We need to quit worrying about...

[Yonivore]

...capitalists destroying the planet. It's the fucking environmentalists that are going to do us in.

Biofuel plan will cause rise in carbon emissions (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/biofuel-plan-will-cause-rise-in-carbon-emissions-2129773.html)

[MannyIsGod]

Considering that capitalists are the ones pushing biofuels I'm pretty sure we can call you an idiot once again.

[Yonivore]

Last year Britain signed up to a European Union directive compelling the country to use biofuels to provide 10 per cent of total energy in transport by 2020, as part of a National Renewable Energy Action Plan.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

I know you're stupid but how does that counteract what I said?

[Yonivore]

:lmao

I know you're stupid but how does that counteract what I said?
Well, you didn't link your source that shows "capitalists are pushing biofuels" and I demonstrated -- using quotes from the article -- that Britain engaged in this idiotic biofuels plan pursuant to some desire to appease the Global Climate Change Gods (not exactly capitalist pigs).

I wouldn't blame capitalists for taking advantage of their stupidity but, their motivation to use biofuels wasn't because of any capitalist incentive.

[MannyIsGod]

Let me put it to you this way. Who do you think put together the study your article in the first link references?

Environmentalists or Capitalists?

:lol

You're such a moron. The best byproduct of last weeks elections is being able to read your posts again. Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, you didn't link your source that shows "capitalists are pushing biofuels" and I demonstrated -- using quotes from the article -- that Britain engaged in this idiotic biofuels plan pursuant to some desire to appease the Global Climate Change Gods (not exactly capitalist pigs).

I wouldn't blame capitalists for taking advantage of their stupidity but, their motivation to use biofuels wasn't because of any capitalist incentive.

I didn't link it because I read it on intelligence blogs. The motivation to use bio fuels is tons of fucking corn we produce. Environmentalists - as much as such a general term can encompass a specific group - generally don't want biofuels because of shit exactly like this. Its a pipe dream of people who want to sell shit.

Those people are called capitalists.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1539575.php/Environment-groups-sue-EU%C2%A0over-biofuel-documents
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0504-11.htm

Yoni, there are a couple of links since unlike you I am neither lazy nor dishonest

[DMX7]

Yoni, you've really confused yourself well on this one.

[MannyIsGod]

How about some stuff close to home?

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=6826
http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/01/23/environmental-organizations-call-for-end-to-ethanol-subsidies/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-09/grocery-oil-groups-sue-epa-over-ethanol-decision-update1-.html

Nobody really wants this shit but capitalists are shoving it down our throats.

Your thread is a huge amount of fail.

[Yonivore]

I didn't link it because I read it on intelligence blogs. The motivation to use bio fuels is tons of fucking corn we produce. Environmentalists - as much as such a general term can encompass a specific group - generally don't want biofuels because of shit exactly like this. Its a pipe dream of people who want to sell shit.

Those people are called capitalists.
So, the British, as well as the rest of the European Union, who drew up this "Renewable Energy Plan" is full of idiots duped by capitalists to incorporate biofuels in their environmental plans? Weren't they the ones pushing Kyoto and Copenhagen? I wonder how much of those onerous fiascoes were ideas being pushed by capitalists.

I've known they -- and pretty much the entire environmental movement -- were idiots but, accusing capitalists of exploiting that stupidity is novel and pretty much makes an argument for abandoning such nonsense...unless, of course, you're a capitalist pig profiting from it.

[Yonivore]

How about some stuff close to home?

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=6826
http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/01/23/environmental-organizations-call-for-end-to-ethanol-subsidies/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-09/grocery-oil-groups-sue-epa-over-ethanol-decision-update1-.html

Nobody really wants this shit but capitalists are shoving it down our throats.

Your thread is a huge amount of fail.
I don't buy biofuels, my throat is clean. Maybe you should be talking to the idiots who are buying...

[MannyIsGod]

So, the British, as well as the rest of the European Union, who drew up this "Renewable Energy Plan" is full of idiots duped by capitalists to incorporate biofuels in their environmental plans? Weren't they the ones pushing Kyoto and Copenhagen? I wonder how much of those onerous fiascoes were ideas being pushed by capitalists.

I've known they -- and pretty much the entire environmental movement -- were idiots but, accusing capitalists of exploiting that stupidity is novel and pretty much makes an argument for abandoning such nonsense...unless, of course, you're a capitalist pig profiting from it.

