GOP’s Chris Christie: Climate change real; man contributes
I guess it’s true; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie really isn’t running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012:
“In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state,” he said in a press conference yesterday (video below). “There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. Decade average temperatures have been rising and temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate.”
OK, so climate change is occurring. But is mankind to blame? To get an answer to that crucial question, Christie says, he has been meeting with experts and scientists for the last few months to discuss the issue in depth, and has also done considerable reading and study on his own.
His conclusion:
“When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”
In his statement Thursday, Christie also announced that New Jersey would not participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a joint effort by 10 Northeastern states to address the issue of greenhouse gases at the regional level through a cap-and-trade program. His decision to withdraw from RGGI makes a lot of sense for purely practical reasons, and was clearly reached through the same analytical process that brought him to the conclusion that climate change is real and mankind is contributing.
As Christie notes, the rights to emit a ton of greenhouse gases through RGGI were projected to cost as much as $20 to $30 a ton, a level that would create a significant economic incentive to reduce those emissions. Under RGGI, however, those rights are selling at less than $2 a ton.
“RGGI has not changed behavior and it does not reduce emissions,” Christie said. “We’re looking for broader results that benefit all ratepayers and all citizens.”
Christie went on to pledge that in light of the seriousness of the problem, “there will no new coal permitted in New Jersey. From this day forward, any plans that anyone has regarding any type of coal-based generation of energy is over…. We need to commit in New Jersey to making coal a part of our past.”
Instead, the state will begin to shutdown older coal plants and move toward offshore wind generation, using old landfill sites as solar energy fields and concentrating on conservation and efficiency because “the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t use.”
As promised, here’s Christie’s statement in full (and I do confess to thinking while watching it that no major political figure in Georgia would be capable of such a performance.):
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
377 comments Add your comment
ragnar danneskjold
May 27th, 2011
11:35 am
Dear Jay @ 10:23, thanks. I can agree with the direction of your analysis. Even if mankind is absolutely, 1 percent responsible for rapid changes in the climate, it is impossible to prove it with even 1 percent certainty. But the consequence of that truth is that the leftist perspective is that freedom must be diminished and costs increased due to the theoretical potentiality of some effect. The conservative view would be that such draconian destruction of the economy should be guided only by some near certainty of “proof” and potential cure. No leftist has yet offered any “cure” for the problem, merely an intention to inflict new costs and controls over the behaviors of the individuals.
My view is that more people die from frostbite than will ever die from global warming. Frostbite deaths are provable, but global warming deaths remain merely theoretical. Leftists always want to inflict new government controls based entirely on theory, whereas conservatives recognize the destruction governments leave in their wake,
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
11:36 am
“There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing.”
Christie has this one 100% correct:
We have been keeping track of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere since 1959. These numbers are in “parts per millon”.
1959 – 318.16
1969 – 326.76
1979 – 339.2
1989 – 355.11
1999 – 370.1
2009 – 389.43
The basic trend is obvious. But note the size of the increases. From 1959 to 1969 up 8.60, from 1999 to 2009 up 19.33. Trends within trends within trends.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
May 27th, 2011
11:37 am
Why is it that the default for climate change deniers is do nothing until you can aboslutely prove what we are doing is bad instead of if it is possibly bad and will harm our children and their children, let’s figure out how to minimize impact until we can prove that it is not bad.
The experiment we continue to proceed with blindly and haphazardly is the only planet we can live on right now.
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:39 am
Normal: DDR, I won’t take that bet. Nobody could offer a “give it up, Grandma”?
Word. I hate to say “trigger happy police…” but…..
Oh well, I missed the game last night, (bridal crap with my sister — are ALL women crazy bridezillas when they’re about to get married? who really CARES about a stoooopid flower arrangement? They’re just flower for god’s sake!!), didn’t get in until late, got to work early and just heard that the HEAT WON!! yippeee!!! Now i’ve gotta go on the Cleveland Blogs and dog everyone who dogged LeBron. Life is good!!!
Common Sense
May 27th, 2011
11:39 am
@md He cannot tell you because you are treating this planet as a closed fixed size system.
The truth is that the Earth is affected by many items outside the planet.
How much hotter or cooler can the sun burn? What about the impact of solar winds and magnetic storms? All of these variables are under constant change. Yet for comfort we all seek a number that is concise and accurate. It does not exist.
Saturn has the largest storm ever seen by man raging on it’s surface. Yet this planet is millions of miles further away from the source of energy that fuels those storms: The Sun
http://www.space.com/11720-monster-saturn-storm-cassini-spacecraft.html
The question is how much you are willing to spend not to change the numbers to the left of the decimal point, but to the right of it. Because that is the only side of the number you will ever change.
