New Climate Change Report Debunks Key Right-Wing Talking Point On Global Warming
New Climate Change Report Debunks Key Right-Wing Talking Point On Global Warming
Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the third part of its Assessment Report. The first two parts of the report released earlier this year dealt with the science and impacts of climate change. This new part suggests mitigating global warming’s effects can be done at a “modest cost.”
The right-wing has repeatedly advocated against taking bold action to curtail carbon emissions by propagating fears that it would bring down our economy:
Fox News: “Al Gore’s Global Warming Movie: Could It Destroy Our Economy?”
Rush Limbaugh: “[Liberals] would have us destroy our economy and millions of jobs based on pseudoscience.”
James Inhofe: “Global warming is an alarmism. It’s a type of a hoax. The reality is that a cap on carbon is a cap on the economy.”
The report sets a target of reducing global warming gas emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050. By employing the use of energy efficient methods and by increasing use in the renewable energy area, the IPCC report says there is enormous potential for the cost-effective deployment of energy systems that would help reduce pollution while producing employment gains. According to Bill Hare, one of the lead authors of the report, the cost is manageable:
HARE: Well, over the period to 2030 it’s going to cost about, maximum, I would say about 0.1 percent loss of annual GDP growth globally. I’m not sure that would really be detected in terms of the year-to-year variations in global growth.
“It has been shown for the first time that stopping climate pollution in a very ambitious way does not cost a fortune,” said Stephan Singer of the World Wildlife Fund. “There is no excuse for any government to argue that it is going to cause their economy to collapse.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
3…2…1 TROLLS!
May 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pmheads…buried…in…sand…
May 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pmA month ago I was talking to a German about Global Warming and he was talking about how they’ve been taking steps to clean up the environment for years. I jokingly said, “Yeah, but look at the terrible damage it’s done to your economy!” Anyone who talks about the environmental movement being dangerous to teh environment is a total liar or a complete idiot. Plain and simple. There are too many countries already doing it that are still enjoying strong economies for anyone with an ounce of sense to believe such garbage.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pmSo, Sen. Hoax, what’s your next b.s. reason for being a scientific idiot?
May 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pmBy employing the use of energy efficient methods and by increasing use in the renewable energy area, the IPCC report says there is enormous potential for the cost-effective deployment of energy systems that would help reduce pollution while producing employment gains.
But not for Big Oil.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:17 pmStephen Singer is naive. All the oil/coal based exporters will be hammered. That is why there is so much resistance. Similar to the tobacco industry, those with a vested interest in the industry try to convince the rest of us that WE will be the ones hurt by a change…
Wonder how much of the oil/coal revenue has been reinvested into sustainable industry in those jurisdictions. That is the issue.
lost one
May 4th, 2007 at 1:17 pmGOP talking points on global warming are rarely based on reason. I wouldn’t expect this report to change much.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:19 pmWould someone please put Sen Imhotep out of my misery?
May 4th, 2007 at 1:19 pmThere will be no net monetary loss from the effort to change our impact on climate.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pmBig business is simply stalling until they get caught up on ways to make a profit from cleaning up their own act.
Modern capitalists are very adept at making a buck.
Example:
Global warming, climate change, and the threat to wild fisheries have become an advertising gimmick for fishing guides and lodges…
“Better book your fishing trip this year, ’cause there may not be any fish when the waters rise…”
……..scumbags
the IPCC report says there is enormous potential for the cost-effective deployment of energy systems that would help reduce pollution while producing employment gains
i remain confused as to why this is so hard for some
to understand, even back away from…
seems the benefits would be enormous, all ’round…’
May 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pm…
James Inhofe is the ANTI-NOAH.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pmGlobal warming is a myth.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:21 pmThe jury is still out on this.
It’s debatable.
It’s questionable.
This is a plot to rob the US of money.
Al Gore is a traitor.
God does not believe in global warming.
But not for Big Oil.
