Chris Wallace pushed the phony "Climate-gate" story on FNS today and actually tried to make an argument supporting the deniers, but no matter how much Kim Strassel says otherwise, the hacked emails taken out of context prove nothing. Chris Wallace's logic is that since these freaks don't believe in real science, then science should welcome the debate.
Wallace: Now, oftentimes that phrase is used -- Holocaust deniers. But the Holocaust was a historical fact. We’re talking here about science, and science usually welcomes opposing views.
Huh? When science is explained then the discussion is over. It's that simple. Let's say the conservative crazies were arguing that the earth is flat and science comes in and disproves that hypothesis and proves that the world is round then there is no debate or an opposing view any longer. It's settled. The earth is round and no matter how many of the Inhofers cry that the earth is still flat, it's immaterial. What the Inhofers are doing is scientifically proving that they are certifiably insane.
Sen. Inhofe is a notorious global warming denier and after Chris Wallace promoted the fraudulent Climate-Gate hacked email story, he asked wacko Sen. Inhofe to explain the fact that this decade has been the warmest ever recorded if there is no such thing as climate change. here's what a conservative crank responds.
WALLACE: Whatever you want to say about the e-mails, Senator Inhofe, the fact is that just this week, the World Meteorological Organization said that this decade is the warmest on record and that 2009 is the fifth warmest year on record. Does that mean nothing?
INHOFE: It -- well, it means -- it means very little because that was based on the same flawed science, the IPC science, that we have been looking at.
Now, we have to say on the science thing that this is something that -- we saw this coming years ago, and for those individuals who doubt the fact that it’s flawed science, listen to what the U.K. Daily Telegraph said. They said it’s the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Publications all over have looked at this and decided that.
You see, proof means nothing in conservative circles. Science means nothing to conservative nitwits. The earth is flat dammit!
Transcript via CQ Politics:
WALLACE: Wait, wait. Gentlemen, let me bring in -- because I’m sure our viewers are screaming at this point. They want to hear about “climategate,” and they want to hear what the two of you have to say. And this, of course, are the hundreds of e-mails that were either leaked or hacked from one of the leading climate research centers in the world that happens to be in Britain.
And let’s put up just two that have caused some of the greatest concern. From 1999, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years, i.e. from 1981 onwards, and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” And he’s talking about to hide the decline in temperatures.
And from 2009, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Congressman Markey, I was laughing because you’re bringing up this prop here. Let me ask you, how damaging are those e-mails? And let me ask you a larger question, because you and Al Gore talk about climate deniers.
Now, oftentimes that phrase is used -- Holocaust deniers. But the Holocaust was a historical fact. We’re talking here about science, and science usually welcomes opposing views.
MARKEY: Well, here is the comprehensive study done by thousands of scientists around the world that is the definitive study that was used by the United Nations and the nations of the world to say that we must do something about climate change, we must do something about global warming.
Here on page 473, and on other pages, is the discussion of those e-mails, the discussion of the subject material in those e-mails -- Siberian tree rings, OK?
Now, what’s happening now is that the deniers want to create a Siberian tree ring circus. They want to take a small percentage of this entire study, a couple pages of it -- 1,000 pages -- and throw out the conclusion, the overwhelming conclusion, of scientists in the world that there is dangerous global warming.
The real scandal will be...
INHOFE: I thought the Senate was supposed to be filibustering.
MARKEY: The real -- the real scandal will be -- is if we don’t solve this problem...
WALLACE: OK. Let me bring...
MARKEY: ... for coming generations...
WALLACE: Let me bring...
MARKEY: ... of young people...
WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Inhofe.
MARKEY: ... on our planet.
WALLACE: Whatever you want to say about the e-mails, Senator Inhofe, the fact is that just this week, the World Meteorological Organization said that this decade is the warmest on record and that 2009 is the fifth warmest year on record. Does that mean nothing?
INHOFE: It -- well, it means -- it means very little because that was based on the same flawed science, the IPC science, that we have been looking at.
Now, we have to say on the science thing that this is something that -- we saw this coming years ago, and for those individuals who doubt the fact that it’s flawed science, listen to what the U.K. Daily Telegraph said. They said it’s the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Publications all over have looked at this and decided that.
But let me say this, Chris, because I know we’re running out of time. Four years ago on the Senate floor, I gave a speech -- it’s in my Web site, inhofe.senate.gov -- you can look it up -- and at that time I outlined what all these scientists had come to me saying how they were denied the opportunity to give their view to the IPCC.