Even then you will not be sure it was not because of reasons other than what you think you affected.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
11:39 am
Jay: “Am I missing something? Is it merely that you have a knee-jerk reaction to agreeing with liberals, even when your rational mind tells you that they’re right on this one?”
My sense is it’s that meme that was put out there some years back by Limbaugh especially that “climate change” can be purely and simply reduced to the attempt of Marxist liberals post-Berlin Wall to advance their anti-capitalist agenda. And therefore, it must be opposed no matter what. The question of its truth value almost never even enters into it. One gets the sense this position would mandate opposing it EVEN if it were proved true, capitalism of course for them being that which mustn’t be questioned.
md: “There’s plenty of evidence for man’s contribution, and that adding it to already existing CO2 emissions leads to a warming period more rapidly than it would otherwise. ” / Look at your statement………….”more rapidly than it would otherwise”………says who? How? ”
Again — since you seem to have missed it above — I’ll post again the debunking of this claim by the Environmental Defense Fund:
False claim: CO2 is not coming from human activities
CO2 has natural sources: volcanoes for example. All animals exhale it. How can human activities be affecting the concentration of CO2 on a global scale?
The Facts
Natural processes emit large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also remove it—at nearly identical rates. This balance maintained the concentration of CO2 at a stable level for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In the case of global warming, the question is: What is causing the increase in CO2 concentrations? The answer turns out to be incontrovertible. The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 provides a unique “fingerprint” that tells scientists that the lion’s share of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:39 am
You folks do know that “scientific theory” is the same as an educated guess………guess being the operative word.
Well it’s been fun, but I have to run over to the Temple of the Holy Deniers…….you folks be sure to say high to the minister over at the Church of the Unwavering Believers……………
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:43 am
md,
Your collective comments today on climate change lead me to assume that you have no interest or background in science and that you have simply chosen to be antagonistic regarding climate change without actually delving into any true discussion on the matter. Jay likely has you pegged — you take your stance because you perceive climate change as something that you must attact because it represents the liberal or progressive mindset and you shall have none of that.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:45 am
Well it’s been fun, but I have to run over to the Temple of the Holy Deniers
Finally! Some truth about md doth come forth. I’m feeling a Monty Python moment coming on.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:45 am
“md, you claim to accept that mankind contributes to climate change and that action should be taken. However, you then argue repeatedly and strongly against both conclusions.”
Not at all Jay………merely pointing out that we have no clue how much our contribution may be…….it very well may be infinitesimal………….setting policy on that vs just trying to do things right by the planet are two totally different concepts…..
Now I’m out………………
Another opinion
May 27th, 2011
11:46 am
As one who grew up in New Jersey, I’ve always admired the independence that its citizens showed in their politics and voting patterns. It certainly influenced me and throughout my life, I have never voted straight-line for either party or completely agreed with either side’s positions. If more Americans did this, the sheep-like dedication that people have to their beloved Democrat-this or Republican-that would vanish. And – why is climate change a political issue instead of just a scientific issue, anyway? Only because Al Gore decided to make it one. If you take the politics out of it, it’s much easier to debate the facts and findings.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:47 am
md: Your either-or/black-and-white approach to this issue is the problem, not the science. The science is sound. Stop being so dense.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
11:47 am
md: “You folks do know that “scientific theory” is the same as an educated guess………guess being the operative word”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:48 am
Moonspots, sunspots, volcanoes, wobbles in the earth’s orbit, cow flatulence.
These are the right-wing think tanks’ countermanding theories?
Because there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the theory of AGW, it does not mean that it is unfounded.
Again, I implore, where are the superior, alternative explanations?
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:49 am
And I know it seems like I’m piling on md, but stating that scientific theories are equivalent to religious faith, is just plain silly…
@@
May 27th, 2011
11:50 am
One last comment.
When jay’s “scientists” have figured out how to put a cork in erupting volcanoes (Hellooooo, Al Gore)…
I’ll give a listen.
schnirt
Controlling the environment is like trying to control The Great Miss-a-sip’ (Hellooooo Kool-aid drinkers).
Can’t be done.
Ciao for now!
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:51 am
getalife 11:34 – that post was a testament to the fact that your career was not spent as an economist or business person
ragnar danneskjold
May 27th, 2011
11:52 am
WSJ April 25:
“How unconvincing is the green legal doctrine of the climate tort? So much so that not a single Justice seemed persuaded when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments last Tuesday—even some of the liberals questioned the theory with Scalia-like vigor.
