PDA

View Full Version : Lay Biofuel Death Toll at Gore's Door


lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2008, 02:14 PM
Lay Biofuel Death Toll at Gore's Door
by Marcia Merry Baker

April 12, 2008 (LPAC)--Among all the ways that Al Gore has advocated and worked to kill people, his biofuels crap is the worst.

Just at the time when low world grain production and stocks, relative to needs, began hitting new danger levels in the mid-2000s, Gore stepped up to lead the "alternative fuels'' insanity of the large-scale diversion of corn, cane, and oil crops to biofuels. Gore was the neo-green public figure, working in alliance with the neocon, so-called right-wing side of the promotion machine for biofuels. Gore grandstanded during the 2004-06 period, as nations were coerced to pass laws ordering that a big percentage of ethanol and biodiesel must be included in gasoline and diesel fuel, by certain deadlines. What ensured, besides a financial mini-bubble, was a massive shift in area planted to biofuels crops--corn in North America, cane in Brazil, oil crops in Asia, wheat, and rapeseed in Europe, and crops in Africa too. The conditions for genocide by starvation were created.

The Gorey/leftie line for doing this involves the familiar, multiple lies: the Earth is overheating from carbon dioxide; biofuels will emit less CO2; energy from biomass exceeds the energy put in to produce it. The Big Lie is that the Earth is overpopulated anyway, and reducing numbers is good. For example, Gore's 1992 book, reissued in 2006, Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit, gives his standard argument: ''[The countries of Africa] are already putting great strains on their natural resources and threatening the integrity of their ecological systems, so it is truly frightening to imagine the impact of doubling or tripling their numbers....''

The right-wing version, promoted by networks including George Shultz, one of the longtime "economic hitmen'' of the Republican stripe, and James Woolsey, former CIA Director, is the lie that biofuels will provide energy independence and security.

-Death Toll from Biofuels Swindle-

At present rates, in 2008, at least 95 million metric tons of corn will be utilized worldwide for ethanol, which is 12% of the expected total world corn harvest this coming year. On top of that, 10 million tons of wheat and other grains are going into biofuels globally. This doesn't count the agriculture capacity going into cane ethanol in Brazil, or Asian and European oilseeds for biodiesel.

LaRouche spelled out the consequences in a March 7, 2007 webcast, "Implications of the Gore Hoax for International Policy.'' He said, "There's no possible way that this biofuels swindle could work. Because what the system requires--it consumes, actually, in raw caloric terms, the production of this fuel produces less fuel in terms of power, than it consumes. In other words, there's no net gain from so-called biofuels. It's also an idiotic thing to do, because what biofuels means is reducing food! It means going into corn production for fuels, at a loss: that is, you get less power out of the fuel than you put into making it! This would mean destruction of the landscape, destruction of the entire economy, mass starvation around the world. It would destroy whole areas of food producing. Idiocy!''

Starving people is not satisfying enough for the appetites of Al Gordo. He is also directly cashing in on the biofuels craze. His London-based financial Blood and Gore outfit is directly involved in making money off the U.S. ethanol binge, calling it "green smart'' investment. His company, Generation Investment Management, whose co-officer is David Blood, formerly of Goldman Sachs, is significantly invested in the Danish firm whose subsidiary supplies 40% of all the enzymes used in the U.S. ethanol distilling process. The firm is Novo Nordisk, whose sub-group, Novozymes, is the world's leading supplier of enzymes used in processing corn into ethanol.

Novo Nordisk is one of 14 huge corporations (with Hewlett Packard, Sony, etc.) steered by the World Wildlife Fund as "Climate Savers.'
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/04/12/lay-biofuel-death-toll-gores-door.html


Interesting read..with good facts...though it does tend to get slightly emotional.

I think we will all hear more about the growing hunger "Tsunami" (as they call it) in the next few weeks...and how enviromental alarmist are directly involved by pushing legislative action that reguires a certain amount of crop be set aside to "save the planet"

Two interesting facts that i heard on the news last night is that 1) If we were to use every grain of corn in the world...we would only meet 17% of the U.S. fuel needs....and 2) If a person were to fill up their vehicle with pure ethonal...it takes as much corn as would feed a person for one year.

I have to admit to being very naive about the whole biofuel/world hunger connection...but like I said...we should all hear more about it in the next several weeks.

Looks as if "certain" alarmists are reaping the benefits of scaring the world into biofuel production after investing heavily in the same corporations.

Atlanta Dan
05-12-2008, 03:43 PM
But are biofuels related to a "British" plot to kill Hillary, as is argued by LaRouche in another "emotional" article on the site?:sofunny:

It's a British operation, aimed at destroying the United States as a Constitutional form of government, run by the Anglo-Dutch liberal financial faction, very much the same kind of people who put Hitler into power, and Mussolini into power earlier in Europe. It's the same crowd; they're at it again, and the U.S. is the target. And there are many Americans who are complicit in this criminal activity, including some very well known ones."

"The same kind of thing was done against Roosevelt. And the problem are the London forces and traitorous pigs in the United States who see Hillary as a potential replication of FDR, and therefore they want to kill her.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/05/09/larouche-warns-there-fascist-coalition-run-london-moving-kil.html

revefsreleets
05-12-2008, 06:07 PM
This does have some interesting overtones, though. When DDT was banned, the substitutes were not as effective, and a lot more people died from starvation than from the pesticide we were all supposedly being saved from.

