EPA asks NJ governor to reconsider decision to leave regional greenhouse gas initiative

chris-christie-portrait-180By Angela Delli Santi

Federal environmental regulators are urging Gov. Chris Christie to reconsider a decision to pull New Jersey from a 10-state greenhouse gas reduction program.

Christie announced withdrawal from the program Thursday.

Read the rest at the Daily Journal.

99 Responses to EPA asks NJ governor to reconsider decision to leave regional greenhouse gas initiative

  1. paul wenum May 26, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Excellent! He will run in 2016!

    • Rob N. Hood May 30, 2011 at 1:23 pm #

      Giving up on 2012 already?

  2. Rob N. Hood May 27, 2011 at 8:30 am #

    The Senate on Tuesday blocked a Democratic proposal to strip the five leading oil companies of tax breaks that backers of the measure said were unfairly padding industry profits while consumers were struggling with high gas prices.

    Despite falling eight votes short of the 60 needed to move ahead with the bill, top Democrats said they would insist that eliminating the tax breaks to generate billions of dollars in revenue must be part of any future agreement to raise the federal debt limit.

    “We have to stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” said Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota. “While oil prices are gouging the pocketbooks of American families, these companies are on a pace for a record profit this year.”

    The defeat on Tuesday was expected since most Republicans were dug in against what they saw as a politically motivated plan in advance of the 2012 elections. Democrats had hoped that directing the savings toward the deficit would make it harder for Republicans to reject it. But of course it didn’t. The only thing Republicans like better than regressive taxes is votes.

    Please organize to save Big Oil! It needs your help! Pay extra for gas when you can, as a donation, or just keep voting Republican. Thanks for your support.

    • Jerk A. Knot May 27, 2011 at 10:36 am #

      RB!! again all costs are passed on to the consumer. If the tax Breaks are cut. then the cost of paying thoes taxes will be deferred to us. oh we are talking 64 billion $$$ just a fraction of the debt. oh, Uncle Sam probably lose more revenue from the total sales taxes lost when the price goes up to cover this cost WHO is going to be hurt in the long run…. THE POOR who are struggling to keep gas in there cars now. The compassionate left wing idots who don’r look deep enoulgh to see the 2nd and 3rd order of effects of their actions……

      • Jerk A. Knot May 27, 2011 at 10:42 am #

        Typing fast today…. Taking the family to ATL to enjoy some time off. Braves, Six Flags, Coke a Cola Museum, Olympic Parck…. and Yes even the Jimmy Carter Presidentual Museum… ( I know but it is cool)… See ya all later. I love Taking my kisd out to see the world… Hey RB come meet me it will do you good to get out of that little room.

      • Rob N. Hood May 27, 2011 at 11:31 am #

        Yes! There’s a good patriot and champion of the people- making lame excuses for the ultra and greedy wealthy! You are very important to the Right-wing apparatus, and don’t you forget it! Big oil just loves that kind of self-inflicted victimhood too. BTW your “logic” about your concern for the poor is lost on me… makes absolutely no sense to me. Course I’m just a wacky Liberal so what do I know?! Maybe, just maybe, big oil DOESN’T NEED THOSE BREAKS AND SUBSIDIES, AND ARE GOUGING ALL OF US, including you. Nah, that CAN’T be, right? They would never do such a thing to patriots like you!!!

  3. Rob N. Hood May 27, 2011 at 11:36 am #

    In case you didn’t notice, Jerk: Even if what you believe is true (real reason would gauge it’s not) then the big bad government is socializing the price of oil, on your behalf, in addition to the poor, of whom you purport to worry about. That then makes you coming out in favor of socialism, at least that one form of it. I’d bet there are other forms you are for as well. Corporate welfare is one HUGE form of socialism I am AGAINST!!!!

  4. paul wenum May 27, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    RB me thinks you should relax and reflect on your thought process. Have a relaxing Memorial Day weekend and say a prayer for those that stood up for your freedom to say what you, I and others are able to freely state on this site as well as others. Let freedom continue to ring loud and clear so we can still freely state our convictions, verbally, written, telephonic et al. Suggest you relax and take a liberal breath? I assume that you should not have a problem with this request?

  5. Rob N. Hood May 28, 2011 at 6:31 am #

    I say prayers for those who stood up for their rights on the job, either striking or not and were gunned down, fired, or otherwise died young thru employer negligence. Oh, right, that’s Labor Day… oh well, it’s still a free country, sort of, and I will pray the way I like. I don’t need any hen-pecking from you or anyone else regarding how I should pray.