It’s all cooked science. And now when this “climategate” came out, all that did is just verify everything I said four years ago. Look it up. It’s there.
these lying pieces of crap change the name to Climate Change, what a joke.
I thought our side changed it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"
Well, since Truthseeker signed up just to go on about how it is all a fraud because Al Gore is fat (or something, it did not make enough sense for me to really follow), I would suggest you could draw your own conclusions.
Though it was changed to "Climate Change" because the foolish and dim could not wrap their heads around that not everywhere was going to warm up and took that as "proof" that Palin and company knew more about climate science than climate scientists.
in human caused Climate Change I must be a Palin supporter right you 1/2 witt. You keep believing in your pathedic Dems politicians and let me know where that get you. They all lie and it is getting worse.
gore was just a mouthpiece. what part of that did you miss? r u a fuxnoise viewer?
Some stuff you can't make up!
like Douche lied about WMDs. Al Qaeda having links to Saddam, about spying on U.S. citizens unconstitutionally, about the war dead, about torture, about Guantanamo, about nearly everything he did? You stupid bozo.
A "1/2 witt"? Is that like a 1/20th of a watt? Does "pathedic" mean "able to read"?
To answer your question, I would say "yes," if you do not believe in human caused climate change that you are rather susceptible to falling under the spell of Palin or Bachmann or Beck or Limbaugh. In fact, I'd say it just about proves you're in the idiot camp.
To everyone else, sorry for feeding the troll.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/750.html
Please just watch this. I am adamant on this recently because I too was concerned about what I was told was man made global warming.
Until I wasn't. Focus on taxing and regulating abusers, not users.
You keep trying to tell everyone opinion pieces as being more valid than scientific data.
don't understand the difference between climate and weather.
But you do not understand. Al Gore is fat and boring, which somehow means the climate can not possibly be changing. I am not sure how that is possible, short of believing Al Gore to be some kind of weather diety, but I have been assured of this multiple times by conservatives.
then how does Rush fit in with this?
I think Rush is supposed to be like an "anti-Gore" and Gore is supposed to slay him during a child sex-slave trip to the Dominican Republic in the End Times.
Glamourdammerung.
"Truthseeker", you still have not answered how Al Gore being boring disproves the climate is changing due to man-made causes.
Your side seems to be the one that thinks Al Gore has magical powers.
Grow a brain before asking questions.
You ignorant slug. Funny how global average temperatures follow the population curve of people in the world, after the advent of fossil fuels and coal, isnt' it?
bigger than all the people posting on here right now combined. Is he walking his talk even a little, I mean even one stinking little bit. Fuck him.
Which disproves climate change in what manner exactly?
Some fetishes should be kept to yourself.
Again, how does this disprove man-made climate change? Instead of trying to insult me, try to refute something I said with evidence for a change.
glam...you are dancing to his tune and he loves it...the ignore button is on the bottom
it has to be proven to me. They dumped the data they did not like so that says all I need to know about those criminals.
and models. The burden of the proof is on you, simply saying "I don't believe it" doesn't work...
Science forces people to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. That is why wingnuts and religious extremists hate it...
To get us into Iraq. He lied and told everyone that Iraq had WMDs and when he could not say that anymore he said well we believed it like everyone else. When I heard that I wanted to scream But it was you who told everyone. These scientist that were bagged with those Whistle Blower Emails were the ones who compiled the data that then everyone else used to come to the conclusion about Man Made Climate change. That is the problem, when you control the data you control the message.
also there is nothing stopping you "skeptics" (I love how now you throw your boy bush under the bus, no loyalty with you wingnuts, eh?) from gathering your own data, and provide models and/or correct current ones.
But that is far far harder than simply wishing that the problem just went away, eh?
in man made climate change that makes you a Bush supporter, where do you people come from? They dumped the data after they changed it, don't believe me read it here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environ...
You people need to get your news from more then 1 or 2 sources.
thanks. Thanks for not answering the actual post. You have one, just one f*cking unrelated story that proves absolutely nothing... which you have posted 10 times already in this thread. Because, I assume that you follow the traditional conservative MO that if you repeat something enough times, it somehow becomes authoritative.
Lemme guess you are one of those newly minted "new and improved 'independent' conservative thinkers oh so very concerned about the direction of this country" feller, aren't you?
In any case, there are plenty of data sources and models publicly available. As I said, nothing is stopping you incredibly smart 'skeptics' from proving the whole scientific community wrong. I'd assume more of you guys would be jumping at the chance of embarrassing us with your mightier intellect. So go have at it boys!