Comment by Juan C — May 4, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
but actually they COULD… they are the ones with enough
May 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pmmoney to invest in this future…
if only it wasn’t more important to line their own pockets…
although the concept that economics should be any sort of factor when dealing with something of such catastrophic consequences, it’s nice to find out that the economic cost is so minimal
that should keep the neocons happy
yeah right
May 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pmI bet Inhofe is really In-A-Huff over this report (pun intended)
May 4th, 2007 at 1:23 pmWe can start making moderate changes now or pay for drastic changes later. Republicans only take action if they can get something back in their pockets like starting wars and stealing oil. As soon as they find a way to make big bucks reducing carbon emissions they’ll be the biggest environmentalists around.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:24 pmWould someone please put Sen Imhotep out of my misery?
Comment by RUCerious — May 4, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
:D
We must re-bury him. With a giant stone in top. And a lot of carnivorous beetles inside the coffin.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:25 pmif only it wasn’t more important to line their own pockets…
Comment by katy
My guess is that it is more difficult to monopolize renewable energies than fossil fuels. You can buy PV and solar thermal collectors from almost anybody in order to have electricity and hot water anytime. Sure, it is more complex for a community to do it for big MW applications.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:26 pm#12. Did you talk to “god” about its beliefs on global warming? What did “god” say and how was it transmitted to you? Was it in the form of a letter? An email? A phone call? A video conference? What did “god” use as its return address? What does “god” look like? Please provide your evidence of “god’s” views on global warming. And, furthermore, whose “god” do you mean? Was it the ‘christian” “god” or the muslim “god” or who?? Please be more specific.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:28 pmComment by Juan C — May 4, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Yes, and it’s far cheaper to lobby with politicians and pay kickbacks to mercenary ’scientists’ than investing in I+D and obtain benefits to pay for it.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pm“It’s a type of a hoax. “
How many types of hoaxes are there? Exactly who and what are people that believe humans caused global warming defrauding? Inhofe is intellectually dishonest.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pmreduce pollution while producing employment gains
Yeah, new technologies will do that. Remember the internet?
But as long as we’re ruled by Old Industry’s pet theocrats, I guess those jobs will just have to go somewhere else.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:31 pm.
I am amazed at anyone who can deny global warming. I’m also astounded that no one knows for the warming is coming from. Is it coming from pollution? Yes some of it is. But here is the real reason(here is your opportunity to call me a quack) the earth is heating up from the inside out as evidence fun more volcanic action and simple temperature record keeping. Things are going to get hot!!!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 1:31 pmBen, I like your moniker. Reminds me of a clip I saw of a horse race where the announcer was pretty into the calling of the race to line which was won by Hoof Hearted. Bloody hilarious.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pmYou know if I was half as ignorant as Jim Inhofe I’d be…well..I’d be…a Repugnican!
May 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pm#19? #12 is a parody.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pm.
#26…thank you…
May 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pmDamn. I expect the myopic trolls to put that stuff out there. I took the bait. Thanks for pointing that out to me. But I would still like to know when we hear Repugnicans talking about “god says this” or “god says that” to tell us how they communicate with god. Still waiting for that one!
May 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pmYes, and it’s far cheaper to lobby with politicians and pay kickbacks to mercenary ’scientists’ than investing in I+D and obtain benefits to pay for it.
Comment by Evil Spaniard
Agreed. But I also agree with katy in the sense that oil companies, in their desire to make more profits should be looking forward. Even they cant afford digging more than 3,000 meters (or maybe they could, it is just a matter of what is cheaper) if Japan owns the technology to do that in the Norway sea. I know that Shell does some R & D in renewable technologies, and I could bet that most of Oil related companies know the state of the art of renewable technologies… it is just a matter of how much does oil last. Sadly.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pmYup, they’ll change their tune once they figure out how to profit from it.
I’ve already seen where the “‘conservative’ skeptics” (aka anti-science) are saying that they should be the ones to ‘fix’ the ‘problem’ from a business standpoint since they are more fiscally responsible, without actually admitting to the cause.
