OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:38 pm

JRod wrote: Maybe you should get another one.

For having a Junk Mind, posting Junk Science, or actually reading a persons post before replying to it?

P.S. It was the Liberal, at the NY Times, subbing for Maureen Dowd, who dun it. Hated to give away the ending but I figured you were never going to read it.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:09 pm

bdoughty wrote:
JRod wrote: Maybe you should get another one.
For having a Junk Mind, posting Junk Science, or actually reading a persons post before replying to it?

P.S. It was the Liberal, at the NY Times, subbing for Maureen Dowd, who dun it. Hated to give away the ending but I figured you were never going to read it.

Jared posted why the study is flawed. It's junk science whether it was posted by a liberal or conservative.

You were looking to score political points and Macsom called you out on it.

If the spirit of the holidays maybe instead of arguing over who gives the most, how about you give some money to charity if you haven't done so. Don't tell anyone, here, just enjoy that fact that the money will be well-served.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:24 pm

JRod wrote: Jared posted why the study is flawed. It's junk science whether it was posted by a liberal or conservative.

You were looking to score political points and Macsom called you out on it.

I could post links to most every study done since man began making studies and how they are flawed in some way, that does not disprove anything. One mans junk is another mans treasure.

Score political points? WTH does that even mean?

I am just going back to my mental user ignore list. Just easier that way. Should have listened to you JD.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:22 pm

JRod wrote:
bdoughty wrote:
macsomjrr wrote:Kudos to you Jared for trying but alas I don't think BD really cares. All he probably saw was "conservatives good, liberals bad" and decided that was all the backing the article needed. Typical political BS.

How you have not been given a timeout from the forum is beyond me and I know about getting forum timeouts.
Maybe you should get another one.

Seriously. This guy is out of control.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:35 pm

Green living...

Seattle refuses to use salt; roads "snow packed" by design
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... up23m.html

Wait a sec...

Sand on roads worse than salt, environmentalists say
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ds24m.html

The results...

Not very good for the humans
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seat ... 157687.asp

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:35 pm

bdoughty wrote:Green living...

Seattle refuses to use salt; roads "snow packed" by design
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... up23m.html

Wait a sec...

Sand on roads worse than salt, environmentalists say
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ds24m.html

The results...

Not very good for the humans
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seat ... 157687.asp

Are you saying that Seattle's DOT should listen to the environmentalists and go back to salt? Not sure how you expect this series of stories to be tied together as you aren't being very explicit. If that is the care then this is a bit of a flip-flop from your opinion in the climate change thread (whereby the scientists are making it all up and don't know what they're talking about). Do we listen to them or not?

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:35 pm

macsomjrr wrote: Are you saying that Seattle's DOT should listen to the environmentalists and go back to salt? Not sure how you expect this series of stories to be tied together as you aren't being very explicit. If that is the care then this is a bit of a flip-flop from your opinion in the climate change thread (whereby the scientists are making it all up and don't know what they're talking about). Do we listen to them or not?

This is not all that tough to follow. Just follow me here, because I read all three and posted in proper order (according to how Seattle is relaying the news).

Group A of Environmentalists: Salt is bad to our fish and Puget Sound.
Seattle City Gov: No salt then.
Group B of Environmentalists: Sand is worse.
Seattle City Gov: What? Where were you guys when we went to sand? Are you telling me there are two lines of thought, that there is no exact answer and we endangered lives? All in the name of saving the little fishies?
Group C of Citizens in wrecks: Who do I sue?

Humans really do not seem to factor into the equation with the left minded in Seattle. Of course all those crashes lead to spills of things far, far, far greater threats to the little fishies, than a little extra salt.

* Takes dramatic licensing to show point*

aww poor little fellas.

I think Thomas Dolby put it best, in regards to this cluster****.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:55 pm

bdoughty wrote: This is not all that tough to follow. Just follow me here, because I read all three and posted in proper order (according to how Seattle is relaying the news).

I thought you were crying about these types of comments in the climate change thread.

bdoughty wrote: Group A of Environmentalists: Salt is bad to our fish and Puget Sound.
Seattle City Gov: No salt then.
Group B of Environmentalists: Sand is worse.
Seattle City Gov: What? Where were you guys when we went to sand? Are you telling me there are two lines of thought, that there is no exact answer and we endangered lives? All in the name of saving the little fishies?
Group C of Citizens in wrecks: Who do I sue?

Hey I've got an idea. Let's belittle anyone who attempts to try and do something to help the environment and if they fail we'll ridicule and criticize them and point out all the areas where they failed. Seriously BD they're trying something new. Get off your high horse for a moment and sympathize instead of turning this into a "this is why liberals suck" post.

bdoughty wrote:Humans really do not seem to factor into the equation with the left minded in Seattle. Of course all those crashes lead to spills of things far, far, far greater threats to the little fishies, than a little extra salt.

Not sure how many car accidents you've seen/been a part of but I'm pretty sure oil doesn't come pouring out of the pavement covering anything and everything in the vicinity after a minor fender bender on an icy road.

bdoughty wrote: * Takes dramatic licensing to show point*

aww poor little fellas.

This would be funnier if I didn't think that you actually believed this happened after someone's car was struck on an icy road.

This is classic mixing and matching for your own benefit. I'm beginning to see a trend developing in your posts to that effect.

bdoughty wrote: I think Thomas Dolby put it best, in regards to this cluster****.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o

Awesome song:)

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:46 pm

And with that, the virtual ignore list is doubled.

Oh and a little Christmas present from Science.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/39330 ... tists.html

Scientists at the University of Massachusetts in Boston have called for the taboo on first-cousin families to be lifted.

They claim that the risk of giving birth to babies with genetic defects is no greater than that run by women over 40 who become pregnant.

Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire.

fletcher21 · Post by **fletcher21** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:18 pm

bd always did love to stir the pot lol

miget33 · Post by **miget33** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:57 pm

bdoughty wrote:And with that, the virtual ignore list is doubled.

Oh and a little Christmas present from Science.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/39330 ... tists.html

Scientists at the University of Massachusetts in Boston have called for the taboo on first-cousin families to be lifted.

They claim that the risk of giving birth to babies with genetic defects is no greater than that run by women over 40 who become pregnant.

Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire.

Time to figure out who's cousin Professor Paul and Spencer have the hots for.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:46 am

bdoughty wrote:And with that, the virtual ignore list is doubled.

Cute. Sad, but cute.

bdoughty wrote:Oh and a little Christmas present from Science.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/39330 ... tists.html

Scientists at the University of Massachusetts in Boston have called for the taboo on first-cousin families to be lifted.

They claim that the risk of giving birth to babies with genetic defects is no greater than that run by women over 40 who become pregnant.

Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire.

Not saying I agree with these guys (as haven't read the studies behind their conclusions) but it does raise an interesting question. We disagree with inbreeding primarily because of genetic defects due to the increased likelihood of matching recessive genes but if you're equally likely to see identical or similar birth defects in women over age 40 then isn't this a double standard? I haven't spent a great deal of time thinking about the situation, I only have one cousin, a dude, so doesn't affect me much:)

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:01 pm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 14PSQF.DTL

Environmentally conscious travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport will soon be able to assuage their guilt and minimize the impact of their air travel by buying certified carbon offsets at airport kiosks.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:50 pm

bdoughty wrote:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 14PSQF.DTL

Environmentally conscious travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport will soon be able to assuage their guilt and minimize the impact of their air travel by buying certified carbon offsets at airport kiosks.

The carbon offsets are not tax deductible

I'd rather give to a TV Evangelist. It's tax deductible and they talk to God.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:21 am

bdoughty wrote:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 14PSQF.DTL

Environmentally conscious travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport will soon be able to assuage their guilt and minimize the impact of their air travel by buying certified carbon offsets at airport kiosks.

Those crazy liberals and their do-gooder mentality! What's next? Greener airplanes?!?!? Grumble grumble, bah humbug!

Kudos to the San Francisco airport for implementing an entirely voluntary program to help offset the environmental damage caused by air travel. Just like every other green initiative it'll be mocked early and praised late.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:40 am

macsomjrr wrote:

Those crazy liberals and their do-gooder mentality! What's next? Greener airplanes?!?!? Grumble grumble, bah humbug!

Kudos to the San Francisco airport for implementing an entirely voluntary program to help offset the environmental damage caused by air travel. Just like every other green initiative it'll be mocked early and praised late.

So liberals are the only ones that care about becoming greener? Recycling was mocked? Better emissions were mocked? Bullshit. There you go with your stereotyping again.

I mocked the idea cow farts are causing global warming. I mock buying useless carbon credits as an asinine idea that only helps ease the conscious of the people fu*king up the environment the most. The carbon credit is about as useless as the pet rock. Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits other than the chest pounding that our company bought carbon credits!!

The Financial Times investigated Carbon trading.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e334ce-f355 ... 10621.html

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

The FT investigation found:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.

“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.

These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.

Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.

The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.

Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.

There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.

BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.

You know what that's called? Fraud.

Now, imagine for a moment that these companies were in the oil, electricity, or health care industry and committing such a fraud. Do you think this would be headline news?

Like I stated before. If I'm going to piss my money away on bullshit,it will be tax deductible bullshit. If the Carbon Credit was legit,why isn't it tax deductible? Hell a donation to Rod Parsley is deductible. If that doesn't that tell you how fu*ked up a Carbon Credit is I don't know what will.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:16 am

JRod wrote:1. It's an op-ed piece trying trying to prove why conservatives are better.

2. If you believe or fail to grasp what the author is really trying to do, then you have a junk mind.

1. That is not how I read it. I see it as a comparison of how liberals and conservatives donate their money. I did not get
"conservatives are better" out of the article at all. They simply have different patterns and strategies when it comes to donating money. What I DO see is you trying to make this more than it actually is.

2. Junk mind? That's rich...coming from you or anyone. If we use your less-than-objective analogy, I guess you could tarbrush ANYONE who read the article as having a "junk mind"......

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:44 am

macsomjrr wrote:
bdoughty wrote:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 14PSQF.DTL

Environmentally conscious travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport will soon be able to assuage their guilt and minimize the impact of their air travel by buying certified carbon offsets at airport kiosks.
Those crazy liberals and their do-gooder mentality! What's next? Greener airplanes?!?!? Grumble grumble, bah humbug!

Kudos to the San Francisco airport for implementing an entirely voluntary program to help offset the environmental damage caused by air travel. Just like every other green initiative it'll be mocked early and praised late.

Hey Mac, this isn't the the post your pic thread.

I can't believe you spent time on Christmas Eve and Day to argue in the politics thread. The picture actually fits.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:14 pm

JackDog wrote: You know what that's called? Fraud.

Now, imagine for a moment that these companies were in the oil, electricity, or health care industry and committing such a fraud. Do you think this would be headline news?

Like I stated before. If I'm going to piss my money away on bullshit,it will be tax deductible bullshit. If the Carbon Credit was legit,why isn't it tax deductible? Hell a donation to Rod Parsley is deductible. If that doesn't that tell you how fu*ked up a Carbon Credit is I don't know what will.

Jack,

They can't be tax deductible as it stated in the article, they are not a non-profit company. The scam is setup as a for profit company, 30% of each transaction goes to 3 degrees of deceit, to do as they seem fit, i.e. lining their pockets.