:lmao

So now it is the capitalists pushing biofuels but its still the environmentalists fault?

Thats fucking rich. Environmentalists are held responsible for what capitalists do even when they denounce it.

:lmao !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

I don't buy biofuels, my throat is clean. Maybe you should be talking to the idiots who are buying...

:lmao

Let me guess. The people buying are the environmentalists who say its a bad idea right? Its not the fault of the people selling just the people buying? And the people who are telling you its a bad idea are still the ones at fault?

Jesus Christ one day you should just learn to say "I opened my mouth out of ignorance and I was wrong".

[Yonivore]

:lmao

So now it is the capitalists pushing biofuels but its still the environmentalists fault?

Thats fucking rich. Environmentalists are held responsible for what capitalists do even when they denounce it.

:lmao !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Denounce it? They were incorporating biofuels into a Renewable Energy Plan with the intent of improving the environment. They weren't denouncing it.

Also, where was the IPCC and their consensus when biofuels were being discussed?

[Yonivore]

:lmao

Let me guess. The people buying are the environmentalists who say its a bad idea right? Its not the fault of the people selling just the people buying? And the people who are telling you its a bad idea are still the ones at fault?

Jesus Christ one day you should just learn to say "I opened my mouth out of ignorance and I was wrong".
Where was the British Government saying it was a bad idea when they were writing biofuels into their plan?

And, no, it's never the fault of the seller of a legal product. Demand precedes supply.

[MannyIsGod]

Um, the British government is run by capitalists - not environmentalists.

Environmentalists are the one SUING to stop that renewable energy plan so just how the fuck is it your logic that they were incorporating it into the plan?

You don't seem to understand the first link that you yourself posted. Did you once again skip reading what you post?

[MannyIsGod]

Where was the British Government saying it was a bad idea when they were writing biofuels into their plan?

And, no, it's never the fault of the seller of a legal product. Demand precedes supply.


:lmao !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

This is so good. The environmental groups telling the EU that their plan is broken are at fault for the broken plan. Amazing logic.

[MannyIsGod]

I for one, am thankful to all the capitalists who are out there studying the problem so they can stop us from these mistakes. I wish environmental groups would learn from them and stop writing legislation that benefits companies and takes the capitalists lead in studying the environment and the legislations effects on it.

[Yonivore]

:lmao !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's so funny?

I've got something to sell. If you want it, I'll sell it to you; hell, I'll even make it sound good so you'll buy it. If you don't want it, I probably go out of business.

Unless, of course, you're going to say capitalists tricked environmentally-minded governments into thinking biofuels were the best thing since sliced bread, in which case, I'm back to my argument about sloppy science, the idiots at the IPCC, consensus over empirical scientific proof, yada, yada, yada...

[Yonivore]

This is so good. The environmental groups telling the EU that their plan is broken are at fault for the broken plan. Amazing logic.
Where were the environmentalists, in the EU, and God knows there are plenty of them, when this plan was being hatched?

[MannyIsGod]

Um, they were telling the EU it was a bad idea. You think its their fault the EU listened to the capitalists trying to sell the bio fuels though.

[Spurminator]

Is lying some kind of weird fetish for you? I don't understand what do you get out of it?

[Yonivore]

Um, they were telling the EU it was a bad idea.
Can you source when they started telling them it was a bad idea?


You think its their fault the EU listened to the capitalists trying to sell the bio fuels though.
No, I think it's the EU's fault. The same EU that bows to the IPCC. The same EU that want the planet to blindly follow Kyoto and whatever other shady scientific consensus they vomit.

[Yonivore]

Is lying some kind of weird fetish for you? I don't understand what do you get out of it?
Yeah, Manny, what do you get out of it?

[MannyIsGod]

Oh - so when you said environmentalists above you meant EU? Also, I know you're slow but I already gave you links.

[DMX7]

Someone who calls Kyoto vomit and denies Global Warming is worried about environmentalist destroying the planet. Wow.

[Yonivore]

Someone who calls Kyoto vomit...
Economy destroying vomit.


...and denies Global Warming...
Anthropogenic Global Warming, thank you. The planet gets warm, the planet gets cold, all on its own. Has for, well, eons. We've been warmer and colder -- both without the help -- or even the presence -- of mankind.


...is worried about environmentalist destroying the planet. Wow.
Okay, that was sarcasm. I'm not really worried about environmentalists destroying the planet. I was merely pointing out how futile and stupid are their antics.