“In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, a group of state attorneys general are suing five utilities, claiming their carbon emissions are a “nuisance” under common law. Boiled down, they’re asking the Court to give judges the power to create climate policies—and weigh their costs and benefits—that would ordinarily be fashioned by the politically accountable branches.
“But don’t take our word for it. “I mean, even just reading that part of your complaint, it sounds like the paradigmatic thing that administrative agencies do rather than courts,” Justice Elena Kagan told New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. “Now what,” chimed in Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “the relief you’re seeking seems to me to set up a district judge, who does not have the resources, the expertise, as a kind of super-EPA.”
“Later, Justice Kagan, President Obama’s second nominee to the High Court, asked, “General, do you think that you have a federal common law cause of action against anybody in the world?” After all, everyone contributes to global warming. “Obviously the greatest benefit to reduce global warming would be, of course, to shut down the power plants, right?” as Chief Justice John Roberts put it. Should the courts have that power too—but extended over the entire economy?
“Or “can the courts set a tax?” wondered Stephen Breyer. Ms. Underwood claimed that such a policy wouldn’t “abate the nuisance,” to which Justice Breyer acidly replied, “Oh, this will. This is addressed to that. It says abate the nuisance, here’s how you’re going to do it. You’re going to put a $20 a tax ton on carbon, and lo and behold, you will discover that nuisance will be abated.”
“It’s heartening to see the Justices reaffirm their faith in the democratic process, especially after a 2006 case that the Obama Administration has used to justify its autocratic choice to impose carbon regulation via the Environmental Protection Agency. But even the proponents of the climate tort have been open about their bad faith. The point of this and other lawsuits has merely been to harass industry and coerce business into supporting a carbon crackdown, no matter what elected representatives decide.”
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:52 am
jconservative 11:36 – “1999 to 2009 up 19.33.” One word: China.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
11:53 am
“Nothing could be further from the truth.”
From dictionary.com:
Theory: “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” – i.e. a educated guess. If not, then what would you call it, LWM? Scientists can guess as to how much man is contributing to climate all they want. But they’ll never be facts. Just theories and educated guesses.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:54 am
“Controlling the environment is like trying to control The Great Miss-a-sip’ (Hellooooo Kool-aid drinkers).
Can’t be done.”
Morganza spillway.
Yes, it was done.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:54 am
More remedial education for the HeadRush acolytes…
While volcanoes can certainly have a large effect on climate, their effects are transient. They produce large amounts of methane and carbon dioxide but massive volcanic discharges are rare and their major effects last only for a few years, whereas human-caused pollution is continuously renewed. There is no plausible volcanic explanation for the observed warming trend of the last century.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
11:55 am
Another opinion: “And – why is climate change a political issue instead of just a scientific issue, anyway? Only because Al Gore decided to make it one. If you take the politics out of it, it’s much easier to debate the facts and findings.”
You’re wrong there. Climate change has been a more or less political issue – in this country and abroad – since well before Al Gore came on the scene. But you’re right insofar as the current FORM of that politicization — i.e. either you deny climate change or you’re an anti-capitalist Marxist – is new (post Berlin Wall) and more specific to this country.
But as I mentioned above, those who are responsible for THIS politicization are those – like Limbaugh – who claim that the matter comes down to a binary up or down vote of no confidence in capitalism (neoliberals like Gore having seen no problem with integrating an awareness of climate change into market capitalism).
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
11:56 am
“And I know it seems like I’m piling on md, but stating that scientific theories are equivalent to religious faith, is just plain silly…”
How so? There’s no concrete evidence on whether or not God exists. Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories. Sure, some are more widely accepted than others, but they are still theories.
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
11:56 am
I hope my educated guess regarding the theory of gravity holds true and and I don’t float off into space on my way to lunch.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:57 am
Not to worry cons.
As long as they can write big checks to stop alternatives, not much will change on this issue.
Our planet, our troops and economy will continue to pay the price for our addiction to oil.
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:57 am
Jay. BTW, betting odds are that Regional Transportation Tax will fail the first time. Story has it most transit taxes fail the first time. Only after people sit in traffic another 5 – 10 years after will they say: sh-t, we shoulda done that, and then pass it the second time.
Traffic is going to suck in this city for another 15-20 years. Maybe after it is fixed I can come back.
