Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 05, 2018

Steven F. Hayward: Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm -- a blaring noise people are tuning out. This outcome was predictable. Political scientist Anthony Downs described the downward trajectory of many political movements in an article for the Public Interest, "Up and Down With Ecology: The 'Issue-Attention Cycle,' " published in 1972, long before the climate-change campaign began. Observing the movements that had arisen to address issues like crime, poverty and even the U.S.-Soviet space race, Mr. Downs discerned a five-stage cycle through which political issues pass regularly.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Climate Change Has Run Its Course

Not according to the scientists.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-06-05 07:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 11

1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-06-05 07:56 AM |

Science is stooopid!

posted by Drudge Retort Right wingers

#2 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2018-06-05 08:25 AM | Reply

That is one of the largest piles of horse manure ever dropped on this site. Steven F. Hayward is a liar and a disgusting human being. We have sea level rise already in Florida which makes Miami Beach flood. Not just when there is a hurricane but when there is a full moon. Climate Change deniers are paid liars who make their livings telling lies for the fossil fuel industry.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 08:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not surprised at who posted that pile of crap.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 08:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I can't read the entire article but I think the point is that the issue has run its course, politically. Not that climate change itself has.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-05 08:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Climate change will never run its course. The climate has been changing the entire history of the planet. The Washington Post should have said global warming hysteria has run its course.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-06-05 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Duh the climate has always cycled duuuuuuh"

Any other gems to add nulli?

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 09:27 AM | Reply

The world is moving away from carbon based energy, too slowly for some, to fast for others. But it is happening.

#8 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-06-05 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I can't read the entire article but I think the point is that the issue has run its course, politically. Not that climate change itself has.

#5 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You and I are agreeing on an awful lot lately. It's scaring me...

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-06-05 11:43 AM | Reply

Climate change will never run its course. The climate has been changing the entire history of the planet. The Washington Post should have said global warming hysteria has run its course.

#6 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

The entire scientific community disagrees with you.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-06-05 11:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

I can't read the entire article but I think the point is that the issue has run its course, politically. Not that climate change itself has.

#5 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Yes. This.

It's a legitimate issue that has been WAY over-hyped to the point that people are now tuning it out, which is extremely unfortunate.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Climate Change Has Run Its Course

Not according to the scientists.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf

Hell no, it isn't over. No US city is underwater yet like algore promised.

#12 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-05 11:45 AM | Reply

Climate Change deniers are paid liars who make their livings telling lies for the fossil fuel industry. #3 | Posted by Danni at 2018-06-05 08:31 AM

No one, including the article denied climate change, Danni.
"Climate change is over. No, I'm not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue."
There are easier ways to admit that you didn't read the article.

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-05 11:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The world is moving away from carbon based energy, too slowly for some, to fast for others. But it is happening."

Let's guess who it is moving away from carbon based energy too fast? Those who profit from carbon based energy.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 11:48 AM | Reply

Hell no, it isn't over. No US city is underwater yet like algore promised.

#12 | Posted by Sniper

That means it'll never happen! Just like C02 will stop being a greenhouse gas, and you'll never get old and die.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 11:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

It's a legitimate issue that has been WAY over-hyped to the point that people are now tuning it out, which is extremely unfortunate.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah that's it. It was "overhyped". It has nothing to do with polluters bribing politicians and spraying misinformation to spread doubt about the issue and make morons think it's a scam.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 11:49 AM | Reply

Climate Change Has Run Its Course

Rupert Murdoch's newspaper says climate change has run it's course...due to rupert murdoch's new channel telling everyone it's a scam.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 11:50 AM | Reply

climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue,

For this administration.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-05 11:51 AM | Reply

" I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue."

Tell Puerto Rico that. It will become THE issue that will overwhelm all other issues. It is already a big part of the reasons for violence in the ME. Drought is destroying arable farmland in many parts of the world. The sea is changing dramatically and much faster than expected which will affect many nations who depend on sealife for food. Conservatives would love for us to pretend that Climate Change is not going to stay as a major topic in politics, science, sociology, all aspects of life are just repeating a new meme the right is trying to sell.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"It's a legitimate issue that has been WAY over-hyped to the point that people are now tuning it out, which is extremely unfortunate."

DeNile.

"In Egypt, A Rising Sea -- And Growing Worries About Climate Change's Effects"

www.npr.org

#20 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 11:54 AM | Reply

The only political party ON THE PLANET who doesn't accept the dangers of man-made global warming and the need to mitigate it as much as possible is U.S. Republicans. This "America is the only country that is right" schtick has gotten very old. Nobody is buying it except you guys inside your "conservative" bubble.

#21 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-06-05 12:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--The entire scientific community disagrees with you.

Baloney. Some scientists predict moderate, manageable global warming that humans can adapt to; others say we are all going to die. Given the abysmal track record of environmental extremists, public policy should not be based on the worst-case predictions.

#22 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-06-05 12:04 PM | Reply

"Baloney. Some scientists predict moderate, manageable global warming that humans can adapt to;"

Mostly paid by the fossil fuel industry.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 12:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

"public policy should not be based on the worst-case predictions"

Because it is not like those policies would be beneficial apart from climate change concerns, right Nulli?

www.flickr.com

#24 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-05 12:13 PM | Reply

Yeah that's it. It was "overhyped". It has nothing to do with polluters bribing politicians and spraying misinformation to spread doubt about the issue and make morons think it's a scam.
#16 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That is a completely absurd talking-point. The amount of money spent and allocated to climate-alarmism utterly dwarfs that spent by the so-called polluters.

When catastrophic predictions fail to materialize time and time again people begin to tune out.

Address this issue rationally and people will listen.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"That is a completely absurd talking-point. The amount of money spent and allocated to climate-alarmism utterly dwarfs that spent by the so-called polluters. "

Utter nonsense. The fossil fuel industry spends millions and million (billions) to buy polticians to prevent regulations, competition and allow them to build pipelines anywhere they want.

"Address this issue rationally and people will listen."

Just because you choose to believe right wing talking points doesn't mean your view is rational. It's actually highly irrational, denial of science is irrationality by definition.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 12:21 PM | Reply

"That is a completely absurd talking-point. The amount of money spent and allocated to climate-alarmism utterly dwarfs that spent by the so-called polluters."

Citation needed.

#27 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-05 12:24 PM | Reply

What does Jeff think the Koch brothers are buying with their huge political contributions? Good government? Riiight!!!

#28 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"When catastrophic predictions fail to materialize time and time again people begin to tune out."

They are materializing. People like you ignore them.

#29 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-05 12:27 PM | Reply

What does Jeff think the Koch brothers are buying with their huge political contributions? Good government? Riiight!!!

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-06-05 12:25 PM | REPLY

Speaking of. David Koch to retire due to poor health.

