Jack:

Do you have anything useful to say besides personal insults and mindless political spew? If you don't agree with Kit, give an intelligent counter-argument. Please don't bore us with ad-hominem attacks.

The energy bill may be working, but working towards what? Lemmings off a cliff? As we realize too late that we don't have enough supplies of dino fuel?

It's called planning ahead. Something our current energy policy prefers to ignore. It's MUCH more profitable for the energy and oil companies to respond to an energy "crises" than it is to plan energy security in advance.

Do you have anything useful to say besides personal insults and mindless political spew?

Clearly the irony of that comment is lost on you.

"The problem that I see is that people are accepting anthropogenic global warming as fact, and are rushing to give government more power to control commerce, industry, and personal behavior to stop this "problem". It is far easier to give power away than to take it back, thus this could cause a grave problem in and of itself.

To those of you that are snippy with me,sorry. I say that expecting consistent and dependable empirical evidence does not make me a partisan, it makes me a scientist."

Aha. One of those.

Yes, the veto will come, as the powerful Lobbyists have Bush in their pocket. Meanwhile the poor,elderly, children will take the hits; as they have no voice in present day politics.
Politicians have been bought by money,jobs,gifts. This is the end of our demoracy. Ever since the banks took control and fiat money came into play and We went off the gold standard.
The big deals in corporate America to sqeeze a company of a millions for the few and the rest of America can go to hell, along with any living they had!
Welcome to the next third world called America.
The fire sale has begun..........

Jack:

Cogent argument-
"The problem that I see is that people are accepting anthropogenic global warming as fact, and are rushing to give government more power to control commerce, industry, and personal behavior to stop this "problem". It is far easier to give power away than to take it back, thus this could cause a grave problem in and of itself."

Non-cogent argument-
"Straight from Rove's mouth"

"Clearly the irony of that comment is lost on you."

Clearly. Please, explain it to me.

The end is nigh. There's naught we can do but build bomb shelters in our back yards and horde canned goods.

Bob:
Hoarding canned goods? So,uh, what'll you give me for a case of spinach? I'll throw in a camo outfit and a Ted Nugent LP if the deal's sweet enough.

Hoarding canned goods? So,uh, what'll you give me for a case of spinach? I'll throw in a camo outfit and a Ted Nugent LP if the deal's sweet enough.

So much for cogent arguments.

Jack,

It's humor. I'm sure someone would be willing to explain the joke if you don't get it.

tthoms, I'll give you my prized collection of every single episode of "Out There TV." I'll even throw in "Loose Change second edition"(all on VHS of course. I won't get close to a DVD player as I've heard the neocons use them form mind control and such.)

Tthoms, I wouldn't bother with Jack - go back and read the last several discussions in which he participated, and you'll see he's just here to pick fights with anyone who doesn't think just like him.

I'm sure someone would be willing to explain the joke if you don't get it.

cf.

"Do you have anything useful to say besides personal insults?"

I wouldn't bother with Jack - go back and read the last several discussions in which he participated, and you'll see he's just here to pick fights with anyone who doesn't think just like him.

cf.

"Do you have anything useful to say besides personal insults?"

On a more serious note, as for the whole global warming issue, in the context of this article, I don't see why it really matters whether you believe in it or not. Those of us who are worried about global warming want to reduce CO2 emissions, which means greatly reducing the use of fossil fuels, or centralizing their use in facilities where the CO2 can be sequestered (i.e. power plants) Most people who don't think that CO2 emissions are an issue probably still at least realize that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels and furthermore, that many of the people we are enriching through our wasteful use of petroleum are not spending those petrodollars in ways that align with our best interests as citizens of the "developed" world. I don't see what the bickering is about. The underlying reasons may differ, however, most of us here seem to want the same thing: reduced dependence on fossil fuels, especially non-domestic petroleum. In my view at least, this bill seems to be another step in that direction. Hopefully Bush won't veto it, and if he does, hopefully congress will be able to override the veto, or hopefully a compromise can be reached which doesn't gut the bill of the measures which could help promote clean renewables and energy diversification, especially in the transport sector which needs it the most.

Bbby G-I agree--we need to encourage private companies to bring about alternative energy and eliminate petro consumption asap. Bush did not get a strong follow-thru with both Dem/Rep.. Partisanship is screwing up the country and the war on terror.Mandates coming out of our government is a farce. Incentives for the best alternative energies would best get government out this new revolution.

The science and engineering of reducing ghg is relatively straight forward. There is no evidence that this congress has a clue. Or Marcus for that matter if he thinks 'only thing "working" it seems to me is high oil prices.'

While AGW and an adequate energy supply is closely related subject. Other people doing without seems to be the only only solution that Jack and Marcus understand. The problem with this I see as an engineer, is that I can not convince Jack and Marcus to do without. Jack and Marcus want me to invent some pixie dust someday solution.

So if you look at the science, the Bush administration has a very effective program for reducing AGW too. No I did not hear it from Rove. Countless hours reading various reports and studies.

It would be great if this site supported an "ingore" list that would allow us to filter out certain people ... like jack.

And Kit P.

These other nicks are new to me, but Kit P has a history of trolling at The Energy Blog.  He is totally shameless.  You can catch him in a direct falsehood, throw it in his face several times, and he shifts to some other lie or half-truth without a pause (thread where he did this).

He's got no interest in truth or science, just his position.  He may be an ideologue, or he may be paid to troll and disrupt sites which dare to oppose the interests of his paymasters.  Either way, Karl Rove couldn't ask for a better disciple.

We should watch the rest to see if they fit any similar patterns.

So, Kit P troll, tell us just how effective the Bush anti-AGW program has been.  We already know that it has no carbon caps and doesn't make emitters pay any more money, so there is no business advantage to be gained from cutting emissions.  How did this miracle occur?

The Dumbocrats have only mandated that 15% of our energy come from renewables, in only ten years. They also decreed Hydro has been condemned to be somehow no longer a renewable energy source. To conform to these Jackasses, we will have to use Solar an dWind. To meetthe mandate we shall have to condemn some portion of the country be paved over, every square inch, with solar cells.

Ssince it is only 15% and not 100%, we don't need a area as large as Texas, The States of New York and Massachusetts together wil provide just about the requisite square mileage needed. They will do fine.

Everybody in those States... Get up. Get out! And move! Tear down every house, chop down every tree, and and kill every blssed thing in the two States and start to to pave them with solar cells. Time ios wasting. The waste heat will turn them into Sahara deserts quickly enough and likely fry every thing we don't kill directly. It will alter the local climate of the neighboring ten or twenty states, but too bad. The Jacksasses have spoken. Its the LAW!

Dumbocrat lawyer-legisilators never took a Science course in their lives; can't count anything beyond the rustle and clink of bribes and payoffs. They will just deny they ever voted for such an outcome as the alwasy do. The will say and it was a conspiracy of the sand makers. Solar cells are made of sand.

So greedy, evil, grasping, BIG SAND did it! Another rotten, capitalistic business.

Thank heavens the enviros will step in and sue. How many species would be destroyed to kill ever blessed living organism in New York and Massachusetts to meet this preposterous assinine mandate?

They wouldn't care what to do with the humans who they believe are just a dreg on the environment,anyway. Nonetheless, I don't think the Eenvironmetal Impact Statement will approve all the dead rats and cockroaches froms just NYC, alone.

The Energy Act of 2005 at least is solving some of our needs. This joke certainly won't...

Are you drunk?

Quote: "It would be great if this site supported an "ingore" list that would allow us to filter out certain people ... like jack."

No, jack is quick (with his humor)
jack is nimble (with his words)
jack really makes them stick. (his arguments)

Oh, now I get it, that's why he uses "jack."
IMHO, anyway. I enjoyed the discussion. Peace :-)

You all have no ideas. You just do not realize that you are standing on an unlimited source of clean non-polluteing energy. It is called the EARTH.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY. WISE UP

I believe we're currently passing through a warming cycle. I think the cause is increased solar disruption, as in the past.

I agree that we must eliminate our dependence on foreign oil for all the obvious reasons. We should work to eliminate oil as a source to produce heat, power generation and transportation.

Seriously sequestering CO2 is a waste of resources more productively used elsewhere. That's not to say it shouldn't be done to improve air quality where a serious problem exists.

The development of clean coal usage must also be part of the equation.

The science to accomplish all this has to fence out the politicians and self servers, especially among the "scientists", who have nothing to add but dissension and confusion.

How can a scientist say "the science is settled"?