[Yonivore]

Hey! Let's talk about the hockey stick graph? Or Al Gore's inconvenient truth of having a big ass...carbon footprint! Or, we could talk about all the lies and faked data that went into forming the IPCC report...

Take your pick.

[baseline bum]

I gotta give Yonivore credit; at least he goes down with the ship.

[Yonivore]

How 'bout the near extinction of polar bears -- floating on pieces of ice -- to the point we keep being shown the same fucking bear in the same fucking picture, year after fucking year, while the polar bear population explodes!

http://www.tropical-rainforest-animals.com/image-files/polarbear.jpg

[Yonivore]

I gotta give Yonivore credit; at least he goes down with the ship.
I'm not going down with that ship. Al Gore is captaining the sinking ship of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.

[RandomGuy]

How 'bout the near extinction of polar bears -- floating on pieces of ice -- to the point we keep being shown the same fucking bear in the same fucking picture, year after fucking year, while the polar bear population explodes!

http://www.tropical-rainforest-animals.com/image-files/polarbear.jpg

Ooooh the irony.

A guy who uses the same tired propaganda year, after year, after year, criticizing others for doing so.

[Yonivore]

Ooooh the irony.

A guy who uses the same tired propaganda year, after year, after year, criticizing others for doing so.
Are we branching out yet again?

Of what propaganda do you speak? Or, are you suggesting that the burgeoning polar bear populations of which I speak are propaganda?

[Spurminator]

Yonivore is a noble crusader against intellectually dishonest propaganda. What a hero and a patriot!

[Yonivore]

Yonivore is a noble crusader against intellectually dishonest propaganda. What a hero and a patriot!
Finally!

[RandomGuy]

...capitalists destroying the planet. It's the fucking environmentalists that are going to do us in.

Biofuel plan will cause rise in carbon emissions (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/biofuel-plan-will-cause-rise-in-carbon-emissions-2129773.html)

Biofuel fuels are not, in and of themselves, "bad for the environment".

They are a laudable goal and, in all certainty, something we will need as oil winds down.

The problem with the way they are used now, they are a net CO2 emitter, simply because production, outside of Brazil still requires a lot of oil.

You know all of this already.

What you seem to be unaware of, is that agribusiness and farming lobbies have pushed biofuel subsidies towards less attractive alternatives, such as corn ethanol and so forth.

Indeed some "environmentalists" have gone along, under the misguided perception that it helps.

However, it has been a consensus among environmental groups for some time that biofuels just aren't ready for prime time yet.

[RandomGuy]

Are we branching out yet again?

Of what propaganda do you speak? Or, are you suggesting that the burgeoning polar bear populations of which I speak are propaganda?

Well, perhaps my criticism was a bit unfair.

You do find new propaganda all the time, as your prolific thread starting clearly demonstrates. :p:

You post half-truths, and rarely stick around long after they are revealed as such.

This thread is a fair example, although I am a bit surprises you are still here. Probably a bit worked up over manny's ascerbic posts, I imagine.

[RandomGuy]

Hey! Let's talk about the hockey stick graph? Or Al Gore's inconvenient truth of having a big ass...carbon footprint! Or, we could talk about all the lies and faked data that went into forming the IPCC report...

Take your pick.

What about the valid data and truth that went into it?

It was a summary of a decade of work. Was all of it lies?

Do you really think all climate scientists are lying?

[Yonivore]

What about the valid data and truth that went into it?
Completely undermined by the lies, obfuscation, misrepresentation, politics, and by the valid data and truths that did not go into it.


Do you really think all climate scientists are lying?
No, not the ones that say climate change is natural, has been occurring since the planet formed, and that man has negligible, if any, affect on persistent global climate.

I also believe the climate scientists that say it is more likely the sun is affecting our climate more than the exhaust from cow's butts.

[Yonivore]

Well, perhaps my criticism was a bit unfair.

You do find new propaganda all the time, as your prolific thread starting clearly demonstrates. :p:

You post half-truths, and rarely stick around long after they are revealed as such.
What was the half-truth in this thread?

Are not the EU and British Governments pioneers in climate-conscious regulations? Did they not incorporate biofuels into their "Renewable Energy Plan" in an effort to be more environmentally conscious? Did it not backfire?

How 'bout we talk about the gem know as MTBE? Remember that fiasco?