Alas I am not interested in feeding the obvious troll. Have a nice one, and cheers!
These guys controlled the data and destroyed it when they could not hide it any longer. just like the Bush Crime Family destroyed White House Emails.
They did not destroy anything and Bush is a criminal traitor.
NOAA and NASA, who collect and keep their own data have come to the exact same conclusion as the World's climate scientists that YES, Global climate change is a result of man made causes. Not Dinosaur farts as In-a-Huff blathers.
Why talk war policy when the subject is climate?
And we all know boosh's lies, but he's a climate skeptic too.
So by your standards that would make you and booth equatable.
And the "whistle blower" emails are looking more and more like industrial espionage.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
based on theroy---we have no recorded info/stats back that far...That is why the opposing scientists have some creds...There is also 'data' claiming it to be cyclical warming /cooling!
Again, proof would be swell.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environ...
The same guy that owns fux news?
'nuff said.
Try quoting scientists in the field if you're trying to make a scientific argument to dent climate change.
They changed the data to fit the policy and destroyed the original data forever. Now should we be a little concerned about that or not?
From your link:
And no, I am not really all that concerned about it. Just means the Times Online site might want to get better servers.
THEY DID NOT CONTROL THE DATA.
There are scientists from nearly a dozen disciplines involved in studying the climate and the relationship between it and the planet.
They're not involved in any "Climategate"....You and Inhofe go well together.
oil and coal with renewable energy we lose nothing but the leash that the Saudis have around our neck. If the scientists are right and we do nothing we lose a good chunk of America to the sea.
ad hominem...
saying someone is hypocritical of a position does not negate fact.
I think that has been everyone's point.
"God your dense"
God our dense what? Is that some sort of curse, or blessing or something?
I might be a troll, but please validate me. I would be so sad if you ignored me.
Besides the "inaccuracy" of your username, you seem to have a big problem with Al Gore.
Gore's not the one doing the research, doing the analysis, doing the articles.
But the way in which the Deniers fixate on him is ample evidence that there's no truth they're seeking, it's just their typical attack the messenger.
Weather happens in your state, climate happens over a continent.
incontinent.
was formed, thats what it does. I don't understand why people can't see that? Do you realize that they want to change your way of life by taxing everything you do. Who the fuck are they going to those tax dollars to and what are they going to do with it?
the history of the earth, it is the RATE of change which is the troubling factor.
Besides, how on earth does the fact that the earth is a, and has been, a dynamic system, make it remotely acceptable to shit where you drink?
I believe that we should clean up the planet, but that is not what these guys want to do. Did you read the Danish treaty that was leaked, it shows this is a total scam. The change needed for the long term survival of humanity is not going to come from these people. They want power and money, that is it.
If I was telling you to change your life style and told you I will enforce the change by taxing everything you do. Wouldn't you want a more transparent accounting of why and where those tax dollars are going?
Believ me Wall Street has their Carbon Trading desks set up to cash in on this BS. There will be a new Carbon Credit investment bubble created that we the tax payer will have to bail out, count on it.
That is a much fairer argument than ignoring the obvious effects of green-house emissions.
Rather than concentrating on the minutae of percentages of change, it would be more beneficial to concentrate on the solution. Personally I don't think the current cap and trade stuff will work - and it could spiral into what you describe.
... tht stolen emails and the alleged 'Danish treaty' just happened to be released just in time for the meeting and ballyhoo'd by the same Murdoch owned media who can only quote anonymous sources.
All the tax dollars go to the illegal aliens and meth welfare queens. C'mon Rushbo said that a long time ago. Get with the faxes already.
we expect...weather is what we get...
Weather: the atmospheric conditions that comprise the state of the atmosphere in terms of temperature and wind and clouds and precipitation
Climate: The long-term average weather of a region including typical weather patterns, the frequency and intensity of storms, cold spells and heat waves
with statements like hide the decline and then dump the data. They Climate crooks went around telling everyone the temps are going up. When they could not prove that they dumped the data and tried to discredit anyone who questioned them. That does not sound like good science to me.
OK ignore in 3 2 1
this time. I 's assuming you CAN do that.
ahhh so much better now...I can hear the music again!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environ...
Yes, we know. Thousands of scientists from nearly a dozen disciplines, world-wide, in the lab and in the field are all involved in one big giant conspiracy to......save the planet? Anyway, the narrow mindededness of the right-wing is never better illustrated than in their pathetic attempts to discredit people they don't like and to fall in line behind people like Inhofe.
why waste time on the trivial liars..
is that data?