Dan
May 27th, 2011
11:58 am
Peadawg – There is concrete evidence. That’s what science is about: advancing or debunking theories through observation and experiments. The observations and experiments yield EVIDENCE.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
12:00 pm
getalife@11:54 BINGO
Bruno
May 27th, 2011
12:02 pm
From earlier:
his larger point is not diversity for diversity’s sake, but diversity as a strategy to reach a diverse audience.
Can you people get past race for 2 minutes?
It sure would be nice if you Libs would make up your minds, because you can’t have it both ways. But as long as it benefits you politically to keep the racial pot stirred up, it will never end. I can accept that, but it doesn’t make you “better” people as you seem to think.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:02 pm
“The observations and experiments yield EVIDENCE.” – There’s evidence about man contributions, yes. But exactly how much? How do put a price (cap-and-tax) on something you don’t know?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
12:03 pm
Peadawg: Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories.
This is incorrect. There is concrete evidence, just not enough to make it absolutely true in all cases. But there is solid evidence and THAT is why they are called theories, not because there is no evidence. The no evidence part is the beginning stages, the hypothesis. A Scientific Theory is very different from “I have a theory.”
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
12:05 pm
Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…
“A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.”
em·pir·i·cal –adjective
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Or, if you prefer to use non-scientific terms – concrete evidence…
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:05 pm
Off topic but interesting is Kyle’s blog today on Fannie and Freddie. Go ‘ol bailouts in action!!!
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
12:05 pm
Peadawg — “How so? There’s no concrete evidence on whether or not God exists. Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories. Sure, some are more widely accepted than others, but they are still theories.”
The conflation of scientific theory with religious dogmatism does not indict the scientific research and theory thereunto pertaining, nor does it invest religious dogmatism with a halo of real-world validity and respect.
It just makes the comparer look like a d**k. Look up “Russell’s Teapot,” Peadawg.
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
12:08 pm
jm May 27th, 2011
11:52 am
jconservative 11:36 – “1999 to 2009 up 19.33.” One word: China.
I would say three words, 1. China, 2. India, 3. USA.
Note this is an alphabetical listing.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
12:08 pm
When jay’s “scientists” have figured out how to put a cork in erupting volcanoes (Hellooooo, Al Gore)…
I’ll give a listen.
I think, given the resources, scientists and engineers could find a way but you wouldn’t want to pay for it.
Good little liberal
May 27th, 2011
12:10 pm
Climate change real? Man contributes?
Well lets start giving money to Al Gore and George Soros. That will fix it!!!
St Simons - we're on Island time
May 27th, 2011
12:11 pm
This one gets me too angry. The stupid, I mean.
Everyone anywhere near the ocean, including Christie,
knows it’s true & a fact.
Watch the cons walk backwards on everythang.
They smell the Defeat, the Recalls, the Buyer’s Remorse.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:12 pm
AmVet, Joe Mama, Adam,
Where’s the evidence of exactly how much man contributes? How much do you (cap and) tax? I would love to see some studies on where scientist have tried to do this. Would be some good entertainment.
stands for decibels
May 27th, 2011
12:13 pm
Thanks, Chris. This acceptance of scientific reality mitigates your dickish decision to halt the rail tunnel by as much as 0.15%.
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
12:14 pm
Re theories and such, a few definitions of interest.
Science – Our attempt to explain nature.
Theory (in science) – A statement that explains all available data, with no exceptions.
hypothesis: a tentative or working assumption which scientific study has yet to validate.
Bruno
May 27th, 2011
12:14 pm
“When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts….
Same old tired “climate change” arguments. I hope that some of you scientific “experts” on board realize that facts can’t be voted on, so whatever percentage of scientists believe something is irrelevant, as the History of Science clearly demonstrates.
As for the facts about climate change:
(1) The earth’s temperature has varied by a little more than 1 degree Celsius over the past 150 years, the only time period for which we have accurate measurements. Though the upward trend is possibly of concern, the amount of variation is fairly slight in the grand scheme of things.
(2) All of the predictions regarding anthropogenic climate change are based on computer models, models which have been shown to be faulty in the past.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:14 pm
“I think, given the resources, scientists and engineers could find a way but you wouldn’t want to pay for it.”
Not while we’re funding 3 wars and food for the entire world, nope.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
12:16 pm
We need to get our country back.
The gop and cons can’t govern.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
12:19 pm
Where’s the evidence of exactly how much man contributes?
Why move the goal posts?
The amount of pollutants, carcinogens and GHGs pumped into our atmosphere has been measured.
Your argument was that there was “no concrete evidence”. Which is patently fallacious. Now you merely ask, unwittingly, what is the EXACT amount of that concrete evidence.