I’m sure Larry Flynt would love to head up the Office of Decency in TV: same thing.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pmit does not matter if Global warming is true or not
First its better to have greener power anyway and this helps the economy job wise and also helps the planet
Next by sticking to your guns and not promoting greener enegies and industry the world will boycot these goods anyway
As it is already because of Iraq
SCOTLAND BEAT LABOUR WE ARE IN CONTROL NOW
scotland is will be self suficient by 2020 for our all our energy ( thats progress )
May 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pm3362 another 11 have died since tuesdays veto
May 4th, 2007 at 1:38 pmI am amazed at anyone who can deny global warming. I’m also astounded that no one knows for the warming is coming from. Is it coming from pollution? Yes some of it is. But here is the real reason(here is your opportunity to call me a quack) the earth is heating up from the inside out as evidence fun more volcanic action and simple temperature record keeping. Things are going to get hot!!!!!
Comment by mima — May 4, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
In fact, the core of the Earth it’s cooling, and has been thus since day one of the planet.
More volcanic activity? You wouldn’t want to live in the early days, with all these blue algae creating oxygen molecules out of the omnipresent CO2 and sulphure gases, the first atmosphere, expelled by the many, many more volcanoes existant then, a good couple hundred milion years ago.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:39 pmWho cares how much it costs? If aliens were coming to attack the planet, we knew they were coming and when they’d be here, would cost be a talking point?
May 4th, 2007 at 1:40 pmGermany’s last glacier is melting rapidly
May 4th, 2007 at 1:40 pmYes some of it is. But here is the real reason(here is your opportunity to call me a quack) the earth is heating up from the inside out as evidence fun more volcanic action and simple temperature record keeping. Things are going to get hot!!!!!
Comment by mima — May 4, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Ahahahaha, you’re joking, right. The earth has ALWAYS had volcanic action. And contrary to heating up the planet, volcanic ash blocks out the suns rays, either temporarily or longer depending on the severity of the volcano, and cools the earth. And volcanic action doesn’t occur because the earth is “heating up” but from shifting techtonic plates.
Calling you a quack would imply that you had some clue regarding the subject which sadly you don’t.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:46 pmReagan optimism: Look on the bright side. Those that survive will all have beach front property. Democrats are the party of gloom and doom.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pmPerhaps the repubs are going to have jebus smite the economy if we don’t use enough petroleum based products.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pmthe earth is heating up from the inside out as evidence fun more volcanic action and simple temperature record keeping. Things are going to get hot!!!!!
Comment by mima — May 4, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Lord Kelvin estimated the age of the Earth by taking into account the time it would require all the planet to achieve the actual temperature from a hot source like the nucleus which is rock solid covered with a liquid layer that moves around the center and thats why we have a magnetic field that deflects solar wind and therefore an atmosphere. His estimation was like mmm…im gonna lie here but 150 millions of years or less. Meanwhile, the godless Darwin gave a better estimation by calculating the time it would take for some canyon to be eroded like it was (sorry for not being specific, this comes from memory). His estimation was 3 billion years.
BTW, volcanic eruptions release sulphure gases which produce a cooling effect, not a warming one.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:50 pmJuan C:
Agreed. Sadly, the big oil wouldn’t let develop fuel efficient engines or alternative energies, until they have a great impact in their revenues, or have diversified their sources of income, that it’s not the same than the better moment for the humanity. I guess that, if we let the market “regulate” it, it would be too late. We, “tree huggers” (I can’t imagine why this appellative is derogatory), must lobby to overpower big oil and “money huggers”.
Tobey:
Great! Greetings for the victory! The windy cliffs of the beautiful Scotland would be great to have very profitous wind generator fields.
And, maybe some sea wave energy generators can be investigated, too. The Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea hold great amounts of energy.
We have already great fields of wind generators in otherwise desertic zones, and they’re working great.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:50 pmOutsourcing American jobs to the overseas market is a positive to these clowns, but Americans responding to an ecological crisis, and the economic growth potential from ingenuity to solve the ecological crisis is somehow a negative to them.
Back when I worked for an enviromental organization, we’d hear the same tired claim about destroying jobs. Damn the spotted owl! But time and time again, the reality is that changes in environmental policy created new jobs in different areas. It’s all about retraining the job force.
I think these fat cats just like their Escalades too much.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:55 pmGlobal warming is a myth, it only exists in the minds of Left loons. One former Vise president, who had plenty of time and nothing to do, decided to make a movie on some non-existing phenomenon called Global Warming. And the lefties are going crazy over it.
