Comments on: Congress To Probe Denial Of Emissions Law

Bush Stands Behind EPA On Denying California's Bid To Cut Vehicles' Emissions; Schwarzenegger Vows To Sue

[micma-2009]

Looks like Republicans believe in States Rights only when it suits them. The party has been taken over by corporate criminals and religious fanatics. Very strange bedfellows.

[flagship-usa]

Flip-Flopping George did it again. I do remember GWB saying exactly the opposite thing when speaking about Gay rights: ...let the States decide! BS George, BS! You Flip-Flopping sling''er.

[ghostcommand]

The right wing used to flount state''s rights but now with their Fascist/totalitarian mind set of trying to control everything--if it is not their idea or command then they will not accept what is even a good idea.California has always been a leader in controlling of CO2 and other harmful emissions. California will tell the Bush/Cheney Fascist Criminal Enterprise where to get off at and will go to the Supreme Court and they will rule the same. Get off Bush/Cheney!

[questionnews]

''W''''s *** must be fairly greased by oil ***** after this one. ''''W''''s arguments on this one, just doesn''''t pass the smell test.

Posted by robadob1 at 06:20 PM : Dec 20, 2007


How you get that one past the CBS censors?
Watch: There was an American television situation comedy which initially aired on CBS from October 3, 1961 to June 1, 1966. The show was created by Carl Reiner and starred *** Van *** and Mary Tyler Moore. It was the "The *** Van *** Show" I don''t think they understand the concept of context.

[lawyertom1]

The last gasp of a dying Shrub administration.

[robadob1]

Isn''t it ''W'' who is balking at joining the rest of the world in the fight against global warming by refusing to accept hard limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Isn''t ''W''s argument for this refusal to join in combating GHG emissions with the world, as one of volunteerism? Well, here he has several states WILLING to volunteer and expediate GHG emissions from their own geographical areas, yet there ''W'' is lying in bed with oil again. ''W''s *** must be fairly greased by oil ***** after this one. ''W''s arguments on this one, just doesn''t pass the smell test.

[tastychoda]

There''s a name for those "scientists" that deny global warming, they''re called Biostitutes. And they''ll write anything for the highest bidder.

[bobgee_1999]

"remember when all the "experts" predicted the smoke from the Kuwait oil fires that Saddam set would have devastating effects around the globe?"

Nice try. But in the first place, the predictions were BEFORE Saddam lit the fires, and he lit far fewer than predicted. Secondly, who is to say that the fires DIDN''T have an effect? According to theory, they contributed to the overall.

And look, this really isn''t a debatble topic for most of us. Maybe it is for you Jeezo-Chrispies who believe in miracles, but for those of us who dwell in reality where physics are demonstrable, it isn''t. Same goes for evolution; neither wishful thinking nor opinion alters the facts.

And here''s a little news flash, for you denial nuts and iconoclasts: don''t get too excited when you read stories about UFO cover-ups, 911 conspiracies and faulty global warming science on your fringe "news" websites, ok? There''s a reason they''re fringe, and any dingbat can start a website.

[cyberus-2009]

If Cali wants to reduce emissions in Cali then let them increase their state gas tax and implement a sliding scale registration fee for vehicles, the higher your models emission rating the more you pay per year to drive it.

[ritecros1]

I just read the links off the article below and the "peer reviewed studies" dispute the "amount of increase" in temperature, not the fact that emissions are changing the climate!!! What are you trying to argue hawksprings, that humans are causing climate change??

Wow!! I feel so much better that the skeptics think the temperature will only increase 1.5 degrees Celsius versus the majority of scientists who think it will increase 2 to 5 Celsius.

[superdem]

Those Republicans - you gotta hate ''em. They LOVE a strong federal government and a unified national policy when it reduces the burden on their corporate constituency, in this case letting the auto industry off the hook. They LOVE a strong federal government to quash medical marijuana, or to deny marriage to gay people. But they decry a strong federal government and a unified national policy when it enforces policies they oppose, such as access to abortion or separation of church and state. Apparently Republicans trust State legislatures to assassinate extensions of human rights, but don''t trust them to take progressive actions against polluters - who contribute heavily to the Republican Party.

[bookwerm314]

A regular family sedan today does 0-60MPH in about 8 Seconds. That is fast. Very fast. 20 years ago, a car getting about the same MPG did it in 12 seconds. So something changed. ALL the engine technology advances went into higher HP, NOT higher MPG. At least in the US in Europe, PLENTY of 40 MPG cars. Why do we need to go so fast? We don''t. But that is what the Auto companies WANT to sell.. not that it is what folks want to buy. There is plenty of data to show otherwise.. but since now you can''t even GET a Ford Festiva that gets 40+MPG, it pretty much is a self fulfilling prophecy.. The auto companies need to develop a version of engines that have HIGH TORQUE (you drive Torque, but automakers SELL HP!), HIGH EFFICIENCY, and durability. Guess what? They sell them in Europe.. A VW Polo gets 60MPG stock! not even a hybrid. We need more diesels here, AND we need the cost and tax structure ON diesel to reflect the fact that, even though we PAY more, it is MUCH cheaper, and easier, to make than GAS! So yes, This is a backdoor way to get better MPG . as to reduce CO2, you burn less gas.. no two ways about it.. but those whiny little autocompanies want to continue to be stupid, and will fight for the privilege.

[andor3]

"his post is relevant. not everyone agrees that global warming is caused by the human race."

His post is relevant because it shows the level of desperation, when you cannot back an opinion by anything except obfuscation. Human-caused climate change is accepted scientific theory based on the evidence and the consensus of researchers. There is no evidence to the contrary, despite many organizations who wish there was, and who are putting up big bucks to "support" friendly researchers.

[namesnames]

his post is relevant. not everyone agrees that global warming is caused by the human race. so the point of all this posturing and politicizing of the issue may be moot. remember when all the "experts" predicted the smoke from the Kuwait oil fires that Saddam set would have devastating effects around the globe?

[bareemperor]

Automakers and petrolium giants have sweetly walked hand-in-hand for generations. This EPA ''inaction'' just backs the public opinion that there are nasty, behind-the-scenes buttpatting sessions going on in high government places...

[andor3]

"Meanwhile, in other news that CBS would never print:
400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007."

Strange--that statement has been repeatedly shown to be a distortion is ther opposite of the truth, yet you keep posting it.

It is almost like you have an agenda to intentionally mislead people and obscure the truth or real discussion.

But then why would you do that?

[neoconslayer]

Yo Hawksprings:
Maybe next time, you could post something relevant to the article...