She supported a bill for cap and trade. The Legislature didn't pass it so she found she didn't need legislative approval; she can dictate Washington participation. What made Chris Gregoire suddenly realize that the legislative support she had sought for a strong climate-action bill was not necessary?
"In case democracy doesn't work" - Washington Policy Institute Blog:
The Environmental Protection Agency is in Seattle today to hear testimony on their effort to regulate carbon emissions to mitigate the impact of climate change. One theme is emerging in government efforts on this issue -- don't leave legislation to legislators.Posted by Ron Hebron at May 22, 2009 07:52 AM | Email ThisThis was put bluntly by a professor from Yale in today's Seattle Times.
"In effect, the prospect of EPA regulation is a bulwark against Congress falling down on the job," said Dan Esty, a Yale University environmental professor.
The philosophy expressed here is that constitutional checks and balances from elected representatives are useful only to the extent Congress does what is "right." Otherwise, the executive needs to step in and do whatever is necessary, other branches of government, and public opinion, notwithstanding.
That general philosophy was put into action today in Washington when the Governor, who previously argued that the legislature must endorse her climate change legislation, suddenly realized that legislative approval was not needed. The Democratic majority in the legislature rejected the Governor's bill. As a result, she today announced an executive order that mirrored many of the elements of the bill lawmakers turned down.
Here is the intent language of HB 1819, which failed to clear the House.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that Washington should maintain its leadership on climate change policy by implementing a cap on carbon emissions and developing strategies to achieve those reductions, including continuing Washington's participation in the design of a regional cap-and-trade program with the western climate initiative.
Here is the language included in the Governor's executive order today. The Governor ordered:
The Director of the Department of Ecology to: (a) Continue to participate in the Western Climate Initiative to develop a regional greenhouse gas emission reduction program and to work with the federal Administration, Washington's congressional delegation and appropriate committees to help design a national greenhouse gas emission reduction program that reflects Washington State priorities.
The Governor herself testified before the legislature in an effort to get support for the above language. The bill, despite that effort, died. In an opinion piece in April, the Governor wrote "Now we need a strong climate action bill from this year's Legislature to grasp the opportunities that await us." The question is, what made the Governor suddenly realize that that legislative support she had sought for a strong climate action bill was no longer necessary?
Here is the best analysis I have seen of the issue:
http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.html
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on May 22, 2009 09:54 AMPolls also show that the majority of Americans are not buying the Enviro Alarmist lies of AGW. And they will be even more irate when fuel prices, electricity and the ability to heat their homes become drastically more expensive in an already difficult economy.
The great thing about all of this overreach by Progressive Democrats is that they are accelerating it under their recent eletoral gains. This is all likely to result in "too much, too soon" that will be cause for blowback. And there are plenty of historical examples of the same kind of overreach that has lead to the same kind of failures.
CO2 is plant food. And we are cooling not warming.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 22, 2009 10:01 AMSP, a previous staple, is now becoming an afterthought for visits.
Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2009 10:04 AMThis is absolutely wrong. You might not think it's fair, but it's democracy. The minority party doesn't have the votes to strip away the EPA's ability to regulate CO2.
Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme Court ruled forces the EPA to regulate CO2. Don't you believe in the rule of law, Rob? Then why post things like this?
If republicans ran the Senate and House they could amend the Clean Air act to remove the power of regulating CO2 emissions. (That's what will happen when a cap-and-trade bill passes.) In other words, having the EPA regulate CO2 applies pressure to moderate democrats and the republicans to support cap-and-trade. Congress passed the Clean Air act, they can surely amendment. There are checks-and-balances, and congress doesn't see a problem with the EPA regulating CO2.
As for the climate change deniers: I let science inform my scientific views, not partisan politics.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 10:48 AMIt is time for the Attorney General to advise her on the question of the order's validity. I wonder why the Legislative leaders are not crying foul.
Posted by: Paddy on May 22, 2009 11:28 AMThese facts are indisputable, but for some reason the fanatical greens have somehow convinced the majority of world governments that black is white, and warm is bad.
Aside from these historical facts the science simply does not support a human contribution of any significance, let alone a measurable one, to climate variation.
What it all comes down to is belief. Does one believe that computer models created by green activists can predict the future? If a person (or politician) believes this then they will follow their belief.
For hundreds (or possibly thousands) of years many people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. For now a lot of politicians believe that people affect climate in a significant way.
My own background in science tells me that the politicians and green activists are wrong. While my distrust of politicians and activists has some degree of influence in my way of thinking, it is my understanding of science, and particularly of how earth processes work, that tells me they are are putting their faith in half-baked pseudoscience.
In 5, or 10, or maybe even 50 years, we will look back on global warming as the "Piltdown Man" science scandal of our age. I have little doubt of this, but I still worry that politicians will squander all or a big part of our technological advances of the past 150 years before they wise up.
Oh, and don't forget, this has nothing to do with whether politicians are democrats or republicans. While the majority of dems buy the AGW line, some do not. And with republicans it is similar, but the balance is reversed.
Posted by: deadwood on May 22, 2009 11:36 AMI don't believe anybody is denying climate change. It's been going on for 4.6 billion years.
What we ARE skeptical about is whether or not man is the cause of it.
Stop redefining terms in order to paint your opposition as something it is not.
Posted by: jimg on May 22, 2009 12:03 PM"This is absolutely wrong. You might not think it's fair, but it's democracy. The minority party doesn't have the votes to strip away the EPA's ability to regulate CO2."
"Minority party"? It was the Dems, the majority party (who, by the way, have super-majority status, and thus can pass whatever legislation they want over the objection of the minority party) that decided not to pass HB 1819. You do realize that we are discussing state, not federal, legislation?
"Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme Court ruled forces the EPA to regulate CO2."
Not correct. SCOTUS ruled that the CAA authorizes (not forces) the EPA to regulate CO2. The NY Times reported that SCOTUS "further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal."
"As for the climate change deniers...". Too precious by half. Now that real science has shown the "global warming" hysteria to be a fraud, you waste no time in adopting the new PC buzzword, "climate change".
Are you familiar with the principle of falsifiability? Since "climate change" can mean anything, it is not falsifiable, and thus is not a scientific concept.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 22, 2009 12:44 PMDAMN!!!!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on May 22, 2009 01:45 PMI disagree with your premise. Not all scientists, government or otherwise, are knowledgeable enough about climate to have closely held views one way or another regarding whether AGW is true or not. Scientists, like mechanics, or other specialists, know a lot about their subject area but rely on the honesty of their colleagues, who are experts to represent, for information outside their fields.
That is part of the current problem. The scientists who are running the show in climate are dominated by environmental activists, who are not honest and have locked out all dissent by taking over the leadership of science organizations and the editorship of major science journals.
As long as the earth warmed as their models said it should most other scientists assumed the models and the activists were right. Now that it has been cooling for 10 years, it is becoming more and more obvious that the models are wrong.
Many scientists are beginning to have grave doubts about motives of the climate activists as they get more and more shrill in their defense of the models while the earth cools and evidence mounts against their theory.
The big question now is not whether science as a whole will reject the AGW hypothesis, but whether politicians will learn of this before they wreck our society trying to stop nature from warming, which it most definitely is not doing.
Posted by: deadwood on May 22, 2009 01:49 PMYou're incorrect. The quote I was responding to is about federal EPA regulations, not state legislation.
The point of this piece is that the state executive is not allow to speak with the federal executive -- kind of a silly expection. (work with the federal Administration, Washington's congressional delegation and appropriate committees to help design a national greenhouse gas emission reduction program that reflects Washington State priorities. -- that hardly sounds unreasonable).
Not correct. SCOTUS ruled that the CAA authorizes (not forces) the EPA to regulate CO2. The NY Times reported that SCOTUS "further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal."
In other words, the EPA is forced to regulate CO2 unless it can present scientific evidence that these emissions do not "cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision."
The EPA has proposed that greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere endanger the public
health and welfare of current and future
generations. Concentrations of
greenhouse gases are at unprecedented
levels compared to the recent and
distant past. These high atmospheric
levels are the unambiguous result of
human emissions, and are very likely
the cause of the observed increase in
average temperatures and other climatic
changes. The effects of climate change
observed to date and projected to occur
in the future--including but not limited
to the increased likelihood of more
frequent and intense heat waves, more
wildfires, degraded air quality, more
heavy downpours and flooding,
increased drought, greater sea level rise,
more intense storms, harm to water
resources, harm to agriculture, and harm
to wildlife and ecosystems--are effects
on public health and welfare within the
meaning of the Clean Air Act. In light
of the likelihood that greenhouse gases
cause these effects, and the magnitude
of the effects that are occurring and are
very likely to occur in the future, the
Administrator proposes to find that
atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases endanger public
health and welfare within the meaning
of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. (src)
With that conclusion, they are legally obligated to regulate CO2. They would be violating the law if refused to. The US congress can change the law to change this obligation, but the minority party doesn't have the votes to do so.
Now that real science has shown the "global warming" hysteria to be a fraud, you waste no time in adopting the new PC buzzword, "climate change".
Look, I have zero interest in debating with people who do not want to reason with science. Beyond the EPA quote, I will submit this:
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change". ... The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. - src
That is all I will say about the climate change because we're not going to convince each other, and I'm going to get CO2 regulations regardless of your opinions that are based not in science but in partisanship.
Since "climate change" can mean anything, it is not falsifiable, and thus is not a scientific concept.
"Climate change" is more than just a phrase, it is a scientific theory which can be studied and/or disproven. So what scientific journals are you going to quote? What papers? What EPA rulings? What evidence are you going to present?
