Shimkus: Capping CO2 a greater ‘assault on democracy’ than 9/11.
Shimkus: Capping CO2 a greater ‘assault on democracy’ than 9/11.
Yesterday, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) described President Obama’s energy plan as “the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.” Speaking at a hearing on the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act — which caps global warming pollution to build a clean energy economy — Shimkus said that he feared this legislation more than the Clinton impeachment trials, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001:
I think this is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced. I’ve lived through some tough times in Congress — impeachment, two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above activities that have happened.
Watch it:
Earlier this year, Shimkus argued that carbon dioxide is just “plant food” and that God will prevent global warming.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
So true. If we seriously limit the hot air supply, there will be only one major political party left.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pmi love it.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pmGod will prevent global warming…..WTF
The Magical Invisible Faerie in the Sky does not exist, fool…there is no God, God will not help you because he does not exist, never has and never will.
Old saying: Pray in one hand and Sh!t in the other, see which gets filled first.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:04 pmNice of him to at least recognize the Clinton impeachment as an assault on democracy. Funny how a BJ merited impeachment but investigating and possibly prosecuting state sponsored torture would be divisive.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pmthey’re killing themselves w/ this bs…..sweet.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pmFEAR FEAR FEAR
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pmShimkus really is stupid enough to fear CO2 cap and trading more than 9-11, the Iraq Invasion, the collapse of Afghanistan and Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
Now that’s some stupid.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:08 pmShimkus: Capping CO2 a greater ‘assault on democracy’ than 9/11.
- – Shimkus doesn’t know bupkus.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:08 pmI’m surprised he didn’t mention teabagging.
That would have been just perfect.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pmsterday, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) described President Obama’s energy plan as “the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.”
___________
Wow…
Worse than the Axis in WW II?
Worse that Islamofascism?
Worse than Bush and Cheney?
WORSE THAN… ***GAY*** ***MARRIAGE***???
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:10 pmAre those his aides behind him? If so, they arent drinking the koolaid…
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pmshimkus looks like a real good example of how corporations control government officials.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 pmDude has no shame.
Let’s see, uh, Planes crashing into a couple buildings flown by bunch of terrorist extremist killing thousands and, uh, limiting CO2 saving millions of lives and the planet …… Ok, please shut up you idiot fear monger!
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 pmGod will prevent global warming. If you want to go that way, I don’t think prevent is the word you are looking for. It will be dealt with when the planet reaches the tipping point and does what it naturally does to clean up the problem.
I don’t think you really want to see the earth apply it’s ‘cap and trade’ policy.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pmGod’s got a pretty bad track record when it comes to preventing natural disasters methinks.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pmWhoa, there Shimkus. If God is on your side in this battle and enviros, scientists and progressive religious organizations are on the other; someone’s God just lied to them. Maybe we should let god worry about other important issues like “evangelical talibanistas” ruining our democratic institutions and let professionally trained scientists solve our horrible “man-made” environmental problems.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pmI try to avoid being too judgmental on some of the things being said by people who depend more on belief than they do information, but so far Rep. Shimkus is striking out on his comments about CO2.
For the last time, we’re trying to cap pollution. We’re trying to produce a cleaner energy so the Earth sticks around a little longer. We’re not denying “plant food” to plants, and we’re not trying to shut companies down. We are trying to introduce alternative energy so that our planet is cleaner, our resources last longer, and we can breathe a little better.
Rep. Shimkus, please PLEASE read reports lobbied by both sides of the aisle before you make your decision.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 pmLooks like Shimkus has been Hannitized.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 pmWow, he is dumber than a bag of shimkus.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pmGod is used as an Adult Santa Clause. AND God is now the fixer of the natural disaster facing us called global warming. Whew! I was reeeeaaaallllly worried!
Oh, where was God when Katrina hit? Asleep like G-Dubya? When the religious conservatives can’t explain something or don’t have and facts to back up their claims – they use God. Man, that’s sooo easy!
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pmI don’t know how they do it in Illinois – special plant food, good soil, excellent water, clean air – or does growing “stupid” politicians just come natural for this state!
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pmSchmuck Shimkus has been spending too much time hanging out with Bimbo Bachmann, methinks.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pmI fear this more than all of the above activities that have happened.
Yes, I’m sure he does, since electric utilities and the oil/gas business are his second largest source of campaign contributions after the health industry. I’m rather sure he’ll say something similar about any attempt for a public health care program as well.
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/sectors.php?cycle=2008&id=IL19
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pmDear Mr. Shimkus. Democracy means the majority rules. The majority of Americans voted against your party of backwards, crazy ideas. So nobody cares about what you have to say.
Second, the majority of Americans want environmental protections in place to reduce or prevent further global warming and greenhouse gases. So to say the will of the majority is a threat on Democracy shows not only a profound level of ignorance of what Democracy is…but also shows actual disdain and loathing for democracy. Not concern.