“How much do you (cap and) tax?”
Thanks, but I’ll pass on the invite to your red herring lunch. This out of the blue canard, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand – “Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories.”
If you want to acknowledge that you are incorrect and move onto the topic of cap and trade, fine.
(I’m opposed to it…)
Dave R.
May 27th, 2011
12:19 pm
Bruno, you forgot one other:
(3) We deliberately place our temperature sensors in heat sinks – some know them as “cities” – and exclaim “Wow! Look how much hotter we got!”
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
12:21 pm
Peadawg — “Where’s the evidence of exactly how much man contributes?”
Given your earlier conflation of global warming and religion, I don’t think you’re interested in — or would accept — any evidence at all. Your POV is pretty clear.
FWIW, I think you’re the kind of guy who decried automobiles because he feared what their acceptance would do to his buggy-whip factory investments.
“How much do you (cap and) tax?”
How much do you *tithe?* How does one propitiate one’s deity so as to ensure that no earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and/or tsunami bedevil one?
“I would love to see some studies on where scientist have tried to do this. Would be some good entertainment.”
Almost as funny as reading “Dr.” Kent Hovind’s ’scientifical’ explanations of Genesis and the flood.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:24 pm
“Given your earlier conflation of global warming and religion, I don’t think you’re interested in — or would accept — any evidence at all. Your POV is pretty clear.” – I never denied climate change. I said there’s nothing more than theories about how much man contributes. And my question to those who advocate cap-and-tax, how do you know how much to tax if you don’t know exactly how much man contributes? Answer: You don’t know.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
12:27 pm
Why is going to take more people to create green energy than the old kind of energy?
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
12:28 pm
reduced to the attempt of Marxist liberals post-Berlin Wall to advance their anti-capitalist agenda.
Lately it’s been blamed on the left’s capitalist tendencies. If you own stock in a company that would benefit from massive government expenditures in combatting global warming, you could realize some serious profits.
Oh well, the wingnuts will get you coming and going. “Where’s the scapegoat? Who can we blame something on?”
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
At least we can all agree the “theory” of relativity has been proven by the out of order postings on the AJC blogs!
St Simons - we're on Island time
May 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
Please, cons, don’t stop. Don’t walk back the crazy.
Don’t stop trying to destroy Medicare
Don’t stop trying to destroy SS/FICA
Don’t stop trying to defy Science.
Don’t stop legislating people’s private lives, screeching “big gubmint”
Don’t stop ignoring Jobs
Don’t stop cutting kid’s pre-k
Don’t stop cutting poor kids’ nutrition.
Don’t stop. Dear God, don’t stop.
Cmon, cons. Say it – Let em eat cake.
Just a little more, cons…..
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
Peadawg — “I never denied climate change.”
And, of course, I never said that you did.
“I said there’s nothing more than theories about how much man contributes.”
No, you conflated climate change with religious belief. I’m going to hold your feet to the fire on that. What are *your* religious beliefs, exactly? What CONCRETE EVIDENCE do you have to support them?
“And my question to those who advocate cap-and-tax, how do you know how much to tax if you don’t know exactly how much man contributes? Answer: You don’t know.”
Before you go making a liar of yourself, please show me where I “advocate(d) cap-and-tax.”
Don’t tire yourself out looking for it; I didn’t.
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
12:30 pm
“Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories.”
Peadawg, why don’t you run down to the Science Building there at UGA and tell that to some of the scientists there and see what kind of reaction you get.
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
12:31 pm
If Christie keeps bucking the GOP trend by showing a smidgin of some actual intellect and a set of nads, he could get my vote.
Joe Cool~"PRESIDENT Obama" Tells Birthers,"Thanks For Playing BI+CHES"
May 27th, 2011
12:31 pm
Scout, tell me what you think about this:
Okla. jury convicts pharmacist once hailed as hero:
OKLAHOMA CITY – A jury Thursday convicted an Oklahoma City pharmacist of first-degree murder, saying he went too far when he pumped six bullets into a teenager who tried to rob the drug store where he worked, and suggested he spend the rest of his life in prison.
A prosecutor, however, said that after Ersland shot Antwun Parker in the head, knocking the 16-year-old to the ground, Ersland made himself “judge, jury, executioner” by getting a second handgun and shooting the boy five times in the abdomen. A coroner’s report said the latter shots killed Parker.
