REPORT: Opponents Of EPA Climate Action Dominate TV News Airwaves
Media Matters analyzed television news guests who discussed the Environmental Protection Agency's role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from December 2009 through April 2011. Driven largely by Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network, results show that in 76 percent of those appearances, the guest was opposed to EPA regulations while 18 percent were in favor. Of the appearances by elected officials, 86 percent were Republican. Only one guest in 17 months of coverage across nine news outlets was a climate scientist -- industry-funded Patrick Michaels.
Background
Responding to a lawsuit brought by states, cities, and advocacy groups, the Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHG) under the Clean Air Act. The Court stated that "EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."
The Bush administration ensured that a response to the ruling would be delayed until the following administration, and it wasn't until December 2009 that the EPA issued a GHG scientific endangerment finding, the legal precursor to regulation. EPA subsequently announced GHG regulations for certain vehicles and stationary sources.
Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans have pushed legislation that would take the unprecedented step of repealing the EPA's scientific finding and prohibit the agency from "promulgat[ing] any regulation concerning, take action related to, or take into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change."
[For more detail, see timeline below]
Opponents Of EPA Rules Vastly Outnumbered Supporters In TV Appearances
76% Of Total Guests Were Opponents Of GHG Regulation. Media Matters examined TV news coverage that included elected officials, members of advocacy groups, business leaders, pundits, and others discussing EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. Of these appearances, 152 out of 199 -- over 76% -- opposed regulation. The three outlets that hosted the greatest number of guests, Fox News (FNC), Fox Business (FBN), and CNBC, all featured opponents of GHG regulation at least four times more often than supporters.
[See a complete list of TV guests who discussed EPA regulation of greenhouse gases HERE.]
81% Of Fox Guests And 83% of Fox Business Guests Opposed GHG Regulation. Fox News hosted 52 guests who criticized the EPA's decision to regulate greenhouse gases. In that same period they featured only 10 supporters and two guests who took a neutral stance. Fox Business hosted opponents 65 times, compared to seven appearances by supporters. MSNBC hosted four times more supporters of EPA's action than opponents, but had far fewer guests commenting on the issue than did Fox.
Coverage by CNN, ABC, NBC, And CBS Relied Less On Opinionated Guests. As the chart shows, CNN and broadcasts on network television (nightly news and/or Sunday shows) were far less reliant on outside opinions in their coverage, often featuring straight news reports without live interviews with guests. However, Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday hosted over three times more opponents than supporters of GHG regulation with more total guests commenting on the issue than the other broadcast networks and CNN combined.
Views Of TV News Guests At Odds With Public Opinion
CNN/Opinion Research Poll: 71% Say EPA Should Move Forward With GHG Regulations. An April 2011 CNN/Opinion Research Poll asked respondents if they "favor legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from spending any money to enforce regulation on greenhouse gases and other environmental issues, or do you think the federal government should continue to provide funding to the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce those regulations?" Seventy-one percent said "government should continue to provide funding," 28 percent said they "favor legislation to prevent spending," and one percent had no opinion. [CNN/Opinion Research, 4/11/11]
Wash. Post/ABC News Poll: 71% Support Government Regulation Of GHG Emissions. A June 2010 Washington Post/ABC News poll asked, "Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cares and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?" Seventy-one percent of respondents said government should regulate greenhouse gases, including 52 percent who felt "strongly" in favor of regulation. Twenty-six percent said government should not regulate GHG emissions. [ABC News, 6/10/10]
Stanford Survey: 76% Say Government Should Limit GHGs From U.S. Businesses. A June 2010 Stanford survey asked, "Do you think the government should or should not limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that U.S. businesses put out?" Seventy-six percent of respondents said "government should limit greenhouse gasses from U.S. businesses," while 20 percent said it should not. [Stanford University, 6/9/11]
Republican Appearances On Cable Channels Outnumbered Democrats 6 To 1
Cable News Outlets Hosted Republicans 30 Times, Democrats 5 Times. Of the 35 cable news appearances by elected officials who discussed EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, 30 were Republicans and five were Democrats. The only cable network that hosted more Democrats than Republicans was MSNBC. CNBC featured eight elected officials, all of whom were Republicans.
Democrats Hosted By Fox News And Fox Business Opposed GHG Regulation. Fox News and Fox Business each hosted one Democrat who discussed EPA regulation of greenhouse gases during their appearance. However, those Democrats, then-Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and then-Gov. Joe Manchin (D-WV) both expressed opposition to EPA's GHG rules. By contrast, every Republican who discussed the regulations on cable news opposed the EPA's actions.
Elected Officials Who Criticized GHG Regulations On TV Received Millions From Fossil Fuel Interests
The Elected Officials Who Opposed EPA Regs In TV Appearances Received Over $3 Million From Fossil Fuel Companies. According to our analysis, 26 elected officials and candidates for office have discussed EPA regulation of greenhouse gases in TV appearances since December 2009. Of those 26, 23 opposed the EPA's action on greenhouse gases. These 23 politicians collectively received $3,026,041 from companies that generate, produce, or refine fossil fuels from 2007-2010. The three elected officials who supported the EPA received a total of $202,000. On average, the opponents of EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases received approximately $131,500 from fossil fuel companies, while the supporters received, on average, about $67,300.
[See complete list of elected officials and their donors HERE.]
Representatives Of Advocacy Groups Opposing GHG Regs Appeared More Frequently Than Those In Favor
76% Of Guests Representing Advocacy Groups Opposed EPA Regulations. Of the television appearances by guests who discussed the GHG regulations, 29 were identified as representatives of advocacy groups. For around 76 percent of those appearances -- 22 of the 29 -- the guest opposed EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.
Only Climate Scientist Interviewed Is Funded By Fossil Fuel Interests
Cato's Patrick Michaels Was The Only Climate Scientist Hosted In TV Coverage Of EPA Regulations. Of the TV guests who discussed EPA's GHG regulations over 17 months, only one, Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute, has a background in climate science. Michaels appeared twice on Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto and spoke in opposition to EPA GHG rules. Michaels holds a Ph.D. in ecological climatology and was a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
Michaels Has Estimated That "40 Percent" Of His Funding Comes From The Petroleum Industry. From the August 15, 2010, edition of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS:
ZAKARIA: Right, but people say that you're advocating also for the current petroleum-based industry to stand pat, to stay as it is, and that a lot of your research is funded by these industries.
MICHAELS: Oh, no, no. First of all, what I'm saying is --
ZAKARIA: Well, is your research funded by these industries?
MICHAELS: Not largely. The fact of the matter is --
ZAKARIA: Well, can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?
MICHAELS: I don't know -- 40 percent. I don't know. [CNN, Fareed Zakaria GPS, 8/15/10]
Michaels Has Taken Money From Fossil Fuel Interests For Decades. From a February 2010 report by Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard:
Greenpeace recently obtained an older copy of Michaels' curriculum vitae via a Freedom of Information Act request that shows that the Western Fuels Association, a coal and fuel-transportation business group, gave him a $63,000 grant in the early 1990s for "research on global climatic change." He also received $25,000 from the Edison Electric Institute, an association of electric utilities, from 1992-95 for "literature review of climate change and updates." And a 2006 leaked industry memo revealed that he received $100,000 in funding from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association to fund climate denial campaigning around the time of the release of An Inconvenient Truth. Reporter Ross Gelbspan wrote in his 1998 book The Heat is On, one of the earliest works documenting industry funding for climate change skepticism, that Michaels also received $49,000 came from the German Coal Mining Association and $40,000 from the western mining company Cyprus Minerals. [Mother Jones, 2/26/10]
Timeline
The following graph shows the monthly number of guest appearances covered in this report and is followed by a timeline of major events related to the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations.