In your world, democracy only applies to big business’s ability to make as much money as possible regardless of the impact on the environment, the air we breath, or the health and wellbeing of the MAJORITY. That very world view is why your party got booted out of control, and why nobody cares what you have to say. Feel free to continue whining about REAL democracy getting in the way of your extremist agenda. Just make sure you get comfortable being marginalized and further made irrelevant while you do so.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pmShimkus receives a lot of cash from Oil, Gas & Electric. Therefore, he’s just another wholly corporate-owned rightwing prostitute…
See: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00004961
====
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pmOT, but in another case of shimkus Governor Stanford is requesting FEMA assistance for fires in South Carolina. But, but, but I thought he was worried about federal spending.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 pmwinddancer at 23:
Sorry. I posted the OpenSecrets link before I saw your post.
====
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 pmThis is correct. If the majority votes for the murder of the minority, that’s just democracy in action.
I think what Shimkus means is that it would be and assault on liberty.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pmSo how does Shimkus feel about sewage treatment plants, the EPA, and the establishment of uniform effluent standards? Does he feel these are a threat to “democracy and freedom”?
We have a long history of taking steps to keep our environment clean and healthy as we identify problems. And the only “freedom” anybody’s lost is the freedom to pollute. Shimkus needs to get a grip.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pmDoodlebug Shayne Says: “OT, but in another case of shimkus Governor Stanford is requesting FEMA assistance for fires in South Carolina.”
Are you saying Stanford is a Shimkusite…? Or just a “kus”…?
====
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pmHuh?? What did you say?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 pmMaybe shitebag Cicero will come in and post has “light-switch tax” month old talking point…
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pmGod will prevent the destruction of the planet by delivering scientific minds wise enough to see the problems and offer solutions. Of course, God is also counting on humanity being willing to accept the science and act on it. Apparently, God has failed to factor in the GNOP.
These idiots are like the drowning man who turns away a rescue boat because he believes that God will save him.
PEACE
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pmwtracy Says
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I don’t know how they do it in Illinois – special plant food, good soil, excellent water, clean air – or does growing “stupid” politicians just come natural for this state!
____________________________________________________________
Well, let’s be fair. Not all Illinois politicians are stupid. Some, like Shimkus, really are stupid. Others, like Blagojevich, are crooks. And still others, like Barack Obama, are neither. So I see a rather wide assortment.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pmAlejandro Says:
This is correct. If the majority votes for the murder of the minority, that’s just democracy in action.
I think what Shimkus means is that it would be and assault on liberty.
Keep the idiocy coming!!
Alejandro, since you are interpreting for Shimkus, care to defend his actual statement instead making a ridiculously unreasonable remark about “democracy in action?”
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pmSo what are you saying? That democracy is NOT majority rule?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pmRight wing heads are exploding all over town. Obama is coming at the right with his agenda so hard and so fast the right is being overwhelmed. Love it.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 pmAlejandro Says:
So what are you saying? That democracy is NOT majority rule?
Alejandro, since you are interpreting for Shimkus, care to defend his actual statement instead making a ridiculously unreasonable remark about “democracy in action?”
Please learn how to read before responding.
Thank you.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 pmI think this is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.
So trying to prevent a global catastrophe and save our precious natural resources means that no one will ever get to vote again? The fear really clouds the definition of words. I wish it would stop.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:42 pmGod will prevent global warming.
Don’t they know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster likes warmer weather??
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:42 pmIf there is anything Righties really know much about, it’s attacking democracy.
Too bad it’s from their experience doing it.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pmDamn, it’s a good thing Al Quaida didn’t think of this on 911.
Imagine if they’d hit us with Co2 Emissions Caps.
:|
Fortunately Al Quaida just had a dirty bomb program at the time, instead a clean energy program, or we might have really been hit hard.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pmYou know, I’ve been wondering when Republicans would start reversing themselves and saying 9/11 was no big deal, as soon as it was no longer politically useful for them…
.
Alejandro Says:
So what are you saying? That democracy is NOT majority rule?
Correct. Sustainable democracy actually relies on a number of foundational concepts:
1) Majority vote for leadership
2) Separation of powers between the Judiciary, Executive and Legislative branches
3) Checks and balances whereby each branch of government prevents the others from exceeding their bounds
4) Civilian control of the military
5) Constitutionally guaranteed rights
#1 does not overrule #5. Modern, functional Democracy is not mere “mob rule.” The Founding Fathers spent considerable brainpower working this stuff out, and it’s worked pretty well so far.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pmApril 23rd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
What a Shimkus
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 pmFunny that Shimkus was FOR a Cap And Trade plane under Bush, saying it would not lead to large fuel cost increases…and he didnt say this Bush plan was an ‘assault on democracy’
Heal thyself hypocrite.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 pmAlejandro, care to explain why a cap-and-trade program would qualify as an assault on our liberty?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pmShimkus is absolutely right–and he can prove it by putting a plastic bag over his head secured around the neck with rubber bands.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pmIn about 10 minutes his own “freedom and democracy” will be no more.
Xisithrus – could you post the link to your posting above? For instance, I don’t have a clue who Holmsted is.
