Calling something partisan political doesn’t actually make it partisan political. Are you under the mistaken belief that Someone has appointed you to name all the blogs?
 
And please, to use the partisan political science blog of realclimate as a source is like using MoveOn or Daily Kos for your references
 
Once again you seem to fall back to the position ‘it is true because DrJ says it is true, no evidence required’.And, of course (as Socrates might have said) ‘even a partisan political blog can say something that’s true’ (that’s the traditional answer to an ad hominem argument, and calling something partisan political is surely ad hominem).
 
And now we have yet another in the long litany of reasons you deny AGW:
 
it has been warming since around the mid-’70s, but has mostly flattened out the last 14 years or so
 
I’ve lost count of the many objections you’ve raised, then abandoned. Just like you abandoned the ‘cannot falsify’ argument. I’m not going to bother chasing this one, because by now I’ve learned that you’re just throwing sand – it’s the traditional response to an unanswerable dilemma.
 
I think the earth’s history very clearly and repeatedly shows how puny and ineffective CO2 is overall at initiating climate change,
 
I think that Donnie & Marie were a much better musical group than the Beatles – but the fact that you or I think something doesn’t make it true. It doesn’t matter what you or I think. What matters is what the evidence shows. You keep talking about beliefs, and political opinions, and I keep talking about theories and evidence. That shows a lot about who’s a scientist and whose beliefs are faith based.

Mr. Schneider quotes from a blog “In a nutshell, this is why the real climate scientists–about 97% of them–are not only convinced that climate change is real, but that it is due to greenhouse gas emissions and is human induced.” 

There you go again using that logical fallacy of argument from authority, not the scientific data and facts as interpreted from your scientific education, research, and experience, along with all the uncertainty.  And where is the evidence of “real climate scientists, about 97% of them” come from?  Blogs are not good places for scientific discussion, I will let the peer reviewed research state my case, as I have before.  This blog you quote is by an associate professor of agricultural resource economics, I doubt he has any credentials that have any bearing or credibility on the earth’s climate history, physical systems, or processes, but I can see why you like that, given the title with “Greed” in it, and his parroting of left wing talking points and Krugman (the hero of all left wingers), very satisfying for your confirmation bias I suspect.

I may have been wrong in accepting that we don’t know that it’s the human produced GHGs that are causing the warming we see. I just came across this site, which has evidence that the pattern of warming and concludes “In a nutshell, this is why the real climate scientists–about 97% of them–are not only convinced that climate change is real, but that it is due to greenhouse gas emissions and is human induced.” And he has pretty colored graphs!
http://greedgreengrains.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-we-know-global-warming-is-due-to.html

Mr. Schneider, you are missing the point.  I do not seek to refute warming, it has been warming since around the mid-’70s, but has mostly flattened out the last 14 years or so, see this scientific research:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

To be sure, though there are tortured logic explanations of this to remain true to the phony catastrophic AGW hypothesis by certain political scientists, the fact is that the last 14 years or so have seen natural forces as dominant, not human CO2.  But since the mid ’70s temps have increased globally, there is warming, but the real issue is how much of this is due solely to human CO2, the only substance the left wing wants to ban by draconian policy actions.  I think the earth’s history very clearly and repeatedly shows how puny and ineffective CO2 is overall at initiating climate change, and it always cycles up and down with significant lags to temps, following the natural Milankovitch cycles which actually drive climate change, showing its’ minor follower status. And please, to use the partisan political science blog of realclimate as a source is like using MoveOn or Daily Kos for your references.  And I did not intend to use your political partisanship and biases as a scientific argument, it is merely a fact that you hold these views based on your politics and not on any vast, deep scientific education and experience.

You’ve refuted yourself again, J.
 
I said that “Instead of picking one refutation, and sticking with it, and defending it, you picked one and then abandoned it, went to another and abandoned it, went to another, and so on.
 
I won’t go into all the myriad ways to falsify the global warming theory, but let’s look at just one. It’s been 30+ years since the first published papers suggesting that we’d be looking at a rise in temperature. What have we seen?
 
To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/
(look at the second graph)
 
Now that early model was a long way from perfect, but if we’d seen more or less flat temperatures the whole global warming theory would have been tossed. But since we’ve seen actual warming, not so much. Youhave noticed, haven’t you, that the past few years have been unusually warm? While that doesn’t prove warming, it certainly utterly fails to refute it, too, and it could have.
 
Then, having raised yet another red herring, you move on to a strawman:
 
… have seen in the last century has occurred, wrt rapidity and magnitude, and has not been caused by man but rather natural forces?  Of course, thousands and thousands of times. So why is man the prime suspect of this episode?
 
That’s irrelevant. The problem arising from the facts that (a) we’re seeing increases in CO2 etc.; (b) increases in CO2 etc will warm the globe, causing catastrophe; (c) we’re seeing a warming globe.  We focus on human produced CO2 etc because if those are contributing to the problem, they are the factors most easily controlled.  Whether it’s anthopogenic or not, er’re looking at catastrophe, and to sit around arguing that because it just possibly maybe might be a natural catastrophe we shouldn’t do anything about human produced CO2 etc is just crazy.
 
And finally, the ad hominem:
 
given your politics no one could convince you out of your confirmation bias on this issue
 
Frankly, if that’s your idea of persuasive scientific argument, you’re an embarrassment.
 
On the question of catastrophe, see http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/07/conventional-agriculture-nor-ready-climate-change

arti says:  ”About the only time that I hear people talking about science as an “my side v. your side” discussion is when I’m trying to argue with creationists. So. Color me a bit wary of that kind of terminology.”

That may be your experience, but in science it is quite common.  The arguments over almost every scientific theory or hypothesis (as AGW truly is) I can remember has scientists taking sides.  It happened on plate tectonics, the trigger mechanism of PETM, the extinction of dinosaurs, etc., and it continues today in many scientific areas.  Surely you remember Galileo’s and Copernicus’ theories and the sides that formed over those controversial (for the time) scientific issues.  Darwin’s evolution is not the only scientific theory that splits scientists into factions arguing for and against.  It is unfortunate that politics sometimes gets involved in these sides, but that has also happened many times before.
 

About the only time that I hear people talking about science as an “my side v. your side” discussion is when I’m trying to argue with creationists. So. Color me a bit wary of that kind of terminology.

If the scientists on your side are going such a good job of scaring the populace about AGW, why don’t the numbers show it? 
The numbers do show it: among moderates and liberals, respondents were more likely to be consensarian than contrarian about climate change. All levels of scientific literacy showed the same trend, as did all levels of education. There’s a big neutral zone in between (that mostly clears up with increased level of education and scientific literacy) but the only listed factor that makes a person more likely to be a contrarian than a consensarian is: being conservative.
For this sample size of people, more of this segment of ‘the populace’ is ‘scared’ of AGW than dismissive of it. True, as is your point, there is a large number of respondents that is cautious or disengaged. But I don’t think this poll should be viewed as a victory for contrarians, unless the goal of contrarians is to create more Americans who consider themselves disengaged from science-based policy making.

Sorry, my scientific side is winning this policy issue hands down.
Even if this were true, don’t apologize to me, I’m not going to be alive in a century.

Falsifiability is a critical element in science to define a theory.  Is AGW really a theory?  Can it be falsified?  Why do some people think AGW is a theory?  We have had many of these discussions in my circle of friends, most recently at the AGU annual meeting in Frisco.  You need to read this article about that:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=365668

The argument goes like this:  

“Many people argue that AGM is a scientific theory because it is favored by “the consensus” of scientists. In making this argument, these people invoke the logical fallacy of argument from authority; the authorities are the scientists that belong to “the consensus”. Many distinguished scientists and scientific organizations belong to “the consensus.” Whether “the consensus” represents the view of most scientists is a topic of debate.

This debate is interesting but irrelevant. Under the methodology of science, the mark of a theory is not that it is favored by “the consensus” but rather that it is: a) falsifiable and b) not falsified in repeated trials. Is the theory of AGM falsifiable?”

The author goes on to explain:  

“The theory of AGM is principally manifested in the climate models that are referenced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report. According to the noted climatologist Kevin Trenberth ( “http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/recent_contributors/kevin_trenberth/” ), these models do not make predictions. It follows that: a) the IPCC’s models are not falsifiable and b) the IPCC’s models are not scientific models, by the definiition of “scientific.”

A point of confusion seems to be that the IPCC’s models make what the IPCC describes as “projections.” A “projection” is a mathematical function that maps the time to the computed global average temperature. A “prediction” is a proposition that states the outcome of a statistical event. The descriptions of a “projection” and a “prediction” differ; only a prediction supports falsifiability.”