Perhaps nothing, maybe you're going to laugh at me and call me a lie-beral.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 01:53 PMAnd look at this thread. "Climate change doesn't exist (unsourced)." "Climate change isn't man made (unsourced)." Many scientists agree that climate change isn't man made (unsourced)." "Most scientists are liars." "Most academics are jackasses."
How do we expect to make well-reasoned scientific policy decisions on the basis of science while ignoring its existence or, worse yet, doubting its validity? Instead we have to grasp our scientific decisions from faith and partisan politics? Absurd.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 02:35 PMYou say that part of the current problem are scientists who are running the show in climate are dominated by environmental activists? Wether, that is true or not, honest scientists would nevertheless, be truthful in their positions and would not echo the positions of the environmental activists. Again, the Junk Scientists would. That is really my premise. Junk Scientists are supporting the Global Warming and other Scientists especially, from the private sector are not. So, where is your disagreement.?
I'm right here, arguing my position in a sea of people close-minded to science.
Social cost is a significant and real problem in economics. You should do some research on the subject. While I don't think your friend necessarily articulated himself well, the cost of emissions is real and troubling according to the science I've chosen not to ignore. Those costs are not current borne by oil companies nor drivers, but they are by the rest of society and the world. In that sense, it makes sense to have a "cost" for emitting CO2 to disincentivize its use.
We saw this with the dire issue of acid rain in the late 80's/early 90's. No one liked acid rain, but companies had no reason not to emit sulfur since it was cheaper than using newer technology. The first Bush administration proposed and implemented a cap-and-trade system for sulfur and not only did it cost the private sector much less than expected, it also eliminated sulfur emissions at a rate much greater than projected. Acid rain no longer occurs in this country because the government priced the social cost of sulfur emissions. The free market took over from there since companies had an economic incentive to emit less sulfur.
The same thing can happen with CO2.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 02:43 PMThe radicalization of government at all levels from banning plastic bags to imposing plastic cars is an out of control state take over.
Frankly it is just time to stop their war on us with dividing up the country and allowing 3 years to move to the good side or the CO2 reducing side.
You Gov you are WAGING War on me...I have no police to report you to. You are reconstructing death camps. You are insane you are mad....but I guess the best part you have an asterisks after your name and no amount of slaughtering citizens will change that big old foot note.
Look how insane they are... Demo Jensen would say this..."Well it is True that God Created the Earth but he does not understand it...Fortunately, as we have demonstrated, we can do a better job than It ever though possible."
This State looks only a glint different than a full blown dictatorship.
... coughing C02 as well. Man are we screwed.
Posted by: Boxxerace on May 22, 2009 03:54 PMBut too much sulfur and too much CO2 have disastrous consequences. We saw acid rain fall from the heavens, and we have access to science that illustrates an overabundance CO2 has its own set of consequences. It has never been a matter of nature to dig CO2 and sulfur from underground and pump it into the atmosphere. That action is a matter of man, not of our creator.
(By the way it's O as in oxygen, not 0 as in the number.)
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 04:02 PMThe are waging WAR on us.
Lake Kachess campground is closed until June 5, 2009 due to heavy snow, and we're supposed to believe that the planet is warming so much we're at risk of all ice in the world melting.
This is nothing more than about trying to control more and more of our lives. Libtards don't care about individuals. Strong, independent minded individuals frighten libtards as they pose a threat to their desire to control everyone and force them into accepting their edicts on how to live.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on May 22, 2009 04:20 PMbut it is only worth as much as we want to defend it.
I proffer that the threat to life in America really is the state at this time.
So are we going to defend it.
I am going home to have a can of pollutants with a beer logo on it.
Demos checklist - Next up...Grandam is exhaling CO2 and so is talk radio and so are all kids under 1 year and don't forgot white people, you know, they use more per person than 'good people'....oh and that Sunday Morning 'stuff' they do.... gawd
thank, small g, my own god I can see the beginning from he end and help the Ancient of Days the old decrepit, evil, overbearing Big G God cleanse the earth of all CO2 issues.....
Go Demolishjensen go!
Are you going to compost the bodies or use natural gas? We do have a GW issue here or is this just a small issue of buying an offset with the gold teeth?
YOU are threatening my life! Where are the police?? Enforcing the hybrid parking stalls...the new 'colored' drinking fountains of the 21st century.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on May 22, 2009 04:28 PMI proved that the EPA is required to regulate CO2 because of a Supreme Court decision in confluence with scientific research. Scare quotes aren't necessary.
This is the first thing the EPA will do. They will regulate the amount of CO2 that cars can emit.
You need to understand something very basic. The carbon molecules that we breath out comes from the food we eat. Assume you eat mostly foods like fruits and vegetables. The carbon that exists in that food is already above the atmosphere. In other words, eating and breathing and exercising bodily functions is carbon neutral.
Digging up carbon in the form of oil from underground and pumping it into the atmosphere obviously leads to a net increase in carbon. It is entirely different, and it is ignorant to not understand the distinction.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 04:36 PMWhat is the Liberal's answer to all this man made crisis? It is to enter the lifestyle of Liberal Heaven...Walking and living in Mud Huts. Such a Deal!
This is how these snotty leftists always talk. We "need" to take public transit. We "need" to drive impractical electric cars. They are control freaks, aren't they? They want to control our lives and their idiot ideas will end up making us more dependent upon government.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 22, 2009 06:36 PMBut if someone wants to discount science, they really should understand the very basics of science before they sound like complete fools who anyone who isn't inside your bubble.
@33, Daniel the way people of years past were worried about the pumped crisis of acid rain
I addressed acid rain in my earlier post regarding sulfur. It is the government who regulated sulfur emissions which is why we no longer have acid rain in this country. They used a cap-and-trade program.
No matter, that the World is able to survive quite well the much larger inputs of volcanoes erupting and dumping far, far more Sulfur and CO2 than, man has since the Industrial Revolution, it is man's input that is going to destroy us all.
Can anyone in this thread do some research before posting regarding science?
"On average, volcanoes emit over 130 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but this is a drop in the bucket compared to the roughly 30 billion tons emitted annually by human activity." (from the Christian Science Monitor, who cites the Department of Energy and the USGS.)
What is the Liberal's answer to all this man made crisis?
That is again a strawman. My answer is a cap-and-trade system for CO2, which worked great for sulfur emissions. The market, not government rules, will move us toward green energy.
---
Are all these personal attacks necessary? I am not trying to call folks here stupid, but it's clear that people either don't know the science or purposefully choose to cloud it.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 07:01 PMIgnore the whole AGW or "climate change" thing. How do you feel about the Governor essentially ignoring what the Legislature did? How do you feel about executive rule by fiat?
THAT is the fundamental point of this story; Gregoire - just like the Obamassiah - has decided that fiat and dictate are the only acceptable forms of Government.
FASCISM, THY NAME IS DEMOCRAT!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 22, 2009 07:23 PMThe amount of C02 released into the atmosphere by human activity is infantismal. Please go to my blog (I'm not pimping it, I'm only trying to prove a point) at: http://mezzanineview.com/mzv/enviro.html and look at the graphic representation of the percent of man-introduced C02 in the atmosphere. When I built it (I used a solar powered calculator BTW) I myself was shocked at how little it was.
Yes the climate may be warming and it may be cooling but man's contribution is little and more likely none.
Gregoire is only following the custom as being exercised by Obama and Obamaville (Congress). It has now been established that taking over whole sectors of the economy is OK, and she's just hopping on a bandwagon that is flight clearenced. With no political price to pay, these Facists will scoop up all that they can to dish out to their politically favored groups. At our expense of course.
We are in big trouble boys and girls. Big trouble.
Posted by: G Jiggy on May 22, 2009 07:48 PMHint - it wasn't man.
It would have been too funny if Gregoire had been the AG that wrote the opinion instead of Eikenberry.
If the legislature discussed it and didn't touch it, the Governor should respect that and not do an end-around.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 22, 2009 08:06 PMGood question, Dan. The post begins by saying that the federal executive is ignoring the federal congress by regulating CO2. That is bullshit, and I've proved that. Next it says that the Governor is trying to go over the state legislature's head by talking with the EPA. That is absurd -- our executive representing Washington State's interest to the body that will regulate CO2 is in the spirit of democracy and not against it.
Finally, it says that the executive can no longer direct the executive to pursue policies. In fact, while that wording in legislation did not pass there was also no ban that passed preventing the executive from making this order. The Governor is the leader of the executive branch and is free to direct her agencies to do whatever unless it is mandated otherwise by legislature or involved budgetary concerns. In other words, she is exercising her right as Governor to direct the executive branch and I see nothing wrong with that. She was, in fact, democratically re-elected just months ago.
@37, Jiggy: The amount of C02 released into the atmosphere by human activity is infantismal.
Thanks for the link to your blog. First, it's CO2, as in carbon diOxide :)
Second, the metric tons number you cite is off by a factor of a thousand. It is 33 billion tons annually, not million. Finally, those percentages you quote -- well, I have absolutely no idea where they come from because you don't cite your sources!
So no, I just don't believe your scientific analysis which is contrast to the science I've read.
According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory as of the year 2000, 22% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from human beings. That is seven times your uncited number.
That number translates to a 28% increase of the number from 1850. For the previous 800 years, according to that page, CO2 levels had not change significantly. What started after 1850? The industrial revolution.
Further, CO2 is just one of many greenhouse gases. It is not the most potent just the most widely emitted. (Methane is far more potent than CO2.)
Humans aren't evil. We didn't know that pollution did anything worse than cause coughs and poor visibility. But now our science has caught up and we understand the dangers of emitting CO2. The study I linked to earlier showed not a single peer-reviewed scientific paper arguing that climate change doesn't exist or arguing that it is naturally occurring.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 09:07 PMHe must be on his meds.
You will not get away with this assault on us anymore.
You are committing conspiracy, fraud, attempted murder, restrain of trade, racketeering, theft, conversion, kidnapping, imprisonment.
I love the cap and traders...if you care about the environment then give me ever nickle everyone. Assign me all your contracts.
Chickens.
What do you fear? Why do you assault us all?
All of the 'LAWS' are extra constitutional.
I will not allow you to impose them on me or anyone else that clearly sees that issuing edicts from the Governor's office is clearly not in any law.
Blah, blah, blah..., and blah.
If all your peers are activists, what does that say about peer review?
If all your models are missing solar and PDO forcings, what does that say about the models?
If the models assume CO2 is driving climate, don't you think the output will reflect it?
If the models assume all of the 0.7C temperature rise from 1850 is only from man-produced CO2, don't you think something might be fishy about the models?
Read all sides in a debate, otherwise you become no better than a parrot.
If the actual, real measured data doesn't agree with the models should you - a) Re-evaluate the models, or b) Re-calibrate your data to match the models?
And and while you answering a) and b) contemplate this one - Which of the above is science, and which is pseudo-science?
So you had no problem with the power of the unitary executive under President Bush? With wire-tapping, with international extraditions? And you shouldn't have had ANY problems with Gitmo, since of course the executive can do anything they want, whether the legislative branch agrees or not.
Is that your contention? That the executive can ignore the spirit of the legislature, if not the letter?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 22, 2009 10:37 PM@42, Shanghai Dan, wire-tapping is different because congress explicitly said it was illegal. Bush broke the law in that case. Here, there is no law to break.
There is no "spirit of the legislature" when there is no piece of legislation that passes. If the legislature passed a bill with the opposite language, then we'd have a "spirit" to talk about. The legislature's inaction doesn't dictate what the executive has a right to issue orders upon. Our state is set up such that the executive branch can issue executive orders -- no, I do not have a problem with that.
Look, it'd be a lot different if there was actually a real change happening or some major regulations were occuring. But this simply saying, "Let's study something."
Posted by: John Jensen on May 23, 2009 12:51 AMYour position and silly belief that because, Government placed regulations on Industry's sulfur emissions, the Phony terrible and devastating acid rain which was destroying everything in sight, was brought to a halt. In the first place, there was no proof of devastation, let alone, widespread devastation. The whole thing was a pumped up Lie like Global Warming. The reality is, that every car emits nitric oxides which can cause acid rain the same as the emissions of Industry's sulfur and yet, with many millions of cars running around, the simple reduction of Industry's sulfur emissions was enough that the acid rain crisis was removed. You believe that? The reason they didn't try to stop you from driving your cars was they knew the Americans would not stand for such a Power Grab. Again, Government wants any crisis, made up or not, to where it can use that crises as an excuse to increase Taxes, Grow and Control. Quit being a Sucker to the BS of this World...Quit being an Easy Believing, Useful Idiot to a runaway Government that if not reined in, will destroy America, the Freedom and Wealth that goes with it.
Guess what? It's kind of difficult to present scientific evidence without quoting evidence from scientists!
I don't need to speculate as to the effects of a sulfur cap-and-trade system. Acid rain which destroyed wildlife and forest land used to be common in this country, and now it is nearly non-existant.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 23, 2009 02:17 AMThe left has gone completely mad and insane...there is no debate.
We made a dramatic mistake in not storming the King County Elections office and occupying the ballot inventing places in 2004.
Police and Prosecutors are implicitly bought off at this time because if they were not Dean Logan would still be in jail.
Same is true with what the Tiny Chavez did yesterday in Olympia. But alas no controlling authority with any guts. So you pensioners with guns and law degrees get out of the way as well. The hijack of the republic is full and complete.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on May 23, 2009 07:26 AMI've said it for years, once liberals gain power they demonstrate how obsessed they are with interfering in everyone's lives. It's who they are. It's what they enjoy. It's why so many nasty control obsessed people gravitate to the left. It's why they created "climate change",(formerly known as "global warming"), as a big phony "crisis" they could use to force us all to ride the bus or drive a Prius. Do we need any more evidence? What we're seeing now is exactly who these obnoxious "peace and love" people from the 1960's really are. They were creepy obnoxious know-it-alls then even back then. I ought to know, I was one of them. I still feel bad about it.
Don't you just love the left? The same people that screamed and yelled about "illegal wiretapping" during the Bush years are busy telling us how to live now that they are in power. They want $5.00 a gallon gas to force us to be "more mindful of our carbon footprint" Liberals are the only people I know that use a word like "mindful".
And don't you love those new cheery radio ads (1-866 Litter 1!) about how you can randomly rat on a "litter bug". I hate people who litter, but what's to stop you from turning in your neighbor that you don't like? Is there any recourse if someone turns you in? Or does big nanny state send you off to a gulag somewhere?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 23, 2009 09:32 AMOne does not need to cite the obvious.
You sir are a coward and a fraud.
Posted by: deadwood on May 23, 2009 10:10 AMYou are right about all this but you are wasting your energy trying to argue facts with a bunch of right wing zealots. They are not interested in facts.
...and deadwood, it used to be obvious that the world was flat and that the universe revolved around the earth. You are living in the wrong time buddy.
Besides that, he is a useful idiot of the liberal progressives that have no interest in real science and cleaning up the environment for mankind - but in the money associated with power gain and corruption. The liberal progressives are quick to throw fools like Jensen under the bus after they have expended his usefulness.
I harken back to Lord of the Flies regarding us having the type of Government we deserve.
If just one conservative on this thread could prove to me that EO 09-05 a.) requires ANY private entity to do ANYTHING, and b.) implements the requirements of a cap-and-trade system on large emitters, I would be very impressed.
And never mind about the tired arguments about whether global warming is "fake". I get it... you ignore peer-reviewed science. You're free to think what you like, and I'm sure as hell not going to be able to convince you otherwise, despite the evidence that suggests you're wrong.
Likewise, whining about "government intrusion" is irrelevant, as only the most hardcore libertarians would argue that regulation of pollutants should NOT be a power of state government (and national government, with regards to transboundary pollution).
Focus on the issue at hand. You claim that the governor "overstepped her bounds". Prove it.
Posted by: demo kid on May 23, 2009 12:45 PMI don't feel any overwhelming need to impress demo kid, but I just finished reading both EO 09-05 and HB 1819.
Although the EO doesn't go as far as 1819, it does use a lot of the similar wording and covers the same things.
If the wording between the two is so similar, where was the appropriate place for this to occur?
If, as the Guv implicitly positions it, this EO is an extension of her executive power to execute laws passed by the legislature, then why did the legislature feel that a law needed to be passed that would essentially do the same thing?
If the existing laws the Guv is citing are more like the family leave act, where additional laws are needed to implement the earlier law, then the Guv's EO looks more like the enabling legislation. If that is the case, then she has surely over-reached. It sure appears to me that the EO is just HB 1819-lite.
From the EO:
(b) By December 1, 2009, provide to each facility that the Department of Ecology believes is responsible for the emission of 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent each year in Washington with (1) the Department's best estimate of each facility's baseline greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) each facility's proportionate share greenhouse gas emission reduction necessary to achieve the state's 2020 emission reduction in RCW 70.135.020; and (3) a request to each facility, or groups of facilities representing a sector of Washington's economy, for any recommended strategies or actions they believe would achieve the needed reductions. By October 1, 2010, the Department of Ecology shall develop emission reduction strategies and actions, including complementary policies, to achieve the state's 2020 emissions reduction targets.
(c) In consultation with business and other interested stakeholders, develop emission benchmarks, by industry sector, for facilities the Department of Ecology believes will be covered by a federal or regional cap and trade program. The Department of Ecology shall support the use of these emission benchmarks in any federal or regional cap and trade program as an appropriate basis for the distribution of emission allowances, and as a means to recognize and reward those businesses that have invested in achieving emission reductions. These benchmarks shall be based on industry best practices, reflecting emission levels from highly efficient, lower emitting facilities in each industry sector. The benchmarks shall be developed to allow their application as state-based emissions standards, should they be needed to complement the federal program, or in the absence of a federal program. Recommendations on industry benchmarks, and the appropriate use of these
(d) Work with the existing coal-fired plant within Washington that burns over one million tons of coal per year, TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC, to establish an agreed order that will apply the greenhouse gas emissions performance standards in RCW 80.80.040(1) to the facility by no later than December 31, 2025. The agreed order shall include a schedule of major decision making and resource investment milestones;
Read both and compare. HB 1819-S2 makes it pretty clear that additional legislative action is required to implement last years bills.
Some of that legislation was just implemented by EO 09-05
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 23, 2009 02:22 PMHB 1819 would have started a cap-and-trade program. EO 09-05 mandates that state departments conduct studies. You may have a difference in opinion about the NEED for the reports, but overreach? Show me where EO 09-05 gives DOE the power to start a cap-and-trade program like in HB 1819, or requires any private entity to do anything, and then we can talk.
Posted by: demo kid on May 23, 2009 02:42 PMMy neighbor, a Kirkland police officer, says they cannot enforce it. No evidence==no crime. He says when he sees people littering, he makes them clean it up, and if they won't, he writes them a ticket. But they can't issue tickets based on hearsay.
Posted by: Angela in Bothell on May 23, 2009 02:45 PMEvidence? Do you want a bibliography? Which specific studies do you think are flawed? Or do you just think it's "crap" because YOU think it's crap, and not for, you know, any rational reason?