And for the record all, I favor a carbon tax over cap and trade, which ultimately only moves the problem around.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:52 pmHa ha. That means you don’t want to admit that you’re wrong.
What you are describing is simply the constitution of the US. Most of the government is not democratic. The courts certainly aren’t democratic and there are certain boundaries the majority cannot cross. We have to make many modifications to simple democracy in order to protect people’s liberties. People know that simple democracy can turn into tyranny of the majority, so they modify it. If one assumes that individual liberty must be protected from majority rule, then they institute these protections to limit democracy.
So Shimkus here is 180 degrees wrong. If the majority decides to cap everyone’s carbon emissions, that would be democracy in action.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 pmI was merely correcting Shimkus as to what it was that he was most likely trying to say.
But, if a direct causal relationship can be proven between CO2 emissions and harm, then preventing harm would not be an infringement on liberty. If it hasn’t been proven that CO2 emissions cause harm, then it would be an infringement on liberty.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pmAlejandro Says:
Tweedster Says:
Please learn how to read before responding.
Thank you.
Ha ha. That means you don’t want to admit that you’re wrong.
Ha ha, it proves beyond a doubt that you evade questions directed at you.
Calling your characterization of democracy as the majority voting to murder the minority is ridiculous and you cannot deny that fact.
If you don’t think it is a ridiculous analogy for “democracy in action” then you really do not understand my response to your assertion.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pmApril 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
And after the bill passes, Shimkus can organize CO2bag parties to throw another tantrum.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pmJust another republican wanker proving, publicly, that he’s an idiot.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:01 pmYou evaded my question.
It’s not ridiculous. This idea that you have in your head as to what democracy is is most likely not pure democracy. Pure democracy is majority rule and any tyranny that goes along with it. Most people realize that and modify democracy to protect the rights of the minority. This is 6th grade civics, sir.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pmAlejandro Says:
Tweedster Says:
Please learn how to read before responding.
Thank you.
Ha ha. That means you don’t want to admit that you’re wrong.
It also means that you are 100% wrong to even assert the US is a direct Democracy, as we are a representative republic. Still, care to defend Simkus’ assertion that a cap-and-trade program would be an “assault on our liberty” as you interpreted him to mean?
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 pmWAYNEBRO Says:
Damn, it’s a good thing Al Quaida didn’t think of this on 911.
Imagine if they’d hit us with Co2 Emissions Caps.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
____________
Somehow I don’t think that the idea of capping oil use would fly with a bunch of Saudis. They may be deluded religious militants, but they still know which side their khubz is buttered on.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 pmAlejandro,
In the spirit of consideration, the person who asks the first question should be the one to receive the first response. You do not seem capable of this and accuse me of evading the question you posed while evading my initial question to you.
Your initial evasion is clearly not in keeping with 5th grade manners sir.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 pmWhat are they gonna do.. debit me for the C02 ones lungs, cars, lawnmower or pets emit?
Are they also going to debit me for the O2 ones lungs, car, lawmmowers, pets, take in?
Are they going to credit me for the oxygen my plants and trees emit?
Are they going to credit me for the CO2 my plants and trees take in?
This is madness. Yes, we need to reduce pollutants of all types, but to create a system of debits and credits will lead to another unsustainable financial bubble where CO2 becomes a commodity that will be valued by speculators…on top of that will be another unsustainable derivatives bubble.
I feel like we are turning into a bunch of Ferengi
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pmAlejandro Says:
But, if a direct causal relationship can be proven between CO2 emissions and harm, then preventing harm would not be an infringement on liberty. If it hasn’t been proven that CO2 emissions cause harm, then it would be an infringement on liberty.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
__________
It has been proven to 95% certainty that there is a direct causal relationship between CO2 emissions and harmful climate change. That’s more than enough confidence for the purpose of policymaking.
And it’s no more an infringement on liberty than any other health and safety regulation. Sometimes the public good trumps corporate greed.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:10 pmYes, your examples demonstrate madness quite well.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:11 pmThe American people have had enough of corporations dictating how America should be governed and dictating to yes-men like Rep. Shimkus. They are also weary of the hyperbolic exaggerations of people like Rep. Shimkus. He must have supreme amnesia to forget all the warning words on plastic bags. What happens when you put one over your head? You die. Or the high school science experiments where you plunge a candle into a beaker full of CO2. What happens? The flame dies. CO2 is not a benign gas, and the American people are smart enough to realize it.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 pmWait wait, capping CO2 emmissions somehow effects our democracy? Democracy simply means the will of the majority over the minority, no matter how you look at it. The people want CO2 emissions capped, this is a completely democratic move. I understand where he’s coming from with the freedom thing, I don’t agree but at least I understand his failed logic.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pmI never said that the US was a direct democracy. But sometimes, Congress enacts laws that violate people’s rights. This has happened quite a bit in recent years, hasn’t it? So democracy, even when we think there are safeguards, can result in tyranny.