    What many average Americans, especially white guys, don’t seem to understand is that whatever the populist-styled rhetoric of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, the Right’s default position is to side with the millionaires and billionaires – and to show little or no regard for the fate of anyone else, whether working class or sick senior citizens.

    Still, one must give the Right credit for having worked hard refining how to phrase its arguments. Right-wingers even have turned the term “class warfare” against the Left by shouting the phrase in a mocking fashion whenever anyone tries to blunt the “class warfare” that the billionaires have been waging against the middle class and the poor for decades.

    On right-wing TV and talk radio across the country, there are tag teams of macho men pretending that ”class warfare” exists only in the fevered imagination of the Left. But billionaire investor Warren Buffett has acknowledged the truth: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

  6. paul wenum May 28, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

    I will say a prayer for you my friend. You need some assistance. I’m putting my flag up tomorrow.

  7. Rob N. Hood May 29, 2011 at 8:19 am #

    Thanks, us working class need all the prayers we can get to survive life under corporate MIC rule.

  8. paul wenum May 29, 2011 at 9:01 pm #

    I’m the working class. You need a prayer.

    • Rob N. Hood May 30, 2011 at 7:57 am #

      Most of us are. That is why you and yours are your own worst enemy but you don’t even know it.

      • Jerk A. Knot May 31, 2011 at 10:48 am #

        You have just hit the issue RH. You think we are the enemy. That is a term used in warfair. So you disprove your last assertion that CLASS WARFAIR is all in our imagination. What a ruse that is.

        Oh since you said “White Guys” I am thinking that you think Paul, Neil and I am white. I am from the South RB thik hard about this. Am I white? Come on with your guess. Be carefull in your answere I don’t want you to mess up and call me an uncle tom. Racesium comes in many froms. There is not a single race out there that doesent have it brewing in the background. So.. in the list of things you are I now include racebaiter.

        As far as Labor day goes you have the reason for its celebration twisted. It is not for thoes who fought and died for fair labour practices but for thoes who worked and made this country strong. A celebration of the great thing labor bring us it is not a celebration of union orginaziers. Oh I know you are down for the struggle. I would really like to know where in your life time there was a great labor strike for manything other than the selfish wants of the Unions. The moderen day union has done very little for worker. In fact it has probally put mor workers in the unemployment line than it has helped get out of it. Oh I know more right wing Propaganda… But if I dont spew it then you will have free reign to spew your garbage and soil this fie site.

        Lastly, I don’t mind at all if we close all the loops in the tax code. I just want everyone to know that ALL COSTS are passed on to the consumer. Lets do it with our eyes open. If we cut the breaks for oil companies then lets stop the Etheonal and wind and solar…ect ect subsidies. Sa far as the socialization of the energy sector…. no I don’t support it. I see what is going on and I don’t like any of it. Over invlovement in the regulation, licencing ect of every sapect of energy has created a mess that requires legions of accountants and attornied to keep straight. It must be overhauled and reformed. My gripe is that you are focusing on $64 billion in revenue when we need trillions. It is not even a banaid. It is a waist of time. You want to controll spending but you don’t want anyone to suffer. I want everyone to suffer. My precious military as well. But I don’t want some idiot who has no clue of what he is talking about to do the cutting. I want people who understand the risks with real experence in the world to get out there and fix the problems. YOU are not that person. You have no clue nor experence. YOU just cut and post what sounds good to you. I have not read one original thought in any one of your posts. You may be a MC worker but you sound like a union hack to me.

  9. paul wenum May 29, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    Excellent Neil. You ought to be paid for your posts. Must meet you someday.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD May 29, 2011 at 11:17 pm #

      No, I cut & paste just as RNH does. I also provide links to show the source, as RNH does not. I want you to know where I get stuff from.

  10. Rob N. Hood May 30, 2011 at 7:59 am #

    All bow down to Sir Neil… thou hast noble cut and paste ethics, to put others to their shame… all hail thy Neil.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD May 30, 2011 at 11:15 am #

      I was merely pointing out a fact. If you feel shame about it….. you could always post a source.

  11. Rob N. Hood May 30, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    You seem to like to hunt them down. I am not ashamed… are you? I have been open about my use of them, just not anal. It’s the words/message/logic that counts, at least in my opinioin. You all would only use “the sources” to discredit what are otherwise good and true statements. You have done that when possible, instead of actual discourse/communication- it’s all about shaming and/or arbitrary discrediting with you guys. We all know you are superb about it Neil, bravo, and hats off to you.

  12. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD May 30, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    Perhaps because the sources you use are easily discredited.

  13. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD May 31, 2011 at 9:05 am #

    Here is a little exercise for you RNH. Would you not agree with this statement?

    “In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right.”

    Now that sounds just peachy. Doesn’t it? It sounds like something you and I may even agree upon. Right? I mean I think the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right. Don’t you? But, wait. Is it in context? Is it complete? Who said it? Why did they say it? These are important questions. And it is through the process of critical thinking that these questions are asked. And they beg an answer. When you find the source for that, maybe you will understand, just a tiny bit, why I think it is important to post sources. Happy hunting!

    • Jerk A. Knot May 31, 2011 at 9:51 am #

      Bravo!!!!! Neil. Critical thinking is lost on RH…. He will soon post on how arrogant you are and how you think you are so much better than everyone else. He will attempt to blast you as a Brained washed right wing fanatic that can not think for themselves.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD May 31, 2011 at 10:14 am #

        He does that anyway.
        The statement I posted above contains words/message/logic that is the criteria for a good copy & paste by RNH. But to him the source doesn’t matter. It is my philosophy that the source must always be considered, and context is paramount. And if you google the quote I used you will see that completeness is also very important.

        • Jerk A. Knot May 31, 2011 at 11:04 am #

          Here are some more quotes from the same man that lend a good view into how the decievers work.

          “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

          “I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few”

          “Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.”

          “For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man. Nor will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards.”

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD May 31, 2011 at 11:46 am #

            Ok, now you just let the cat out of the bag.

    • Rob N. Hood May 31, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

      No, not arrogant. Inane.

  14. Jerk A. Knot May 31, 2011 at 10:50 am #

    I will vote for anyone who runs against Obama……. Right now living under this leadership is like being on a ship in a hurricane and when you go to see who is at the helm it is Daffy Duck!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. Jerk A. Knot May 31, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    Sorry Neil…

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD May 31, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

      It’s ok. It does not take a genius to figure that I would take a quote from one of the worst people ever for my example.

  16. Rob N. Hood May 31, 2011 at 5:40 pm #

    Bush was one of the worst in our history, if not THE worst. Obama doesn’t even come close to that or even being in the middle of the pack. He is slightly above, I give him a B minus or C plus. W was an F minus. And that, my frenemies, is CRITICAL thinking. How can you judge me for something you lack? Good trick, that.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD May 31, 2011 at 8:26 pm #

      That quote was from Hitler, not Obama! Wow that just completely proves my point!

  17. Rob N. Hood May 31, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    Oh, and it’s the Republicans who have used the “Big Lie” MUCH MUCH MUCH more than anyone else. That is another example of critical thinking. Try it sometime.

  18. paul wenum May 31, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    Thanks Neil and Sir Knot. You got the liberal “Thinking.” Excellent discourse.

  19. Rob N. Hood June 1, 2011 at 9:40 am #

    I knew that the quote was from Hitler… duh. I was making another point based on another of your statements. Your Hitler quote proves NOTHING. Your sense of logic and reason is faulty as usual. You are trying to make a point by comparing apples and aranges. You won’t know what theat means either per your attempt at making a point. You have great difficulty with logic and reason thus cannot recognize it when I demonstrate it daily. Alas, of you people weren’t so tenacious and vicious I would feel sorry for you. As it is I feel sorry for our country and our vanishing democracy.

    • Jerk A. Knot June 1, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

      Robbie Boy, You pound on everyone else for having faulty logic and being poor critical thinkers yet you have never demonstrated either. Please show us an example of critical thinking. OH why bother you will just cut a snipet out of a 3rd party blog and post it as your own.

      Here are some Quotes from a real socialist….

      “The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.”

      “The untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life, is endangering our open and democratic society.”

      “The unfettered free market has been the most radically destructive force in American life in the last generation.”

      “We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”

      “I am convinced that the path to a new, better and possible world is not capitalism, the path is socialism.”

      No they are not the same person either. But they are of the same mindset.

      • Rob N. Hood June 1, 2011 at 2:17 pm #

        What I post is done so to make you think… use your brains logically and rationally, irregardless of my preferences. What continues to amaze me is the difficulty, if not impossible, a task that is for some people. Your post above is random quotes/ideas. All well and good, but open to interpretation and logical discussion. That is all I have tried to do, with my own opinions thrown in once in awhile. All you all ever do is make a judgement out of the blue based upon gut feelings and seemingly nothing else. That is not logical nor rational.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 1, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

          “What I post is done so to make you think”????? What!?!?!?!? What you post is your ideological point of view. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. But I don’t believe you when you say it though. You are not here for discussion. You are here to push buttons, and change the topic. You are not fooling me.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 2, 2011 at 8:46 am #

            irregardless: adv. Nonstandard Regardless
            Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 1, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

      “Bush was one of the worst in our history, if not THE worst. Obama doesn’t even come close to that or even being in the middle of the pack.” Your words.
      Nice try.

      • Rob N. Hood June 2, 2011 at 10:12 am #

        Nice truthiness, is what it is.

        • Jerk A. Knot June 2, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

          lol… AFTER 2 years of spending our great grandchildrens legacy…. you show your inability to reason. Your statement lacks merrit and is without supporting fact.

  20. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 1, 2011 at 9:59 am #

    Here is a story that just infuriates me. This is a scare tactic, disguised as science because in reality if ocean temps rise with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the ocean’s CO2 level would decrease from outgassing, not increase. Cool water absorbs CO2, warm water releases CO2, (a fact not considered in the experiment). And the entire experiment rests solely on conclusions of the IPCC, which are questionable at best (can you say computer models?). And the “scare” is shamelessly directed at children because the fish they used in the experiment is the Clown Fish which, as the story points out, is the fish in Finding Nemo. It is disgusting!

    Ocean acidity ‘turning fish deaf’
    Ocean acidification caused by fossil fuel emissions may be turning fish deaf.

    Clownfish reared in seawater acidified by carbon dioxide grow up with impaired hearing, a study has found.

    This could have “devastating” consequences for the colourful star of the 2003 animated movie Finding Nemo, say scientists.

    Not only would it leave the coral reef fish vulnerable to predators, but it could impact on their early development and survival.

    For the experiment, researchers reared newly hatched clownfish in water with different levels of acidity.

    After 17 to 20 days, the juvenile fish had their hearing tested by being played the sounds of a predator-rich coral reef.

    “We kept some of the baby clownfish in today’s conditions, bubbling in air, and then had three other treatments where we added extra CO2 based on the predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for 2050 and 2100,” said Dr Steve Simpson, from the University of Bristol.

    “We designed a totally new kind of experimental choice chamber that allowed us to play reef noise through an underwater speaker to fish in the lab, and watch how they responded.

    “Fish reared in today’s conditions swam away from the predator noise, but those reared in the CO2 conditions of 2050 and 2100 showed no response.”

    The findings were published in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 4, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

      More on this from:
      “This is very important, because the paper assumes that only an increase of CO2 will change clownfish behavior. Did they test for decreasing CO2 levels and what the fish would do then? Apparently not, and that basic use of a control seemed to have escaped those high volume peer reviewers racing to meet the 4 week deadline.

      By not testing for a decreased CO2 situation, they invalidate their own premise. And that’s on top of the fact that they aren’t using wild clownfish embryos and they are making abrupt changes in the water chemistry that generations of the fish have not experienced and doing it only in one direction, up.

      This is high school science stuff guys. I wait for an explanation as to why you didn’t test for a decrease to CO2 and the resultant pH on clownfish embryos.

      So I wonder, if we take 10 peer reviewers from the “wilds” of science, put them in a think tank, increase the ambient CO2 levels to more than double they are used to, and then tell them they have 4 weeks to review 100 papers, will they still produce good science?”

  21. Jerk A. Knot June 1, 2011 at 12:25 pm #


    Here is a lesson on logic because Robbie boy thinks we need it.

    logic deduction: a systematic method of deriving conclusions that cannot be false when the premises are true, esp one amenable to formalization and study by the science of logic. You see Robbie boy. We try to prove our premises before our conclusion so that we will have a better argument. Sorry, son but if our logic is faulty you must show where our premises are at fault. Just stating so is not proof.

    logic induction: a process of reasoning, used esp in science, by which a general conclusion is drawn from a set of premises, based mainly on experience or experimental evidence. The conclusion goes beyond the information contained in the premises, and does not follow necessarily from them. Thus an inductive argument may be highly probable, yet lead from true premises to a false conclusion That is where you get stuck young man. When you wonder outside of the evidance you are on shakey ground. This is what all of these climate scientists did. And thy are still throwing them selves to the lions on their Faulty logic…

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 1, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

      I have to disagree with you on one point JAK. Global warming theory is based entirely on a false premise. The premise that CO2 released into the atmosphere by people will cause a catastrophic rise in global temperatures.

      • Jerk A. Knot June 2, 2011 at 2:04 pm #

        Neil I do not disagree with you there. Neither did I support their premise. If I did so I am sorry for the confusion. My intention was to show their faulty logic. Science is at its best when it moves from one known to an unknown and tests that unknow untill it becomes a known. That is far from what has been happening within the climate change community. They have been jumping from one unknown to another without doing the work it takes to prove anything.

