Internal EPA Memos Reveal the EPA May have 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report - GOP Senator Calls for Inquiry - "Cap and Trade" Energy Tax May be Dead

[ChurchofReason]

Wow....if you get this upset over a little debate and bail out, you frankly have no place on our site.

Well, I'm not that upset. I'm just seeing nothing worth arguing about, and "debate" might not be the best description of some of the responses. But yes, I'm bailing out of this conversation.

P.S. In response to your pm, I won't be deleting your account. It's not that easy.

Okay. Whatever's simplest is fine. I might drop in and see what's new from time to time.

Greg

[TXCharlie]

CoR, I'll have you know that I did my part today to fight global warming. I had a roast beef PoBoy for lunch and a T-bone steak for dinner. I'm on a mission to eliminate cow methane emissions one meal at a time.

LOL, you and noted Texas climatologist and comedian Ron White who said his solution to stopping cow farts is to eat the cows

I say he's a climatologist because he's probably had just as much training in it as Al Gore

[Five-0]

They haven't deleted my account yet, so I just logged in one more time to say: Messages received, loud and clear.



Not that it matters when exchanging comments with experts in investigation, but I understood when I signed on that anonymity was a feature of this forum. Most of you are certainly keeping your real names under wraps. Well, I don't write stuff on the Internet I'd mind my students or family knowing about, anyway, so I don't mind being outed. Yes, that's me.

Allow me to part with you with a little less rancor. That door did bang kind of hard when I left before. I sincerely wish you the best and appreciate all you do. I'll seriously examine and consider the scientific challenges to global warming. If I'm tempted to sneer and toss such arguments aside, I'll think of all of you, then do the scientific thing and look at it again. Fair enough?

Logging off now. Best wishes.

Greg Bryant

Well Mr. Bryant for starters you just put your name out in the above post not me. If you are shocked by a bunch of cops investigating the traffic on their site you are a tad bit naive. For future reference don't openly identify yourself and then claim you were outed. Unless you are the only professor at that institution no one could have IDed you until you did so yourself. One of the main functions of the site staff here is to verify that those claiming to be cops are verified law enforcement officers. The Holding Cell would be a great place for you check out to see how we deal with posers. They are given much more grief than you have taken. The issue we have here is that you entered a debate and were challenged. I would welcome you to bring a fact based debate, but this exchange took a swing to the emotional side. If you present scientific evidence to the contrary we will probably answer with other sources besides George Carlin. Entering a fact based polictal discussion with emotional arguements will get you ridiculed. Follow that up with a generalized version of you guys are a bunch of meanies and I'm leaving will be scoffed at too. Cops are direct and matter of fact people for the most part. That is the type of debate you will get here on any number of issues. In other words, you better be able to handle challenges to your statements made on here. Hell, some of us will play devil's advocate just to keep it interesting from time to time.

Turn about is fair play. I offered a political organization that you are a member of and college institution you are affiliated with. I will give you the same information and allow you to out me.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama

[TXCharlie]

Just speaking for myself, the only reason I have anonymity is because I speak only for me, not my department - The Chief would be pissed if someone like you drug the department name into the discussion for Google to find, whether he agreed with me or not.

Actually he does know my username, so it's not really full anonymity even though he probably doesn't make it a habit to visit here. In truth, he could care less unless it affects him or the department.

[ChurchofReason]

Well Mr. Bryant for starters you just put your name out in the above post not me. If you are shocked by a bunch of cops investigating the traffic on their site you are a tad bit naive.

Yes, I did that on purpose, in a gesture of good faith. It was only the association information that surprised, but did not shock me. My only point was that I had thought privacy was respected. None of that information is in my user profile, so someone did some digging and left the information in a public place. Now I understand the rules.

The Holding Cell would be a great place for you check out to see how we deal with posers.

