Shhhhh! There's A Communist Living In The W.H.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Science Chic wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: Just taking notes. So far it seems Obama is a Communist Muslim from Kenya. Anything else we need to know?

He eats puppies and drinks unicorn blood?

Kittens too!

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_AFUtKwzPosCJoyCanyU2DfTXV8YFfR8JgnzOMZVZgzcumz_Q7eCVPOl6Aw

That b******!!!!! I could live with the puppy and unicorn thing, but kittens??!! Poor, innocent, helpless little kittens??? That crosses the line in my book -he's toast!

towermonkey wrote: He's not a communist, he's a corporatist. There is much more evidence to support this claim.

:bash

HEARTLESS wrote: So Obama is just another lying corporatist and that is reason to vote for his lies and failures again. Brilliant!

Uhhh, no. But show me a Republican candidate that isn't also a corporatist...

As you may guess, energy and environmental policy is top on my priority list for who I will vote for; Ron Paul doesn't get it and until he stops with the ignorant talking points about "free market solutions" to energy, I won't even consider him.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/
FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS

The free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs. Oil hasn't been a true free market item for decades...but, hey, let's go with that and see what happens to oil prices and the resulting rebellion and sudden interest in renewable energy!

Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet. Decades of misguided policy have kept us from getting off of a finite commodity (b/c finite commodities will always skyrocket at some point, they've been kept artificially low thanks to our government's interference) in a manner which could have been transitioned without causing severe economic repercussions. We have passed the point when it could've been done methodically and smoothly, but I suppose that would've been the way of things anyway - we humans are so very bad at planning for the future...

Washington’s bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have distorted the market and resulted in government bureaucrats picking winners and losers. Yes, they have, but do we agree on which regulations, corporate subsidies, and taxation have distorted the market? I'm highly doubtful.

In fact, much of the “pain at the pump” Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production – like oil, coal, and natural gas – in hopes of making energy sources they favor more “economical.” What policies designed by environmental activists? We're still sucking down oil like it's going out of style, we haven't seriously implemented any reductions in use so how exactly have environmentalists caused high prices? This is BS - prices are high thanks to commodities traders on Wall St - place the blame where it truly lies.

Sadly, even with $4.00 a gallon gasoline, many are attempting to make our energy crisis even worse by working to impose job-destroying carbon taxes, or a “Cap and Tax” system. Rhetoric at its finest. First, a carbon tax isn't going to "destroy" jobs - they will merely shift from one sector to another. Second, cap and trade is dead, and not even pushed by those who've bothered to educate themselves as to the uselessness of cap and trade.

As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs. Drilling for more oil is not the long-term solution, nor will it affect prices in the short-term. It's time to think outside the box for true solutions to our problems, not merely postpone the inevitable.

A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT

As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home. Vast? tongue: Total, maybe; compared to our consumption, not even close to making a dent.

* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers. Fine as long as he repeals subsidies for oil companies in the process - those billions can be applied toward the deficit.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power. More nuclear is already in the works, it could stand a boost though. :thumbsup: More coal plants better mean CCS fast-tracked.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington. This right here is the biggest bonehead statement on his website - eliminate the ineffective EPA? I thought people hated it b/c it's been too effective and "killed jobs"?? And get rid of it so we can move the burden onto people like you and me to line lawyers pockets and foster a more lawsuit-happy nation? Duh. Like property owners are going to have the money and time to prove damage by companies on an individual basis...

* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies. Does he mean make new ones, or not **** up the ones already in place?

It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy. Energy has not been and will not be free market anytime in the foreseeable future - low energy costs are what drive economies and growth, governments can't afford high costs. Let's stop with the pretty-sounding talk, and get realistic with our goals and policies. Yes, it would be nice if the energy produced were "environmentally sound", but that's not even possible with any alternative source - there's always a downside. It must be implemented in the right areas where it will be most effective and least damaging, is what should be said. Reliable would mean fossil fuels for now, but that reliability will end in mere decades if we continue status-quo consumption. Innovative spirit means ramping up funding for alternative energy research and subsidizing implementation of production right now, not 20 years from now.

HEARTLESS wrote: SC, did you watch the videos on page 42 (Doctors for Disaster Preparedness 2010 conference) from the Severe trouble ahead... thread? If not, please do as the speakers give good reason to not believe in AGW. If carbon is even a cause of the warming, the primary contributor to it in our atmosphere is volcanic and other naturally occurring sources, not mankind. The videos are long at one hour each but give sound reasoning for their stance.

The primary contributor to the atmosphere is absolutely not volcanic sources. Take one look at the graph of CO2 measurements estimated from ice cores compared to direct measurements (1st graph), and taken directly at Mauna Loa by itself (2nd graph, sorry I can't blow it up anymore than it is) for the last 40+ years (the Keeling curve), and correlate that to volcanic eruptions - doesn't compute. As to other natural sources, yes they are adding as well, but when you consider that land use is one of them, and how we've re-shaped the land (clear-cutting, building cities, farms, etc), then that makes us the cause, not really the land.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_dioxide

Vulcanism
Emissions of CO2 due to volcanic activity, though sometimes large on a local scale, are relatively minor on a global scale, accounting for between 0.02 and 0.05 Pg C per year.

Land-use Change
Current estimates suggest land-use changes lead to the emission of 1.7 Pg C per year in the tropics, mainly as a result of deforestation, and to a small amount of uptake (about 0.1 Pg C) in temperate and boreal areas - so producing a net source of around 1.6 Pg C per year.

Energy - Stationary Sources
Of the carbon dioxide emissions arising from fossil fuel combustion—up to 6.5 Pg C each year—around 40% is a result of electricity generation, with coal-fired generation being the leading sector. Other stationary sources include industrial (particularly iron and steel manufacture), emissions resulting from oil extraction, refinement and transportation, and domestic and commercial fossil fuel use.

Energy - Mobile Sources
They currently consitute around 24% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Road transport dominates these emissions, though off-road, air and marine transport emissions are aslo significant. The use of petroleum as a fossil fuel for transportation dominates carbon dioxide emissions from this source. In 1999, in the U. S., more than 30 percent of fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions were a direct result of transportation. With about two-thirds of this being from gasoline consumption by motor vehicles and the remainder coming from diesel and jet fuel use in lorries and aircraft, respectively.

Industry (non-energy-related)
The final amount of CO2 produced varies depending the type of cement being made. Globally, this source is estimated to amount to 0.2 Pg C emission to the atmosphere each year. Significant carbon dioxide emissions (around 0.25 PgC per year) also result from its use in chemical feedstocks.

Biomass Burning
Though responsible for large CO2 emissions over short time-scales, the net CO2 emissions due to biomass burning are difficult to quantify due to the subsequent uptake of CO2 through regrowth of vegetation. An unsustainable (i.e., not off-set by regrowth) fraction equivalent to about 10% of total emissions is generally assumed biomass used in energy-generation, with this figure being incorporated into the total emissions resulting from land-use change.

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Attribution of 20th Century climate change to CO2

If carbon is even a cause of the warming

Yes, it is, unequivocably, and the paper that established that was published in 1896 - before computers, calculators, and AGW confusion and delay campaign being waged by vested interests and being used as a political hot potato. The link to his paper is in the Wikipedia reference if you care to read it yourself. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ge_science