These are complex problems, and cannot be solved with simple black/white or yes/no answers.

GBMelBlount
05-12-2008, 07:07 PM
When DDT was banned, the substitutes were not as effective, and a lot more people died from starvation than from the pesticide

It's amazing how little you hear about this.

tony hipchest
05-12-2008, 07:21 PM
i dont have a link but heard this about 7 years ago-

it takes 10 pounds of grain, to produce 1 pound of beef.

cows farts deplete the ozone.

an american meal in the late 1800's consisted of 1 part beef vs. 3-4 parts grains/veggies. nowadays that is about reversed. the reciprocol rate of obesity and heart disease support this.

just food for thought. literally.

MACH1
05-12-2008, 08:13 PM
So basically were going to starve to death before we fry from global warming. :rolleyes:

TroysBadDawg
05-12-2008, 08:51 PM
Me I am going to die from my bad heart.

Godfather
05-12-2008, 11:58 PM
Blame the biofuel mess on the primary system. Iowa has been getting ethanol subsidies since long before anyone heard of Al Gore. Any member of Congress who does the right thing and opposes those subsidies can forget winning the Iowa caucuses, thus putting them at a major disadvantage when they inevitably run for POTUS.

Preacher
05-13-2008, 12:21 AM
Blame the biofuel mess on the primary system. Iowa has been getting ethanol subsidies since long before anyone heard of Al Gore. Any member of Congress who does the right thing and opposes those subsidies can forget winning the Iowa caucuses, thus putting them at a major disadvantage when they inevitably run for POTUS.

It wasn't a problem, until everything else became and issue and all this stuff got pushed.

TroysBadDawg
05-13-2008, 08:14 AM
What they should ban in Congress is all the Special Interest Lobbies. But then where would they get all their money?

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-13-2008, 08:32 AM
But are biofuels related to a "British" plot to kill Hillary, as is argued by LaRouche in another "emotional" article on the site?:sofunny:

It's a British operation, aimed at destroying the United States as a Constitutional form of government, run by the Anglo-Dutch liberal financial faction, very much the same kind of people who put Hitler into power, and Mussolini into power earlier in Europe. It's the same crowd; they're at it again, and the U.S. is the target. And there are many Americans who are complicit in this criminal activity, including some very well known ones."

"The same kind of thing was done against Roosevelt. And the problem are the London forces and traitorous pigs in the United States who see Hillary as a potential replication of FDR, and therefore they want to kill her.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/05/09/larouche-warns-there-fascist-coalition-run-london-moving-kil.html

LaRouche is off the wall...but one can find scores of articles about how the mandate in the U.S. and Europe to set aside food for bio-fuels is directly related to the global hunger crises....

Good thing Gore heavily invested in "green" companies before his movie and tour came out ...I'm sure his "inconvenient loot" will go directly to the starving children in third world countries.

...by the way, is it me....or is he looking......"puffy".

GBMelBlount
05-13-2008, 09:52 AM
There is a guy I occasionally listen to on the radio and his motto is "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent."

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-13-2008, 10:02 AM
There is a guy I occasionally listen to on the radio and his motto is "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent."

Very nice....and very true.

Welfare system has created culture of dependence

Social security has created a system unable to support itself and gives false hope to the populace that they will be taken care of....etc

fansince'76
05-13-2008, 10:08 AM
Good thing Gore heavily invested in "green" companies before his movie and tour came out ...I'm sure his "inconvenient loot" will go directly to the starving children in third world countries.

...by the way, is it me....or is he looking......"puffy".

I'll tell ya an inconvenient truth - little Al got fat. :pig: :toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?collectionId=87135&targetVideoId=89817

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-13-2008, 10:30 AM
I'll tell ya an inconvenient truth - little Al got fat. :pig: :toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?collectionId=87135&targetVideoId=89817

That aint no veggie-burger gut!!!!:sofunny:

GBMelBlount
05-13-2008, 10:33 AM
I'll tell ya an inconvenient truth - little Al got fat. :pig: :toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?collectionId=87135&targetVideoId=89817

LMAO!!!!!

".......I'm saying it loudly and repeating it a bunch of times so everyone will think it's true like on the no spin zone....." - GW

Republican or democrat that whole "skit" is hysterical. :chuckle:

Dino 6 Rings
05-13-2008, 10:57 AM
I Give a Hoot.

I've officially stopped my practice of burning tires in my back yard. I know, I know, I'm proud of me too.

Next I may stop my habit of dumping used oil into the local lake, and am considering giving up the practice of pouring mercury into the local drinking water. Baby steps people. Baby steps.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-13-2008, 11:14 AM
i was just watching last night how enviromental groups are wanting to put the Polar Bear on the endangered species list....yet the facts show that the population of Polar Bears has risen from 5,000 in the early 70's to 25,000 today....so now the enviromentalists are wanting to put them on the "threatened" species list, with the claim that global warming is melting off the ice shelf...but scientists have come forward to show that the ice shelf is actually at the second thickest level ever recorded.

So why the push to have the Polar Bears protected?.... If they can get it passed it will stop all drilling for oil in the arctic region. A simple deceptive backdoor approach to push an enviromental belief , not based on science or fact....but on ideology.

Pathetic.

GBMelBlount
05-13-2008, 11:53 AM
i was just watching last night how enviromental groups are wanting to put the Polar Bear on the endangered species list....yet the facts show that the population of Polar Bears has risen from 5,000 in the early 70's to 25,000 today....so now the enviromentalists are wanting to put them on the "threatened" species list, with the claim that global warming is melting off the ice shelf...but scientists have come forward to shwo that the ice shelf is actually at the second thickest level ever recorded.

So why the push to have the Polar Bears protected?.... If they can get it passed it will stop all drilling for oil in the arctic region. A simple deceptive backdoor approach to push an enviromental belief , not based on science or fact....but on ideology.

Pathetic.

I heard something specifically about this. Unless I am mistaken, this can actually create a situation that can possibly halt any new drilling or refineries.......

stillers4me
05-13-2008, 11:54 AM
I Give a Hoot.

I've officially stopped my practice of burning tires in my back yard. I know, I know, I'm proud of me too.

Next I may stop my habit of dumping used oil into the local lake, and am considering giving up the practice of pouring mercury into the local drinking water. Baby steps people. Baby steps.

Me so proud!!!!!!!! :wink02:

stillers4me
05-13-2008, 11:54 AM
I heard something specifically about this. Unless I am mistaken, this can actually create a situation that can possibly halt any new drilling or refineries.......

We are our own worst enemy.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-13-2008, 12:20 PM
We are our own worst enemy.

Insecure pseudo-intellectual elitists will be the death of this country.

GBMelBlount
05-13-2008, 12:27 PM
Insecure pseudo-intellectual elitists will be the death of this country.

If the evil greedy capitalists and corporations would stop keeping the little guy down and causing his misfortune there wouldn't be a need for pseudo-intellectual elitists. :wink02:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-13-2008, 12:39 PM
If the evil greedy capitalists and corporations would stop keeping the little guy down and causing his misfortune there wouldn't be a need for pseudo-intellectual elitists. :wink02:

..INSECURE pseudo-intellectual elitists!....plain old pseudo-intellectual elitists I can handle.:chuckle:

Dino 6 Rings
05-13-2008, 03:24 PM
I wonder what'll happen to the ozone if I throw this plastic bottle into the ditch behind my house...

stlrtruck
05-13-2008, 03:30 PM
I wonder what'll happen to the ozone if I throw this plastic bottle into the ditch behind my house...

Depends on if a Republican or Democrat catches you doing it!

stillers4me
05-13-2008, 03:34 PM
I wonder what'll happen to the ozone if I throw this plastic bottle into the ditch behind my house...

You'll make an Indian cry.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8165024777546661764

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-13-2008, 03:39 PM
I wonder what'll happen to the ozone if I throw this plastic bottle into the ditch behind my house...

The Ozone and Al Gore's butt both grow.

GBMelBlount
05-13-2008, 05:17 PM
The Ozone and Al Gore's butt both grow.

Can't be any bigger than his carbon footprint....Sasquatch gore.

Dino 6 Rings
05-13-2008, 05:31 PM
Bigfoot is REAL! That's the real reason we can't drill for oil in the open wilderness of North America. Bigfoot would take our government to court and the ACLU would be right there with him.

Atlanta Dan
05-13-2008, 06:03 PM
LaRouche is off the wall...but one can find scores of articles about how the mandate in the U.S. and Europe to set aside food for bio-fuels is directly related to the global hunger crises....

Good thing Gore heavily invested in "green" companies before his movie and tour came out ...I'm sure his "inconvenient loot" will go directly to the starving children in third world countries.

...by the way, is it me....or is he looking......"puffy".

I agree the whole issue of biofuels has a lot of pork and unintended consequences associated with it - the fact that LaRouche's site might have something of value on it among all the nutcake ravings proves the adage even a broken clock is right twice a day

For another comment on ethanol, James Fallows ran a contest on his blog for the dumbest manifestation of bipartisan public policy decisions of the last 50 years and this entry on ethanol subsidies won:

It's harmful because: 1) it helped to catalyze higher levels of food inflation, 2) it consumes as much energy to make and distribute as it provides, 3) it deflects attention from developing trying sound policies to enhance our energy security, 4) it didn't allow for removal of taxes on the import of truly energy efficient ethanol produced in Brazil from sugar, and 5) it's a such an extreme example of government dysfunctionality it causes people like me to become truly disillusioned with the political process.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/stupidest_policy_ever_contest_1.php#more

As for Gore apparently not planing to seek a new career as a spokesperson for Weight Watchers, he only loses weight when he is running for office:sofunny:

GBMelBlount
05-13-2008, 06:11 PM
Atlanta Dan

......It's harmful because:

1) it helped to catalyze higher levels of food inflation

2) it consumes as much energy to make and distribute as it provides

3) it deflects attention from developing trying sound policies to enhance our energy security

4) it didn't allow for removal of taxes on the import of truly energy efficient ethanol produced in Brazil from sugar

5) it's a such an extreme example of government dysfunctionality it causes people like me to become truly disillusioned with the political process


And you wonder why people question if politicians are looking out for our best interest. :shake01:

Atlanta Dan
05-13-2008, 06:16 PM
i was just watching last night how enviromental groups are wanting to put the Polar Bear on the endangered species list....yet the facts show that the population of Polar Bears has risen from 5,000 in the early 70's to 25,000 today....so now the enviromentalists are wanting to put them on the "threatened" species list, with the claim that global warming is melting off the ice shelf...but scientists have come forward to show that the ice shelf is actually at the second thickest level ever recorded.

So why the push to have the Polar Bears protected?.... If they can get it passed it will stop all drilling for oil in the arctic region. A simple deceptive backdoor approach to push an enviromental belief , not based on science or fact....but on ideology.

