make decisions for the next quarter-century.

    Stability is inevitably where we need to head. Agreements need to be made. The GOP needs to agree to stop borrowing and spending so that the Dems can stop taxing and spending. America can no longer survive if we keep voting for demagogues. Making english the official language or trying to make abortion illegal does not solve healthcare reform or the water problems we are having in the South.
    Saving the last 5 spotted owls or wearing an American Flag lapel pin does not solve the war on terror or provide our children a better education.

    Stop falling for partisan garbage. All of you. Big deal if Obama does not wear a lapel pin, big deal if McCain actually has an illegitimate child, big deal if Clinton had an affair, big deal if Hillary…well she has done nothing of positive consequence,…regardless…big deal if Hannity hates Clinton.

    Hyperpartisanship must end.

  25. Rogue109 says:

    Big deal if Obama does not wear a lapel pin[…]

    You’re right. It’s no big deal.

    That he is friendly and associates with a domestic terrorist? Again, no big deal.

    That his pastor for 20 years is a bigot and believes that the U.S. deserved 9/11? Yup, no big deal.

    That his wife is only now proud of the United States? Yessiree, no big deal.

    That he doesn’t understand the basic principles of economics and would increase capital gains taxes? Already way ahead of you: no big deal.

    That he claims to not take money from oil companies even though such practice is already illegal? Trust me, my friend, it’s no big deal.

    This really is easy! It’s all no big deal if the President of the United States hangs with terrorists, has a bigoted wife and pastor and has no understanding of economics! Sweet!

    These are the issues that help shape understanding of the background and belief system of the candidate. It IS a big deal for all three and should be explored as such.

  26. Rogue109 says:

    From National Review Online:

    Chomping down on sausage and waffles at Glider’s Diner today with Sen. Bob Casey at his side, Barack Obama declined, in a sense, to comment on Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas.

    Asked if he had heard that Carter reported a positive outcome from the meeting, Obama looked at the reporter who questioned him and said, “Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”

    Asked again by the reporter, Obama bit. Not at the question but into a butter-covered bite of Glider’s specialty over-size Belgian waffles. With a wink this time he said, “Just let me eat my waffle.”

    Indeed, it’s clearly NO BIG DEAL that he won’t answer a question about a former President meeting with terrorists!

    This is the kind of partisanship that Steve, John and Goldwater Conservative want to avoid! Why should we care what a Presidential candidate thinks about such minor issues as terrorists meeting with former Presidents from that candidates very own party.

    We all should grow up and embrace Obama slogans like, “we are the ones we have been waiting for.” Indeed we are, my friends, indeed we are.

  27. AubieTurtle says:

    Rouge, you’re the most fun around here since GOPeach. Keep the anger and increased site traffic coming! With this level of free entertainment, I might just cancel my cable subscription… well at least until college football season.

  28. Rogue109 says:

    Rugby and Aubie:

    No anger here! Because there are no boogeymen regarding Obama! Why is that? Because we shouldn’t care. Okay, I don’t care, then! It is actually quite liberating to know that no matter WHAT comes out regarding Obama, Clinton or McCain…it doesn’t matter! That’s old school, peeps! Let’s get hip (grin)!

    Let’s get to solving our nations problems. Of course, don’t attack any of the plans because that, also, doesn’t matter. In fact, with moral relativism…NOTHING matters. Pass the bong, SpaceyG!

  29. John Konop says:

    Rogue109

    I could write a long list why I do not like any of the choices. Goldwater point is we must get the topic on solutions not the gut issue of the day. I did not take his post as an endorsement of Obama but a warning of sticking to real issues or we will get more of the same.

  30. rugby fan says:

    Shall we dissect Rogue?

    That he is friendly and associates with a domestic terrorist? Again, no big deal

    No it is not a big deal to have a tenuous relationship to someone. Shall we look at who might be associated with President Bush as well? At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter.

    That his pastor for 20 years is a bigot and believes that the U.S. deserved 9/11? Yup, no big deal.

    Well it doesn’t appear to be in line with Obama’s philosophies and he has denounced those comments so no, not a big deal.

    That his wife is only now proud of the United States? Yessiree, no big deal.

    Not a big deal. In America people can hold opinions on whatever they want. That freedom of thought is what defines America.

    That he doesn’t understand the basic principles of economics and would increase capital gains taxes? Already way ahead of you: no big deal.

    So you disagree with his political beliefs so that means he doesn’t understand basic economics. Still not a big deal.