Earth goes through a series of temperature changes over a period of time. Its beyond human hands to control that. Mars, which is millions of miles away from earth and farther from Sun, goes to extreme temperature changes in a single day. Is it also Global Warming???
The Left is trying to play political game by raising such non-existent issues coz they have no solutions to real issues!!!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 1:59 pmAs always in this “Go shopping, dont think” world, if it gets in the way of TRADE, it is illegal, henious and represents a RISK to the free world…even if it is the ENVIRONMENT OR HUMAN RIGHTS.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:00 pmThanks for the input, Cynic but I had my idiocy dose when I was in high school and though that having a car was the greatest thing in the universe.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:03 pmCynic: I feel pretty confident in the answer when I ask you if you ever actually SAW “An Inconvenient Truth”?
et tu, douchebag?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:04 pmYay TP! Thanks for doing a thread on this!
500 comments coming right up…..oy.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:04 pmRush Limbaugh: “[Liberals] would have us destroy our economy and millions of jobs based on pseudoscience.â€
Yes, and “Ole Oxycon” would have us take his advice seriously, when it’s based on pseudointelligence.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:05 pmThe Left is trying to play political game by raising such non-existent issues coz they have no solutions to real issues!!!!!
Comment by Cynic — May 4, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
SOMEONE PLEASE, FIND CYNIC’S MEDICATION – STAT!!!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 2:06 pmFAIZ: Can we get a link to the actual report? Please?
Am I missing it?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:06 pmYou wants this Zooey?
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
May 4th, 2007 at 2:09 pmHere’s a link to the Summary for Policy Makers (pdf):
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
May 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pm#51 – Heh. Thanks Namtillaku. :-)
May 4th, 2007 at 2:14 pmEvil Spaniard – Yes each windmill produces enough electricity for 240 houses or 1.2 mega watts, NEXT wave energy creates a lot more energy as we all know water has a greater mass than air
But my friend has a water turbine in a small stream beside his house, amazingly enough its 10 ft long and cylidrical with 8 inch diameter , this little thing produces 15 kw permanently ….. it produces enough for all his needs and now sells the excess generated back to the grid and makes money
35 million homes in Europe are supplied by Green energy compared to 1 million in the US
my houses electricity produces zero CO2 per year as i get my electricty from http://www.good-energy.co.uk for the last 3 years
Environmental Impact
Coal fired power stations will have produced 890 grammes of CO2 to generate 1kWh of electricity.
Natural gas will have produced 360 grammes of CO2 to generate 1kWh of electricity.
Nuclear power produces zero grammes of CO2 but it will have produced 0.012 grammes of high-level radioactive waste per kWh.
non of the 3 options above are ANY good
—————————————————————————–
What i would like to say is that if (Bushes) America does not keep up with greener technologies they will lose business As basically products that are made from dirty industry will not sell as well , as greener made products
WHAT I MEAN IS – the argument should not be is Global Warming real or not ( although it is) it should be to stop polluting our air anyway and produce greener technologies anyway – does not cost anymore in fact it costs LESS
May 4th, 2007 at 2:14 pmYeah, they would want to destroy the future of our world rather than interrupt their greed, that’s what it is all about greed.
Besides these repukian christians (oxymoron) know the world is gonna be destroyed anyway any minute now. Freaking superstious morons…hello, wake up, the invisible man in the sky does not exist, it is all made up by primitive man. Sorry if that bursts your bubble people, just stating fact.
Hating the Repukian Mafia daily
May 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI hearsd astory on NPR about a new ethanol plant that just open in Nebraska-the wner/operator of the plant was asked about corn’s supposed inefficiencies in power input-to output ratio. He kingd of chuckled and said(paraphrasing):
May 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pm“Well,see, that’s the old technology. Sugar Beets(in Brazil)get about a 1-10(input-output)ratio. Old methods of gathering cellulostic ethanol from corn garnered maybe 1-2 ratio. We’re using a new, starch based ethanol conversion process here. It gets approximately 1-45( yes freakin 45 output for every 1 input!!!!!)ratio. Also, genetically modified corn can be used. They can make a GM(sure, whatever-General Motors pun-)corn now with a high starch value that helps to acheive the 1-45 ratio. Also, the new GM corn can be planted on soil that regular corn cannot-It doesn’t leeech as much from the ground, and can grow in soil that has been tilled and used in years before, unlike normal corn.\
DAMN THAT’S COOL!!