I would ike to review it.
With my thanks to Dino S., I'd like to dedicate this to "Truthseeker12":
Just watch this first, please:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/750.html
The climate swindle is presenting this as if the sun were the ONLY forcing factor. There are many terms to the equation. We know that solar activity is cyclical. What isn't cyclical is the CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere.
Are the deniers who claim the earth is cooling.
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-g...
"Group Promoting Climate Skepticism, has extensive ties to exxon-mobile."
I believe 'extensive ties' means ..$$$$..money?
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-g...
for the climate skeptics..
"What the Inhofers are doing is scientifically proving that they are certifiably insane."
I thought they spouted this disinformation because they got payed to by large moneyed interests...energy companies and the like.
Money is powerful and greed is not insanity.
Ignorance is promoted in this country. TV is proof.
He is a republican and everyone knows that anything a republican says is a lie! Or just more insanity!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54WFoV-veCM
This was the begining of the present litmus test for most biggest, stupidest, asshole Rushican.
None of these people give a shit at all about the environment, itis all about enriching themselves and their pay masters. Human caused Climate Change is bull shit, they want to use this to tax us.
I thought they wanted to use it to do a "Final Solution to the White People Question". That was what was being said a few days back anyway
You folks need to get your lies straight as it gets confusing to know which imaginary conspiracy you are referring to.
if you are talking about the REPUBLICAN asshats that the video shows. Otherwise you are off the mark.
He is a Republicant And a traitor Don't forget that ALL republicants are traitors.
This clown Inhofe along with all these bozos playing politics with the future of the earth are a threat to humanity. May they fail, and soon.
Is it the 21st century yet?
EFF OH ESS
Some stuff you can't make up!
Frequently Observed Sycophants?
They are referring to the "Friends of Science", a gas and oil astroturfing group.
how appropriate. Friends of science? i thought it was going to be Full Of Shite.....
for the record i dont see dumped data. i see old data superseded by the output from instrumentation that is more accurate and reliable than treerings. the treering data is still on teh graphs ive seen, so how about fessing up with the *proof* data was dumped so we can all be clear on it?
in any case getting yer knickers in a knot about some controversial comment on siberian treerings is completely ignoring multiple sources of comparable data: ocean acidification and temps -particularly for Coral Reefs like our Great Barrier Reef, just have a look at the dieoffs already- desertification, ocean currents shifting and therefore removing their benefits or detriments from certain areas, island nations such as Samoa and Tuvalu and so on, who are already seeing tides overrunning what was above sealevel not too long ago.
the loss of volume in significant glaciers, loss of volume in iceshelves (arctic and antarctic) and the simple fact the arctic sea is now summer circumnavigable. im not waiting til its circumnavigable in WINTER to conclude there is significant changes in polar temps driven by AGW - thats already well and truly clear to me!
the question is; when will you pull the blinkers off, so you can see more of the picture than that VERY small slice of study in the form of treering data? the focus on that to the detriment of any and all other information available is simply wilful ignorance.
and we will see the complete dissolution of the Republican Party. they will be split between the Conservative Palinistas, the Republican NEWTers, and a hundred-or-so African Americans across the country still left in the party that support that IDIOT who is their Party Chair. Democrats should come out of this with 80 or so votes in the Senate... and maybe 360 in the House. May I also add that there won't be a CHANCE IN HELL of a Republican in the White House till AFTER Hillary's 8 years... which will follow Obama's 8 years.
(R)ahmocrats
Some stuff you can't make up!
I was about to say the same thing. 360 of what kind of Democrats in the house? 360 neo liberal globalist corporate tools!
Obummer is going to be so unpopular by the end of his term that Palin or someone as insane as she will have a good shot to win. The problem is that the system is broken beond repair. The only people that even get a shot to run as a Dem or Repuke are scum bags that will sell WE THE PEOPLE out everytime to their Corporate pay masters.
Now you are making sense except for the "system is broken beyond repair" line. We can restore our Democracy. But people will have to be starving first.
I don't.
And PEOPLE not corporations have to call the shots to repair this country. KILL ALL CORPORATIONS.
That could happen, but I doubt it. Dems, even conservaDems, always tend to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Rethugs are fracturing badly, but they got the money on their side. And the Dems that have the money are pretty much corporate tools. Nov. 2010 will be telling.