And I can’t say one way or another about CO2 emissions and harm. I haven’t see the evidence showing any kind of harm being done by CO2, but I also haven’t seen evidence to discount it. If there is no connection between CO2 emissions and harm done, then caps on CO2 emissions would be an assault on liberty.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 pmAnd here is another example for you [above]
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pmCan you show me this evidence? Link to it or something?
Wow. Sorry, but CO2 is pretty inert. You die because you didn’t get oxygen, not because CO2 is poisonous. You’d die just the same if you were in a 100% nitrogen atmosphere, yet the atmosphere is 70% nitrogen.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pmAlejandro Says:
And I can’t say one way or another about CO2 emissions and harm. I haven’t see the evidence showing any kind of harm being done by CO2, but I also haven’t seen evidence to discount it. If there is no connection between CO2 emissions and harm done, then caps on CO2 emissions would be an assault on liberty.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
http://www.ipcc.ch
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 pmI want them reduced not capped and traded which means valued and traded by the same banksters that caused the financial mess of today.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:20 pmO yeah, gee thanks. I’ve never been to that website before.
I’ve seen all kinds of hand waving claims, but no direct evidence that says CO2 directly drives climate change or that climates are changing in a ‘harmful’ way.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pmhttp://www.tobacco.neu.edu/box/BoekenBox/Boeken%20Evidence%20PDF/10021.pdf
Ahh, skeptics and science deniers. How many people would be alive today were it not for them?
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 pmExactly. When will people realize that when their favorite hero politician comes up with some great new plan, that the plan almost always involves certain corporations getting richer using the force of the government?
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 pmXisithrus Says:
This is madness. Yes, we need to reduce pollutants of all types, but to create a system of debits and credits will lead to another unsustainable financial bubble where CO2 becomes a commodity that will be valued by speculators…on top of that will be another unsustainable derivatives bubble.
Yes, and that is precisely why I favor a carbon tax instead, as I stated above. The problem with capitalism on steroids is that every solution is seen in terms of profits. It blinds people to the most obvious solution. The same applies to any real health care reform in this country.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:26 pmAlejandro Says:
I’ve seen all kinds of hand waving claims, but no direct evidence that says CO2 directly drives climate change or that climates are changing in a ‘harmful’ way.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
___________
Here you go:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
libs like tweedster and wags – they know best what to do with other people’s money! give it to them, they’re so enlightened and educated. how do i know? arrogance over the internet apparently is a substitute for education.
if you libs want change, take it up with the private groups on your own dime. or cut the government a check to be devoted to the cause. contribute to al gore.
get out of my garage.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pmWell perhaps but like I said. It’s a good thing they didn’t think of it on 911.
Because like Rep Shimkus (is that a real name?) here said, that would have been much worse.
Imagine instead of people jumping to their deaths rather than being burned alive, imagine if we’d had had stock brokers and CEO’s jumping to their deaths over these terrifying emissions caps.
:|
Oh the horror.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pmYeah, we wouldn’t want to be skeptical now would we?
First off, in 1965 there wasn’t enough evidence to solidify the link between smoking and lung cancer. It seemed pretty obvious though that inhaling hot smoke might do damage to your lungs. But, people that smoke pot don’t have nearly as high a risk of lung cancer as tobacco smokers, so maybe it’s not so obvious. So telling people that they have a high risk of lung cancer from smoking without the scientific evidence to back it up, no matter how obvious it seems, is basically lying since you don’t know it for a fact. You just have some kind of faith that it’s true.
And in no way did I deny science. I’m actually quite pro-science, believe it or not. Let’s just say I have a professional relationship with it. And I know when something doesn’t have evidence to warrant certain specific conclusions.
Hey, if people want to live greener, I’m all for it. Let’s recycle. Let’s stop dumping crap into rivers and lakes. Let’s stop polluting the air. Hell, I bike to work (when it’s not raining) and recycle damned near everything. But don’t start making everything out to be a danger when it’s not and don’t start putting mandates on people without proper evidence that they are doing harm to other people.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pmwinddancer Says:
Yes, and that is precisely why I favor a carbon tax instead, as I stated above. The problem with capitalism on steroids is that every solution is seen in terms of profits. It blinds people to the most obvious solution. The same applies to any real health care reform in this country.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
_____________
And it’s also the first thing to be repealed when Republicans get back into power. If you make it profitable to reduce emissions, you have a much better chance of actually making an impact.
You need carrots AND sticks. Sticks alone or carrots alone don’t work.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:35 pmAlejandro Says:
Wow. Sorry, but CO2 is pretty inert. You die because you didn’t get oxygen, not because CO2 is poisonous. You’d die just the same if you were in a 100% nitrogen atmosphere, yet the atmosphere is 70% nitrogen.
You die if you were in a 100% oxygen atmosphere, even though we need it to survive. Plants die in 100% carbon dioxide, even though they need it to survive.
The point is that changing the concentration of the gasses in an atmosphere and throwing off its balance will force the environment to rebalance itself in some other manner. If we can prevent this balance from being altered, then we just might have a healthier planet in the long run.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pmYou’re a prime example.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pmAs Rep Shimkus said, it’s much better to get hit by a jetliner full of jet fuel, rather than getting hit with an emissions cap on that fuel.