In-a-hoe:suck my balls…
Mars, which is millions of miles away from earth and farther from Sun, goes to extreme temperature changes in a single day. Is it also Global Warming???
The Left is trying to play political game by raising such non-existent issues coz they have no solutions to real issues!!!!!
Comment by Cynic — May 4, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
While doing such vast research on the topic, did you notice there’s no life on that “Hot Little Planet” Mars. Or did you find life on another planet where temperatures are a little warm but there was still life?
Of course we could wait until human life is gone and then the earth could correct itself. We can save a lot of money that way.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:17 pmIt’s amazing how quickly and how tenaciously the global warming/climate change deniers have latched onto for dear life a single, early study regarding the planet Mars, and the fact (yet to be further documented) that it is warming up. It has become their current security blanket.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:17 pmYes, the sun is increasing in temperature, and yes, this would imply that the entire solar system will warm up.
And this can mean that the Earth will warm.
And yet the hoaxers refuse the voluminous scientific evidence gathered that human activity is exacerbating the problem, and accelerating the rise in temperature, beyond normal cycles..
Does your new corn glow in the dark and have tentacles, whiteyfresh?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI heard only mechanical bees are capable of pollinating it.;)
Just to clear it up, God texts me. While it is true that he used to communicate via visions, 500 ft. Jesus, the Virgin Mary shown in a moldy piece of bread and the like, with the advance in technology God was able to get an unlimited text messaging plan. Now he never has to leave the throne to get his message out. Although he did have to commit to a 2-year contract. But with God, a day is the same as a thousand years. Initial set-up was a bit difficult, and God did wait on hold with a help desk in India trying to get connectivity issues resolved. But once resolved he’s been texting more than a teenager in heat!
Anyways, pay no attention to the “global warming” exaggerators. Also known as the “Gorebots.” They’re more concerned about advancing their political cause.
As the article linked to suggests, Nuclear Power must be used as an alternative energy in order for us to reduce CO2 emissions. I agree with this conclusion. And if you don’t, then you must not be that serious about “global warming” and must have some other agenda.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:20 pmCynic,
Do you believe that dumping countless pollutants into the atmosphere is GOOD for life on Earth?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:24 pmGlobal warming is a myth, it only exists in the minds of Left loons.
Comment by Cynic — May 4, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
What about the thousands of scientific experts who believe it? Are they “left loons” too?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:25 pmor another way to see things is
this world is on loan from our children why should we pollute their air anyway
based on this – is it not better to have greener energy thats cheaper and does no damage – or course it is the sooner the better
to all the global warming sceptics – what you say dont matter
May 4th, 2007 at 2:26 pmComment by whiteyfresh — May 4, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
I have a GM truck, I spent no extra money for, that can use alternative fuel. Only problem is I have to drive far to buy it, of course. I went to by a Saturn Aura hybrid that was supposed to be in stock at dealers but is now backed up 4 more months, until gas prices go back down in the fall no doubt.
It’s all doable and feasible. Why do the neocons, who are so afraid of Muslims, the same people who want to remain dependent on them.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:27 pmTrying to get up and running with the god application, muckdog, does it use Internet Explorer?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:27 pm#56 Whiteyfresh, those numbers are astronomically wrong. Very little energy is gained by converting corn to ethanol, which is largely a scam.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pmstill waiting on an answer, cynic!!
Raven: I guess that’s a good thing(mechanical bees)-all the real ones are going away-they must be hitching rides with the dolphins!
May 4th, 2007 at 2:29 pm(I’ll mail a shiny nickel to anyone who calls my reference there….)
I agree with this conclusion. And if you don’t, then you must not be that serious about “global warming†and must have some other agenda.