  22. Rob N. Hood June 1, 2011 at 2:11 pm #

    Lumping me together with climate scientists is illogical and irrational. Learn your own lesson.

    • Jerk A. Knot June 2, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

      oh no you are defenatly in a league of your own. They could never reach the levels of logic you have reached. They would never have made it out of High School if they did.

      • Rob N. Hood June 2, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

        That makes no sense. Even your insults are illogical. Or do you disbelieve the college degrees under my belt?

  23. Rob N. Hood June 1, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    P.S. if we only had tenacity, bias, and viciousness with which to live by, we’d all be Neaderthals instead of Homo Sapiens.

    • Jerk A. Knot June 2, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

      Even a caveman can do it.

  24. paul wenum June 1, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    And RB which may I ask are you? By the way, nice reply Neil and Sir knot. Love the juvenile fish. Leave it to the Brits.

  25. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 2, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    I have stated in the past that we don’t have a full understanding of the carbon cycle. I have also expessed a belief that computer generated climate models can not predict future climate because we don’t know all of the parameters that need to be put in to the model. Well here is a story that confirms these two long held beliefs of mine.

    “CORVALLIS, Ore. – A new study concludes that models may be predicting releases of atmospheric carbon dioxide that are either too high or too low, depending on the region, because they don’t adequately reflect variable temperatures that can affect the amount of carbon released from soil.

    The study points out that many global models make estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from soils based on “average” projected temperatures. But temperatures vary widely from those averages. That variability, along with complex biological processes, makes the issue far more complicated.”

    “-“We’ve done a pretty good job of determining how much carbon is getting absorbed by growing trees and vegetation, how much is coming in,” said Mark Harmon, professor and holder of the Richardson Chair in Forest Science at OSU, and one of the world’s leading experts on the effect of decomposition on the Earth’s carbon cycle.

    “However, we know much less about how carbon is released to the atmosphere through the process of decomposition, how much is going out,” he said. “This is half of the equation, and there’s just a huge amount we don’t know about it.”-“

  26. Rob N. Hood June 2, 2011 at 4:52 pm #

    Henry A. Giroux, Peter Lang Publishing Group: “While precise accounts of the meaning of authoritarianism, especially fascism, abound, I have no desire, given its shifting nature, to impose a rigid or universal definition. What is to be noted is that many scholars, such as Kevin Passmore and Robert O. Paxton, agree that authoritarianism is a mass movement that emerges out of a failed democracy, and its ideology is extremely anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and anti-socialistic. As a social order, it is generally characterized by a system of terror directed against perceived enemies of the state; a monopolistic control of the mass media; an expanding prison system; a state monopoly of weapons; political rule by privileged groups and classes; control of the economy by a limited number of people; unbridled corporatism; ‘the appeal to emotion and myth rather than reason; the glorification of violence on behalf of a national cause; the mobilization and militarization of civil society; [and] an expansionist foreign policy intended to promote “national greatness” (and rightwing votes).'”

  27. paul wenum June 2, 2011 at 6:02 pm #

    Seems Soros taught you well.

  28. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 2, 2011 at 6:09 pm #

    A source is posted by RNH!!!! Thank you. And I really mean that. Thank you. I don’t know what your point is other than trying to show us that we are authoritarians. I don’t think it’s true. But even if it were true, would it change the fact that the entire AGW movement is phony, false, ficticious, and fabricated? I don’t think so.

    • Rob N. Hood June 3, 2011 at 10:52 am #

      If the shoe fits…

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 3, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

        Well, would it change the fact that the entire AGW movement is phony, false, ficticious, and fabricated? That is the question.

  29. paul wenum June 2, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

    Neil, reviewed the same as you. Now we definitely know his true colors. Truth Out? Give me a break. Bet you $10.00 that it is Soros backed. Want to take the bet? Truer colors where never known until now.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 2, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

      I don’t know. It seems to me that a “normal” person would have given this up a long time ago, so he’s either paid to do it, or he is not a “normal” person.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 3, 2011 at 8:04 am #

      I checked the source. Giroux is an academic scholar of high acclaim. He’s won many awards, and has written many books, and papers. He’s also a Marxist. No surprise to me that RNH would use him as a source.
      But the greater question for me is even if what RNH thinks about the Right were completely true. Even if we were the worst of Facist, militarist, expansionist, far-right-wing-nut, whacked out lunatics that he believes we are. Would it change the fact that the entire AGW movement is phony, false, ficticious, and fabricated? Would it even make it ok that the IPCC, and affiliated scientists like Mann, Hansen, et al, have lied, manipulated data, and conspired to silence dissention? Of course not.

  30. paul wenum June 2, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    In my humble opinion, both. Good night.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 2, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

      Good point!

  31. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 3, 2011 at 8:46 am #

    And now something germain to the issue of Gov. Christie.

    “In his announcement, Mr. Christie also stated, “I’m certainly not a scientist, which is the first problem. So I can’t claim to fully understand all of this, certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts.”

    That, right there, is why I would not want to ever vote for Christie. I would have to hold my nose if it comes down to Obama vs. Christie, that’s if he runs, but as far as the primaries? No way.

    • Jerk A. Knot June 3, 2011 at 11:01 am #

      It was a political answer… He has not studdied it at all and he took a politically nuteral stand that he has an out on. If this answer blows up in his face he can just say.. “Upon further review” and change his stance claiming he now has more complete information.

  32. Rob N. Hood June 3, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    He used LOGIC and reasoning! Shame on him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Off with his head.

    • Jerk A. Knot June 3, 2011 at 11:11 am #

      He defered his stance on an unknown. He exercised neither. If he did he would have come out on oneside or the other. Logic and reason should lead you to a conclusion. It is obvious you dont know what locic is….. logic always leads to a conclusion. you test your logic by testing your conculusion. if it does not hold up then either your logic was not sound or your premises were faulty. He defered and can now move either way “Upon further review.”

      I just destroyed your conclusion that he used logic with simple proof. This logic baised on the premis that logic leads to conclusions leads me to the conclusion that you dont know what the application of logic is or how to do it.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 3, 2011 at 1:00 pm #

        RNH thinks he’s used logic, and reasoning. I think he’s sitting on a political fence about it. We’ll see if he comes off the fence.

        • Rob N. Hood June 4, 2011 at 8:36 am #

          Logic – deferring to the vast majority of scientists. What is it about even the simplist form of LOGIC you people don’t understand? Wow, very scary…

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 4, 2011 at 11:17 am #

            Vast majority? I think not.
            Oreskes reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and determined that more than 75 per cent of scientists either explicitly or implicitly accept that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities. Thus the ‘scientific consensus’ claim was born.

            However, according to a peer-reviewed analysis of Oreskes by Dr. Benny Peiser, a world-renowned expert on ‘neo-catastrophism,’ it appears the claims by Oreskes are false. Dr. Peiser uncovered from the 928 abstracts that; “just over a dozen explicitly endorse the ‘consensus’ while the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic global warming.” Moreover, the term ‘catastrophic warming’ appears nowhere in any of the papers.

            Interestingly, by reference to the respected ISI Web of Science database inputting the keywords “climate change” there exists over 12,000 relevant science papers that Oreskes conveniently ignored.

            Apart from Peiser’s [2005] debunking of Oreskes, another eminent climate researcher [Pielke 2005] was prompt to expose Oreskes for cynically twisting the full diversity of scientific opinion.

            Kendall Zimmerman [2008] sought to vindicate Oreskes by surveying 10,257 American Earth scientists using a database built from Keane and Martinez [2007]. However, only 30.7 per cent of scientists replied. Zimmerman conceded only five per cent of respondents were climate scientists. In it’s conclusion the study identified a mere 75 climatologists who agreed human emissions were a ‘significant’ contribution to 20th century global warming out of the 10,000 plus earth scientists first approached. In fact, in none of Zimmerman’s questions was the issue of ‘catastrophic’ warming even raised.

  33. paul wenum June 3, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    If we leave it up to Mann, Hanson, et al we are going to be in a heap of dung in the next 20 years, or less. It won’t matter to me but it will to my children and their children and that is my problem with this entire scenario orchestrated by the Gore’s and Soros of the world. Finally, you have the head of GE as Obama’s advisor? What a contradiction which I will never understand. Takes subsidies, don’t pay taxes, off-shore employment. lay off american workers, et al. Nice political climate we live in isn’t it?

  34. Rob N. Hood June 4, 2011 at 8:38 am #

    Obama’s use of corporate elite is nothing new to either party. Both parties do it- all the time. That’s just another example of the similarity in our 2 party system.