A video from the store showed Ersland firing a pistol at two men after they burst into the store, one of them armed. Ersland hit Parker with one shot, knocking him to the ground, and chased the other suspect out the door. After returning to the pharmacy, he retrieved a second gun and shot Parker five more times 46 seconds after firing the first shot.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pharmacy_shooting#mwpphu-container
Message from Matti
May 27th, 2011
12:33 pm
Awww. I really feel for the hold-out, hard-core, right-wing extremists these days. It must be tough for them to watch the intelligent members of the Republican Party stand up, put on their adult pants, and be reasonable, while those who are sticking to the party-first, no-compromise, extremist positions are behaving like clowns, making more punchlines than headlines. Bless their hearts.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:33 pm
““And my question to those who advocate cap-and-tax, how do you know how much to tax if you don’t know exactly how much man contributes? Answer: You don’t know.””
“Before you go making a liar of yourself, please show me where I “advocate(d) cap-and-tax. Don’t tire yourself out looking for it; I didn’t.””
I never said you did. Consider the words Joe Mama, ” to those who advocate cap-and-tax”…if you don’t advocate cap-and-tax, then that question really pertain to you, now does it punkin? Nice try though.
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
12:34 pm
“Why is going to take more people to create green energy than the old kind of energy?”
1) Research and development- old energy needs much less of this
2) New infrastructure- jobs to build it, jobs to tear down the obsolete infrastructure
3) New manufacturing facilities to produce the technologies needed for green energy
40 By becoming a leader in green energy, we develop exportable products and secrvise
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:36 pm
“What are *your* religious beliefs, exactly?” – What does that have to do with anything?
“What CONCRETE EVIDENCE do you have to support them?” None. It’s all faith and theories. Just like the contributions of man to climate change.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
12:38 pm
Finn: “Lately it’s been blamed on the left’s capitalist tendencies. If you own stock in a company that would benefit from massive government expenditures in combatting global warming, you could realize some serious profits.”
Interesting. Perhaps just an iteration of the age-old right wing model of paranoia towards the corrupting, intruding “other” — whether defined in ethnic terms or otherwise — i.e., they’re not only lazy and unproductive (looking for “handouts”), but they’re also devilishly persistent and tireless in their efforts to undermine our one true way (the purity of our wives/daughters, capitalism, whatever)?
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:41 pm
doesn’t really pertain*
@ 12:33
Seeking High Ground
May 27th, 2011
12:42 pm
St. Simons 12:11 – what you got to complain about? Just go buy some insurance.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
12:43 pm
None. It’s all faith and theories. Just like the contributions of man to climate change.
No, not just like it.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:45 pm
“No, not just like it.” – And you’re entitled to your opinion, TaxPayer.
jm
May 27th, 2011
12:47 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-26-waiting-as-son-serves-in-war-zone_n.htm
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
12:50 pm
Peadawg,
Faith is needed to believe in a God. It is not a prerequisite for a scientific endeavor.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
12:51 pm
But you are destroying jobs in the old industries. Lots of people work in a coal mine and a coal fired power plant. A windmill, not so many. And I’m not arguing against renewable energy, I just don’t think green jobs are going to the savior for the US economy. Especially jobs that only exist because big gov subsidizes something.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
12:51 pm
Yes, people are entitled to their own opinions.
Just not their own facts…
@@
May 27th, 2011
12:52 pm
Getalife:
You’ve got your Morganza Spillway…screw everyone else, right?
Folks in NO would say urban development in Missouri and Illinois is the problem. Folks upstream (Missouri and Illinois) would say New Orleanians shouldn’t have built below sea level…they chose to live in a bowl? They should be the ones to suffer.
You all lose, the river wins.
After last night’s storm, I’ve got a huge mess in the yard. Back to cleaning it up.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
12:52 pm
Peadawg — “I never said you did. Consider the words Joe Mama, ” to those who advocate cap-and-tax”…if you don’t advocate cap-and-tax, then that question really pertain to you, now does it punkin? Nice try though.”
Begs the question of why you, in response to me, defended yourself by saying you had never denied climate change, despite the fact that I’d never claimed you had.
But hang around, punkin — because I’m about to make you a liar.
Peadawg — “None. It’s all faith and theories. Just like the contributions of man to climate change.”
Well, then, Peadawg, let’s see your CONCRETE EVIDENCE for the phenomenon of climate change. If you can provide it, then demonstrate conclusively that climate change is affirmatively and unquestionably non-anthopogenic in character. If you cannot, then you will have conceded that your own opinions about climate change are as unsupported as are the opinions of those who espouse an anthropogenic view of the phenomenon.
If, OTOH, you *cannot* provide it, then why are you bothering to argue about it in the first place?