Comment by muckdog — May 4, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
This comment is intellectually dishonest, muckdog. Not to mention ridiculous. But you never were one to care about personal credibility.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:30 pmI heard only mechanical bees are capable of pollinating it.;)
Comment by Raven — May 4, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Fortunately corn is pollinated by the wind. So at lease we’ll have something to eat if the “mechanical bees” fail. Raven, do the mechanical bees run on gasoline? Oh please tell me yes.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pmEven if the global warming issues is overblown as they claim (I’d like to see their “scientific” credentials), What is so bad in thinking and pursuing alternate energy sources.
The funny thing is buisinesses should like the potential market for alternate energy sources since it would create new technologies, new jobs and new markets (think of the growing ecological mess in China and the services that could be offered to them).
Even WalMart has joined the Green movement, and I don’t think their organization is a bastion of liberal politics (suspect labor policies).
So WTF are these guys so ignorant or talking heads for the oil industry or just plain stupid.
Or do they have stocks in Haliburton KBR, Blackwater and their ilk and like war and the profits that can be made instead of attempting to decrease oil dependency from the ME and, heaven forbid, be ecologically responsible.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:32 pmAlso, muckdog, it is you who have an agenda, and let me tell you it really shows when you try to deny global warming and shill for nuclear in the same breath.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:32 pmAs the article linked to suggests, Nuclear Power must be used as an alternative energy in order for us to reduce CO2 emissions. I agree with this conclusion. And if you don’t, then you must not be that serious about “global warming†and must have some other agenda.
Comment by muckdog — May 4, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Good idea muckdog. Can we store the spent nuclear waste in your backyard then?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:34 pmVerbalkint:I have been WOEFULLY searching for the link to the story, but forgot which program it was on!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 2:34 pmlook, all I know is that’s what the guy said who runs the facility in Nebraska. It’s a BRAND NEW way of processing corn into ethanol-this is the only plant of it’s kind(so far) in the US…
The damage to farmlands (and the destruction of natural ecosystems to create “farmland”) from the intense monoculture of growing corn for fuel far outweighs the benefits of cleaner emissions.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:35 pmAdd genetically modified crops, and the largely unknown consequences to natural systems, plus the chemical cocktails of pest and herbicides, we’ve got an ecological disaster brewing that humans may not survive.
Shane-nope, CORN BASED ETHANOL!!
May 4th, 2007 at 2:35 pm*snarkysnarkysnarky*
#69……..
May 4th, 2007 at 2:36 pmSorry, Shane, they need to be wound up every time they are sent out…..:)
Raven-how about if we only use GM corn for the fuel-and FORD corn for the eatin?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:38 pmDoes anyone besides me see similarities between the “skeptics†and the dwarfs at the end of C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle? So determined to not be taken in that they become blind to the obvious?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:39 pmdont feed the trolls – they have attention seeking disorders like children of the age of 6
May 4th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#73 whiteyfresh…..
May 4th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI think I met this guy, was he putting the stuff up in mason jars?
To the best of my recollection, it was pretty powerful stuff….
Sure got my motor running……………
Raven:Naw, that,was jus my cousin Bubba!(Tell him hi next time you see him).Did you get raspberry or peach?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:46 pmNote to Karl Rove,
Your trolls on this topic have been completely ineffective. I have no idea why they even posted. They couldn’t convince Pat Robertson let alone the lefties on this site.
Please send some trolls that can make a coherent argument. I know it’s tough going up against established scientific opinion, but it’s not like you haven’t done this in the past.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:46 pmAdd genetically modified crops, and the largely unknown consequences to natural systems, plus the chemical cocktails of pest and herbicides, we’ve got an ecological disaster brewing that humans may not survive.
Comment by Raven — May 4, 2007
I think that if you are not growing corn for taste, storage, or looks you could probably hybridize a seed that could grow on no chemicals and with very little water. And this country has lots of farm land that is set aside to keep crop prices up.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:52 pmYou might be right but I think it’s too soon to rule out any crop for ethanol.
Shane-nope, CORN BASED ETHANOL!!
*snarkysnarkysnarky*
Comment by whiteyfresh — May 4, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
I want my mechanical bees to run on tequila then!
May 4th, 2007 at 2:54 pmGlobal warming is a myth — Cynic
No, the Bible, like Roman and Greek mythology meets the definition of Myth
Global Warming on the otherhand, proposed by thousands of scientists, with mounds of scientific data backing them up meets the definition of Scientific Fact.
Better hit the books and re-ejumentate yerself =P
May 4th, 2007 at 2:54 pmSorry, Shane, they need to be wound up every time they are sent out…..:)
Comment by Raven — May 4, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Oh good, then we can use child labor! Good times.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:56 pmGlobal Warming on the otherhand, proposed by thousands of scientists, with mounds of scientific data backing them up meets the definition of Scientific Fact.
Better hit the books and re-ejumentate yerself =P
Comment by Wayne — May 4, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Wayne, don’t hurt the trolls. They can’t even wrap their heads around evolution yet and you want them to understand global warming.
I’m afraid they’ll piss their pants and it will get even more stinky around them.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pmI’m worried about the bees…
May 4th, 2007 at 3:02 pmGlobal warming is real and it is human caused. The debate is over. But really, who cares? God gave rich crackers dominion over the earth and all the animals, go forth, multiply and cut every one of those frigging redwoods down to make toothpicks.
If God didn’t want us to cut redwoods into toothpicks, why did he make chainsaws then? QED you silly libs.
And just how long will it take for global warming to have a serious effect on our way of life? Check out the Rapture Index, that puppy is hovering in the red zone. Jebus is coming back! So in a race between the ice caps and Baby Jesus, the smart money is on the punk.
Sarcasm off.
Seriously, I have heard the Jebus is coming back bullshit as a real excuse for these religious pukes to ignore global warming. And Bush’s War in Iraq.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pmIn-a-hoe:suck my balls…
Comment by whiteyfresh
Be careful what you ask for whitey, remember this is the party of Gannon/Guckert/Haggart, the list goes on and on…
May 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pmSeriously, I have heard the Jebus is coming back bullshit as a real excuse for these religious pukes to ignore global warming. And Bush’s War in Iraq.
Comment by nanlichi — May 4, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
ABSOLUTELY!! If you believe in that nonsense then taking care of our planet is a complete waste of one’s time. God will give us a completely new place to live, and it will be heaven. (Pun intended.)
May 4th, 2007 at 3:25 pmRUC:grk..uuugh….NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
THANKS FOR MAKING ME VOMIT,JUST A LITTLE, IN MY MOUTH.
snerk~
BWaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAahahahahaAAHHAHAHA!!!!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 3:29 pmand yes, the “Friday afternoon giddies” are starting to set in….
May 4th, 2007 at 3:34 pmI will always wonder how much of the Rapture bullshit drove Bush’s push for his discretionary war. According to the Left Behind type braindeads, the war in the Middle East is one of the required steps to get Jebus to drop by for a visit.
It is truly scary to think that you have the power that he yields (or used to yield maybe) in the hands of a Believer.
The Rapture is not an exit strategy.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:45 pmHERE WE GO FOLKS THE ANSWER FROM GERMANY
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
How The World Can Be Saved
May 4th, 2007 at 4:01 pmBy accepting a reduction of just 0.12 percent in global economic growth, we can avoid the worst consequences of global warming, according to the IPCC. The catch? It only works if everyone joins in.
Whenever someone says “the debate is over,” like Al Gore has said and some of you Gorebots have said, then the alarm bells go off. It is not over.
For those of you who cite the thousands of scientists (who rely on grant money) that support man-made global warming, what about the equal number who say that the debate isn’t over and who disagree with the IPCC?
And for all of you who think that there is a technology out there to replace the burning of fossil fuels other than nuclear energy, lets hear it. What exactly? If it exists, how come we’re not doing it? Why are England, Australia, Russia, India, Japan, China and France building NEW NUCLEAR POWER plants?
As mentioned here before, we can recycle nuclear waste at this point. Our existing nuclear waste still contains 95% of its energy.
The way France disposes of their nuclear waste is so safe, you could sleep on it at night.
May 4th, 2007 at 4:06 pmplus the chemical cocktails of pest and herbicides, we’ve got an ecological disaster brewing that humans may not survive.
