Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

It should be noted this is not a comprehensive list.

• Don't insult one another or the subjects of BDN stories. You may be ticked off at what someone did or said, but you can explain that without resorting to name-calling or obscenity. Remember that young people are on this site too.
• That nasty line that makes your buddies go "haw, haw"? You're better than that.
• Comments should be your own work, not copied and pasted from elsewhere, though brief quoted passages to make your point are fine. And please don't use all capital letters. There's no need to shout.
• Stay focused on the issue in the article. Off-topic posts will be deleted.
• This isn't a forum to chat about your personal life.
• Some ideas — the fate of the earth, abortion, gun control, the nature of God — aren't going to be resolved in a reader forum, so no need to get frustrated if others don't see your point of view. State your position once and leave it at that.
• If you mouse over each comment you will see a "Flag" button. Please use it if you feel comments on the site are out of line. Quite often, we won't see a comment until it's reported.
• Questions about why a comment was — or wasn't — deleted? E-mail us at web@bangordailynews.com and let us know your username and where you posted or saw the comment.

That's about it: Stick to writing about the stories; be civil; be kind; enlighten your neighbors. And we'll keep moderating posts to try to ensure everyone meets those standards.

• Anonymous

  Matt Gagnon for President! ;)

• Anonymous

  Matt Gagnon for President! ;)

• Anonymous

  Matt Gagnon for President! ;)

• Anonymous

  As a Republican, my thoughts exactly.  Well said.

• Justin

  Two things.

  Why is trusting scientists considered “accept[ing] the Democratic line on climate” (and similarly, believing in evolution as well)? Regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming – and to what extent it may be taking place – I don’t understand how science and Democratic politics have become synonymous. You’re a bad Republican if you look at studies and see that there’s a consensus that something is happening with climate?

  In your explanation of what Huntsman *should* have said, you include that we should “innovate our way out by developing legitimate technologies that produce cleaner energy”. Sounds great. I agree. But in the next paragraph, you dismiss any form of cap-and-trade and throw solar panels and wind farms into, well, the wind. What’s considered “legitimate”, and why aren’t those unacceptable forms of alternative energy a form of the innovation you herald? Sounds like a nice way of saying that the plan is to try to improve efficiency of oil and gas and look to nuclear again. Why should Republican candidates be afraid to say what they’d really support instead of simply dismissing everything they don’t?

• http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

  The problem with Huntsman et all is that they view “problem” and “solution” in the same, conjoined way.  When people like him talk about believing the scientific consensus, they also talk about combating it with governmental action in the style of Democratic proposals.

  Part of the reason for this is because the Republican Party has become so anti-science that they have failed to develop any policy alternatives that would be market driven and provide for alternative solutions.  So, to admit it is a problem is to accept the only widespread solution.

  As for innovating our way out of it, I apologize for not going into that more in depth, but sadly I only had 700 words to make my case.

  Wind and solar are just Democratic interest group giveaways… the companies funded by the government go bankrupt and the technologies are expensive and largely ineffective.  They’re just boondoggles that make politicians feel like they’re doing something.  The government funding investments in those technologies isn’t going to cut it.

  The “legitimate” technologies I was talking about are things like cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells.  There are some holy grail technologies that will eliminate pollution while generating a great deal of energy.  The private sector will develop that in good time, and when those technologies penetrate markets, pollution on the scale we have no will be a thing of the past.

  In the meantime though, yes, we should have a sensible conventional energy policy that tries to be as clean and efficient as possible.  But massive governmental efforts to force emissions down?  No, especially not when other countries will not do the same and it will crush our economy.

• http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

  The problem with Huntsman et all is that they view “problem” and “solution” in the same, conjoined way.  When people like him talk about believing the scientific consensus, they also talk about combating it with governmental action in the style of Democratic proposals.

  Part of the reason for this is because the Republican Party has become so anti-science that they have failed to develop any policy alternatives that would be market driven and provide for alternative solutions.  So, to admit it is a problem is to accept the only widespread solution.

  As for innovating our way out of it, I apologize for not going into that more in depth, but sadly I only had 700 words to make my case.

  Wind and solar are just Democratic interest group giveaways… the companies funded by the government go bankrupt and the technologies are expensive and largely ineffective.  They’re just boondoggles that make politicians feel like they’re doing something.  The government funding investments in those technologies isn’t going to cut it.

  The “legitimate” technologies I was talking about are things like cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells.  There are some holy grail technologies that will eliminate pollution while generating a great deal of energy.  The private sector will develop that in good time, and when those technologies penetrate markets, pollution on the scale we have no will be a thing of the past.

  In the meantime though, yes, we should have a sensible conventional energy policy that tries to be as clean and efficient as possible.  But massive governmental efforts to force emissions down?  No, especially not when other countries will not do the same and it will crush our economy.

• http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

  The problem with Huntsman et all is that they view “problem” and “solution” in the same, conjoined way.  When people like him talk about believing the scientific consensus, they also talk about combating it with governmental action in the style of Democratic proposals.

  Part of the reason for this is because the Republican Party has become so anti-science that they have failed to develop any policy alternatives that would be market driven and provide for alternative solutions.  So, to admit it is a problem is to accept the only widespread solution.

  As for innovating our way out of it, I apologize for not going into that more in depth, but sadly I only had 700 words to make my case.

  Wind and solar are just Democratic interest group giveaways… the companies funded by the government go bankrupt and the technologies are expensive and largely ineffective.  They’re just boondoggles that make politicians feel like they’re doing something.  The government funding investments in those technologies isn’t going to cut it.

  The “legitimate” technologies I was talking about are things like cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells.  There are some holy grail technologies that will eliminate pollution while generating a great deal of energy.  The private sector will develop that in good time, and when those technologies penetrate markets, pollution on the scale we have no will be a thing of the past.

  In the meantime though, yes, we should have a sensible conventional energy policy that tries to be as clean and efficient as possible.  But massive governmental efforts to force emissions down?  No, especially not when other countries will not do the same and it will crush our economy.

• http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

  The problem with Huntsman et all is that they view “problem” and “solution” in the same, conjoined way.  When people like him talk about believing the scientific consensus, they also talk about combating it with governmental action in the style of Democratic proposals.

  Part of the reason for this is because the Republican Party has become so anti-science that they have failed to develop any policy alternatives that would be market driven and provide for alternative solutions.  So, to admit it is a problem is to accept the only widespread solution.

  As for innovating our way out of it, I apologize for not going into that more in depth, but sadly I only had 700 words to make my case.

  Wind and solar are just Democratic interest group giveaways… the companies funded by the government go bankrupt and the technologies are expensive and largely ineffective.  They’re just boondoggles that make politicians feel like they’re doing something.  The government funding investments in those technologies isn’t going to cut it.

  The “legitimate” technologies I was talking about are things like cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells.  There are some holy grail technologies that will eliminate pollution while generating a great deal of energy.  The private sector will develop that in good time, and when those technologies penetrate markets, pollution on the scale we have no will be a thing of the past.

  In the meantime though, yes, we should have a sensible conventional energy policy that tries to be as clean and efficient as possible.  But massive governmental efforts to force emissions down?  No, especially not when other countries will not do the same and it will crush our economy.

• Anonymous

  Until there is global compliance and acceptance to a plan why should the US virtually go it alone.  Will China and India stagnate their growth to comply; not likely, more likely is the continuance of deploying coal fired generation plants while the US strangles growth at a time we most desparately need it. 

• Anonymous

  Until there is global compliance and acceptance to a plan why should the US virtually go it alone.  Will China and India stagnate their growth to comply; not likely, more likely is the continuance of deploying coal fired generation plants while the US strangles growth at a time we most desparately need it. 

• Anonymous

  Until there is global compliance and acceptance to a plan why should the US virtually go it alone.  Will China and India stagnate their growth to comply; not likely, more likely is the continuance of deploying coal fired generation plants while the US strangles growth at a time we most desparately need it. 

• Anonymous

  Until there is global compliance and acceptance to a plan why should the US virtually go it alone.  Will China and India stagnate their growth to comply; not likely, more likely is the continuance of deploying coal fired generation plants while the US strangles growth at a time we most desparately need it. 

• http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

  While it is refreshing to read that a conservative understands that not only is the Earth warming but that it is in part due to the activities of our modern lifestyle, Gagnon writes:

  “The answer to correcting global warming is to innovate our way out by
  developing legitimate technologies that produce cleaner energy, and as
  is the case in all things, the market will be the mechanism for that
  change.”