This thread is a fair example, although I am a bit surprises you are still here. Probably a bit worked up over manny's ascerbic posts, I imagine.
Nah, just drinking heavily. Y'all aren't bothering me.

[MannyIsGod]

I'd resort to heavy drinking if I was you as well.

[Yonivore]

I'd resort to heavy drinking if I was you as well.
Yes you would.

[RandomGuy]

Completely undermined by the lies, obfuscation, misrepresentation, politics, and by the valid data and truths that did not go into it.

No, not the ones that say climate change is natural, has been occurring since the planet formed, and that man has negligible, if any, affect on persistent global climate.

I also believe the climate scientists that say it is more likely the sun is affecting our climate more than the exhaust from cow's butts.

So basically the only climate scientists who aren't lying are the ones you agree with.

Riiiiight.

That is your biggest problem in a nutshell, IMO.

You are incapable of acknowledging people who disagree with you might be doing so out of a different viewpoint in a principled, intelligent manner.

If someone disagrees with you they are automatically liars and/or idiots.

The need to feel superior to others is one very common trait of people who seem to share a lot of your beliefs. This is often at the expense of compassion, logic, and morality.

Sorry, not all climate scientists are liars or in on the "big conspiracy".

Most genuinely believe they are correct, and they gather a fair amount of data to support the thesis that greenhouse gases are warming the planet.

You can do all the hand-waving you want, but that is much closer to the truth than "they are all liars if Yonivore disagrees with them".

[Yonivore]

So basically the only climate scientists who aren't lying are the ones you agree with.
...and whose conclusions haven't been disproved or found out to be lies, obfuscations, misrepresentations or driven by politics.

Or, you could have phrased that, I tend to agree or lean toward the conclusions of climatologists whose work impresses me, seems reasonable, is well-supported, and who haven't had their work undermined by the lies, obfuscations, or misrepresentations of others or themselves.

That would be more fair.


Riiiiight.
Pretty much.

Then, you engage in virtual psychoanalysis of an anonymous poster on an inconsequential forum. Sorry, stopped reading. Some of you really get into the personalities in here.

[RandomGuy]

...and whose conclusions haven't been disproved or found out to be lies, obfuscations, misrepresentations or driven by politics.

Or, you could have phrased that, I tend to agree or lean toward the conclusions of climatologists whose work impresses me, seems reasonable, is well-supported, and who haven't had their work undermined by the lies, obfuscations, or misrepresentations of others or themselves.

That would be more fair.

No, it wouldn't. It would be, per your usual, less honest.

You made up your mind a long time ago, and simply indulge in confirmation bias.

If you were being honest, you would admit that the only people who "impress" you are the ones you already agree with.

The rest of it, is simply you deceiving yourself, and/or trying to bullshit the rest of us.

Please stop lying to us about how fair you are.

[Yonivore]

No, it wouldn't. It would be, per your usual, less honest.
Sure it would. Suggesting I formed an opinion and waited for scientists to appear that agreed with it is pretty ludicrous. Like I said, it would be more fair to say I agree with the scientists whose arguments make the most sense to me.


You made up your mind a long time ago, and simply indulge in confirmation bias.
You're right. I became convinced a long time ago that man had a negligible affect on global climate. But, because there's been nothing in the interim to convince me otherwise doesn't make me intellectually dishonest or unfair.

There's just not been anything to change my mind. Maybe the scientists with whom I agree are right.


If you were being honest, you would admit that the only people who "impress" you are the ones you already agree with.
Why do I agree with them?


The rest of it, is simply you deceiving yourself, and/or trying to bullshit the rest of us.

Please stop lying to us about how fair you are.
Tell me; which climate scientist would you recommend I read that you believe makes the most compelling case for anthropogenic global climate change?

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, yoni got stomped so bad he had to get drunk to forget.

[Winehole23]

(beer)

[RandomGuy]

Sure it would. Suggesting I formed an opinion and waited for scientists to appear that agreed with it is pretty ludicrous. Like I said, it would be more fair to say I agree with the scientists whose arguments make the most sense to me.


You're right. I became convinced a long time ago that man had a negligible affect on global climate. But, because there's been nothing in the interim to convince me otherwise doesn't make me intellectually dishonest or unfair.

There's just not been anything to change my mind. Maybe the scientists with whom I agree are right.


Why do I agree with them?