Either way, you’ll be outed as a liar, Octodawg.
So bring it on. Present your concrete evidence for climate change. Then prove conclusively that climate change is solely due to natural processes, not anthropogenic ones.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:53 pm
“Just not their own facts…” – I haven’t seen any facts pertaining to how much man contributes to climate change…just guestimates and whatnot. Please provide some facts and I’ll be more than happy to read them.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
12:59 pm
Another consideration. Who is studying the possible negative effects on the climate from the construction of millions of windmills. What’s going to happen when all the energy in the wind is converted to vibrating our eardrums via ipods? Inconsequential, you say? I’m sure Henry Ford felt the same about his automobiles.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
1:00 pm
“Present your concrete evidence for climate change.” – Google “climate change evidence” for yourself. I’m not going to post 31,900,000 links on here for you. Again, I’ve never denied that the climate is changing….it’s been changing since the Earth was created. I don’t think anyone else is either.
” Then prove conclusively that climate change is solely due to natural processes” – I never said that it was “solely due to natural processes,” so nothing to prove there.
Want to keep going, Joe?
Ivan
May 27th, 2011
1:02 pm
“md, if conservatives — I mean, any conservatives at all — could bring themselves to acknowledge that mankind is AT LEAST a part of it, to use Christie’s term, and that we need to take action, that would be HUGE.
But in the absolutist GOP, that can’t be allowed to happen.”
Someone doesn’t get out of the Left tent very much.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:06 pm
Peadawg — “Google “climate change evidence” for yourself. I’m not going to post 31,900,000 links on here for you.”
Translation: Octodawg goes SQUIRT, swims away.
It appears that when Octodawg thinks something’s true, he doesn’t feel it necessary to present evidence. When *you* do, however, you’ve got to shovel links to keep him happy. I see how this works.
“Again, I’ve never denied that the climate is changing….it’s been changing since the Earth was created. I don’t think anyone else is either.”
Present your concrete evidence for this belief.
“I never said that it was “solely due to natural processes,” so nothing to prove there.”
Of course there is. You deny the possibility of anthropogenic processes having any influence, so by definition, you *are* saying that it’s solely due to natural processes. Unless you now want to assert that part of all of it is driven by MAGIC.
Your evidence, please.
“Want to keep going, Joe?”
Absolutely. That hole of yours just gets deeper and deeper.
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
1:08 pm
” It’s all faith and theories. Just like the contributions of man to climate change.”
Yeah Peadawg, run on down to the Science Building there at UGA and tell all the scientists there and see what kind of reaction you get.
stands for decibels
May 27th, 2011
1:11 pm
off topic, but Herman Cain fans might take heart that 538’s Nate Silver says there’s a case to be made for taking the man’s candidacy seriously:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/the-simple-case-for-taking-herman-cain-seriously/#
Independent
May 27th, 2011
1:13 pm
I should have made it clear from the beginning — and have now done so — that the problem with RGGI was not its reliance on cap and trade, but the fact that cap-and-trade can’t work when implemented on a very limited regional basis. For example, while New Jersey was a member of the RGGI effort, neighboring Pennsylvania is not. That just isn’t going to work.
That also applies to the U.S and China. If we go cap, tax and trade and China does not, how does that affect GLOBAL Climate Change?
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
1:14 pm
“You deny the possibility of anthropogenic processes having any influence, so by definition, you *are* saying that it’s solely due to natural processes.” – Show me where I said I deny the possibility of anthropogenic processes having any influence. Please oh please oh please show me where I’ve said that!!!!! BTW, I’m not going to prove something I never said.
“Translation: Octodawg goes SQUIRT, swims away.” – LOL, fine. I’ll do the google search for you: http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=climate+change+evidence – There you go. Pick any link on the first page. What more you like?? You asked for proof of climate change and I provided the link(s).
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:14 pm
heathen @12:51, the same arguments were used by those opposed to the railroads in the 1830s…
TnGelding
May 27th, 2011
1:14 pm
Bold, but let’s wait and see if he can follow up on it. Sounds like NJ is on the right path, tho.
jt
May 27th, 2011
1:15 pm
AGW is a useful tool………………
During a job interview, There are three possible answers to the question “Do you believe in AGW?
A).Yes
B).No
C).There is no way to tell.
Applicants answering with A should be given absolutely no additional consideration. You probably knew this already in that real dum people usually look it.(pierced eyeballs and neck tattoos and stuffetc…..).