#30 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 12:43 PM | Reply

They [catastrophic predictions] are materializing. - #29 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-05 12:27 PM

Citation needed. - #27 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-05 12:24 PM

#31 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-05 12:45 PM | Reply

How about this?

www.google.com

And this?

www.bloomberg.com

www.theguardian.com

#32 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-05 12:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That is a completely absurd talking-point. The amount of money spent and allocated to climate-alarmism utterly dwarfs that spent by the so-called polluters.

When catastrophic predictions fail to materialize time and time again people begin to tune out.

Address this issue rationally and people will listen.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ

How is money SPENT on climate change alarmism? Is a documentary about science "money spent on alarmism".

You're saying the money spent on spreading facts is dwarfed by the amount of money spent on lies, therefore the lies have no effect. Yet the republican party proves you're wrong.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 01:07 PM | Reply

Insurance companies aren't raising coastal rates because "catastrophic predictions fail to materialize". They're doing it because the bean counters listen to facts and data.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 01:08 PM | Reply

Just because you choose to believe right wing talking points doesn't mean your view is rational. It's actually highly irrational, denial of science is irrationality by definition.

#26 | POSTED BY DANNI

You need to borrow the reading fundamentals tudor that Righto recommended to Snoofy and a couple of others.

I don't deny the science. This thread isn't about the science, it's about how the issue of man-made global-warming has lost significance as a political issue.

My position is that one of the biggest reasons it's lost political steam is because those who profit the most from hyping the issue have WAY overshot their wad and people are tuning out.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The reason it seems to you that the issue is losing steam is because all right wing media is telling you that every day, over and over and over. They propagandize you into believing what they want you to believe. You can deny it all you want but those of us who get our information from more unbiased sources read your posts and recognize the talking points all the time. Tell me I don't, I don't care. I do. Here in Florida, sea level rise is something that is affecting decisions about where they buy homes right now.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 01:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

#36 Again, you failed your reading comprehension class.

What is it with you? Do you see "Posted by: JeffJ" and get a case of Tourette's? Is it a Pavlovian response?

AGW is losing steam currently as a political issue. That could change, perhaps even in the very near future. That doesn't change political reality right now.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 01:26 PM | Reply

Speaking of. David Koch to retire due to poor health.

#30 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

David and Charles probably have some younger heirs who are equally nefarious.

#38 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-06-05 01:37 PM | Reply

I honestly don't think it matters if the causes of climate change are a forefront issue anymore.

We've already gone beyond the point where climate change is going to cause significant environmental and demographic issues. The world should probably be focused on how to relocate the hundreds of millions of people who will be displaced by the affects of climate change, and the famines that will be caused by devastation of many of the world's food chains.

#39 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-06-05 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The amount of money spent and allocated to climate-alarmism utterly dwarfs that spent by the so-called polluters.

Yeah you're going to have to link that one because it's not passing my smell test.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 01:56 PM | Reply

My position is that one of the biggest reasons it's lost political steam is because those who profit the most from hyping the issue have WAY overshot their wad and people are tuning out.

Right. It's not at all because of a massive disinformation campaign paid for by lobbyists and corporations.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

AGW is losing steam currently as a political issue. That could change, perhaps even in the very near future. That doesn't change political reality right now.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ

Let's trace the pollution profiteers arguments over time shall we?

First - Climate change isn't happening
Then - Ok maybe it's happening, but it's not because of fossil fuels (even though their own scientists said it was)
Then - Ok maybe it's because of humans, but there's nothing we can do about it
Then - Even if we could do something about it, we shouldn't because maybe climate change is GOOD!
Now - Climate change is overhyped.

Nice of you to faithfully parrot whatever the latest talking points are from the people who profit from destroying your kids' planet.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 02:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Right. It's not at all because of a massive disinformation campaign paid for by lobbyists and corporations.

#41 | POSTED BY JPW

That probably plays a role as well.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 02:23 PM | Reply

Nice of you to faithfully parrot whatever the latest talking points are from the people who profit from destroying your kids' planet.

#42 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I guess I'll add you to the list of those needed a reading comprehension tutor. Also, the sentence I just reproduced is exactly what I'm talking about. "Destroying the planet" is exactly the type of over-hyped rhetoric that causes people to tune this issue out.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 02:25 PM | Reply

"Climate Change Has Run Its Course"

says a publication that has long ago "Run Its Course" in terms of credibility

#45 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-06-05 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"In Egypt, A Rising Sea -- And Growing Worries About Climate Change's Effects"

www.npr.org

#20 | Posted by danni

Do you ever read any history? The old city has been under water for several thousand years.

#46 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-05 02:36 PM | Reply

Just because you choose to believe right wing talking points doesn't mean your view is rational. It's actually highly irrational, denial of science is irrationality by definition.

#26 | Posted by danni

And you don't mimic all the left wing talking points? You are funny. How much of FL has been lost to the sea in the last 50 years?

#47 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-05 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#32 | Posted by DirkStruan

What part of a sand island eroding don't you understand?

#48 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-05 02:44 PM | Reply

I guess I'll add you to the list of those needed a reading comprehension tutor. Also, the sentence I just reproduced is exactly what I'm talking about. "Destroying the planet" is exactly the type of over-hyped rhetoric that causes people to tune this issue out.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ

Hiding behind semantics is a great tactic when you're on the wrong side of an argument.

No reasonable person thinks scientists are saying car exhaust will cause the planet to explode.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 02:45 PM | Reply

And you don't mimic all the left wing talking points? You are funny. How much of FL has been lost to the sea in the last 50 years?

#47 | Posted by Sniper

Left wing "talking points" are scientific facts.

Right wing talking points are DENIAL of scientific facts.

Great false equivalence though. I'm sure Jeff liked it.

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 02:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Destroying the planet" is exactly the type of over-hyped rhetoric that causes people to tune this issue out."

The issue is always important but on a daily basis we have "issues" like Roseanne, Trump, Trump, more Trump, Iran, N. Korea, etc. But Climate Change is still there for people who care about reality.

#51 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 02:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What part of a sand island eroding don't you understand?

#48 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-06-05 02:44 PM | FLAG:

What part of rising sea levels don't you understand?

#52 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-05 02:55 PM | Reply

No reasonable person thinks scientists are saying car exhaust will cause the planet to explode.

#49 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Like I said, if the issue is framed in a reasonable manner, people will listen. When hyped-up rhetoric is employed people tune out.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Like I said, if the issue is framed in a reasonable manner, people will listen."

Sniper will never listen.
Why lie about that?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 02:59 PM | Reply

That probably plays a role as well.

#43 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

LOL

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 03:04 PM | Reply

Something "running it's course" politically is a totally different thing than "running it's course" scientifically. Global Warming is here to stay as a scientific and social issue for generations to come. And the politicians be damned.

#56 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-06-05 03:04 PM | Reply

#49 even worse, climate scientists have never said the planet will be destroyed.

That's just argumentum ad absurdum thrown out be deniers to muddy the waters.

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 03:06 PM | Reply

"My position is that one of the biggest reasons it's lost political steam is because those who profit the most from hyping the issue"

Who has profited from hyping the issue?
Names and dollars.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 03:07 PM | Reply

They spend more time explaining why they're not listening than they do listening.

They do the same with the NFL protests.

It's denial, pure and simple, everytime.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 03:17 PM | Reply

The amount of money spent and allocated to climate-alarmism utterly dwarfs that spent by the so-called polluters.

You haven't a clue how much money is spent by who.

It costs less to create doubt than persuade people to cut back on living comfortably so the earth can recover from humanity's plight on the planet.

All you need is an Alex Jones to say "fake news" and the Trumpublican party falls in line.

#60 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-05 03:17 PM | Reply

This thread isn't about the science, it's about how the issue of man-made global-warming has lost significance as a political issue.

Only due to the fact that the current administration is ignoring it. Because it's more profitable to do so.

How anyone doesn't understand this is just baffling.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-05 03:20 PM | Reply

Like I said, if the issue is framed in a reasonable manner, people will listen. When hyped-up rhetoric is employed people tune out.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ

You clearly don't know your own party.

Republicans aren't going to listen to anyone on climate change no matter how delicately its phrased for their sensitive feelings. They see it as: liberals want to protect the climate, I hate liberals, therefore I oppose protecting the planet. That's all there is to it.

For republicans to accept climate science now, they'd be admitting that their side has been wrong the whole time, which calls into question what else might they be wrong about - trickle down economics, the drug war, immigration, abortion...
They have to stick with fighting environmental protection no matter what. Burning down their own home is better than admitting the libs were right about something. Phrasing it just right aint gonna sway these tribalistic morons.

#62 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 03:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

My position is that one of the biggest reasons it's lost political steam is because those who profit the most from hyping the issue have WAY overshot their wad and people are tuning out.

Who exactly do you imagine is profiting from climate change?

Climate change has lost political steam because Trump makes more money this way.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-05 03:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaksoftly's post #62 understands exactly what conservatives think about global climate change.
I have argued with my conservative brother about climate change. He puts his hands over his ears and just goes lalalalalalalala! Climate Change deniers do not want to know about it, they only want to listen to their right wing talkers repeat propaganda. It's a tribal thing.

#64 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is not mentioned often enough that the media is owned mostly by corporations who are only interested in making money. They are not interested in talking about things their sponsors don't like. Fossil fuel industry buys lots of commercials, as do right wing politicians with their big donations from the fossil fuel industry. Then there is also the large slice of the media that offers right wing opinion such as Fox News.

#65 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 03:41 PM | Reply

It is not mentioned often enough that the media is owned mostly by corporations who are only interested in making money. They are not interested in talking about things their sponsors don't like. Fossil fuel industry buys lots of commercials, as do right wing politicians with their big donations from the fossil fuel industry. Then there is also the large slice of the media that offers right wing opinion such as Fox News.

#65 | Posted by danni

Exactly. That's why you see KOCH INDUSTRIES commercials during a newscast. It's not to make joe six pack go out and buy products from Koch Industries. It's to make the newscast dependent on Koch's money and therefore reluctant to do stories Koch wouldnt want them to do.

#66 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 03:51 PM | Reply

Danni,
Be honest, people do that to you all day, regardless of the topic.

#67 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-06-05 03:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Hmm, maybe both sides are correct, based on science. We should be entering an Ice Age. I found this video interesting. It describes both points of view. Well, except for the fanatical views anyway. It's about 12 mins long.
www.youtube.com

#68 | Posted by Daniel at 2018-06-05 04:02 PM | Reply

Yep, it's conspiracy. I bet the Russians are involved. A lattice of coincidence.

#69 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-06-05 04:16 PM | Reply

"Danni,
Be honest, people do that to you all day, regardless of the topic."

True.

#70 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 04:19 PM | Reply

"Yep, it's conspiracy. I bet the Russians are involved. A lattice of coincidence."

Russia is a fossil fuel producing nation. They aren't worried about Global Climate Change, they will be expanding their farming industry. I watched video of beaches in Siberia with people sunbathing and swimming in the ocean. They will get warm water ports.

#71 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-05 04:22 PM | Reply

The questions got too hard for JeffJ.
He won't be coming back.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 05:35 PM | Reply

Yep, it's conspiracy. I bet the Russians are involved. A lattice of coincidence.

#69 | Posted by visitor_

The "conspiracy theory" is that the russians WERENT involved, and it's all a deep state setup. Try to keep up with your own team's moronic fantasies.

#73 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 05:43 PM | Reply

The questions got too hard for JeffJ.
He won't be coming back.

#72 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Which questions are you referring to?

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 06:03 PM | Reply

Apparently, my question got too hard for Snoofy.
He won't be coming back.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 07:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

On the topic of media/government & what we are told & not told.

I'm curious who may be aware of a NASA report about several planets in our solar system that are also experiencing climate changes? Changes which, apparently, haven't been seen before by NASA & astronomers, and are causing heating as well as other phenomena.

This is not to argue for either side on climate change on Earth. I'd just like to hear any thoughts from anyone who may also be aware of this.

#76 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-06-05 07:35 PM | Reply

JeffJ, #58 and #54.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 08:02 PM | Reply

(But mostly #58.)

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 08:04 PM | Reply

#54 was too dumb to even respond to.

#58 - Green energy cronies, for starters. Let's throw in the all of those studying this issue who annually receive billions in federal grants money.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:05 PM | Reply

#58 - Green energy cronies, for starters. Let's throw in the all of those studying this issue who annually receive billions in federal grants money.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ

Cronies = professionals.

Why should scientists studying climate change work for free?

Bankers deserve millions a year as payment for coming up with new schemes to screw customers and homeowners, but if you're trying to help the species prevent suicide you better do it on a volunteer basis, right?

#80 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 08:27 PM | Reply

Those cronies at Solyndra sure were professional.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:31 PM | Reply

Those cronies at Solyndra sure were professional.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ
Do you just spout every fox news talking point? When are you going to admit they're lying to you and making you look like a fool?

www.nytimes.com

"The company's recent bankruptcy -- which the Republicans are now rabidly "investigating" because Solyndra had the misfortune to receive a $535 million federally guaranteed loan from the Obama administration -- was largely brought on by a stunning collapse in the price of solar panels over the past year or so."

And EVEN IF solyndra had been a complete scam, what would that have to do with climate scientists needing to work for free in order for you to believe their findings? Are these topics related, or just a desperate attempt at a classic JeffJ losing argument bailout deflection?

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 08:34 PM | Reply

The government loan for Solyndra was rammed through and flouted normal government lending requirements. Of course, you defend that.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:37 PM | Reply

The government loan for Solyndra was rammed through and flouted normal government lending requirements. Of course, you defend that.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ

"Rammed through" is republican speak for "Policies I don't like." Turns out they have no problem RAMMING THINGS THROUGH, like taking healthcare from people, but PROVIDING healthcare, or trying to create a brighter future, those things need to be slowed way down and debated to death.

I'm sure you were real upset about the way the tax cuts were RAMMED THROUGH before anyone could read them, since youre so objective and nonpartisan right jeffy?

#84 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 08:43 PM | Reply

#84

No. Rammed through is rammed through. Are you completely unaware of the Solyndra loan background? The Washington Post covered it extensively. Please use Google and educate yourself. You don't have to defend the indefensible just because your team screwed up.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The government loan for Solyndra was rammed through and flouted normal government lending requirements. Of course, you defend that.

#83 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-05 08:37 PM | FLAG:

www.huffingtonpost.com

That's because Solyndra first came into the picture during the Bush administration, when it was one of just 16 firms found eligible for several billion dollars available in the Energy Policy Act of 2005‘s guaranteed loan program.

And more, the Energy Policy Act, which the Bush administration used to promote Solyndra, was passed by the same committee under the leadership of Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas).

One Democrat noted that while the GOP has been having a field day with the involvement of an Obama bundler, another major investor in a similar position is Madrone Capital Partners, run by Walmart's Walton family -- major GOP donors.

Further, the Bush administration nearly pushed a guaranteed loan through for Solyndra the day before Obama took office, ThinkProgress reported.

OOPSIE DAISY OUCHIE WAWA.

#86 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 08:53 PM | Reply

There is no oopsie daisy there. Please define "nearly pushed". They backed off for a reason and even articulated said reason to the nascent Obama administration.

Ouchie wawa my ass.

Like Loaf, you don't have to defend the indefensible because Obama.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Administration officials and outside advisers warned that President Obama should consider dropping plans to visit a solar startup company in 2010 because its mounting financial problems might ultimately embarrass the White House.

"A number of us are concerned that the president is visiting Solyndra," California investor and Obama fundraiser Steve Westly wrote to Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett in May 2010. "Many of us believe the company's cost structure will make it difficult for them to survive long term. . . . I just want to help protect the president from anything that could result in negative or unfair press."

The warning, which did not convince the White House to drop the Obama factory visit, was detailed in e-mails released Monday by the Democratic minority on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The panel is investigating a $535 million government-backed loan to the now-shuttered company.


www.washingtonpost.com

Quit looking for a gotcha that isn't there, Laura.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You don't have to defend the indefensible just because your team screwed up.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ

That's literally what you spend all day every day doing on this site.

#89 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 08:58 PM | Reply

#89 Please show where I defended the indefensible. I'll patiently wait.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 08:59 PM | Reply

I love that what sent Loaf into orbit was criticism of his deity.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:01 PM | Reply

#91 Oops, wrong thread. Sorry.

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:02 PM | Reply

"#58 - Green energy cronies, for starters"

I asked for names and dollars, not vague BS.

"Those cronies at Solyndra sure were professional."

That was a decade ago.

If you're still suffering green energy fatigue because of something that happened ten years ago, you never had any patience for green energy in the first place.

And you literally can't name another green energy company, or any names of actual people who profited from the hype, as you put it.

Finally, nobody hypes Solyndra around here more than climate deniers such as yourself.

You're simply lying to yourself, in an externalized fashion.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 09:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Administration officials and outside advisers warned that President Obama should consider dropping plans to visit a solar startup company in 2010 because its mounting financial problems might ultimately embarrass the White House.
"A number of us are concerned that the president is visiting Solyndra," California investor and Obama fundraiser Steve Westly wrote to Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett in May 2010. "Many of us believe the company's cost structure will make it difficult for them to survive long term. . . . I just want to help protect the president from anything that could result in negative or unfair press."
The warning, which did not convince the White House to drop the Obama factory visit, was detailed in e-mails released Monday by the Democratic minority on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The panel is investigating a $535 million government-backed loan to the now-shuttered company.

www.washingtonpost.com
Quit looking for a gotcha that isn't there, Laura.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-05 08:58 PM | REPLY

Nice goal post move there. Do you want to be honest for once with what you said. This post does nothing to rebut the Bush Administration involvement in the solar start up.

#94 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 09:03 PM | Reply

This post does nothing to rebut the Bush Administration involvement in the solar start up.

#94 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

It certainly does. The Bush administration was initially involved and when Solyndra was thoroughly analyzed not only did they walk away they warned the Obama admin to do the same. The Obama admin didn't listen and the rest is, of course, history.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I asked for names and dollars, not vague BS.

Any company that produces electric cars. Matt Damon received a $7500 subsidy to purchase a Fisker Karma which is comparable to a BMW 7 series.

Ethanol.

All sources of 'green' energy that receive subsidies and usage mandates.

#96 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:07 PM | Reply

www.politifact.com

House Republicans investigating Solyndra have claimed that the Bush administration ultimately rejected the Solyndra loan, but that's not quite the case. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and news media point out that Bush energy officials wanted to get the loan closed on their way out the door -- it was listed as the first of their "three highest priorities through January 15." (Obama took office Jan. 20, 2009.) But the Energy Department's credit committee held things up for more analysis.

"The number of issues unresolved makes a recommendation for approval premature at this time. Therefore, the committee, without prejudice, remands the project to the LGPO [Loan Guarantee Program Office] for further development of information," the committee said.

Plouffe said that the loan guarantee program that awarded half a billion dollars in guarantees to Solyndra "was supported by President Bush." The program was created on Bush's watch by a law he signed and promoted. The program grew under the Obama administration, which ultimately awarded Solyndra's loan guarantee under a new section of the law created by the stimulus. The Bush administration, though, promoted the loan guarantee program, and Bush himself touted it on his way out of office. There's also evidence his administration specifically prioritized Solyndra's project. We find Plouffe's statement Mostly True.

#97 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 09:09 PM | Reply

"All sources of 'green' energy that receive subsidies and usage mandates."

Cool, now do non-green energy.
Why aren't you tired of those subsidies?
Oh, right, you're opposed to all subsidies, but you only ever speak out about green energy subsides.
Why the double standard?

Also, why are you opposed to home heating oil subsidies for low income residents in your part of the country?
The alternative is poor people freeze to death. Why is that the policy you favor?

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 09:10 PM | Reply

It certainly does. The Bush administration was initially involved and when Solyndra was thoroughly analyzed not only did they walk away they warned the Obama admin to do the same. The Obama admin didn't listen and the rest is, of course, history.

#95 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-05 09:04 PM | FLAG:

Making up crap out of whole cloth like you always do you useless GOP Hack.

#99 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 09:10 PM | Reply

#97

The Bush administration didn't approve the Solyndra loan. Period. Your attempted deflections are thoroughly lame.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:10 PM | Reply

"Any company that produces electric cars."

That would be pretty much every car company you can name, wouldn't it?

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 09:11 PM | Reply

Making up crap out of whole cloth like you always do you useless GOP Hack.

#99 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Take it up with Washington Post, bitch.

I provided a source in #88.

I can tell it's a thread critical of Obama - you normally don't try and argue against established facts. But anything even remotely critical of your God causes you to go -------.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:12 PM | Reply

#101

Yep. Some, like Tesla and Fisker, benefit far more than others with this ---------- relationship.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:13 PM | Reply

#98

I AM opposed to all subsidies. Let the market decide.

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:14 PM | Reply

Some companies, like XOM and Shell, benefit far more than others via their ---------- relationships too.

You've never ever once spoken out against it, and you routinely defend it, when I suggest nationalizing energy development on public lands.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 09:15 PM | Reply

Take it up with Washington Post, bitch.
I provided a source in #88.
I can tell it's a thread critical of Obama - you normally don't try and argue against established facts. But anything even remotely critical of your God causes you to go -------.

#102 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-05 09:12 PM | FLAG:

It did not do what you claimed it did and You are calling ME Bitch because I call you out on your dishonesty. Quite telling dear.

#106 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 09:16 PM | Reply

"I AM opposed to all subsidies."

But... Why do you want old people to freeze in the winter?
How come you can't explain why?

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 09:16 PM | Reply

I AM opposed to all subsidies. Let the market decide.

#104 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-05 09:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You don't understand the need for government subsidies do you??? Maybe if you did you wouldn't be that way.

#108 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 09:18 PM | Reply

#89 Please show where I defended the indefensible. I'll patiently wait.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ

This thread dum dum. You defended climate change denial saying the deniers would listen to reason if we spoke to them right. Pathetic.

#109 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 09:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Demand-response and load-management programs, which offer incentives to curtail demand during peak energy use periods in response to system reliability or market conditions." www.energy.gov

Why are you opposed to achieving energy security and grid stability to avoid blackouts and brownouts through programs such as the one I quoted above?

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 09:19 PM | Reply

I AM opposed to all subsidies. Let the market decide.

#104 | Posted by JeffJ

Cool, then the market should include the cost for environmental destruction in fossil fuel costs, shouldn't it?

Or should those costs be paid by our kids, who are currently subsidizing our cheap fossil fuel prices?

#111 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 09:20 PM | Reply

"Programs sponsored by state agencies designed to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy and typically funded out of general tax revenues"

Why are you opposed to promoting energy efficiency?
Is it because it's more profitable to be wasteful?
That would at least make microeconomic sense for your own pocketbook if you are in the energy sales business, but I'll let you answer.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 09:21 PM | Reply

#89 Please show where I defended the indefensible. I'll patiently wait.
#90 | Posted by JeffJ
This thread dum dum. You defended climate change denial saying the deniers would listen to reason if we spoke to them right. Pathetic.

#109 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That's actually not at all what I said, but whatever, you'll believe whatever you feel the need to believe in order to fuel your narrative.

It did not do what you claimed it did and You are calling ME Bitch because I call you out on your dishonesty. Quite telling dear.

#106 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

it did precisely what I claimed it did. You're just pissed because Obama. It's ridiculous that you try and defend it because it really wasn't that big of a deal. It wasn't scandalous - I am not aware of any quid pro quo arrangements tied to the loan. It was a combination of incompetence tied to ideological zealotry. Basically, it warrants criticism and nothing more. You can't even bring yourself to admit that.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:29 PM | Reply

it did precisely what I claimed it did. You're just pissed because Obama. It's ridiculous that you try and defend it because it really wasn't that big of a deal. It wasn't scandalous - I am not aware of any quid pro quo arrangements tied to the loan. It was a combination of incompetence tied to ideological zealotry. Basically, it warrants criticism and nothing more. You can't even bring yourself to admit that.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-05 09:29 PM | REPLY

You've lost your ever loving mind. You are blaming Obama for Solyndra and you really should be going after Dubya because he was the one who pushed for it.

#114 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 09:35 PM | Reply

You've lost your ever loving mind. You are blaming Obama for Solyndra and you really should be going after Dubya because he was the one who pushed for it.

#114 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

He pushed for it by walking away from the loan and then warning the Obama administration for administering the loan?

You are hilarious.

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I AM opposed to all subsidies."
But... Why do you want old people to freeze in the winter?
How come you can't explain why?

#107 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

i voice opposition to green energy subsidies and mandates. You falsely accuse me of being selective and I proudly point out that I'm not and then you engage in exactly what you accused me of doing - some subsidies are good, just so long as they benefit entities I like.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:43 PM | Reply

He pushed for it by walking away from the loan and then warning the Obama administration for administering the loan?
You are hilarious.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-05 09:41 PM | REPLY

lying again are we??? He didn't walk away from it. There was no time to finish it.

#117 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 09:47 PM | Reply

That's actually not at all what I said, but whatever, you'll believe whatever you feel the need to believe in order to fuel your narrative

#113 | Posted by JeffJ

Post #44 dum dum. You blamed climate change deniers denialism on people not using the right words for them. That is defending the indefensible. Just like you defend russian collusion, nazi marches, and everything else horrible about the republican party.

BTW we've now reached the part of every JeffJ thread where the discussion stops being about the thread topic, and devolves into pathetic arguments about who said what and when, all in an effort to dodge around the simple truths that you can't defend - republicans are the party of environmental destruction purely out of spite against liberals.

#118 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 09:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

i voice opposition to green energy subsidies and mandates. You falsely accuse me of being selective and I proudly point out that I'm not and then you engage in exactly what you accused me of doing - some subsidies are good, just so long as they benefit entities I like.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah you're opposed to green energy subsidies, and silent about making our kids pay the cost of our cheap fossil fuels, which is worse and far greater than any subsidy.

Because you're so objective and nonpartisan.

#119 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 09:49 PM | Reply

I AM opposed to all subsidies. Let the market decide.
#104 | Posted by JeffJ

What gives the market the right to decide anything?

#120 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-05 09:55 PM | Reply

lying again are we??? He didn't walk away from it. There was no time to finish it.

#117 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

They walked away and warned against the loan. That is reality, liar.

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:56 PM | Reply

Yeah you're opposed to green energy subsidies, and silent about making our kids pay the cost of our cheap fossil fuels, which is worse and far greater than any subsidy.
Because you're so objective and nonpartisan.

#119 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

well, you got the part in bold right.

What gives the market the right to decide anything?

#120 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

ME!

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:58 PM | Reply

Post #44 dum dum. You blamed climate change deniers denialism on people not using the right words for them. That is defending the indefensible.

You are such a dum dum. And a dishonest one at that. This thread is all about the fact that man-made global warming is an issue that is increasingly diminishing politically - that other political issues are pushing it down the spectrum of importance. That has NOTHING to do with "denialism" which is your typical stereotype for any deviation from your all-encompassing AGW orthodoxy. Nowhere was the science itself denied when I brought up a likely reason as to why more and more people are lowering the priority of this issue.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 10:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"i voice opposition to green energy subsidies and mandates."

You never voice opposition to fossil fuel energy subsides and mandates.
It's either, you oppose green energy subsidies, or you oppose all energy subsides.
It's as though you can't utter the words that you are opposed to fossil fuel mandates.
And then, when you say you do oppose all energy subsidies, and I ask why you oppose home heating oil subsidies for the needy, you have no answer.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:03 PM | Reply

"What gives the market the right to decide anything?
#120 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

ME!
#122 | POSTED BY JEFF"

Through the market power of your money, correct?

So, your policy is to let people who have money decide if poor people freeze in the winter.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:04 PM | Reply

#124

I've said it countless times but apparently that isn't enough so I'll say it again:

I OPPOSE ALL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND MANDATES

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 10:04 PM | Reply

So, your policy is to let people who have money decide if poor people freeze in the winter.
#125 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yep. They can warm their hands up above my Jumbo Joe after I'm done cooking on it in January.

#127 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 10:05 PM | Reply

"They walked away and warned against the loan."

One loan, in a program that was ultimately profitable.
Wait... were all those companies that repaid their loans and more to the taxpayers, were they cronies who got rich too?

Let me guess... you oppose ALL government loans. No housing loans, no VA loans, no education loans, no small business loans.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:06 PM | Reply

I am all about banks issuing loans. It's critical to our economy.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 10:07 PM | Reply

They walked away and warned against the loan. That is reality, liar.

#121 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-05 09:56 PM | FLAG:

No they didn't liar

www.politifact.com

House Republicans investigating Solyndra have claimed that the Bush administration ultimately rejected the Solyndra loan, but that's not quite the case. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and news media point out that Bush energy officials wanted to get the loan closed on their way out the door -- it was listed as the first of their "three highest priorities through January 15." (Obama took office Jan. 20, 2009.) But the Energy Department's credit committee held things up for more analysis.

"The number of issues unresolved makes a recommendation for approval premature at this time. Therefore, the committee, without prejudice, remands the project to the LGPO [Loan Guarantee Program Office] for further development of information," the committee said.

It noted Solyndra's project "appears to have merit." But the clock had run out.

#130 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 10:07 PM | Reply

"I've said it countless times"

But you've never said... why.
You've also never even contemplated the ramifications of actually ending the subsidies.
Your inability to articulate your reasoning, or the effects of your desired outcome, is proof you even know what you're saying.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:07 PM | Reply

"I am all about banks issuing loans. It's critical to our economy."

The banks, or the loans?
If loans from banks are critical to the economy, why aren't loans from the government?
The money all spends the same.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:09 PM | Reply

Only Laura can blame Solyndra's failure on an administration that not only didn't approve a loan to it but warned against the loan later on.

At least Snoofy admits that.

#133 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 10:09 PM | Reply

"So, your policy is to let people who have money decide if poor people freeze in the winter.
#125 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yep. They can warm their hands up above my Jumbo Joe after I'm done cooking on it in January.
#127 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Well, I appreciate your honesty, even when it's delivered in a sarcastic way.

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:09 PM | Reply

Only Laura can blame Solyndra's failure on an administration that not only didn't approve a loan to it but warned against the loan later on.
At least Snoofy admits that.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-05 10:09 PM | REPLY

Goal posts getting mighty heavy by now with all that moving of them you are doing. How sad really.

#135 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 10:12 PM | Reply

#135, Don't worry about the weight, JeffJ gets a fossil fuel subsidy to help with the hauling.

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:15 PM | Reply

JeffJ I'll give you another chance to answer a pretty easy one I asked earlier:

"Why are you opposed to achieving energy security and grid stability to avoid blackouts and brownouts through programs such as the one I quoted above?"

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:16 PM | Reply

Well, I figured if nothing else you'd like the shout-out to the Jumbo Joe.

That little thing, along with the 14.5" Weber Smokey Mountain, carries me through the winter when my bigger kettles and Pit Barrel Cooker are buried under snow.

#138 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 10:18 PM | Reply

On the topic of media/government & what we are told & not told.

I'm curious who may be aware of a NASA report about several planets in our solar system that are also experiencing climate changes? Changes which, apparently, haven't been seen before by NASA & astronomers, and are causing heating as well as other phenomena.

This is not to argue for either side on climate change on Earth. I'd just like to hear any thoughts from anyone who may also be aware of this.

#76 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-06-05 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't believe there is any such NASA report regarding climate changes on other planets, as we've not been able to observe their weather long enough to have any idea what a "normal" climate might be. There are several solar system bodies that have shown some potentially increasing temperatures recently. If you really want to understand what's happening with those, a good place to start would be here: Skeptical Science

#139 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2018-06-05 10:18 PM | Reply

Well, I've got a grad party menu to strategize with my wife. I should get back to this thread mañana.

#140 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 10:19 PM | Reply

"Nowhere was the science itself denied when I brought up a likely reason as to why more and more people are lowering the priority of this issue."

That's a dishonest characterization of your own views.

It was never a "priority" for you, or most anyone on the right, in the first place.

Your priority is the opposite, your priority is opposing anything that would reduce fossil fuel demand and use, including direct subsidies for other types of energy, and indirect subsidies such as for purchasing cars that use other types of energy.

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Well this thread went to hell.

I guess you guys didn't articulate the information good enough for JeffJ's standards. Too bad I thought he was on the verge of admitting he was wrong for a while there.

#142 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 10:20 PM | Reply

"Well, I've got a grad party menu to strategize with my wife."

You're a coward.

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:21 PM | Reply

lMaking up crap out of whole cloth like you always do you useless GOP Hack.

#99 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Take it up with Washington Post, bitch.

I provided a source in #88.

I can tell it's a thread critical of Obama - you normally don't try and argue against established facts. But anything even remotely critical of your God causes you to go -------.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did you actually read the Washington Post article? It doesn't say anything about the Bush administration warning anybody. It talks about Obama officials arguing internally about the financial health of Solyndra. It mentions some VCs warning about potential problems with the finances, and recommends Obama not visit the factory because if it fails, it would look bad politically. However, none of the folks quoted or mentioned in that article were Bush administration officials and definitely not warning against giving the loan. It doesn't even really address the awarding of the loan in the first place.

The summary of the discussion from that article is this: "But the e-mails capture the vigorous debate within the Obama White House about whether the solar-panel manufacturer was a smart bet. They also highlight the angst inside the West Wing about whether the president's initiative to support clean energy was ill-equipped to pick winners, or could, as some hoped, help validate Obama's use of $80 billion in stimulus to build a clean-energy industry." (from the Washington Post article you cited in #88

If you want to support your point of the Bush administration warning Obama not to give the loan to Solyndra, you'll have to find a different source.

#144 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2018-06-05 10:29 PM | Reply

I guess you guys didn't articulate the information good enough for JeffJ's standards. Too bad I thought he was on the verge of admitting he was wrong for a while there.

POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-06-05 10:20 PM | REPLY

I have a better chance of waking up gorgeous tomorrow.

#145 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 10:34 PM | Reply

#76

This may be the 1st time I've ever replied to my own post, and we're talking since the beginning of broadband.

Does no one find it interesting, in any way, that NASA has, very quietly, reported major climate shifts on several planets in our solar system over the past 1-3 years?

Seriously, especially those who've been at the Retort for some years, how long can you go on forcing most threads, regardless of topic, into a literal 'Groundhog's Day' of comments? And I'm speaking to both major "party" affiliations, just to be clear. As for my question above, I imagine any reply would devolve the same way. I also realize it may just not be interesting to anyone at all.

Maybe I should also clarify that I'd rather any discussion on my question not even necessarily relate to climate change on Earth. I'm more interested in learning the cause of NASA's findings and how they may, then, relate to what Earth is going thru, if any relation at all.

#146 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-06-05 10:39 PM | Reply

We don't find you interesting, does that help answer your question?

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:41 PM | Reply

"My position is that one of the biggest reasons it's lost political steam is because those who profit the most from hyping the issue"

Who has profited from hyping the issue?
Names and dollars.

#58 | Posted by snoofy

College researchers
Think tank researchers
Climate change policy wonks

All of which, without research dollars from the public, would be making $15 an hour as an adjunct instead of making $100K as a tenured "professor" poisoning kids minds.

That's why they put sensors for global temps on cement..to hype up temperatures.

#148 | Posted by boaz at 2018-06-05 10:45 PM | Reply

Oh good, little Boaz is here to demonstrate once again how little he knows about how the world actually works.

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

tough crowd tonight. lol

#150 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-06-05 10:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#146,

It's not that your question is uninteresting, it's just that to show other planets, without the benefit of "man made" warming would be too close to showing that man isnt having an effect on the planet and that the planet would be warming regardless if man were here or not.

So that doesnt fit in with the liberal narrative here.

That's why no one has responded to you.

#151 | Posted by boaz at 2018-06-05 10:50 PM | Reply

"and that the planet would be warming regardless if man were here or not."

Indeed, the greenhouse effect would be warming the planet regardless if man were here or not, as it did for the billions of years that man was not here.

But you'd have to believe science to believe that, so don't worry about it.

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 10:52 PM | Reply

It's not that your question is uninteresting, it's just that to show other planets, without the benefit of "man made" warming would be too close to showing that man isnt having an effect on the planet and that the planet would be warming regardless if man were here or not.
So that doesnt fit in with the liberal narrative here.
That's why no one has responded to you.

POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-06-05 10:50 PM | REPLY

The Dust Bowl. Enough said.

#153 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-05 11:04 PM | Reply

"You're a coward."

On a blog you call him a coward. For having a life, unlike you.

Irony at its finest

#154 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-05 11:19 PM | Reply

College researchers
Think tank researchers
Climate change policy wonks
All of which, without research dollars from the public, would be making $15 an hour as an adjunct instead of making $100K as a tenured "professor" poisoning kids minds.
That's why they put sensors for global temps on cement..to hype up temperatures.

#148 | POSTED BY BOAZ

---- you boaz.

Each are worth 10 of your ignorant type.

#155 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 11:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's not that your question is uninteresting, it's just that to show other planets, without the benefit of "man made" warming would be too close to showing that man isnt having an effect on the planet and that the planet would be warming regardless if man were here or not.
So that doesnt fit in with the liberal narrative here.
That's why no one has responded to you.

#151 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Or maybe we were expecting, foolishly, one of you geniuses to use this newfangled, modern innveention called The Google?

www.skepticalscience.com

#156 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-05 11:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"On a blog you call him a coward. For having a life, unlike you."

That's not why he's a coward.
He's a coward for literally refusing to defend his position despite being given every opportunity.
That's what makes a coward.

#157 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 11:40 PM | Reply

It's not cowardice to avoid your childish games. It's common sense.

#158 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 11:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It's the height of cowardice to not stand up for your beliefs.

You do it daily.

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 11:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I stand up for my beliefs constantly.

I simply refuse to play your childish games.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-06 12:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I stand up for my beliefs constantly."

Then stand up for I OPPOSE ALL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND MANDATES

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-06 12:20 AM | Reply

I stand up for opposing all government subsidies and mandates.

#162 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-06 12:22 AM | Reply

No, you're just saying words.
I'm asking you to indulge me by defending your beliefs, almost as though we're on a political discussion board.
Maybe you're actually right, but we'll never know, because you won't answer questions like "what about home heating oil subsidies?" when pressed.
Answering that question would be standing up for your beliefs.
Have a nice evening.

#163 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-06 01:51 AM | Reply

I've answered your questions - apparently you don't like the answers. Too consistent, I guess.

#164 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-06 01:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In a discussion about ramming through loans to a solar power company:
"Rammed through" is republican speak for "Policies I don't like." Turns out they have no problem RAMMING THINGS THROUGH, like taking healthcare from people, but PROVIDING healthcare, or trying to create a brighter future, those things need to be slowed way down and debated to death.
I'm sure you were real upset about the way the tax cuts were RAMMED THROUGH before anyone could read them, since youre so objective and nonpartisan right jeffy? - #84 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-05 08:43 PM

Excellent primer on 'Ways to use Whataboutism'. So tell us, whatabout those tax cuts, Speaksoftly? How do they deflect...I mean reflect...on the article about climate change running it's political course?

#165 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-06 08:03 AM | Reply

I guess you guys didn't articulate the information good enough for JeffJ's standards. Too bad I thought he was on the verge of admitting he was wrong for a while there.
POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-06-05 10:20 PM | REPLY

I have a better chance of waking up gorgeous tomorrow.

#145 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2018-06-05 10:34 PM | FLAG:

Yep just as I thought. Neither happened. Not surprised any.

#166 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-06 08:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Cool, now do non-green energy.
Why aren't you tired of those subsidies?
Oh, right, you're opposed to all subsidies, but you only ever speak out about green energy subsides.
Why the double standard? - #98 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-05 09:10 PM

Mostly because he doesn't deflect to other topics and discusses the subject at hand. I know that'd difficult for you to comprehend.

#167 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-06 08:55 AM | Reply

I OPPOSE ALL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND MANDATES

#126 | Posted by JeffJ

BUT YOU'RE FINE WITH FORCING UNBORN KIDS TO PAY THE COST OF OUR CHEAP FOSSIL FUELS.

Thats the same thing as a subsidy - making others pay your energy cost. Mooching off unborn kids. How conservative.

#168 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-06 01:16 PM | Reply

How specifically are unborn kids paying for the cost of fossil fuels?

#169 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-06 01:18 PM | Reply

"I've answered your questions"

No, haven't answered my questions.

Questions like "Why are you opposed to achieving energy security and grid stability to avoid blackouts and brownouts through programs such as the one I quoted above?" Operative word being why?

Now, its true you've responded to my questions, but your response isn't an answer. It's merely repeating a statement you are either unwilling or unable to defend.

So, as I said, you responded to my questions.
But the way you responded, that's not answering my questions.
That's dodging my questions.
Thats why you remain a feckless coward.

#170 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-06 01:27 PM | Reply

Stop asking stupid questions and I'll provide actual answers.

You come across as entitled to have an answer to every inane question you proffer.

It doesn't work that way.

Your questions are akin to, "Do you still beat your wife?"

#171 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-06 01:54 PM | Reply

"Why are you opposed to achieving energy security and grid stability to avoid blackouts and brownouts through programs such as the one I quoted above?"

How is that even remotely akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

I'm asking you about a specific subsidy you oppose, a subsidy that clearly serves the public interest and is especially helpful for the businesses that rely on electricity to function, which is just about all of them.

Why do you oppose that?

#172 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-06 02:01 PM | Reply

How specifically are unborn kids paying for the cost of fossil fuels?

#169 | Posted by JeffJ

Because you only pay PART of the cost of gas. The rest is paid by whoever ends up paying for drought destroyed farms, flooded homes, moving cities inland, health cost of pollution... those are the people you're mooching off of when you're burning fossil fuels.

#173 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-06 03:39 PM | Reply

When glaciers overtake upstate NY, like they did once, I'll worry about it. Till then I'm gonna continue to burn old tires and plastic.
It's too damn cold.

#174 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2018-06-06 05:22 PM | Reply

When glaciers overtake upstate NY, like they did once, I'll worry about it. Till then I'm gonna continue to burn old tires and plastic.
It's too damn cold.

#174 | Posted by phesterOBoyle

As if we needed more proof on the pathetic state of public education, here ya go.

#175 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-06 05:39 PM | Reply

#139

It appears I did miss one reply & I appreciate it, STATSPLEASE.

And thank you, BOAZ, for your input. Unfortunately, I know you are exactly on point with it. I knew when I mentioned what I did it would likely be taken just as you said, by most.

And to, JPW, I could have listed some specifics on climate changes on other planets, i.e percentages of rises in heat that have been calculated, and wouldn't need Google had I done so. Perhaps the 'geniuses' you mention have figured out Google doesn't have all the answers, but it does offer plenty to click on that usually lead to all sorts of 'answers'.

Heck, I really was just interested in a discussion on it. Well, I'll let y'all get back to all that truth seeking.

#176 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-06-06 06:48 PM | Reply

In reference to the comments made about climate change destroying the planet.. the planet will be just fine. The question is whether man will still be here to enjoy it.

#177 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-06-06 08:19 PM | Reply

"published in 1972, long before the climate-change campaign began"

why did the Dems change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change?

Incase the warming wasn't going to happen, just change.

another question; why does the Left accept the vast scientific research about Global Warming over the past 40+ years, but refuse to accept what scientists have discovered about the baby's development in the womb (Roe V Wade 1973)?

#178 | Posted by Maverick at 2018-06-06 08:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#178 why do you refuse to accept the vast scientific research about Global Warming over the past 40+ years?

#179 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-06 09:04 PM | Reply

--why did the Dems change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change?

So that any variation in average weather, even below normal temperatures and above normal snowfall, could be attributed to CGW--catastrophic global warming.

#180 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-06-06 09:05 PM | Reply

"but refuse to accept what scientists have discovered about the baby's development in the womb (Roe V Wade 1973)?"

Pretty sure the left accepts Roe v. Wade.
Pretty sure it's the right who doesn't accept Roe v. Wade.

Stay in school, kids!

#181 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-06 10:40 PM | Reply

why did the Dems change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change?

When did they do that? Specifically, who?

#182 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-06-06 10:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Redial,

Just stop. You are way too reasonable, rational and smart to play that card.

#183 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-06 10:51 PM | Reply

OK.

#184 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-06-06 11:19 PM | Reply

"why did the Dems change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change?"

Because it changes more than just one aspect to climate. Yes, the world as a whole is getting warmer but, due to it, things like the jet streams from the Arctic are changing too. That results in arctic air flowing south into regions that didn't experience that level of cold in the past while the Arctic itself is warming. Thus, the term "Global Warming" was too simplistic, it is worldwide "Climate Change." Siberia is warmer than in the past, while Great Britain will probably experience a cooling as the Gulf Stream slows or even stops. If that happens, Western Europe will experience cooling, perhaps a mini Ice Age. But other areas, once productive farming lands will experience horrible droughts and heat. And it wasn't the Dems that changed the name it was scientists. Y'll always like to leave them out of the conversation as if they don't matter because you don't have real scientists on your stupid side of the argument. Global Climate Change is not a political argument, it will happen no matter who you elect or what talking head you listen to on Fox News. I don't know if it there is any way to stop it but I do know that doing nothing won't stop it and, for very suspicious reasons, the right seems to be invested in not stopping it. OK, we get more efficient cars, heating systems, cooling systems, ways to create energy without fossil fuels....so what is the downside for average conservatives? Why do they carry the water for fossil fuel billionaires?

#185 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-07 04:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Climate change will never run its course. The climate has been changing the entire history of the planet. The Washington Post should have said global warming hysteria has run its course.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-06-05 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

good luck getting this group of neo-marxists to respond seriously to this post. Any idea which is outside their carefully cultivated domain of delivered truths will be met with nothing other than ad hominem attacks; they don't like arguments against their "settled science".

> some commentators on this board simultaneously "believe" in "settled science" --- i.e, ideology --- and the scientific method, which is a process.

W E W L A D
E
W

L
A
D

#186 | Posted by drpierce at 2018-06-07 06:22 AM | Reply

"The climate has been changing the entire history of the planet."

Straw man.

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 11:52 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort