Will either of these two things change the EPAs ruling on stationary diesels?

[Justin]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1661844120100216  Texas fighting the carbon regulations

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6124L720100203  A house bill concerning carbon

[mike90045]

I hear they are going to an $3,000 year tax on fuel injectors. Carbon is now OK. Injectors must be licensed and taxed, fingerprints stored with Interpol.

[Stan]

Hey Bob....I thought you said the big oil companies didn't care or wouldn't see an economic impact if the greenies clamped down on them because most people will still be driving their bloated suv's??

Seems like a logical thing that they'd be losing billions of dollars if governments clamped down on them, doesn't it?  Doesn't take an expert to see that it seems to me.

If you were Exxon mobile and you were facing losing some of the billions of dollars of profit each year, wouldn't you be paying your experts (read tame scientists) to be sowing doubt about climate warming among the citizens so they would phone their congressmen to try and squash this sort of sh1t?


"Texas, which leads U.S. states in carbon dioxide emissions due to its heavy concentration of oil refining and other industries, will see a major impact if U.S. mandatory emissions reductions take effect".   http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1661844120100216   Posted by Justin in the last post.

Now...My distrust of newspapers is primarily in their interpretation of data, not the reading of how political stuff impacts corporations.  I figure they are pretty savvy on that subject, them being one of them themselves and all... 
Stan

[mobile_bob]

Stan:

conoco/philips bailed out of the cap and trade, which they had been aligned with previously when this whole AGW thing
started to come unraveled.

i am thinking that they would never have jumped on board had they been against it from the beginning.

not much i can do about this whole thing anyway, except casting my vote for sanity.

maybe we can get a congress that will force a hard look at all the data, and excuses like
"hey i am a messy record keeper" will just not cut it.

i suppose you bought it when your students came in with "hey i lost my homework, but trust me mr. Stan, i did it"

ya right!!

if this science is so friggin good, it will stand up to the light of day and a second round of review

review by qualified scientist and not a peer review of their cronnies.

bob g

[Stan]

I'm sure it will stand up to any number of reviews, however the only people that can objectively asses it will have to be "legitimate scientists" and not anyone with conflict of interests to big oil.  I can't see how an accountant would have the training or experience to be able to judge whether or not data is sound, unless they had the degrees and years of work in the field of climatology, or paleo-climatology, which is even more rare.  There's probably only a few hundred scientists in the world with paleo-climatology qualifications.

Then there's geologists, and marine biologists and chemists (for the dating data) and paleo-botanists too for the ice core pollen data, and chemists for the CO₂ and other gasses data.....hmmmm must think some more on this.

I still think if Big oil is so adamant that they aren't at fault for selling stuff that is poisoning the atmosphere, they could have proved that with years worth of data by now.  They certainly can afford to hire the best brains in the business, and all the research that they would need to do would give them great gobs of income tax credits so why haven't they?  I guess that's either obvious, (they tried but can't just like the cigarette companies) or they are so arrogant they figured they'd always have big government's protection and would never need to do it.

I'd love to be the fly on the wall in one of their board meetings discussing this stuff.
Stan