April 2007: Supreme Court Says EPA Has The Authority To Regulate Greenhouse Gases. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion authored by then-Justice John Paul Stevens, stated on April 2, 2007: "Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant,' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles." The ruling further stated that "EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do." [Massachusetts v. EPA, 4/2/07]
December 2007: Bush White House Refuses To Accept EPA's Draft Endangerment Finding On GHGs. On December 5, 2007, then-EPA official Jason Burnett sent the White House a draft endangerment finding, which stated: "The Administrator proposes to find that the air pollution of elevated levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare." The White House reportedly refused to open the email and the document was not made public until October 2009. [Greenwire, 10/13/09]
January 2008: EPA Administrator Tells Bush That The Administration Must Issue Endangerment Finding. In a January 31, 2008, letter to the president, EPA administrator Stephen Johnson said that the Massachusetts v. EPA decision and "the latest science of climate change" require the EPA "to propose a positive endangerment finding, as was agreed to at the Cabinet-level meeting in November." Johnson further stated that regardless of energy legislation passed in 2007, "a finding is still required by the Supreme Court case, and the state of the latest climate change science does not permit a negative finding, nor does it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research." The letter was made public in February 2011. [Wall Street Journal, 2/8/11]
April 2008: States Sue EPA For Failing To Respond To Supreme Court Ruling. Reuters reported in April 2008 that "eighteen states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday for failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, one year after the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had the power to do so." The article further noted: "In addition to the states, officials from three cities and at 11 environmental groups signed the suit, which seeks action within 60 days. Environmental lawyers acknowledged a response is unlikely before President George W. Bush leaves office." [Reuters, 4/2/08]
July 2008: Bush EPA Decides To Delay GHG Regulations Until Next Administration. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Bush administration "rejected its own experts' conclusion that global warming poses a threat to the public welfare, launching a comment period that will delay action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least until the next president takes office." Along with this "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," the EPA administrator released "several critical comments from senior officials undercutting his staff's work." [Los Angeles Times, 7/12/08]
September 2009: EPA Issues Rule Requiring Certain Facilities To Report GHG Data. Directed by a 2007 spending bill signed by President Bush, the EPA announced a new rule requiring "about 10,000 facilities that emit about 85 percent of the nation's greenhouse gases to begin to collect emissions data under a new reporting system," as reported by Greenwire. [Greenwire, 9/22/09]
December 2009: EPA Announces GHG Endangerment Finding. After reviewing over 380,000 public comments, the EPA issued findings "that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases-carbon dioxide ... in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations" and that emissions greenhouse gases "from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change." [EPA, 12/7/09]
March 2010: States Sue EPA To Stop GHG Regulation. Reuters reported that "At least 15 U.S. states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency seeking to stop it from issuing rules controlling greenhouse gas emissions until it reexamines whether the pollution harms human health." [Reuters, 3/19/10]
April 2010: EPA Subjects New Cars To First Ever GHG Emissions Standards. A joint rule issued by the EPA and the Department of Transportation requires "new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016 ... to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements." [EPA, 4/1/10]
May 2010: EPA "Tailoring" Rule Excludes Small Facilities From GHG Permitting Regulations. Greenwire reported that EPA issued a rule which "'tailors' permitting programs to limit the number of facilities that would be required to obtain New Source Review and Title V operating permits based on their greenhouse gas emissions. EPA said the threshold would cover power plants, refineries and other large industrial plants while exempting smaller sources like farms, restaurants, schools and other facilities." [Greenwire, 5/13/10]
June 2010: Senate Rejects Murkowski Effort to Block Greenhouse Gas Regulations. In a 53-47 vote the Senate rejected Sen. Lisa Murkowski's resolution of disapproval, which would have overturned the EPA's GHG endangerment finding and prevented EPA from regulating GHG emissions. [New York Times, 6/10/10]
August 2010: U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Sues Over Endangerment Finding. Greenwire reported: "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the advocacy group Coalition for Responsible Regulation have asked a federal appeals court to review U.S. EPA's decision that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare." [Greenwire, 8/16/10]
December 2010: Appeals Court Denies Industry Request To Delay GHG Regulations. From the Washington Post: "A U.S. appellate court Friday turned down a request from utilities, oil refiners and the state of Texas to delay the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency. ... The companies contend in that lawsuit that the EPA regulations would be too costly. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the companies 'have not shown that the harms they allege are "certain," rather than speculative.' " [Washington Post, 12/12/10]
December 2010: EPA Sets Schedule For Power Plant And Refinery Regulations. Settling lawsuits filed in 2008 by several states and environmental groups, EPA announced that the agency "will propose [greenhouse gas] standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively." The standards will apply to new and existing facilities. [EPA, 12/23/10]
January 2011: GHG Permitting Rules Go Into Effect. As of January 2, 2011, the largest stationary sources of emissions are subject to permitting regulations on the emission of greenhouse gases. As of this date, "any new plant that will emit more than 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide (or the equivalent) annually will need an EPA permit, as will existing plants that install new capacity that emits 75,000 tons or more." [Discover Magazine, 1/3/11]
February 2011: House Votes To Gut EPA's GHG Efforts. On February 19, the House passed a Continuing Resolution which would have defunded EPA greenhouse gas regulations and cut funding for the collection of greenhouse gas emissions data. [Columbia Law School, 3/7/11]
March 2011: EPA Extends Greenhouse Gas Reporting Deadline. EPA issued a rule extending the reporting deadline for 2010 data, originally scheduled for March 31, 2011. EPA stated: "Following conversations with industry and others and in the interest of providing high quality data to the public this year, EPA is extending this year's reporting deadline to September 30, 2011. This extension will allow EPA to further test the system that facilities will use to submit data and give industry the opportunity to test the tool, provide feedback, and have sufficient time to become familiar with the tool prior to reporting." [EPA, 3/17/11]
April 2011: Senate Rejects Multiple Amendments Blocking Or Limiting EPA Regulation. Politico reported that the Senate "voted 50-50 to reject the sweeping rider from Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) that would undo EPA climate rules, and veto the agency's scientific finding that climate change threatens public health and welfare." The Senate also defeated amendments that would have delayed emissions standards for stationary sources for two years. [Politico, 4/6/11]
April 2011: House Passes Legislation To Revoke EPA Authority To Regulate Greenhouse Gases. By a 255-177 vote, the House passed a proposal introduced by Rep. Fred Upton, which "would repeal a dozen EPA greenhouse-gas-related regulations" and "would redefine the term 'air pollutant' to exclude greenhouse gases. And it states that EPA may not 'promulgate any regulation concerning, take action related to, or take into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change,' " as explained by the Congressional Research Service. [CRS, 4/11/11]
Methodology
This report analyzes guests who appeared on Fox News, Fox Business Network, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN, and on the nightly and/or Sunday news programs of ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox Broadcasting Co. between December 1, 2009 and April 30, 2011 (inclusive) and who discussed the EPA's role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions during their appearance.
For the primetime shows on Fox News, Fox Business, and MSNBC; CNN's coverage; ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s nightly and/or Sunday news programs, we searched the Nexis database for "epa and greenhouse or carbon or climate change or global warming or co2" to identify relevant guest appearances. For shows that did not appear in Nexis, we searched closed captioning transcripts from our video archive for "carbon," "greenhouse," and variations of the term "epa." Anchors, hosts and correspondents on the show were not included, but paid contributors and hosts of other shows brought on to express an opinion were included.