Pathetic.

You betcha - here is a typical factless diatribe from the polar bear lobby (Big Polar?) by the environmental leftist wackos who work at the Bush Administration's U.S. Fish & Wildife Service.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html

It's the best of all possible worlds for polar bears!

GBMelBlount
05-13-2008, 06:32 PM
It's the best of all possible worlds for polar bears!

Jeeesh, it sucks being human. If only we could be polar bears.....

Godfather
05-13-2008, 06:48 PM
What they should ban in Congress is all the Special Interest Lobbies. But then where would they get all their money?

That would only solve part of the problem. Doing favors for special interests can land you a very lucrative career with those same special interests when you leave Congress. Bully Tauzin helped push the prescription drug benefit through--with a provision against negotiating bulk discounts--and now makes over $1M a year as a lobbyist for the drug industry. That's just one example. And unless you get someone on tape agreeing to trade a vote for a job, you can't make a bribery case. Cases like that just establish the unwritten rule and most members of Congress go along.

Plus, special interest money would still be used for attack ads. Imagine if you try to cut off a wasteful program...the people who make money off that program would spend millions on attack ads to get you thrown out.

Preacher
05-13-2008, 07:08 PM
That would only solve part of the problem. Doing favors for special interests can land you a very lucrative career with those same special interests when you leave Congress. Bully Tauzin helped push the prescription drug benefit through--with a provision against negotiating bulk discounts--and now makes over $1M a year as a lobbyist for the drug industry. That's just one example. And unless you get someone on tape agreeing to trade a vote for a job, you can't make a bribery case. Cases like that just establish the unwritten rule and most members of Congress go along.

Plus, special interest money would still be used for attack ads. Imagine if you try to cut off a wasteful program...the people who make money off that program would spend millions on attack ads to get you thrown out.

I wish just one day, that a president would come out, DEMAND public air time (which he has the right to do), and call out all the pork spending. Name by city, state, sponsor (congresscritter), and company getting the money, all the pork.

Go republican, democrat, repubilican, democrat... democrat republican democrat republican... right down the list.

That way, it isn't partisan.

I would buy Pay-Per-View for that one!!!!

stillers4me
05-13-2008, 07:12 PM
I wish just one day, that a president would come out, DEMAND public air time (which he has the right to do), and call out all the pork spending. Name by city, state, sponsor (congresscritter), and company getting the money, all the pork.

Go republican, democrat, repubilican, democrat... democrat republican democrat republican... right down the list.

That way, it isn't partisan.

I would buy Pay-Per-View for that one!!!!

hmmmmm......hasn't McCain said he absolutely will not sign bills with pork attatched to them?? While they are areas I do not agreee with McCain on, this alone would be a major step in turning the budget around.

Godfather
05-13-2008, 10:41 PM
hmmmmm......hasn't McCain said he absolutely will not sign bills with pork attatched to them?? While they are areas I do not agreee with McCain on, this alone would be a major step in turning the budget around.

Yep. McCain despises earmarks.

The only trouble is drawing the line between pork and legit spending in some cases. Coastal wetland restoration is an example--some members of Congress call it pork, but it's really just the feds cleaning up an environmental mess of their own making.

McCain has proposed an objective definition: any spending item added in conference committee rather than through the normal legislative procedure.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-14-2008, 04:47 AM
You betcha - here is a typical factless diatribe from the polar bear lobby (Big Polar?) by the environmental leftist wackos who work at the Bush Administration's U.S. Fish & Wildife Service.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html

It's the best of all possible worlds for polar bears!

Looks like the real experts have to debunct all the non-facts that Gore and his heavily invested alarmists buddies like to throw out.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_polarbears.pdf

Atlanta Dan
05-14-2008, 05:08 PM
Looks like the real experts have to debunct all the non-facts that Gore and his heavily invested alarmists buddies like to throw out.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_polarbears.pdf

Of course that article corroborates that a turning point for polar bears sustainability was when Big Government intervened in 1973 and a five nation treaty was signed that limited the right of individuals to kill as many polar bears as they saw fit.

Polar bears "are presumed to be safe if Arctic nations continue to abide by the terms of teh Polar Bear Agreement." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the contention that the best regulation is no regulation or that mankind having been granted dominion over the earth simply means you can take as much of it as you want whenever you want to take it.

Preacher
05-14-2008, 05:28 PM
What?????

The polar bears are dying because of Biofuel and Al Gore?


This title and thread has me confused!

Atlanta Dan
05-14-2008, 06:35 PM
Those crazed leftist environmental wackos in the Bush Administration strike again!

Polar Bear Is Made a Protected Species


The polar bear, whose Arctic hunting grounds have been greatly reduced by a warming climate, will be placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced Wednesday.

But the long-delayed decision to list the bear as a threatened species may prove less of an impediment to industries along the Alaskan coast than many environmentalists had hoped. While further protecting the polar bear from direct or immediate threats — like hunting — the Interior Department added stipulations, seldom invoked under the act, that will make it relatively easy for oil and gas exploration and development activities to proceed.

The decision builds on scientific evidence about the retreat of sea ice, which the bears use as a platform to hunt seals and as a pathway to the Arctic coasts where they den. But it does not directly link the threat to the bears to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Mr. Kempthorne said the Endangered Species Act was “never meant to regulate global climate change” and that it would be “inappropriate” to use the polar bear listing that way. He said he made the decision because “sea ice is vital to polar bears’ survival,” and scientific models show the rapid loss of ice will continue.