Sorry, didn't mean to "pose." I mentioned in my first post that I wasn't an officer, just a guy who appreciated what you do. Your welcoming note for new arrivals refers to you as "a very close, tight knit community here of law enforcement officers, law enforcement supporters, and law enforcement hopefuls." I thought of myself as a supporter. I may be an interloper in the "close knit" part, but it was not intentional.

I went to your profile page and didn't see a name. So I see that privacy is at least valued, if not respected.

Greg

[Xiphos]

So I see that privacy is at least valued, if not respected.

Greg

There's no such thing as privacy on the Internet. We don't use our real names here because we don't speak for our departments.

Either put on your big boy undies and play with the men here or STFU and leave. Your whining is aggravating and you've dragged this entire thread off topic. You're welcome to stay and participate but quit the drama. Knock it off or the mods here will expedite your exit.

[ChurchofReason]

The Chief would be pissed if someone like you drug the department name into the discussion for Google to find, whether he agreed with me or not.

I just can't let go of this, can I? Like a dog with a rag. "People like me" -- you mean me? Once years ago I mentioned in a public forum an innocuous detail that could have been a hint to someone's ID, and was bluntly chastised by the others on the list. It was not maliciously intended, but it is mistake I will never make again. You can count on that.

Greg

[ChurchofReason]

STFU and leave.

Will do.

...or the mods here will expedite your exit.

Good luck making that happen. I tried and I guess there are technical difficulties that make it not worthwhile. You won't hear from me after this.

Greg

[Xiphos]

Will do.

No big boy undies huh? Man up and you're welcome to stay.

[ChurchofReason]

We don't use our real names here because we don't speak for our departments.

That makes sense. Fair disclosure, I don't speak for mine either, but I'm careful not to violate my obs to my employers. They made me sign an oath to support and defend the Constitution when they hired me, which I did happily and without reservation. This sometimes necessitates speaking out at times I would prefer to keep my mouth shut. However, I see no Constitutional issues here, so ta-ta.

Greg

[pgg]

Alrighty I'll try and get this thread back on track. This is a thought that I've always had but haven't been able to get someone to answer. Back in the mid-evil times England produced wine. Now it is to cold over there for grapes to grow in abundance (like it does here). Could it be that the earth is cooling and we were entering an ice age (all this before the industrial revolution)? So if the Earth were to start warming could it be so the Earth could go back to its "normal" state? Just some food for thought.

[Five-0]

What pgg said combined with the fact that when I was in high school the threat was global cooling. All the CFCs from spray cans was eating the ozone layer. This whole movement is a ploy to gain control over economies and people. If you don't agree with the agenda you are shut out. Truth be damned. The Scientific Method has been replaced with if I come to this conclusion I keep getting grant money. If I don't tow the agenda's line I get barred from the discussion.

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists - Telegraph

[Xiphos]

There was a mini ice-age that ended all by itself before the industrial revolution. How did all that ice melt without pollution?

It's only about the environment to the sheep. The politicians are trying to exert control over your life and money.

[Five-0]

I challenge anyone on here to show me one postive thing that the Cap and Trade Bill accomplishes.






RealClearMarkets - The Cap-and-Trade Bill Is an Economic Disaster


Return to the Article

June 26, 2009
The Cap-and-Trade Bill Is an Economic Disaster

By Investor's Business Daily

• Nuclear Nightmare
• Regime Change We Can Believe In
• A Real Jobs Solution
• Saving The Raptor
• Apologizing For Slavery ��" Again?

Fiscal Policy: The House of Representatives is preparing to vote on an anti-stimulus package that in the name of saving the earth will destroy the American economy. Smoot-Hawley will seem like a speed bump.
Not since a misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.

