Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:46 PM
Fri Dec 4
58 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.
03:49 AM
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.
05:30 AM
10:10 AM
03:42 PM
03:43 PM
Go ask your science teacher or maybe do a little research on current events. I'll wait.
03:57 PM
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.
05:21 PM
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]
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
12/01/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
...Why does she hate having more grandchildren so much?
11/30/09
11/30/09
C'mon, who else was taught Music Industry Finance from Left Eye on the TLC Behind the Music?
In short, she's blowing her money on tricked out buses and planes on standby for $4K/hour. She probably doesn't know that all of this isn't gratis, she has to end up paying for it out of her royalities. She's going to end up in the hole after all this and then start crying sexism or something because she didn't understand how money and contracts work.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
(Please, God, please.)
11/30/09
In that case she would become Veep.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
[flightaware.com]
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
Oh, no, wait, that was Fred Thompson
with his fake little red pickup truck that he pretended to drive
[www.washingtonmonthly.com]
Not only was the truck rented, but Thompson didn't even deign to drive the thing himself. . . . Basically, he just drove the thing the final few hundred feet before each campaign event, and then ditched it for something nicer as soon as he was out of sight of the yokels. Quite a man of the people, no?
11/30/09