Beck looking for "watchdogs" to "scour" past bills for evidence that shows passing cap and trade is "unnecessary"

Crack. Funny. And super original. Deja vu, with the story and your comments, though at least Glenn moved the ball forward even though you guys are clueless that he's on the right trail. I had this pretty well explained the other day. Judging by the responses here though, it seems none of you have read it so, in keeping with the deja vu feel we have going, I am posting it again below.

Before I get to that though, I have to repeat the groupthink observation I made in that post. Yet again, not one critical voice. A lot of baaing but nothing more. The argument put forth by Beck is correct. If you were students of reality you would agree with him. Can someone here actually argue the substance of what Beck said or are you all just good for the one-liner? For those of you without the AGW blinders, actually listen to what he said, and if you can refute him, then go for it.

Reality is, Glenn is getting closer. Cass is quite a piece of work so Glenn is on target by targeting him (don't forget about Holdren & Hansen, et al, though), but more importantly, he finally set his sights on the EPA. They are the "machine" Beck referred to and it has in fact been turned on, legislation or not, and no sane person can argue that fact. Then again, I am dealing with the churchgoers here, so faith can be difficult to penetrate. If you can bring yourself to it, perhaps you can read all about what the EPA has been up to and actually add something based in reality to the conversation (that of course excludes many of the AGW cornerstones).

Previous post: realamerica, et al, there isn't a secret here in regards to cap and trade, and Glenn knows that (not sure why he's beating around the bush). I know this will be wasted upon you for the most part, but here goes anyway.

First though, I see nothing much has changed here over the last few months. Very little critical thinking. Instead, knee-jerk venom, Inquisitor's tactics, etc., and not one critical AGW voice in this thread. Groupthink to the extreme. It's really rather sad.

I haven't had time to comment but I have read a chunk of the still rabid pro-AGW drivel. Still not impressed with anything other than the fighting spirit you've shown under extreme duress. AGW cultists have taken a beaten but you go on swinging away. Swinging for the fences still actually, like nothing is amiss, like you are still holding a bat or even up at the plate anymore. Talk about denial.

But you struck out. Take off your helmet, the jig is up, though you'll be damned if you don't succeed in "putting a price on pollution" as Obama calls it. Legislation would have been good, but no dice this go around, but so what? The AGW control freaks are marching forward anyway and thus Glenn was right, though, as is often the case, he had no idea why.

With cap and trade legislation, Plan A was to have Congressional knee-breakers help smooth the way for the real puppeteers, the EPA, who had already been relatively quietly putting on their puppet show since last year. Since Plan A failed miserably it was simply onto Plan B: the EPA goes about it alone, for the short term at least.

Not-so-stealthy but lesser-known measures have thus been called for so that the pols can try to save their hides (good luck). With all of the failures of AGW over the last year, the high priests of the Church of Climatology could not roll out as quickly and uncontrollably as they had expected, so the timeline was stretched, but none of the elements on it have changed. So Reid pulls back while the EPA issues away in relative obscurity.

This is no conspiracy theory real, magnolia, bintx, Midnight, ilikeike, blueline (and the rest of the typical crew). It's reality. Thus, each one of you is in simple denial. The irony. Some of the measures are "already rolling" or haven't you guys been following? That helps to put names to some of the measures for ye in the black helicopter denial crowd. Names like the "mobile source rule, the trigger rule, the tailoring rule and the reporting rule." My they have been busy despite the setbacks.

Notice that those aren't "right-wing" sources? Rather, they're mostly your buddies, those fighting the good fight. I love Lisa "EPA" Jackson's quote from the Times piece:

We did not want that fact lingering out there for long.

Yeah, Americans recognize the lingering stench of rotting totalitarianism paraded as "Sustainable Development." Frank O'donnell was a close second with, "We're not the green monsters you think we are."

The "fact" Jackson was talking about was the need to implement the tailoring rule to put a governor on the CO2-regulation roll out (as well as bandage the cleft AGW wounds). The "fact" is that without the tailoring rule, "6 million facilities" would have needed permits this coming January when greenhouse gases will officially become "subject to regulation."

What are those facilities? Read the piece again. Temporarily exempted by the tailoring rule are "smaller sources like farms, restaurants, schools and other facilities." That would have been a winning campaign slogan, eh? Or maybe "EPA Chugging Along" as Solve Climate put it in their subhead.

Cap and trade legislation was just a temporary dying gasp at expediting and smoothing the path of CO2 mitigation that the EPA is "already rolling" on. Reid was willing to give it up temporarily to save himself and others from the incredible backlash they would have undoubtedly suffered, But the point is, the "fact" is, that even without legislation, the ball is being pushed forward by the EPA.

I wouldn't think that was debatable, but judging by the comments here you would think it was a stretch. bintx's claim out of the gate that "there is no way in HELL this could happen" is thus hollow. It is happening, though not quite how Beck put it. Here is his main implication:

There is either something in these bills that they have already passed that give them the authority to now regulate us into that or they are going to make another move.

I'm not sure why he feels the need to take the weird ignorance-of-current-reality angle he is taking, but the statement is actually almost completely on target. Beck misses by referring to "these bills" as they are largely irrelevant, but the "bills that they have already passed that give them the authority to now regulate us" already exist.

Hasn't he heard of the Clean Air Act? Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency? Doesn't Beck know about any of the plans already underway? Does he know what January will bring? July? Did you? Probably not. That would entail giving up on your tinfoil-hat angle, and I know you aren't ready for that just yet.

Have no fear though AGW zealots. The cap and trade debacle in Congress will most assuredly continue. Lurch Kerry won't give it up. He'll still try to be your knight in shining armor so you can sleep tight and create more fantasy-land emissions scenarios. B1 anyone?

Almost forgot. It's going on a month since MMfA and Monbiot and the rest of the AGW apologists came out trumpets blazing about the unfortunate Sunday Times Amazongate retraction, throwing around nonsense such as "vindication" and "ashes to ashes." So what happened to the MMfA rallying cry for more retractions that was so in vogue for several days here? Why the crickets (shout out to SLURTAX)? Why did MMfA crawl back into its shell? Was victory not at hand?

Could this be why? Maybe this? Or this? Why no Lawrence Solomon followers? When the retraction of the retraction is made (I guarantee it will be), do you think MMfA will publish its mea culpa? Will it feel it "owes it to its readers to do the same?"

How about you, Midnight? Will you admit that your "mountain of facts" amounted to a mole hill? Will Delly now conclude that "[t]his BS of being simple transcriptionists instead of actually doing the work that a journalist SHOULD do to inform others is incredible" applies to MMfA? eweston? Will you claim the "[e]vidence is that if they do blow it, factwise, they are up front in admitting it" if MMfA doesn't follow up? Kreisst? Will you provide us with "a desperate attempt to avoid reality?" Or maybe demonstrate what "advocacy has to do with science?" mary 59 offering any words about the "scientific method?" Or pete592 statements about how "[b]ogus headlines are best left to fester?" donaldmaddog? You gonna ask again "[w]hen would pathological liars retract a lie?" I'm not holding my breath. Cheers!

Must have been just the ones that were breathing during and after "commencement".