So, no, AGW is not a theory and it is not falsifiable.  On the other hand , has there ever been a time in earth’s history when warming like we have seen in the last century has occurred, wrt rapidity and magnitude, and has not been caused by man but rather natural forces?  Of course, thousands and thousands of times.  So why is man the prime suspect of this episode?  It isn’t the science of the earth’s history, but rather politics that drives that.  And has CO2, human or otherwise, actually initiated and been the primary cause of climate change in earth’s history?  No, there are always much larger and more powerful earth forces behind the initiation of climate change events, CO2 is a minor player along for the ride creating minor feedbacks to climate processes driven by nature, not man.

And of course, I don’t really care, Mr. Schneider, if you believe me or not, given your politics no one could convince you out of your confirmation bias on this issue.  And frankly this is not off topic, since I am sure that one reason OLE and all the other left wing groups really want to see fossil fuels removed from our energy supply because they believe in the AGW dogma and the disaster awaiting our planet if fossil fuels are allowed to remain.  It is part and parcel of the talking points of these groups and a big part of their political agenda.

I’m shocked that you couldn’t make a simple argument, given your claimed training and expertise.
 
I have 4 university degrees
 
Falsifying a hypothesis is simple in theory. You look at a prediction made by the theory, compare that with what happens in the real world, and if the real world result doesn’t match the theory result, you’ve got a bad theory.  So to falsify the AGW theory, all you need to do is have one good, strong, real world result, one good argument.
 
One good strong result, one good argument, was something you couldn’t come up with the last time we discussed this. Instead of picking one refutation, and sticking with it, and defending it, you picked one and then abandoned it, went to another and abandoned it, went to another, and so on. You eventually argued that  while AGW proponents say that with all else being equal (as it’s been over the last few hundred thousand years, given the ice ages) events more than 500 million years ago (when everything was different) refuted AGW (1).
 
Not that it’s important, but I’d note in passing that your claimed expertise is, as usual, unverifiable. You’re asking us to take what you say on trust. Of course, taking things on trust is the very antithesis of the scientific method.
 
As to the other “scientists”, let’s look briefly at the first one you mentioned. Richard Lindzen. If anyone cares, there’s a detailed refutation of a recent talk he gave, including clear arguments and citations to the evidence, here: http://planetsave.com/2012/03/08/how-richard-lindzen-screws-up-climate-science/  
 
Nother topic:
 
so how many of those who fancy themselves scientifically literate AND those convinced of the disaster of AGW are going to drive policy?  That is a very small group, and the survey shows the point.
 
It is a small group. Especially small is the group that is scientifically literate, and the fact that science has been abandoned in deciding policy is a tragedy to be deprecated. And it’s partly your fault for failing to demonstrate good scientific practice: that you could describe a measure of scientific literacy that was based on answers to a test as ‘those who fancy themselves scientifically literate’ is just another example of unscientific mischaracterization of evidence.
 
Anyway, we’ve wandered pretty far from the main point about whether the RGF is a bunch of hypocrits for faving fossil fuel subsidies while opposing clean energy subsidies, for which I apologize.
 
(1)  http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2012/05/climate-havoc-crosses-borders/

Thanks to Ms. Aragon for an interesting article. Unfortunately, right out of the chute, she mis-characterizes the letter that Ms. Noon and I signed on behalf of our respective organizations. Fortunately, that does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of common ground existing between our organizations. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, total energy subsidies come to about $24 billion annually. $16 billion of that is allocated to “renewables.” Renewables come to less than 10% of total US energy consumption  (with a vast majority of that being from relatively unsubsidized wood and hydro power). So, we have wind and solar which are both heavily subsidized and form a remarkably small portion of America’s energy portfolio.

So, if Ms. Aragon is even halfway serious about “ending energy subsidies,” we have to start with the problems of wind and solar (and ethanol which even Al Gore opposes now). That said, when oil, gas, and coal receive unusual federal subsidies that are targeted for their benefit (as opposed to some mere correction in our convoluted and inherently unfair Tax Code), I’m more than happy to push for those to be ended as well. Ms. Aragon and I may not completely see eye to eye on those, but I’m confident that we could come to an agreement if we sat down and hashed things out.

Unfortunately, it is not up to me and Ms. Aragon. This is a job for Congress. And we all know that Congress has not been able to make any really tough fiscal reforms since Welfare Reform in 1996. I’m not holding my breath, but would love to work with Ms. Aragon’s group if there is common ground.  

OK arti, so how many of those who fancy themselves scientifically literate AND those convinced of the disaster of AGW are going to drive policy?  That is a very small group, and the survey shows the point. In this first chart from the study we can see that just 16 percent of respondents moderately or very closely follow climate change, whereas paradoxically 58 percent consider themselves very or moderately well informed.  It is those well informed but dismissive, skeptical, or disengaged that are the vast majority here.  The majority rules in this country, whether they are scientifically expert about it is beside the point, we have a democracy ruled by the majority of people, and they are not likely to want draconian solutions to this minor at best “problem”.  If the scientists on your side are going such a good job of scaring the populace about AGW, why don’t the numbers show it?  Sorry, my scientific side is winning this policy issue hands down.

And yes, I have 4 university degrees, most in geosciences (my specialty in grad school was stable isotope geochemistry, and worked on ice cores and other paleoclimatology projects for my thesis and dissertation on earth’s carbon cycle).  Although I do also have an SM in Finance and Economics, and a long and successful business career as well.  The scientists who think as I do about AGW include my good friend from one of my alma maters, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr., Judith Curry, John Christy, Bill Gray, Claude Allegre, Patrick Michaels, David Deming, Tim Patterson, Ian Clark, and a host of others.  And yes, I have a one hour lecture I give frequently to universities and high school science classes called:  Anthropogenic Global Warming, Science or Political Science?”

scientists who think and lecture as I do are having some good results these days.

Hrm? To quote your link, with some emphasis added:
“At several points in the LSAY, participants have been asked to complete science knowledge tests – most recently in the 2008 annual survey. From these responses, we can compute a measure of civic scientific literacy – the kind of science that a citizen needs to make sense of science-based policy issues and disputes. The Index of Civic Scientific Literacy ranges from zero to 100 and an examination of the distribution of the six publics within each level of scientific literacy demonstrates the influence of scientific understanding on making sense of the climate issue (see Table 3). Young adults who scored 90 or above on the Index were significantly more likely to be alarmed or concerned about climate change, although 12% of this group were either dismissive or doubtful. More than half of LSAY participants who scored below 50 were disengaged from the climate issue.”

So, yes, scientists are having some good results these days, and people who are better at understanding scientific knowledge are more likely to show concern about climate change. Quite correct.

Oil at $1,000 a barrel will certainly make more oil available. When the thousand dollar abarrel oil runs oit, there’ll still be the $10,000 a barrel oil.
 
 Technology and prices combine to make all these formerly marginal, uneconomic reserves at $3/bbl. very profitable and now “proven” and being produced at high rates.

But that’s not the same thing as saying that the relatively cheap subsidized oil that presently enables our way of life can continue.

It is obvious scientists who think and lecture as I do are having some good results these days.
 
Ar3e you just patting yourself on your back, or are we supposed to conclude that if opinion surveys say that a lot of people believe something, it must be true?
 
By the way, about the claim “scientists who think and lecture as I” – I infer that you say this because you think it should affect what readers think. Are you saying that you are a scientist? What’s your degree and field? Are you saying that you lecture? If so, where and undr what titles? Which other scientists (by name and affiliation) think and lecture as you do?
 

BTW, for all you hand-wringers out there fretting about climate change, here is an excellent new study on the GenXers and their changing attitudes about same.  It is obvious scientists who think and lecture as I do are having some good results these days.

http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GenXReport.pdf
 

arti says:  

“The worthwhile caveat to both of my numbers is that they are based off of proven reserves, but finding another trillion barrels of oil that is current unknown of would be surprising.”
Actually not at all.  Fifty years ago we would never have ever figured the oil in the Bakken Shale in the Williston Basin, or the Canadian Tar Sands would ever become “proven” reserves.  Remember proven reserves are a very distinct and clearly defined category, unlike unproven, resource potential, etc.  Technology and prices combine to make all these formerly marginal, uneconomic reserves at $3/bbl. very profitable and now “proven” and being produced at high rates.  There are easily a trillion more barrels of reserves in formations like these around the world (some just now being drilled in South Texas, for example), so they will be produced if prices stay high and alternative energy remains so uneconomic and expensive.  I don’t think those things will change in my lifetime, and probably not my kids’ either. 
But back to this “story”, I would prefer no subsidies for any industry by the government, it does distort the free market and leads to irrational consumer behavior, see wind and solar and biofuels of today.  But to say a profitable business shouldn’t have any help by government, but uneconomic and unprofitable ones should is ridiculous.  We taxpayers have been heavily subsidizing all manner of stupid, uneconomic, and antiquated old school technology for alternative energy for decades, when will it ever be “on it’s feet”?
It is obvious this writer is just another big government, government can solve all problems, left wing liberal.
 