Very much so, I was hoping my rep Russ Carnahan would feel the heat, but the onl;y person challenging him is guy named Ed martin...LOL this guy won't even say the word Republican...but he is one.
http://edmartinforcongress.com/
Does this have anything to do with the thread itself? Other than the possibility that the ignorant tea baggers and the even more ignorant Fundamentalists might be energized by it?
Don't forget Michelle's stint in the WH too.
all else a distant second.
Science is secular.
These guys will never believe in science as much as they do religion.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
I thought that was why they try to call climate change, evolution, atheism, etc. as "cults" as that is the only frame of reference they can understand.
After all, science makes nowhere near as much sense as an invisible sky fairy that only speaks to you and hates the same folks as you.
...get a compassionate conservatives attention every time.
"Publications all over have looked at this and decided that."
No, Lying Fool.
They havent.
Cite one.
Cite one, cite one peer reviewed, independantly funded article in ONE publication ...you cant.
Period.
Go to hell Lying Fool.
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
work it earl...damn!
..they throw out this spurious claim that there is a 'debate' amongst 'real scientists' ... no ... there isn't. There is NO DEBATE in scientific literature about this... that is the lie perpetuated by the CrapMedia
and it is simply not the case.
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
The so called "flawed science" the tiresome jack ass Inhofe is jabbering about is no doubt related to the "tree ring" data the other guy attempted to explain before he was cut off.The whole silly scandal revolves around the use--in the suspect emails--of the word "trick" which was simply a common technique which takes "tree ring data" and replaces it with "temperature data" which is apparently a more accurate way to measure climate change.It infuriates me how these willfully ignorant assholes are ignoring the facts to gin up this so called scandal at such an important crossroads in the future of this planet.It's sooooooooo damned irresponsible it's criminal.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
Imhofe needs to take a good long look at himself and ask which is more likely. That there's a worldwide conspiracy by scientists everywhere out to get him...or maybe it's that he's a stupid douche.
Honestly, he has yet to give even a guess as to what motive scientists all over the world would have for faking evidence. World domination I guess?
To add that the worst thing these scientists may prove guilty of is deleting FOI requests.If that IS the case then heads should roll.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
I do not see how refusing to submit publically availible data for admitted and repeated nuisance requests is an issue at all.
I'm with you boss-they prolly get driven nuts by clowns like Inhofe pounding them with requests.Problem is they could wind up in a hell of a lot of legal hot water which certainly will not help matters one bit.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
I doubt that they have any legal issues from refusing to release the information that is easily availible elsewhere. The denial clowns seem to know this too, or else they would be filing lawsuits. It is a shame that they do not file nuisance lawsuits though as it would at least open them up to fines for being aggressively stupid.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environ...
They dumped the data.
... do you?
"Ahm frum Okluh-hoe-muh. We non't bleeve in no syns. It ain't Gawd's wurd."
Who would you rather believe? These Flat Earthers who believe Sky Daddy waved a magic wand and created the universe 5-6000 years ago or science that is directly responsible for everything you're looking at right now?
nuff said...debate over...good night.
LimpBalls
It's really pathetic that we are all held hostage to these bronze age cults...
Thanks Oklahoma for subjecting us and the World to this Crooked excuse
of a Human Being.What a smirking little Prick.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environ...
This link of yours returns
A Nothing there. 404 Error
true
Some stuff you can't make up!
not a scandal. stop digging.
Some stuff you can't make up!
If Inhofe is going to selectively disregard certain scientific facts why couldn’t it be gravity
To a FOIA request to see his emails regarding his bullshiit trip to Copenhagen to block humanity.
He is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such. What is that now a days, jail, hanging, I fergit. Should I ask gawd?
STEELE: "We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I am using my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is now covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? No very long."
OMG, they will not be happy until everyone is walking around like in Idiotcracy. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Guys, friends, neighbors, liberals, conservatives, deniers, conspiracists, family, homeless, middle class, rich, working poor – Please. I hate the GOP talking points as much as the next poster on this great blog. But…
Please watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
Look, we all want to stop the earth from warming (if it still is). We all want to clean the air and earth and water. We all want responsible regulation to keep the polluters from further damaging the planet. But…
Please watch this:
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8907
You are being driven by your ideological predilection to knee-jerk disregard some nuance on the issue of climate change / global warming.
Inhofe is a bought and paid for freak. Palin is a showbiz talking head bullet point. But Al Gore is not innocent either. Please. Please. Open your freaking heads and maybe see that possibly this warming thing is not the one to attach yourselves to too tightly.