So no tax deduction but I will bet they mail you a bumper sticker, so you can let everyone behind you know, what a jackass you are.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:13 pm

matthewk wrote:
macsomjrr wrote:
bdoughty wrote:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 14PSQF.DTL

Environmentally conscious travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport will soon be able to assuage their guilt and minimize the impact of their air travel by buying certified carbon offsets at airport kiosks.
Those crazy liberals and their do-gooder mentality! What's next? Greener airplanes?!?!? Grumble grumble, bah humbug!

Kudos to the San Francisco airport for implementing an entirely voluntary program to help offset the environmental damage caused by air travel. Just like every other green initiative it'll be mocked early and praised late.
Hey Mac, this isn't the the post your pic thread.

I can't believe you spent time on Christmas Eve and Day to argue in the politics thread. The picture actually fits.

And the personal attacks continue...

Last time I checked how I spend my time on Christmas day is pretty much my concern not yours. Taking 5 mins to check the DSP boards and throw a post up (with a Christmassy flavor, hence the Ebenezer Scrooge pic) in response to criticism of a voluntary program designed to help the environment is 5 mins well spent in my book. What else did I buy an iPhone for:)

Oh and the continued animosity towards a voluntary program set-up by a for-profit is beyond me. Tax deductible? If that is the first thing that jumps into your head here then we really are looking at this from two entirely different perspectives. Honestly I don't care how and/or what you spend your money on but don't criticize other people who are trying to do something honorable with theirs. That is pretty darn "scroogey" to me.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:14 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJaAC7D55S0

My favorite scrooge.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:42 pm

If you're really concerned, you can buy carbon offsets online from non-profits:

http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/wh ... nfund.org/

3. Nonprofit vs. For-Profit

Carbonfund.org is a nonprofit 501(c)3, meaning our priority is fighting climate change, not profiting from it. It also means your contribution is tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law, making it even more cost-effective to reduce your carbon footprint.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:49 pm

Carbon credits?...screw that Im buying shoe lace nibs.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:12 pm

wco81 wrote:If you're really concerned, you can buy carbon offsets online from non-profits:

http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/wh ... nfund.org/

I think you are missing the point. Even as a non-profit, there are people PROFITING from this scam. You can download those forms from their sites and see IT PRETTY CLEARLY.

For 2007

Total REVENUE (or to call it like it is, a bunch of suckers) $4,900,000.

Now go look up all the salaries, costs, etc and see how much was left to go toward the environment and all that carbon. I would say it but it would be really neat if one of you believers would actually read the whole thing and report back. The for-profit 3degrees of staling your money, might actually be the better bet as it sticks to only 30% of the money it takes in. Though we have no clue where the other 70% goes since we do not get to see their books.

I will give a couple of doozies from my quick glance at the books of the "non-profit."

Eric Carlson - President he took in $102,500 for the 40 hours of weekly work he put in, heh heh. Way to think of the environment big guy. Notice two more guys on the payroll making $50,000+.

The best part is at the bottom, check out the contributors. There is George Stephonopoloopuhagus (intentional misspelled) giving $5,000. to the cause.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:56 pm

Someone else raised the tax deductibility/non-profit angle so I was just pointing out there are non-profits who offer the same credits/offsets.

But I didn't think that concern was sincere anyways.

As for this organization being a scam because they have employees making a 6-figure salary, well it's probably true of a lot of non-profits, charities, NGOs, etc.

To raise a lot of money, you need professionals, not people taking vows of poverty. Even if the salary expectations are modest, these people still have families to feed as well.

You have to take these salaries and all the expenses they have in context with other organizations. Not just those involved in carbon credits but all non-profits, charities, etc. across the whole spectrum. No organization is going to be 100% efficient at deploying its resources. Do they have a higher overhead than its peers because of high salaries?

Is the total overhead of this group higher than those of comparably-sized non-profit organizations? I don't know but mainly I brought up this site because of the non-profit/tax deductible issue. I'm not necessarily endorsing them.

The bigger scandal would be if they are lying about using the proceeds of offsets people buy and not funding renewable energy projects or planting trees as they claim.