world

In U.S. Congress, gas prices trump global warming

29 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

Stunning shortsightedness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The republican plan is to delay the cleaning up the envirement at the cost of all else.

Bless their contiuents...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The republican plan is to delay the cleaning up the envirement at the cost of all else."

The Democrat plan is to prevent us from ever drilling for and extracting the vast amounts of oil we have in our own country.

They need to create misery, just as they need race to always be an 'issue' so they can exploit ordinary human envy, distrust and resentment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

super delegate - how is drilling for oil in America going to reduce CO2 emmissions?

You seem to want to substitute one problem for another while blindly pretending both are not even problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Stunning short-sightedness"

No, more like finally coming to one's senses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Stunning short-sightedness"

The Commonwealth will just have to step up, tee hee, and take charge of things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, you seem to be one of the only people who think Climate change isn't largely caused by humans.

super delegate: "The Commonwealth will just have to step up, tee hee, and take charge of things."

Heh, they are. The EU is taking far bigger steps than the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The EU is taking far bigger steps than the US."

You mean their unelected bureaucrats, in the name of saving the planet, are stealing even more money from the poor rubes and making individual liberty a distant memory for most Euros.

Maybe it's that unfortunate streak of American pragmatism in me but I tend to think environmental/scientific problems are best understood by scientists.

32,000 of them question the model:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - I KNOW climate change isn't largely caused by humans. Have you ever heard of Mother Nature? Heck, we can't make it rain or make it stop raining, what makes you think we can warm up or cool down the Earth?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi: I do believe Global Warming is happening, however, just like in the past when people like Gore were silenced, these days people who question or have evidence that Global Warming isn't as bad as people make it out to be are now the ones who are silenced.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heck, we can't make it rain or make it stop raining, what makes you think we can warm up or cool down the Earth?

If I may answer, what makes ME think we can warm up the earth is the fact that I've studied thermal dynamics and am also capable of logic.

For example, what absorbs and stores more heat, black top or a forest? The answer is obviously tarred black top, right? After all, it's darker and has more of an even surface which aids in absorption and prevents reflection and scattering. O.K. second thought provoking question: Are we creating more tarred roads and parking lots at the expense of less natural land and forests or is the situation reversed?

Now, let's move to step 2 in the process. So, we've slightly (emphasis on slightly) warmed the planet by creating more flat surfaces that absorb and store heat to a greater degree than what was there before. This, to a very slight degree, warms the planet, thus slightly melting our ice caps. When that happens, we have more water on the planet. More water means more water vapor. The thing about water vapor is that it tends to do a far better job at reflecting and absorbing short wave radiation (coming from the sun) than it does with long wave radiation, which is what the earth gives off from the heat that is absorbed by the earth. So, the increased water vapor means that there is more long wave radiation being trapped by the water vapor in the atmosphere, creating the greenhouse effect. So, long story a little longer. Through deforestation and increased ubanization, we create a cyclical pattern that takes a small problem with a slightly detrimental impact on the climate of the planet and exasperates it into a larger problem with greater ramifications.

Hope that helps clear a few things up.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed Coal-to-Liquid House Republicans: 97% Supported House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration House Republicans: 90% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration House Republicans: 81% Supported House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity House Republicans: 97% Supported House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas."

via Powerline blog

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Link for Taka313 -

www.globalwarming.nottinghamshiretimes.co.uk/GLOBALWARMINGMYTH.html

Hope that helps clear a few things up.

Sarge

0 ( +0 / -0 )

super delegate - The Democrat plan is to prevent us from ever drilling for and extracting the vast amounts of oil we have in our own country.

Tell me how much oil has been pumped from the oil fields on Gulls Island?

There is enough oil there for 200 years.

Why was the pipeline changed from a 36 inch pipe to an 18 inch pipeline, when they said that they were dealing with a spill as a result of rusted pipes. Why?

Why do they need more oil fields? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well since both Obama and McCain support limits CO2 and the current President does not, it does make sense to wait until the next President is in office since we're talking about a matter of months.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoops.

That should read you WON'T inadvertently....

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is about clear now where the priorities of the greatest nation on earth (tongue in cheek) lie. And the philosophy is evident, be it from republicans or democrats. It reads:"Apres nous le deluge". Heard this somewhere before.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Apres nous le deluge" ( After me, the deluge )

LOL, now we have posters quoting Louis XV in a pathetic attempt to diss the United States of America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One poster, my friend. Opinions might differ on who are pathetic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and I forgot to mention it was not Louis XV who came up with the quote. It was Madame Marquise de Pompadour, remember?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oops, my mistake. Madame Marquise de Pompadour it was!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, you're still wrong and need to do more research.

I'm just curious as to why the same people who believed Bush's hype about the WMD also think climage change is a pipe dream.

Oh, and Sarge, scientists are predicting there will be no Arctic by 2050, possibly sooner.

Oh, and about those ships that can now travel further north than ever before.

Oh, and the one about the oceans warming faster than ever recorded.

Yep, and the other completely unrelated fact about Earth's population rising exponentially, creating ever increasing demand and pumping out ever increasing amounts of CO2.

No, you're right - humans aren't causing climate change. (eyes rolling..)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - The scientists who predict there will be no Arctic by 2050 don't know what they're talking about. But even if they're right, which they're not, if Mother Nature wants there to be no Arctic by 2050, we humans could all die from AIDS or MAD Cow whatever over the next few years, shutting down all our CO2 spewing factories and cars, and it wouldn't make any difference. The Earth was here for billions of years before we humans appeared a few thousand years ago and it'll be here for billions more years. We're just along for the ride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The scientists who predict there will be no Arctic by 2050 don't know what they're talking about.

Of course they don't, and you do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

presto - There are a bunch of scientists who disagree with the gloom and doom scientists - check it out!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, you really need to do more research about climate change.

Sticking your head in the sand and denying real world events isn't research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are a bunch of scientists who disagree with the gloom and doom scientists - check it out!

What are "they" saying? How are these mythical scientists making their point (aside from selling S&M novels on their websites) that humans aren't contributing to global warming?

I provided an actual scientific explanation as to why humans, ARE, in fact, warming the planet.

You provided: "A bunch of scientists." LoL! Would you say...a plethora of scientists?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Global warming is real, but deciding on a way to solve it is something that has turned into a political issue rather than a scientific issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To the extent that they reflect underlying supply and demand, high relative prices for oil is a good thing. It will spur exploration and exploitation of previously marginal fields and provide an incentive for consumers to economize and spur R&D into energy subsitutes. A side benefit of higher prices is that it ought decrease the production of pollution and increase energy efficiency. If the price stays high for long enough it will permanently alter consumption habits.

Unfortunately too many countries, China, Iran and Iraq among them, are dampening the market's price signal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites