I kill cows every chance I get.

I give the cows Beano.

It's more fun to just kill them. Then I can bathe in the blood. The jail time is much less for that than it was for bathing in the blood of virgins like my old cellmate used to...

did i go too far again? I never seem to recognize the line between sick humor and way too far.:blush:

But I like cows. Aside from the farting. They don't ask for money, they don't stab you in the back, they don't laugh about you. They just moo from time to time. In fact, I bet if your colleagues were bovine you wouldn't be experiencing what you are right now. Huh! Think of THAT!

--paid for by the Bovine Advocates of America (which spells BAA but we couldn't find words for the acronym MOO.) We like sheep too.

I have given up rubbing the ends of frayed electrical cords together.

S123 - all those things may be true, but you just can't trust a cow. Look at their eyes and the way they're always shifting around. They're plotting. You can't tell me that the multiple stomach thing isn't going to work against humans at some point. How would you like to be the one to find out they've lulled us into believing they're not carnivores? That would totally suck being ground slowly in those teeth, swallowed, regurgitated, swallowed again, and then slowly digested 4 times over. No thanks.

Shifting around? I barely see a cow moooove.

I'm going to go befriend some cows after work. Then, when the cow revolution comes, they'll just use me as a scout and let me live.

That's because they are so sly about it. They move like in The Matrix, so you don't even know what is happening. So remember, you're either one of us, or you're one of them.

:bolt:

The EPA is not interested in sustainable developement. They're interested in conservation, which is great, except when it starts killing people, or affecting the ordinary man's ability to put food on the table for his family.

Yes carbon emissions need to be addressed, but the EPA is not the body to have the final say. It should be an independant scientific body with no [discernable] political or environmental affilitations.

Which would be true if the examples agreed with that assumption. This post will quote the realities.

We would pay $120 every quarter (or 5,000 miles) for a tune up. But EPA standards finally forced MBAs to use a 1960 technology in late 1970s cars - electronic ignition. Now cars cost less, don't break down (point failure), and pollute less. Now families have another $40 every month to put dinner on the table. EPA standards finally forced bean counters to let car guys liberate innovation. Therefore costs were reduced and families had more money for dinner.

We would still be breathing toxic gases, cars would still backfire, and other failures such as vapor lock would still exist if EPA regulations did not liberate a 1930 technology - fuel injection. EPA standards finally forced bean counters to let car guys liberate innovation. More cost reductions and less failures for consumers.

EPA standards ended widespread use of CFC in electronics production. EPA finally made possible better ways to manufacturer printed circuit boards. Instead of massive CFC cleaning (ozone layer destruction), electronics are now cleaned in a dishwasher with only water. Standards made possible better assembly processes that cost less, advanced mankind, cut costs, and made the factory floor human safer.

Of course, under wacko extremists, electronics still use lead in America. Those post 2000 electronic board design technologies (RoHS) are now found where innovation is encouraged by standards (Europe). Twenty years from now, Americans will drink more toxins. And then American eventually will pay royalties to the European innovators. Innovations created by superior environmental standards.

When Germany began appreciating the destruction from pollution, then German automakers developed better engine controls in the early 1980s. During that time, Americans foolishly thought EPA regulations only harmed the consumer. Every car in America (domestic and foreign) therefore contributes to German wealth. Bosch innovated due to tougher industry standards. Oxygen sensors in all cars mean wealthier Germans. An example of what happens when environmental standards are stifled by the naive while innovations create wealthier families.

Who will have higher living standards and more jobs? Those who develop products that address global warming. Again, do more work using less consumption. GE (who advocated low carbon solutions) and DuPont (who opposed low carbon solutions) now both admit that low carbon solutions have massively reduced their costs - increased profits. How does that mean less food for the family? Just the opposite. Innovations to improve the environment also create higher family incomes, a healthier public, new jobs, new markets, and higher living standards. Those who know only from pundits or a Limbaugh political agenda would not know this.

Well, cars once dumped massive amounts of hydrocarbons into the air. Do you remember sitting in bumper to bumper traffic in the 1950s? I do. I remember the resulting headaches. American automakers in the late 1960s went before Congress crying that 1975 EPA standards could not be achieved. Again bean counters trying to stifle innovation. On that same day, Chrysler was testing cars in CA that already met 1974 standards. Automakers in 1968 were lying. Only the naive believed EPA standard harmed people; did not learn about Chrysler's CAP (Clean Air Package). Chrysler's innovations also resulted in profits from all other automakers - ie the EGR valve still found today in all cars.

But again, why do I have a different conclusion? I learned facts rather than the propaganda.

So what does a catalytic converter do? Amazing how many cannot answer this obvious question - but know EPA standards only starve the family. CC burns gasoline that an engine did not. How did the Japanese start conquering the American market? To make less pollution, the Japanese burned that gas inside the engine. Higher gas mileage, less pistons, lower costs, more horsepower, longer lasting products - all directly traceable to cars that burned more of every gallon inside the engine. Meanwhile, those who claimed EPA regulations increase costs (ie Ford and GM) installed air pumps and larger catalytic converters to burn more gasoline in the exhaust pipe.

Oh, - that catalytic converter was a 1930 innovation. EPA standards finally made possible something that GM was using in their own factories in the 1930s.

One would think GM eliminates that $100 air pump, et al by doing what the Japanese were doing. After all, the Japanese were only using American technologies developed decades previously. Ironically, once the last GM engineer left (DeLorean), then GM installed a crappier carburetor which required installing a $100 air pump. Then GM could blame EPA standards for higher costs. Same game is still played today so that some 'feel' EPA standards take dinner off American tables.

Where did the 1980 Honda CVCC come from? Originally developed by Ford in early 1960s - called a stratified charge engine in Ford. Don't take my word for it. Learn from history. I even provided keywords and dates. Meanwhile, Japanese product that exceeded EPA standards also cost less - put more dinners on Japanese tables thanks to stifled American innovations.

So we must keep arsenic in the drinking water. George Jr said so even though full water industry consensus said otherwise. EPA standards for water quality are evil - would only kill people? Hardly. But again, another example of how EPA standards save - do not harm - American families.

Where do environmental standards created by science take dinner off the table? Only when one is too quick to believe extremist propaganda that also fears the Chinese, immigrants, quantum physics, evil terrorist lurker everywhere in America, evil American who must have phones routinely tapped, whistleblowers, the electric grid that is failing, evil tree huggers, Canadians who would export their wood to America, Brazilians who would innovate to create productive ethanol, foreign steel manufacturers, Haitians who spread aids, a pathetic Castro, any country that has too many Muslims (even if that country is part of NATO), ...

Anybody can post a sentence that says EPA standards take dinner off the table. But those who learn facts, well, notice how many reasons why say otherwise. Were you counting? Or did your eyes glaze over because this post contradicts myths promoted by a political agenda.

No tw, my eyes did not glaze over until I started reading your post. Unlike you I recognize that there are good and bad points to everything.

The EPA is not interested in helping people create a sustainable earth unless it happens to benefit their cause, hence the ignition switch changes etc.

What I'm talking about are the people in the organization who have an extreme view of how the environment should be 'managed' which is not conducive to human development.

Yes the EPA serves a valuable purpose, but no, they should not have the final say with regard to the environment and how it is managed. Hence my suggestion of an independant scientific body. They are there to protect the environment which is great, however their methods of protecting the environment can lead to devastating consquences, as seen with their involvement in legislating the boundaries for the uses of various areas of the great barrier reef.

The proposals put forward by the EPA and then implimented in this case have led to bankruptcy, domestic violence and suicide to name a few of the negative impacts.

Incidentaly, who do you think benefited from the harsh legislation surrounding this issue?

Greenies world wide along with the Qld and Federal government of Australia. Do you have any idea how much money they make from tourism and how little they make from the fishing industry?

tw - Are you saying that the EPA is responsible for American obesity problems?

This is from LiveScience

White House Played Role in Smog Rule

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency agreed to weaken a key section of its new smog requirements announced this week after being told at the last minute that President Bush preferred a less stringent approach, according to government documents.

The documents depict a series of tense exchanges between the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget during the days before the new smog air quality standard was announced Wednesday.

Changes directed by the White House were inserted into the smog regulation only hours before it was issued with the late flurry of activity forcing the EPA to delay the announcement for five hours.

The disagreement revolved around the amount of protection from ozone, or smog, should be afforded wildlife, farmlands, parks and other open spaces.

This so-called "public welfare'' or "secondary'' smog standard is separate from a decision to tighten the smog requirements for human health, which the EPA decided to do by reducing the allowable concentrations of ozone in the air from 80 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion.

[there's more at the link]

Price of gasoline has been too low causing people to abandon bicycles. Excessively cheap gas creates too many visits to junk food stores that also sell gasoline (WaWa, Gas 'n Go, etc) and too much driving while consuming Krispy Kremes. MacDonalds also participated by upgrading drive-in windows with SuperSizing.

To save Americans from early 'heart attack' deaths, Arabs have jack booted gasoline prices. God told them to.

George Jr probably asked god to arrange this. George talks to god. We now have friends working for us in high places using high prices. Don't worry; be happy. Everything is now under control. This time without using torture.

By god, I think he's being funny!

He's always funny. The only difference this time, is it's intentional.

lol - he seems to have lightened up A LOT lately! Maybe you're right - he got a girlfriend.

I'm developing a major crush on the t-dub. ;)

T-dub + Shawnee = perverted science.

God is not involved.

Personally I make really big fires in my outdoor fireplace in my back yard. http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1936zu7.jpg

Alternative energy from 1922....

You can call us t-shawn. That's what the tabloids will be calling us anyway. :p

This is still being done today in many sewage treatment plants.

Many? Really? The few cases I've heard of, in the last few years, seem to herald it as the latest, unique, cutting edge.

Bruce, you have a good point. I should not have made that statement without numbers to back up "many." I'm searching for data.

Edit:

I just called NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority), who are just in the process of completing a survey of waste water treatment in that state. In NY, about 140 treatment plants use anaerobic digestion to treat waste and about 10% of those are generating electricity from the gas produced. I'm awaiting a call back so I can find out how much electricity is being produced and what the others are doing with the AD gas. I'm also trying to find a national source, so I don't have to call every state's energy department.

Remember Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome? The whole city ran on pig-shit.

Good, cuz I think "A-Shawn-t" is taken.

Thanks for the edit info, very interesting. I know they are doing this on some large farms in Vermont, with seed money from the state.

I just talked to someone from NYSERDA and she's going to send me results of a study that they've just completed, but have not yet published. That will cover NY only, so she recommended that I look on the EPA website for national data. Here's a small part of what I found on that site:

If the NYSERDA report contains anything interesting, I'll post it.

Cool, that's encouraging. Thanks. :thumb:

Since '01, Guarding Species Is Harder
I particularly like the Machiavellian elegance of this next tactic:
Brilliant!!

OF COURSE we should only evaluate a species' candidacy for listing on the Endangered Species Act based on where they live now! For pity's sake, we can't go back and change the past, now can we? And if a species' population (BANG!) is decreasing (BANG!) and then is beyond (BANG!) the (BANG!) point (BANG!) of no (BANG!) return, then, gee Wally, I'm so sorry. (See attached graphic. Note, missing from the graphic is the timeframe for GWB's ESA listing legacy--Seven years. His total for seven years is 59. Compared to nearly 59 PER YEAR by his soft hearted soft headed father. Nevermind the fact that this administration has requested none, only been... bullied into listing those 59 at the end of a lawsuit).

So, so, so unfair. Take it all now, leave nothing of value behind. Send the bill and the carcasses and the wreckage to the grandchildren. :rar:

BigV you can't actually be surprised by any of this.

Point of this thread is to document in one place instances where the current administration has perverted science for politics. Nobody is surprised by it anymore, but should we yawn and scratch ourselves, or make note of it?

I think if it makes you feel better scratch the itch. There are plenty of people taking notes. So wrongs may be righted, some may not. Much of the environmental actions by this administration are deplorable.

March 29, 2008
Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More
By DENNIS OVERBYE
More fighting in Iraq. Somalia in chaos. People in this country can’t afford their mortgages and in some places now they can’t even afford rice.

None of this nor the rest of the grimness on the front page today will matter a bit, though, if two men pursuing a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii turn out to be right. They think a giant particle accelerator that will begin smashing protons together outside Geneva this summer might produce a black hole that will spell the end of the Earth — and maybe the universe.