I would love if we could change the climate if it were warming, or change it if it were cooling. But we can’t. We just don’t affect it as much as you have been told. At worst, we are 4% of CO2, if that is even the culprit.
And if we cap and tax carbon, the natural element that is produced by plants, the ocean and animals, we are on a slippery slope to scary stuff. Period.
Please look at the idea of regulation nationally, and not internationally (China and India will not comply as much as you hope they will, with limiting emissions), and cap profits, not emissions. It is a ridiculous assumption that we can change warming by taxing everyone that is “abusing” his or her usage of carbon. Please. Wake up. You might as well tax people that have more than 3 children, because they are abusing their alotted carbon footprint.
You are being fooled by fear, just like the conservatives and tea-baggers are driven by Glenn Beck scare tactics. There is no fascism or communism, but, this Copenhagen signature is a wrong thing to do. It will solve nothing. And will, in effect, produce the very thing you have accused the Bush administration of orchestrating. Tearing up the constitution and our sovereignty to an international IMF controlled entity. And, well, the Glenn Beck socialism mantra, to tell you the truth.
Please. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BptZ7CXHziA&fe...
You keep wanting to repeat that "4% carbon dioxide" while going on about how everyone should not be repeating "talking points".
The fact you seem to think Lord Monckton is credible makes your claim seem pretty dubious at best without something else backing it up.
the cap and trade bill does not tax plant carbons. How the fuck could we do that anyway. Do the plants pay is leaves..what?
The bill works with carbons produced as a result of energy production. You know, the ones that are, by all the science and other weird stuff foreign to those with stunted intellectual capacities, affecting the atmosphere?
Yeah, those. Those are the ones that are targeted in the bill.
Regarding the bill, how long did it take you to read it?
It didn't sound like, in those emails, that the scientists were fundamentally changing ALL the data and ALL the science to specifically support their 'agenda.' It sounded more like they felt like they wanted to hide some of the data because every single outlier and unexplainable blip in the data is jumped on by the deniers immediately. It's like I hold out an apple and say it's red, and then someone goes well no, there's a brown spot here, therefor it's not red.
The only thing flawed, would be the morons and drooling imbeciles in Oklahoma who voted for this steaming pile!
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
No explanation needed, the title tells you all that you need to know!
However, show me that the 4% is inaccurate and I will change my tone. What if it s 6% or 9%? Or 20%?
The point is still valid. We don't affect the change up or down enough to internationally have the need to regulation carbon.
It is simply for money. And everyone is being frightened into giving up their right to use as much heat or AC as they wish, like everyone was frightened into giving up their constitutional rights for terrorism. Let's cap and trade children, then. They are the biggest additiion to a carbon footprint. Econmiies grow with more people and more products. So how on earth does this make any sense unless you stop population growth?
It is simply eco-terrorism, until solidly proven otherwise. I was on board until I saw the "Global Warming Swindle" and seeing what a cap and trade would do to rights domestically. It has nothing to do with ecology. It is about another bubble of derivatives. Enron. Show me how I am wrong.
A member for a week and 5 similar posts linking the same URLs? One might think you have an agenda…
Nevertheless, what you say either has merit – or it doesn’t.
It appears that I’m being presented with a false dilemma here. EITHER the Earth’s climate has been fluctuating over millennia, OR man is causing global warming.
I’ve become bored with restating the data of tree-rings, ice-cores, and gas-samples. The studies are there for anyone who wants to look them up. Yes the climate cycles. And yes the amount of green-house gases we have been emitting into our atmosphere is causing warming. The question to be debated among those doing this research is the percentages. But this is academic.
It’s like you have two fires burning. One you can’t control, one you can. It’s silly to think you should ignore both because the other is out of your hands. Put out the one fire you can.
And I’m in agreement with the carbon trading. It makes little sense to put caps on emissions but then allow you to buy higher caps if you have the money (here, buy my CrAP – I’m not using it all…)
I would rather see mandated scrubbers in coal-fired power plants. Let the government help pay for them – but if they do, let the government regulate prices in favor of the populace as well (not in favor of the power companies’ profits). Gas and diesel are just a small percentage of the use of OIL, but again – if we can do something to reduce the consumption – DO IT. Go ahead and bail out Detroit, but if they take the money, mandate that the money must be spent on improved (more efficient) drive-trains, batteries, combustion reworking. Support manufacturing of Solar cells, Wind Turbines, and GeoThermal/Tidal technology. Build up THIS infrastructure via credits and grants so we can SELL IT here and to the rest of the world. Give more tax credits to those installing home solar arrays, Solar Heating, etc. There is MUCH we can do in both the private sector and industrially.
Buying and selling pollution credits is a distraction.
I would rather see mandated scrubbers in coal-fired power plants. Let the government help pay for them – but if they do, let the government regulate prices in favor of the populace as well (not in favor of the power companies’ profits). Gas and diesel are just a small percentage of the use of OIL, but again – if we can do something to reduce the consumption – DO IT. Go ahead and bail out Detroit, but if they take the money, mandate that the money must be spent on improved (more efficient) drive-trains, batteries, combustion reworking. Support manufacturing of Solar cells, Wind Turbines, and GeoThermal/Tidal technology. Build up THIS infrastructure via credits and grants so we can SELL IT here and to the rest of the world. Give more tax credits to those installing home solar arrays, Solar Heating, etc. There is MUCH we can do in both the private sector and industrially.
Buying and selling pollution credits is a distraction.
(I agree. The main thing is that it should not be a money making venture to trade carbon credits, whether the earth is warming or not. They are fooling us, and the fear lets lockstep progressives feel good about helping the planet and opposing the psychopathic conservatives that are in the pocket of big oil.
But, facts are facts. And our affect / effect on the planet at large is largely overstated. For the specific goal of making money. Forget the NWO mantra and the issue of our constitution for a moment. The best way to control the pollution is the stop fossil fuels. And to do that we need to tax the windfall and essentially socialize it to the better good. Investment in bio-fuels, wind, electirc, magnets, water usage as a fuel. Yep. It exists.
"I’ve become bored with restating the data of tree-rings, ice-cores, and gas-samples..."
I would like to be shown where I am mistaken. But, the items I have been shown and heard are that the ice cores show that CO2 occurs AFTER periods of global warming on the earth, not the other way around.
The charts look similar and scare people sufficiently, but, stretch them out, and it shows a lag of the CO2 behind the warming.
I have to post on this.
"I would rather see mandated scrubbers in coal-fired power plants. Let the government help pay for them – but if they do, let the government regulate prices in favor of the populace as well (not in favor of the power companies’ profits)"
Where does the Gov get the money from? They get it from the populace, and if the Gov regulates prices in favor of the populace the companies lose money and if the companies don't make enough money what happens? They go out of business. Yes the Gov can take over the companies(not withstanding any Constitutional limitations)but who is still going to be paying for it? The people.
Comments like yours make me feel sad.
Don’t feel sad. Let me explain…
CO2 scrubbers are expensive for power companies to install, but they help. We (the gov) can mandate them, but then our electricity prices go through the roof as the power companies make up the difference. What has been happening in many states is the power companies are pre-offsetting the costs by raising rates and profiting – whether they implement the technology or not.
I suggest the rates be regulated so that the power companies do not profit from the offset rate increases IF they receive government money to implement the technology. That isn’t to say they have to operate at a loss, just that they not adjust their rates to profit from the mandate.
the consumer is going to eat the price either way. We are going to pay it to the Gov or the energy comps.
1)companies add scrubbers. Added cost to consumers through higher energy rates.
2)companies add scrubbers. Use tax credits to pay for them. Gov increased tax paid by the consumers to pay for them.
Either way the consumer is going to pay for it. Or are you suggesting something like the health care bill that just past the house? Pay for 10 years and benefit for five? The consumers will have to pay for it one way or another.
I forgot to mention (actually afraid to because I think that is what is going to happen) number 3) Gov pays for it by printing cash resulting in massive inflation and decreased purchasing power.
ETA still sad
Everything the government spends comes from us. It’s a matter of deciding what to spend it on. I figure that if we are going to give away money in the form of payments/credits, we should have some say in how it is to be used, and the conditions.
more say so where we spend our money, than where the Gov decides to spend it?
Deregulate, open up competition. Yes I'm sounding very much libertarian but oh well. If its better to have some say in it, you should agree. Or do you think the Gov always knows best?
LOL – Do I think the government knows best? I only wish it did.
Ultimately government revenues are to be spent to promote the general welfare. What is generally beneficial is open to debate. In a perfect world, our government can put out mandates that benefit the most number of people. In reality, those mandates and taxes benefit fewer and fewer – at the expense of the most number of people. Positive results can come out of government, however, and I’m not ready to throw up my hands and walk away because it’s too hard to get our representatives to get it right.