:|
Or something like that.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pmyou can have your cheap comebacks, wags, but not on my dime. don’t treat groups like crap and try to steal their money. cut a check.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 pmhttp://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html
So when the Sahara Desert formed from lush rainforests 10,000 years ago, I guess that was from all the coal plants and SUVs?
They are just making claims. They just say “it is so.”
This is just fear mongering based on unsupported claims.
Show me evidence that the CO2 levels today absorb so much more radiant energy than past CO2 levels that the earth will warm sufficiently to cause all these disastrous effects.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pmUntil you post anything close to a rational argument, I’ll employ as many cheap snarky comebacks as I damn well please.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm…as a test subject.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 pmneoparody Says:
libs like tweedster and wags – they know best what to do with other people’s money! give it to them, they’re so enlightened and educated. how do i know? arrogance over the internet apparently is a substitute for education.
if you libs want change, take it up with the private groups on your own dime. or cut the government a check to be devoted to the cause. contribute to al gore.
get out of my garage.
parody, i’m not sure where you see the arrogance in me posing the question: how would a cap-and-trade policy be an assault on your liberty? you seem to like to project a lot about “libs” but have a hard time comprehending the actual posts you describe as arrogant. how about just answering a simple and sincere question instead of being a reactionary jackass?
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pmneoparody Says:
“get out of my garage.”
Shall we close the door?
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pmYour car’s still running you know….
Don’t get carried away with hyperbole, Shitkiss.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pmThe only people that are stupid enough to vote for Shimkus are Republicans. I would love to see Shimkus on who’s smarter than a fifth grader.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pmYeah, but plants do better when CO2 goes from 0.25% to 0.36% as it has done in the past 100 years or so.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pmneoparody Says:
you can have your cheap comebacks, wags, but not on my dime. don’t treat groups like crap and try to steal their money. cut a check.
What is cheap is the lack of substance in your posts. You paint people with your broad misunderstanding and you can’t even bring yourself to an honest debate? I’m not an advocate, I just would like an answer to a simple question. What’s your problem?
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pmdamn hit submit too soon
The concentrations are always changing over time. CO2 goes up and down. Climate changes. This is the way it’s been for 4 billion years.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pmAlejandro Says:
Hey, if people want to live greener, I’m all for it. Let’s recycle. Let’s stop dumping crap into rivers and lakes. Let’s stop polluting the air. Hell, I bike to work (when it’s not raining) and recycle damned near everything. But don’t start making everything out to be a danger when it’s not and don’t start putting mandates on people without proper evidence that they are doing harm to other people.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
____________
I would think the fact that 97% of climate scientists think that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature would be proper enough evidence.
You can argue semantics all you want – there are always areas that need to be better researched and gaps that need to be filled. But after all the debating, the fact remains that there are a lot more reasons to cap carbon emissions and invest in renewable energy than there are reasons to stick to the status quo.
If the skeptics are right and there really is no link between human activity and climate, we get cleaner air, efficient cars, a smart grid, and lots of jobs. If the skeptics are wrong and we do nothing, we lose Florida.
Ok, maybe that was a bad example…
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm…other than all the smokers who were dying from lung cancer.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 pmAlejandro is being disingenuous. In one post he claims to not be a science denier, than when presented with the evidence, he denies it.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 pmHEYOOOOOO!
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pmAlejandro Says:
Yeah, but plants do better when CO2 goes from 0.25% to 0.36% as it has done in the past 100 years or so.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
___________
Which would be lovely if we weren’t clear-cutting rain forests in Brazil for ranching or in Indonesia for palm oil or destroying ecosystems with pesticide runoff.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pmPeople like Alejandro remind of the folks who used to say, yah, the Cuyahoga just likes to burst into flames from time to time. Rivers do that.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pmSomeone explain to Mister scientist here that it’s the build up of Co2 emissions in the atmosphere that is creating an effective “heat blanket” around the earth trapping heat from the sun which normally would reflect back into space.
This causes the planet to heat up, melting the polar ice caps and raising sea temperatures as well as levels, changing ocean currents and doing damage to coastal areas.
:|
Either that or go rent him the movie “Waterworld”.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 pmAnd this, if I may, illustrates why Al Gore and other doom and gloomers may actually be a hindrance to a full public understanding of the issue. It’s huge and complex, beyond just climate change. It’s energy independence, it’s jobs, it’s security, it’s habitat destruction, it’s ecosystem destruction, biodiversity destruction; a whole host of related and intertwined issues.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pmAlejandro Says:
The concentrations are always changing over time. CO2 goes up and down. Climate changes. This is the way it’s been for 4 billion years.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
____________
Just because climate changes were caused by Malenkovitch cycles in the past does not rule out the extremely likely possibility that human activity is causing this particular period of climate change.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:53 pmWaste of time. Everyone knows that the opening of the Northwest Passage is a natural phenomenon (even though it has never happened in recorded history) and the fact that there are sections of Greenland that haven’t seen the light of day since, well, maybe never or that the Antarctic ice cap is shedding like a manged sheepdog, or that rising sea temperatures are killing off coral reefs that have been growing for about 8,000+ years.
Naw, its just the earth doing a natural paradigm shift.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pmIs it changing enough to cause harm? Who decides that? Shall we go to court and make a claim that you have been harmed by some company’s CO2 emission? That’s the way claims of harm done to you are usually handled.
The only currently viable alternative to fossil fuels for base power is nuclear. Nuclear is nice, but it has it’s own environmental problems. In that case, the harm is plainly evident.
Those are some tall claims there. Sounds like a politician or two has sold you on their plan to make their corporate buddies rich. And by “do something” you mean forcing people to live a certain way even when they aren’t harming anyone.
Why can’t we just allow this cultural shift to happen naturally? It’s happening. Why the need to “do something” by the force of government? You might get your way faster, but who knows what the real consequences of “do something” will be?
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pmWrong. As the tests of the perma-frost from polar ice caps shows, levels have never even approached the levels we are measuring now.
Not at least while the planet supported human life.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 pmRight. These are the kinds of things we need to be worried about.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pmyikes…
i really don’t want to live here (IL 19) anymore…
…
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pmSon, let me ask you this.
How much infrared radiation is absorbed by water vapor? Damned near all of it. The little scads that remain are absorbed by CO2 and some other gases. Increases in CO2 will absorb even more of the <1% left. The infrared spectra of water and CO2 overlap, and water absorbs much more strongly. It’s not some linear relationship between CO2 concentration and radiation absorbed.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pmYou mean wait for natural selection to weed out all the morons?
:|
We tried that but you guys are pretty resilient.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:59 pmAlejandro Says:
Purple State Says:
You die if you were in a 100% oxygen atmosphere, even though we need it to survive. Plants die in 100% carbon dioxide, even though they need it to survive.
Yeah, but plants do better when CO2 goes from 0.25% to 0.36% as it has done in the past 100 years or so.
You’re being vague with these results, though. “Better” how? Do they grow into stronger plants? Are they hardier plants? And does this apply to every plant? And does this factor pollutants into the equation? And what about animals?
The fact is we need to conserve in order to keep the environment as close to livable as possible. We should be doing more about conservation and clean energy now so that we don’t have to panic about it later.
Alejandro Says:
The concentrations are always changing over time. CO2 goes up and down. Climate changes. This is the way it’s been for 4 billion years.
But we haven’t been around for 4 billion years. There hasn’t been an animal like the human being that has been able to come around and use the environment in such a way that it pollutes the atmosphere.
You can’t use the past as an example unless you’re prepared to prove that the past was exactly like how things are now.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:59 pmWAYNEBRO Says: Not at least while the planet supported human life.
This is the crux of the whole problem. Certain people assume that if the earth goes through massive climatic changes, mankind gets to survive. The earth is billions of years old, man has been here for a few thousand. The earth doesn’t need man to continue anymore than it needed the dinosaurs or the mammoths.
Man, thy name is arrogance.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pmOf course. But where is the positive evidence linking human activity and the slight growth of one desert over a very short time period. Can we predict whether the desert will continue to grow or to shrink over longer time periods based on this theory? If not, it’s just a bunch of guessing.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pmWhen I was a child people older than myself told me that eagles used to fly where I grew up, but I never saw one.
Seems that a chemical called DDT was being sprayed to kill mosquitoes. Unfortunately it had the side effect of making the shells on the eagle’s eggs very thin, causing a much higher than normal infant mortality rate.
Now, the government wasn’t absolutely sure that the DDT was the problem, but they were sure enough to ban the use of DDT. Today I saw an eagle flying overhead.
The scientific consensus is that CO2 emissions are causing climactic change. The same type of scientific consensus was used to make the connection between DDT and eagles. While I am very fond of eagles, and they did deserve saving, I am even more fond of the environment that sustains human life.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pmActually, a couple of billion years ago there was a life form that did just that. Photosynthetic bacteria arose and they were constantly putting out this pollutant called oxygen that killed most other kinds of life at the time. The atmosphere became totally polluted with it. But eventually other organisms evolved the ability to use the oxygen for extra energy. This spawned multicellular life and the rest is history.
Change is the only constant.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pmBut where is the positive evidence linking human activity and the slight growth of one desert over a very short time period.
Right in front of your eyes. Providing you aren’t one of those people who think the Church was wrong in the 90’s when it finally admitted Galileo wasn’t a heretic.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:05 pmHumans have only been here for the blink of an eye.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:08 pmSorry, but you brought up Galileo.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pmhttp://www.kohary.com/crackpot.htm
That’s 30 points.
Humans have only been here for the blink of an eye.
Long enough to have an impact. Too bad it isn’t for the better.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pmThink about it shimkus, you lived through everything chimpy caused.
All of teabag repug making.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:17 pmI was reading on raw story that excess co2 has helped poison ivy to flourish.