  Ah yes, the invisible hand will save our planet. How that will happen is not explained. Markets, like the ones that Gagnon sees as a savior, rely on incentives. What is the incentive for me to purchase a vehicle with better fuel economy, or to not drive at all? What is the incentive for me to make the apartment or office building I own more weather tight? What is the incentive to buy locally produced food?

  Despite gasoline priced at $3.70 a gallon and higher, the largest selling personal vehicle in the US is still the Ford F-150 pickup truck (8 cyl 2WD), which gets a whopping 15 mpg in the city. Obviously, many Americans – even the ones that believe in man-made global warming – don’t have enough incentive to change their lifestyles to actually do something about it.

  What incentive(s) will?

• http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

  While it is refreshing to read that a conservative understands that not only is the Earth warming but that it is in part due to the activities of our modern lifestyle, Gagnon writes:

  “The answer to correcting global warming is to innovate our way out by
  developing legitimate technologies that produce cleaner energy, and as
  is the case in all things, the market will be the mechanism for that
  change.”

  Ah yes, the invisible hand will save our planet. How that will happen is not explained. Markets, like the ones that Gagnon sees as a savior, rely on incentives. What is the incentive for me to purchase a vehicle with better fuel economy, or to not drive at all? What is the incentive for me to make the apartment or office building I own more weather tight? What is the incentive to buy locally produced food?

  Despite gasoline priced at $3.70 a gallon and higher, the largest selling personal vehicle in the US is still the Ford F-150 pickup truck (8 cyl 2WD), which gets a whopping 15 mpg in the city. Obviously, many Americans – even the ones that believe in man-made global warming – don’t have enough incentive to change their lifestyles to actually do something about it.

  What incentive(s) will?

• http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Day/100000234116470 John Day

  If we believed that the science was settled back in the 1970s there would have an exodus from Maine and the rest of the Frost Belt to Costa Rica. Back then, the science said Global Cooling. Twice the earth has been totally covered in ice (Planet Snowball). In general, there has been an ice age about every 12,000 years, the last one being about 12,000 years ago. The idea that C02, which amounts to a sliver percentage of our atmosphere, is going to turn the planet into a fireball seems to be less based on science than Al Gore’s commodity plan to trade carbon credits, and turn he and others into billionaires. A few years of major volcano eruptions pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than decades of human activity. Back in the day, a lot of priests and Popes made a pretty good living preaching the notion that the earth was the center of the universe. The science was settled then, and the medieval equivalent to “climate change doubters” were burned at the stake. 

• Anonymous

  The overall global temperature has actually gone down a fraction of a degree in the last 14 years.

  The data used for their proof has been proven to be tainted; therefore it is unreliable.

  The 98 out of 100 scientist numbers is a fallacy. It excludes scientists that don’t fall into the climate change mold.

  And AlGore has been proven a fraud over and over, yet he is still being worshiped. Of course, now that he has no wife and his new ocean front mansion, purchased by the profits from his carbon credit company, he’s got more room to entertain his worshipers. I don’t understand how he can sleep at night with the possibility of the ocean rising and sweeping his mansion away. Poor Al.

  Climate change is a hoax, perpetrated by the elite in order to promote the necessity for a one-world government.

• http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

  Your incentive to buy a fuel efficient car was the rising cost of fossil fuels as supply diminished, thus a hybrid car would lower your out of pocket expenses and allow you to save more money.  You will notice, Gerald, that hybrids didn’t take off just because the government gave them their blessing – they took off because gas prices spiked and a lot of people took a look at them.  Egads, that crazy invisible hand.

  The incentive to make your building more energy efficient is to save money on energy costs.  The incentive might not be there, but as fossil fuels begin to dwindle and run out, the supply will shrink and the price will go up, so of course people will turn to conservation in response.  That will drive people to look for alternatives more aggressively, and suddenly companies that are developing cleaner and more abundant technologies will be making a killing because they developed the technology.

  I’m not sure what your point about the F-150 is… are you suggesting the government mandates what car consumers purchase?  Forcing all cars to arbitrarily be at 40 miles per gallon?

  Incentives don’t exist to the level you want yet, but they will, and the government trying to force those incentives by punishing consumers with higher prices and artificially limited supply is mindless and cruel, and likely wouldn’t do much anyway.

