The anti-american, anti-freedom, big government climate change bill is up for debate now. The Democrats and Enviormentalists want you to pay $8 for gas as well as higher utlity bills all in the name of "Global Warming." It is time to stand up to these groups and say we Real Americans do not want more government and higher prices but Freedom. Every solution does not need to be big government. Let the market work and educate people to make their own choices.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 58
It is about Freedom not big government telling us to do everything. If there is really Global Warming the market will be able to offer alternatives people will choose and will be cheaper.
It is actually the speculators that want $8 gas. The hedge fund, etc. are running up the oil price. This will only make it worse.
Why they have to tax us for a theory is beyond me. I hope every single person that even thought about voting Democratic reads this and the farce the party is tring to promote.
Please back it up with legitimate resource information....where we can read what you read to make that general statement...
....................................and WE can all make our own decision on how we vote!!!!
ps: in case you havent read the papers for the last 7+ years...its not the Democrats that started this mess...........
The fact that pollution is bad and does bad things is not a "theory".
MDP I have seen the light...Global Warming is Good....Mother Earth is Bad.
"in case you havent read the papers for the last 7+ years...its not the Democrats that started this mess........... "
LOL I would like to know which paper you are refering to. I bet they happen to be liberal ones.
How stupidly short-sighted and foolish.
Right. Why is it that you wingnuts can NEVER get anything right? Check your facts. Carter's GDP growth was higher than Redink Ronnie's in all but 2 of the Rancid one's 8 abysmal years, and Carter managed that growth with OUT driving our nation deeply into republiCON debt. Go figure.
"Global Warming is a theory."
Only to those who've simply refused to accept documented scientific facts, very clear environmental signs, and widescale species extinctions around the world. The debate is over. Your side lost. Get over it.
"In the 70s people were wanting to put soot on the ice caps because of global cooling. "
In the 70's we knew virtually NOTHING about global warming. We also knew very little about medical treatments. Since you're such an avid fan of 70's technology, are you going to volunteer to have a major surgery or medical procedure done using 70's technology, rather than today's?
"The climate is always changing warming and c"ooling."
Based upon evidence uncovered in ice core samples, we're supposed to be in a cooling period right now, but instead, we've logged 9 of the highest temperatures in recorded history, over the past..what? 12 years?
" Should we reduce polution yes buts lets do it in a market driven way not big government. "
We've been waiting for "the market" to take charge for 30 years now. See any grand progress yet, other than that the cost of oil and gasoline has shot through the ceiling? Me either. It's time to break apart the oil monopoly, make that entire industry a public utility, and launch a massive Apollo project to get the US and the world off fosil fuel dependence, forever. If we continue to wait for the fossil fuel industry to stage their own demise, we'll die waiting.
We will never drill or bomb our way to energy independence. Face it now, or face it later. The fact is, reality won't change. The only thing that will change is that we will either move away from fossil fuels on our own, or we'll be forced to do so. It's time you delusional, whacko, wingnuts finally figured that out.
We need power producers and polluters to PAY for the environmental damage they do, to be passed onto the consumer, as this is the only way to get the kick needed for innovation (which is taking place anyway but we need to push it along at a faster rate).
There is no point in producing pollution if it isn't necessary and doesn't actually help anyone (I've never heard pollution does so, have you?).
It IS fact. Your side has resoundingly lost the argument. Time to move on. Btw, your hero is an immensely ignorant fool who is proposing an absurd, entirely disproven theory.
They say ignorance is bliss. You must be ecstactic!
I find it disturbingly telling that you and your Canadian author have allowed yourselves to throw away the works of these thousands of scientists simply because one professor disagrees. Not that he provides his own evidence to counter theirs. No, he just disagrees. So, all that is required now, in order to establish "fact," is for one person to have an opinion.
Yet, it is I, and millions of people around the world, including the world's leading climatologists, who're "ignorant," because we "foolishly" accept documented scientific evidence.
Thankfully, your side has lost the argument.
"Sue, are you unaware that the consensus that global warming is FACT has been drawn upon from the heavily documented scientific evidence compiled by thousands of the world's leading climatologists?"
From the linked article:
"Talk of "consensus" in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided."
The report that attempts to give credence to the 'religious left,' the Global Warming fearmongers that want everyone to bow down to the erroneous conclusions that have NOT been proven is the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The article cites the report as "based on writings of some 2,500 scientists (few of them climatologists, and many geneticists, environmentalists, etc.), and their findings are compressed into a "Summary for Policymakers" which is a political document, not a scientific one, compiled by UN spinmeisters. "
Of course, you're a "spinmeister" yourself, Clark, so this kind of balogna just suits you to T.
How would I have been able to ascertain that it was nothing but opinion, had I not read it?
"From the linked article:
"Talk of "consensus" in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided.""
This is opinion, not fact.
"The article cites the report as "based on writings of some 2,500 scientists (few of them climatologists, and many geneticists, environmentalists, etc.), and their findings are compressed into a "Summary for Policymakers" which is a political document, not a scientific one, compiled by UN spinmeisters. ""
I don't personally base my own opinion of this issue on the "controversial" (actually, it's only controversial in the narrow minds of those who are opposed to actual science) UN report. I base it upon the scientific facts that have been uncovered through decades of very serious, meaningful, heavily documented, scientific research.
I find it interesting that the "right" has chosen to politicize this issue, and has, in the process, chosen to discard all scientific research conducted on the subject as meaningless, and yet are so profoundly arrogant that they feel that they have the right to condescend to, and to patronize anyone who doesn't subscribe to their non-factually based, partisan opinion on the matter.
Again, I remind you, the debate is over, and your side has lost. You turned your back on science and relied entirely on ideology, and, once again, that ideology has failed you miserably.
"Of course, you're a "spinmeister" yourself, Clark, so this kind of balogna just suits you to T. "
Ok. You're the one who's desperately clinging to partisan opinion that's based upon nothing but partisan opinion, and who has chosen to throw away documented scientific evidence in order to cling to this partisan opinion, but it is I who is the "spinmeister."
""Thankfully, your side has lost the argument." Yet another delusion! The proof is in the last comment and one that you, obviously, cannot refute or you would have been back by now to give it your best Superman try. "
Sorry, but the facts are in, and your side has absolutely lost this argument. One opinion from a single partisan naysayer doesn't even come close to refuting the thousands of pages of documented science.
But, that's sort of the whole key to your ideology, isn't it? It's just like a religion. Nothing is required except blind faith. As long as you believe that pigs can fly, by golly, they fly, and no amount of scientific evidence to the contrary will ever disuade you from believing this.
You go right on pretending that the science hasn't proven you wrong, and that the world hasn't moved away from the debate phase of this subject. You just keep right on believing the partisan opinions of your partisan propagandists, and keep on ignoring reality.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world HAS moved on, whether you wish to believe it or not.
The theory of Global Warming is not a fact because in science, after a theory has been proven as absolute and declared as fact it becomes a scientific law. Ever hear of a guy named Sir Isaac Newton? The LAW of Gravity is attributed to his work.
Yes, gravity is a scientific law. I know that you're thinking that Superman defies the laws of gravity, but let's put the cartoons aside for a minute. Remember when you got tossed in the air and landed on your head? That was because of gravity. Anytime you throw anything upward it WILL come down. That's what gravity means and because this ABSOLUTELY happens every time it can be called a scientific FACT or LAW.
Anything in science that cannot be proven to be absolute is NOT a law. I'm surprised that Global Warming has reached the stage of theory, because I can easily see how it might still be in the hypothesis phase.
Therefore, CONSENSUS, which IS opinion cannot ever be considered as the basis upon which to delcare an unproven scientific theory.
No, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT opinion that consensus is not considered truth by science. That is a FACT. Do you actually think a group of scientists can get together and vote on whether they want to make a theory a law? If they have a consensus it becomes a law? Where DO you come from?
How you can say we've lost the argument is so beyond the realm of the most base logic and reason that I can't do anything but feel sorry for the fantasy world you live in and the lies that you really believe.
The debate is far from over and just because YOU declare it over and YOU declare a winner, from observation of your continuous and never failing fabrications and deceit, it would be perfectly scientific to draw the exact opposite conclusion.
What happens when there's too much water vapor in the atmosphere? There's precipitation the climate adjusts the water vapor content. So there seems to be mechanisms in the climate to adjust other wise we'd be swimming in the air. So there is probably some process to adjust the content of other green house gasses in the climate we just haven't found it yet. There is still so much that we don't know about the climate and how it reacts to various changes big and small to say that the science is settled.
So we can work on new technologies but shouldn't put all of our energy into policies that will cause people to lose job's.
And yet when I complained about how cold my ass was this year I was told thats not proof but 9 out say 100 years of records that are 100 out of what 6 billion years is proof that the world is coming to an end
Say the CO2 does drop how can you tell if it was because of something we did or if it dropped due to natural cycles in the climate? How do you differentiate between manmade CO2 and natural occurring CO2? How would you measure the difference between them? Cause we only want to affect manmade CO2 not natural CO2 right?
If you're REALLY interested in trends, this is a link to an article with plenty of citations that you can study for months to edify yourself on
trends in atomospheric conditions over time.
Although I very much doubt that you'd be interested in taking the time and effort to edify yourself, at least those who might be interested will have a good base from which to start.
Charles, I think you'll also find the answer to your question here. If you read this carefully and still don't have it, I can try to explain.
It is funny how for some time Dems have said the government has too much power (all the while wanting major consumer habits changed by force) but now they want the government to assume even more power as Obama now plans to do in order to "lower" the price of gas. After all wasn't high gas prices a long time enviro demand in order to force Americans to change driving habits?
How in the world did you come to know the minds of the environmentalists?
The anti-freedom, anti American I cannot address as I don't personally know any. Both liberal and conservative alike want freedom and love America. So if you've encountered otherwise, I'd recommend that you move to a different neighborhood!
I've seen conservatives, including you, who do not believe in the basic precepts of the American government but I'd not translate that into your hating America or being anti freedom. But, I always try to think the best of people, also.