Yay!
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pmOne of the greatest dangers posed by Republicans is their stance on climate change. They are elected by lining their pockets with oil and coal money. They are willing to go to any extreme to protect that money, including the destruction of all life on Earth.
Can you think of a better reason not to vote Republican?
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:26 pmwow, just came back to see this alejandro guy claiming he knows more than the vast majority of scientists that are actively studying the issue
too funny
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pmAlejandro Says:
The concentrations are always changing over time. CO2 goes up and down. Climate changes. This is the way it’s been for 4 billion years.
During many of those cycles, the planet was not capable of supporting human life.
Also, for the CO2 levels to change this rapidly in less than a century, as they have, would constitute more of a radical ecosystem change than even the Cambrian explosion.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pmAlejandro Says:
Can we predict whether the desert will continue to grow or to shrink over longer time periods based on this theory?
Yes. That’s the sort of thing that science is good for.
.
Alejandro Says:
Humans have only been here for the blink of an eye.
Yep. And we’re kind of invested in keeping things in such a way that we can stick around longer. According to your approach, the Earth could be a barren rock and that would be OK, because that happens naturally.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 pmSo…he’s talking about the last eight years of reightwing dominance in this country?…no? no? is he talking about the Milton Friedman school of thought?…no? no? is he talking about the Bush Admin torture policy?…no? no? Oh…Shimkus is an idiot begging to be relieved of his office.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 pmIt seems the biggest problem Republicans have is that you can’t see through a $100 bill.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:52 pmAlejandro Says: yada yada yada
Ok troll, perhaps you can explain how dumping tons of pollutants into our atmosphere on a daily basis can possibly NOT have a negative affect on our planet.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pmHow can you control something we exhale??? And that plants live on.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pmDoes it make any sense that America is the only country that is trying to control any type of pollution. Even if there was a problem with so called “Global Warming”-China, India and Russia would have to chip in as well.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:52 pmWhat??????? capping CO2 is and assault on democracy and freedom, that is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. What kind of education did these people get? That kind of stupidity should be an impeachable offense at the very least.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pmkevin1, we’re not talking about respiration. We’re talking about the carbon dioxide emitted industrially, as well as those other greenhouse gasses that get emitted. Plants do exist with carbon dioxide, but also understand that they must exist on water, sunlight, and the right temperature. Pollution will affect the water of which they need to exist, and higher temperatures from the incubation of the earth will alter plant habitats.
How it will affect them can only be guessed, but any negative affect on plants means less for humanity to subsist on.
Also, and here’s the kicker, perhaps we should stand up as the superpower we are and show Russia and China that they need to be on the same program. If we sit around to wait for the rest of the world to do their part before we go all-in with joining them, we might be waiting for a long time.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pmkevin1 Says:
How can you control something we exhale??? And that plants live on.
Look, poop is a natural function too. But if I brought a dumptruck over to your house and buried it in manure, you might have a problem with that, right? Or maybe not, apparently.
Tell you what, I’ll assume that you’re a small child instead of an imbecile, and explain this time, instead of abusing you thoroughly. I guess I’m in a good mood today…
The laws in question are aimed at corporate manufacturing and energy plants burning massive amounts of fossil feuls which each release millions of times the CO2 that your breath does. Auto emissions also add a lot as well, so some of the laws seek to make vehicles more feul efficient.
Nobody’s trying to pass a law that says you have to hold your breath, so don’t worry about that. And even if there were no heavy industry or cars, there’d still be plenty of CO2 for the plants to breathe, so you don’t have to worry about them either.
Now go outside and play.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 pmBruce, it doesn’t appear as though kevin is potty-trained yet, since he doesn’t assume humans can control certain bodily functions.
It would explain a lot, you must admit.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 pmAlejandro Says:
Actually, a couple of billion years ago there was a life form that did just that. Photosynthetic bacteria arose and they were constantly putting out this pollutant called oxygen that killed most other kinds of life at the time. The atmosphere became totally polluted with it. But eventually other organisms evolved the ability to use the oxygen for extra energy. This spawned multicellular life and the rest is history.
A decent argument, perhaps, but I’m having trouble with your logic. Single-celled photosynthetic bacteria may have produced oxygen, but just how dependent were they on their environments to survive? If they could survive without competition, and their surroundings providing for their appetites, then I could understand their operation.
However, the human being is far more complex than a mere single-celled bacterium. We’re talking six billion people who depend on their surroundings–clean water, breathable air, livable weather conditions–to survive. Destroying their environment through pollution, whether is it on purpose or without perceiving the consequences, would end up depleting what humans need to survive. If we ruin the status-quo of the environment and alter the conditions needed to raise vegetation, produce drinking water, and breathe, we’re hurting ourselves, not our competition.
In other words, if humans did as the bacteria did, there would be no perceivable way for them to survive. And I, for one, am not going to depend on religion or evolution to further the human race if there is something that we can do NOW.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 pmU retards just don’t get it, Co2 is a natural gas that every animal and human exhale.
Tell you what, do the world a favor and hold your breath for about 10 minutes –that will help the rest of us more than you know.
The point was that- unless the US gets other nations to help in controlling pollution of any kind, it wouldn’t make any difference what we do “except for the area around the US”.
Forcing industry to put a cap on Co2 would cost us the citizens a sh*t load of money- what a surprise higher taxes from Obama the communist.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pmNo need to worry about global warming. The earth will protect itself by killing off the parasite that is attacking it, much the same way a sick body gets a fever when it’s ill. Oh wait, we’re the parasite. I guess we do have something to worry about.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 pmObama’s a communist? Since when?
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pmI love fing with you guys, if I say one thing you don’t agree with- all of you go nuts!!!
I’m out!!!!
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:06 pmYes Kevin, you are “out”, and you are likely to remain “out” for the rest of your life.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:09 pmkevin1 Says:
U retards just don’t get it…
Oh, we get it alright.
.
kevin1 Says:
Co2 is a natural gas that every animal and human exhale.
Tell you what, do the world a favor and hold your breath for about 10 minutes –that will help the rest of us more than you know.
Already answered. Please use your “page up” key.
.
kevin1 Says:
The point was that- unless the US gets other nations to help in controlling pollution of any kind, it wouldn’t make any difference what we do “except for the area around the US”.
Now all we gotta do is figure out how to get atmospheric gases to respect international borders.
.
kevin1 Says:
Forcing industry to put a cap on Co2 would cost us the citizens a sh*t load of money- what a surprise higher taxes from Obama the communist.
One could also argue that going from horse and buggy to internal combustion vehicles would be extraordinarily expensive. And it was. Except that at the same time it was incredibly good for the economy in other ways.
You’re seeing the glass as half empty; I’m aiming a firehose at the glass.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:11 pmWho went nuts and why does Kevin1 think he is f ucking with anyone?
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:12 pmkevin1 Says:
U retards just don’t get it, Co2 is a natural gas that every animal and human exhale.
First of all, humans ARE animals.
Second of all, we KNOW that CO2 is what you define it as. However, it is a natural gas that is also produced whenever something organic is burned, including fossil fuels.
I’m going to skip the insults, since that’s not the level I stoop to. If you want to make your point, kevin1, I suggest the same level of civility.
The point was that- unless the US gets other nations to help in controlling pollution of any kind, it wouldn’t make any difference what we do “except for the area around the US”.
Forcing industry to put a cap on Co2 would cost us the citizens a sh*t load of money- what a surprise higher taxes from Obama the communist.
While it is true that the top 10 most polluted cities (as of 2004) did not feature a U.S. city, the amount of CO2 produced by America is second to only China, according to CARMA. By showing that we can do our part by capping our emissions, don’t you think we could convince other countries to do the same?
One major problem I see when it comes to discussing global issues is that some of us are afraid of getting our pride hurt as a country. The argument goes that a cut in emissions could mean a cut in industry, so America would not be able to remain a major power. Well, perhaps that is an argument to increase industry through renewable energy. Perhaps we need our pride to be hurt a little for a change in order to reemerge as a responsible country.
By the way, how much is a “sh*t-load of money” to you? Are you going by the GOP’s numbers or the scientists’ numbers?
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pmkevin1 Says:
I love fing with you guys
I’ve never finged in my life, thank you very much.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pmHere we go on the taxes again!
kevin1: If you want to “blame” a politician for increasing taxes, you only need to look at those who started WARS. Wars (warranted or not) increase taxes. Bush/Cheney and the neocon Republicant’s started TWO – thank you very much for those.
Here’s a link to a history of our wonderful taxes:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
In nice peaceful times taxes go DOWN. If they don’t – then by all means do your fun “tea-bagging” in Washington DC.
I don’t know how old you are but, the last 30 years have been nasty and Republican’s have been driving the bus for most of the time. Corporations have run amok in this country and the Republican’ts have been bought and paid for by these unchecked Corporations. We need to lead by example so we’re not hypocrites when we tell the other countries you mentioned to conform (through guilt NOT war) to higher standards.
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 pmall i know is that there have been a few ice ages in the history of this world.. where most of the world was covered in ice..
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 pmSomeone should have stopped global warming back then, think about the continent size ice sheets that must have broken off.. The factories and cars must have had a hell of an impact on those ones too..
Stampede88 Says:
all i know is that there have been a few ice ages in the history of this world.. where most of the world was covered in ice..
Thanks for chiming in, Doctor Science.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:41 pmIf he wants to talk about assaults on democracy, he should compare it to the Patriot Act.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pmcongratulations shitkus, you dumbass… won the silver tonight
on countdown’s Worst Person in the World…
limpbone country here, so too few will know that…
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 pmcorrection: it was the bronze…
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 pm“Shimkus: Capping CO2 a greater ‘assault on democracy’ than 9/11.”
WTF has to do fighting against polution with the political system of a given country?
April 24th, 2009 at 11:53 amThanks SitesSesli Sohbet
April 30th, 2009 at 8:56 amSesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat