Global Warming

[Valke2]

Could you post the direct quote from the article that supports your claim?

The quote I posted regarding the experts was a direct quote. Here it is again:

It should be said at this point that virtually no experts believe that to be the case.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I bet you vehemently opposed Bush’s 2005 Energy Bill:

yes, I did.

You present a false dichotomy. Why can’t both the government and private enterprise fund technological development? A true free market is a theoretical economic system, and it’s completely unrealistic to expect a sector as vital as energy to be completely devoid of government intervention.

I’ve already explained this. Not going to do it again.

Private enterprise is primarily concerned with which technologies are currently economically expedient, so the government ought to help develop tech that has foreseeable long-term benefits.

Can you please cite this specific role of our government in our constitution?

 

[Oscarthecat]

The quote I posted regarding the experts was a direct quote. Here it is again:

It should be said at this point that virtually no experts believe that to be the case.

Maybe you’re referring to something else- that quote, much less that sentiment, was not anywhere in the article I posted.

 

[Calliso]

Ok I was a little confused too cause I couldn;t find that quote in the article oscarcat posted either. It is actually in this link abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=421532&page=1

posted by montyarch I think.

 

[Valke2]

Maybe you’re referring to something else- that quote, much less that sentiment, was not anywhere in the article I posted.

It most certainly was. I will find it again. Here;s the paragraph:

It should be said at this point that virtually no experts believe that to be the case. But several prestigious organizations have found evidence that methane, the main component of gas, can indeed be formed under conditions like those found deep in the Earth.

nathttp://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=421532&page=1ural

 

[Valke2]

Ok I was a little confused too cause I couldn;t find that quote in the article oscarcat posted either. It is actually in this link abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=421532&page=1

posted by montyarch I think.

It is the sixth paragraph.

 

[Gethsemane]

for getsemane. Anybody who believes in global warming and Al Gore are stupid and naive. How about that. There was as much carbon in the last global warming period. The more you degrade people who aren’t willing to believe our ‘novus ordo seclorem’ government–the more stupid you will look when they are exposed.

Talk about fighting fire with fire. What a great way to get someone to stop insulting others, by insulting them back. But hey…what if you’re wrong?

I’m willing to admit that I might not know everything, and that there is a possibility that global warming doesn’t exist, but I’ve been given little evidence to support that. Also, claiming the government is scheming should only be used if you have actual proof -documentation- that such scheme has/is indeed taking place. Anyone can speculate, even scientists. I want facts, not interpretation. And please, no rhetoric.

 

[Oscarthecat]

It is the sixth paragraph.

Ah, you’re referring to this paragraph…

“It should be said at this point that virtually no experts believe that to be the case. But several prestigious organizations have found evidence that methane, the main component of natural gas, can indeed be formed under conditions like those found deep in the Earth.”

I have trouble recognizing quotes that have been cherry picked and taken out of context…

Anyway, I was also under the impression, since your post seemed to be a reference to my post, which you quoted, that you were referencing the article I posted, which had to do with a number of scientists funded by NASA and the Carnegie foundation researching how to produce abiotic hydrocarbons.

The thing about this is that it is impossible for scientists to conclude that abiotic hydrocarbons are not a renewable resource at current levels of consumption because they didn’t actually know until recently that hydrocarbons are actually being renewed through deep earth processes.

Again- hydrocarbons have been found to be in abundant quantities on other planets within our own solar system. Unless you can make a case that extraterrestrial hydrocarbons are of biological origin, I think you’re going to have to concede that abiotic hydrocarbons are a reality.

So any and all opinions prior to this discovery are simply irrelevant, because those opinions weren’t taking into account the whole truth.

 

[vz71]

The quote I posted regarding the experts was a direct quote. Here it is again:

It should be said at this point that virtually no experts believe that to be the case.

OK, I have scanned the entirety of the article myself as well as used the search function on the computer.

I have not found the quote you attribute to the article.

Can you please clarify the specific article and the quote?

Nevermind.
Found it. And I agree with a previous poster, it appears to be taken out of context.

 

[Valke2]

wow. It is difficult to imagine how I can take a quote that essengtially says ‘admittedly no experts agree with this theory.’

Especially when my post prefaced the quote with “the one line that caught my eye…”

I guess if I can’t get someone to simply admit that they were mistaken in such a clear cut issue like a quote, there’s not much chance of having a productive discussion on this issue.

 

[vz71]

I guess if I can’t get someone to simply admit that they were mistaken in such a clear cut issue like a quote, there’s not much chance of having a productive discussion on this issue.

Who specifically?
I have given the various posts a quick read through and I have found no one that did not admit to the existence of the quote specified.

Perhaps I am mistaken. Can you specify?

 

[Valke2]

Who specifically?
I have given the various posts a quick read through and I have found no one that did not admit to the existence of the quote specified.

Perhaps I am mistaken. Can you specify?

All it required was a simple, “oh, my mistake. the quote was there.” But instead I get references to “cherrypicking” misrepresenting the article, etc.