The secretary, who earlier in his political life was a strong opponent of the Endangered Species Act, added: “This has been a difficult decision. But in light of the scientific record, and the restraints of the inflexible law that guides me,” he made “ the only decision I can make.”

Few natural resource decisions have been as closely watched or been the subject of such vehement disagreement within the Bush administration as this one, according to officials in the Interior Department and others familiar with the process. After the department missed a series of deadlines, a federal judge ruled two weeks ago that the decision had to be made by Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/us/15polar.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Apparently even the fox who runs the Interior Department thinks the law, with which a court had to order him to comply, compels giving this particular henhouse better protection.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-17-2008, 01:39 PM
Those crazed leftist environmental wackos in the Bush Administration strike again!

Polar Bear Is Made a Protected Species


The polar bear, whose Arctic hunting grounds have been greatly reduced by a warming climate, will be placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced Wednesday.

But the long-delayed decision to list the bear as a threatened species may prove less of an impediment to industries along the Alaskan coast than many environmentalists had hoped. While further protecting the polar bear from direct or immediate threats — like hunting — the Interior Department added stipulations, seldom invoked under the act, that will make it relatively easy for oil and gas exploration and development activities to proceed.

The decision builds on scientific evidence about the retreat of sea ice, which the bears use as a platform to hunt seals and as a pathway to the Arctic coasts where they den. But it does not directly link the threat to the bears to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Mr. Kempthorne said the Endangered Species Act was “never meant to regulate global climate change” and that it would be “inappropriate” to use the polar bear listing that way. He said he made the decision because “sea ice is vital to polar bears’ survival,” and scientific models show the rapid loss of ice will continue.

The secretary, who earlier in his political life was a strong opponent of the Endangered Species Act, added: “This has been a difficult decision. But in light of the scientific record, and the restraints of the inflexible law that guides me,” he made “ the only decision I can make.”

Few natural resource decisions have been as closely watched or been the subject of such vehement disagreement within the Bush administration as this one, according to officials in the Interior Department and others familiar with the process. After the department missed a series of deadlines, a federal judge ruled two weeks ago that the decision had to be made by Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/us/15polar.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Apparently even the fox who runs the Interior Department thinks the law, with which a court had to order him to comply, compels giving this particular henhouse better protection.

Makes me wonder if you will be doing backflips at the fuel pumps...Since we "saved the bears" that have gone from 5,000 to 25,000 under current policy.:thumbsup:

Score
Lobbyists=1
Common sense=0

You must be proud.

Atlanta Dan
05-17-2008, 04:11 PM
Makes me wonder if you will be doing backflips at the fuel pumps...Since we "saved the bears" that have gone from 5,000 to 25,000 under current policy.:thumbsup:

Score
Lobbyists=1
Common sense=0

You must be proud.

Yeah - since it does not always occur I am proud the Bush Administration complied with the law

As you presumably read, the Interior Dept. action will have no material impact on oil and gas exploration in the region

While further protecting the polar bear from direct or immediate threats — like hunting — the Interior Department added stipulations, seldom invoked under the act, that will make it relatively easy for oil and gas exploration and development activities to proceed.

Please walk me through your analysis as to how this will impact gasoline prices.

I also would appreciate being educated as to who you regard as to be "the lobbyists" in this case - is it the statute that required the action to be taken, the judge who ordered the Interior Secretary to comply with the law, or the Interior Secretary himself? In addition, since I am confident you have read both documents in detail, what parts of the District Court's Order and the ruling by the Interior Secretary regarding compliance with the ESA do you regard as lacking "common sense"?

:wave:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-18-2008, 09:51 AM
Yeah - since it does not always occur I am proud the Bush Administration complied with the law

As you presumably read, the Interior Dept. action will have no material impact on oil and gas exploration in the region...

Please walk me through your analysis as to how this will impact gasoline prices.


Simple analysis ...based on history. The enviromental groups use legislation in "stages". It is ALWAYS easier to get the population used to a change in policy before demanding another small step...then another small step...then another.

Do you really think that now that now that the government has sidestepped the enviromentalists ..that they are happy with drilling in Alaska? The next step WILL be to demand the government grant the newly labeled "endangered" species ALL the protection required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act ...which requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat.

I'm pretty sure if I know this...the enviromental whackos know this.


I also would appreciate being educated as to who you regard as to be "the lobbyists" in this case - is it the statute that required the action to be taken, the judge who ordered the Interior Secretary to comply with the law, or the Interior Secretary himself?

It is my pleasure to educate you...but first I apologize..I assumed you understood that lobbyists push for change through legislation...,and it is the government officials who take the legal steps after the vote...my bad, I wont overestimate you again.

But for the record..those lobbyists pushing for not only the status change for Polar Bears but for no drilling in the arctic region include ... The center for biological diversity-Bluewater network... a divison of Friends of the earth...Greenpeace...Earthworks... the Wilderness Society..etc.

In addition, since I am confident you have read both documents in detail, what parts of the District Court's Order and the ruling by the Interior Secretary regarding compliance with the ESA do you regard as lacking "common sense"?


Hmmm..when did I say that it was compliance of of the ruling that lacked common sense....Rather clumsy attempt to build a straw man arguement...but with practice you could make LITP proud.

Again I assumed you "understood" what I meant by a lack of common sense....when I stated ...twice...that the facts do not support putting Polar bears on an endangered species list. I will repeat it again in the hope that someone is sitting beside you this time to explain what seems to be eluding you...

1) There there 5,000 polar Bears in 1974...the CURRENT policies...protections...and legislation worked well enough to raise that number 25,000 today.

(25,000 > 5,000)

2) The ice shelf that keeps being mentioned as "melting" is actually at the second thickest level ever measured.

3) Two of the regions where there seems to be little food supply that were used as proof of the Bears being endangered are areas that the Polar Bears only briefly migrate across ... and are not nor have ever been known to be breeding/hunting areas for the Bears (probably because of little food supply)

We are basing policy purely on the consensus of those whose pocketbooks are filled by alarmist enviromental data.

Consensus Science is and always will be Garbage Science...the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus

Atlanta Dan
05-18-2008, 11:20 AM
Simple analysis ...based on history. The enviromental groups use legislation in "stages". It is ALWAYS easier to get the population used to a change in policy before demanding another small step...then another small step...then another.

Do you really think that now that now that the government has sidestepped the enviromentalists ..that they are happy with drilling in Alaska? The next step WILL be to demand the government grant the newly labeled "endangered" species ALL the protection required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act ...which requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat.

I'm pretty sure if I know this...the enviromental whackos know this.

It is my pleasure to educate you...but first I apologize..I assumed you understood that lobbyists push for change through legislation...,and it is the government officials who take the legal steps after the vote...my bad, I wont overestimate you again.

But for the record..those lobbyists pushing for not only the status change for Polar Bears but for no drilling in the arctic region include ... The center for biological diversity-Bluewater network... a divison of Friends of the earth...Greenpeace...Earthworks... the Wilderness Society..etc.

Hmmm..when did I say that it was compliance of of the ruling that lacked common sense....Rather clumsy attempt to build a straw man arguement...but with practice you could make LITP proud.

Again I assumed you "understood" what I meant by a lack of common sense....when I stated ...twice...that the facts do not support putting Polar bears on an endangered species list. I will repeat it again in the hope that someone is sitting beside you this time to explain what seems to be eluding you...

1) There there 5,000 polar Bears in 1974...the CURRENT policies...protections...and legislation worked well enough to raise that number 25,000 today.

(25,000 > 5,000)

2) The ice shelf that keeps being mentioned as "melting" is actually at the second thickest level ever measured.

3) Two of the regions where there seems to be little food supply that were used as proof of the Bears being endangered are areas that the Polar Bears only briefly migrate across ... and are not nor have ever been known to be breeding/hunting areas for the Bears (probably because of little food supply)

We are basing policy purely on the consensus of those whose pocketbooks are filled by alarmist enviromental data.

Consensus Science is and always will be Garbage Science...the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus

I posted a link to New York Time story on the Interior Department's action - you first asked if I would be doing "back flips at the fuel pump" in response to that action and then posted "Lobbyists -1 Common Sense = 0"

You first obsevation about back flips at the fuel pump indicated this decision was going to impact fuel prices - I asked how this ruling was going to do that and you go off on a tangent about future actions that allegedly will occur - nice try to slip my question

As for the "common sense" riposte, it was in response to my post on this decision - so, I will ask it again; what is it about this decison that lacks what passes for your self-serving definition of common sense?

Here is a link to the Interior Department's Final Rule - have at it; you obviously know more about the subject than those involved in promulgating that document do.

http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_bears/Polar%20Bear%20Final%20Rule_to%20FEDERAL%20REGISTE %20-Final_05-14-08.pdf

OTOH, if your position is any facts that do not support your positions (which you obtain from such bastions of knowledge as Lyndon LaRouche's web site) on any issue are simply "Garbage Science" than please just say so.

In addition, how about some cites to the source data for your observations (or is the LaRouche site it?) Environmnental lobbyists such as the Wilderness Society are not the only players in this debate with their own agendas.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-18-2008, 12:03 PM
I posted a link to New York Time story on the Interior Department's action - you first asked if I would be doing "back flips at the fuel pump" in response to that action and then posted "Lobbyists -1 Common Sense = 0"

You first obsevation about back flips at the fuel pump indicated this decision was going to impact fuel prices - I asked how this ruling was going to do that and you go off on a tangent about future actions that allegedly will occur - nice try to slip my question

Your inability to follow a simple train of thought cannot be laid at my feet as "slipping the question"...though I will defer to your expertise in that area .

Lets try again (didnt I ask for you to have someone sit with you while reading posts?)
My comment about you doing back flips was already answered in the last post...Based on the decision to label Species as "endangered"...we are one step closer to enviromental whackos...and others who will remain nameless...demanding that section 7 of the Endangered Species Act be honored...(now here is the part that seems to confuse you so if you need to take a break...do it now)....That means....(here it comes)...we wont be able to drill in the arctic region, and will remain dependent upon outside sources for fuel...AND PRICES WILL CONTINUE TO RISE.


As for the "common sense" riposte, it was in response to my post on this decision - so, I will ask it again; what is it about this decison that lacks what passes for your self-serving definition of common sense?

If by self serving..you mean that I would like for us to be less dependent upon the tit of foreign countries...then yep...I'm guilty. The reason that this decison is a bad one is again..simple...and again...was answered already...but I feel like the others in the classroom can wait until the lowest common denominator understands...then we can all move on together.

