Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 3:16 AM
Wed Dec 9
45 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/02/09
Maybe I'm not lurking the right conspiracy sites, but the only thing I've been able to determine, based on a passing Alex Jones quote, is that environmentalism (as a whole?) is an attempt to steal your land. And then... I don't know.
Can anyone explain to me why anyone could be so angrily against curbing pollution?
That's what it really boils down to, as far as I can tell. Even if you don't believe that global warming/climate change is real, why would you choose to be against efforts to slow down/half pollution?
12/02/09
The #1 backers for Cap and Trade originally were Goldman Sachs and Enron.
It creates a whole new derivatives market in Carbon trading.
12/02/09
"$94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely."
That is from a WSJ article.
It's always money and control.
12/02/09
12/02/09
"Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.
Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?"
12/02/09
If these energy companies are so scared of lost profits, maybe they should invest in "green" technologies too. It's not anyone else's problem but their own that they put all their eggs into a non-renewable resource.
12/02/09
12/02/09
You seem to think it is more noble for "green" companies to make money based off of bad research than oil companies.
"Green" technology will be embraced when it can produce cheaper and better energy. Technology still needs to catch up to that.
12/02/09
Furthermore, it seemed to me that you, or whoever your friends are that are concerned over "money and control," are not acknowledging that energy companies already have substantial "money and control" yet you (or they) defend them in spite of this new technology. Sure, it may be expensive/inefficient now, but the price of oil will only go up, and once it reaches $100, will I hear you bitching about windfall profits from Exxon Mobil?
12/02/09
If oil goes up again Americans will respond as we did before and stop using as much. There are vast amounts of untapped oil and gas we would need to use up before this becomes a real worry.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
I do have problems with made up fairy tale criticisms. That is the difference here.
People are/will be trying to find affordable alternate energy sources because there is a ton of money in it.
Currently wind/solar/geothermal etc.. just isn't up to snuff yet and this country has an uncommon fear of anything nuclear so that's out.
Once again my only real problem here is that this science (or lack thereof) has been flawed but policy has been made and legislation written based off of these flawed conclusions.
12/02/09
12/03/09
They are arguing this legislation based on climate change. That is the fairy tale.
12/03/09
12/03/09
No you can't. Which is the whole point here.
Your belief in AGW right now is as factually correct as someone believing that Jesus did it.
12/03/09
Honestly, at best your argument is that it's better to side with Exxon Mobil and Shell instead of finance firms who stand to profit by investing in new markets/fields/products.
You're talking gibberish.
The WSJ is hardly a bastion of unbias information and so what if people who back alternative energy stand to profit? Once again, all you're saying it's its better for the oil industry to profit than those on the side of alternative/renewable energy.
12/03/09
Enron was run by crooks who did everything to make/steal as much money as possible. If this means investing in emerging markets and products, so be it, they also helped get Davis kicked out of office by manipulating the energy supply to California, they tried to find ways to invest in the weather.
Saying something like "Enron was supported it so..... it must be corrupt" It's like saying "Mark Foley is a Republican so..." does that mean all Republicans want to fuck teenage boys? No, obviously not.
So far your whole argument is some murky concept of control and money based on guilt by loose association.
This may be your best quote as it illustrates your utter lack of understanding: ""Green" technology will be embraced when it can produce cheaper and better energy. Technology still needs to catch up to that. "
How do you think the technology catches up? I'll help: It's through investment and research.
Do you think technology is just an organism that evolves (shit, do you deny evolution too?) over time all on it's own and doesn't cost anything? It's something that requires thousands and millions and billions of dollars of research over time.
You sound absolutely ridiculous.
12/03/09
[rawstory.com]
12/03/09
You have obviously not read the whole thread. I pointed the Enron and Goldman Sachs connection to show that this was about money and that "green" companies weren't going to be the recipients. I will spell it out better for you from now on.
Feel what you will about the slant to WSJ but the facts are there. They didn't make them up.
My opposition here is mandating "green" energy based on climate change alarmism.
Technology does catch up through investment and research. I simply don't think those should come in the forms of mandates that are based on manufactured "science".
I am sure I sound ridiculous to you. You are a sheep.
12/03/09
"Therawstory is hardly a bastion of unbiased information" disregard, disregard, disregard....
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
Do you think this is established science? Do you think global warming is a fact?
There is no proof. There is no more proof that man made climate change exists than there is of Jesus' resurrection. Climate change is a religion.
There is no burden on me to disprove it because no one has ever proven it.
IT. IS. NOT. SCIENCE.
12/03/09
12/03/09
I love the questioning of, by a conservative nonetheless, someone's capacity for critical thinking, yet you buy into some vague conspiracy and only believe research pushed by people who are funded by companies like Exxon Mobil. Those are obviously the only honest scientists!
Progress, throughout history, has been pushed with legislation. Fuel economy, auto safety standards, food handling procedures, workers rights, work place safety, civil rights, environmental regulation all forced progress and all opposed by those who either see it as an assault to their profit margins, or values or personal freedom.
Big business, in almost every form seems to enjoy keeping the status quo, it's cheaper and easier and since they are all over stuff and lazy, they know they won't really have to worry about the other companies to out do them.
Side note:
My favorite part of your Gawker profile: "ConAir34 has no friends."
12/03/09
creep.
12/03/09
Your lack of comprehension has shone through once again. Re read the thread to see why I spoke of Enron.
No one is arguing about worker's rights, or work place safetey. Those are verifiable things that definitely needed improvement.
Here is were you lack critical thinking. Global Warming is not like any of those things you mentioned. It is (so far) a farce, malarky, snake oil, hyperbole, etc... It has never actually been proven to exist nor proven to be man made.
There is no proof that anything will be improved by enacting legislation to control carbon emissions or greenhouse gas or whatever the next earth destroying thing happens to be.
The only guarantee is it will raise energy costs.
Maybe you are comfortable with paying double on your gas/electric bill to offset the magical "carbon cost" but I, and millions of others, aren't so flush right now and while I respect your right to whatever religion you choose I don't wish to tithe to the Church of Gaia.
12/03/09
12/03/09
YOU. ARE. STUPID.
12/04/09
You could have come on here and talked about pizza topping trends and and had the same impact.
Next you will be telling me there is too much nitrogen in the air.
YOU. ARE. MISINFORMED.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
Go ask your science teacher or maybe do a little research on current events. I'll wait.
12/04/09
You have no grasp on anything, you're a climate change denier (we get it!), you've shown yourself to be, through this series of comments, and others on various topics, to be a typical rank and file conservative. You believe oil industry hacks and big industry lobbying groups like the Chamber of Commerce -- Got it. Fantastic. Doesn't change anything.
Oh, and I called my old science teacher, luckily she was still in her office grading tests. She said you're stupid also.
12/04/09
12/05/09
It seems you weren't going that way so sorry for the misunderstanding.
12/05/09
You are wrong. You will probably always be wrong. You do not have, nor seem to care about, the facts to back up your arguments.
I could care less of "oil industry hacks and big industry lobbying groups" but allowing this talk to go on unchallenged is what will get piece of crap legislation passed that further cripples our economy.
I reject "consensus". I reject that this is "settled science" when it is not actually science in any form.
You will see more now that some cracks have appeared in the dam.
This was a scam from the very beginning. 10 years from now this will get as much mention as acid rain the ozone layer and DDT. Just another stupid panicky nothing.
12/05/09
12/05/09
This is one of the favored arguments that to justify limiting carbon emissions. They tend to leave out the whole picture though.
12/05/09
We can live differently. We don't need to spray carbon monoxide into the atmosphere day and night.
I mean, what is not to get here?
12/05/09
Even back in 2003 National Geographic was talking about carbon lifecycles and how even with the increases in carbon emissions there was no net increase in levels.
It is a little much for me to type here but at this point the amounts we put introduce aren't having the negative effects that theoretically would happen.
I am not saying we should never try to get away from burning fossil fuels and I am not saying we shouldn't "save" trees. My beef is with unfounded claims to basically scare us into unnecessary, cost prohibitive restrictions.
Especially when we seem to be the only ones looking at that option. As recently as this weekend Britain will be reevaluating its position and Australia voted down there own version of Cap and Trade.
It isn't worth the trillion dollar bet.
12/05/09
12/05/09
Temp trends are not up. The most accredited group is in the middle of shitstorm right now due to lies and terrible computer models. NASA is probably going to be next. There have been holes getting punched in this for a while now.
I don't care about the 3rd world nations because there is nothing actually happening that we can fix by paying higher prices for electricity.
If you feel bad for them then volunteer your time/money/effort towards improving their lot. Just don't demand that I do the same.
The cost isn't necessitated because there is nothing wrong.
12/05/09
12/06/09
Good luck.
12/06/09
12/07/09
Yes, those who are godless, unwashed bleeding heart-liberal tend to side with the environment and the consensus of the scientific community over that of big business. This is typically based on the fact that doing the opposite would call into question someone's ability to engage in rational thought.
What does a liberal arts degree have to do with anything? Just last week you asserted that I was still in high school --- What I mean to say is: thank you, it's not every day someone thinks so highly of my intelligence that they would think it possible that I was able to go from high school to a degree in any course of study, in only a weekend's time. But, as I said, thank you -- it feels weird being complimented in this way by someone who has repeatedly resorted to calling me stupid.
Moving on...
Acid Rain and DDT are the examples you're going with? Are you sure?
Well... That is fantastic, because we've addressed and studied this: you don't hear about DDT because it's not used in the United States (banned since 1972); and was banned for worldwide use under the Stockholm Convention, vector control notwithstanding. So, yeah, it's sort of a nonissue now because we addressed it.
Acid Rain, is a very real thing which again, was addressed and after an extensive (10 year) study, had legislation passed (a cap and trade program nonetheless) which has effectively lowered SO2 emissions and by 2007, bringing the legislation's (1990 Clean Air Act) goal of less than 8.9 million tons by 2010 to fruition 3 years ahead of schedule. Legislation for the win!
China, Europe and Russia, on the other hand, still have a serious problem with Acid Rain.
So, like I said, PLEASE, for the love of god use those as your examples of similar environmental concerns, you incredible fucking idiot.
.......
Lets set aside all of the claims being made people like Al Gore, and the vast majority of the rest of the world and ask this:
Why not do everything we can to curb pollution?
While you may feel that you're fighting this grand conspiracy by arguing on a tech blog, you're really just defending the continued pumping of chemicals into the air, land and sea.
12/07/09
My point on DDT: It was banned as a kneejerk reaction based on psuedo science. Since then thousands of people in those 3rd world countries you are so worried about have died of/gotten malaria. They now use it in a limited fashion. Again kneejerk reactions to unsettled science.
Acid rain is a minor problem completely overblown and legislation has done nothing to combat it.
This is why you probably think everyone else is an idiot. Because you have no fucking clue about anything that doesn't fit your worldview.
You are a whiny, insulting, little person. I think I am done here as there is know way we are going to sway each other and this is getting old.
Good luck.
12/07/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
Christ, I am having cabbage for dinner.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
[women.timesonline.co.uk]
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
It would be much more PC if they did it instead of the US.
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.
A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry told the newspaper that the "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practicing Jews.
"The name Saborjhian derives from thread painter -- sabor in Farsi -- a once common and humble occupation in the carpet industry in Semnan Province, where Aradan is situated. Ahmad, by contrast, is a name also used for the Prophet Muhammad and means virtuous; nejad means race in Farsi, so Ahmadinejad can mean Muhammad's race or virtuous race."
Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.
10/03/09
Could the real root of this mid-east arms race simply come from the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons despite never formally admitting as much? As much as I support Israel, I cannot explain, excuse or justify why Israel would have such weapons.
I think a world where Israel didn’t choose to go down this path (beginning in 1961) the mid-east would be far more peaceful, and in my mind we wouldn’t be entangled in half of this mess to begin with.
Also, who cares what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Sabourjian?) says or thinks. You folks know that he’s not in control of squat in the Iran with out his Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s approval, right?
10/03/09
Also, how is a zealot like Ahmadinejad, being kept on a leash by another zealot like Khamenei, supposed to be reassuring?
10/03/09
It's a disturbingly well known secret.
10/03/09
So they built nuclear weapons as a deterrent to keep these nations in check... and it's worked.
And the BIG difference here is that while Israel maintains its weapons as a (very successful) deterrent, few people have any doubt that the Iranians would try to use their nuclear weapon the very same day it was constructed.
SO as a 'direct child of the holocaust' and 'supporter of Israel' (I don't quite believe you are either of those... and if you are then you beat Ahmadinejad in the self-hatred department), you should perhaps learn a bit more about the ACTUAL political dynamics and balance of power of the region. Israel only exists because of its nuclear deterrent.
10/04/09
My mom was on a train headed to the concentration camps when she was 13. Twisted her leg during the jump which gave her a limp that stayed with her for years. Survived on her own and with the help of a few family members who survived for 5 years while the war was still raging. When she was 18 she met up with my father who was 23 and was in the Polish Army. Had two children in post-War Poland/Germany. Moved to Israel in the late 1950s. Then in 1963 the moved to the U.S. In 1968 I was born.
Now, as far as your "self-hating" nonsense goes, please take this personally: Go eff yourself, on behalf of my mom, my dad and my family and anyone who has experienced the pain of true anti-Semitism and who has a brain that can think and decide that you know what, Israel has made mistakes. And nukes are one of them.
Supporting Israel is one thing. Declaring anyone who dares criticize Israel’s tactics and decisions as "self-hating" is another. Not only is it tired and cliched, it actually proves the point that there is no hope for peace in the mid-east until Israel truly questions itself and the impact of it's decisions.
And you dear sir fall into the fun-guy, happy club of a-holes who have lost their mind and perspective. Because you know what? Even in Israel these issues are discussed without the hate/bile you spit out.
Oh and deterrent, as far as what I am seeing now, Iran creating it's own secret nuclear program proves how effective that asinine "deterrent" is.
PS: Seriously, go eff yourself Thomas Paladino.
10/04/09
10/04/09
You see, that’s the problem right there. Transparency. Technically speaking is Israel really above reproach? If the world is subjected to a nuclear winter caused by an Israeli strike with nukes is that somehow better than an Iranian strike?
Lord let me hope I get radiation poisoning from a Kosher nuke! Lord knows it's much worse if the nuke is Treif!
The thing that’s really fascinating about the logic behind the justifications is it’s the same nonsense we all heard during the Cold War.
But at least in that case, there was no doubt who had what and where.
10/04/09
A couple of things here. One book that talks about the development of the Israeli Nuclear Program is called the Sampson Option. I haven't read it so I can't say if it is good or not.
Addressing SpyMagician's questions about Israel being more transparent to the world in regards to having a nuclear bomb, the simplest answer is that Israel would probably argue that they are always subject to more criticism than other countries in the world. One can consider "the Zionism is racism" resolution in the UN as one example of this, in view of the nonsense that goes on in Somalia, Sudan, and the abuse of people in Iran.
Regardless, Israel probably does not see any advantage to discussing whether or not they have a nuclear bomb because they will be asked to relinquish their nukes without any benefit.
This then would should say, well if Israel has a nuclear weapon, why can't Iran?
One reason why there is not equivalence, is that Iran's motives for obtaining a nuclear bomb has nothing really to do with defending themselves against an attack from Israel. It really comes down to Iran's attempt to become a mini-superpower in the Middle East, namely against their Arab Rivals (Saudi Arabia, etc.). There has been a long time hatred in the Middle East between Persians (Iran) and the Arabs. In addition, there has been a huge shift in the balance of power with the fall of Iraq because of the US involvement, where Iran typically had a neighbor that would keep it in check (after 1980).
There is a power vacuum in the Middle East today, and one of the easiest ways to be taken seriously in the region and throughout the world is to work on arming yourself with a nuclear bomb. This was something that Saddam Hussien considered before the Israelis blew up a site in Iraq. The same thing probably (we don't really know for sure) in Syria as well. Hence, at a high level, a nuke would help Iran gain respect on the world stage and help Abby with his people back at home.
A nuclear arms race in the Middle East will probably be spurned on not because of Israel's possession of a nuclear bomb, but because of the inherent power threat that Iran is to the other countries in the Middle East (think India versus Pakistan). Israel, although disliked, is not looked upon as being as a aggressor nation (although actions in Lebanon may cause this statement to be in dispute). Iran however is not looked upon as so favorably.
For example, Iran uses terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas as proxy groups to cause problems for other countries in the Middle East. The fear about Iran getting a nuke is that that although they will not use it directly, Iran could funnel nuclear fissile material to a terrorist group for a dirty nuclear bomb which could be put in a suitcase and deployed by someone in the terrorist groups that they support. This is the real fear in the Middle East, not a direct nuclear war between Iran and Israel with a first strike/counterstrike conflict which would be catastrophic.
10/04/09
One side has nukes for defense. One has nukes for offense. Both have reasons to be secret about this... Etc, etc, etc...
Look, this is an arms race: Plain and simple. And I honestly believe that Iran would not be pursuing nukes if Israel did not have them themselves.
And if you disagree with me, just reread the books on the Cold War build-up.
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
More to the point, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would quite simply lead to the out-and-out destruction of the current regime, and much of the country, which is why the people actually in charge (the corrupt, theocratic clerical leadership) would never let that little dick, little dick-ed Ahmadinejad do such a thing.
10/03/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
Unbelievable.
10/04/09
I don't understand what the "hurt somebody's feelings" thing is all about. Any Iranian attack on Israel, let alone a nuclear one, would result in complete and utter destruction for the Iranian regime. And if there's one thing the corrupt, despicable oligarchs in the Iranian regime have demonstrated, it's a survivor's mentality.
10/04/09
"Any Iranian attack on Israel, let alone a nuclear one, would result in complete and utter destruction for the Iranian regime."
I absolutely love whenever I hear this nonsense. Okay, we get it. Israel can fight back. You know how many IDF guys I've met who always want to point that out? How many issues do IDF soldiers have with daddy and proving themselves? TONS! But guess what? Israel can lose as well in conventional battle. Lebanon for example.
And guess what? If Israel engaged in a conventional war on Iran, 100% of nobody would sit back idly. Not the U.S., not the Russian Federation, non Turkey, not Jordan, not Syria, not nobody...
So would you be proud then if Israel nuked Iran and then—as a result—helped destroy the world? And nobody would stand around in smoldering rubble smiling over this death and destruction... Unless of course you are one of these death cult loons who actually WANTS a conflict since "the Bible says" that a great war in the mid-east is a precursor to "the Rapture"?
10/04/09
10/04/09
A second, equally important statement of fact is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not in charge in Iran. He's merely a figurehead-- a vile, anti-Semitic tool for a really ugly, repressive regime. As I said before, the mullahs have demonstrated that they are committed to the continuation of their own power more than anything else, which is exactly why they won't nuke Israel or anywhere else. They are well aware that such a thing would mean the end of their regime.
I point this out, besides my desire to correct the ignorance in this thread, because it's important for us all to stop pretending that Iran is going to be nuking Israel anytime soon. Despite what people above say, the lack of any operational ability to deliver a nuclear payload in Israel is, in fact, a pretty big part of the answer to the question of whether Iran is going to nuke Israel. I don't know, call me crazy, I just think actually being able to physically carry out such an attack is pretty important for debating whether such an attack would happen.
I am deeply opposed to military action against Iran, and deeply committed to the safety and security of Israel. Luckily enough, both positions are consonant with each other, but only so long as people who are vastly exaggerating both Iran's capability and likelihood of committing a nuclear attack are corrected. So I'm correcting.
10/04/09
"Despite what people above say, the lack of any operational ability to deliver a nuclear payload in Israel is, in fact, a pretty big part of the answer to the question of whether Iran is going to nuke Israel."
So you are telling me that a truck running a checkpoint and exploding has never happened in Israel?
You're clearly a Troll.
10/04/09
10/04/09
Also, your knowledge of the geopolitics of Iran fails to acknowledge the importance Temple Mount to Judaism AND Islam.
You think any Muslim state would want to be known as the one who destroyed that place?
Please let us know when the next issue of your highly informative newsletter hits the stands.
10/05/09
I mean who gives a fuck that your Mom was a holocaust survivor? Does that give you a greater insight into the truth? Speaking of which, your Mom had you when she was 44 in 1968? She's amazingly fertile. Wow.
10/09/09
And you know why you should care? My mom was indeed "fertile" and it does give me different perspectives on modern discussion of what is happening in the mideast, because I am quite possibly the only 41 year old second generation child of Holocaust survivors you will ever meet. If you want to have some "birther" level debate on this, I have more documentation to prove you are an a-hole—and I am who I am—than you can imagine.
It definitely affects my worldview because my parents were both strong Zionists who were proud (they both passed away i 1993) of their heritage, but they were not delusional.
Israel having nukes is crazy, it’s part of the problem and perhaps you need to realize that saying Israel should be transparent and perhaps disarm is not a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of sanity.
09/15/09