  35. paul wenum June 4, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    You still duck the question regarding Soro’s involvement don’t you. Like I said, you have been taught well. Is that where your “Degrees” come from? Simply curious.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 4, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

      Come on Paul, do you really expect him to answer that? Don’t hold your breath. He’ll answer that at the same time he answers my question. Which I think is a very important question, which is why I am going to ask it again right now.
      Rob, for argument’s sake, let’s say that you are 100% right about us here. Say we are the worst kind of fascist, Hitler lovin’, racist, bigot, homophobic, baby eatin’, autoritarian, Earth hatin’, oil lovin’, seal clubbin’ bast**ds the world has ever seen. Would that change the fact that the entire AGW movement is phony, false, ficticious, and fabricated?
      I’m still waiting for an answer to that, and your silence speaks volumes.

      • Rob N. Hood June 6, 2011 at 7:15 am #

        I’ve never said those words about you people, well not most of them anyway. So you’re exaggerating and using hyperbole – AGAIN. What is that called again? Oh, right, irrational and illogical. And I have answered your “question” about AGW. More than once. In several different ways. Like Paul, your comprehension skills seem lacking, to put it kindly. But you folks are childish and annoying, in the extreme. For example, I have answered all of your questions which is more than you’ve done.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 7, 2011 at 5:41 am #

          Just what do you consider an answer? I don’t care if you don’t answer the question, I already know the answer. But don’t lie and say you have already answered the question when you have not.
          BTW exaggeration and hyperbole are the same thing. It is redundant to say I’m exaggerating AND using hyperbole. Did you sleep through your English class?

  36. Rob N. Hood June 5, 2011 at 8:27 am #

    Sorry Neil, hate to disappoint you- I will answer that. I know only the basics about Soros, as I know the basics about most anyone like him, Right or Left. I don’t work for him or anyone associated with him. I am actually off of work currently due to a bad car accident. Paul’s imagination is irrational, juvenile and paranoid. And as for Neil’s question: I have answered that also already. I have not been silent… just the opposite actually.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 5, 2011 at 10:01 am #

      Um…. Huh? Unless it’s in a post awaiting moderation, you have not answered that question. It appears that the only response you have given to my question is “If the shoe fits…..”. Which is an evasion, not an answer.

  37. paul wenum June 5, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Neil, he will never answer in detail a direct question.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 5, 2011 at 9:04 pm #

      It’s really a rhetorical question. Of course it would not change the fact that the entire AGW movement is phony, false, ficticious, and fabricated. But our friend RNH is not here to get to any truth, or understanding. What he does is simple. He says things to make us angry, so that we are reacting to him, and not talking about climate change issues. I don’t care if he gets paid to do it, or if he just gets an ego boost from it, I am not playing the game anymore.

  38. paul wenum June 5, 2011 at 9:45 pm #

    I agree wholeheartedly. Enough said by both of us. I just noticed that there is a post stating that they now wish to brand is with a tattoo as a climate change denier? It will never change will it? Robbie Boy probably holds the iron I assume. No more discourse with a non-entity. Have better things to do and you as well. Take care my friend.

  39. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 5, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    “USA Today reports: “Left unchecked, climate change could increase breathing problems and health costs by exacerbating ground-level ozone, warns a report Thursday by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Higher ozone levels could trigger 2.8 million additional serious respiratory illnesses and 944,000 extra missed school days in the United States in 2020 that could cost $5.4 billion, according to the peer-reviewed report by the Cambridge, Mass.-based environmental group.”

    “CCM and former state climatologist George Taylor responded: Higher temperatures do not cause higher ozone. Ozone in the atmosphere is produced mainly from a reaction between sunlight and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). So sunny summer days end up being the warmest AND the highest in ozone, but it’s the SUN, not the air temperature, that causes the ozone to rise. Joel Schwartz and I wrote a report called Air Quality False Alarm, some years ago addressing this issue.”

    “NRDC commissioned several distinguished university and government scientists to research and write Heat Advisory. Despite the qualifications of the authors, the report’s analysis is faulty and its conclusions are false and misleading. Although urban temperatures have increased an average of 1-3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) during the last 30 years, air pollution has declined across the United States. NRDC created the appearance that ozone will increase in the future by assuming that ozone-forming emissions 50 years from now will be the same as they were eight years ago. In other words, rather than predicting future ozone levels, NRDC actually estimated what ozone levels would have been back in 1996 if 1996 had been a few degrees hotter.”

    “Regardless of future pollution levels, NRDC’s report also exaggerates future warming. The report’s climate change predictions rest on the supposition that future warming will occur due to increases in greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). The report employs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) A2 scenario, which is in the medium-high range of IPCC warming projections. The scenario predicts an average global temperature
    increase of nearly 7 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2100. However, warming of this magnitude is unlikely. The climate models used by the IPCC predict that once warming begins, it increases linearly with exponential increases in CO2. This suggests that a linear extrapolation of past trends is a reasonable guide to future warming. The linear trend in U.S. temperature from 1900-2000 suggests that average global temperature will rise about 0.7 degrees F between 2000
    and 2100, well below the scenario used by NRDC.”

  40. paul wenum June 5, 2011 at 10:02 pm #

    Nice read my friend. By the way, let’s all say “Dose-ve dine-ya” (How pronounced) to Robbie Boy which means “Good bye” in Russian. Took it in the 50’s and always had to hide under my desk being told nukes would fall similiar to global warming. My Teacher held a pen knife to my ear to learn. I learned! Similiar to what is pushed upon us by the MSM, Soros , Gore, GE et al. I don’t hide under desks any longer, nor will I ever again.

  41. Rob N. Hood June 7, 2011 at 9:49 am #

    The ultra-rich know how to control and maintain the status quo. They “remember” the Great Depression, because their class caused it. They remember the “great betrayer” of their class, Franklin Roosevelt, and they “remember” how the country was saved, which to them was betrayal of the worst kind. They’re going to do their best to make sure that that doesn’t happen again. The strategy is death by a thousand cuts.

    This time around they have created the bogus Tea Party to help them achieve total oligarchy.

    Their control and/or destruction of the educational institutions is happening before our eyes. The use of Ayn Rand as “textbooks” being forced on our colleges! Business schools are spewing right-wing propaganda. Step by step they destroyed financial regulation. They control the media.

    They use dirty tricks against the politicians that do oppose them. Why is it that the unrest in this country is not being reflected on the “news?” I’m talking about real unrest, not Tea Party ignorant, bogus and hyped up events.

    This battle is engaged with them holding all the high ground.

    They are using the current crisis to get their way even more. They want to own everything, and it’s all up for grabs in their eyes.

    As for Obama, he’s never been a liberal Democrat. He’s spoken like one at times, but isn’t one. Nor is he able to turn the country around, even if he wanted to, something I am not sure either way about. But in the end, Obama, Baucus, Conrad the DNC et al are the worst enemies of the Democratic Party’s chances of turning this situation around for the benefit of the country at large. The actions and inactions of these political insiders directly contributed to the electoral failure of the Democrats in 2010, along with Republican dirty tricks and voter disenfrachisement.

    • Jerk A. Knot June 14, 2011 at 9:39 am #

      What you miss little Robbie Boy is that what Cearbhallain (a screen name) wants for this countey and what he thinks is good for this country is so far left of center it can not be captured on a chart. That I submit is not “to turn the country around.” You see the DEM party wants to be on the Left side but not that far left. What the ultra libs are mad at the POTUS about is that he failed to stomp on the gas when He had the House and Senate and totally take control of every aspect of our private lives……

  42. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 7, 2011 at 9:17 pm #

    Why on Earth would you take a comment from a poster on another blog, and post it here? Does Cearbhallain know you boosted his comments? Come on! If you’re going to be a JO, can you at least be an original JO? This is the blog that Cearbhallain commented on. http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/stephen-pizzo/36612/watch-for-falling-infrastructure#comment-243045 Just scroll down the comments and you’ll see it. It is word, for word. Total hack copy and paste. Resol a tahw.

  43. paul wenum June 7, 2011 at 11:09 pm #

    Thanks Neil, you and I are in total accord.

  44. Rob N. Hood June 8, 2011 at 5:11 am #

    Gosh Neil, good question. Why would anyone copy anything and post it here?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 9, 2011 at 6:21 am #

      Post your own comments!

  45. Rob N. Hood June 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    Uh… like you do?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 9, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

      Yes. Like I do. When I post something that is written by someone else I post a link to the story, or blog, so whoever wrote it gets the credit they deserve for writing it. When I post something that originates in my own head there is no source to post because this would be the source right here. So, yes, like I do. norom

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 9, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

        Oh BTW, what I post is not comments from other blogs. tihspid

  46. Rob N. Hood June 10, 2011 at 6:47 am #

    Uhh, duh… me so dense…. Neil so smart…. aduh…. thanks for splainin’ why me so dumb… and you so perfecto….uh….

  47. paul wenum June 10, 2011 at 8:31 pm #

    Spell check is in order.

  48. Rob N. Hood June 11, 2011 at 7:38 am #

    Me so dumb can’t spell or work spel check.

  49. paul wenum June 11, 2011 at 11:24 pm #

    Recommend that you someday grow up?

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.