Sorry gm.  I’m just an aging American and third generation oil and gas.  I haven’t seen you rail against what I said about the industry.  Your first post quite successfully shifted the conversation from Ms. Aragon’s article to this week’s Republican’t talking point.  Turn off Fox, step out into the sunshine, take a breath, and please converse with your neighbors instead of taunting or talking past them.

There is a glut of oil in the US.  Production is up.  Consumption is down. The US in now a net exporter of hydrocarbon.  We export enough refined product that if we re-directed that volume internally, we wouldn’t need to import any Saudi oil (about a million barrels per day).  We recently equaled the highest volume of crude in storage this country has ever seen.  The price of West Texas Intermediate has been trading significantly lower than both the OPEC basket and North Sea Trent. That has not been the case for 30 years, if ever.  Companies are anchoring supertankers offshore as storage.  The Bakken play in North Dakota is just begining to come online.  Same with the Eagle Ford in South Texas.  The Permian is booming once again.  Saudi’s are investing in good ol’ Hobbs, NM.  Significant finds have occured offshore of Brazil.  BP’s fiasco in the Gulf proved a large field.  Oil companies are shifting overseas resources to the US despite higher costs in exchange for less risk.  If normal market forces ruled the price point would be $65 per barrel or less, not $90+.  Thank speculators for the extra.  Even at $65 it would be three times higher than it was 15 years ago.

US oil companies must compete without subsidies or they are going have their backside (and that of their stockholders) handed to them by the market.  Producers are price takers, not price makers but need to stand on their own two feet.  Exactly like Republican’ts insist renewable energy and everybody else do.

So why are some people sucessful and some not so successful? He mentions but does not single out individual initiative.  Being smart and working hard, well thats just common   Rather than recognize the achievment of individuals its just a collective thing.  Lets all work together.  Its a very fundamental difference in philosophy that I have no doubt you do not understand nor would have learned about in college.
            

Iraq invasion; roads and highways; asthma from diesel particulates; Aren’t all these also subsidies for the oil industry?
 
I remember that one of the justifications offered for invading Iraq was that we could stabilize the oil market. Of course, we did the opposite, sending prices skyward, giving the oil companies record profits. Wasn’t this a subsidy?
 
Roads and highways are paid for with tax dollars, yet without them we wouldn’t have automobiles and thus no oil industry. Isn’t this a subsidy?
 
The various external costs of air pollution from cars – those are costs paid for by others, so aren’t they also a subsidy for the oil industry?
 
Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK, tea partier and deficit hawk, wants to be sure that no federal transportation money is spent for bicycles – only for cars. Subsidies for cars, but not for bicycles ( http://www.thewashcycle.com/2009/09/sen-tom-coburn-continues-his-war-on-cycling.html ).
 
So yes, lots of subsidies for the oil industry.
 
‘nother topic:
 
Do away with tax deductions for big oil to make the far left feel good but price at the pump wouldn’t change for “working families”.
 
You’re missing the points. They are: First, subsidies distort the market, so if we want the market to function correctly to properly allocate resources, we need to make sure that all costs – including externalities – are priced into the goods.  Second, if we want to reduce the deficit, eliminating tax breaks and thereby raising revenue is a good step towards reducing the deficit.
 
Inhale that pollutant CO2  and exhale it too…….
 
That’s what I’ve always said about sewage, but when I want to pump out my septic tank onto my neighbor’s yard, he gets upset. There’s just no dealing with those enviros.

For the benefit of gm and Mr. Holmes’s interest in the amount of generations of fossil fuels left:

One of the only estimates on how much coal, oil, and gas still exists on the planet was conducted by the Carbon Tracker Initiative. In terms of burnable fossil fuels that are proven reserves, there’s enough to produce 2795 gigatons of CO2. Since human civilization, right now, burns through enough fossil fuels to produce about 32 gigatons of CO2 annually, without changing demand or usage, humans have 87 years of proven fossil fuels left.

If we’re going by oil alone, there’s about 1.4 trillion barrels of proven reserves. Current production is about 87 million barrels a day, and current usage is about 93 million barrels per day. Current production levels leave us with no oil in 44 years, current usage leaves humans with no oil in 41 years. All of those numbers are from the CIA’s World Factbook, so take it up with them if you don’t like their numbers.

The worthwhile caveat to both of my numbers is that they are based off of proven reserves, but finding another trillion barrels of oil that is current unknown of would be surprising.

“Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, ‘Well, it must be because I was just so smart.’ There are a lot of smart people out there. ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something, there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
“The point is, that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
In reading this entire comment, I read that President Obama is basically saying that the difference between successful people and unsuccessful people is that successful people take the “normal” starting package that everyone gets and do something more than normal with it.

Which, as far as I can tell, is exactly what you, stever, also said in an earlier comment: “Those items, the roads and bridges, utilities, educators, etc are widely available to most, if not all, Americans. “building” something takes something more”.

So I’m confused on how you don’t agree with his statement. Since I can’t read your mind, would you mind explaining what about the statement you don’t agree with?

I’m afraid you’re right JC…I surrender…..I’ve contended all along that u libs–progressives now–are simply smarter and more knowledgeable than us conservatives if somewhat insufferable. Heretofore though i figured liberals weren’t totally useless, they could always serve as bad examples. Maybe I was wrong.

gm:
 
“You don’t agree with me, therefore you are condescending, and because you are condescending, you must be a liberal, because liberals don’t agree with me, and are therefore condescending,” followed quickly by, “Because I believe something, then liberals, since they don’t agree with me, must universally believe what I have decided is the exact opposite.”  Seriously?  This is how you come to you conclusions?  It’s like reading Anselm’s ontology; “This is true because I believe it is true,” and, “People who disagree with things I say – particularly things I say with absolutely no evidence – are attacking me personally,” are not the signs of a mature debater; they are, however, superb sources of comedy.  I’m sorry to have to tell you, however, that faith does not imbue the status of “fact” on your opinions.  Frankly, anyone who talks about demand existing for “several generations” for something for which we do not have a supply of “several generations” clearly hasn’t bothered to do any research whatsoever.
 

U gotta be a lib Exp….palpable. Your comment drips with condescension just like a lib. But back to the subject. Do away with tax deductions for big oil to make the far left feel good but price at the pump wouldn’t change for “working families”. Demand is world-wide. While we’re at it, eliminate tax breaks for all corporations and subsidies for renewable energy scams. The heck with pension fund and 401 investments in greedy corporations. We can all get our retirement checks from revenue from current taxpayers like public-sector unions do. Face it folks, demand for oil is going to be with us for many more generations. Chevron drills in the US and employs or they drill elsewhere and employ there. Inhale that pollutant CO2  and exhale it too…….

Artiofab:  If you going to require me to take the entire statement into consideration, you should do the same thing.  Notwithstanding certain words and sentences, I don’t agree with what the statement in its entirety of its plain meaning says.  I’m sorry this has been such a problem but rather than defend and justify the entire statement we are told we are too stupid to understand it. 

Dearest gm,

I’m not a liberal.  And I don’t understand why you might think as much based on the comments made.  I was simply trying to be factual.  Or is my use, need, and reliance on facts why you think I might be a lefty?  That’s one of the reasons why I tend to refer to folks such as yourself as Republicant’s.  Please join the reality-based world such that you can begin to truly contribute to our wonderful country.

I’m with those 68% who think government is the problem not the solution.
Which explains why you never use roads or bridges, nor use schools nor libraries, nor eat FDA approved foods and drugs, nor call the local police or fire departments when you see a crime or a fire, nor visit any public parks or museums, nor consume any goods that have come to the country cheaper because of governmental free trade policies, nor consume any goods that are cheaper because of government subsidies (that includes oil and gas, unless you’re drilling your own).

Seriously, if you’re going to claim to be beyond the use of the government, at least be consistent. Start making your own electricity, grow and ranch or hunt your own meals, and for goodness sake don’t be caught dead on the government-maintained communication lines. Get those things under wraps and then maybe it won’t look so ironic when you complain about government “redistribution” of wealth.