 

[vz71]

All it required was a simple, “oh, my mistake. the quote was there.” But instead I get references to “cherrypicking” misrepresenting the article, etc.

I see. Well my apologies as well.

But you do have to admit that at the heart of the quote is the same old, tired, and proven untrue argument that numbers dictate scientific fact.

To be honest, I had always taken the existence of non-biological sources for hydrocarbons to be fact simply because they exist on other planets. I never considered that some scientist needed to prove it first.

 

[Oscarthecat]

wow. It is difficult to imagine how I can take a quote that essengtially says ‘admittedly no experts agree with this theory.’

Especially when my post prefaced the quote with “the one line that caught my eye…”

I guess if I can’t get someone to simply admit that they were mistaken in such a clear cut issue like a quote, there’s not much chance of having a productive discussion on this issue.

you do realize that when someone commits their OPINION to paper, has it published, and then you quote that OPINION statement, that the quote only carries the weight of an OPINION, and not FACT.

Opinions don’t just magically become fact because someone published that opinion in an article and was later quoted by someone.

So, you quoted an author’s opinion- and that’s all it is, an opinion.

So, you are defending someone’s opinion- nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Oscarthecat]

All it required was a simple, “oh, my mistake. the quote was there.” But instead I get references to “cherrypicking” misrepresenting the article, etc.

No, it wasn’t that simple, because the way you referenced your quote gave me, and apparently others, the impression that you were quoting an article that I posted- and that’s where this confusion began.

Additionally, I hereby submit the following quote to end this debate…

“Oscarthecat is right.”

I think that should settle it.

 

[Michaelo]

Can you please cite this specific role of our government in our constitution?

From Article 1 Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Energy is the lifeblood of this country, so securing a sustainable source of this energy easily falls under providing for the general welfare of the public, thereby authorizing the government to collect taxes for this purpose.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Clearly the purchase, sale, or exchange of energy is a form of commerce…

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

…so the government may implement appropriate laws concerning energy.

The framers of the Constitution could not possibly anticipate all future dilemmas, so they included certain clauses that grant future government officials the ability to properly address problems in the context in which they occur.

 

[Valke2]

I see. Well my apologies as well.

But you do have to admit that at the heart of the quote is the same old, tired, and proven untrue argument that numbers dictate scientific fact.

To be honest, I had always taken the existence of non-biological sources for hydrocarbons to be fact simply because they exist on other planets. I never considered that some scientist needed to prove it first.

If virtually every expert says the theory of renewable oil being generated in the earth’s core is weak, at best, then I think it is relevant to any discussion on such a theory. There’s a difference, even in the article that was linked, between regenerating methane and regenerating hydrocarbons like oil

 

[Valke2]

you do realize that when someone commits their OPINION to paper, has it published, and then you quote that OPINION statement, that the quote only carries the weight of an OPINION, and not FACT.

Opinions don’t just magically become fact because someone published that opinion in an article and was later quoted by someone.

So, you quoted an author’s opinion- and that’s all it is, an opinion.

So, you are defending someone’s opinion- nothing more, nothing less.

And you point being? Let’s take a step back for a second. There’s a link to a newsstory that raises an issue – renewable fossil fuel – which today’s science states is nonsense. And my quoting the statement that virtually all experts disagree with this theory – that’s only opinion. So what do we call the statement that fossil fuels can never run out? Am I to really believe that both opinions are of equal weight?

 

[Valke2]

No, it wasn’t that simple, because the way you referenced your quote gave me, and apparently others, the impression that you were quoting an article that I posted- and that’s where this confusion began.

Additionally, I hereby submit the following quote to end this debate…

“Oscarthecat is right.”

I think that should settle it.

Well, I can’t see how I could have been more clear. Especiallywhen you posted the link again, and it went directly to the article I quoted from.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Energy is the lifeblood of this country, so securing a sustainable source of this energy easily falls under providing for the general welfare of the public, thereby authorizing the government to collect taxes for this purpose.

Sure, that excuse has been used for, well, just about every expansion of government.
You clearly don’t understand the statement “general welfare.”

Read the Federalist Papers, #41- this was a letter from James Madison…he was one of the framers of the constitution, so he might have known what he meant when he helped to write Article 1, Section 8.
constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
Here’s an excerpt…
%between%

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Moving on…

Clearly the purchase, sale, or exchange of energy is a form of commerce…

Sure, but the development of technology is not a form of commerce, and does not necessarily occur across state boundaries- which is what the Commerce Clause regulates.

Good try, though.

…so the government may implement appropriate laws concerning energy.

Correction…the exchange of energy across state lines- not how that energy is produced, and certainly not through the artificial support of one technology over another.

The framers of the Constitution could not possibly anticipate all future dilemmas, so they included certain clauses that grant future government officials the ability to properly address problems in the context in which they occur.

And that was corrected by Ammendment 10, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, the federal government cannot do anything unless specifically granted that power by the Constitution.

So, unless you can show me something that says “The federal government shall have the authority to manageme the research and development of products” then it simply is not a power the feds can exercise.