CNN - GM CEO suggests a $1/gallon tax increase. (http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/companies/gm_gas_tax_hike/index.htm)

Cliff's Notes of the story: GM CEO Dan Akerson suggested that the US gov't raise the taxes on gas by $1/gallon "as a way to encourage buyers to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars." This would be the alternative to forcing automakers to meet the upcoming stringent requirements in average gas mileage across a car company's line of vehicles. His suggestion, he believes, would be better for the automotive industry. This would be over a 500% increase of the current gas tax of approximately $.18/gallon.

So, let me get this straight, GM, a company that we had to bail out of the toilet a couple years back b/c of their failing business model (just keep building trucks & SUVs) and poor decisions (*cough* unions *cough*), claims to know what's best for the industry. Well, thank you Captain Obvious, of course it would be better for your industry, you'd be saved millions upon millions in R&D from not having to develop such fuel efficient vehicles. Good for your company? Yes. Good for the economy, and inherently, your customers? Not so much. I chuckled at the thought of GM, the company that brought you the H2, wanting to encourage people to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

Some of my favorite bits from the article:

"Akerson said he would support a jump in the gas tax if it came instead of tighter fuel economy regulations that GM and other automakers will have to meet in coming years. By the year 2025, automakers could be forced to hit fuel economy averages of as much as 62 mpg." - You've still got 14 years to work on this. I know it takes a lot longer than people think to develop new technologies and then package them for public consumption in something like a road-going vehicle but given hybrid technology (please don't get me started on hybrids and the environment:rolleyes:) and renewable energy resources currently undergoing R&D, I don't think that an average of 62 mpg across a fleet of vehicles is entirely out of reach. Turbo-diesels, anyone? Turbo-diesel hybrids? Just asking.

"...he said it would do more to help the environment than the pending fuel economy rules." - How? Reducing greenhouse gasses through lower emissions via more fuel efficient vehicles; that's better for the environment. Penalizing people an extra $1/gallon to drive their existing car, that's NOT better for the environment. People have already been cutting back on their recreational driving so that now any driving they do is primarily out of necessity and not for fun. I don't know anyone who has just jumped in their car and gone on a fun cruise or road trip for a couple hundred or more miles in the past couple of years at least. People are only driving their cars when/where they need to, they can't cut back on their driving habits much more. "Oh, sorry, can't come over and see you for Christmas this year, grandma, gas just topped $7/gallon and well, I need to feed the kids, pay the utilities, and pay the mortgage. Yes, yes, I know you're 98 years old and this may be your last Christmas but I just can't afford to drive the 50 miles to see you."

"Paul Ballew, chief economist at insurer Nationwide who was formerly a director of sales analysis at GM, said it's always been clear within the auto industry that given the choice between tougher fuel economy standards and higher gas prices, the latter is a better deal for the automakers." - Again, a resounding "duuuhhhhh." Pretty basic business concept that if you don't HAVE to dump millions into R&D then you're going to be better off, financially speaking, than had you been forced to engineer a car that gets 60+ mpg.

His whole idea that if we just charge more for gas people will just drive less and/or buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Not everyone can afford to go out and buy a new car. Especially given the way the economy is now and the fact it seems like the recovery is pretty much sputtering out and we may be seeing another recession, new car shopping isn't high on everyone's priority list. Additionally, the article mentioned how smaller, fuel efficient vehicles can actually hurt automaker revenues b/c they're cheaper, to that I simply say: "HAH!" According to FuelEconomy.gov, here's the top 10 most fuel efficient 2011 vehicles (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/topten.jsp). What's the starting price of those vehicles? W/o checking every one of them, I'd say the cheapest ones are hovering at $20K to start.

This whole article is basically just this ass hat wanting to pass the buck (pun intended) onto the average working stiff while the GM execs can go back to crapping in their gold-plated toilets and tucking themselves in at night on their mattresses stuffed with C-notes. Of course an extra $1/gallon is meaningless to them. I basically took this whole article as his way of saying, with the demeanor of a whiny teenager trying to talk their way out that F they got on their research paper: "uuhhh.. yeaaah.. heh... that whole 62mpg average thing, look, we really want to do it but, we really do! Yeah.. but you know what would be even better? How about we just raise the taxes on gas. Think of it, you guys get more tax revenue, people will be discouraged that they can't afford to drive their Suburban and come in to John Doe Chevrolet and pick themselves up a brand new Cruze. Barry'O my man, ... it's really a win-win." Seriously, in the second paragraph of the article he claims it would be beneficial b/c it would encourage people to go buy smaller, fuel efficient vehicles. Remind me, GM, what do you sell again? (Something smells good in the kitchen, it's GM, they're baking a cake) And then in the very next paragraph he says he'd support it in lieu of automakers having to meet stringent fuel efficiency policies in the next 14 years. (GM is slathering on the icing, cuttin' a slice, grabbin' a glass of milk and shovelin' that thing down it's gullet.) Best of both worlds for GM, why wouldn't they want to just raise taxes on gas?

Here's a better idea,

Toss the tree-hugging, socialist propaganda munching, global warming kool-aid drinking, enviromentalists that started this catastophe into the bottom of the ocean off california where they came from, and then purge all government requirements regarding the myth of global warming and climate change.

Then drill the crap out of anwar, which is a 1.5 million acre field of nothing...at which we would only need to drill a measly half of 1% of that 1.5 million acres to fulfill our oil needs for the next millenium. It would pump 4-6 billion into our crappy ecomomy just from leasing the property to the oil company(s) and provide thousands of jobs in the 48 other states.

We get 61% of our oil from overseas, and send 400 billion a year to other countries, while we are in debt up to our eyeballs.

The arctic caribou has increased in numbers from 7000 to over 66,000 in the last 40 years despite their migration patterns taking them directly across the current pipeline..which flys right in the face of the garbage that the enviromentalists keep telling everyone it will destroy wildlife.

Over 78% of Alaskans favor exploration and production on the Coastal Plain of ANWR.* Over the past 30 years almost every member of the democratically elected Alaska State Legislature, every single Alaskan Congressional delegate, and every single Alaskan Governor has supported environmentally sensitive development of the 10-02 Area of ANWR.* ANWR development is not a partisan issue in Alaska, it is strongly supported by all.

And we should issue an order to GM that they have 30 days to repay every last cent that they stole from the american taxpayers, or shut down.

Unions should be immediatly disbanded and a amendment made to the constitution banning them permanantly since its nothing but a legalized crime syndicate.


In the next election, vote out every last stinkin one of these clowns responsible for this mess.


Rant over, im gonna go burn a tire filled with used motor oil on a bonfire and piss off Al Gore

If Gas goes up too $5-7/gallon. I make under $20,000 a year, even LESS than that after taxes!
I WILL start to STEAL GAS from people any way i can. I will start with the Rich peoples Cars/Trucks!

There will be thousands of people like me doing this very soon, Growing Numbers more!!! :thumbup:

Here's a better idea,

Toss the tree-hugging, socialist propaganda munching, global warming kool-aid drinking, enviromentalists that started this catastophe into the bottom of the ocean off california where they came from, and then purge all government requirements regarding the myth of global warming and climate change.

Then drill the crap out of anwar, which is a 1.5 million acre field of nothing...at which we would only need to drill a measly half of 1% of that 1.5 million acres to fulfill our oil needs for the next millenium. It would pump 4-6 billion into our crappy ecomomy just from leasing the property to the oil company(s) and provide thousands of jobs in the 48 other states.

We get 61% of our oil from overseas, and send 400 billion a year to other countries, while we are in debt up to our eyeballs.

The arctic caribou has increased in numbers from 7000 to over 66,000 in the last 40 years despite their migration patterns taking them directly across the current pipeline..which flys right in the face of the garbage that the enviromentalists keep telling everyone it will destroy wildlife.

Over 78% of Alaskans favor exploration and production on the Coastal Plain of ANWR.* Over the past 30 years almost every member of the democratically elected Alaska State Legislature, every single Alaskan Congressional delegate, and every single Alaskan Governor has supported environmentally sensitive development of the 10-02 Area of ANWR.* ANWR development is not a partisan issue in Alaska, it is strongly supported by all.

And we should issue an order to GM that they have 30 days to repay every last cent that they stole from the american taxpayers, or shut down.

Unions should be immediatly disbanded and a amendment made to the constitution banning them permanantly since its nothing but a legalized crime syndicate.


In the next election, vote out every last stinkin one of these clowns responsible for this mess.


Rant over, im gonna go burn a tire filled with used motor oil on a bonfire and piss off Al Gore

Damn straight :amen:

I will also Note: I wish Oil and Gas was just 100% GONE. Zero. No more left on the planet!
Then we'll be forced to create clean energy, no more Oil companies dictating everyone, everything!!!!!!! :thumbup:

It's called crony capitalism or state corporatism, both a cornerstone of fascism, which contrary to popular belief is an offshoot of socialism and remains a leftist ideology, no matter how much people try to paint it "right wing".

In the US, these tactics have been used largely since Teddy Roosevelt's administration and have only grown more common with the growth of government.

Sad thing is, people are only now beginning to realize the problem is bad enough to do something about it.

And Dave, since you apparently want to continue with this from the other thread:

I Wish ALL of the Planets Fossil Fuels were used up, TODAY!!!!

No more Gas Prices, no more worrying about Price of Gas. Just hope on your Bicycle and pedal to and from work!

Americans lose weight, Engineers & the goverments suddenly have to scramble to find a "Clean Energy" source!!!

No more Wars in the middle east, killing for the Oil. cuz that shiiiz GONE!!!

Win Win for the World! :thumbup:

Sorry to disappoint, but they won't be used up...ever. Oil will continue to steadily climb in price, and the increase in price will make it profitable for us to drill for the harder to get stuff. Let's say we eventually tap into all possible reserves on earth. We still won't run out because the price of oil will get so high that either A) a cheaper substitute will be found, or B) We will increase our efficiency of use. Probably both, as we transition to the substitute.