Or, otherwise, move to countries where “redistribution” of wealth doesn’t happen: where people are left in squalor because governments are unable to punish people for hoarding material and financial wealth from other people.

gm:
 
Trying to tell other people what they believe isn’t a “fact”.  It is, however, sanctimonious and condescending.  You are also probably the only person here who has yet to figure out something incredibly obvious about one of your favorite targets for sophomoric personal attacks….

stever, when you say “we just don’t agree with it.”, are you saying that Obama’s statement “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.” is not true? Since, by definition, everyone in civilized society was helped by someone else. People marooned on islands for decades by themselves (and with no technology) are the only people who actually survived on their own. Note that few of these people end up in the 1% during their time on islands.
If you don’t agree with the notion that people who don’t build successful businesses aren’t special in their own way, that’s great, but that’s neither Ms. Warren’s point nor Mr. Obama’s, and I doubt that’s anyone’s point here.
Where the error lies is when a successful person takes a prideful route and is only able to credit themselves for where they are in life. That’s the mindset that Ms. Warren and Mr. Obama (and, presumably, people here) have a problem with: a mindset lacking humility and an understanding of one’s place in the world.

One of the more interesting things about oil and gas is discussed by Bill McKibben in this recent Rolling Stone article: that whereas other industries have to spend money getting rid of the waste products of their processes, oil and gas pay nothing, absolutely $0, to dump their product’s byproducts into our oceans and atmospheres. CO2, which we as a country have assigned no worth to as a pollutant, is one, and will have century-long effects that few other industrial pollutants could dream of.

By all means, subsidize oil and gas. But be fair and tax carbon emissions as well. There’s no sense in promoting a business but being unwilling to charge one for cleaning up the mess that it makes.

There’s no debate Exp…..I’m right and u guys are wrong…..that simple. Chuckle -)……I like to provoke u sanctimonious, supercilious, condescending, know-it-all liberals who are in a never-ending romantic search for wholesomeness and wave the flag for government activity toward that end. I expected the Greek to weigh in by now with “facts”. He deals only in facts. The fact is that you libs and the man in the white house believe in collectivism and redistribution. Government is the economic engine not the private sector in your views. The lady who wrote the piece that led to this discussion wants to tax oil companies more so the government can redistribute. Libs like to wave the flag for the poor and us minorities but from other peoples’ taxes.
I’m with those 68% who think government is the problem not the solution. It’s more than roads and bridges folks.

Carter, its not a case of just picking the one line and using it out of context, even though its a widespread practice by politicians of all stripes, its that in full context and to include Elizabeth Warren’s version, it just doesn’t make sense.  Those items, the roads and bridges, utilities, educators, etc are widely available to most, if not all, Americans.  So “building” something takes something more which is what’s at issue here.  Rather than admit that the entire statement was inartful or just plain incoherent, we who are just amused by the stumbling words of the greatest orater ever, are accused of not understanding the context.  Well we actually understand it quite well., we just don’t agree with it. 

OK, gm, let’s play your game:  Let’s see…in the very first post in this thread, gm said “businessmen and oil companies simply don’t understand that someone else made their operation happen.”  YOUR words, gm.  Hey everyone, lookie here–gm thinks businessmen didn’t make their operation happen!  gm’s words!

Are you even starting to get the slightest clue as to why taking words out of context to give them their opposite meaning isn’t really very honest?

No sense debating gm.  It’s like speaking to a spoiled child who needs a nap.

jspence accuses Ms. Aragon of being ”terribly uninformed” only to thereafter say oil companies pay billions in royalties and lease payments to the state and federal government every year, implying this is some kind of unfair hardship.  He or she apparently does not understand what a royalty or lease is.  The government (therfore us) just like private mineral rights and property owners get paid royalties and lease fees because they OWN THE RESOURCE and/or the land above it.  Its our property, not the oil and gas company’s.  These companies are allowed to exploit the resource for profit in exchange for sharing a minority portion of the proceeds with the resource owner.  It’s a straightforward business transaction.  Capitalism, not socialism.

Severance is a tax levied on all resource extraction in the state and gets its name as the resource is severed from the land never to return.

Oil and gas companies receive tax considerations which are wholly unique to the industry.  They even pay lower rates because they are considered “manufacturers” even when they don’t make anything.  I can see how a refining company would be considered a manufacturer, but not one who extracts the raw material.  A farmer is more a manufacturer than an oil and gas company, but I don’t believe the farmer gets the same break.

“he still said what i quoted”
 
…along with a whole bunch of other words that meant something completely different than what Fox News told gm they meant, so how dare we inconvenience him by pointing out that pesky thing called reality?   If he doesn’t want to believe it happened, then clearly it must not have.

If oil and gas were getting subsidies when they were start-up companies, they indeed did not make their business all on their own.  If they are still getting subsidies, the implication is that they can’t even keep a going concern running all on their own, they still need the donations from the taxpayers.  I suspect it is simply grab all you can.  Greed, not need.

U can defend your hero all u want Carter but he still said what i quoted…..He didn’t really mean it though……He said the other day that the private economy was “doing fine”….It was govt employees that were hurting…..He likes government control…..People don’t realize taxpayers pay for everything that comes from govt…INCLUDING BRIDGES AND ROADS…..
Nothing wrong with being a far-left liberal….The sin is not admitting it and pretending to be objective…..Disagreement with liberals according to them means we don’t see things correctly or objectively….You union people getting what u want from Dem pols in return for blind support are the reason so many cities are in the toilet financially…..And getting worse

The author of this article no doubt means well. Unfortunately she is terribly uninformed. Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and other oil companies do not receive subsidies. After their legitimate costs of doing business (available in one form or another to all businesses) were deducted from just these two companies’ gross revenues they paid a combined $13 billion in income taxes last year. No telling how much they have paid in ten years. These companies also pay state income taxes, social security taxes, lease contracts, and billions in royalties to both state and federal governments every single year. Considering the shape our economy is in it serves no purpose whatsoever to quote studies done by anti-fossil fuel fringe groups and treat some our nation’s largest taxpayers like they “take” instead of give. The link to the Exxon Mobil income statement including income taxes paid is here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=xom&ql=1

Thank you, gm, for demonstrating that I was correct; you’d rather parrot intentional lies than learn the facts.  As both Mr. Bundy and I said, the actual quote specifically shows he was talking about infrastructure, not the businesses themselves, and to say otherwise is a lie.

GM, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven’t seen the full quote, because it’s clear that he’s talking about roads and bridges.  Not that both sides don’t take quotes out of context, but you’re joining in with the worst of dishonest politicians if you keep repeating this lie when you know better.  Which after reading this, you do:
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2012/07/19/really-obamas-you-didnt-built-remark-context-shows-he-celebrates-indivi#ixzz2168a5fNN

he actually said, “….you didn’t build that…….somebody else made that happen”…he didn’t say, “u didn’t build it yourself” as i quoted earlier…..other than that it’s accurate and he is anti-business……..redistribute from the haves to the have-nots…….buy our votes promoting envy and providing free lunches with our money….target big oil and the rich whoever they are…..

check youtube jc and u’ll see the community organizer  himself saying, “if u’ve got a business, u didn’t build it yourself…….somebody else made that happen”…..jc typical of know-it-all liberals……we don’t think like they do because we aren’t smart enuf…….it’s government by liberals and the Democrat party that is responsible for anything that works…..
 

“Businessmen and oil companies simply don’t understand that someone else made their operation happen as the prez said a couple of days ago.”
 
gm:
 
If you want to repeat that lie again, feel free; it’s been a favorite of the Romney campaign all week, but since the President said no such thing, all you’re doing is making yourself look like a parrot for the far right rather than an educated contributor to intellectual debate.  Since a five second internet search would tell you that the President specifically said that small business owners don’t build road and bridges or fight fires – not that they didn’t build their own businesses – I have to conclude that you are either too lazy to learn the truth or you know it and have a vested interest in further spreading the lie.  Personally, I’m currently leaning towards the “parrot” theory, as you apparently see no problem denigrating working Americans – which any logical human being could tell you includes the middle class – as tools of the Democratic Party rather than independent-minded individuals capable of separating out truth from intentional falsehood.

“Working families” again. Left out mention of the middle class in this piece. What  specifically is the critical role to be played by working families in shaping New Mexico’s future?? Voting Democrat I suppose and community organizers are there to help. The free lunch party..
Businessmen and oil companies simply don’t understand that someone else made their operation happen as the prez said a couple of days ago.