Scientists say that is very unlikely — though they have done some checking just to make sure.

The world’s physicists have spent 14 years and $8 billion building the Large Hadron Collider, in which the colliding protons will recreate energies and conditions last seen a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers will sift the debris from these primordial recreations for clues to the nature of mass and new forces and symmetries of nature.

But Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny black hole, which, they say, could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.” Their suit also says CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/sc...hp&oref=slogin

When does a machine underground in both France and Switzerland need to conform to American environmental laws? It is not a rhetorical question.

I'm guessing because we can kick their asses anytime we want to?;)

You could probably get every single Republican lawmaker to agree to an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq if you promised to send them to invade France.

Only if the GOP lawmakers actually do the fighting...though they still might kick the French's ass. Hell, we could probably send Jim and some 3rd graders over there, and the Stars and Stripes would fly over Paris within 3 days. ;)

Yes but the French are winning in the important "our first lady is hotter than your first lady" category.

Why couldn't we have picked Kucinich?

http://overthetop.beloblog.com/archi...ich%202008.JPG

Why is this man smiling?:p

The queen of Jordon use to hold that spot.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/pi...-13-1-2004.jpg

Cheney v. Whales

Well give credit where credit is due... the man is consistent. :eyebrow:

Why is Cheney allergic to science?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...mn9AgD91PN4N00

I've just opened this thread for the first time today, on page 19. I'm not going to bother with the rest, as it appears to be a subsidiary of the NY Times. I won't bother with that again either. "All the news that's shit to print"

Hell, there are tons of things I'm not going to do today--cut my hair, go to the movies, feed a dog--I just thought it would be polite to refrain from wasting your time telling you about them.

shhh. he's our counterbalance to TW.


UG doesn't count since he has an orbit all his own.

Because he's a clogged-up douche nozzle?

Because he has a complete inability to see beyond his own, or his master's (whoever that may be) desires?

Because people thought they were getting a conservative for VP but got a sociopath instead?

Just a thought.

:lol2:

We just can't take him anywhere
 

From here

:earth::sadpace:

Well, at least he was honest.

idgit

He was just relishing in our position until China and India take over. Again, he had bad intell on his joke, since China has been a bigger polluter for greater than a year. Anyone see the pics of China's polluted air as they attempt to clean up for the Games?:
China takes over as largest CO2 emitter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...9/china.usnews

While this is true, it's misleading. China has a much larger population, so you would expect it to be polluting more.

On a per capita basis, the average American produces around 4 times as much CO2 as the average Chinese citizen. This is even mentioned in the article you linked.

We keep electing incrementally more retarded politicians, and it's only going to get worse.

Slowly...

Term by term...

We need to just get it over with.

We can do:

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/pro...6/a1076_bm.gif

Or we can do:

http://catalog.chaosium.com/images/CHA0091.gif

The fact remains that China and India far surpass the US in the amount they pollute in all areas including CO2 emissions. The world wants to point fingers at the US and get us to change the way we do business at great cost to our economy and give nations like China and India a pass while they pollute non-stop with minimal regulation because of an economic disparity. I call bull shit on that. We can reign in when they reign in. Make it a level playing field. It is not. Which is why we will never sign one-sided agreements like The Kyoto Protocol.

If we were to make it a level playing field, that would mean you would have to reduce your personal CO2 footprint by 3/4 to meet China's current per capita level.

Or do you reject the per capita measure, and think that all countries, regardless of their size, should have the same CO2 output? Luxembourg and the USA should have the same total level of emissions?

It will never be level on an average per person basis, nor should it. That is trying get apples and oranges to be the same fruit, they are not and never will be. China and India will never be like the US, and hopefully the US will never be like China or India. "per capita" measurements are nothing more than statistical measures which simplify the comparisons. They do not work. Fun to look at and use as points in an argument but they are not practical from the standpoint of parity between developing nations who pollute to no end and a developed nation like the US or many Western European nations which are highly technically industrialized. I completely reject anything which uses simple statistical measures such as "per capita".

We are the highest per capita because we are the most productive per capita. What you really want to measure is carbon use across productivity.

The worst solution would be to do less with less, what we really need is to do more with less.

I think the worst solution would be to do less with more.