Guests who expressed support for the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases were labeled as supporting the EPA regulations, while those who expressed opposition to the regulations or questioned the EPA's authority over greenhouse gas emissions were labeled as opposing the EPA regulations. Guests who did not express a position for or against the regulations were labeled as neutral.
Political donations from fossil fuel interests were calculated based upon totals reported by the Center for Responsive Politics since 2007. For non-federal office holders, financial disclosure forms from each state were consulted. Only donations from companies that actively produce, refine, or generate power from natural gas, oil, or coal were included. The total for each candidate only includes donations from companies' PACs, not individual employees, though donations from employee PACs were included.
They used scientific, empirically-observed observed facts, the most liberally-biased thing possible with regards to climate change.
That's why having Republicans on to discuss this issue is just bogus. They are overwhelmingly lying about the science on this.
How this became partisan yet again, like everything else, shows the insanity in our culture and behavior. Folks, even if the climate scientists are not 100% correct in their predictions, the conservative position would be to curb CO2 emissions and get off fossil fuels asap. There are many other reasons to do so.
Dinosaurs who refuse to change become extinct.
...and Jesus wouldn't ride one...
I still only see 3 hands in the air. For all the complaining that liberals do concerning the dangers and results of climate change being caused by auto emissions and coal plant emissions there doesn't seem to be very many of you actually doing anything to stop, slow down or prevent climate change. Just who, exactly, are you expecting to do all the work (for you) if you don't do any of it yourselves? Who is to blame for climate change if liberals constitute half the nation? Are liberals going to (at some time) going to step up to the plate and do something other than whine about the potential harm that will be caused by climate change? Oh I know you liberals are the 'only' ones who are submitting regulations to reduce emissions. However, those regulations aren't going to do anything to correct the problem if you ignore them and continue spewing auto emissions. You know full well the only thing that will stop climate change is to stop emitting greenhouse gasses. Those are the gases that come from your car. When are you liberals going to start doing (en masse) what you demand of others?
I think it's important for each person/family to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint. At the same time, we need serious people in elected office to help create infrastructure that helps ordinary folks get off fossil fuels. One person can't build an electric car and stations to re-charge that car.
Our family, can't speak for any others, have been doing our part.
Isn't that the key question? How long will climate change take to stop if all your demands are met?
All my demands?
Wouldn't you like to have a car that doesn't create CO2 and other greenhouse gases? Is there an effort that you could support?
But, I like how you completely ignored the main question; is climate change correctable? Of course I would expect every liberal to ignore that question. It would interfere with their fear-mongering. Ever wonder why nobody but liberals seem to think climate change is real? Well, when you hypocritically ignore all the advise you give to everyone else, everyone else ignores your advise too.
Conservatives and the religious right have always been very outspokenly anti-science and willing to ignore what they can't accept. Evolution, for example, has been mostly opposed by the right.
After you brilliantly explain how it can be reversed, tell me which of those reasons you have participated in.
On the other hand, it can be curtailed or slowed. But until lower emission standards are demanded, factories produce less pollution and alternative fuels become more accessible the only things that can be done are simple, spend-less kind of things like using a bike or public transport, walking to buy groceries, saving water, gardening, planting trees, etc. (Before you say anything, i have done all of those and do so regularly).
Also, it isn't true that the ozone layer cannot reform. In fact, the hole in the ozone layer has shrunk at times. Our banning of CFCs in some products has helped with its recovery though I'm not up on its current state.
The rest of your post is correct. We have to reduce emissions per unit of energy consumed and consume less. Both are needed though we as individuals only have control over the latter.
Not sure how you get a thumbs down for reporting the truth around here. We have some real winners on this site.
Ah, here we get to the crux of Traveller and his 'argument', which is really nothing more than ignorance. Tell me, do you have countering evidence that the vast majority of the climatologists who say that anthropomorphic climate change is happening are wrong? I'd assume, naturally, that you must have comparable degrees or years of experience in climatology to base your opinion on. Or at the least, you've access to data and experiments that you've performed, or that others have performed, in which you can base your arguments?
No? Didn't think so.
So your next babble is to point a finger and say, "Well, if YOU aren't doing anything (as I declare 'anything' is) then I'M not going to do anything either, so there!" What is that, a response that a half-wit would give to the issue? She didn't 'ignore' anything, though in my opinion she should have ignored plenty, starting with you (just as I'll be doing after this post). You're apparently more concerned with ignorance and partisan bickering than you are with actually bothering to work towards a better future for everybody.
On a side note, it's a shame that you're so incredibly ignorant, but it's an interesting thing to note that if the people who've advanced humanity from our own ignorance throughout history had thought as you do, we'd likely still be living in caves.
School me, then. Answer whether climate change can be reversed if everyone stopped using automobiles. And explain how. Remember, you're the smart one and I'm the ignorant one. Teach me the truth.
Right now, as I type this, the temperature at Louisville International Airport (home of UPS) is three degrees higher than the temperature at Louisville Bowman Field, less than five miles away. Go ahead, go to Weather Bug and check it out yourself. Both are NWS federal stations. The problem is one of those stations is located on 1,200 acres of Tarmac that includes the UPS World Hub, launching and recovering hundreds of huge cargo planes a day. The other is a green-grass suburban general aviation field. This discrepancy occurs every day. Which one is reported as the "official" temperature at Louisville? You guessed it: Louisville International Airport. It is wrong.
As are untold thousands of other wrong thermometer readings over the last 150 years...the primary data these "scientists" are relying on. Until they clean up the source of their data, I don't believe a word they say.
Your text to link here...
"onto to"?
"where through"?
Come on. If you're not going to even think with your big head, then I guess "we're" definitely through.
Links please and not to the debunked story about emails between climatologists.
I checked NWS: Standiford Field and Bowman Field and they are both 86 degrees. They have been the same temperature for the last three hours, the hours that I bothered to check. Doesn't matter. Both met stations follow calibration standards and give accurate data for two points on the planet.
What siting or calibration or data adjustments have not been accounted for in past climate studies? Tell what is wrong with the methodology of any of the published, peer-reviewed climate studies in the past 20 years.
How is LIA / Standiford the "wrong" temperature? It's not really 86 degrees there?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.
However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.
More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.
It's also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend -- and hence Climate Change -- are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.
Confidence in climate science depends on the correlation of many sets of these data from many different sources in order to produce conclusive evidence of a global trend.
Maybe you don't realize this, but climate change data is based on average global temperature.
It's not based on the temperature outside your house today. But feel free to continue insulting the intelligence of people who DO understand how science works.
Ah, but that's weather, not climate.
On the climate note, the temperature of the earth has not increased for over 10 years.
I guess that screws up all the models, though, since it should be MUCH warmer right now.
Just keep tweaking the models - they will get a year a two right one of these years...
I especially like the third grade 'logic' of "Well, if YOU'RE doing something bad, that gives me permission to do something bad too and then to blame YOU for it."
It was a worthy effort though and it illustrates precisely the type of person (and their 'qualities') that stand up against making any headway regarding climate change.
Unfortunately, she ran away when I asked how. Of course you seem to have ignored that question also. And then created all kinds of reasonings that you attribute to me. What kind of car do you drive? You are still driving, right? That's what I thought.