Applicants answering B could be decent but one must ask WHY one doesn not believe it. If the answer is “because Rush or Hannity says so”,,,give no more consideration. These people are usually sheep and will probably wind up voting for RINOs or something.(that less of two evil crap which has gotten us into all of our present trouble.
Applicants answering C display a superior intellect and are worthy of having the job.They probably vote for Ron Paul which means that they deserve an immense hiring on bonus.
.
Yes…that is ALL that the AGW scam is useful for.
yuzeyurbrane
May 27th, 2011
1:17 pm
Christie makes another interesting Republican Presidential possibility who will not be among those to choose from. The Republicans must relagate their lunatic fringe back to the fringe if they want to survive.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:17 pm
Speaking of your own facts, hi jt!
Are you gonna hang around for FNTM?
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
1:18 pm
Poke, poke, poke… there’s nothing happening… poke, poke, poke… is this thing broke. I cannot seem to generate a fact-based discussion on global warming with a Republican. Then again, I don’t think they like science, in general. This Christie fella appears to be an outlier.
Lee
May 27th, 2011
1:19 pm
What this is really about:
NJ consumers pay 16.14 cents/kwh. Georgia residents pay 9.8 cents/kwh. If you look at this table, you will realize that the New England states have the highest rates in the country.
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
The RGGI was never about global warming or greenhouse gasses. It was about eliminating the competitive advantage that states with heavy reliance on abundent coal fired generation enjoy.
The power to tax (and to regulate) is the power to destroy.
New Jersey only obtains 12% of their net generation from coal – about 685 megawatts. I.e., one new natural gas fired combined cycle will replace that.
Christie is getting out of the RGGI because it didn’t have the effect they wanted – which was to drive the price of coal fired generation up and eliminate the competitive advantage that these states have over New Jersey.
End of story.
ken
May 27th, 2011
1:20 pm
It seems that we don’t hear about the anthropogenic global warming hoax in the media like it used to be. It could be because many people are not buying into it anymore. I know I don’t. Climate change has occurred for billions of years and will continue to do so. Politicians are going to have to scramble up to find another “crisis” to raise taxes on, because they are no longer fooling the general population with the global warming crisis.
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
1:21 pm
comedian Colin Quinn:
“You think people in third world countries worry about Global Warming? We go over there and tell em “I know you just got air conditioning and cars and stuff, but we want you to NOT use them. See we used too many of them and, well..actually, it’s a funny story”
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:21 pm
Independent, we contribute some huge part of the total. If we ameliorate that, it dos not negate the benefit, because others aren’t.
As for the economics, there are ways of dealing with that, as well.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
1:22 pm
Least not forget there are truck loads on money to be made in GCC…surely that’s not motivating Christie’s new awakened opinion much less Gore’s initial motavation
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:23 pm
ken, appealing to the generally uninformed generation population is a fool’s errand.
A similar percentage still believes the president is not an American.
Go survey the acknowledged experts, and let me know what the figures are…
jt
May 27th, 2011
1:23 pm
AmVet
I’ll swap one or two with you………..if I haven’t stroked out from working in the garden while drinking Gin and Tangerays.
.
I didn’t have any trouble doing that 20 years ago.I think someone made the Tangerays more powerful or something.
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
1:23 pm
sorry, I just saw his stand up routine on the tube last night. This is a paraphrase:
“I know our society is doing ok as long as I can read magazine headlines like “Why he’s cheating on you”. When I start seeing headlines like “How to get out from under the rubble in 5 easy steps, that’s when I start worrying.”
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
1:23 pm
Ok, one more Colin Quinn:
Muslims pray like they know a bomb is about to go off somewhere.
jt
May 27th, 2011
1:24 pm
I meant Tankeray and tonics…………………….see what I mean?
Logical Dude
May 27th, 2011
1:25 pm
(paraphrasing)
I, for one, welcome our new Venusian Overlords, who are driving this Global Warming to fit more like their planet, Venus.
snarky
I really wish we could resist them by reducing our CO2 emissions so we can keep the planet habitable by humans for the next thousand years. But no, we are powerless to resist the onward movement of the Venusians who are forcing us to spew so much CO2 into the atmosphere, making our world much hotter to suit their needs.
/snarky
jt
May 27th, 2011
1:25 pm
tanqueray………………sheeesh.
.
Just a few more.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:29 pm
Tanqueray and tonic?
Now there is a man of class and sophistication!
All while gardening, no less! Very impressive.
“Though an old man I am but a young gardener.” ~Thomas Jefferson
“I live in the garden; I just sleep in the house.”~Jim Long
Looking forward to your musical contributions…