No matter what the substitute is, it will still be bound by the laws of supply and demand, and you will be worrying about the price of that resource. As for riding to and from work via leg power, food is fuel, and I'm sure Americans would start being criticized for eating too much to fuel their excessive exercising. O and we would probably live longer too, so then we would have to hear the complaining even longer.

Why no more wars in the Middle East? Just because of oil? If it isn't oil, it's going to be clean water, if it isn't clean water it's going to be food and so on and so on. You are mistaken if you think the "Democracy Movements" in the Middle East/North Africa are over politics. Those movements probably would never have occurred had it not been for skyrocketing food prices worldwide.

EDIT: forgot to mention Fascism does not always = Nazism, so don't think I'm accusing anyone of wanting to to take over the world or kill a specific race of people simply because they like how fascists ran their economies.

Actually...to put this in perspective...
Anwr is 19.7 MILLION acres....the portion of it that they want to take for exploration is 1.5 million acres....of that 1.5 million acres....only half of 1% (2000 acres) is what would actually have structures and provide the actual oil.

Most of the people out there have NO idea what Anwr is like.

Its just 1300 miles below the NORTH FREAKIN POLE. Only 9.16 million acres is actually classified as a "refuge"...the rest is classified as "wilderness"....in other words, NOTHING is there.

The 1.5 million acre area that they want to explore and drill...is neither refuge or wilderness. Its actually set aside by the US government specifically for oil and gas exploration. Its completely flat, and barren with NO trees,hills or mountains. Nine months of the year, its covered completely with snow and ice. Three of those months, its in total 24 hour darkness. And the ground is permanently frozen...even in the summer.

To give you an idea of how big this place is that they refuse to let us drill...anwr is 19.6 million acres. The ENTIRE size of West Virginia is only 15.5 million acres. The 2000 acres that is currently allowed to actually have structures on it...thats 3.125 sq miles. 3.125 sq miles in the middle of a barren snowy field of ice below the north pole. WTF? Why is this a problem?

So you might be asking, if the 1.5 million acres was set aside by the government for oil and gas exploration, why arent we exploring it.

Because your elected leaders put legislation into place that only allows exploration to begin with congressional approval.

And with all these garbage politicians with special interests, they wont vote to allow drilling to begin. They've invested billions of taxpayer funds in Al Gore's hocus pocus global warming myth and screwed us all.


Oh, and get this...wanna know something that's just retarded.

The Inupiat eskimos support drilling anwr....so what do our politicians do...they authorize offshore drilling right smack in the middle of the eskimos whale hunting grounds. WTF2?

Here's a better idea,

Toss the tree-hugging, socialist propaganda munching, global warming kool-aid drinking, enviromentalists that started this catastophe into the bottom of the ocean off california where they came from, and then purge all government requirements regarding the myth of global warming and climate change.

Then drill the crap out of anwar, which is a 1.5 million acre field of nothing...at which we would only need to drill a measly half of 1% of that 1.5 million acres to fulfill our oil needs for the next millenium. It would pump 4-6 billion into our crappy ecomomy just from leasing the property to the oil company(s) and provide thousands of jobs in the 48 other states.

We get 61% of our oil from overseas, and send 400 billion a year to other countries, while we are in debt up to our eyeballs.

The arctic caribou has increased in numbers from 7000 to over 66,000 in the last 40 years despite their migration patterns taking them directly across the current pipeline..which flys right in the face of the garbage that the enviromentalists keep telling everyone it will destroy wildlife.

Over 78% of Alaskans favor exploration and production on the Coastal Plain of ANWR.* Over the past 30 years almost every member of the democratically elected Alaska State Legislature, every single Alaskan Congressional delegate, and every single Alaskan Governor has supported environmentally sensitive development of the 10-02 Area of ANWR.* ANWR development is not a partisan issue in Alaska, it is strongly supported by all.

And we should issue an order to GM that they have 30 days to repay every last cent that they stole from the american taxpayers, or shut down.

Unions should be immediatly disbanded and a amendment made to the constitution banning them permanantly since its nothing but a legalized crime syndicate.


In the next election, vote out every last stinkin one of these clowns responsible for this mess.


Rant over, im gonna go burn a tire filled with used motor oil on a bonfire and piss off Al Gore

You are sadly uninformed, so off to the ignore list you go.

Plonk...

Alaskans get a check from drilling every year, so of course they are for it.

:popcorn: I would throw fuel on the fire but that sh*t is too expensive

You are sadly uninformed, so off to the ignore list you go.

Plonk...

So please tell me where Im wrong.

Then we'll be forced to create clean energy And are you willing to pay for that clean energy?

"clean" energy isn't cheap. If you've EVER complained about the price of gas/oil/electricity, then you're clearly not ready for "clean" energy.

no more Oil companies dictating everyone, everything!!!!!!! :thumbup: Ever hear of this little organization called OPEC? They set the price, not the oil companies.

ANWR ain't the answer. It'll happen, and hopefully sooner rather than later. But it's more of a political argument than anything that will have a noticeable effect on oil prices, US energy security, or any other lasting result. There just isn't that much oil there (compared to other known reserves in the US, and other known reserves overseas). It does not have enough to satisfy our energy needs for a millenia. Even the rosiest estimates have ANWR, at full production, satisfying 0.8% to 1.2% of the world daily production of oil. At today's usage levels. Those percentages go down from there as demand goes up.

Wow, this is a really good idea! Raising taxes on products is a great way to curb usage of that product. For example, a recent survey showed that when California raised taxes on cigarettes in 2010, more than 6 people quit smoking due to ****ing ridiculous prices.

If stuff isnt heavily taxed then how are we supposed to know that were not supposed to use it/reduce consumption????


I say we raise taxes on corporate jet fuel :D

I'm not an economist, but I am a consumer. And as a consumer I know this: I want the most cost-efficient and effective option. And until green technology becomes more affordable than processing oil and performs on par....then I'm going with oil :thumbup:

IMO, this isn't and ethical or political perspective. It's capitalism. It's bang for my buck (which may or may not be an eithical or political perspective) :p

Spend some time and watch the video in my signature..

global warming kool-aid drinking

:eek: This is so misinformed I don't know where to begin.

Edit: I should read the rest of the posts before posting myself, but I guess this isn't the time or place to start a flamewar despite being a little tempted. It suffices to say that the HUUUUUUUUUGE preponderance of scientific evidence points to man contributing to global warming.

I ride my bicycle when I can to run errands. Screw gas. :)

CNN - GM CEO suggests a $1/gallon tax increase. (http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/companies/gm_gas_tax_hike/index.htm)

Cliff's Notes of the story: GM CEO Dan Akerson suggested that the US gov't raise the taxes on gas by $1/gallon "as a way to encourage buyers to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars." This would be the alternative to forcing automakers to meet the upcoming stringent requirements in average gas mileage across a car company's line of vehicles. His suggestion, he believes, would be better for the automotive industry. This would be over a 500% increase of the current gas tax of approximately $.18/gallon.

So, let me get this straight, GM, a company that we had to bail out of the toilet a couple years back b/c of their failing business model (just keep building trucks & SUVs) and poor decisions (*cough* unions *cough*), claims to know what's best for the industry. Well, thank you Captain Obvious, of course it would be better for your industry, you'd be saved millions upon millions in R&D from not having to develop such fuel efficient vehicles. Good for your company? Yes. Good for the economy, and inherently, your customers? Not so much. I chuckled at the thought of GM, the company that brought you the H2, wanting to encourage people to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

Some of my favorite bits from the article:

"Akerson said he would support a jump in the gas tax if it came instead of tighter fuel economy regulations that GM and other automakers will have to meet in coming years. By the year 2025, automakers could be forced to hit fuel economy averages of as much as 62 mpg." - You've still got 14 years to work on this. I know it takes a lot longer than people think to develop new technologies and then package them for public consumption in something like a road-going vehicle but given hybrid technology (please don't get me started on hybrids and the environment:rolleyes:) and renewable energy resources currently undergoing R&D, I don't think that an average of 62 mpg across a fleet of vehicles is entirely out of reach. Turbo-diesels, anyone? Turbo-diesel hybrids? Just asking.

"...he said it would do more to help the environment than the pending fuel economy rules." - How? Reducing greenhouse gasses through lower emissions via more fuel efficient vehicles; that's better for the environment. Penalizing people an extra $1/gallon to drive their existing car, that's NOT better for the environment. People have already been cutting back on their recreational driving so that now any driving they do is primarily out of necessity and not for fun. I don't know anyone who has just jumped in their car and gone on a fun cruise or road trip for a couple hundred or more miles in the past couple of years at least. People are only driving their cars when/where they need to, they can't cut back on their driving habits much more. "Oh, sorry, can't come over and see you for Christmas this year, grandma, gas just topped $7/gallon and well, I need to feed the kids, pay the utilities, and pay the mortgage. Yes, yes, I know you're 98 years old and this may be your last Christmas but I just can't afford to drive the 50 miles to see you."

"Paul Ballew, chief economist at insurer Nationwide who was formerly a director of sales analysis at GM, said it's always been clear within the auto industry that given the choice between tougher fuel economy standards and higher gas prices, the latter is a better deal for the automakers." - Again, a resounding "duuuhhhhh." Pretty basic business concept that if you don't HAVE to dump millions into R&D then you're going to be better off, financially speaking, than had you been forced to engineer a car that gets 60+ mpg.

His whole idea that if we just charge more for gas people will just drive less and/or buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Not everyone can afford to go out and buy a new car. Especially given the way the economy is now and the fact it seems like the recovery is pretty much sputtering out and we may be seeing another recession, new car shopping isn't high on everyone's priority list. Additionally, the article mentioned how smaller, fuel efficient vehicles can actually hurt automaker revenues b/c they're cheaper, to that I simply say: "HAH!" According to FuelEconomy.gov, here's the top 10 most fuel efficient 2011 vehicles (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/topten.jsp). What's the starting price of those vehicles? W/o checking every one of them, I'd say the cheapest ones are hovering at $20K to start.