We bail out an auto industry because the failure of that industry would be catastrophic. Yet the only condition of that bail-out is that the auto industry has to pay back the money. I say that’s not enough. To simply save it to do the same thing is pointless in the long-term. They just go about their same business and rinse/repeat. If we give them our tax dollars, let’s have some say in how they go about future business like any major investor should; hence the emphasis on efficiency and alternatives to fossil fuels. That’s in our best interest as a people – not just their bottom line.
Same with the power grids. There is no choice in most areas in what power company you choose. There is no competition because it’s too expensive to start-up a competing grid and they are given a de facto monopoly. As with the railroads and telephone networks, monopolies tend toward abusive. I see nothing wrong in the government (as in – we the people) stepping in and regulating their operations in this case. Furthermore, I think the coal-burning plants need to cut their emissions. We have the responsibility to make that happen – and we can help. We help by paying some of the cost; again, with conditions.
I believe that according to the US Constitution that the Gov can tax the holy hell out of us, but can only spend it on limited things. That they can promote the general welfare, but only through what is enumerated in the constitution and that the general welfare clause is a preface, and that the interstate commerce clause means as in the vernacular of the time "to function properly" not control every aspect of anything that may ever (or not) travel interstate.
And yes to bail out the auto comps or banks is pointless, they will fail again. Let them fail and let them learn.
The banks should of failed, the car companies should of failed. Yes it would of hurt, but I don't believe it would of hurt as bad in the long run as the current situation is going to.
States were considered self contained units at the time, and wanted to be considered that way, so when the document said interstate commerce it was not "to function properly." That would only be said by someone who did not know their history.
The real game playing came from the conservatives of the teens-to thirties, when they came up with a new character intrastate commerce, which is little spoken of now.
Interstate commerce is like the Federal Question, or the Establishment Clause in that Congress had to determine the answer to that first before legislating to avoid the appearance of merely playing punitive or favortism games.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
are still self contained units, or at least a majority of them are fighting to be, look up how many states have filed 10th amendment legislation. Last I recall it was 33 of them.
And unless you are more specific, I can not know which cases you are referring to. But I assume that you are referring to such cases such as the one SCOTUS decided that the grain that a farmer grows on his property for his own use, falls under the interstate commerce clause, because while it may not move in interstate commerce it effects it, because if he didn't grow it he would have to buy it. And if he had to buy it, it would effect interstate commerce because grain moves interstate.
Are you honestly trying to defend such a ruling? Are you saying that the Fed Gov can regulate the tomatoes that I grow in my backyard for my own personal use because tomatoes travel interstate? Seriously? That ruling was a joke.
The Constitution is a paper limiting the Federal Gov. Hell look at the preamble of the Bill of Rights(not the preamble of the Constitution). It declares that quote
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution" notice the part where it states further declaratory and restrictive clauses.
Wrong, it was a framework based on Enlightenment principles that opposing views could come together and in good faith present thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
The whole purpose of the Constitution was to create a strong centralized government to replace the weak government of the Articles of Confederation.
The 14th and 15th amendment made everyone a citizen of the United States, and not just their individual state, whether they were born into slavery or not.
And you left an interesting part out of the 10th amendment, the right of people, which was the sole subject of the 9th amendment. And this was before the Gilded Era fiasco known as Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
And the restrictions the States wanted was adopted by the drafters of the Constitution, the Electoral College and the state power to appoint Senators, the latter eventually overturned with the allowance of direct elections with the adoption of Amendment 17 (ratified by states 1913).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
should not be for profit anyway.
Health Care.
Food.
Energy.
Ius Naturale.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
You are asking me to prove not only a negative, but something you appear to be incapable of proving yourself? That is a bit odd.
Your only apparent source, Lord Monckton has no science background whatsoever, has been caught in outright lies about having the backing of the American Physical Society in his falsehoods about science. When he then says that a Copenhagen climate treaty would "impose a communist world government on the world", you have to be stupid to consider them a credible source.
The fact he whines about the government being too "atheist" is only icing on a fruitcake of crazy.
That is a fantasy.
And I am being very generous in stating it that way.
and then refutes it with... well what exactly?
The Fox propaganda channel , Republicans and right wing assholes telling lies and making absurd and asinine statements ? I am at the BFD stage , they are what they are and they are going to be around for a while .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Attention conspiracy trolls: Alex Jones is not a valid source of information. That is all.
Comments are closed on this entry