Comments for Media Ignore EPA Suppressing Skeptical Global Warming Report »
Posted By pc25 5 months, 4 weeks ago in NewsThe day before the House was to vote on a controversial energy bill destined to be the largest tax hike in American history, it was revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency had suppressed an internal report challenging the entire global warming myth.
Despite the importance of this study, and how it related to a debate about to ensue on the House floor, its existence and suppression went almost completely ignored by America's media.
This, of course, comes in stark contrast to regular and frequent news reports in previous years accusing the Bush White House of intentionally censoring the science of climate change.
Read Full Story at newsbusters.org »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 93
-
75%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/p...
Reply
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
as they always say follow the money.....it's the Dems and their Cap and Tax policy. Carbon Credits, Al Gore, GE......-
100%
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is as much a non-story as it was yesterday. The authors of the report were acting outside their official capacities within the EPA. Carlin is an economist and Davidson has scant climatology credentials. The report was unsolicited, yet still reviewed by EPA supervisors. Carlin was allowed to present his opinions at panel discussions and conferences and allowed to invite those who concurred to said conferences.
Reply
The paper is rife with problems. First, there are no direct cites of peer-reviewed data and most of the data is cherry-picked, misinterpreted, or out of context. The 'study' is largely an amalgam of global warming denier 'arguments' that have been circulating around the web for the past few years. Second, the report can't even seem to decide its own opinion. Early in the paper, Carlin says the globe is actually cooling. Later he states the warming is a result of natural solar and ocean cycles.
Did the media ignore this report? Sure they did, and why not? Two EPA staffers working outside their area of expertise have no reason to expect otherwise.-
0%
pc255 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is as much a non-story as it was yesterday.
Reply
a report that calls into question the effects of co2 and it's impact on global warming the week the congreww is set to vote on the largest energy tax ever and its a non story.....get your head out of your rear end......-
100%
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did you not even read my post?
Reply
The report itself is a sham.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evid...
-
-
-
-
71%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/30/the-obama-adm...
Reply
The Obama Administration's War on Science
The Bush administration is at it again. It is suppressing scientific views that run contrary to the administration's line.
NO, WAIT! It's the Obama administration that is conducting a war on science. It appears that the EPA has suppressed a report solely because it contradicted the president's belief in imminent catastrophe due to global warming.
Reports Declan McCullagh for CBS News:
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."-
-
100%
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, I'm a 'staffer' at my company. Graphic designer, but I took Economics 101 in college. Does that mean I can present a paper to the Board of Directors critical of their business methods, market analysis, and development strategy and expect them to take it seriously?
Reply
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evid...-
Neutral
pc255 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yeah you sure can if its a small company and run by schmucks............meanwhile CBS is not telling anyobe how to run anything, they are pointing out a simple fact.
Reply
EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
-
-
-
80%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?...
Reply
US Lawmakers Demand Probe Into Claims EPA Suppressed CO2 Study
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Republican lawmakers are demanding an investigation into claims that the Environmental Protection Agency suppressed a staff-prepared study that argues against the agency's proposal that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health. -
85%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans who helped pass "cap and trade" benefitted from environmental donations
Reply
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/be...-
-
-
75%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
cap and trade ...........the ones who are going to make the money are al gore, ge and the rest of the carbon credit trading scum......it will not reduce emissions by 2020 and it will drive up energy costs dramatically
Reply
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDc3OWI1NjJjY...-
67%
nostalgia5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I posted on another story about this, even IPCC knows it's a sham
Reply
By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature “savings” of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years’ worth of warming. By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey. Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of 2.959ºC rise— a mere 0.112ºC temperature “savings.” Under the IPCC’s high-emissions scenario, instead of a projected rise of 4.414ºC, Waxman-Markey limits the rise to 4.219ºC—a “savings” of 0.195ºC. In either case, this works out to about 5 years’ worth of warming. In other words, a full implementation and adherence to the emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect.
The total increase in China’s emissions since the year 2000 is 50 percent greater than the total increase from rest of the world combined and is growing by leaps and bounds. And consider that India carbon dioxide emissions haven’t started to dramatically increase yet. But it is poised to do so, and an Indian official recently stated that “It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce [carbon dioxide emissions] when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity.”
Without a large reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions from both China and India—not just a commitment but an actual reduction—there will be nothing climatologically gained from any restrictions on U.S. emissions, regardless whether they come about from the Waxman-Markey bill (or other cap-and-trade proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulations
http://masterresource.org/?p=2355.
-
-
100%
BB645 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Icono, are you talking about the special interest groups asking for tax money all of the time? Be it the twigs and berries crowd, light rail, welfare warriors or whomever. That's how it works in DC right now.
Reply
Talking contributions, this would also explain why the UAW who actually helped cause the failings of GM were given the company. The UAW funneled over $13,000,000 to the Obama campaign. Are you sure you want to talk about campaigns and money?
As to my contributions, I do help out those who support my beliefs. Don't you?-
Neutral
icono15 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64
Reply
to paragraph 1; yes.
to paragraph 2 part a; definitely
to paragraph 2 part b; yes talk about it. re the more info provided the more people will become aware of the influence of these special interest groups that use the leverage of large sums of money to sway votes and have 'laws' written in their favor.
to paragraph 3; yes,,,,, yet my contribution can in no way equal the input of large special interest groups to the till. All I have is my annoying way of writing about what appears to me to be, 'the obvious', which often gets me in more trouble with the DC 'current political in crowd' than it is sometimes worth except it is often interesting, and I admit enjoyable, to see how they, politicians, explain away those actions and results with rhetoric that lends itself to obfuscation instead of simplicity and clarity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned6 Replies
-
-
-
-
83%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24363.ht...
Reply -
-
-
82%
icono15 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In totalitarian govts the news is used to control the 'opinion' of the people by only allowing stories that suits or meets the controlling political party.
Reply
Such is the case here; with the suppression of a dissenting opinion, or opinions, that would most likely go contrary to what the govt wants to accomplish, which in this case is passage of the 'Cap and Trade Bill', the road to a quick and overwhelming 'consensus' is devoid of 'argumentative road blocks' that could easily 'derail' the wishes of the controlling Govt body.-
60%
mesodude5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Such is the case here; with the suppression of a dissenting opinion, or opinions, that would most likely go contrary to what the govt wants to accomplish, which in this case is passage of the 'Cap and Trade Bill', the road to a quick and overwhelming 'consensus' is devoid of 'argumentative road blocks' that could easily 'derail' the wishes of the controlling Govt body."
Reply
--Here's the big problem for cons...When Bush was caught in the act of using the government to stack outcomes in your favor, you didn't raise a peep. You people have still said SQUAT regarding his destruction of the Justice Department, FDA, EPA, CPSC and on and on...So, the obvious question (which no con can answer) is, why would cons think anyone should CARE what you think is corrupt, unfair, biased or whatever? NO ONE CARES. ;-0-
100%
icono15 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why thank you meso for that insightful twist to what I wrote. Spoken like a true OBama Bolshevik.
Reply
I did complain to my Reps when the Con's, as you call them, did the same thing as the Neo Marxist Liberals are doing.
However according to you, now that you, me or no one else cares about corruption in govt, it will be interesting to see how your rants progress if the media ever decides to turn on 'The One' and his Bush/Cheney/Rove like techniques of tight media control and suppression of information at any cost to the First Amendment and Constitution of the United States.
-
-
-
-
-
42%
Dionys5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm curious to know how many of PC25 and his ilk screamed outrage about the suppression of Bush era EPA and DOE studies that clearly stated drilling all the possible oil wells in ANWR, offshore and onshore would have the effect of decreasing the price of oil about 4-7 cents per barrel.
Reply-
78%
4cprocess5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't know about you but I could use that 4-7 cents to offset the 300% increase in my tobacco taxes that you're "high and mighty" promised, how was it he put it.....
Reply
"if you don't make more than 250,000 dollars a year you won't see you're taxes increased one cent"
I guess he just left out the part about "unless you are addicted to tobacco?"
Or what about this one....."unless you use energy?"
or this one...."unless you get your health benefits from your employer?"
really! Tell this ass wipe to once and for all to get the hell out of my wallet!
I don't make 250,000 dollars a year you frickin liar!
In God We Trust -
-
-
-
100%
Dionys5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Dion - why do you care?? And what does it matter today??"
Reply
Because someone who picks what they rant and rave about concerning supression of 'facts' or studies based on political concerns loses credibility. Not that your ilk ever had any.. -
-
-
-
-
43%
NoWayMan5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
gotta love how the headline claims the media is ignoring this story, for whatever reason. cause the truth is, its not like the media is all over any story global warming, either way.
Reply
when the IPCC document came out with 2500 scientists' singatures all agreeing that global warming was real I didn't see stories about it all over the place. there was nary a word about it, in fact.
so to claim the media is ignoring this due to bias is just hogwash.
in the media, if it bleeds, it leads.
and that simply ain't happening with this story, on either side of the issue.-
67%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
gotta love how the headline claims the media is ignoring this story, for whatever reason. cause the truth is, its not like the media is all over any story global warming, either way.
Reply
this is Obamas EPA supressing a report saying that the effects of co2 on the environment are are greatly over estimated just when the largest tax bill on energy for the sole purpose of reducing co2 emissions comes down the pike and you don't get it......-
-
100%
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"this is Obamas EPA supressing a report saying that the effects of co2 on the environment are are greatly over estimated..."
Reply
No, this report was authored by two EPA staffers, on their own, and is not the official position of the EPA.
-
-
-
40%
fjgalt5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There weren't 2,500 scientists. The number included various types of people. Of the scientists' names that were included, some disagreed with the findings but their names stayed on the list.
Reply
Compare that with the over 31,000 names of American scientists who don't believe in human-caused global warming. http://www.petitionproject.com-
-
-
100%
NoWayMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
um, yeah, it does.
Reply
for the simple fact that FRED SEITZ IS DEAD.
which means this thing is old, at least 3 or 4 years old if seitz died a year and a half ago - and thats me giving seitz quite the benefit of the doubt on how quick he can work. can't imagine he was able to complile such a vast amount of signatures quicker than that since there was no rush and curiously there are no dates given on each signature.
it also means theres a whole new stack of data that all these "scientists" would have to look at for it to be valid.
and I put scientists in parathesis because less than a third have PhDs, only 12% of them deal in earth sciences, while the vast majority of people who signed were in NOWAY experts in the field of climate change.
in fact, over 3/4 of the people who signed this thing have absolutely no experience in climate science.
instead, the vast majority of signers are supposed specialists in:
computer science and mathematics (approx 3% of the signers)
physics and aerospace sciences (18%)
chemistry (15%)
medicine (10%)
engineering and general science (32%).
NONE of those people are experts in climate science.
so...got anything more recent?
-
-
Neutral
fjgalt5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Under the FAQ section (you didn't check out the site, did you?) is this:
Reply
4. Who pays for the Petition Project?
The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.-
Neutral
NoWayMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well, whats happening here is this: they're lying.
Reply
from your post:
"The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production."
and that is just a goddam lie!!!
OISM receives money from the the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Marshall Institute gets its money from, yep, you guessed it, Exxonmobil and American Standard Companies, both oil companies.
and I hope everyone knows that OISM, while posing as a school, has no faculty, classrooms or students.
as for any of the scientists personally getting funding from energy companies...well, that's also a goddam lie.
Seitz was the Chairman Emeritus for the Marshall Inst, which we've already established gets money from evnergy companies.
so, if Seitz was already being paid by the Marshall Inst., and being paid for work he was doing for OISM, how can he say that he wasn't being paid by enegy companies to make this petition? lots of fuzzy math here.
bottom line....
they're lying.
deal with it.
follow the money.-
Neutral
fjgalt5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Calling someone a liar doesn't make it so. I would need to see proof that they're lying. The site doesn't hide facts. You make it seems that you discovered something about Seitz.
Reply
Here's what the site says:
This letter from Professor Frederick Seitz is circulated with the petition. Physicist Frederick Seitz was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. In August 2007, Dr. Seitz reviewed and approved the article by Robinson, Robinson, and Soon that is circulated with the petition and gave his enthusiastic approval to the continuation of the Petition Project. A vigorous supporter of the Petition Project since its inception in 1998, Professor Seitz died on March 2nd, 2008.
The scientists who signed the statement think it is true.
You have come to conclusions about AGW. So have others, including those who signed the petition. Not all the IPCC signers were scientists or agreed with its conclusions. There are still way more people who don't agree with man-made global warming.
There are many links to organizations who disagree with the Global Warming Hoax.
Here's another:
http://www.isil.org/resources/fnn/2007june/global-...
and another:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php-
Neutral
NoWayMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Calling someone a liar doesn't make it so. I would need to see proof that they're lying. The site doesn't hide facts. You make it seems that you discovered something about Seitz."
Reply
now, that's called DENIAL.
the site is obviously hiding facts.
don't think so? go find out who funds OSIM for yourself. its really easy to find. just google it then follow the money.
and all those "scientists" you mentioned above (robinson, wille soon) are ALL shady. all of them were involved with the oregon petition (which was funded by the Marshall Inst, which ws funded by exxonmobil)
do some research for chrissakes.
and here's another fact for you: Seitz indeed was the President of the US National Academy of Sciences. but the moment he started the oregon petition project, the US National Academy of Sciences immediately broke off ties with Seitz and the two parted ways.
hmmmm.
i
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting...Of the 31,000 'scientists' that are signatories, only 39 are counted as Climatologists.
Reply
I see no effort whatsoever to validate any of these names. In fact, there is no way to identify the Climatologists from the Structural Engineers.
Maybe I'll submit my name just to see what happens.-
Neutral
fjgalt5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nice cherry picking and disingenuous.
Reply
Here's the list dealing with:
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803)
1. Atmosphere (578)
I) Atmospheric Science (113)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (341)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)
I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (985)
I) Environmental Engineering (486)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)
I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
In addition, these categories:
Physics & Aerospace (5,810)
Chemistry (4,818)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,964)
Medicine (3,046)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102)
-
-
-
-
71%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
al gore celebrating 4th of july
Reply
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/captions/JetB...
no need to wait for burgers to thaw at the Gores modest little energy effieientmansion EVAH.........that's for the common folk.......... -
71%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
a little more Gore for you
Reply
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Al_Gore_CreditCar... -
71%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
too bad our good fiend Psycho is no longer around with his/hr insightful comments
Reply
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Gore_Jesus_Buddy.... -
71%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
coming soon to a utility company near you..........
Reply
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Therewi... -
71%
Aidenag5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Media isn't suppressing it you crazy conspiracy theory cons. I've seen it on fox, cnn, cbs(who broke the story) abc and nbc on tv. And it was in print in the WSJ.
Reply
But hey, never mind the facts, you guys keep up you're "Its the greatest conspiracy ever perpetrated by the worlds scientists and media" crazy talk. How you guys can actually buy into the farce that 10's of thousands of scientists and journalists are all in cahoots trying to take over the world by cleaning it up it is beyond me.-
56%
4cprocess5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Cowboy,
Reply
Here's a little tidbit about perpetration for you.
Let's get real here.
There will always be suppression of information, propaganda and sad to say media bias to benefit one's arguments from one side or the other (whomever happens to be in power at a relevant time) but this man proclaimed false pretense in order to achieve the votes needed to secure the election to this office.
Plain and simple.
It's like when the senior Bush made the statement "read my lips, no new taxes". Later in his term the decision was made that this promise could not be kept and the people made their decision that the "public trust" had been violated if not manipulated and by the power of their vote (whether the need for the taxation was justified or not) to end his term at its expiration. Although this statement was made during the election the actual decision was made several years into his administration and after an unexpected severe downturn in the economy.
Our current President (President Obama) made if not equal to but as I see it, a more outrageous statement that anyone who was making less than 250,000 dollars a year would be "off limits" to his administration when it came to doling out his brand of justice or equality in taxation during a time that he and his advisors knew the economy was in no doubt faltering.
Now the younger Bush, his predecessor may have been hoodwinked by inferior intelligence in leading up to the Iraq war and there will always be rumors that some knew and some didn't but that will be his cross to bear and only history will tell the eventual truth and the series of events that led up to his decision to go to war.
But President Obama knew during his campaign that the economy was in utter decline when he made his famous "no tax" statement.
The compelling point that I am trying to make here is that when circumstances are oblivious when making a statement to the American public and that can be proven in a court of law that statements to the public and their "trust" should be protected by the constitution, but when a statement is made under obvious circumstances that can be proven to be false then the "public trust" clause has been violated.
cont. -
56%
4cprocess5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
cont.
Reply
HE HAS BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST!
LET ME REPEAT.
HE HAS BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST!
HELLO.
He made a "false" statement during the election to garner votes. Plain and simple. For God's sake all the media outlets have it on tape! "NO TAX INCREASE FOR THOSE MAKING LESS THAN 250,000 DOLLARS A YEAR!" Knowing full well all the circumstances involved (most notably the inevitable downturn of the economy) he made a contrary pledge to the American public that he knew he couldn't keep.
Those are his words. There is no question here as to his words?
There are federal laws against anyone and let me repeat this for those who may be a little slow here, ANYONE, who willingly makes a statement or acusation that they know themselves to be untrue or can be proven that they knew upon the preponderence of the evidence, that they knew to be untrue and bestowed upon the public trust as true, and can be proven as "false" and that would affect the outcome of a federal election, is indeed in direct conflict of the laws of our constitution and the laws of our land.
This restriction was put into law to STOP the practice of "politicians" making promises just in order to secure office and to protect the "public trust". It is up to us as the taxpayers to demand that this ordinance be adhered to, abided by and enforced by our courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, especially when that office pertains to the highest office of the land.
Just as the courts of law and public opinion often hold those at the highest levels of power to full extent of the law if nothing other than to show how passionate we are about our trust so it must be with this in the same. If we allow our highest office to be tainted by corruption, false truths and other then how can we ever garnish credibility with those of lesser stature or people whom cherish our resolve and commitments.
The "public trust" is the most sacred of all trusts that a government can embody or emulate. It is the public trust that is the glue or bonding agent that can hold a country together through castastrophic events. This trust cannot be held by any one person, party or group but must be held collectively throughout the people themselves and only the self determination of that body will ensure that the trust can never be taken away by any magnate, tyrant, czar or magistrate irregardless of the power any one man shall wield it will be the power of many of who share a common goal of survival, endurance and independance and freedom yet guarentee the privacy and protection of the meek.
And this is from no article with links. Just a simple American that wants what he's been taught all his life from a government that is supposed to "serve" the people, not herd them.
In God We Trust-
-
100%
GehlLady5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And you better not tell me its because he increased tobacco taxes."
Reply
Just out of curiosity, why not?
It is a tax, and the largest segment of smokers make less than 250,000.
I suppose you could say that wasn't the taxes he was talking about, he meant income taxes, but a tax is a tax, LOL.
Oh, btw, 250,000 is for married people, not singles at 200,000. As a single, I felt he should have used that number, not the 250,000 that sounds better, a very small thing, I know, really not worth mentioning, unless you file as an individual, not joint.. -
100%
4cprocess5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's the one. Explain to me why you don't see that as a tax and please explain to me also why you feel punishing people who suffer from an addiction to be fair and just.
Reply
It was a lie and he knew it going in. He knew and I'm sure if you had access to a lot of internal memos from his advisers he was warned about it.
In God We Trust
-
-
-
75%
nostalgia5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Aidenag
Reply
How much coverage did you see leading up to the vote?
How much coverage was on Friday when the House was passing the bill?
Every channel I watched with the exception of C-Span was covering Michael Jackson on Friday
Since you have seen so much coverage explain to us:
"Green" inspections of homes if you want to sell your house. If it doesn't pass the inspection, you have to retrofit the house to sell it - what exactly is included in that?
How many carbon credits for certain industries were simply given away to friends of the current administration?
How many coal plants were grandfathered in because they are in states of Democratic members of the House - bought their votes?
What was in the manager's amendment which was dropped into the bill at 3AM Friday?
Why is this study from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine being ignored - along with the EPA study mentioned in this article?
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
The over all experimental record is self-consistent. The Earth has
been warming as it recovers from the Little Ice Age at an average
rate of about 0.5 ºC per century. Fluctuations within this temperature
trend include periods of more rapid increase and also periods of temperature
decrease. These fluctuations correlate well with concomitant
fluctuations in the activity of the sun. Neither the trends nor the fluctuations
within the trends correlate with hydrocarbon use. Sea level
and glacier length reveal three intermediate uptrends and two down -
trends since 1800, as does solar activity. These trends are climatically
benign and result from natural processes.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf
-
-
80%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SELLING YOUR HOUSE??????? GUESS WHAT WITH CAP AND TRADE YOU CAN"T WITHOUT GOVERNMENT APPROVAL
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEFlXWzn0es
no one read the bill -
80%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this is he best and ONLY IN AMERICA LAND OF OPPORTUNITY
Reply
the Waxman bill stipulates that 25 percent of all power has to come from wind and solar. Only Dems would include such a provision when apparently the following is happening......
http://www.livescience.com/environment/etc/090610-...
U.S. Winds Are Dying Down, Study Suggests
We don't need to point this out, but let's do it anyway: What irony if the wind indeed dies down just as billions of dollars are being invested to harvest it in the effort to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming! Global investment in green energy quadrupled over the past four years and in 2008, wind got the most new money ($51.8 billion).-
67%
pc255 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that Nancy Pelosi is investing heavily with T Boone Pickens in windfarms.......llno not at all right........
Reply
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/13/nan-and-the-b...-
50%
4cprocess5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey PC,
Reply
The question I want to ask these liberal, and I do constantly ask my liberal friends, is when the Murphy's Law enevitable (probably didn't spell that one right) chit hits the fan then what the beJesus (loss for a better term) are we gonna use to run the helicopters, tanks, heavy artillery units, planes, aircraft carriers, bulldozers, tanker trucks, cranes, concrete trucks, submarines, cargo planes, back loaders, mine sweepers, Humvees, cranes, armored personell carriers and on and on and on with. Electricity? Wind? Solar?
We will be defeated because the sun went down.
OMG
In God We Trust-
-
Neutral
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, we already have nuclear power subs and aircraft carriers, but that's beside the point.
Reply
For the foreseeable future, yes, we will need liquid fuel. But how does rejecting alternatives make our fuel reserves last longer? Or are you of the opinion that fossil fuels have infinite reserves?-
100%
pc255 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you gave misread everyones opinion here.....NO ONE is rejecting alternatives.. The problem with them is they are still not efficient and rely on tremendous government subsidies hence the cap and trade. EVERY INDIVIDUAL IN THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO BE SUBSIDIZING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY THROUGH HIGHER ENERGY COSTS while people like Al Gore, GE, Imhelt make billions at the expense of others. The new robber barons. And it is all based on dubious science at best. IN A FREE MARKET ALTERNATIVES HAVE TO COMPETE ON THEIR OWN MERITS. Well thats a moot point because the American market is not a free market society. Renewable energy is going to follow the blueprint of GM and Chrysler now. They cannot survive without massive influxes of OPM (other peoples money)
Reply
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-s...
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
Reply
um, YES, according to science daily, the winds are changing due to global warming.
"Climate Change: Some Winds Decreasing Across United States"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/09062...
FTA: "Arritt (Ray Arritt, Iowa State professor of agronomy and climate researcher) said the study appears to support theories that climate change could affect surface winds.
"There are some good theoretical reasons to think that global warming will cause lighter winds in regions between the tropics and the Arctic," Arritt said. "But we like to confirm our theory with data, and our results make us think the theory is on track."
now go google "science daily global warming" and see how many articles come up verifying that global warming is at least partially man-made.
too funny.
boo
yah
-
-
-
-
71%
nostalgia5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now they are telling you your electricity will only cost an additional $175/year
Reply
Strange how that was not what Obama said during the campaign. In fact he said rates would "skyrocket"
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 -
75%
fjgalt5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The ecologists of a previous generation (today called greens) killed our development of atomic-powered electric plants and hydroelectric dams. Had we developed nuclear fission (I remember that fusion power was predicted to be available at the turn of the century, i.e., 2000), electricity would be very cheap today and there would be no pollution and carbon dioxide as a by-product (although carbon dioxide levels are not responsible for changing temperature, contrary to political manipulator's claims).
Reply
Check out this article at http://www.atomicinsights.com/Guests/McClintock1.h...
Some quotes:
"California itself stood on the threshold of an era of limitless electricity so abundant that meters would soon be obsolete..."
"The state and federal governments had embarked upon an ambitious program of hydroelectric dam construction, promising absolutely clean and reliable electricity in vast quantities."
"The cost of generating power from these dams is minuscule: as low as a half cent per kilowatt-hour today. At that price, the electricity bill of an average home would come to $31 -- a year."
"The real promise lay in the nuclear facilities then under construction. The San Onofre plant opened in 1968, and today generates electricity for more than two million homes with steady efficiency and stunning economy: about 3-cents per kilowatt-hour (or $16 per month for an average home). California has only two nuclear plants now operating, but together they generate 16 percent of all the electricity in the state. By contrast, nuclear power produces 76 percent of France's electricity, with an unblemished safety record."-
Neutral
NoWayMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nuclear is out already.
Reply
costs too much up front.
takes years just to get permits (like, 20 years)
too must waste product that sticks around for thousands of years and kills everything.
BUT...the biggest problem is that it takes way too much water to run a nuclear faciity. water we won't have in the future.
just ask france. they went for the nuclear option and they're already low on water because of it.
solar is the inevitable answer. cheaper than nuclear, cleaner than everything.-
Neutral
fjgalt5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That kind of thinking is what killed nuclear power plants in the U.S. There should be no reason for permits to take 20 years, which is a good part of the start-up costs.
Reply
Other countries are pursuing plans to build nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors can dispose of nuclear waste.
"Nuclear power´s prominence as a major energy source will continue over the next several decades, according to new projections made by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)"
"Nuclear power´s share of worldwide electricity production rose from less than 1 percent in 1960 to 16 percent in 1986, and that percentage has held essentially constant in the 21 years since 1986."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/07102...
As for solar, you can't run a steel mill or extract aluminum from bauxite. It can't deliver the necessary power or do anything serious. Maybe in some science-fiction future. The universe relies on fusion power. That's the reall answer.-
Neutral
NoWayMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
those are just facts.
Reply
permits do take 20 years, but to think they are the majority of start up costs is just pure fantasy.
and like I said, France is already regretting that move.
nuclear is already an old idea.
and you can go ahead and quote science daily all you want, cause I know that science daily wholly believes that global warming is real, and that solar is the ultimate answer.-
Neutral
fjgalt5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The facts are that nuclear is not old. Nuclear power plants are being planned and built. Deny it all you want.
Reply
Global warming is occurring, gradually. It'll probably become as warm as it was a thousand years ago. It's just a natural development of Earth, as millions of years have shown.-
Neutral
NoWayMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not denying nuke plants will be built. I just know that soon (30 or 40 years down the road) that idea will look as old and outdated as the model T ford.
Reply
even thomas edison knew we'd eventually have to outgrow all these stupid, dangerous ways to power up and start using the sun.
"Global warming is occurring, gradually. It'll probably become as warm as it was a thousand years ago. It's just a natural development of Earth, as millions of years have shown."
yes, but we're speeding up the process.
you can look at ice core samples from 650,000 years ago and see that earth usually takes A LOT longer to go through these changes.
which means something is obviously speeding up the process to an alarming and dangerous rate. and the only new factor in the equation is us.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
stephen-johnson5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't look at any of the Sunday shows last week, so I'll ask this question - did any of the shows' panel of pundits ask Axelrod or other administration mouthpieces about it? Did the talk shows even bother to talk about tax and kill - uh, cap and trade?
Reply
Despite all of the nonsense about the media starting to do its job of scrutinizing the Obama administration now that the honeymoon is supposedly over, the media's coverage of Obama - or rather, the lack of persistant coverage - show that they're still in the tank for Obama.-
100%
k9kssr5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Stephen,
Reply
I watched Meet the Press. Axelrod was mainly questioned on health care, is what I remember. Then the second half of the show was dominated by trying to skewer Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney on the Sanford affair, you know the "important" stuff".-
100%
stephen-johnson5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The same media types who hailed the 219-212 House vote for cap and trade as a victory for Obama didn't spend too much time discussing it on the Sunday shows - I wonder why.
Reply
BTW - it turns out that the 300 pages of amendments that was added to the 1200 page cr@p sandwich was primarily pork that was used to bribe wayward Democrats into signing on.
-
-
-
100%
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Argue all you want about the cost/benefits/harm of cap-and-trade, but the notion that this report was 'suppressed' or that it 'debunks' global warming is pure codswallop.
Reply
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evid... -
100%
Icantwait5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Fellow Americans: A Brief Dramatization: Okay all you Americans reach for the sky. This is not a Stick-Up but a Shake-Down. Make one false move and I will Slap the Daylights out of you voters with my new Crap and Trap Bill. Pellosi get their Tax Statements out and see how much money they made last year. Reed get on Stage and Tell the rest of the American Piggy Banks that I am just Punishing those individuals that are making too much money. Biden, Tie up their Bank Accounts, CDs, Stocks, and whatever else we may need to Stimulate Our Economy. No, Yours and Mine You Fool. Now, all you Rich People get on your Knees and Beg me not to take over your Business with Stimulus Money that I won't let you Pay Back.
Reply
Oh, Goodee, here comes My Media. Everyone Smile and give them a lot of Statements that will Convince everyone that My Wreck the Economy Get-a-way Limo is just starting to turn the Economy around. Yes, it's a downward spiral Gueitner but they don't know what's up or what's down. No More Questions My Media Friends I'm Going Now. See You All For Breakfast? The Real American
loading ...
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.