That's right. Governments all over the world will have to tell you what to do. Liberals can't seem to do anything on their own without someone telling them they have to do it. So much for correcting climate change. Since the fear-mongers will demand it (but ignore their own demands) only the conservatives in this world will actually DO anything to correct the problem.
I've already started riding my bike to work (and home) for the past 3 months. My little bit will add up when others join in. Too bad liberals have to wait for someone to tell them what to do.
That post is totally devoid of reason. Yes, Governments do need to tackle the problem, just like they successfully tackled the ozone layer problem. Pointing this out doesn't make us "fear-mongers," and it certainly does mean we want to correct AGW. Do you really think that liberals don't ride to work, and do you think that your action will stop the amount of CO2 put in the atmosphere?
You finally got to your incredible punchline of "I bike to work" and of course that means you're ahead of all the "liberals" out there who don't.
Let's just leave it at this: Glad you're doing something positive.
I want to drive my car at 90MPH through school zones. How DARE the evil tyrannical government tell em what to do! Wahhhaahhh!
It's called SOCIETY, and they're nice to live in when your neighbors decide they want to steal all of the stuff you worked hard for with those policemen ready to catch them and put them on trial. It's nice to know that we have dedicated fireman to put out the fires in houses hat might not be able to afford a hefty fire department fee since that fire MAY spread to other houses. It's nice to know we have roads to drive on with traffic laws that the government puts in place to keep property damage, injury, ad death to a minimum. I'm sorry but while we live in a SOCIETY we all must observe certain rules and regulations.
Can governments overstep their bounds? Yes they can. An informed and active citizenry will keep them in check. Unfortunately we have a well funded group of malcontent elites who want to live above the law and beyond society, yet still receive all the benefits and protections of that society.
Please crawl back in your libertarian fantasy bubble and pretend that the resulting mad max scenario is some kind of capitalist utopia. Leave the discussion to people who think in realistic terms and understand that there is more to life then appeasing your immediate and self-serving needs.
If you think any global problem is going to be solved instantly and by one fell, decisive measure, then you're an idiot. It will take years of work to undo the damage that years of work has wrought.
I figured my electric bill at $110/month. Panels would cost $5K + $70/month. 20 years savings would be $20K. That would include removing myself from the grid.
Sure, but it seems that conservatives are the only ones being demanded to full-fil that obligation. What kind of car do YOU drive? I'll bet you chose the 15mpg Chrysler 300 and put the dub's on it. That will certainly help the environment. Oh yeah, you get to choose. But your grand-kids don't. More excuses from the liberals as to why they aren't required to participate in correcting climate change.
You can't back up this obviously wrong statement. The conservative party as a whole rejects the science behind AGW. And please stop with your silly "I bet you drive a big car" speculation. It doesn't amount to an argument at all.
I ride on the back of a Harley when it's not raining. It gets great mileage.
I stated that the article was a crazy quilt, because it is made up of irregular patches of information. See the sections titled, Background, Views Of TV News Guests At Odds With Public Opinion, and Timeline.
I compare this article, again, to B.O.'s Ohio auto bailout speech. When more than half of this article is dedicated to extolling the virtues of the EPA, and not the topic of the article, the crazy quilt reads like a commercial advertisement for the EPA, not a "study".
That's MMfA. No more to say.
Your "point" is ridiculous. This report isn't extolling the virtues of the EPA: it's showing the Supreme Court and public opinion are in favor of the EPA regulating greenhouse gases.
It also shows the skewing of the media coverage on Faux by putting industry hacks on to deny global warming science.
You're asking people who actively refuse to do anything but listen for their instructions on how to think to comprehend an article full of information that contradicts what their media masters have skillfully crafted for them to buy.
In the meantime we are all caught up in a modern life that is not sustainable and eventually will slam into the physical limits that come from living beyond your means. To say that everyone who realizes we have a problem should instantly live like they have solved the problem is a bit funny
You refuse to acknowledge that we are the products of our society. We live in the way that we have been trained to live, and that is to use roads, fossil-fuels, etc. Even if tomorrow I were to ride a bike to work, that would have NO impact on the environment - it requires a systemic change that conservatives are unwilling to work towards because they have been bought and paid for by those very same interests that are contributing to climate change.
So you can put the strawman away.
I'll bet if I had said that, you would be blasting me for not only denying climate change but for refusing to participate in correcting the problem too. Is that correct? Keep giving those excuses. I bike to work. And, I know it doesn't do anything in the grand scheme of things, but at least I'm doing MY part. You're welcome.
BTW. My car is a 01 Chevy Pick-up and my wife's is an 84 Toyota Corolla. I let her drive the truck because it's safer, while I leave the car parked and bike to work.
As far as "doing your part", if you're still voting republican, you aren't doing your part. Sad to say, your team is the team of polluters. The same team that wants to dismantle the EPA. The same team that not only ignores science, but actively struggles against it and its dissimenation. So no. You aren't doing your part.
Also, I am not playing your "what car do you drive" game, because it is irrelevant.
Bingo Badtime.
As you state over and over again, the electric car has been around for 100 years. Imagine if Henry Ford pursued an electric model T instead of the gas powered Model T. Where do you think we would be now? He didn't because the technology wasn't feasible, and the gas powered vehicle did more for the Bottom line.
The point is that until serious weight is thrown behind R&D for alternative fuel sources, the technology won't be improved to a point that is affordable for the average American. Corporations are not going to drive this out of the good of their heart.
Cap and trade is a way for companies that are serious about reducing their carbon footprint to potentially profit from selling their additional carbon emissions to less efficient companies.
And I do everything I can. Changed light bulbs, work from home, only visit the grocery store that is closest to my house. bundle trips together to cut mileage.
As the technology becomes affordable, I will pursue hybrid vehicles, Solar Panels, Wind, and anything else that may be invented while we are trying to reduce our emmisions.
And there's not a whole lot anyone can do about it as long as our infratructure is based on fossil fuels. Even we "liberals" have to work, and if there's no other way to get to work than by car, what exactly are your suggestions? I'd love to drive a plug-in electric powered by electricity from a nonpolluting renewable resource. It's just not feasible at this point.
Many have taken what steps they can, including buying smaller and more feul-efficient cars, working from home when possible, etc. But there's only so much you can do at a personal level.
Individual actions can certainly help, but they will not solve the problem. Only the world's governments can do that.
How will getting 40mpg stop climate change quicker than getting 25mpg? "But there's only so much you can do at a personal level." is an excuse equal to or worse than the excuses I have been accused of using to deny climate change is a danger. Yet, that excuse is acceptable? Sorry, if you want to promote the climate change fear-mongering, you need to stop using excuses for not participating in it's repair.
It is if you want to rationalize and justify why YOU don't believe Global warming is taking place. In reality though it is a call for the world to start to enact global policies that will help to reduce,slow down this process. While we as individuals can do little things,changing light bulbs etc.,etc.,the major policies light CO2 emissions and other pollutants released by manufacturers and industry must be regulated by governments. That is not difficult to understand unless you are just trying to play games and rationalize your own ignorance and inability to accept what we see taking place before our own eyes.
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
changing a lightbulb will not solve these problems.
Neither will whining that I deny global warming even exists. What kind of car do YOU still drive? Whether I accept your rationale for climate change is irrelevant to the charges I make that those who whine the most about climate change do the least to correct it.
Are you denying that global warming exist? Is this what this is all about? Did you bother to look at the links I provided about villages disappearing in Alaska,the size of jellyfish threatenning the fishing industry in Japan? Your indivual belief aside global warming is taking place and this is far from (cons favorite word when they have been challenged for facts but fail to provide any)whining.
I notice they say nothing about the electric car. I wonder who finances them? Probably big-oil companies.
I understand why you hold onto your bogus claim,it allows you to attack liberals but you have no proof of what you speak so really you have no argument. Are there some liberals who are not foing enough ? Yes, probably but the same can be said of conservatives,so whats your freaking point? The point is that Faux and as you see from the so-called conservative posters here is that they don't even believe global warming exist. It seems your BS rants about "not doing enough on a personal level"(if you were really honest in solving this problem)should be spent chastizing them and convincing them to do more since you have proof by their denials that they are doing nothing.
So this is an admission you have no proof that "liberals" are not doing enough but you have the names of the so-called con posters at this site who have said Global Warming is bogus or that in this instance MMFA is wrong. Start naming names. Take up your argument about personal responsibility with them. Start with Faux having mostly deniers on their programs then you can reply to your con friends here.
Now, how does what I drive matter if I drive a total of 10 miles each day, and live next to a coal-fired electrical plant that is producing the juice for a city's incandecent bulbs? How do my 10 miles a day stack up against that Peterbilt that delivered all the goods in your home thousands of miles every day? Even though there are a lot of cars on the road, there are greater sources of pollutants out there that you or I as individuals have no control over...only government would. Is there more I can do? Sure there is. Is there more you can do? Sure there is. How much of it is affordable to either of us right now? I don't know, but assume that everyone can afford and implements every single individual improvement that they can...great, we've maybe shaved 60% of emissions nationally.
So what exactly is your point? Are you saying that "liberals" are hypocrites? If so, what does that have to do with article about media hosting more opposition voices to EPA regulation?
Now, after reading all those articles that are meant to convict conservatives for their actions, I'd like to see some articles convicting liberals for their actions. You know ... a little application of the "Fairness Doctrine" so many of you want instilled into the public media empires. Until that happens I will say; yes, you liberals are hypocrites for demanding conservatives be the ones to fulfill the demands being made concerning correcting climate change.
And the article does. According to you, conservatives are taking extra measures (like riding their bikes to work), while liberals are merely preaching for gov't change. But I see no evidence (your own personal example hardly counts) of that actually happening. In fact, since conservatives by and large dismiss the science behind AGW, I would expect that conservatives both (a) drive big cars and (b) are against any meaningful action to mitigate AGW.
1.) You haven't stated what you would consider as sufficient on a personal level to decrease the rate of climate change. Yet you go on dropping hints such as "they should not drive automobiles but electric cars", they should install solar panels etc. If you don't have a baseline for what you consider reasonable (meaning you would be willing to do it too), then what's to stop you from simply saying later to those who provide solutions: "that isn't enough"? Put yourself in the shoes of these "liberals" for a moment and think about what should be done on a personal level to decrease the rate of climate change. It can't be anything too infeasible.
2.) You have stated reversing climate change as a benchmark, however the goal of climatologists is to decrease the rate of climate change or halt it completely, reversing it isn't even going to be feasible until those objectives are met.
3.)You're putting the burden on the liberals to "reverse climate change" while not addressing the issue of how climate change is a problem that is not simply the fault of the individual, nor can potential solutions only be found at the individual level. A more hollistic discussion, instead of simply an attempt to point the finger of hypocrisy would be to include such parties as corporations and government into the picture. That's what the article is addressing, that's what you've been ignoring.
A few other side points:
I would dispute the fact that electric cars were commonplace in the 1910s for one. On the topic of electric cars, while they do get you around (the newer models do), they don't provide much mileage, especially if you travel a lot for long distances. The recharging is also a factor because unlike gas stations, recharge points for electric cars aren't commonplace infrastructure (that was a problem which gasoline automobiles also faced back in their infancy, one of the factors why they couldn't travel far was because of the lack of gas stations). Not sure about the next point, but I believe that recharging also takes much longer than refueling.
As for solar panels, yeah they are a green source of energy, but they are expensive, and another thing is, if you rely on them exclusively, there will be times when you will be without any power, an inconvenience most could do without. (relying on both solar panels and conventional electricity is one option too, but then, why buy a solar panel on top of having conventional electricity?).
You might argue that all these inconveniences are all right for "climate change fearmongering liberals" as they should be putting the planet above themselves. The problem is that liberals aren't forcing others on the individual level to "use electric cars over automobiles and solar panels for energy". Not even the current administration is doing that. No one is making the argument that individuals MUST be inconvenienced into putting the planet before themselves at the individual level. They are encouraged to yes, but not mandated to.
You mean governments like this one?
deluded said: I would dispute the fact that electric cars were commonplace in the 1910s for one.
I would too. I never said they were. I said they've been around for over a century. And imagine where we would be if technology had been furthered from that point. We probably wouldn't even be having a discussion on global warming, other than the usual cyclical part of it.
And every electric car made today will fully complete any average daily driving distance. Even the homemade ones can get 50-100 miles per charge. Of course they won't travel from California to New York on one charge. But, unless you have multiple drivers neither can the gas powered car (legally/safely).
deluded said: As for solar panels, ...
Excuses. Simply more excuses for not participating. They pay for themselves after only a few years. And loss of power can be accounted for in the design of an individual system. You think they haven't thought of that?
deluded said: Not even the current administration is doing that.
Not requiring it, but they are certainly trying to push the use of solar panels. The same panels you deem unworthy of household use because of inefficiency. BTW, that company fell on financial hardship recently for lack of support by individuals seeking solar panels.
Cool, can you show me where the electric car recharging stations in my neighborhood are, I can't find them. I also can't seem to find the apartment buildings fitted with recharging stations for people who don't have the zoning privileges to install and operate them or can't afford to buy a house. Also, can you please tell the minimal public transportation infrastructure to start sending out the electric buses and rail they've been hiding?
Thanks! I was feeling bad about choosing a small gasoline powered vehicle when there were so many other realistic options for getting to work in my area.
A 20% drop in CO2 emissions in the last decade have caused liberals to whine about climate change being the cause of all the bad weather we have. What will happen if we drop CO2 emissions another 20% in the next decade? What will climate change be like then?
I am suggesting you answer the question: "What will happen if we drop CO2 emissions another 20% in the next decade?".
Aren't those famous scientists who promote global warming saying the world could be destroyed by global warming in as little as 90 years? I guess we better hurry up those 20% decreases or even our grandkids won't have to worry about global warming. This site says we are already in the midst of global warming and that corrective actions will provide NO relief. That would indicate there is NO possibility for correction.
Don't you mean 'have created'? Is that what most of the climate change scientists are saying?
First thing they teach in lawyer school is don't ask a question you don't know the answer to.
Hmm..somethin's fishy. Not enough context to figure it out, though, so..yawn.
So, all your questions in this thread that you know the answer to: what are the answers? That would save us a lot of time, because we could then take a shortcut to understanding the sources of your false premises. Did you ever get around to that carbon cycle question, by the way?
Ok, the radiator busted on the Toyota (30mpg) in February. I got it replaced, but in the meantime I still had to work. I rode my bike 2 miles to BART (local electric mass transit) to a stop that is 7.5 miles from my work. I chose that site because the bike trail is easily accessible (riding on streets is dangerous the way liberals drive - LOL ;). I work 30 miles from home. After the radiator was replaced I decided to just continue riding when gas prices made riding v. driving cost-efficient. It takes one gallon to drive to work and one gallon to drive home (prices are at $4.05/gallon here), and costs $3.35 to use BART to that location ($3.85 for the trip from work). The return trip has a shorter bike ride to BART, only 2 miles, but still has the 2 mile trip from BART to home.
So, on an average daily commute I travel 60 miles, and use the bike for 14 of those miles. That means in the last 4 months (80 work days approx) I've used 160 gallons less gasoline than I would have if I had continued driving and used the bike for 1,120 miles. I didn't save much money because of the cost of BART tickets.
Is that the "context" you wanted?
Why then, do you have to come on with this ridiculous chip on your shoulder against "liberals"?
We rail against idiotic regulation and inaction at other times, just like perhaps you do. Why blame the wrong people?
Because of comments like this one: "So, Traveller, I'm assuming you are a Tea-Bagger, or at least Tea-Bag like.". And this one: "You have the reasoning ability of a petulant child.". Do you want me to link all the names other posters (besides the many you've used) have called me for no other reason than I disagree with their opinion? I didn't come here with a chip on my shoulder, it grew from discussion I've had with you and others.
mary said: We rail against idiotic regulation and inaction at other times, just like perhaps you do. Why blame the wrong people?
Because the "wrong people" are the ones making the claims that something needs to be done to correct a problem that the "wrong people" insist will destroy the earth if something isn't done. From the many hateful comments I've gotten already, I feel fairly secure that I struck a nerve and am probably 95% accurate in my assessment that liberals are doing nothing to very little to correct that problem.
BTW, you may want to remove that thumbs up. The BART system runs on electricity, but it is probably gotten from the power plant that is pictured on page 1 of MMFA's home page.
Limbaugh: The National Academy Of Sciences Has "Lost All Credibility, [Climate Change Is] A Bogus Claim"
Yep. You made an economic decision. That's what most people will do. Thus the drive by some advocates for market-based incentive, be it regulation or tax breaks or whatever. The incentive is key to get innovation going sooner than the market would dictate, because that would be likely too late to benefit the climate and, for those who don't believe or care about that, a bit late to get a jump on market share due to other countries' innovations with alternative energy.
Innovation preceding market timing, yep. The market is too slow. It just closes the barn door after the horse is gone, so give Americans a push, like the Feds did by gushing money into the space program in the 60's and 70's such that we now dominate the market.
And BART finally goes to the airport, praise be.
You sound like the recovering alcoholic who was forced to quit drinking and now goes around telling everyone who drinks even just socially on occasions how bad a person they are, or perhaps the arrogant manager who comes in mid-shift, moves one crate and can't understand why the guys who just moved 200 crates are being so lethargic before heading to his office to play solitaire and browse twitter feeds for the next three hours.
SO your situation forced you to do something that has a positive effect on the environment. Do you want a cookie? Do you want us all to repent and beg your forgiveness? Good for you, now stop assuming everyone has the good health, climate, and availability of safe bike trails in their community to do what you did and berating them for not doing it.
Typical libertarian, incapable of seeing beyond their own personal circumstance to the larger picture.
The argument made by your cohorts, is that we have to Stop or at least slow the rate of increase in the national debt. I mean we don't want to burden our children with our bills from today, correct? The time is now to stop the spending, before it gets anymore out of control, right?
Why should we burden our children with a planet that has been ravaged by abuse of our natural resources?
Traveller, when would be a good time to address our obnoxious consumption of natural resources?
You are asking the impossible of "Liberals". If we quit driving to work, then you will complain because we are freeloading off the government.
How about this, IF you are serious about reducing our debt, why don't you sacrifice and take that money you spend on an automobile and give it to uncle sam specifically for debt reduction? I mean if all you "conservative" buddies give up your Escalades, and make that sacrifice, the debt would be gone, correct?
You are here to be nothing more than a pain in the arse. You aren't serious about anything.
And so ends any possibility of a rational discussion from you.
I'll assume you agree with the assumptions LR made about "tea-baggers" and my "cohorts". Is that true? In which case he/she is allowed (and promoted) to assume class beliefs/actions while I am not? That would be called hypocrisy. So you expect that kind of behavior from me, but it is called what from him/her? And at WHAT point have you EVER deemed me capable of "rational discussion"? I've been told (many times) that you liberals are the only ones capable of rational discussion, yet here we are making the same whine.
BTW there is no such thing as a tea-bagger. That is a made-up word of disparagement for anyone not falling lock-step into agreement with any liberal position.
Nowhere have i said any of that. What i was saying is that you assumed first ("For all the complaining that liberals do ...there doesn't seem to be very many of you actually doing anything to stop, slow down or prevent climate change.") and yet when Liberal Republican did so you said that its not possible to have a rational discussion. You demand from others what you are not willing to do yourself. And even after that, YOU ARE STILL ASSUMING.
I'm going to be honest and say never. When you first came here, you started insulting, mangling logic and language, nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, moving goalposts and outright lying and cropping other people's arguments. All for the sake of acting like you are somehow morally superior and smarter then everybody here even when you show that not only are you not, but also that you are unbelievably petty.
Tea-bagger started originally form a misuse by the Tea Party and now is only used towards people who proclaim themselves members of the tea party or express equal type of politics.
That's right. However, you have NO proof of any lie I told. Of course I returned insults with insults, moved goalposts as the topic changed and cropped as needed to respond in a meaningful fashion. The terms-of-use agreement you abide by (at MMFA) suggests never copy/pasting the entire post of any given poster, but to post only the portion you need to continue your discussion.
But, you are hardly one to complain about "mangling logic and language". Do you ever spell check any post you make?
johaely said: Tea-bagger started originally form a misuse by the Tea Party
I take it this will be your only example of a "lie" that I have told? Because I didn't know who made the word up or it's intended use? When you do claim that as a lie, you will demonstrate your own dishonesty and inability to carry rational conversation of your own.
And what do YOU do on this site? You haven't had an honest discussion with anyone at any point during any topic. Get your own life.
How bout it, johaely, can I comment on that? Keep in mind the goalposts have been moved, so I need to get permission before I comment or you'll blame ME for moving the goalposts.
Thanks for the typical liberal namecalling. Now, on to his question that you so kindly allow me to answer. He claimed there is an 81% of something. He said that number is easily verified. But, he doesn't seem able to verify it. When he verifies it is an accurate number I'll respond.
Do you usually respond to unverified claims by me? No? Then I shouldn't be required to respond to unverified claims by him.
No you didn't. In almost every occasion, you throw the first blow and then go defensive.
Moving goalposts means changing the argument once your initial argument has been challenged or dispelled as if nothing happened. It's not the same as talking about a different subject.
Nope. You crop to take things out of context. Like you did with this (what's in brackets is what you left out):
Then when found out, you tried to rewrite it all, a la Beck, and said
You are utterly shameless.
I actually do and don't make a deal about grammar or spelling unless its incredibly egregious and just the final drop in a bucket of idiocy.
When did it claim as a lie? I don't need your approval to engage engage in a rational conversation, especially when you yourself can't do engage in one.
What does that mean? 10% of the time? 90% of the time? No examples though
goalposts: same tactic used by you and every other poster on this site. Only it is wrong when I do it? No examples though.
cropping: example used was an accurate description of the way it happened. He did make that claim and I still think he is one of those type of nutjobs.
mangled language: claims to use spell check and only cares when an "egregious" error is made (you missed this one: "I don't need your approval to engage engage in a rational conversation," and this one: "especially when you yourself can't do engage in one.")
So calling and implying liberals are hypocrites and/or stupid is not insulting? That is without mentioning all the assumptions you have been making throughout the thread.
Really? Point out when I do it. Don't care about anybody else. You, on the other hand, have been doing it in this thread as most recent (hell you didn't even know what "moving the goalposts" meant until i explained it. First it was that liberals weren't doing anything. Then it was that they weren't doing enough, any reason was an excuse. (I predict that in your reply you will pat yourself in the back or continue to blow yourself).
He was not referring about himself. You did it to cast judgement (the only reason you ever do anything).
Wow, i made mistakes. Kill me now.
All the assumptions you have made up and down in this thread. You have been lying about what other people do, people you don't know anything about aside of their politics. For an older lie, i could point out the time you said you used the phrase death panel before Sarah Palin coined it, or when you said you have called on conservatives for your mangled definition "whining". The only time you did it was post facto and barely compared to how much you do it/did it for liberals.
Sure, in a general way. If you think "liberal" is an insulting word. However, you call me personal names, not generalities like "republican" or "conservative".
goalposts: Did you even read my very first post? The one that got all the replies and I've been responding to since? No, I guess you didn't.
mangled language: Ah ha ha Gotta laugh at that one, huh
lies: Your using words that have been in the english language for years as an example of a lie? You even admitted Sarah Palin "coined" the phrase. Which is an admission the phrase was out there before, only not popularized before she used it. So people who used the words "hypocrite" were liars before someone finally "coined" the phrase?
outright lying: Look up the word "assume" and "assumption" before you continue your admonishment of me for lying. I assume you need more schooling.
You retard.
Here, you should study these.
I was expecting you to say that. I knew that you would at some point say something around "You idiot, death and panels are word that existed before Palin ever said anything". "Death panel" as a single phrase is not an old word. Palin coined the term and there are almost no references to it before 2009 in the same context you and Palin used it.
And a proof of you not knowing the meaning of words and how you mangle language, to coin something means to invent a new word or phrase.
You have been saying your assumptions with a lot of certainty and implying they are true.
Wow, after reading that, Taz, the Tazmanian Devil was quoted as saying: "Too much spin, Me feel ill and dizzy."
Sure, if you remove all context, pretend that every event happens in a hermetically sealed void, and pretend that none of us here have any memory or knowledge of current events and the political climate, then your absurd stretch might have some merit.
outright lying: no examples given
Keep up the good works, johaely. You're doing a good job of showing how I operate.
Traveller: You know very well that if every single liberal in the country gave up his car or bought an electric one, it would NOT MAKE A DENT in the global warming problem. You don't want to lift a finger to solve this, so you point your finger at liberals and claim hypocrisy because they aren't driving electric cars. 1. It's no use liberals driving electric cars, when the deniers won't do anything. 2. It's no use liberals driving electric cars, when the fossil fuel industry continues on its merry way, and China and other countries increase their emmissions.
It's not hypocrisy. We know that the only way forward is for governments to discourage fossil fuel use and encourage alternatives for EVERYONE. Individual action will not cut it. On the other hand if you go out of your way to conspicuously consume resources, like driving a hummer, then you are a jacka$$.
I assume big-oil company's are doing what they can to stop electric car advancements? Gosh, you got me again.
Have you ever heard of the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?
There is just no winning with liberals. I say I hate big-oil and I say I hate CO2 producing autos, yet you call me a "petulant child". In other words you call me names for supporting 2 key liberal ideals (anti-big-oil companies and anti-climate change).
Thanks mary
Also your approach to the issue is extremely simplistic and unrealistic.
So is your approach to stop Glenn Beck. But you seem to have an affect. But should I suggest not purchasing from big-oil companies you great me with name-calling and hatred. Thanks johaely
Please reread my comments. I did not make excuses to do nothing myself. I said EVERYONE has to contribute, therefore governments must be involved. You seem only interested in blaming liberals.
I am sorry you feel a need to protect the big-oil industry by claiming electric cars won't solve the problem, but I don't think protecting big-oil and all their profits to be a solution to global warming. That is why I will take every opportunity to denounce those who promote big-oil, in the manner that liberals do, by continued purchasing of a product they claim to be so deadly and dangerous. You seem to have no problem protesting advertisers of Glenn Beck, yet you run down to the gas station (daily/weekly) to purchase a product that is a direct cause of global warming. Sure, republicans and conservatives do the same thing (daily/weekly purchases), but they aren't the ones claiming deadly results for the continued use of those products, are they?
Subsidies Continue Because Republicans Sold Their Votes To Big Oil
Your text to link here...
They refuse to cut oil subsidies while proposing to raise taxes on the middle class and do away with medicare to pay for it.
Take your choice of articles:
Your text to link here...
You must have really been upset about the attacks on the Obama administration after they imposed a drilling moratorium after the disasterous B/P oil spill in the Gulf. Remember them ,they even continue to this day. Where is your outrage traveller it seems misplaced. Can't wait to read your post haranguing those congressmen and senators who voted to continue subsidies and unregulated drilling. Which party is the one that screams "Drill baby drill?" Which party do the tea-baggers support? Traveller you got some explaining to do,go clean your house before you talk about ours.
On the other hand if governments change the rules of the game, then everything changes: electric cars become viable when there is the necessary infrastructure; same for public transit and cycling
A boycott of gasoline is a hardship. That is a given. But, is this meant to be easy? Is that the only way you'll do a boycott? Only if it's easy? To stop or even slow global warming down there has to be a concerted effort by all, not just the ones who are blamed for causing it.
I take it you (and others) will boycott Glenn Beck (when he hurts your feelings) because that is easy. But to save the planet you don't want to be bothered with such an inconvenience? Fair enough. At least I know what position you hold on correcting global warming.
A consumer boycott of gasoline would not be easy, nor would it be effective because most people would not do it. As you said "there has to be a concerted effort by all, ..." but right now there is no concerted effort, and there is not going to be one. Most people in America doubt global warming. Apparently you are doing some good things and so am I but that's not enough to counter those consumers who are worsening the problem and the polluting industries who are financing a campaign of lies--and winning as you can see from the above article.
It's a global scientific problem and it requires global action by governments. The news media have failed badly in their first duty: to present the relevant facts to the public. Worse: they have actually misinformed the public, with fatal consequences. Heat waves and storms have increased enough that it's pretty safe to say global warming has caused at least some of the resulting deaths.
And, despite the 50 plus posts you've put up, you have yet to address the fact that Faux overwhelmingly puts on guests who are denying global climate change.
That IS a corrective action. If we cut auto emissions by 80% that would be a tremendous step in the right direction. Don't you think you should be lecturing the guy driving the Hummer and not those who are doing what they can? The whole premise of your argument is ludicrous... based on your what you are saying anyone who farts is responsible for climate change.
And as for getting rid of your car, if you live in an urban area it's a no-brainer, but don't judge those who live further from the city.
I'm trying, but only 3 people have admitted to what kind of vehicle they drive. Me, anothercat and mary have admitted to what kind of vehicles we drive. Average milage of those admissions: 25mpg (30,15,30)
This is like asking tea party conservatives who are worried about the budget deficit to send back any government assistance they have received. Maybe they should sign away their entitlements to Medicare and social security before they complain about the debt while they are at it.
Besides, all Mr. Traveller is pointing out is that there is a lot of inertia and a lack of action on climate change, even among those concerned. This would imply that strong leadership on the national level is required and that marginalizing the issue with conservative propaganda is making the problem worse. A lack of volunteer action to solve a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist or that the people are not sincerely concerned.
In a nut-shell what you are saying is that while you eat those 2 large fries and 3 Bigmacs being downed with a 2-liter Coke, you demand others correct their own health concerns. Fair enough.
A person who is overeating and obviously causing damage can certainly tell me that I shouldn't do what they do.
Maybe the big mac guy needs an intervention. He can't stop even though he is correct in pointing out the health problems with his eating.
Good, you continue causing global warming while telling me how to correct it. I'll continue trying to correct it while calling you a hypocrite.
First "liberals" are people. We don't all think alike. I know that is hard to grasp given how in sync conservatives seem to in their posts (almost verbatim on many issues).
Second, environmentalists in general have not said get rid of automobiles. They have promoted alternative fuels and more efficient petroleum fueled vehicles. A more reasonable question would be "how many liberals here have a car that gets better than 35 MPG on the highway?" Bet you'd see a lot of hands. I work in a uber-liberal suburb of Chicago. I would say that about 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 of the cars you see on the street are either hybrids (the Prius could the official car for the town in question) or very efficient internal combustion vehicles (Honda Fits, Toyota Echos, etc).
Third, another far more relevant question than how many of you have spent the 10's of thousands of dollars to install solar panels would be "how many of you liberals have done things to improve the thermal efficiency of your homes or have adjusted your thermostat to be colder in the winter and warmer in the summer?"
You are the classic conservative. Completely unable to understand nuance and degree. Its all or nothing with you clowns. In your mind if we haven't completely eliminated carbon from our lives we are hypocrites. If we suggest that the government is a better delivery method to fulfill certain societal needs because there shouldn't be a profit motive associated with them, you claim that we are socialists and want to destroy capitalism and put the government in charge of everything. You just can't do nuance, can you?
It's impossible to debate someone who sees the world only in black and white terms, a binary thinker with no advanced thought processes.
Who on this website has demanded that Traveller stop driving a car? Can someone point this out to me?
I live in an apartment and have done what I can to make my unit more thermally efficient.
1) Unlike conservatives, liberals aren't one giant homogeneous group; we don't get our instructions at the weekly Klan meeting like you guys do.
2) Who exactly is it that's pushing for the Federal government to enact aggressive climate change mitigation policy? Yeah, dumbass, that'd be liberals.
3) Since the largest concentrations of liberal voters is in urban populations, perhaps you'd like to note that residents in New York City have carbon footprints only 20 percent as large as residents of rural townships?
4) The only thing that will stop climate change is REDUCING greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody is calling for completely eliminating CO2 emissions.
5) Exactly how do you think people get to work? Cars are still an essential mode of transportation, genius. Which is why it's critical that CAFE standards be raised to mitigate auto emissions as much as possible and that automakers be encouraged to mass produce more fuel-efficient cars so that the prices drop enough that the average consumer can actually purchase them.
6) My god, get ahold of yourself. You came across as a complete simpleton. Try harder.
* Auto emissions are the only source of carbon, and that the only way to control pollution, and to show concern for the environment is to cease driving autos.
* That environmentalists / liberals pushing for lower emission autos, smokestack emissions and other industrial sources of pollution, saving rain forests and many other things is doing nothing.
* The insane idea that liberals think it is reasonable to ban autos.
I don't even know why I wasted my time (or why any of us should) with fools such as this.
This bogus argument doesn't work unless you have heard that all liberals are in favor of an instant and complete shut down of all fossil fuel resource use anywhere besides the alarmists on right wing media.
Again and again, the argument for a reasonable energy policy that moves toward implementation of new methods of generation is put out there, only to be ignored by the right wing in favor of their absurd strawman arguments.
These binary, black and white arguments may work well to convince the right wing media consumer to vote against their best interests, but they don't resemble reality, and by no means represent the typical liberal or even mainstream American point of view.
Rome wasn't built in a day, carbon emissions won't be minimized in a day either. It's going to take some time, some thought, and some phasing in and out of different technologies. Please educate yourself and stop trying to make these ludicrous "gotchas" based on the misinformation and alarmist rhetoric of fossil fuel funded political propagandists.
The topic is not how much liberals are doing to combat global warming in their daily lives.
This is the topic.
Media Matters analyzed television news guests who discussed the Environmental Protection Agency's role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from December 2009 through April 2011. Driven largely by Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network, results show that in 76 percent of those appearances, the guest was opposed to EPA regulations while 18 percent were in favor. Of the appearances by elected officials, 86 percent were Republican. Only one guest in 17 months of coverage across nine news outlets was a climate scientist -- industry-funded Patrick Michaels.
We need regulation to get the ball rolling and keep it rolling to do more to mitigate the damage we've already done and continue to do to the environment. If the media does a poor job of educating their audience because they allow opponents of EPA regulations to dominate the airwaves, they're falling down on the job!
That's the topic.
You think? On the other hand, it is refreshing to hear another point of view as opposed to all of the ridiculous "The More You Know" PSAs on NBC, and the subliminal, environmental messages planted in primetime television programs by the EMA. "It's not happening by accident. For 10 years, the Environmental Media Association (EMA) has been working to weave the environment into prime-time television programming. Created by and for professionals in the entertainment industry, EMA works with the stars in front of the cameras as well as the creative staff behind them to include environmental themes in scripts, show environmental products on sets, and make environmentally sound decisions in the studios." http://www.jarodsafehouse.com/article_emagazine.php
There's the junk "mail" our kids bring home from school, telling them how not to waste paper, state and local taxes for using a plastic or paper bag. Newspapers and magazines are littered with articles, instead of news, lecturing the reader on the virtues of going green in every nook and cranny of your life.
So, from time to time, news programs present a different point of view?
How refreshing.
And, we work to elect officials who work for the same goals.
p.s. That's very, very important
And the constant game of 'if you're not riding a bike, shut up' is just that, a game. I've heard that one since the mid 60's, usually spoken with a smug look that invites anger. Everyone can start riding bikes and all their CO2 savings would be cancelled out by ONE unregulated coal plant's emmissions.
Too bad most people dont want their energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket" like Obama wants.
Do you have even the most basic understanding the history of Cap & Trade? That was completely rhetorical. Your posts show that you don't have a basic understanding of almost anything.
Here, educate yourself:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html
John McCain and the Nitwit of the North both supported Cap & Trade legislation until the black man won the election.
Until Democrats realized that the only way to address global climate change was by adopting the GOP strategy of privatizing everything, Cap & Trade was the exclusive idea of the GOP. They (the GOP) thought it was a great way to "privatize pollution".
1. Who do you think first proposed mandatory health insurance?
a) Mitt Romney
b) Barack Obama
c) Hillary Clinton
d) Richard Nixon
e) Newt Gingrich
2) True or False. Newt Gingrich, the GOP Congress and the conservative think tank (oxymoron) the Heritage Foundation proposed and endorsed mandatory health insurance in response to "Hillarycare" during the 1990's.
Answers: 1=d; 2=True
However, just in case...When I said "Until Democrats realized that the only way to address global climate change was by adopting the GOP strategy of privatizing everything, Cap & Trade was the exclusive idea of the GOP.", I was simply pointing out that the GOP will block any idea that isn't their own and lately they are even blocking their own ideas. The Democrats got on board with the idea of Cap & Trade in an attempt at bipartisanship and the GOP told them to go pound sand.
I don't believe that Cap & Trade is the most effective way to deal with emissions, just the most likely to pass.
If they can regulate CO2, when are they going to start regulating oxygen?
This is a dead horse - there's no more money to be made in this fantasy!