Tell me; which climate scientist would you recommend I read that you believe makes the most compelling case for anthropogenic global climate change?

Alright, I have been a bit too polemic in my posts, I will step back from that, and since you are being civil, will return that in kind.

You "became convinced a long time ago".

This statement is important for a couple of reasons.

First, are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?

(this is a simple yes or no, I just want to know if you are familiar with the term, and as of yet make no implications or assertions, the intent of the question is to provide an agreed on conceptual framework for discussion)

[RandomGuy]

Why do I agree with them?


Tell me; which climate scientist would you recommend I read that you believe makes the most compelling case for anthropogenic global climate change?

To answer your first question will take some doing.

The answer to the second question is a bit easier, but it probably not an answer you will be satisfied with.

That answer is: as many as you can. In assessing complex ideas, one should not rely on ONE thing, but take a more comprehensive approach.

If you really want something specific, it isn't too hard to find the peer-reviewed journals. I don't mind doing a quick google search if you want, but you can do it as easily as I can.

[DarrinS]

There is no conspiracy in the climate science community



I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.




The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't




Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible
but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with
these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I
dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I
think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to
gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare
tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring
to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The
CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other
factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may
be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I
postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial
motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal
to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations
are increased and continued grant funding, university
advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon
control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and
other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.





I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, you didn't link your source that shows "capitalists are pushing biofuels" and I demonstrated -- using quotes from the article -- that Britain engaged in this idiotic biofuels plan pursuant to some desire to appease the Global Climate Change Gods (not exactly capitalist pigs).

I wouldn't blame capitalists for taking advantage of their stupidity but, their motivation to use biofuels wasn't because of any capitalist incentive.

Yoni, how the hell do you think we got into this asinine "green" corn ethanol subsidy boondoggle in the US?

That was bought and paid for by Cargill and ADM.

[Wild Cobra]

Considering that capitalists are the ones pushing biofuels I'm pretty sure we can call you an idiot once again.
Should we call then capitalists?

A capitalist uses his own money to turn a profit. Not government subsidies. I call those pushing it liberals.

[ChumpDumper]

Should we call then capitalists?

A capitalist uses his own money to turn a profit. Not government subsidies. I call those pushing it liberals.Capitalists definitely use government subsidies to turn a profit.

All the time.

[TeyshaBlue]

Should we call then capitalists?

A capitalist uses his own money to turn a profit. Not government subsidies. I call those pushing it liberals.

:facepalm:

[Wild Cobra]

:facepalm:

Should we call then capitalists?
Do you know what a question mark is?

I call those pushing it liberals.
What capitalists with the surrounding meanings of the word are pushing the agenda? Have any names?

A person with capital often invests it to make money. If the government is going to give these rich people handouts, they are a fool not to take it, and recoup some of their paid tax dollars. I don't see them as the ones pushing these agendas that require tax credits or grands to achieve. These subsidies to the rich are not needed in a free market. Only in a market where you wish authoritarian powers to pick winners and losers.

[DMX7]

A capitalist uses his own money to turn a profit. Not government subsidies. I call those pushing it liberals.

You must be a huge fan of Exxon Mobil & the entire Military Industrial Complex.

[Yonivore]

To answer your first question will take some doing.
Take a stab at it.


The answer to the second question is a bit easier, but it probably not an answer you will be satisfied with.

That answer is: as many as you can. In assessing complex ideas, one should not rely on ONE thing, but take a more comprehensive approach.

If you really want something specific, it isn't too hard to find the peer-reviewed journals. I don't mind doing a quick google search if you want, but you can do it as easily as I can.
Surely there's one source, one person, one peer-reviewed journal, report, white paper that you can point to and say, "Here, here's a good example of the position with which I agree explained by a person, group, or institution I trust."

Yes, I could Google it but, you can find anything on the Internet.

I want to know what's convinced you so overwhelmingly that humans are responsible for climate change to the point you're willing to engage in expensive, heavy-handed, government-controlled measures to, not solve the problem, but maybe, possibly, theoretically make a small dent over the next 20-50 years.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, how the hell do you think we got into this asinine "green" corn ethanol subsidy boondoggle in the US?

That was bought and paid for by Cargill and ADM.
Because environmentalists were convinced ethanol was the answer and there was a capitalist more than willing to provide the science and resources and product to make their dream come true.