A good picture of the effects of acid rain on trees in the Great Smoky Mountains:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/numbphoto/2563974194/
Posted by: demo kid on May 23, 2009 03:16 PMBottom Line: If Acid Rain was that destructive as supposedly shown by your linked picture, the devastation would be much, much more widespread and not just, a tiny group of trees, closely surrounded by heath trees. What a Farce! But then, you're a Farce demo liar.
@63: Rant, rant, rant. Why are you not a "rotten creep" for not understanding that people that want to make a quick buck may have an economic interest in suppressing the truth on both sides?
So, both of you... why do you think that "acid rain" isn't a problem? Paranoid ravings about liberals don't count. What proof do YOU have that apparently foresters working in experimental forests do not? I'm curious about the information that you're using to draw these conclusions.
Posted by: demo kid on May 23, 2009 05:18 PM@64, dk says acid rain "leaches minerals out of the soil." Acid rain does not "leach" minerals out of the soil. The process of leaching removes a substance through percolation or other method. I'll say this again for the learning impaired libtards reading this post: acid rain does not remove minerals from the soil.
I would agree with dk if he said that acid rain may alter the Ph balance of the soil which adversely impacted certain species of trees. But his statements have no basis in fact, so I can't agree with him.
Go back to the minors dk, you don't have the mental firepower to play here in the show.
You call me a liar, and you can't back it up. You say that "some reports are lies... period!" but apparently, all the ones that you think are "lies" are simply the ones that don't agree with your opinions.
I mean, I'm all for a healthy dose of skepticism, but apparently you've decided to go for the schizophrenic approach and not the logical one.
@66: I asked you what proof you have that acid rain is a hoax and what specifically is wrong with this Executive Order, and you bring up abortion and North Korea and call me a "Democratic party operative". So you can't answer a simple question? Is your position THAT weak that you figure that ad hominem attacks would work better?
@67: What? Did you flunk chemistry or something? If you increase the pH of rain, the water that percolates through the soil will leach away calcium, magnesium, and so forth faster than if the precipitation has a higher pH. And yes, all rainwater is acidic given that we have carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so minerals will go into solution whether rain is "acid" or not. However, it's the deposition of nitrogen and sulfur compounds in smog and air pollution that provide the major changes to pH associated with "acid rain".
I mean, if you don't believe me, check out any reference book in geochemistry and it will tell you the same thing. Seriously, go look it up and you tell me what it says.
Also, did I say that the picture was "proof"? Hardly. I'm demonstrating what the effects are, not providing soil samples. Of course, if you'd like I can give you a list of sources to prove my point, but what would that accomplish? I've done it before, and the best defense you all can come up with is that it has to be wrong only because it doesn't match your opinion. That's not debate... that's insanity.
Posted by: demo kid on May 23, 2009 07:19 PMNo, I know danged well you are paid by the Democratic Party. Could it possibly be any more obvious? You are paid to spew the Democratic line here and you do it day after day. And you hide behind some stupid anonymous made up fake e-mail address. That's the truth, isn't it?
And again, the pivot! Answer the questions that you just quoted, or simply admit that you just have no proof about what you're saying. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having whatever opinion you like... but if you're going to whine that I'm wrong and a liar, you'd better bring something better to the table than the ad hominem crap you've been spewing.
Posted by: demo kid on May 23, 2009 08:03 PMWell, what is it? A higher pH? Or a lower pH?
From what I remember in the chemistry class that I passed that you obviously failed, "acid rain" would decrease the pH of the soil, not increase it.
Back to the minors, dk.
BTW, your mommy is calling, time to go upstairs, have your cream of wheat, and have her tuck you into bed.
Look, it is a known scientific fact that acid rain has affected areas downwind from coal burning releasing sulfur or wherever acidic compuunds are present in the lower atmosphere. However, acid rain is reversible and the pH can increase back toward a neutral state, if there is less acid substrate in the atmosphere for the rain to mix during the hydrologic cycle. Similarly, air pollution is less in LA than it was during the 70's due to the tighter regulations (EPA) that have reduced pollutants in the atmosphere from then. It is still not as clean as it was say 100 years ago.
What is with the demo kid thing ? Seems like many including myself see you as an operative of the progressive wing of the Democrat Party on this blog who has perfected the art of obfuscation. Whether you come clean or not, that is the perception and perception is reality, until proven otherwise. As if I care anyway.
Posted by: KDS on May 23, 2009 10:34 PMAs a historian however I will differ with you a bit about how much pollution existed 100 years ago. The air wasn't exactly clean back then. People burned coal and wood. Trains spewed out coal and oil smoke. The steamers of the "mosquito fleet" which most people 100 years ago relied on for transportation belched out wood, coal, or oil smoke. You can look at almost any old photo of Seattle, or any city and see the smokey haze that covered the city. The idea that 100 years ago the air was "clean" is pure fantasy. The truth is that our air and water is much cleaner than it was 100 years ago thanks to advances in technology.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 23, 2009 11:34 PM"If you increase the acidity of rain, the water that percolates through the soil will leach away calcium, magnesium, and so forth faster than if the precipitation has a higher pH."
Thanks for catching that. It's sloppy of me... sometimes I don't proofread as well as I should. But have you found that chemistry reference yet? Tripping me up on a minor mistake doesn't disprove a major fact in water chemistry.
@75-76: Wow... yet again you don't answer the questions. Don't have one, huh?
@77: Noone is admitting that acid rain is a hoax, dk.
I'm sorry... have you been reading this thread? Ask Daniel.
You try and politicize virtually everything you post here and it annoys many.
You hate politicized issues on a political blog? I can't seriously believe that you just said that, especially when the post is all about politics.
It is the way that you present it then try to connect it to global climate change.
I didn't present it. I said that claims that there were "no proof" that acid rain had an impact were false. Control of sulfur emissions is also useful as an example of the benefits of cap-and-trade over standard regulation... but that's a separate issue.
Problem is that the earth has not warmed since 1998 and in fact has been cooling over the last two years, due largely to a reduction in sunspot activity. Al Gore has shown to be afraid to debate any one of scientific expertise who opposes his global warming propaganda, because he would look bad in getting his a$$ handed to him.
There are plenty of problems with the debate, not the least of which is that it has become a partisan issue, subject to propaganda on both sides. And funny enough, I tend to be a relative agnostic about such things! I think that there's enough evidence to suggest that there might be a problem, and that more research is required to figure out what exactly that problem is. I'm much more hesitant to blame all the world's problems on global warming, I don't think that current policy is effective at reaching the goals that should be achieved, and I need to keep from gagging when someone buys carbon offsets for anything. (If they're so concerned with saving the world, they should donate to Heifer International instead of indulgences for their environmental "sins".)
Unlike many other folks, though, I have actually read the studies, including the text of the Kyoto Accord and the IPCC reports. I don't believe the science is as pat as some environmentalists would like to believe, but I think that it merits more examination, not less.
So to dismiss the debate, not because you don't agree with the science, but because of your partisan leanings, is absolutely wrong. Same with assuming that global warming exists because of your political leanings. And this may be a case where science has been far less open than it should be. I agree with what this fellow has to say, in fact. But assuming that everything is perfectly okay because of a few holes in a theory isn't wise. There is enough evidence to suggest that something is happening, perhaps something that may require a policy response.
Look, it is a known scientific fact that acid rain has affected areas downwind from coal burning releasing sulfur or wherever acidic compuunds are present in the lower atmosphere. However, acid rain is reversible and the pH can increase back toward a neutral state, if there is less acid substrate in the atmosphere for the rain to mix during the hydrologic cycle. Similarly, air pollution is less in LA than it was during the 70's due to the tighter regulations (EPA) that have reduced pollutants in the atmosphere from then. It is still not as clean as it was say 100 years ago.
I don't disagree with anything that you've said here. Unfortunately, some folks on this thread do... or they just state that they do simply to avoid conceding a point.
What is with the demo kid thing ? Seems like many including myself see you as an operative of the progressive wing of the Democrat Party on this blog who has perfected the art of obfuscation. Whether you come clean or not, that is the perception and perception is reality, until proven otherwise. As if I care anyway.
Honestly, if I could change my nom de guerre, I probably would. It's not quite that appropriate since I think the Democrats are a bunch of tools that I could never see myself joining in a million years. Still, as with much of American politics, it is the lesser of two evils. What can you do? We don't have a centrist party in this country.
The whole "operative" concept, as I said, gives all of you far too much credit. But let's examine that. If I were a Democratic "operative", sent on a mission from the state or national party, what possible objective would I have with posting dissenting opinions? This site is pitched to conservatives, the contributors are conservative... would you think that I would be able to claim the website for liberalism if I just commented enough? Could I demoralize you? Convince you? (That's giving me far too much credit...)
In fact, if I were a Democratic "operative", I'd probably be doing the exact reverse of what I'm doing here: I would post as a very right-wing sort, and subtly shift the conversation to become even more extreme and more partisan to the point where any rational middle-of-the-road person that would happen upon the site would be absolutely appalled and never vote Republican again. (That probably wouldn't take much pushing, but still.) That would be far more effective than simply objecting to the crazies on here.
Posted by: demo kid on May 23, 2009 11:39 PMHmmm, does "demo kid" protest a bit too much?
I don't think your sponsors at the Democratic National Committee will be really happy "demo kid" You blew your cover.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 23, 2009 11:49 PMAnd again, why exactly would I be an "operative"? Answer that question with something more than rants.
Posted by: demo kid on May 24, 2009 12:02 AMExposing fakes such as "demo kid" is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 24, 2009 12:38 AMI ask, you pivot. I ask again, you pivot again. You throw insults and call me a liar, but you don't make your case. Why exactly should anyone believe you, really? Because you say so? :)
Posted by: demo kid on May 24, 2009 01:56 AMAll these retard leftists in Washington state driving around in their 8 cyclinder SUVs with Obama/GregWhore stickers will have to fork over thier cash.