The decision was not based on scientific fact...but rather on consensus science. Since the facts did not support a change in status for the Polar Bear...it is

1) Wasted time and money
2) As stated in the first answer...it is one step closer to limiting our ability to be more independent of foreign fuel sources
....both of which lack common sense.

Lets move on...If I hurry you can ask the same questions again today and I can once again peel apart your vain attempts to argue AROUND the facts instead of discuss them.

OTOH, if your position is any facts that do not support your positions (which you obtain from such bastions of knowledge as Lyndon LaRouche's web site) on any issue are simply "Garbage Science" than please just say so.

Since i made it clear in the original post that I dont agree with the author ...but thought the article itself was interesting.....and since you acknowleged that....Gotta be honest and say that your statement is rather immature and another attempt to distort my view and character...since you unable to argue the facts.

In addition, how about some cites to the source data for your observations (or is the LaRouche site it?) Environmnental lobbyists such as the Wilderness Society are not the only players in this debate with their own agendas.

I posted a site for you to read that had all the data from both times (or is it three now) that you didnt comprehend the arguement...Also please dont put words in my mouth..lobbyists are on both side of the debate and I never even suggested otherwise. The lobbyists named are those who are against drilling in the arctic circle and were named specifically in answer to your specific question.... (and again with the LaRouche jab...gotta suck to be out of grenades and have to start throwing spitballs.)

Looking forward to you attacking this from some other informal fallacy...lets see..you have tried "Strawman"..."Hasty generalization"...and "Cognitive distortion"...

Might I suggest "irrelevant conclusion"...or the ever popular "syllogism".

Atlanta Dan
05-18-2008, 12:50 PM
The decision was not based on scientific fact...but rather on consensus science. Since the facts did not support a change in status for the Polar Bear...it is

1) Wasted time and money
2) As stated in the first answer...it is one step closer to limiting our ability to be more independent of foreign fuel sources
....both of which lack common sense.

.

Have you read any portion of the Final Rule or do you just know it is not based on "scientific fact" because articles you find more credible have a contrary view?

The Interior Department Rule gives every appearance of having been more thoroughly researched and subjected to peer review than was Gregory Murphy's magazine article, which summarizes one study.

FWIW the Murphy article comes from a link to this publication

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com

In addition to providing a link back to LaRouche's site, articles on the front page of that site have such topic headings as:

The Global Warming Fraud

Sea-level Expert Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner: - It's Not Rising!

Open Letter to the American Nuclear Society: Nuclear Energy and the CO2 Fiction

CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time

Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born

I cite these articles only to note that your sources certainly might have their own biases rather than simply being a compilation of observations by "real experts."

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-18-2008, 01:56 PM
Have you read any portion of the Final Rule or do you just know it is not based on "scientific fact" because articles you find more credible have a contrary view?

The Interior Department Rule gives every appearance of having been more thoroughly researched and subjected to peer review than was Gregory Murphy's magazine article, which summarizes one study.

FWIW the Murphy article comes from a link to this publication

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com

In addition to providing a link back to LaRouche's site, articles on the front page of that site have such topic headings as:

The Global Warming Fraud

Sea-level Expert Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner: - It's Not Rising!

Open Letter to the American Nuclear Society: Nuclear Energy and the CO2 Fiction

CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time

Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born

I cite these articles only to note that your sources certainly might have their own biases rather than simply being a compilation of observations by "real experts."

I at least thank you for admitting that this debate is about contrary viewpoints ...you are making progress. I will continue to believe that when people like Al Gore pocket profits from alarmist rhetoric...everyone should be sceptical. When Enviromentalist use out of context facts and doctored photos..everyone should be sceptical. When Groups of scientists expect us to buy into their doomsday theories, not based on facts or proof but on the fact that ...there is a "consensus".... everyone should be sceptical.

Here is a short list of "real experts" who think that the "accepted" line of human involvement in regards to global warming is being overstated:

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:
David Douglass, physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester:
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University:
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology:
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware:
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide:
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London:
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa:

These are all scientists (over 500 in all) who come to the same conclusion...that global warming cannot be directly attributed to human involvement...their conclusions were included in several reports... including the following.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

Instead of me finding articles for you to slather over and try and find holes...do your own homework...look for the articles...heck, read Michael Crightons Book State of Fear. He spent three years in research before writing the book and even appeared before congress to support his beliefs...his facts...and his concerns that the media and the scientific community were pulling the wool over the publics eyes.

Of course ..the enviromental groups have their opinion of Crightons conclusions:

We hope Michael Crichton fans enjoy his new science-fiction thriller, while keeping in mind there is a very strong consensus among the vast majority of climate scientists that global warming is under way and human activity is a primary cause
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=316580&page=3
.

Hmmm...consensus...not facts?...not proof?...consensus.
...interesting.

Atlanta Dan
05-18-2008, 03:50 PM
I at least thank you for admitting that this debate is about contrary viewpoints ...you are making progress. I will continue to believe that when people like Al Gore pocket profits from alarmist rhetoric...everyone should be sceptical. When Enviromentalist use out of context facts and doctored photos..everyone should be sceptical. When Groups of scientists expect us to buy into their doomsday theories, not based on facts or proof but on the fact that ...there is a "consensus".... everyone should be sceptical.