• http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

  Your incentive to buy a fuel efficient car was the rising cost of fossil fuels as supply diminished, thus a hybrid car would lower your out of pocket expenses and allow you to save more money.  You will notice, Gerald, that hybrids didn’t take off just because the government gave them their blessing – they took off because gas prices spiked and a lot of people took a look at them.  Egads, that crazy invisible hand.

  The incentive to make your building more energy efficient is to save money on energy costs.  The incentive might not be there, but as fossil fuels begin to dwindle and run out, the supply will shrink and the price will go up, so of course people will turn to conservation in response.  That will drive people to look for alternatives more aggressively, and suddenly companies that are developing cleaner and more abundant technologies will be making a killing because they developed the technology.

  I’m not sure what your point about the F-150 is… are you suggesting the government mandates what car consumers purchase?  Forcing all cars to arbitrarily be at 40 miles per gallon?

  Incentives don’t exist to the level you want yet, but they will, and the government trying to force those incentives by punishing consumers with higher prices and artificially limited supply is mindless and cruel, and likely wouldn’t do much anyway.

• Anonymous

  why should they stagnate their growth?  they don’t have the right to be as well off as we are?

• Anonymous

  Despite all its wind turbines and solar panels, China is building new coal plants like there’s no tomorrow. China now burns more than 3 billion tons of coal a year .

• Anonymous

  Cold fusion?  Please, I’d love to hear more about this one.
   
  Hydrogen fuel cells are energy storage devices.  They do not produce energy themselves.
   
  I am curious though, can you explain how the market has diminished emissions over the past 150 years?

• http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

  Indeed – there are incentives – just not enough. Government can play a role to help steer industry in markets in directions that society wants them to go. For example, placing a tax on toxic wastes created in the manufacturing of products will provide an incentive to create products that produce less waste.

  Look at Maine’s rivers. What did it take to convince industry to stop dumping their waste into them? The markets? No – it took laws. Would you go back to those times?

  Oddly, cap and trade uses market forces to achieve a goal of society (as espoused by our elected government). It doesn’t force anyone to reduce their emissions, but provides an incentive for some to reduce their output so as to sell to others who won’t or can’t. The same could be done with fuel efficient cars – by using rebates or tax credits, people can be encouraged to purchase them, subsidized by those that don’t want to.

• Anonymous

  Don’t hold your breath on cold fusion.  Thermonuclear fusion is loaded with problems but is the only hope in that area, slim and very long range.  As for hydrogen fuel cells, their effectiveness depend on how you get the hydrogen.  If the source is reforming a hydrocarbon fuel, nothing is saved, in fact, it’s less energy and resource efficient and has a bigger carbob footprint.

• Anonymous

  See my other comment on cold fusion.

  Hydrogen fuel cells are energy producers.

  Increased fuel prices do produce some slection for vehicle fuel economy.  This is especially the case in Europe, where high fuel prices (via txation) have resulted in smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles plus an emphasis on Diesel.  The same happenes in Canada where Diesel is less expensive than regular gasoline (which is in turn more expensive than in the US).

• Anonymous

  Good for you, a thinking Republican.

• Anonymous

  I don’t think your data is correct plus key regional temps are significantly up.

  Very little data has been “tainted”, the overwhelming body of data is correct, and we aren’t going to “prove” anything until well after the fact.  All data shows a significant contirbution of human activity and effect over and above “natural” trends and cycles.

  Cut the “worship” mush.  Gore may have been the somewhat overzealous public champion, but that does not negate the entire effect.

  Your last paragraph is again hyperbolic, non-factual, and even somewhat paranoid.

• Anonymous

  You need to recheck your “data”.  The current trends are on top of historical cycles and trends and are occuring much more rapidly.  Since you’re quoting (inadequately) ice age phenomena, I guess that at least you’re not a Young Earth Creationist.

• Anonymous

  Good article, but it falls apart in the last four paragraphs.  You also over politicize the technologies involved.  The policies promoted by Democrats are not just theirs, but the result of studies done by various non-political groups.  Cap and trade, condemed out of hand by many, is actually a market solution and is one way of mitigating the true expense of excessive CO2 production.  Capping emissions may be drastic but may be the method of last resort when a combination of other measures don’t work, at least fast enough.

  That said, good to see a thoughtful political strategist come up with a non-ideological apporach to not only increasing the chances of electability but are actually acknowledgement of real issues and not being unwise denialists with their heads in the sand.

• Anonymous

  Hydrogen fuels cells are enrgy producers inasmuch as my gas grill propane tank is an energy producer.  One needs to split water into molecular hydrogen and oxygen first.

  Fusion requires overcoming the strong nuclear force to squeeze two protons together.  The gravitational force at the core of our sun (and all other stars) accomplishes this.

  Cold fusion adherents simply wish away this required force.

  We already have plenty of fusion energy on the planet, it’s called solar.

  Remember, when you burn fossil fuels, you are really burning fossil sunlight.

• Anonymous

  I’m very well aquainted with the details of your last four paragraphs and I agree.

  As I said, hydrogen fuel cells are indeed a source of energy (and electricity) but are counterproductive if the hydrogen comes (as most of it does now) from reforming of hydrocarbon fuels.  Splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen has more promise, especially from solar.  Research from MIT and elsewhere has developed efiicient, long-lived catalysts to enable efficient solar splitting of water, storing the product gases, and using fuel cells to provide heat and electricity at night as well.

• Anonymous

  There will be many comments supporting the idea that man-made climate change is really happening, and many that will say nothing has been proved, or that it is all a hoax.  That kind of back and forth probably doesn’t change many minds.

  I think the author takes a pretty sensible view.  I would offer the same view, slightly modified, to wit:

  “We know that if we stick our head over a factory smokestack, that it probably won’t be good for us.  We know that breathing auto exhaust can kill.  We know that we can’t safely drink from the Androscoggin River. 

  This is enough information to cause sensible people to act.

  At the same time, we know that it isn’t practical to totally eliminate pollution.  Therefore, we will continually seek to reduce it.  As technologies for controlling pollution continue to improve, we will seek to implement them, as soon as practicable. 

  We will also try to be far-sighted when evaluating what new products and new consumption really mean in terms of improving our lives, knowing that we must eat fish from the sea, and knowing that we must have clean water and air.

  In other words, we will do our best not to cause problems that we do not have the knowledge, wisdom, understanding, or consensus to solve later on. 

  We won’t be perfect, but we will try to be more far-sighted and not just think of the immediate moment.”

  I think that was the point he was trying to make, and I find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of people wouldn’t agree with it.

• Anonymous

  Some of us try, lol.

• Anonymous

  Your comments are not based on any facts, neighbor.  Global temperatures have been on the rise for decades.  There have been no peer reviewed studies that refute anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.  Your last comment about the “elite” is hilarious.  Maybe the elite happen to be the oil companies that employ thousands of scientists and none of them have been successful in finding evidence that is contrary to the scientific consensus after peer review.  The fraud here is you with your unsubstantiated claims.

• Anonymous

  I worked with the data in the late 80s and the 90s. I worked with the real data, untainted for political purposes. And I worked with a computer genius that could manipulate the data to produce any result that was desired by hiding a couple of embedded calculations in modules that were called from the main program, so they weren’t traceble.

  It’s a hoax. Look into it and you’ll find it to be so.

• Anonymous

  I worked with the data in the late 80s and the 90s. I worked with the real data, untainted for political purposes. And I worked with a computer genius that could manipulate the data to produce any result that was desired by hiding a couple of embedded calculations in modules that were called from the main program, so they weren’t traceble.

  It’s a hoax. Look into it and you’ll find it to be so.

• Anonymous

  When I was young my tongue got fused to a pipe and it was cold. I think we were heading to the market.

• Anonymous

  In Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Siegfried Fred Singer and Dennis
  T. Avery, gave very credible and scientifically supported argument that the Earth has had climate change every 1500 years, plus or minus 500 years, for 900,000 years or more. 

  In this book the authors used such varied studies as written history, archaeological investigations, subsea core studies, sub lake core studies, cave stalactite studies, tree ring studies … that showed that when the temperature  rises CO2 levels rise a few decades after the temperature rises and decreases as the temperature drops. 

  I found this book to be informative and thought provoking.

• Anonymous

  You propose that we need to go the way of Europe?

• Anonymous

  I guess this one of the systemic problem with the Republican party, they have become Democrat Lite.

• Anonymous

  Bachmann for President,,,,, Or anybody that is willing to uphold and protect, without further limitations or regulations or rules the 2nd Amendment. Additionally to the provision to protect the 2nd amendment, is the “right” to say no to a ”forced” government healthcare provision.
   
  So if it’s not Michele Bachmann, then at least let be Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, or Herman Cain, because the others are no better than Obama…!

  .

• http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

  Sec. of Energy Steven Chu has a short history lesson on how the “visible hand” of government leads to innovation, and in some cases, directly supports fledgling private industries:

  http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/aug/30/energy-secretary-chu-delivers-powerful-history-les/

• http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

  So true. Until my neighbor paints his house or cuts his grass, why should I do the same?

• http://twitter.com/DirigoBlue Gerald Weinand

  You are welcome to go into as long as an explanation as you need at my blog. Of course, you have your own blog, and could do so there. I look forward to reading how you think we ought to be “innovating our way out of” global warming.

  Please let me know when you have posted it.

• Justin

  I think where we disagree (and this is a shocker, I know) is the extent to which the government can encourage industry to explore and develop new technologies and processes when the market may not make initial development financially feasible. It’s true that wind and solar have largely benefitted from government incentives; without them, they probably wouldn’t be in business. But it’s one way to jump-start the process of making those energy sources more efficient and reliable. Wind and solar (on a large scale, at least) are still relatively new energy sources. Twenty years down the line, we may be at a point where the technology has improved to a point where they prove to be a good, clean portion of our energy mix. Or they may not. But would anyone have spent the time to do the initial (albeit, to a point, ineffective) research had there not been incentives from the government?

  Hydrogen is promising if the process is done efficiently, and as much as I’d love to see cold fusion happen, I have a feeling it’ll be a long way down the road. Still, they’re good areas for research, and I know it’s tough to fit a ton of info into a set number of column inches. In the larger picture, though, I think that’s where Republicans (and Democrats as well, to some extent) have failed to capitalize on the masses’ disapproval of just about everything right now. It’s easy to point out what’s wrong; the holy grail is to clearly explain not just what you don’t like, but what you’d do to fix the problems we face. Let’s see a timeline of how private industry could advance us into a new era of clean energy. I bet a lot of people would love to see it.

• Anonymous

  Nice, clean conventional energy.  Next maybe we can get Saint Nick to deliver the mail and the Tooth Fairy to provide medical care.

• Anonymous

  Nice, clean conventional energy.  Next maybe we can get Saint Nick to deliver the mail and the Tooth Fairy to provide medical care.

• Anonymous

  Nice, clean conventional energy.  Next maybe we can get Saint Nick to deliver the mail and the Tooth Fairy to provide medical care.

• Anonymous

  EJ is just trying to set your mind at ease.  After all he knows everything about absolutely everything.    Just ask and he will tell you.

• Anonymous

  You’ve mentioned this before.  And where did you (the Air Force, correct?) get the “real data”?  Can you also cite references to the “manipulation for political purposes”.  Just becasue your conputer genius could manipulate the data, why would he?  For what purposes?  Sounds pretty sinister, any evidence that anyone else did it?  This sounds like the real hoax, and worse.

• Anonymous

  These trends have been taken into account for the historical data and demonstrated AGW adds to the cyclical effects.  The post Industrial Revolution effects are also occuring faster than previous cycles.

• Anonymous

  Talk about out of left field.  What does Bachmann and the 2nd Ammendment have to do with this discussion?  Sounds like a one issue, one plank campaign.  As demonstrated, Bachmann is off-base on a lot of issues.  The others cited aren’t much better, possibly worse, a sure fire way for the Rs to lose in 2012.

• Anonymous

  Not necessarily.  Just pointing out what has been known for decades about the effect on the markets and energy conservation of the European fuel pricing taxation policies.  Another datum:  France generates 705 of its electricity from nuclear plants.  Yet, they have extensive energy conservation measures, like timers on hall lights in hotels (15 seconds to get to your room). 

• Anonymous

  Obama supporter…?

• Anonymous

  No one with a bit of sense will say that conservation will not help our economy, but only a fool will say that conservation alone will save the economy.

  All reasonable conservation steps will be taken by anyone with any sense, but government can not mandate it. Mandating will destroy marginal businesses and make goods far more expensive, making the economy more likely to fail.

  Government planning hardly ever works, most often when government planners get involved freedoms are lost.