The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.
It's what Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, might call a "man-caused disaster," a phrase she coined to replace the politically incorrect "terrorist attack." But no terrorist could ever dream of inflicting as much damage as this bill.
Its centerpiece is a "cap and trade" provision that has been rightfully derided as "cap and tax." It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide.
It is the largest tax increase in American history — a tax on all Americans — even the 95% that President Obama pledged would never see a tax increase.
It's a political bill that could come to a vote now that a deal was struck with farm-state legislators concerned about the taxation of even bovine flatulence.
As part of the agreement reached Tuesday night and announced by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Beverly Hills, agricultural oversight for cap-and-trade was transferred from the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Farmers hope the USDA will be less intrusive. The EPA has been tasked by a Supreme Court ruling to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from your nostrils to your lawn mower. This even covers the emissions of barnyard animals, including the methane from cows.
The American Farm Bureau warns that cap and trade would cost the average farmer $175 on every dairy cow and $80 for beef cattle. So farm-state politics trumped climate change.
We all know about farmers paid not to grow food. But now, American taxpayers apparently will be paying companies not to chop down trees. The Washington Times reports that as part of the legislation, the House will also be voting Friday on a plan to pay domestic and international companies around the world not to cut down trees.
Such offsets "would be a transfer of wealth overseas," said William Kovacs, vice president for environmental affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So if a tree falls in a Brazilian forest, does a U.S. taxpayer make a sound?
As we've said before, capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).
Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500.
Hit hardest by all this would be the "95% of working families" Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they'll be hit by this draconian energy tax.
And what would we get for all this pain? According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.
President Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming. During the campaign, he said: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
Soon we may not be able to. Other countries can just sit back and watch us destroy ourselves. Where will you be when the lights go out?

[MacLean]

Prof, you could figure out who I was with very little effort.

That said, the issue folks are taking with you isn't born of hatred, it is simply that you got ass hurt when someone debated you.

Give it a go at serious debate. Many of us here are possessed of stellar educations, and there are several very interesting autodidacts.

If you stop whining and start supporting your argument, you may even have fun.

[TXCharlie]

I just can't let go of this, can I? Like a dog with a rag. "People like me" -- you mean me? Once years ago I mentioned in a public forum an innocuous detail that could have been a hint to someone's ID, and was bluntly chastised by the others on the list. It was not maliciously intended, but it is mistake I will never make again. You can count on that.

Greg

No, I didn't mean you or people like you in a personal or a professional sense... I just meant people with some kind of beef, disagreement or grudge sometimes resort to doing things totally outside the realm of debate, that's all. I was not implying that you are like that, or would stoop to such levels, but I was just saying that some people definitely are not above doing that.

What I said was strictly in the context of the reason for anonymity, not an attack on you. sorry for not explaining that better - you are welcome here as far as I'm concerned, because I don't think you would resort to anything like that.

[countybear]

I challenge anyone on here to show me one postive thing that the Cap and Trade Bill accomplishes.

Although I grow in doubt of it more and more, I only hope that the Cap & Tax, combined with the looming threat of a healthcare bureaucracy will be the flashpoints which spur the American taxpayers to realize the jeopardy that we were placed in by the socialist revolution of 2008.

While I certainly do not advocate any radical activism, I do believe that the silent majority in this nation must speak; now, definitively, and without reservation, fear, equivocation, or inhibition.

Our government does not need to be overthrown, but it certainly needs to be cleansed, pruned, and returned to the devices of representing the people and supporting their growth, rather than victimizing the successful, rewarding failure, nannying, and condemning the working American to live under its increasingly tyrannical, burdensome, and oppressive yoke.

[TXCharlie]

Bottom line:

The Democrat solutions for every problem are more restrictions to make the problem more painful, because they start out assuming the problem itself is fundamentally unsolvable (for example, cheap plentiful energy with little environmental impact).

The Republican solutions for every problem is to SOLVE the problem - without the preconceived defeatist notion that restrictions and pain are the only solution.

[armsmaster270]

Church of Reason: were not all that secretive check my webpage at the bottom of the post

[countybear]

Church of Reason: were not all that secretive check my webpage at the bottom of the post

As a footnote, I must say that I am very secretive.

As an undercover gynocologist for the secret anti-environment police, our motto is "to protect and cervix".

We carry specula in our holsters in place of guns.