Maybe they should have researched ethanol a bit longer before engaging in yet another silly fad they thought was the be-all, end-all mitigation of the environmental problems caused by petroleum-based fuels.

Has California ever gotten all the MTBE out of their water?

[CosmicCowboy]

Because environmentalists were convinced ethanol was the answer and there was a capitalist more than willing to provide the science and resources and product to make their dream come true.

Maybe they should have researched ethanol a bit longer before engaging in yet another silly fad they thought was the be-all, end-all mitigation of the environmental problems caused by petroleum-based fuels.

Has California ever gotten all the MTBE out of their water?

Yoni you make some good points at times but then you totally blow your credibility unnecessarily defending an impossible position like this one. There ARE predatory corporations that have bought and paid Congress to let them WRITE the legislation than provides them with billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies. They may be taking advantage of the naivete of the "green" movement but ethanol was clearly a cynical manipulation of Federal legislation in order to reap billions in profit. It was NOT "honest businessmen" just "taking advantage" of silly tax breaks written by environmentalists.

[Yonivore]

Yoni you make some good points at times but then you totally blow your credibility unnecessarily defending an impossible position like this one. There ARE predatory corporations that have bought and paid Congress to let them WRITE the legislation than provides them with billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies. They may be taking advantage of the naivete of the "green" movement but ethanol was clearly a cynical manipulation of Federal legislation in order to reap billions in profit. It was NOT "honest businessmen" just "taking advantage" of silly tax breaks written by environmentalists.
It's a simple question; which came first, environmentalists love of ethanol or capitalists exploitation of environmentalists to push ethanol? And, I never called them honest, in fact, I allow it's an exploitation.

But, either way, ethanol only became the monster it is because someone, somewhere, some time ago said it would solve an environmental problem. And, like MTBE and other oxygenates, the environmental crowd never bothered to fully examine their theory before falling in love.

It's the same pattern for pretty much all environmental initiatives which is why I'm so dubious about all of them.

[Wild Cobra]

They may be taking advantage of the naivete of the "green" movement but ethanol was clearly a cynical manipulation of Federal legislation in order to reap billions in profit. It was NOT "honest businessmen" just "taking advantage" of silly tax breaks written by environmentalists.
They might be taking advantage of stupid congressmen with liberal agenda's, but I also see the likelihood they told congress something like this: "What you ask is impossible for us to do and make a profit. If you want us to do this, you have to subsidize the cost."

[MannyIsGod]

Considering Environmentalists don't want these biofuels I think we know which came first.

[ChumpDumper]

lol capitalists don't take subsidies

[Yonivore]

Considering Environmentalists don't want these biofuels I think we know which came first.
Did they ever want them? Did they ever advocate for biofuels as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels?

Ever? And, if so, was it before or after the biofuels market took off?

[Wild Cobra]

Considering Environmentalists don't want these biofuels I think we know which came first.
They did, before they wised up to the implications.

[ChumpDumper]

So because environmentalists might think some kind of biofuel would be a good idea, they should be blamed for biofuel legislation they explicitly did not want.

You people are idiots.

That's like blaming pro-lifers for laws that allow partial birth abortions. They want laws that restrict abortions, and that law does indeed restrict abortions.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's like blaming pro-lifers for laws that allow partial birth abortions. They want laws that restrict abortions, and that law does indeed restrict abortions.

:wtf

straw analogy and a really bad one at that considering laws that allow partial birth abortions don't restrict abortions at all.

[MannyIsGod]

Did they ever want them? Did they ever advocate for biofuels as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels?

Ever? And, if so, was it before or after the biofuels market took off?

Why would an environmentalist want a fucking fuel that still pollutes the way fossil fuels do? What the hell is so green about biofuels? Biofuels have been pushed by people who want to get us off foreign oil and people who want to sell them.

[MannyIsGod]

:wtf

straw analogy

WTF is a straw analogy?

The analogy fits exactly what Yoni is doing. Environmentalists are the ones suing to stop this shit yet Yoni wants to blame them. Its asinine.

[ChumpDumper]

:wtf

straw analogyIt's quite apt.

Both situations should draw a wtf response.

[CosmicCowboy]

WTF is a straw analogy?

The analogy fits exactly what Yoni is doing. Environmentalists are the ones suing to stop this shit yet Yoni wants to blame them. Its asinine.

I don't disagree that Yoni is wrong on this one and have already pointed it out to him.