I got a wife and kid and am the sole worker. I'm pretty sure I'd fare well with a cap and trade scam. I ride my bicycle to work over 200 days a year.
I don't get it though. If they want a new method to tax people why do Democrats have to invent something? All they have to do is tax gas, energy bills and trash. Those who throw away more trash for the land fills, those who drive bigger cars that consume more gas and emit pollution and those who use more energy would pay more. No need for crap and trade scams. I'll tell you why. They know that some of these areas already have enough taxes that the citizens would revolt. Imagine raising the state gas tax in Washington 50 cents.
If GagWhore wanted to generate some revenue for her spending habits that she cannot break then she should have taxed the Indian Casinos. I'm OK with Sin Taxes. Most people are. She sure lost out on some serious cash there. What a dipstick.
GagWhore is specifically moving forward with a crap and trade scam plan regardless if the people/legislature is interested. She doesn't intend to mind the legislature or the citizens when she can wield all the power and get what she wants. Nevermind democracy we've got a Democrat in office who is going to formulate the plan to get your money whether you like it or not. That's about as open and anti-democracy as you get and is right in everyone's face to see. I'd call that arrogant. Maybe GagWhore forgot about all the tax protesters in Olympia on April 15th. Maybe they should protest on her front lawn to get the message through next time. The fact that she plans to direct action shows intent to undermine the authorities of the legislative body.
Acid Rain - There is no evidence of this as a crisis in Washington State. Should we now start developing solutions in Washington for famine because people are starving in Africa?
Global Warming - The biggest scam the Democrats have been working on for years. Many gullible citzens eat it up because it has that feel good mentality. Regardless if it is based upon scare mongering and control freak politicians.
Demo Kid, you act like a 10 year old. That's why nobody wants to talk with you. You're foaming at the mouth. I wouldn't pay much attention to your sort of babbling on the street so why would you think others here would take you seriously? Fact is - this entire crap and trade system is class warfare and all based upon control freak minded politics. Frankly I'm more into wiretapping and waterboarding. At least it nets results.
Posted by: j on May 24, 2009 06:12 AMThe evidence that Acid Rain is a Pumped up Lie, is to simply take a drive and see healthy stands of forest, much older than before the Acid Rain Crap was so disingenuously pushed. The evidence that Acid Rain was a Pumped up Lie, is the Lack of evidence of great tracts of devastated forests, of many Lakes whose shores and waters would be littered with dead fish. I could go on and on but, if you haven't begun to realize that the Global Warming, CO2 and Acid Rain Crap are Pumped up Scams then, you're beyond us mere mortal's ability to Wise you up. Without GOD'S given Light to see Truth, you will remain stumbling in the darkness of the Deceit of this World.
Cap-and-trade hasn't just been invented. This is why the discussion of acid rain is relevant; cap-and-trade was used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. And it's more desirable than a tax on big emitters, since it allows emissions targets to be reached at the lowest cost overall.
Acid Rain - There is no evidence of this as a crisis in Washington State.
It never was a crisis in Washington State. It's an east coast problem, mainly. No one ever said it was a problem here... it was brought up as an example of effective market-based regulation.
Demo Kid, you act like a 10 year old.
You're the one calling the governor "GagWhore". I'm asking why specifically the governor overstepped her bounds with the executive order, which is the point of this thread. If you make a claim that the governor acted illegally, you'd better back it up. "She did because she did" doesn't count, neither does "I didn't like what she did."
Seriously, can't anyone answer a specific question?
@86: The evidence that Acid Rain is a Pumped up Lie, is to simply take a drive and see healthy stands of forest, much older than before the Acid Rain Crap was so disingenuously pushed.
Now you're just showing that you don't understand a damn thing. Again, acid rain isn't an issue in the Pacific Northwest. There is one coal-fired plant in the state, and fewer sulfur and nitrogen point-source emissions than in the east. "Taking a drive" would do nothing, since it isn't the forests in the Cascades that are affected.
But hey... let's do a little experiment. Here's a report:
A fresh look at the benefits and costs of the US acid rain program
You tell me why it's a lie. I can point out a few places where the methodology and evidence are a little weak, but I'll let you have a go of it. And "it is because it is" doesn't count.
@87: Still no answers? Still just the irrelevant ad hominem attacks?
In a time of short funds she has decided that the voter base she depends upon - leftist Seattlites - believes more in global warming than in providing health care for migrants. They believe more in global warming than they do in providing safe streets for their children.
The left hasn't yet figured out how to prioritize its spending. They haven't yet figured out that global warming spending is a luxury that our economy can no longer afford.
If the economy continues to shrink, and there is evidence that it will, the voters, especially those who do not belonging to the religious left (yes, AGW, and environmentalism as a whole, is a religion), will abandon the democrats.
But will the republicans gain from the defection of the middle class from the democrats? Not if the religious right continues to focus on their agenda of telling everybody else what to do instead of on what needs to be done, namely getting the government off our backs.
If the republican party became a true conservative party, rather than the current coalition of the religious right and centrist statists, it may win elections in this state. I suspect though that this won't happen soon, so we just have to live with the current coalition of the religious left and centrist statists that we have.
Posted by: deadwood on May 24, 2009 11:02 AMLiberals such as yourself, are people who react with their emotions and reach conclusion via their emotions rather than, using their brain to filter first, before taking any action. If you allow your emotions to dictate your actions without using your brain to think, question and question before reaching a final conclusion or taking action is the same as not looking before you leap. Once, a conclusion is reach solely through the use of the emotions, it is very hard to break that grip on the conclusion that is reached even, if that conclusion is seriously Wrong. That is one of the reasons Liberals can be so easily Duped. Always, approach a Liberal through their emotions first and you got it made with any Con you wish to lay upon them.
Liberals because, they are so easily duped, conned and led by men more clever and powerful than they are become, the most dangerous force and supporters of the Worlds Tyrants and Deceit of this World. They allow Tyrants to Rape, Pillage and Kill their fellow man by the many millions including millions of babies here in America. No matter how much current and historical Truth you present a Liberal, a Liberal will still proudly remain a Liberal.
And I find it quite interesting that you talk about "reacting with your emotions", because it applies to every single thing you've written. You haven't "thought and questioned" before reaching a final conclusion. You haven't used your brain to filter. You don't use evidence. And yes, it's hard to break the grip of the conclusion that you've reached!
Likewise, I'm having a hard time figuring that any proof is good enough for you. I posted peer-reviewed research published by an agency that studies this problem, and you blow it off. What exactly do you want?
But anyway, so how about:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/enlarge/mitchellacidtrees.html ?
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/enlarge/acidspruce.html ?
A cooperative group of research stations still actively tracks deposition of a number of compounds:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/annualmaps.asp
which show certain trends in deposition of all kinds.
However, acidification of soil is still is a problem in many places:
http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/274
Now, I don't have the time to write a full literature review... but I'm interested in what evidence you have to support your position. Pony up and put it on the table. Whiny cowards like you are great at calling people liars, but absolutely awful with providing the evidence to back up your baseless and pathetic claims.
Posted by: demo kid on May 24, 2009 02:29 PMyou are thinking the treasonous piece of shit Speaker of the House NANCY PELOSI
Posted by: hellpig on May 24, 2009 02:33 PMWe all remember these kinds of people. They were the pushy little hall monitors in our grade schools. If you ever worked in an office they were the obnoxious rule enforcers. Naturally they've ended up on the political left. Controlling people is what they enjoy, just like Hitler's Nazi's did. They want to crush any opposing political views with their new "fairness doctrine" Are these folks not frightening? They control our schools. They run our biased "mainstream" media. They are the mean spirited social workers that snatch children from a loving couple. They kill innocent unborn children. They inhabit a world where everyone must participate in their groupthink or be shunned. It's enough to make any decent freedom loving person ill. Obama is so arrogant that he fired the head of GM. He acts as if he were Henry The Eighth. It's beyond anything we've ever imagined. When the left gets power this is what they do. I told you so.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 24, 2009 02:55 PMnow get back to your free the terrorists campaign
Posted by: hellpig on May 24, 2009 03:08 PMI stand corrected I did say Nancy Pelosi I guess that is close enough to Nazi as you can get my apologies
Posted by: hellpig on May 24, 2009 03:12 PMThe point of this thread is about the governor overextending her power by signing an executive order. If the only way that you can prove your position is by throwing insults... well... you don't have a leg to stand on, do you? :)
Posted by: demo kid on May 24, 2009 03:23 PMand when you attack someone like me I dont roll over ...
point is as usual you start the shit but ..being the revisionist you are somehow it is me that attacked...typical of a treasonous liberal
GW is a SCAM..and to quote the scam-master ALGORE
"there is no need for debate"
It's a given that people here are going to whine and cry about any GHG reductions policy, but if they're going to accuse someone of acting illegally, they should be able to prove it.
@103: well demo the terrorist lover nice way to dodge the exposure...did you take lessons from Pelosi ?
You're the one talking about things irrelevant to this discussion. It's kinda funny, really! It's like a turtle on its back, flailing around, completely impotent. :)
and when you attack someone like me I dont roll over
You also don't make sense. And in terms of "attacking", you're the one calling me a traitor and a liar. I'm commenting on how you're conducting yourself on here. How exactly am I attacking you? I may have called you a "whiny coward", but what else should I call someone that hides behind baseless name-calling instead of actually making a point?
Posted by: demo kid on May 24, 2009 04:20 PMThat general philosophy was put into action today in Washington when the Governor, who previously argued that the legislature must endorse her climate change legislation, suddenly realized that legislative approval was not needed. The Democratic majority in the legislature rejected the Governor's bill. As a result, she today announced an executive order that mirrored many of the elements of the bill lawmakers turned down.
"Legislative approval" isn't required for actions within the powers of existing state agencies, and writing reports isn't tantamount to starting a cap-and-trade program, which is what is stated here. I'll say it again: HB 1819, which starts a cap-and-trade program, is not similar to EO 09-05, which mandates the writing of studies. The governor did not start a cap-and-trade program.
The question is, what made the Governor suddenly realize that that legislative support she had sought for a strong climate action bill was no longer necessary?
Again, the two documents are not the same, and saying that they are is gross misrepresentation. One starts a cap-and-trade system, the other mandates report-writing. In fact, the executive order does not put punitive measures in place! That's not a comprehensive climate change policy in the slightest.
Not to mention, of course, that according to the opening paragraph, the governor believes "legislation shouldn't be left to legislators", but no proof is given.
And I'm not "playing the victim". I'm saying that if you're going to spout your damn fool mouth off, you'd better have the proof.
As far as whether she's "out of touch with her constituents", she was elected with a majority of the popular vote, she works with a popularly elected legislature, and she's following the mandate of earlier legislation about greenhouse gas emissions reductions. It's nice of you to be concerned about her re-election prospects, though!
Posted by: demo kid on May 24, 2009 06:18 PMFirst I am not the enemy. Second, your answer is one word - abortion. I can give more, but that one is a big one.
Posted by: deadwood on May 24, 2009 07:27 PMNot to mention that the ENTIRE post tries to link HB 1819 with the executive order, when the only thing they have in common is that they're about greenhouse gas emissions. Stating otherwise is wrong.
Oh, and in case you hadn't heard, Gregoire was re-elected in 2008, and this action was taken after that.
Posted by: demo kid on May 24, 2009 07:52 PMAll the the so called facts which you presented were trash canned.
I admire the ad hominem attacks on the 10 year old Demo Kid. He's the kind of person I'd be happy to leave a fart behind on an elevator. I'm sure he doesn't take elevators since he's supporting crap and trade though.
From the sounds of Demo Kid he probably lives in a Yurt and forages for blackberries and fishes with bone hooks and sinew.
Posted by: g on May 24, 2009 09:13 PMBy?
Posted by: demo kid on May 24, 2009 10:36 PMHas anyone noticed yet that logic and reason don't work on him? The guy has a bad case of the Alinsky Flu and it can't be cured.
Please do him and yourself a big favor and simply ignore his posts.
Posted by: deadwood on May 24, 2009 11:06 PMIf you think that justifies your calling me a phony, then you need to look a little closer at yourself. The left uses that tactic to shut up dissent. Is that your intention here?
Posted by: deadwood on May 24, 2009 11:25 PMBottom line? The left can't be honest about their beliefs. They have the most obnoxious profane websites imaginable. Horsesass, Huffington Post, Move on.org. There are tons of these sites that illustrate what kind of scary nuts have ended up on the left. Vile, profane people that control the media and brainwash children into groupthinking leftist nazis.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 24, 2009 11:38 PMTotally over-used caveat: I do not share all of his views, but his presentation has never offended me and I think that you have gone overboard in your attack.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 25, 2009 06:39 AMThis action means that laws are out, intimidation is OK, so the one with the biggest bunch of guns wins!
Disagree with someone? Shoot them!
Posted by: patriot on May 25, 2009 10:13 AM"If the republican party became a true conservative party, rather than the current coalition of the religious right and centrist statists, it may win elections in this state."
I've asked him to explain just how the "religious right" forms Republican policy. You can read his post at #89 if you doubt me.
He won't answer of course because it's a silly statement that has no factual basis.
You can also pick up today's Seattle times and see the exact same tactics being employed right on the front page by Colin Powell. Might I remind you that Colin Powell supported Obama in the last election.
What the left is doing is trying to push the Republican Party as far to the left as they can. And you are falling for it.
Never forget that the left plays hardball. They get their marching orders and they are relentless. Lying is second nature to these people. Socialists always lie. Lying, control obsessesd people are attracted to the left. Right now they are trying to paint Republicans as right wing religious zealots. There isn't any real evidence to support that charge, is there? But the left is trotting out Colin Powell on every one of their leftist news shows as someone who is a "conservative" who is "troubled" by the direction of the Republican Party. "Conservative"? This is a man who couldn't decide which party he belonged to when he retired from the military. He supported Obama in the last election. Is the game the left is playing that difficult to figure out?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 25, 2009 11:35 AMIf you feel the need to rant on me, go right ahead, you have the right to your own beliefs.
I stand by my observations regarding the influence of the Christian right on the republican party and verbal bullying by you will neither change my mind nor make you sound reasonable.
Interestingly this brings us back to the topic of this post. We have a governor in this state who feels that her beliefs in the religion of global warming are justification enough to ignore the legislature and bully us through imperial fiat in order to save us from ourselves.
Posted by: deadwood on May 25, 2009 02:51 PMOf course you can't.
We have a governor in this state who feels that her beliefs in the religion of global warming are justification enough to ignore the legislature and bully us through imperial fiat in order to save us from ourselves.
is wrong. The legislature passed HB 2815 in March 2008, which specifically has to deal with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. She isn't ignoring anything, nor is she doing anything aside from requesting reports and directing state departments to act in ways well within their powers. Imperial? Hardly.
And if she is an adherent to the "religion" of global warming, I guess you're a follower of the "religion" of anti-global warming, eh?
Posted by: demo kid on May 25, 2009 06:53 PMSo yes, this Ron guy, he did accuse her of acting illegally.
Ok then we got a commentor amplifying on that, saying she's ruling by fiat, intimidation and by using guns, well that would appear to be some kind of attack, express or implied, you know, as to some kind of illegal governance tactics.
Because you know, it doesn't like like the state constitution gives her the right to rule by guns.
No, I don't think this original post, is trying to pay a compliment to the Governor.
Posted by: Ward Smith on May 25, 2009 08:24 PMHe can't. He's simply barfing up the latest Democrat talking points. Is this so hard to figure out?
As Republicans and conservatives aren't we absolute fools if we can't see what these people do without letup every day? Let's fight back!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 25, 2009 08:45 PMDeadwood, I hope you recognize while you may not agree with me on the issue that this is the type of fool I have to argue with. One who is excitedly turning everyone into an enemy and who is unashamed about verbally bullying someone. I hope you keep this in mind the next time we talk: the words "liar" and "socialist" do not belong in a respectful debate among Americans operating in good faith. Bill is a coward, not operating in good faith but instead testing everyone's ideological compliance with his own. He is indeed a scary man when it comes to the thoughtful discussion necessary for a strong democracy.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 25, 2009 09:08 PMAn argument your side raises is that 2500 "scientists" that have signed the IPCC document. But you ignore the 31,000 scientists that reject the "consensus."
Any scientific finding I link/post will be dismissed by you and your ilk as produced by "flat earthers" or as a product of researchers funded by "big oil."
But you accept as gospel the fact that global warming proponents are funded by the government. You're not smart enough to realize that global warming advocates promote their theories because they are funded by the government.
You represent the latest incarnation of the global scare mongers that 30 or so years ago were telling us that the world was on the verge of the next ice age.
You also represent the oh so concerned political movement that banned DDT based upon a fictional novel by Rachel Carlson. Now that DDT is banned millions of children die of malaria each year. The lesson about children is clear:
You don't care.
Liberals and "environmentalists" don't care about children, all they care about is feeling good about an issue; DDT is banned, we're good people. Results be dammed.
First of all, DDT is not banned for use on mosquitos. Many types of mosquitos have evolved to be resistant to DDT particularly because of its past widespread use in agriculture.
Look, you simply do not believe in science and the scientific method. You choose to live in ignorance than to understand the world around you.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 25, 2009 09:17 PMHow scary is that? and how revealing is that comment about how the politcal left simply wants to conrol discussion.
Of course they do. They don't want us to hear Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. They want to force us all to only listen to NPR, exactly the way the Canadians and the British control the way their citizens get information. It's what these control freak nasties are about. Do you not get it? Do you not get that the left controls our media, and brainwashes our children?
Ok, Jensen, lets start with your own words.
What do you call a method that relies on models when the results of the models do not fit reality?
Posted by: deadwood on May 25, 2009 09:28 PMAnd you know what: Shut up about telling me what "I want." You have no clue what I believe because you're too busy not listening. This is the last time I reply to a comment you author.
deadwood, What do you call a method that relies on models when the results of the models do not fit reality?
Models are informed by the science, they do not create science itself. If the results of a model "do not fit reality," then that model is invalid of course.
However, there are many models that have conformed with reality yet do predict a troubled future. There are many papers that analyze measurable data and have no need to rely on "models." We can count the increase in CO2 over the years from man-made emissions with one piece of science. Another piece can determine that is 20% of the atmosphere's CO2 content. A third piece of science can conclude that greenhouse gasses like CO2 cause the earth to warm. A forth can model the expected dramatic rise on CO2 emissions from man. A fifth can model the following temperature rise.
If any of those steps did not hold, then the whole theory would be bunk. But they do, simply put, according to the vast majority of scientists. Once again, not a single peer-reviewed paper disagreeing with the consensus position exists. The fact that science builds so heavily on previous works makes it difficult for the average person to understand entirely. This is why the leaders of the GOP have successfully manipulated many of you into believing that science is either undecided on this issue or -- more recently -- that science cannot be trusted.
Let me submit this: Valid science often makes predictions that fail. It makes models that do not withstand time. The value of science is that those predictions and models can fail and we can learn from them. It is true that living on ignorance or pure "faith" disallows the possibility of your predictions or models failing in an open way, but it also disallows the ability to learn from the world around you in a meaningful way. However, the science we are talking about is not in its infancy and has withstood many attempts from others in the scientific community as well as those on the right to find holes in the science. It is unable to. Any man interested in science would be interested in disproving a theory even if he believes it to be true -- if analysis of the world shows reality in a different light then the entire theory must be re-examined. Falsifiability is the bedrock of science in the world.
On the other hand, mere faith that climate change is a liberal conspiracy has no internal logic like the scientific method or falsifiability. Instead, we are asked to disbelieve scientists by people on the Internet who know nothing more than to repeat cynical quotes from ring-wing talk radio.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 25, 2009 10:11 PMIt's difficult make someone understand something, when their party is paid heavily to not understand it.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 25, 2009 10:19 PMExactly what I say over and over about the left. Can they have a pleasant discussion of issues? Certainly not.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 25, 2009 10:27 PMFor crying out loud who talks like that? No one I know talks about how we all need to be "informed" but liberals do in their snotty little way.
Yes Jensen, this is precisely the problem. But you seem to ignore the beam in your own eye when it comes to your own political lens.
I came to my conclusions regarding AGW the hard way. I read science that supports both sides of the political argument and found the catastrophist's science was based on some basic facts, but is then extrapolated way beyond what the evidence supports.
Posted by: deadwood on May 25, 2009 10:45 PMuh,ok
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 25, 2009 11:00 PMScience, something you bring forward as indisputable even when, their predictions fail, you still call the science valid? When, science supports failed predictions, it is not valid, it is Flawed, Imperfect and Incorrect. However, you stated that Valid Science often make predictions that often fail. How nutty can you be? Bottom Line: There is good science and bad science. There is honest science and dishonest science. There is your Government junk scientists and your private sector scientists. Your Government junk scientists will support any pumped up Crap the Government tells them to support. Government wants to have various Crisis so they can have an excuse to Tax more, steal more of your Liberties and Control more. Cap and Trade is one example. It should be called, "Crap and Tax" for that is what the Government is doing on and to the American people.
Doesn't it seem Strange to you that Government Junk Scientists support man made Global Warming and the Private sector Scientists do not? Do you think that there might be a Big Government conspiracy going on? Probably not...Your a Liberal.
You didn't link to ANYTHING! And to assume that my sources are automatically wrong and yours are automatically right is presumption, as is thinking that my position is "religion" when yours isn't.
But you accept as gospel the fact that global warming proponents are funded by the government. You're not smart enough to realize that global warming advocates promote their theories because they are funded by the government.
Quite the contrary; anyone looking for funding, public or private, has an incentive to link into current fads and make their issue sound like the most important thing in the world. And it works BOTH ways. Still, evidence exists, and more research is needed. Simple dismissal of the issue is just as bad as apocalyptic visions of the future.
You represent the latest incarnation of the global scare mongers that 30 or so years ago were telling us that the world was on the verge of the next ice age.
Conjecture at the time, disproven by evidence later. That's the nature of science. However, aside from stories in Popular Science, where exactly did this scaremongering happen? And what policy measures were passed by the government?
Liberals and "environmentalists" don't care about children, all they care about is feeling good about an issue; DDT is banned, we're good people. Results be dammed.
And you think that's limited to liberals and environmentalists? Sheesh... you're incredibly naive about basic human nature, aren't you?
@136. What do you call a method that relies on models when the results of the models do not fit reality?
Conservatism?
@137. Do leftists cowards support a religion that condemns women to 7th Century opression? Sure they do, but it isn't "politically correct" to bring up the subject. What a bunch of cowardly hypocrites! Can't imagine why I am no longer a leftist.
An absolute lie. Supporting human rights and women's rights have nothing to do with supporting people's freedom of religion and culture, and I have friends that are devout Muslims and women's rights activists. Of course, if you gave a crap about women's rights, you'd be focusing about what you can do on your own doorstep before worrying about what's going on halfway around the world.
@141. Exactly what I say over and over about the left. Can they have a pleasant discussion of issues? Certainly not.
Whining on your part isn't "pleasant discussion", neither is the constant stream of bitter insults coming from you. :) Do you actually think you're contributing to a "pleasant discussion"?
@143. I came to my conclusions regarding AGW the hard way. I read science that supports both sides of the political argument and found the catastrophist's science was based on some basic facts, but is then extrapolated way beyond what the evidence supports.
I think that there's research to be done, but that suggests "uncertainty", not "proof that it doesn't exist".
Posted by: demo kid on May 25, 2009 11:56 PMAnd for all of the whining about cap-and-trade, do you even know what it is? Explain it to me, in three sentences or less. Cutting and pasting from Wikipedia doesn't count.
You read "the" science? There are dozens of models, with many variables. Yes, it is difficult to predict the future. "Models" are not used to analyze past measurements, however, and that analysis points to a clear change in world-wide mean temperature (or climate change).
Are you arguing that climate change is a real, man-made phenomena like most scientists said is very likely (90% probability) just that it'll be less catastrophic?
Daniel, Science, something you bring forward as indisputable even when, their predictions fail, you still call the science valid? When, science supports failed predictions, it is not valid,
First, what predictions relating to climate change are you talking about "failing"?
Second, experiments and models are allowed to fail. Part of science is finding out your hypothesis is incorrect. However, much of the evidence regarding climate change comes from data collected in the last hundreds of years. Data analysis is a far cry from a "prediction."
Look, you're not going to convince me that all of science is "government junk science." No major scientific organization in the world public or private dissents from the consensus view. I hold on opinion on how catastrophic the future will be without change -- I do not wish to find out. Less dependence on foreign oil, less pollution, and more American jobs sound like pretty great benefits from a green economy
Writing off science is a very convenient way to concoct your own reality, which is obviously what some are forced to do by your apparent disconnect.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 26, 2009 01:47 AMBet he isn't exactly in favor of performance audits either.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 26, 2009 08:57 AM
@153: So let me get this straight... you claim that there is no "consensus" about global warming, but then you misrepresent the conclusions coming from the "private sector". (Which is large and not all the same, I might add, and can be government-funded!) Cherry-picking conclusions isn't "science", not matter how much you want it to be.
@155: Believe what you like, but I'd take the experience of folks that are, you know, actually LOOKING at the problem to a two-bit hack that can't even prove evidence of his own position. :)
Yet again I'll say... pony up, Daniel. You're really adept at shooting your mouth off but not so good when people call you out on it, are you?
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 09:39 AMObama cut taxes for most Americans in his stimulus plan. I do not know what federal taxes you're talking about, since you are presumably talking about your loony US government conspiracy theories still.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 26, 2009 09:49 AMDoes anything I have just, given commentary on in the above, make any sense to you Liberals? Of course it Doesn't!
Answer my questions, then:
Any of them will do.
Surprisingly, I think that you may not be wrong with a few things: if improperly designed, cap-and-trade would push up costs on the poor. But assuming that it's simply going to be imposed without a consideration of those effects is pretty far off base, and involves debating the specific implementation, not the idea.
When you can't even answer simple questions without lapsing into hysterics about liberals, though, I don't think that it's John and me that are "talking around in circles".
@161: Stick to the issue. Explain to me what cap-and-trade is. I'm waiting for you or Daniel to describe it in a calm and coherent manner that doesn't involve schizophrenic rants about conspiracy theories. Going off on wild tangents about other things that are not relevant to this discussion, or broad statements about what you think "liberals" do, is not debating the point.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20081212125304zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 26, 2009 12:17 PMAnd how exactly is this "leftist"? It's using a market system to achieve emissions goals as opposed to strict regulation. Conservatives have supported cap-and-trade over strict regulation in the past. Ignoring ideological differences about the effects of global warming, what is wrong with cap-and-trade in and of itself?
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 12:37 PMHow's that?
Posted by: Obi-Wan on May 26, 2009 12:58 PMYour question of why government research is invalid is something I never said. I never made a blanket statement that all government research is invalid. However, you being a Liberal with the natural propensity to misconstrue commentary into a statement that was never made is typical. By your actions in misrepresenting what I said, answers your question of # 4.."At what time specifically have I lied". If I wanted to backtrack, there would be more. What is meant by my commentary is that there is definitely some, not all, so-called Government research is purposely Wrong and Invalid. As stated before, Government has an ongoing agenda to continue to increase their revenue source through increased Taxation so, they can Grow Larger and Control More. Government will use Invalid research to Pump up a Crisis so they have the excuse to step in to save the day and increase Taxes, Grow and Control. Government has shown throughout History, that it is more of a friend of itself than it is a friend of the People.
Crap and Tax is just, another Big Government Scheme and Scam to put a noose around the neck of the producers and the American people at large. It is a so-called emission trading program with the end results of reducing emissions. But what it really is..is a game-play run by Government to extract money from the producers who cannot meet the caps on emissions for their particular industry. The noose will be tighten as time goes by, by lowering the caps until great amounts of money will be extracted from the private sector by the imposing of Fines and the Selling of extra credits to those Industries. I know that credits can be bought from other Industries that have extra credits to sell but, even that will run out as the emission levels are continually lowered by Government. Who do you think is going to ultimately end up a paying for this Rip-Off and Act of Theft? You the Tax Payer and you the Consumer with higher prices on Energy, Food, Clothing and all things that are bought and sold.
Obi-Wan, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When you have a lot of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, you trap heat. CO2 is, for example, why we HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE unlike every other planet in the solar system. If Mars had an atmosphere it would be much warmer. The additional heat that our atmosphere traps is great for life -- plants, animals, and humans. But too much more heat and things will be different.
It's a little bit like food. Of course every human needs food, just like the planet needs CO2. But eat too much food and you'll die from heart disease or obesity..
Posted by: John Jensen on May 26, 2009 01:40 PM
@167: I never made a blanket statement that all government research is invalid.
And I quote @46:
Your link to "Oak Ridge National Laboratory" is a Government run facility. Since, it is a Government operation, it is filled with so-called Government Junk Scientists who will submit any pumped up Crap that the Government tells them to do. This has already been explained to you. Junk Scientists will support and promote any Government game-play to give Government the excuse to Tax, Control and Grow.
And @145:
Bottom Line: There is good science and bad science. There is honest science and dishonest science. There is your Government junk scientists and your private sector scientists. Your Government junk scientists will support any pumped up Crap the Government tells them to support.
You claim that all government-funded science is invalid, and all "private sector" science is not. You claim that all government-funded science is politically motivated and dishonest, while "private sector" science is not. You backtrack by saying:
What is meant by my commentary is that there is definitely some, not all, so-called Government research is purposely Wrong and Invalid.
but then you don't bother saying that whether it is valid or invalid seems to depend solely on your own personal opinion, and your opinion alone.
Don't claim that you're being consistent and truthful when you're really not.
By your actions in misrepresenting what I said, answers your question of # 4.."At what time specifically have I lied". If I wanted to backtrack, there would be more.
I haven't lied, as I just pointed out. :) But go ahead and backtrack. I'm waiting. Money where your mouth is, pal.
It is a so-called emission trading program with the end results of reducing emissions. But what it really is..is a game-play run by Government to extract money from the producers who cannot meet the caps on emissions for their particular industry.
Why is it "so-called"? Emissions allowances would actually be traded under a system like that. Whether or not money is "extracted" depends on many things: the level of caps, whether the allowances are auctioned or given, whether other taxes are reduced as a result, and so forth. The concept in and of itself is actually better and more economically efficient than hard regulation; it's the implementation that is the question.
Of course, you're not arguing about the implementation. You're just wailing about conspiracy theories.
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 01:55 PMProve it.
Besides, I thought that Reagan proved that "deficits don't matter", right? :)
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 02:04 PM
The problem is the Liberals have bought into the Scam of man made Global Warming when it has been proved that the Earth has been cooling since 1998.
Show me where you're getting this information. I can't comment on it until you pony up the source you've been using.
FYI, CO2 represents only a fraction of 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere and is not a cause, at its present level, for any concern.
Why? The greenhouse effect is real, and it is the whole reason why the Earth is habitable by us.
In fact, there are many that would wish the year around growing season to advance Northward. Think of the extra food production and the cheaper prices!
You can't have it both ways. Either say that it's false, or say that there are benefits and upsides. I haven't disputed the latter, but the distribution of those impacts is a relevant question.
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 02:24 PMHuh?
And you expect us to take you seriously? Mars has an atmosphere, that's why they use parachutes to slow the descent of the Mars Rovers. Jupiter's Great Red Spot is an atmospheric storm.
We have an atmosphere because of gravity, not because of CO2. Gravity is also what keeps you in your chair instead of floating away like one of your looney ideas.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on May 26, 2009 02:24 PMBasic atmospheric physics shows that the greenhouse effect does exist, and there have been demonstrable increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (about 70 ppm, or 20%, over the past 50 years or so). You can argue about the sources of this increase, the effectiveness of climatological models to predict the real-world effects, and so forth, but this is evidence that cannot simply be dismissed as "junk science".
At the very least, studies into climate adaptation are necessary... but I hardly see conservatives clamoring for those, either.
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 02:37 PMSo then according to your revised statement, some government research is valid. What research, then?
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 03:40 PMSo that's settled. The charge was made she was acting illegally, and that was wrong to say.
@179: I sound like a broken record here. We're talking about a very specific event: the executive order signed by the governor. What do schools have to do with it? Nothing.
@181: I think that these folks don't care. They just love to whine, even if it involves making baseless accusations.
Conservatives are not anti tax and anti government. Conservatives understand you have to have Government and the Rule of Law to protect it's Citizens from abuses, Foreign and Domestic. What Conservatives are against is runaway Big Government and the runaway Taxes that go with it. Runaway Big Government not only over confiscates your Earnings, it also, over confiscates your Liberty. This is one of the differences between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals think the Bigger and more Controlling the Government is, the safer and more cared for the Liberals feel. Liberals want a Big Mommy to Care for them. What they eventually get is enslavement and reduction to a pauper by the Big Government Caretaker.
"Screening the applicants"? They put out job listings when jobs are hard to come by, and they had their pick of who they could get. I'd say that this year was probably better for census workers. What proof do you have that they're "liberal street people" or that they don't do their jobs?
Baseless. Absolutely baseless. Do you always just make things up?
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 09:04 PMAnd conservatives don't believe in "the counting of a people of a Nation"? Kinda sucks that it's specifically mandated in the U.S. Constitution, doesn't it?
I completely agree, of course, that it can be improved, and in fact they have refined it since 2000. The 2010 Census doesn't use the long form, for example, and they're shifting much of the more detailed data collection to the American Community Survey. But yet again, you seem to dismiss this without knowing a damn thing about it!
Posted by: demo kid on May 27, 2009 01:06 AM
I never said that private corporations would never be bias and that Government research would never be considered honest.
You call all government science "junk" and that you "can't think of one research project that is valid". What exactly is it? Make up your mind.
Yes, Conservatives don't believe in knocking on doors of private citizens and imposing a head count.
A "census" is a head count, and it's in the Constitution specifically as the means of apportioning representatives, not "look at some birth records" or "check some tax forms". And why exactly does it matter about the nature of the employees used to get that count? Unless you have a specific allegation that you can, you know, back up with proof, spouting off about these folks is just baseless rambling.
Then again, that doesn't stop you, does it?
Posted by: demo kid on May 27, 2009 08:10 AMYes it does matter, the nature of the employees that are used to get the head count. It matters to the accuracy and a job well done as any reasonable aware person realizes. For you to say it doesn't, is to imply that any dishonest, lazy, corrupt wretch is going to do the same quality accurate job an honest, hardworking individual would do....And you say that I spew Crap? What a Joke!
So... valid government projects? I think that there are plenty of government departments that do some good work. The USGS, for example. I have a friend at HUD who is a housing economist, and does some pretty interesting (and "valid") stuff too. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Unlike you, though, I don't simply assume that all government research is crap.
And yes, you did say that "all government science was junk":
46. John Jensen @39...Your link to "Oak Ridge National Laboratory" is a Government run facility. Since, it is a Government operation, it is filled with so-called Government Junk Scientists who will submit any pumped up Crap that the Government tells them to do. This has already been explained to you. Junk Scientists will support and promote any Government game-play to give Government the excuse to Tax, Control and Grow.
...
Bottom Line: There is good science and bad science. There is honest science and dishonest science. There is your Government junk scientists and your private sector scientists. Your Government junk scientists will support any pumped up Crap the Government tells them to support.
...
Only the Junk Scientists support the Global Warming Crap. The Junk Scientists are on the public payroll, various University tenors and grants. They will say and do what Governments tells them. Your independent private sector Scientists have debunked the Junk Scientists time and time again on this Global Warming aka Climate Change Slop.
You pretty much said that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory was full of "junk scientists" simply because it was a "government-run facility". That's priceless. Good thing they weren't in charge of anything important, like, say, atomic weapons research during World War II! (Oh, wait...)
In terms of the "nature of the employees that are used to get the head count", of course the census workers are not going to be career census-taking professionals! These positions only exist for a short time, once every ten years. Simple economics dictates that the workers they get are going to depend on the supply in the labor pool, and the money they're paying out. This time around, I bet that their pool was a hell of a lot bigger and better skilled! Of course, I'm still open to your ideas as to how a simple head count can be taken in a better way, as long as they would be politically feasible. (And I have the feeling that libertarian privacy advocates would not be cool with the nationwide tracking system you're proposing.)
But that, my friend, isn't your allegation. You're stating that the Census is inaccurate and the workers are dishonest... just because you say so. Put up proof that this is an inaccurate count, and back up your baseless claims. Otherwise, you have no credibility.
So yes, you "spew crap". You don't back up what you say, and assume that everyone should agree with your mad ramblings just because they're your mad ramblings. What else should I call it?
Posted by: demo kid on May 27, 2009 10:23 AMNobody proposed a Nation Wide Tracking System. Again, you're Lying. Doing the Census the smart and efficient way would be gathering the numbers from various informational sources aka employment, school enrollment, home ownership, welfare, death, birth and all means of records that numbers are given within the districts of the State, add and match at the National level and you will reach a reasonable number rather than running around slowing counting one two three. Common Sense would tell you that it is impossible to take an accurate Census by head counting. I did NOT, say ALL Census counters were dishonest but, certainly there are dishonest Census counters which adds noticeably for an inaccurate count, let alone being able to count each and everyone. Guess What? There are a good number of people that don't want to be counted and will take the means to Not, be counted.
Not to mention that you haven't defined the difference between "junk science" and... errr... non-"junk science", other than whether you agree with it or not.
With the census, how do you know that this is a more efficient method? You're assuming that people are going out and counting people one by one, but that isn't quite the case. In fact, a number of methods are used to confirm the data, which is extremely important given the use of this data. You make it seem as if it's just a matter of patching a few databases together and leaving it at that, or creating a national tracking system to find out where everyone is located at any given time...
Posted by: demo kid on May 27, 2009 04:29 PM