Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 6:27 PM
Sun Dec 20
10 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
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
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]
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
photographer.and.manny:
maybe so, but Mother wasn't their problem. Their failed sense of clubbiness might have been a bigger part.
12/01/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
[blogs.reuters.com]
11/25/09
[blogs.wsj.com]
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
That's not a hard impression to create.
This is a part of the immigration "debate" I don't get. Are people like Pareene in favor of just opening up the borders? If so, why aren't they railing away at the laws?
Dobbs certainly *seems* like a racist, but is there any proof? Or has he just been painted this way by the vicious, teeth-baring, hellions of shrill?
11/25/09
He is, in fact, a horrible racist. It's pretty well-documented.
I'm certainly in favor of opening up the borders. I'd like very much to drastically liberalize our immigration process. America was founded by the world's unwanted and prospered with them. We'd do well to remember that this country is about the walls that it doesn't have, not the walls Lou Dobbs wants us to build (on the Mexican border).
11/25/09
So at least the discussion can be based on the fact that undocumented workers are a part of our society who work and live amongst us and our children.
11/25/09
Links please. (I'll poke around too).
I guess my fear about this openness, to which I am inclined as well, is that the moment you open the floodgates, you lose this liberal, loving, paradise where we can afford to pontificate on human rights.
#tips
11/25/09
Yeah... issue is bifurcated. a) What do we do with all the people here? I say deal with it... we let people in, so we need to accomodate them. b) Open borders... whole other can of worms.
#tips
11/25/09
11/25/09
Well, it's mostly based on an assumption that his xenophobic outrage is racially stoked. As with many accusations of "racism" it's indirect - e.g., opposition to health care, etc. For the purposes of this forum it's safe to state he's racist, even if the more precise definition is more likely to be "abormally focused on Mexican immigrants as potential carriers of disease and/or criminal intent."
#tips
11/25/09
Not missing a thing.
#tips
11/25/09
Liberalizing the immigration process makes it less likely that undocument, untested, unsafe individuals will sneak into the country. We can devote resources to keeping the "bad ones" out - terrorists, criminals, drug runners -instead of spending a fortune on trying to keep so many others out.
#tips
11/25/09
The problem is that in calling these people criminals, you are implying that they would also have to be forgiven for being criminals.
That's where distinction is: if you enter the country illegally to be a gang member, you are a criminal and need to be deported. If you entered the country illegally to be a construction worker, you are not a criminal and can be eligible for amnesty.
11/25/09
It gets complicado... amnesty for the construction worker, and then the children become gang members.
#tips
11/25/09
#tips
11/25/09
"If you entered the country illegally to be a construction worker, you are not a criminal and can be given amnesty."
Well, they would be a criminal until they are granted amnesty. My issue is that the one of the primary functions of government is to secure the borders. Yes, most illegals are probably not horrible. In fact, I'm sure plenty are downright good and upstanding people. The issue isn't over whether we like them or not, but our governments ability to manage the borders. Illegals, good intentioned or not, can negatively affect the economy and ecology (of both our country and theirs), which is why such things are regulated.
#tips
11/25/09
You are kidding, right?
11/25/09
I wish I was. Are you on the east coast, Niko? You see since our schools here in the West are poor excuses for juvenile retention centers, the children tend to look for structure elsewhere. One of these children of construction workers brandished a gun at my family, so I'm a little attuned to the problem.
#tips
11/25/09
You should also understand that simply deporting all illegals can "negatively affect the economy and ecology", too.
There can't be a wholesale solution.
11/25/09
Getting a bit of that racist bug?
I can't wait to hear your opinion on investing in education for the poor after you get mugged by a black kid.
11/25/09
Why racist? I'm pointing out a fact, and bemoaning a fucked up educational system. We should pour boatloads of money into education, *while* preventing administrators from building themselves gleaming steel and glass office towers, driving around in chauffeured limousines, and working 10 hours a week. We should find a way to give the kids the support and guidance they need in their early years that they're not getting from their parents, which is turning teachers into jailers. Why are you trying to vilify someone who doesn't want to put up with a boatload of shit?
#tips
11/25/09
I agree with this comment, but the previous two are total horseshit.
11/25/09
I can't wait to hear your opinion on investing in education for the poor after you get mugged by a black kid."
Seems unfair. First off, investing in education has nothing to do with forgiving criminal acts. Secondly, you are the one assuming the illegals are a particular race. There are illegals of varying races, and despite the prominance of latino illegals, I don't see a good reason to make this about race. Unless you are implying that if Uncle Billy had the same incident occur with an illegal Canadian he would think differently about it.
"You should also understand that simply deporting all illegals can "negatively affect the economy and ecology", too. "
I don't want a wholesale solution (particularly for this very reason). I just don't want illegals granted amnesty. There no logical flow from "well, we can't deport them without taking an economic hit," to, "Legalize them!"
#tips
11/25/09
Oh how generous of you! Some of the weird sombrero men who bus your tables just might be good people!
Why, um, wouldn't you assume they are all good people? When almost all immigrants are, you know, risking their lives to earn a better (read: incredibly shitty) wage for their families.
And securing borders is "one of the primary functions of government"?
You must mean: "securing borders is one of the primary functions of government now that all the white Europeans are done benefiting from an American open-door policy and all that's waiting to come here are scary minorities."
11/25/09
You can do that without kicking out the Mexicans. Not saying gang violence isn't a problem, just that deportation doesn't solve it. Our "culturally pure" America isn't some virtuous beacon being assailed by grubby foreigners who want to wave guns at you.
11/25/09
{sigh} This is like trying to argue with Don Quixote while he's tilting at strawmen pinned to the arms of a windmill.
#tips
11/25/09
No. I am assuming that the person who has a problem with undocumented construction workers being given amnesty because one day a child of a one pulled a gun on him - has that problem due to racism on his part.
Now, this assumption of mine may or may not be correct, but the very fact that you are not even able to correctly identify what the assumption was, illustrates that you have a problem with analyzing a discussion. You are not up to it, which is really OK, not everyone has to be, and everyone does have the right to an opinion. It's just that I don't have the time to explain things to you.
11/25/09
I didn't realize the only people who illegally crossed the US borders were Mexican. Thank you, your gross generalization is enlightening.
"Why, um, wouldn't you assume they are all good people? When almost all immigrants are, you know, risking their lives to earn a better (read: incredibly shitty) wage for their families."
I was trying to say someones citizenship should not be determined on sympathy.
As far as why I would assume they are not good people - the only thing we know about them (because it is intrinsic) is that they are criminals. If that is all you know about someone, it doesn't seem smart to assume they are all good. It fact, it isn't smart (or accurate) to assume ANY group is composed of all good people.
"And securing borders is "one of the primary functions of government"?
You must mean: "securing borders is one of the primary functions of government now that all the white Europeans are done benefiting from an American open-door policy and all that's waiting to come here are scary minorities.""
Again, amazing how you come in with your preconceptions about what I am saying. Why is this about race and not about the one thing we know for certain that we are talking about? That people have broken the law by crossing our borders.
Scary minorities? If we did deport all the illegals (which I am not for) there would still be plenty of 'scary minorities' around. It may shift the percentages a tad, but certainly not forever. So again, how is that about race?
Also, just because America has had a certain policy in the past, or was founded on a certain principle, does not mean me must carry it throughout the rest of our days, even if it becomes illogical and impractical.
#speakup
11/25/09
Just read more carefully, and stop being so freaking knee-jerk. You're assuming shit all over the place.
Happy thanksgiving.
#tips
11/25/09
The problem with the example Uncle Billy gave was that it was just a singular incident, so it doesn't necessarily represent a bigger problem. That error has nothing to do with racism.
It would be perfectly fair to assume that he makes the generalization because he believes illegals (of any race) will give rise to lower income families, which tend to commit a higher frequency of crimes like the one he described.
You chose to assume he meant, "I'm afraid of Mexicans because they are violent people."
Again, unless you think he would have felt differently had the gunmen been the child of a illegal caucasian Canadian, then race isn't the issue. You assumed that race was the issue.
#speakup
11/25/09
Yeah, it's not like anyone is waving a gun in front of my house.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
11/25/09
...
You assumed that race was the issue
Just let me know when you are done arguing with yourself. Also, points for honesty:
I just don't want illegals granted amnesty.
That's certainly a statement that no one can argue with.
11/25/09
Because you're not arguing to deport the children of, say, Irish or Italian immigrants, or Polish, or German. And when people say BORDERS, they're very, very often referring to one particular border (though, hey, maybe you are the one who doesn't mean that).
So, you tell me. What are you willing to pay considerably more for? Food? Housing? Construction (including public works)? How about convenience store goods? Textiles, maybe? What about taxis?
11/26/09
Check your Webster's dictionary. If you do something illegal then you are a criminal. How do you miss such a basic fact?
11/27/09
Like smoking pot? Or parking your car illegally? Yeah, I am checking Webster's dictionary as we speak.
11/27/09
11/27/09
The law is wrong. We need to change the law. That's what we are talking about here.
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/27/09