That being said, Chumps analogy was fucked up.

[ChumpDumper]

:wtf

straw analogy and a really bad one at that considering laws that allow partial birth abortions don't restrict abortions at all.You're saying that partial birth abortion laws allow for any abortion at any time under any circumstance for any reason?

[Yonivore]

I don't disagree that Yoni is wrong on this one and have already pointed it out to him.

That being said, Chumps analogy was fucked up.
Why am I wrong? Biofuels were a product of environmentalism.

[ChumpDumper]

Why am I wrong? Biofuels were a product of environmentalism.Partial birth abortion laws were a product of pro-lifers.

[TeyshaBlue]

btw...biofuels are not only ethanol based. The interest in biofuels as been around longer than Mother Earth News has had ads. I think we can all agree that your avg. ME reader and advertiser aint exactly the capitalist stereotype.

[MannyIsGod]

Why am I wrong? Biofuels were a product of environmentalism.

Yeah no. You can keep saying this but its simply not true. No current generation of biofuels - the majority of which is ethanol - is clean therefore I would love for you to explain why it would be supported by environmentalists.

Aside from its direct pollution, it places a much needed food supply into a different method of production and encourages deforestation in order to produce crops meant for biofuel production - both of which aren't something that would be supported by those who want to protect the environment.

You saying that environmentalists are the force behind biofuels is akin to saying Republicans are the force behind Universal Healthcare.

[Yonivore]

Yeah no. You can keep saying this but its simply not true. No current generation of biofuels - the majority of which is ethanol - is clean therefore I would love for you to explain why it would be supported by environmentalists.

Aside from its direct pollution, it places a much needed food supply into a different method of production and encourages deforestation in order to produce crops meant for biofuel production - both of which aren't something that would be supported by those who want to protect the environment.

You saying that environmentalists are the force behind biofuels is akin to saying Republicans are the force behind Universal Healthcare.
I didn't say biofuels were environmentally friendly, I said they exist because environmentalists thought they would be and demanded them.

[MannyIsGod]

btw...biofuels are not only ethanol based. The interest in biofuels as been around longer than Mother Earth News has had ads. I think we can all agree that your avg. ME reader and advertiser aint exactly the capitalist stereotype.

Corn Based ethanol is pretty much what biofuel means now. Yeah, there are other forms of biofuels but as far as I know none of them are anywhere near being able to be used on a meaningful scale and none of them are especially clean.

Environmentalists point to solar and wind power as completely clean and renewable resources. People who want to look for non petroleum based fuels point to biofuels. Those are two groups which have overlap but are very different.

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't say biofuels were environmentally friendly, I said they exist because environmentalists thought they would be and demanded them.

Would you like to prove this or would you like us to take your word for it?

[Yonivore]

Would you like to prove this or would you like us to take your word for it?
You can do what you like.

I'm pretty sure we were all pretty happy with petroleum-based fuel until the environmentalists started whining about needing an alternative.

Now, I will grant you this; it could have been a faux environmentalist (i.e. Al Gore vis-a-vis carbon credits) who saw an opportunity to cash in on the ignorance of the environmentalist crowd.

[MannyIsGod]

You can do what you like.

I'm pretty sure we were all pretty happy with petroleum-based fuel until the environmentalists started whining about needing an alternative.


Oh really? :lmao

Yeah - people LOVED paying four dollars a gallon for gas.



Now, I will grant you this; it could have been a faux environmentalist (i.e. Al Gore vis-a-vis carbon credits) who saw an opportunity to cash in on the ignorance of the environmentalist crowd.

No, it was someone who wanted to make money based upon shit like four dollar gas mentioned above. Environmentalists don't want it and never have no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it so.

[MannyIsGod]

Once again Yonivore makes a quick exit when asked to back up his facts. Lazy or dishonest? Both!

[Yonivore]

Environmentalists don't want it and never have no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it so.
Then, back to the OP, why was Britain trying to appease the enviro-Gods at the EU by including biofuels in their Renewable Energy Plan?

[Yonivore]

Once again Yonivore makes a quick exit when asked to back up his facts. Lazy or dishonest? Both!
Once again, life intrudes on this diversion and I had to attend to something...it's liable to happen again.

[MannyIsGod]

Lazy and dishonest.

[Winehole23]

Once again, life intrudes on this diversion and I had to attend to something...it's liable to happen again.Post all day...someone asks a question?

(Run away)