Sorry, tax breaks != handing out tax payer cash.

They used our money on a gamble they knew would fail.
At least oil companies actually employ people...you know, unlike Solynda and their ilk

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Campaign contributions did you say?

"
Top Contributors, 2011-2012




Contributor Amount
Exxon Mobil $958,373
Oxbow Carbon & Minerals $750,250
Koch Industries $655,400
Chevron Corp $550,246
Chesapeake Energy $537,130
Occidental Petroleum $513,598
Crownquest Operating $358,500
Energy Transfer Equity $353,150
Valero Energy $334,651
Devon Energy $322,612
Mewbourne Oil Co $310,000
Midland Energy $265,000
Williams Companies $258,350
Pilot Corp $256,600
ConocoPhillips $229,678
Marathon Oil $214,906
Ward Petroleum $205,350
American Gas Assn $188,250
Continental Resources $177,000
Walter Oil & Gas $175,300


Another one for you: http://www.rtcc.org/policy/us-oil-lobby-outspends-green-movement-by-factor-of-five/

That's a little article about how fossil fuel out spends on campaign donations by a 5 to 1 margin.

Must be that POWERFUL GREEN LOBBY up there on Capitol Hill writing the laws for Congress eh?

So, if the green idustry's lobby has bought them influence, then some simple math would tell me that the fossil fuel industry has bought FIVE TIMES AS MUCH. You can't argue that money is corrupting the process, then argue that the side with a fraction of the other's money is winning the money battle. That's fucking ludicrous.

What? You admit that CO2 emissions are rising due to human activity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and traps heat, and yet you are saying there is challenge in connecting rising temperatures with human activity?



The study in the article was addressing CO2 levels, not temperatures directly, but it went back 22,000 years, so from a CO2 perspective they have enough data to smooth out any anomalies. From the article-> “The concentration of carbon dioxide increased by 31 parts per million during one 1,600-year interval in the pre-industrial period -- its fastest growth before the industrial age -- and went up by the same amount in the past 20 years.” We can study past temperature swings until the cows come home, but this planet has never had 7 billion people burning stuff like we do now. Temperature swing studies with data from prior to the industrial age have very little relevance to the here and now under these circumstances, because based on those CO2 numbers, it’s gonna get really hot, really fast, and it’s only just beginning.

Look, I’m not blaming anyone, or saying we need to trash our economy to save the planet. The point is that this is real, and it’s actually happening. I can’t believe that it’s too much to ask that this issue is simply acknowledged. Why can’t Joe Conservative just say, ‘yes global warming is real, but I’m not in favor of environmental standards that hurt jobs’? I have so much more respect for that response versus a response of ‘we don’t need environmental standards, because everything is peachy’.

Also, when you think about it, isn’t it immoral to deny global warming? Let’s say some giant asteroid is heading straight for earth, but we don’t currently have the technology to stop it from hitting us. So, from now until it hits us, do we deny it exists, or do we acknowledge it and work to do what it takes to deal with it?

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

Stuuuu's'suu
First off, you brought up oil companies. That's not what we're talking about here.
Secondly, and very specifically, these handful of green companies were the beneficiaries of what can only be described as a pay to play scheme.

They had the ear of the President, and the administration, at their sole discretion, put tax payer dollars to back up loans they KNEW would fail.

We're NOT talking about lobbying congress, green or otherwise.
We're NOT talking about "Big oil".

We're talking about throwing good money after bad because the President can be bought.
Wasn't this thread about ignoring science and facts? Because that's exactly whats been happening at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Go ahead and google the 4 companies I mentioned.
Hell, it took the Military and the FCC to put the kibosh on Light Squared.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

You're yet again completely ignoring the self-interest that "big oil", "big coal", "big gas" or whatever have in manipulating not only public policy, but scientists' studies. THAT is what this thread is all aboout as far as I know. Also as far as I know Congress is the one who makes the budget (or at least approves it) not the president. Was I wrong in that assumption? Thus you can't just talk about the president. Lord knows lobbyists aren't just focusing on the president.

No one in congress can hand out money on their own.
That's the difference.

I'm not arguing the fossil fuel industry doesn't have a huge lobby and huge influence...they do.
So Congress collectively gets paid off to give out Oil subsidies, but the President gets paid off personally, with no checks and balances, to throw our money down a pit in the name of "green" something or other that the Chinese are already kicking our asses at.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I'd love to hear from Pat Green about this as well. My hunch is that he is an environmental scientist that may have a traditional energy company courting him based on the change in stance I've seen in his posting about fracking (HUGE amount of assumptions going on there on my part I know). But I think he may know more about the industry of environmental science than all of us combined. I'd be willing to bet that fossil fuel companies pay their scientists a shit ton more than the government or the green industry, and again, that editorial was about money influencing science.

Of course money influences science...that shit is expensive.
DARPA doesn't pay for unicorn fart research. They will pay for bomb research though and we're pretty good at that science.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

My main point here is that if anybody is going to bring up self-interest, or the influence of money on government in any way, then there's no fucking contest. Big Energy spends much more, and in every reasonable judgement benefits more from their money spent in government, as well as has a far bigger stake in what science tells us about CO2 emmissions than does the "green" industry. Thus again, I think it's laughable to suggest the self-interest of the green indusrty is in any way more responsible than the self-interest of big energy for the direction of either public policy or scientific research. Big Energy doesn't have a leg to stand on in the money and influence debate.

I never asserted any such thing.
I said the President at his sole discretion threw away $6.5 Billion tax payer dollars under the pseudo pretenses of supporting the "green" economy.

$6.5 billion may not sound like a lot but it pisses me off.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Well, 1980 did, and I think I started by addressing that. But I've definitely noticed that usually anytime Solyndra is brought up, there's an unstated assumption that somehow they had undue influence in a way other (traditional) compaines did no, and that's some straight-up bullshit.

So most regular companies have executives make multiple visits to the White house around the same time decisions about Billion dollar loans are being made?
You know, something that smells so bad the executives all plead the 5th and the President is dodging subpoenas by claiming executive privilege?
Yep, most companies have that kind of influence.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Again, good job missing the forest for the trees. Shall I bring up the Cheney energy commission?

Daz, if I'm sick I'm going to make sure I get a 2nd or 3rd opinion before jumping into something drastic, that's all. Not dying, just another opinion before surgery. I can easily flip that analogy and say you're ready for surgery before you know if the tumor is malignant or not, and you can't afford the medical bill. The comment about moving was simply in response to the suggestion that green energy is all about saving humans. Sure, famine and drought or whatever can be a result of global warming, but that stuff happens over time and people will adapt to some extent. Bottom line about that comment is that over-population is the real, bigger problem and eventually people will have to die in waves to even out the balance with natural resources. That's the way life is, for any life form. Some magical form of unlimited green energy won't change that, unless we start eating green food too...soylent green that is.

Yes, we will need those new sources in short time, but the market will dictate the pace at which those sources are discovered and refined. Jump into certain unproven or financially risky energy options and we crush our economy with inflation, just like a huge hike in oil prices when supply eventually runs scarce. I'm not brainwashed by anybody or anything. I prefer science to go full speed ahead with green technologies, I just don't agree with making the industry a political football. Both parties are at fault for digging in, and which side has more lobbying money right now doesn't mean a damn thing, because ultimately they want to corner the market on political power, influence, or profit, as the case may be. That's the real motivation behind these political moves, "clean energy" bills, and research grants. Green corps and even the scientists behind them are infected by the politics and potential grant money, which makes getting unbiased research pretty damn tricky.

I don't know why anyone would fall hook, line, and sinker for either side's sales pitch without separating the science from politics first, and then waiting for reliable and unbiased answers and solutions.

I'd rather Obama had oil execs in the white house, because oil is really important and powers the entire freaking economy right now.
Good or bad that's a fact.
Instead he's peddling favors on our dime with projects that are supposed to be warm and fuzzy but really just suck.

I'm not missing anything.
Look at the Keystone XL pipeline...Whatever he can get away with by executive fiat, he does.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I couldn't agree more. I don't like the mass death stuff, but there are definitely too many people right now.

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

BagBoy,

CO2 emissions and temp are related, but the degree if causation isn't totally clear yet. I'm saying there is an effect, but whether it's a 1% effect or a 95% effect isn't clear. That's not a hard concept. During the mini ice age the earth's average temp went down as far as .8 of a degree, then temps go back up to "normal" and the industrial revolution hits (along with a population boom), and it takes until this century for temps to rise .4 of a degree. So how after this astronomical rise in CO2 emissions, has the average temp only risen .4 of a degree? If there was such a strong connection (which I believe there is, just not a strong one), then the average temp these days should be at least several full degrees higher. How does anyone one of us know that we're not just in a mini warming upswing right now, same as the several mini warming periods during the mini ice age?

I've already stated earlier that I acknowledge global warming, I don't speak for other conservatives, if I even qualify aside from fiscal conservatism. The extent of the human impact, the possibility and viability of any solution, and the motives behind those that are pushing for them are questionable for now. You can go ahead and be totally certain with incomplete and heavily politicized research. Not me, and that doesn't mean I want status quo. Just because I don't take your path at full speed doesn't mean there's only one other path, and that I'm even taking it.

is it my turn?