This whole article is basically just this ass hat wanting to pass the buck (pun intended) onto the average working stiff while the GM execs can go back to crapping in their gold-plated toilets and tucking themselves in at night on their mattresses stuffed with C-notes. Of course an extra $1/gallon is meaningless to them. I basically took this whole article as his way of saying, with the demeanor of a whiny teenager trying to talk their way out that F they got on their research paper: "uuhhh.. yeaaah.. heh... that whole 62mpg average thing, look, we really want to do it but, we really do! Yeah.. but you know what would be even better? How about we just raise the taxes on gas. Think of it, you guys get more tax revenue, people will be discouraged that they can't afford to drive their Suburban and come in to John Doe Chevrolet and pick themselves up a brand new Cruze. Barry'O my man, ... it's really a win-win." Seriously, in the second paragraph of the article he claims it would be beneficial b/c it would encourage people to go buy smaller, fuel efficient vehicles. Remind me, GM, what do you sell again? (Something smells good in the kitchen, it's GM, they're baking a cake) And then in the very next paragraph he says he'd support it in lieu of automakers having to meet stringent fuel efficiency policies in the next 14 years. (GM is slathering on the icing, cuttin' a slice, grabbin' a glass of milk and shovelin' that thing down it's gullet.) Best of both worlds for GM, why wouldn't they want to just raise taxes on gas?

General Motors Co. reportedly paid Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Akerson $2.53 million for working three months last year, and he is expected to make about $9 million in 2011.

Enough said.

I'm with you Frugal----

CNN - GM CEO suggests a $1/gallon tax increase. (http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/companies/gm_gas_tax_hike/index.htm)

Cliff's Notes of the story: GM CEO Dan Akerson suggested that the US gov't raise the taxes on gas by $1/gallon "as a way to encourage buyers to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars." This would be the alternative to forcing automakers to meet the upcoming strin {snip}

At first I was like
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b85/cool_dude100/popcorn.gif

Here's a better idea,

Toss the tree-hugging, socialist propaganda munching, global warming kool-aid drinking, enviromentalists that started this catastophe into the bottom of the ocean off california where {snip}

But then I was all
http://i770.photobucket.com/albums/xx347/Seigblaze/th_seinfeld.gif

:eek: This is so misinformed I don't know where to begin.

Edit: I should read the rest of the posts before posting myself, but I guess this isn't the time or place to start a flamewar despite being a little tempted. It suffices to say that the HUUUUUUUUUGE preponderance of scientific evidence points to man contributing to global warming.

Lol, get with the times, global warming is sooooooooo 2004 - the apparatchiks have adopted the term climate change.

And no there isnt a 'HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE preponderance of scientific evidence' that mankind is affecting the the climate of the Earth any more so than the natural, cyclical changes that the planet undergoes through eons.

Anthropogenic global warming is a Marxist crock, literally a facet of Soviet 'active measures' desinged to undercut the economic engine of the United States and capitalist allies. While the Soviet Union died before the 'global warming' trend took hold amongst useful idiots, American economic rivals such as China and India have gladly stoked the flames as any type of regulation would serve the interests of their economic well being while sabotoging that of the U.S.

Its funny how some people (leftists) are so arrogant as to assume that human beings, who only inhabit a tiny proportion of the land mass of the globe, have the power to so radically alter the natural course of a PLANET that has been in existence for 6 billion years.

So please tell me where Im wrong.

Don't worry, this guy likes to put people on his ignore list. You wont get a rational rebutal from him. The ideals of modern 'progressivism' are like a religion to him. When confronted by an opposing viewpoint, his reaction is to slam the door on any possible discourse - i.e. covering his eyes and ears and humming.

You have to post links to the blogs where you pick this stuff up. The comments sections in them must be terribly entertaining.

Hey question for the global warming proponents...

If global warming was such a threat to the existence of mankind, why is it that not only did the Clinton Administration refuse to adopt the Kyoto protocols but also the current Administration, who is very likely the most left leaning and 'green' administration in US history has also refused to do so?

Alex I think it might be in the forum's best interest if this thread is quickly locked. This WILL be a major flame war because this topic can do nothing else but become a flame war. Those that wish to believe the truth and those that don't. This can only lead to flames, war, and blood on ninjette. :(

Sombo go stick your head in the sand if you can't handle debate. People like you ruin interesting threads for everyone else. Grow up.

And no there isnt a 'HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE preponderance of scientific evidence' that mankind is affecting the the climate of the Earth any more so than the natural, cyclical changes that the planet undergoes through eons.

Who likes charts and graphs?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/globaltemp1.jpghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/co2-vs-temp1.jpg

Alex I think it might be in the forum's best interest if this thread is quickly locked.

I don't lock 'em until people demonstrate that they don't understand how to make their points without resorting to calling someone else an idiot. At that point, it remains an instructive thread about the types of posts that work, and those that don't (regardless of the message). Everyone eventually gets it, it just takes some folks a little longer to catch on.

Alright Alex, but don't say I didn't warn you. I have yet to see a thread on this topic on any forum or social media not turn into a major flame war. :idunno:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wuwt_icecoreanim_image61.png?w=510&h=198

By the way, for those that dont know, NOAA is the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, a USG entity. The graph above is either bullshit or legitimiate - there is no in between. If it is legitimate, that single graph blows away the global warming theory. If its bullshit, than its a bald faced distortion of NOAA data - which I think is unlikely seeing as how if someone did that, it would be easily refutable.

More at this blog:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/search/label/graphs

I know its not an acedemic source exactly, but very interesting graphs that need some explanation by those that take AGW to be real.

http://www.loleegreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/pirates_and_ghg.gif

I have been touched by his noodly appendage.

Damn... I leave to go home, have dinner w/the wife and kiddies and figured I'd stop back by and see who (if anyone) replied and see an environment/political debate erupt.

I was just P.O.'d about this jackhole suggesting the gov't just raise the gas tax as means to drive customers to their dealerships for the fuel efficient offerings and get out of having to dump hundreds of millions into R&D to meet the upcoming fuel efficiency standards.

Sorry I stirred up the hornet's nest. :imsorry:

Sombo go stick your head in the sand if you can't handle debate. People like you ruin interesting threads for everyone else. Grow up.



Who likes charts and graphs?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/globaltemp.jpghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/co2-vs-temp.jpg

Quoted to preserve image.

Ummmm, maybe Im stupid. Imcertainly no scientist or data analyst, but that graph looks like a natural cyclical 'trough' over hundreds of thousands of years. To my layman's brain, I think that proves exactly what I was saying earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PiratesVsTemp(en).svg

I have been touched by his noodly appendage.

If I had a nickel for every time a woman wrote that down on the restraining order application. :p

Damn... I leave to go home, have dinner w/the wife and kiddies and figured I'd stop back by and see who (if anyone) replied and see an environment/political debate erupt.

I was just P.O.'d about this jackhole suggesting the gov't just raise the gas tax as means to drive customers to their dealerships for the fuel efficient offerings and get out of having to dump hundreds of millions into R&D to meet the upcoming fuel efficiency standards.

Sorry I stirred up the hornet's nest. :imsorry:

No need to apologize, the CEO of GM should be caned in public. His company JUST took billions in public money to stay afloat due to decades of mismanagement and union extrortion and this POS has the audacity to suggest higher gas prices are what we need?

I hope this guy gets speared repeatedly with a flaming donkey appendage.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wuwt_icecoreanim_image61.png?w=510&h=198

By the way, for those that dont know, NOAA is the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, a USG entity. The graph above is either bullshit or legitimiate - there is no in between. If it is legitimate, that single graph blows away the global warming theory. If its bullshit, than its a bald faced distortion of NOAA data - which I think is unlikely seeing as how if someone did that, it would be easily refutable.

More at this blog:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/search/label/graphs

I know its not an acedemic source exactly, but very interesting graphs that need some explanation by those that take AGW to be real.

I'm way ahead of you ^^^

I will say this though, regardless of whether climate change is actually happening, caused by us, or reversible, I DO believe that we should be focusing on renewable energy sources and being less destructive as a species.

Alex I think it might be in the forum's best interest if this thread is quickly locked. This WILL be a major flame war because this topic can do nothing else but become a flame war. Those that wish to believe the truth and those that don't. This can only lead to flames, war, and blood on ninjette. :(

Its in the forums best interest to have an area where people can air their opinions. If you like centralized, iron fisted regulation of speech pravda.ru is that way.

<------

Perhaps their message boards are run more to your liking.

Quoted to preserve image.

Ummmm, maybe Im stupid. Imcertainly no scientist or data analyst, but that graph looks like a natural cyclical 'trough' over hundreds of thousands of years. To my layman's brain, I think that proves exactly what I was saying earlier.

Yeah I wasn't arguing with you. ;) However, quoting the image doesn't "preserve it". I can change it to anything I want :D

I'm way ahead of you ^^^

I will say this though, regardless of whether climate change is actually happening, caused by us, or reversible, I DO believe that we should be focusing on renewable energy sources and being less destructive as a species.

I dont think any rational person would argue against this.

Where many people bristle is the haughty insistence by those that claim that the future of man is dependent on Americans buying hybrids and paying carbon credits (by the way a HUUUUUUGE scam thought up by schysters to practcally steal money).

Many people also believe that the enemies, both economic and political, of the U.S. are using the theory of global warming as a lever to undercut American economic well being. As such, it becomes infuriating to be told to buy in to all the hype when a billion Chinamen and an additional billion Indians are trashing their side of the planet with nary a whimper from effette Europeans or New Yorkers.

Yeah I wasn't arguing with you. ;) However, quoting the image doesn't "preserve it". I can change it to anything I want :D

You can change your post, but the image quoted is ingrained in the thread unless the source of the image takes it down.

And I dont care what that whorestain Ackerson says, if I had $110K to drop on a car, I would buy this:

http://2010corvette.us/images/2010_corvette_zr1.jpg

... and burn many gallons of 93 octane before I swung by his doorstep to drop a chili dog and onion ring fueled poop on his doorstep followed by a 300 ft burnout just to add an exclamation point.

As such, it becomes infuriating to be told to buy in to all the hype when a billion Chinamen and an additional billion Indians are trashing their side of the planet with nary a whimper from effette Europeans or New Yorkers.

Well you're exactly right. It's all a joke. But there's no use getting "infuriated" by it. Well of course you can if you want, but I don't see the use in it. Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please. ;)

Do you believe in global warming now!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3646/3604884443_eae2ca2808.jpg

http://www.moonbattery.com/temperature-fail.jpg


jk :D

I was just P.O.'d about this jackhole suggesting the gov't just raise the gas tax as means to drive customers to their dealerships for the fuel efficient offerings and get out of having to dump hundreds of millions into R&D to meet the upcoming fuel efficiency standards.

It's not an either/or situation. The passage of increased fuel efficiency standards itself can be very easily construed as a tax on consumers to drive behavior (of both companies and their customers). Increased fuel economy is not free; it costs those billions of dollars as suggested to continue to make progress on pulling that much more energy out of a given amount of fuel. We can and should continue to push for progress.

One option is we make companies expend X dollars (in the billions) to drive better performance per car, which by definition will raise prices of the vehicles they sell above and beyond what they would have otherwise. Price increases that will be completely expected and necessary if we expect the companies to remain solvent. (or at least as solvent as they are now, which is not very) This means consumers are paying more for their vehicles. Depending on who you ask, much more. While the numbers can be debated, and vary terribly depending on the particularly yearly standards we're talking about, this is not free. It costs money. Real money. For companies, and in turn consumers.

Another option is to simply make consumers pay more for the fuel directly, driving behavior to both purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles, and lessening the demand for that fuel.

Both of these are more similar than has been portrayed in this thread. A tax to drive behavior. It is a debatable point about where applying those dollars would be the most appropriate. Being in support of either of them is to support a tax on consumers. One of them just seems more direct. But if it is more direct, yet ultimately cheaper for everyone while still driving the same end goal (less reliance on oil, less reliance on foreign oil, better use of limited resources), it shouldn't be dismissed as outright lunacy.

It's not an either or situation. The passage of increased fuel efficiency standards itself can be very easily construed as a tax on consumers to drive behavior (of both companies and their customers). Increased fuel economy is not free; it costs those billions of dollars as suggested to continue to make progress on pulling that much more energy out of a given amount of fuel. We can and should continue to push for progress.

One option is we make companies expend X dollars (in the billions) to drive better performance per car, which by definition will raise prices of the vehicles they sell above and beyond what they would have. Price increases that will be completely expected and necessary if we expect the companies to remain solvent. (or at least as solvent as they are now, which is not very) This means consumers are paying more for their vehicles. Depending on who you ask, much more. While the numbers can be debated, and vary terribly depending on the particularly yearly standards we're talking about, this is not free. It costs money. For companies, and in turn consumers.

Another option is to simply make consumers pay more for the fuel directly, driving behavior to both purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles, and lessening the demand for that fuel.

Both of these are more similar than has been portrayed in this thread. A tax to drive behavior. It is a debatable point about where applying those dollars would be the most appropriate. Being in support of either of them is to support a tax on consumers. One of them just seems more direct. But if it is more direct, yet cheaper for everyone while still driving the same end goal (less reliance on oil, less reliance on foreign oil, better use of limited resources), it shouldn't be dismissed as outright lunacy.

Why is it taken as gospel that the solution to the problem is somehow to force the end user (consumer) to ultimately pay more to drive? Why not establish economic incentives for companies to research, develop, and eventually bring to market alternative energy solutions.

The inititative and ingenuity of the private sector, acting unbridled by over-regulation will always out perform the result of Government forcing itself upon and meddling with the market.

The rub is that the .Gov is making $$$ hand over fist in the taxation of gasoline. You pay .18/a gallon to Uncle Same with every gallon you buy, and then unlce Sam turns around and smashed the oil company with a tx on the revenue they generate.

The .Gov makes more $$$ per year on gas by taxing numerous times per gallon than the oil companies do in net profit. Isn't that funny? Why no outrage about the unholy sums of money that the .Gov rakes in every year?

Well you're exactly right. It's all a joke. But there's no use getting "infuriated" by it. Well of course you can if you want, but I don't see the use in it. Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please. ;)

I dont think the folks living in the PRC are Asian-Americans.

'Chinaman' is just ad valid as 'Frenchman' or 'Irishman' its just the thought police dont give a rat's ass about folks that are of a certain color, thus they are not a protected class.

I dont think the folks living in the PRC are Asian-Americans.

'Chinaman' is just ad valid as 'Frenchman' or 'Irishman' its just the thought police dont give a rat's ass about folks that are of a certain color, thus they are not a protected class.

It was a joke. mostly. Watch The Big Lebowski.
Why is it taken as gospel that the solution to the problem is somehow to force the end user (consumer) to ultimately pay more to drive? Why not establish economic incentives for companies to research, develop, and eventually bring to market alternative energy solutions.

The inititative and ingenuity of the private sector, acting unbridled by over-regulation will always out perform the result of Government forcing itself upon and meddling with the market.

The rub is that the .Gov is making $$$ hand over fist in the taxation of gasoline. You pay .18/a gallon to Uncle Same with every gallon you buy, and then unlce Sam turns around and smashed the oil company with a tx on the revenue they generate.

The .Gov makes more $$$ per year on gas by taxing numerous times per gallon than the oil companies do in net profit. Isn't that funny? Why no outrage about the unholy sums of money that the .Gov rakes in every year?

These are a few years old but not much has changed. I REALLY think you need a little perspective here.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/gas-prices-in-europe-and-usa-2.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/gas_tax_3e.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/gas_ta_3e.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/1US_EU_gas_price.jpg

This whole gas tax issue boils down to two different options, do you want to pay more for a car or more for gas? If the gas tax is not enacted and car companies have to meet the stringent requirements, every bit of money they put into developing these new technologies is passed on to guess who, you.

The real problem here is the government enacting these laws/requirements. If people want more fuel efficient cars THEY WILL BUY THEM AND CREATE DEMAND. The government doesn't need to step in and tell companies what to do.

Why is it taken as gospel that the solution to the problem is somehow to force the end user (consumer) to ultimately pay more to drive? Why not establish economic incentives for companies to research, develop, and eventually bring to market alternative energy solutions.

It's not gospel, and personally I am not sure that either type of tax is particularly effective. But the second point in your quote (economic incentives) is just another word for tax. Take money from somewhere else, and apply it in this area to make it more financially attractive for a company to move in a certain direction. There is no moral judgement there, there is no bad or good. There is just the reality that government does this every day, and what you're advocating is just another form of tax, however direct or indirect it turns out to be.

The inititative and ingenuity of the private sector, acting unbridled by over-regulation will always out perform the result of Government forcing itself upon and meddling with the market.

This is provably false in so many more areas than one can include a single discussion thread. There are many areas where a free and open market will perform better. There are just as many examples (including in our countries very recent past), where that belief taken to the extreme was shown to be both academically and practically wrong. Ingenuity is a good thing. It's underappreciated how much and what type of assistance from governments at all levels is necessary to make sure that ingenuity can be used to truly affect society, benefiting the inventors, their organizations, and ultimately citizens and consumers. Everything from economic incentives as you discussed above, to enforcing patent rights, to enforcing trade agreements, to providing a legal system where illegal behavior by competitors can be remedied. These matter.

The rub is that the .Gov is making $$$ hand over fist in the taxation of gasoline. You pay .18/a gallon to Uncle Same with every gallon you buy, and then unlce Sam turns around and smashed the oil company with a tx on the revenue they generate.

The taxes on gasoline here in the US, even when summed up from local + state + federal, are a small fraction of the taxes imposed on gasoline in every single 1st-world country we compare ourselves to. It's order of magnitude different. And that said, the margins on gasoline, and ultimately the profits that these very large oil companies can make, aren't markedly different than any other large corporation here in the US. It's a good business, but it ain't easy, and to continue to be successful it is mind-boggling the amount of investment that is necessary to not only continue to obtain oil, and refine it in a cost-effective manner to ultimately make a profit at the pump.

'Chinaman' is just ad valid as 'Frenchman' or 'Irishman' its just the thought police dont give a rat's ass about folks that are of a certain color, thus they are not a protected class.

You may not intend to use it derogatorily, but the fact of the matter is that chinamen has become a demeaning term. I would prefer not having to read the term here.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Chinamen


Noun 1. Chinaman - (ethnic slur) offensive term for a person of Chinese descent

You may not intend to use it derogatorily, but the fact of the matter is that chinamen has become a demeaning term. I would prefer not having to read the term here.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Chinamen


Noun 1. Chinaman - (ethnic slur) offensive term for a person of Chinese descent

In that case, Im sorry if I offended you.

No worries, back to topic :thumbup:

Gas sucks, ride motorcycles :D

It's not gospel, and personally I am not sure that either type of tax is particularly effective. But the second point in your quote (economic incentives) is just another word for tax. Take money from somewhere else, and apply it in this area to make it more financially attractive for a company to move in a certain direction. There is no moral judgement there, there is no bad or good. There is just the reality that government does this every day, and what you're advocating is just another form of tax, however direct or indirect it turns out to be.

This is provably false in so many more areas than one can include a single discussion thread. There are many areas where a free and open market will perform better. There are just as many examples (including in our countries very recent past), where that belief taken to the extreme was shown to be both academically and practically wrong. Ingenuity is a good thing. It's underappreciated how much and what type of assistance from governments at all levels is necessary to make sure that ingenuity can be used to truly affect society, benefiting the inventors, their organizations, and ultimately citizens and consumers. Everything from economic incentives as you discussed above, to enforcing patent rights, to enforcing trade agreements, to providing a legal system where illegal behavior by competitors can be remedied. These matter.

The taxes on gasoline here in the US, even when summed up from local + state + federal, are a small fraction of the taxes imposed on gasoline in every single 1st-world country we compare ourselves to. It's order of magnitude different. And that said, the margins on gasoline, and ultimately the profits that these very large oil companies can make, aren't markedly different than any other large corporation here in the US. It's a good business, but it ain't easy, and to continue to be successful it is mind-boggling the amount of investment that is necessary to not only continue to obtain oil, and refine it in a cost-effective manner to ultimately make a profit at the pump.

Alex, I would like to point out some things that pertain to your comments.

Oil, for all intents and purposes, has inelastic demand in the short term.

In English: If the price of gas changes significantly, people will continue to consume it at similar rates until they can make adjustments by buying new vehicles or changing their business models. This being said, no matter where you place the tax on oil, consumers will always bear the brunt of the tax. Not because producers are evil, but because the supply is more elastic, in that oil supplies can be adjusted rather quickly. EDIT: However, when so much of the world's oil is controlled by OPEC, supply is inelastic because there is such a long delay between price changes and supply changes due to OPEC refusing to increase output.

I think something like 97% of the world's oil is controlled by governments and their nationalized companies. Oil is hardly subject to market forces on the supply side. If the situation were reversed, the supply of oil would be elastic in the short term and long term, meaning competing producers would compete more and make less in the long term, but be more likely to innovate to create short term profits.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Largest-oil-companies-by-reserves.png

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/27/gas-prices-and-industry-earnings-a-few-things-to-think-about/

As for gas taxes in the rest of the industrialized world being an order of magnitude higher:

http://i.imgur.com/9f2lC.jpg US is still doing great on prices :)

^This seems to support your statement in some cases, but the logistic situation in Europe is different from the US. Western Europe is more compact, and thus public transport is more economical. America and its cities developed much differently, making public transport between cities and within cities much more complicated and expensive.

I won't even go into how much I disagree with you on government being a source of ingenuity. I'll just state 3 simple facts:

-Profit-seeking is the source of ingenuity.
-Government revenue is just tax money, and government produces nothing and merely transfers wealth. (I'm sure you will point out things like NASA etc., but these are still transfers and government investments of tax money which is still less efficient than private R&D)
-Taxes reduce economic welfare for consumers and producers, no matter how benevolent their intentions may be.

These are not controversial right wing theories, they are basic rules in Economics 101 and 102.

It's not gospel, and personally I am not sure that either type of tax is particularly effective. But the second point in your quote (economic incentives) is just another word for tax. Take money from somewhere else, and apply it in this area to make it more financially attractive for a company to move in a certain direction. There is no moral judgement there, there is no bad or good. There is just the reality that government does this every day, and what you're advocating is just another form of tax, however direct or indirect it turns out to be.

When I mean economic incentive, Im referring to the .Gov using tax incentives for companies as a motivator/reward for those taking the risk to develop new technologies. Im sure tihs already exists in a certain manner, but probably not as robust as it could be. I disagree that giving a tax cut to one entity is equivalent to imposing a tax on another.

This is provably false in so many more areas than one can include a single discussion thread. There are many areas where a free and open market will perform better. There are just as many examples (including in our countries very recent past), where that belief taken to the extreme was shown to be both academically and practically wrong. Ingenuity is a good thing. It's underappreciated how much and what type of assistance from governments at all levels is necessary to make sure that ingenuity can be used to truly affect society, benefiting the inventors, their organizations, and ultimately citizens and consumers. Everything from economic incentives as you discussed above, to enforcing patent rights, to enforcing trade agreements, to providing a legal system where illegal behavior by competitors can be remedied. These matter.

Fine, I will concede that not in every single case is the private sector better suited to accomplishing a task than the Government (by big 'G' Im referring to Feds in specific). But as a whole and in general, I will always err on the side of the private sector than that of Government to be more efficient, effective, and initiative bearing. This is simply because of the fact, that a private entity is expending its own money and resources so it will be much more likely to expend them in profitable/useful avenues than Government - which is nothing more than bureacrats expending resources that are not theirs and are less likely to be held accountable for the misallocation misuse of. Regardless of where you stand on the argument, I think it would be difficult to refute the above statement.


The taxes on gasoline here in the US, even when summed up from local + state + federal, are a small fraction of the taxes imposed on gasoline in every single 1st-world country we compare ourselves to. It's order of magnitude different. And that said, the margins on gasoline, and ultimately the profits that these very large oil companies can make, aren't markedly different than any other large corporation here in the US. It's a good business, but it ain't easy, and to continue to be successful it is mind-boggling the amount of investment that is necessary to not only continue to obtain oil, and refine it in a cost-effective manner to ultimately make a profit at the pump.

No argument from me that gas is more expensive elsewhere than here in the States. However, in many parts of the world, indoor toilets are an exotic luxury, daily showers are unheard of, and child sex slaves are common. Just because most of the world does it wrong is not a valid argument to drag the U.S. down to the standard that most of the rest of the world operates under.




My quoting skills are horrid, so please see my responses in red.

Sombo go stick your head in the sand if you can't handle debate. People like you ruin interesting threads for everyone else. Grow up.

And telling someone else to grow up is a very mature thing of you to say. I hope you know that you came off as a dick in the quoted post.

Alex, I would like to point out some things that pertain to your comments.

Oil, for all intents and purposes, has inelastic demand in the short term.

In English: If the price of gas changes significantly, people will continue to consume it at similar rates until they can make adjustments by buying new vehicles or changing their business models. This being said, no matter where you place the tax on oil, consumers will always bear the brunt of the tax. Not because producers are evil, but because the supply is more elastic, in that oil supplies can be adjusted rather quickly.

I think something like 97% of the world's oil is controlled by governments and their nationalized companies.Oil is hardly subject to market forces.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Largest-oil-companies-by-reserves.png

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/27/gas-prices-and-industry-earnings-a-few-things-to-think-about/

As for gas taxes in the rest of the industrialized world being an order of magnitude higher:



I won't even go into how much I disagree with you on government being a source of ingenuity. I'll just state 3 simple facts:

-Profit-seeking is the source of ingenuity.
-Government revenue is just tax money, and government produces nothing and merely transfers wealth.
-Taxes reduce economic welfare for consumers and producers, no matter how benevolent their intentions may be.

These are not controversial right wing theories, they are basic rules in Economics 101 and 102.

Chris you beat me to the punch... and read my mind. However, you probably stated it more succintly and in a better way than I did in my response to Alex.

The only thing I would add to what you wrote above is that not only is it Economic fact, but also a facet of human nature. Government has no inherent risk when it is spending other people's money. Aprivate enterprise is immediately accountable to whomever controls it, whether it be a chairman, stockholder, or an owner. Human nature is such that when you are not accountable, you get to be free wheeling and wasteful. Its exactly the same as when a 17 y.o has daddy buy him an M3 and wraps it around a telephone pole while his neighbor who worked two summers to buy and fix up an 87 Camaro, drives it for years.

And telling someone else to grow up is a very mature thing of you to say. I hope you know that you came off as a dick in the quoted post.

Thanks for the input. :) But what Sombo said was more insulting to everyone here than I could even try to be. I'm sorry that you don't realize that. :)

Chris you beat me to the punch... and read my mind. However, you probably stated it more succintly and in a better way than I did in my response to Alex.

The only thing I would add to what you wrote above is that not only is it Economic fact, but also a facet of human nature. Government has no inherent risk when it is spending other people's money. Aprivate enterprise is immediately accountable to whomever controls it, whether it be a chairman, stockholder, or an owner. Human nature is such that when you are not accountable, you get to be free wheeling and wasteful. Its exactly the same as when a 17 y.o has daddy buy him an M3 and wraps it around a telephone pole while his neighbor who worked two summers to buy and fix up an 87 Camaro, drives it for years.

Yes, government is not profit-seeking and therefore politicians and bureaucrats have little reason to worry about costs and efficiency. It is a power-seeking necessary evil and the US Constitution was meant to keep it from gaining that power. Sadly, the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have been abused over the past 100 years in such a way that the rest of the Constitution has been treated like toilet paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

So let's get this straight -- the national science academies of 32 nations all agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, but somehow it's is somehow a Cold-War era Soviet conspiracy intended to wreck the US economy? Unless I see some supporting info, it sounds to me like that's a pretty zany conspiracy theory, right up there with the moon landing being fake.

Yes, there are scientists who disagree with the community's opinion at large. This is just a function of how science works. Good scientists are by nature and training skeptical. That doubt helps the community to find faulty assumptions and furthers our understanding of the natural world.

However, those dissenting opinions are NOT the majority on climate change. This is pretty normal, even for things that scientists are pretty darn sure about on the whole. As a (very rough) historical example, consider the atomic theory of matter. Despite all the evidence for the theory from the developments in chemistry in the 19th century, there were still scientists who dissented with the majority opinion until Einstein's paper on Brownian motion in 1905(06? something like that.)

The waters get muddied a bit by politicians, talking heads on the news, and people who have real financial interests in how we consume energy. Can I quote the full chain of evidence here in one post on a motorcycle forum? No, I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be. But I'm damn sure not going to go with something I hear on Fox News over the claims of 32 nations worth of experts.

I apologize that this is off-topic. I'm not making any statements about the gas tax from the OP, but I find the attitude of the some of the posters in this thread pretty appalling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

So let's get this straight -- the national science academies of 32 nations all agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, but somehow it's is somehow a Cold-War era Soviet conspiracy intended to wreck the US economy? Unless I see some supporting info, it sounds to me like that's a pretty zany conspiracy theory, right up there with the moon landing being fake.

Yes, there are scientists who disagree with the community's opinion at large. This is just a function of how science works. Good scientists are by nature and training skeptical. That doubt helps the community to find faulty assumptions and furthers our understanding of the natural world.

However, those dissenting opinions are NOT the majority on climate change. This is pretty normal, even for things that scientists are pretty darn sure about on the whole. As a (very rough) historical example, consider the atomic theory of matter. Despite all the evidence for the theory from the developments in chemistry in the 19th century, there were still scientists who dissented with the majority opinion until Einstein's paper on Brownian motion in 1905(06? something like that.)

The waters get muddied a bit by politicians, talking heads on the news, and people who have real financial interests in how we consume energy. Can I quote the full chain of evidence here in one post on a motorcycle forum? No, I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be. But I'm damn sure not going to go with something I hear on Fox News over the claims of 32 nations worth of experts.

I apologize that this is off-topic. I'm not making any statements about the gas tax from the OP, but I find the attitude of the some of the posters in this thread pretty appalling.

Lol, only someone ignorant of historical fact would compare the very real existence of Soviet 'Active Measures' to idiots claiming the moon landing was fake. You and people like you are the wetdream of some long passed KGB General.

I know the following doesnt prove that the KGB was instrumental in propogating the AGW theory, but at least it provides circumstancial evidence. And the source is unassailable, unlike your Wikipedia entry...

From the report delivered by the U.S. Information Agency to the U.S. Congress titled "Soviet Active Measures in the 'Post Cold War' Era: 1988-1991" ; June 1992; Executive Summary:

Active measures is a Soviet term that refers to the manipulative use of slogans, arguments, disinformation, and carefully selected true information, which the Soviets used to try to influence the attitudes and actions of foreign publics and governments. In addition to examining disinformation, this report looks at the Soviet use of conciliatory, alarmist, and derogatory slogans and arguments in order to illustrate the wide variety of manipulative messages and themes used in active measures operations.

...

The Soviet Communist Party created what was, in all likelihood, the most formidable political influence machine in the modern world. Although the Soviets had the disadvantage of "selling" an enormously unpopular "product," they evolved a great deal of manipulative and deceptive techniques to try to compensate for this disadvantage. A close examination of how they sought to influence foreign publics and governments by orchestrating and spreading carefully selected information, disinformation, and a variety of crude, sophisticated, derogatory, conciliatory, and alarmist arguments and slogans contains important lessons for the future in understanding how other totalitarian and extremist regimes conduct active measures, and how some groups and states within the Commonwealth of Independent States continue to try to achieve political influence using these methods.

Communist countries such as Cuba and North Korea have their own active measures and disinformation apparatuses. States or groups that have been trained by the Soviets, such as Iraq and the Palestine Liberation organization use these techniques in their foreign policy endeavors. Highly ideological, anti-Western regimes such as Iran and Libya have elaborated their own front group structures and actively spread anti-Western disinformation. Various communist parties around the world continue to use these techniques. According to the April 21, 1992 New York Times, a recent Chinese government document speaks of the need for "prudent and active measures ... so that bilateral [U.S.-Chinese) relations develop in a way that will help us."

Read the report, it might be eye opening:
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/index.htm#Contents
(http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/index.htm#Contents)

And here is former KGB Officer Yuri Besmenov on exactly how Active Measures threatens U.S. and Western nations...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8

The only thing I quoted from the wiki entry was the number of countries involved in joint statements that climate change is real.

Can you point to something specifically linking Soviet misinformation to climate change? I'm genuinely curious about this because I've never heard that particular brand of denying climate change.

Oil, for all intents and purposes, has inelastic demand in the short term.

To some extent I agree, but higher fuel prices do change consumer behavior. There's nothing so unique about oil that pricing has no effect on demand. Is it linear? Of course not.

I won't even go into how much I disagree with you on government being a source of ingenuity.

You're mistating my position, and misreading my posts. Ingenuity needs to be nurtured by an ecosystem that allows it to thrive. This *does not* mean that if the government just stayed out of everybody's way, that ecosystem would build itself and all would be well. People consistently underestimate all of the factors that go into building that ecosystem.

I'll just state 3 simple facts:

-Profit-seeking is the source of ingenuity.
-Government revenue is just tax money, and government produces nothing and merely transfers wealth. (I'm sure you will point out things like NASA etc., but these are still transfers and government investments of tax money which is still less efficient than private R&D)
-Taxes reduce economic welfare for consumers and producers, no matter how benevolent their intentions may be.

These are not controversial right wing theories, they are basic rules in Economics 101 and 102.

Yes, no, and hell no. The third point taken at face value means that economic welfare for consumers and producers would be at its highest if there just weren't any taxes. This is ludicrous. Head over to any state with a non-functioning tax base, government, and society, and try and market the next iPod. Start with Somalia.

What you state is certainly not Econ 101 and 102. It's the simple and abstract ideas used in Econ 101 and 102 misapplied to the real world.

When it comes to Global Warming, you have to realize there is an iron triangle of collusion between Government, NGOs(Non Governmental Organizations) and Academia when it comes to many things, including global warming.

I could go on all day about how there is an incestuous relationship between academia, environmental/political groups, and governments. In short, academia provide these groups with research results funded by said groups and governments. These groups and governments use the research to advance a flawed scientific theory which they use to appropriate more funds for academics to do more research. Academics produce a very profitable product, for their wallet and their universities. While I can't blame them for wanting to produce such a successful product, their income is tax dollars, and their customer is mainly the government, which naturally wishes to use the research as a reason to expand its own power over individuals.

Science is no longer always an endeavor to discover the truth. Certain fields like climatology have become a religion all their own.

How? because Man-Made Climate Change is irrefutable, and therefore unscientific. Every event that doesn't mesh with climate change theory is explained away by some new series of theories that conflict with previous ones.

My quoting skills are horrid, so please see my responses in red.

Work on your quoting skills, it makes it hard for everyone else to actively continue the debate. It's not hard.

When I mean economic incentive, Im referring to the .Gov using tax incentives for companies as a motivator/reward for those taking the risk to develop new technologies. Im sure tihs already exists in a certain manner, but probably not as robust as it could be. I disagree that giving a tax cut to one entity is equivalent to imposing a tax on another.

This is laughably naive. Government revenues come from taxes. Applying those taxes in any particular direction to motivate or reward is how they are used. A tax cut on one group is by its nature a tax increase on a separate group from the first. If we can't agree on that, debating economic theory or government taxation policies with you is a completely pointless exercise, as the chasm is simply too far for you to cross.

Fine, I will concede that not in every single case is the private sector better suited to accomplishing a task than the Government (by big 'G' Im referring to Feds in specific). But as a whole and in general, I will always err on the side of the private sector than that of Government to be more efficient, effective, and initiative bearing. This is simply because of the fact, that a private entity is expending its own money and resources so it will be much more likely to expend them in profitable/useful avenues than Government - which is nothing more than bureacrats expending resources that are not theirs and are less likely to be held accountable for the misallocation misuse of. Regardless of where you stand on the argument, I think it would be difficult to refute the above statement.

It's easy to refute that statement. It's naive and childish to equate government = waste and private investment = efficiency. There are many examples of the former and latter, and there are many counter examples of the former and latter. Banging the drum for all taxation is bad as a generally agreed upon principle is a silly rallying cry of those too ill-equipped to understand how their society works, as well as a far cry from the political leaders of the past who are only now being falsely portrayed as "tax = bad" leaders who grew the economy. The irony is no greater than the tea party champions theoretically arguing for minimum taxation, cutting the government at all costs, yet unwilling to give an inch on all of the government programs that they see as their inalienable rights (Medicare, Social Security). The latest arguments for not raising the debt ceiling are a close cousin.

No argument from me that gas is more expensive elsewhere than here in the States. However, in many parts of the world, indoor toilets are an exotic luxury, daily showers are unheard of, and child sex slaves are common. Just because most of the world does it wrong is not a valid argument to drag the U.S. down to the standard that most of the rest of the world operates under.

Do I need to post a link to what a straw-man argument is, or is it clear to even you that you just made one? Oil is a worldwide commodity. Its manufacture, trade, use, and everything else can very easily be compared from here in the US to any number of countries with the same or improved standard of living to what we enjoy here.

To some extent I agree, but higher fuel prices do change consumer behavior. There's nothing so unique about oil that pricing has no effect on demand. Is it linear? Of course not.

You're mistating my position, and misreading my posts. Ingenuity needs to be nurtured by an ecosystem that allows it to thrive. This *does not* mean that if the government just stayed out of everybody's way, that ecosystem would build itself and all would be well. People consistently underestimate all of the factors that go into building that ecosystem.

Yes, no, and hell no. The third point taken at face value means that economic welfare for consumers and producers would be at its highest if there just weren't any taxes. This is ludicrous. Head over to any state with a non-functioning tax base, government, and society, and try and market the next iPod. Start with Somalia.

What you state is certainly not Econ 101 and 102. It's the simple and abstract ideas used in Econ 101 and 102 misapplied to the real world.

Somalia is a lawless state. Without rule of law, contracts cannot be enforced, and therefore commerce takes a back seat to outright barbarism. I'm no anarcho-capitalist, and Somalia is no capitalist country since functioning capitalism requires a system of laws to protect it. Singapore and Hong Kong and Australia are probably the closest thing to unfettered capitalism.

welfare would indeed be at it's highest without taxes, but as I stated, government is a necessary evil that must be paid for somehow. Taxes impose a deadweight loss on consumers and producers, reducing consumption and output:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/TaxWithTax.svg/300px-TaxWithTax.svg.png
EDIT: Green = Consumer Surplus; Yellow = Producer Surplus

as you can see there is a triangle-ish shape between Q2, Supply and Demand. That is the deadweight loss of the tax on the economy. In this case, producers and consumers are bearing almost an equal portion of the tax and deadweight loss.

The grey area is simply turned from producer/consumer surplus into government revenue/transfers of wealth. IMHO Government has a duty to produce defense, roads, security and not much else and profits are not made from these except in the form of potential increased tax revenue from better transportation systems, but even these experience diminishing returns very quickly. In fact, in almost every case, except for public roads, government just grants natural monopolies to pseudo-private companies to supply infrastructure.

If you want, I can go grab the textbook I teach out of and cite my paraphrases. except for the part I declared opinion and I'm sure I could find these in that book.

It's probably the most commonly used undergraduate economics textbook. Principles of Economics, by Gregory Mankiw.

The only thing I quoted from the wiki entry was the number of countries involved in joint statements that climate change is real.

Can you point to something specifically linking Soviet misinformation to climate change? I'm genuinely curious about this because I've never heard that particular brand of denying climate change.

Im not aware of any specific available information to link anthropogenic global warming to Soviet KGB efforts. Im also not saying that the Soviets came up with the theory. Im just saying the theory has gaping holes in it and its far from proven fact that the presence of human beings on the planet has any significant effect on the climate cycles. My contention is that the Soviets, realizing that they could make hay of the holes in the theory utilized thier effective network of recruited academicians, scientisits, and journalists to propogate and push the idea around the globe.

Again, I cant point to a specific document highlighting KGB involvement in this effort, but there are many publicly available records of Soviet involvement in similar efforts. Take for example the notion of the 'Nuclear Winter' that the American and European Left beat the drum about in the 1980's. This was a ploy by the KGB, realizing that they were at a siginificant nuclear arms disadvantage, to spread terror and panic in Western Europe in order to prevent the installation of U.S. nuclear missiles. It worked brilliantly, liberal academicians and journalists latched on to this idea and publicized it and it soon became 'conventional wisdom'. The whole thing was generated by fraudulent science from the Soviet Academy of Science - which was an arm of the KGB.

Segey Tetryakov was the Rezident in charge of the SVR (current day KGB) office in New York. He defected to the U.S. a few years ago (and later passed away in Florida). He wrote:

According to Sergei Tretyakov, "The KGB was responsible for creating the entire nuclear winter story to stop the Pershing missiles."[4] Tretyakov says that from 1979 the KGB wanted to prevent the United States from deploying the missiles in Western Europe and that, directed by Yuri Andropov, they used the soviet peace Committee, a government organization, to organize and finance demonstrations in Europe against US bases.[4][5][6] He claims that misinformation based on a faked "doomsday report" by the soviet Academy of sciences about the effect of nuclear war on climate was distributed to peace groups, the environmental movement and the journal Ambio,[4] which carried a key article on the topic in 1982.[7]

For reference, see "The Sword and the Shield" by Vitaly Mitrokhin. Mitrokhin was the official KGB historian at the fall of the Soviet Union. He raided the KGB archives and defected to the West. The archives are published in two volumes, with the first being "The Sword and the Shield". I dont have the specific cite, but if you look up the book, you will see what Im talking about.

Also, reference Oleg Kalugin, the youngest KGB General in Soviet history, and also a defector. In the 1960's Kalugin worked in DC using a cover as a journalist. From Kalugin's memoirs:

According to oleg Kalugin, "the Soviet intelligence was really unparalleled. ... The KGB programs -- which would run all sorts of congresses, peace congresses, youth congresses, festivals, women's movements, trade union movements, campaigns against U.S. missiles in Europe, campaigns against neutron weapons, allegations that AIDs ... was invented by the CIA ... all sorts of forgeries and faked material -- [were] targeted at politicians, the academic community, at the public at large." [2]

There are many others as well. But Kalugin and Mitrokhin are the best known and most famous.

This stuff happens today as well. The follow on Russian service, the SVR is more active in the US today than they were during the Cold War. The same goes for the Chinese as well. Much of the politically correct 'conventional wisdom' the you read in the newspaper or hear in a lecture in college has roots seeded in Communist disinformation.

Every event that doesn't mesh with climate change theory is explained away by some new series of theories that conflict with previous ones.

You do realize that's exactly how our entire body of scientific knowledge has been gained, right? :confused::confused::confused:

Much of the politically correct 'conventional wisdom' the you read in the newspaper or hear in a lecture in college has roots seeded in Communist disinformation.

This is really quite paranoid.

This is really quite paranoid.

Lol, did you even read what I posted? Its not paranoid, its just hard for you to accept the fact that academia and journalism are dominated by leftists and as such, they will tout their pet dogmas as fact.

You do realize that's exactly how our entire body of scientific knowledge has been gained, right? :confused::confused::confused:

You do realize your grandchildren will mock you and laugh at the fact that you once believed in global warming?

Just like we laugh at ridiculous theories from 60 years ago that the 'consensus' supported.

The grey area is simply turned from producer/consumer surplus into government revenue/transfers of wealth. IMHO Government has a duty to produce defense, roads, security and not much else and profits are not made from these except in the form of potential increased tax revenue from better transportation systems, but even these experience diminishing returns very quickly. In fact, in almost every case, except for public roads, government just grants natural monopolies to pseudo-private companies to supply infrastructure.

That's a wonderfully naive opinion, that hasn't been relevant in the real world for almost 100 years. There isn't a successful state on the globe that has limited its government to what you list. Successful could be defined by economic superiority, standard of living, individual opportunity, or even basic freedom. The simple graphs that imply that optimal taxes converge to zero are so out of touch with the application of economic theory, that teaching them as truisms to those who don't understand the implications borders on academic malpractice.

Much of the politically correct 'conventional wisdom' the you read in the newspaper or hear in a lecture in college has roots seeded in Communist disinformation.

Its not paranoid, its just hard for you to accept the fact that academia and journalism are dominated by leftists and as such, they will tout their pet dogmas as fact.

You do realize your grandchildren will mock you and laugh at the fact that you once believed in global warming?

Just like we laugh at ridiculous theories from 60 years ago that the 'consensus' supported.

Or, how we now laugh at Joseph McCarthy?

Creepy thread.

You can change your post, but the image quoted is ingrained in the thread unless the source of the image takes it down.

Yup. Taken down or changed. :3

I wish vehicles could run on urine. Beer would become a miracle drink.

:eek: This is so misinformed I don't know where to begin.

Edit: I should read the rest of the posts before posting myself, but I guess this isn't the time or place to start a flamewar despite being a little tempted. It suffices to say that the HUUUUUUUUUGE preponderance of scientific evidence points to man contributing to global warming.

There's actually a HUUUUUUUGE preponderance of scientific evidence that points to it being junk science.

What we have is 90 Nobel prize winning scientists with special interest investments in environmental biased companies saying global warming exists...which considering the recent joke that the Nobel prize has become is laughable. And thousands of scientists that refute the entire premise of global warming, with hundreds of studies showing there are no global warming effects attributed to man.

According to the global warming hypothesis, we should have seen catastrophic environmental impacts within 20 years from when it was first released. The New York times even told everyone that we would see mass migrations of people leaving the shores as the sea level rose in 10 years....this was back in 1999. I still have the article.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

During the last 50 years, carbon dioxide levels have increased. Yet during 20 of those years in which the CO2 levels are at their highest, we've seen a decrease in global temperture. Anyone that went outside in the northern states during winter last year will know that.

One of the things we all learned in school way back in the day was, if a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. The global warming hypothesis failed miserably, yet for some reason we still have people clinging on to it and trying to justify its failure.

And then to try to bolster it after it failed by giving Al Gore a Nobel Prize for it is a complete joke.

Over the last 3000 years, the climate has gone through periods where the temperture was much warmer than it is today, and yet we are all still here.

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”


HAHAHAHAHA....chumps

That's a wonderfully naive opinion, that hasn't been relevant in the real world for almost 100 years. There isn't a successful state on the globe that has limited its government to what you list. Successful could be defined by economic superiority, standard of living, individual opportunity, or even basic freedom. The simple graphs that imply that optimal taxes converge to zero are so out of touch with the application of economic theory, that teaching them as truisms to those who don't understand the implications borders on academic malpractice.

lol? My full time job is doing accounting/finance work for a manufacturer, and the basic economics above figures into every data set I work with.

Sure, there are more abstract concepts at the higher levels of economics that are argued over every day, but the fact that forcing a cost on producers and consumers at gunpoint (because if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail) causes them to consume/produce less is about as close to scientific law you can get to in the social sciences.

It's also kind of funny you mention Joseph McCarthy, the so called "bogeyman of the left". Kinda funny that he was a creation of the left. He was a Democrat that changed parties after the War to win in, what was at the time, a Republican held state of Wisconsin. However, Wisconsin has had a strong heritage of Progressive politics spilling into both parties. Progressives have always sat on the left and are known for a raging hostility towards their Communist cousins.

I bring up Progressivism, because the collusion between GM and the Federal Government is a great example of Progressive economic ideology. Prop up big business and put the screws to small and medium business.

Yes! Roger Ailes and Ruppert Murdock are finally posting at ninjette.org.

Yes! Roger Ailes and Ruppert Murdock are finally posting at ninjette.org.

So this is what Keith Olberman is now doing with his spare time during the day - sitting on his couch and posting drivel on ninjette.org.

Call me Walter E Williams.

Sure, there are more abstract concepts at the higher levels of economics that are argued over every day, but the fact that forcing a cost on producers and consumers at gunpoint (because if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail) causes them to consume/produce less is about as close to scientific law you can get to in the social sciences.

But you're not bounding that concept, and understanding that there is an optimal level that isn't zero is the key point that you're missing (or at least not sharing). Not the simplistic: less taxes = good, no matter what level of taxation you start with.

It's also kind of funny you mention Joseph McCarthy, the so called "bogeyman of the left". Kinda funny that he was a creation of the left. He was a Democrat that changed parties after the War to win in, what was at the time, a Republican held state of Wisconsin. However, Wisconsin has had a strong heritage of Progressive politics spilling into both parties. Progressives have always sat on the left and are known for a raging hostility towards their Communist cousins.

For this discussion, McCarthy's allegiance to either the Democratic or Republican party is irrelevant. He's the most well-known discredited conspiracy theorist we have in popular culture. Though the internet uncovers millions of hopeful proteges...

It seems the post I responded to got deleted, so I'm editing this to be more concise. Sorry :)

What we have is 90 Nobel prize winning scientists with special interest investments in environmental biased companies saying global warming exists...which considering the recent joke that the Nobel prize has become is laughable. And thousands of scientists that refute the entire premise of global warming, with hundreds of studies showing there are no global warming effects attributed to man.


Don't believe everything you hear on the news when it comes to science.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Oreskes, Naomi (December 2004). "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. "Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." (Emphasis mine)

"Understanding and Responding to Climate Change". United States National Academy of Sciences. 2008. "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0309145880. "... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."


According to the global warming hypothesis, we should have seen catastrophic environmental impacts within 20 years from when it was first released. The New York times even told everyone that we would see mass migrations of people leaving the shores as the sea level rose in 10 years....this was back in 1999. I still have the article.


The NYT isn't the best scientific publication known to man. The media is traditionally AWFUL in science reporting -- it tends to publish sensationalist and/or fringe claims on both sides of an issue. While ultimately dealing with those is an important part of the scientific process, they're generally given much more attention in the news than they should be, in the interest of gaining more viewers/ratings. For example, see the media mini-fiasco over black holes at the LHC.


During the last 50 years, carbon dioxide levels have increased. Yet during 20 of those years in which the CO2 levels are at their highest, we've seen a decrease in global temperture. Anyone that went outside in the northern states during winter last year will know that.


CO2 isn't the only gas in question here. I'm not an expert, but as I understand it methane, aerosols, sulfates, and soot are the main contributors.

Additionally, weather isn't climate. One winter means very little -- climate change claims a statistical warming that's on the order of a tenth of a degree Celsius per decade. This isn't sweeping the issue under the rug. If you think one warm winter disproves climate change, then you truly don't understand the claims being made. I do think you understand that it's a long-term phenomenon, I just wanted to state that because many people don't grasp that.

Don't believe everything you hear on Fox, especially when it comes to science.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Oreskes, Naomi (December 2004). "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. "Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

"Understanding and Responding to Climate Change". United States National Academy of Sciences. 2008. "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0309145880. "... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."

First off, I dont know what the Fox news reference is to..while Ill watch them occasionally, I also watch others as well. In any case, the news media is not my source for information.

What you have to understand about your information above, is that you clipped out a significant and important portion..
"... we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."

That very portion suggests that they are "rolling with the tide" concerning global warming, yet they have absolutely NO concrete evidence supporting this action.

"Potential misconduct at the IPCC was recently uncovered by the Global Climate Coalition, an association of oil, coal, and utility companies. In a memorandum to Congress and the White House, the business coalition alerted U.S. officials that the IPCC's final published report had been altered before final publication. Substantial portions of Chapter 8, which discusses the impact of human activities on the earth's climate, had been re-written by one of its authors after contributing scientists had already given their approval. Cautionary references to scientific uncertainty were removed or modified, changes not approved by the reviewers. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz called the last-minute editing a "disturbing corruption of the peer review process" which could "deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."

"According to an editorial in Nature, IPCC officials said that revisions to the text were needed "to ensure that it conformed to a 'policymakers' summary of the full report," a document whose language is voted on by government delegates. Thus the process is heavily influenced by government officials, including non-scientists." Remember too that many of our government officials also own corporations that will profit drastically by global warming legislation.


Indeed, the NYT is the best scientific publication known to man. They would never report a fringe / sensationalist claim in the interest of getting more readers. No indeed. And other news outlets who disagree with climate change would never do the same! The news is not a reliable resource for this or just about any science. For example, I'm pretty sure the LHC hasn't produced any earth-consuming black holes yet :rolleyes:.

I agree NYT sucks. I used this as an example of the mass hysteria they are trying desperately to create utilizing junk science and mis-information directly provided from the global warming supporting groups.


CO2 isn't the only gas in question here. I'm not an expert, but as I understand it methane, aerosols, sulfates, and soot are the main contributors.


CO2, and other gases have been in our atmosphere since the beginning of time. Their levels fluctuate continuously due to a wide variety of sources, and can even be affected by forces outside of earth's atmosphere such as the sun's radiation. This is nothing new, and nothing different.
It has been scientifically proven that increased CO2 levels PROMOTE plant and tree growth. Sulfates and Charcoal are also used in fertilizers. Also, changes in the sun's radiation can cause ocean water to release CO2 and other gases as well, at unknown levels. Interestingly notable...the computer models that they use to support global warming are incapable of computing the effects of the sun, solar winds, cosmic rays, and even the clouds....all of which affect gas levels in our atmosphere.


Additionally, weather isn't climate. One winter means very little -- climate change claims a statistical warming that's on the order of a tenth of a degree Celsius per decade. This isn't sweeping the issue under the rug. If you think one warm winter disproves climate change, then you truly don't understand the claims being made. I do think you understand that it's a long-term phenomenon, I just wanted to state that because many people don't grasp that.


Statistical analysis of climate over decades is important. To help clear it up lets look at some recent scientific data.

Scientists went to islands in the Indian Ocean, and Pacific to see if sea levels were rising. During the entire time of the research, they found NO sign of any sea rise.

Scientists in Greenland and in Antarctica, have shown that ice in both places is increasing suggesting global cooling instead of global warming.

The CEI Environmental Studies program said from their research "The earth's atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate (global warming) models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4° C over the last fifteen years. The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period — 0.37° C —occurred in the first half of the record — before the period of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases. Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88° C over the past fifty years. Corrective environmental policies would have a minuscule impact on the climate. According to its own projections, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's own plan would spare the earth only a few hundredths of a degree of warming by middle of the next century."


Oh, 2 statements were deleted from a report from 15 years ago. That has no bearing whatsoever on our current understanding.

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made gases cause significant global warming. They knew this back then and chose to hide that fact from public view, and continue to do so to this day.


Lets look at the facts of who exactly is profiting by this global warming myth.

General Motors - who aside from their recent rape of the taxpayers. Is profiting by getting subsidies, and untold millions to "develop" low emission vehicles. Keyword is "develop" not "produce"

General Electric - profiting off of millions of those expensive florescent lightbulbs, which while maybe saving .00000000001 of gas emissions from a power plant...actually have far more toxic chemicals contained within them.
Global warming has become an immense international gravy train worth billions of dollars. It is now one of the largest recipients of government research money in the world.


I really like this quote from Andrew Kenny

"If the global warming scare has little foundation in fact, the ice-age scare is only too solidly founded. For the past two million years, but not before, the northern hemisphere has gone through a regular cycle of ice ages: 90,000 years with ice: 10,000 years without. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Our time is up. The next ice age is due.

We do not know what causes the ice ages. It is probably to do with the arrangement of northern land masses and the path of the Gulf Stream, but we do not know.

However, a new ice age, unlike global warming, would be a certain calamity.

It may be that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are actually warding off the ice age. In this case, we should give tax relief to coal power stations and factories for every tonne of carbon dioxide they release." LOL

It was a joke. mostly. Watch The Big Lebowski.


These are a few years old but not much has changed. I REALLY think you need a little perspective here.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/gas-prices-in-europe-and-usa-2.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/gas_tax_3e.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/gas_ta_3e.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/Darkshine04/1US_EU_gas_price.jpg

The taxes on gasoline here in the US, even when summed up from local + state + federal, are a small fraction of the taxes imposed on gasoline in every single 1st-world country we compare ourselves to. It's order of magnitude different. And that said, the margins on gasoline, and ultimately the profits that these very large oil companies can make, aren't markedly different than any other large corporation here in the US. It's a good business, but it ain't easy, and to continue to be successful it is mind-boggling the amount of investment that is necessary to not only continue to obtain oil, and refine it in a cost-effective manner to ultimately make a profit at the pump.Economies of scale.

Economies of scale.

Yup. :thumbup: Pennies here and there translate into billions at the volumes that business deals with.

I wish vehicles could run on urine. Beer would become a miracle drink.Oscar, I think I love you. But it would have to be light beer; I have a physique to maintain. :thumbup:

But you're not bounding that concept, and understanding that there is an optimal level that isn't zero is the key point that you're missing (or at least not sharing). Not the simplistic: less taxes = good, no matter what level of taxation you start with.

The optimal point is always at market derived equilibrium free of government intervention. However, what I think you are getting at, is that like I've also said, government is necessary, because people are not angels and require rule of law to allow society function, whether we like it or not.

I'm not making a value judgment on revenue taxes. Taxes are necessary until someone figures out a better way to pay for fire departments, the justice system, defense and infrastructure. I don't see much more use for the Federal government, and believe that any other social welfare programs should be left up to the states to fund. That is how the country was intended to run by the Founders, and I agree with their vision.

The deadweight loss of taxes is an undeniable fact of life, and one we have to deal with.

I just don't agree that taxes should be used as a punitive or social tweaking measure. At this point you and I will have to agree to disagree because having this discussion on a BBS is an exercise in futility for both of us and gets much more complicated from there here on out.

For this discussion, McCarthy's allegiance to either the Democratic or Republican party is irrelevant. He's the most well-known discredited conspiracy theorist we have in popular culture. Though the internet uncovers millions of hopeful proteges...

yeh, I agree. I have no love for the man or the things he did. Communists have as much right to spout their garbage as anyone else. He had no respect for the individual or free will, and that made him just as worthless as the ideas he was trying to squash in order to elevate himself.

+1

In conclusion: Ninja 250's are great. So is this cold beer, although they don't mix. :D