Here is a short list of "real experts" who think that the "accepted" line of human involvement in regards to global warming is being overstated:

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:
David Douglass, physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester:
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University:
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology:
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware:
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide:
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London:
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa:

These are all scientists (over 500 in all) who come to the same conclusion...that global warming cannot be directly attributed to human involvement...their conclusions were included in several reports... including the following.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

Instead of me finding articles for you to slather over and try and find holes...do your own homework...look for the articles...heck, read Michael Crightons Book State of Fear. He spent three years in research before writing the book and even appeared before congress to support his beliefs...his facts...and his concerns that the media and the scientific community were pulling the wool over the publics eyes.

Of course ..the enviromental groups have their opinion of Crightons conclusions:


Hmmm...consnsus...not facts?...not proof?...consensus.
...interesting.

We will agree to disagree - absent some indication that you are an expert in the field spare me the condescension about "making progress" to meet your high standards of intellectual discourse - you are the one citing your only source as the "real experts" as if that ends the argument

FWIW here is the mission statement for the periodical in which the article you regard to be so credible was published

21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics. We demand a science based on constructible (intelligible) representation of concepts, but shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm.

Our unique collection of editors and scientific advisers maintain an ongoing intellectual dialogue with leading thinkers in many areas, including biology, physics, space science, oceanography, nuclear energy, and ancient epigraphy. Original studies by the controversial economist Lyndon LaRouche have challenged the epistemological foundations of the von Neumann and Wiener-Shannon information theory, and located physical science as a branch of physical economy. In science policy areas, we have challenged sacred cows, from the theory of global warming to the linear threshold concept of radiation.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/about.html

Citing from a publication that appears to challenge Newton, Galileo and 20th century physics while also citing with favor "controversial economist" Lyndon LaRouche might not be regarded as the most credible source upon which to rely. Citing Michael Crichton doesn't overwhelm me either, but if a popular author (who is a self-professed expert on not only global warming, but also sexual harassment, the rise of Japan and cloning) meets your test for sufficient expertise in the field upon which to base an opinion on complex environmental and climatological issues then to each his own.

:drink:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-19-2008, 04:47 AM
We will agree to disagree - absent some indication that you are an expert in the field spare me the condescension about "making progress" to meet your high standards of intellectual discourse - you are the one citing your only source as the "real experts" as if that ends the argument

FWIW here is the mission statement for the periodical in which the article you regard to be so credible was published

21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics. We demand a science based on constructible (intelligible) representation of concepts, but shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm.

Our unique collection of editors and scientific advisers maintain an ongoing intellectual dialogue with leading thinkers in many areas, including biology, physics, space science, oceanography, nuclear energy, and ancient epigraphy. Original studies by the controversial economist Lyndon LaRouche have challenged the epistemological foundations of the von Neumann and Wiener-Shannon information theory, and located physical science as a branch of physical economy. In science policy areas, we have challenged sacred cows, from the theory of global warming to the linear threshold concept of radiation.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/about.html

Citing from a publication that appears to challenge Newton, Galileo and 20th century physics while also citing with favor "controversial economist" Lyndon LaRouche might not be regarded as the most credible source upon which to rely. Citing Michael Crichton doesn't overwhelm me either, but if a popular author (who is a self-professed expert on not only global warming, but also sexual harassment, the rise of Japan and cloning) meets your test for sufficient expertise in the field upon which to base an opinion on complex environmental and climatological issues then to each his own.

:drink:

:doh:....The Newton-Galileo paradigm is an philosophy of science that follows the view that given various explanations of a phenomenon, the most economic one was more likely to be correct... We now know that any model should be tested again and again against experiment in order to make sure the same result is achieved...so in reality no matter how "economic" a theory is, should it fail to describe the data, or results...it is useless.

The Newton-Galileo paradigm is still used in scientific circles...but only when faced with a lack of evidence or when .... having to base models on things like...mathmatical theory due to lack of technological data. (For example...that travelling at the speed of light slows down time). Those who challenge this paradigm simply say, that since the results cannot be tested or reproduced... the paradigm and resulting explanation should not be looked at as empirical truth and should not even be the basis for theory. It can be used as a lesson, but not as a basis of thought.

Carbon Dating is a perfect example of this...Carbon dating works by comparing the amount of normal carbon that is found in a sample with the amount of radioactive carbon...Yet carbon dating relies on the assumption that carbon and radioactive carbon that are found on the earth have remained constant over time and that using known rates of decay we can estimate age. But since the original ratio of carbon and radioactive caron is unknown....we have to assume the rate is the same...secondly is the problem with contamination..the older the sample the higher the probability of contamination...which means that the older the sample is the more carbon dating becomes impractical using our current level of knowlege and technological capabilities. Even factors such as any change in the earths magnetic field or in atmospheric conditions could translate into a percivable differences in results.

This simply means that since we cannot predict or test all factors...we should only be using the results and findings as a "rubber ruler"....and not the basis for any type of fact. Unfortuantly in the scientific climate of todays intellectuals...if the result is economic ..then it is accepted as fact (knowingly or unknowingly using the Newton-Galileo paradigm). This flies in the face of science 101..in which data must be beyond question and results must be able to be reporduced.

Anyway...Quite the stretch to say that those who challenge the Newton-Galileo paradigm..dont believe in Newtons Laws or Galileo's findings.

I guess "Hasty Generalizaton" is the key word for the day.

i will give you this....you are giving me the opportunity to grease the brain gears this week!!!

Dino 6 Rings
05-19-2008, 05:44 PM
holy crap....my head hurts now...

Um...yeah...Football me likes...