    That he claims to not take money from oil companies even though such practice is already illegal? Trust me, my friend, it’s no big deal.

    Still not a big deal he is following the law. Didn’t know that was a crime.

    Indeed, it’s clearly NO BIG DEAL that he won’t answer a question about a former President meeting with terrorists!

    No it is not. Who cares what a private citizen does? He was not on any official mission and any attempt to bring peace to that region is laudable.

    Try again Rogue.

  31. Rogue109 says:

    Rugby:

    You are spot on! There is nothing to comment on regarding ANY of the candidates! Why? Because it is all relative and, of course, perception is reality.

    I look forward to no comments from you regarding the two final candidates for POTUS and will scorn anyone who has any comments because relativism has no boundries. Don’t judge the plans of either candidate because you won’t have anything better!

    (Actually, this is rather fun not caring about the background, philosophy and belief system of the candidates!)

  32. Rogue109 says:

    And I’m waiting for you guys to move on. We can’t allow our political dialogue to be burdened with issues such as who a President associates with. We need to tackle the hard issues without actually asking any questions (grin)!

    Steve Perkins, please: stop the hate!

  33. rugby fan says:

    No Rogue; he has tenuous (meaning not strong) links to someone who 40 years ago was a “domestic terrorist”, has denounced offensive comments that had no bearing on him, respects Americans rights to have free thought and obeys the law.

    But that is all relative because it goes against your beliefs.

  34. Rogue109 says:

    Rugby:

    Please, leave the petty differences at the door. We are about the future. We are the ones we have been waiting for. This is the most important election in our lifetime. It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get to where we are today, but we have just begun. Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today.

    We need to steer clear of this poverty of ambition, where people want to drive fancy cars and wear nice clothes and live in nice apartments but don’t want to work hard to accomplish these things. Everyone should try to realize their full potential.

    The true test of the American ideal is whether we’re able to recognize our failings and then rise together to meet the challenges of our time. Whether we allow ourselves to be shaped by events and history, or whether we act to shape them. Whether chance of birth or circumstance decides life’s big winners and losers, or whether we build a community where, at the very least, everyone has a chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams.

    In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?

    I vote for hope.

  35. Rogue109 says:

    And, yet, you ridicule the politics of hope. Rugby, please open your mind to an environment of political thought where you do not ridicule the messenger but, instead, embrace the message.

    That is the world we live in: one where cynicism rules. You are part of the Old World, my friend.

    The time has come for a new philosophy where hope and life rule. Where optimism is supreme. Do not discount my belief system merely because they are the words of another. That is the politics of the Old World where people utilized logic and reason to make arguments based in fact. We ARE the ones we have been waiting for.

    The tide is turning; the wind’s direction is changing. Fair winds and following seas to those like me who embrace this change. I pity you that you are not able to adapt. One day you will accept the change. Pity you that it is not today.

  36. dorian says:

    Can three of you people stop driving cars for the next year or so? I need a few people to offset the carbon whatchadoozit of my new SUV. You’ll be helping save the planet folks. C’mon. Think of the children.

  37. Rogue109 says:

    Dorian:

    You are right. We must think of the children. That is why I will reject any criticism from Rugby. Why? Because he refuses to focus on “The Issues.”

    We must correct climate change, which was formerly known as global warming and, of course, which was formerly known in the 70’s as global cooling. Whatever is going on, we have now arrived at this time and this place to meet the challenges of our generation. We will chart a new course.

    Those who disagree are to be damned because I am part of the future, not the past.

  38. Rogue109 says:

    “Whiffs” are irrelevant. Independent thought is irrelevant. Asking any questions is irrelevant.

    Barack Obama will proceed to Sector 001 where he will immediately…[transmission breakup].

  39. dorian says:

    Is it any wonder that the hole in the ozone is at the artic? Hmmmmm? What’s at the artic? Penguins! Scientific research has shown that penguins are composed of 98.5% greenhouse gasses. I propose an immediate ban of penguins in single family homes. We need the government to step in and save us from the imminent threat of penguin annihilation.

    Also, what about cow farts? What about moose burps? We need to put a plug in anything that passes methane gas! The government needs to step in and start handing out butt plugs. They ought to be mandatory in anything over 200 lbs!

  40. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Rogue…shut your lips and learn.

    It is thinking like yours that has put this nation in peril.

    Only the Sith deal in absolutes!

Comments are closed.