Comment by Raven — May 4, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Which is the best that could happen to the rest of the species in the planet.
May 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pmRight on, Juan…. humans will effectively wipe themselves out, but life as a whole is very tenacious, and will carry on………..
May 4th, 2007 at 4:12 pmperhaps the sea mammals will gain ascendancy, if they survive us humans………….
Alternative energy and the industries that support them are the next big thing in the golable economy! Here in Silicon Valley, CA, I see all types of related business popping up. Just another example of the U.S. falling behind on the world stage due to protecting the few interests that control our government. Doesn’t Big Energy know that there is just as much money in investing in the future. I mean, fossil fuels are a finite resource, soon to be a thing of the past. We can put a man on the moon, but we can’t find an alternative to fossil fuels??
t-mac
May 4th, 2007 at 4:13 pmmuckdog,
The serious debate is over. That’s not to say there won’t be some nuts that continue to say that global warming isn’t real and if it’s real, it’s not human caused. Hell there are still religious freaks who fight the science of evolution and claim there’s a debate.
I have heard the most influential lobbyists from the world’s largest coal suppliers admit that the debate is over. And these guys have thrown 10’s of millions trying to fight the global warming debate.
And a serious answer to energy needs has to have three legs, nuclear, clean coal, and conservation. A smattering of renewables too, but they all have their own environmental problems.
Clean coal is the answer. America has several centuries of energy usage in the coal fields and gassification with CO2 capture is the cleanest technology out there. If we invested 100 billion in research instead of 100 Trillion creating more enemies in Iraq, we would not need the Middle East oil.
And nuclear. I agree that that is still the cleanest, even with its disposal problems.
May 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pmMuckdog,
Your implying there are an ‘equal number’ of scientists who disagree on global warming is misleading.
Here is an article from Science Magazine that discusses a study of 928 articles on climate change in peer-reviewed scientific publications related to climatology. NOT A SINGLE ARTICLE was found that took your position!! How do you explain this away.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
One just has to wonder why the hell do you post here? You’re definitely not convincing anybody here. We are well aware of the current administration’s policy of squelching scientific consensus when it suits its political goal. Do you deny that there’s a huge push by the oil industry to get people to see things your way? Why would that be? Do you think it’s coincidental that the ex-oil executives in the current cabinet are doing their bidding by not doing anything concrete to reduce carbon emissions?
May 4th, 2007 at 4:46 pmVinnie,
Your problem is simple, you are quoting from a “Science” magazine, and as everyone knows science is based on facts, logic and reason and uses those tools to come to an answer. To balance that silly viewpoint, you need to search from some ideological and dogmatic sources. The ones that start with the answer first, then use that as the filter to determine what facts need to be created or ignored.
As a Believer friend told me, “You have your facts and your logic and I have my belief, and they are both equal.”
May 4th, 2007 at 5:03 pmCynic today: “Global warming is a myth, it only exists in the minds of Left loons. Al Gore is a liar!”
Cynic yesterday: “The idea that the earth revolves around the sun is a myth. It only exists in the minds of Godless heretics. Galileo is a liar!”
May 4th, 2007 at 5:30 pmA friend’s daughter came to visit her a few months ago, and we went to dinner with some other friends. The daughter works for British Petroleum in their Illinois plant, still locally known as Amoco.
I asked the daughter if BP was diversifying, and she said that they are indeed. I suspect that all of Big Oil is quietly investing in renewables as well as in other non-power-supplying ways to make money. This makes their continued support of deniers like Richard Lindzen particulary irresponsible.
I really hope we can elect some politicians who will promote renewables, nuclear, whatever it takes. If we continue on our present path we will become a has-been country, and moreover, if the world does not take steps, humanity will be history. But we can hardly demand that China and India clean up their act while ours is so filthy.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:31 pmSome corporations are more enlightened than others:
PETER DARBY, CEO, Pacific Gas & Electric: Our organization is here because we share a view that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue of our time, and also because we agree that as the world’s largest source of global warming emissions, our country has an obligation to lead.
STEVE ELBERT, Vice Chairman, BP America: BP believes that all emitting sectors of the economy, including the transportation sector, both fuels and vehicles, must be included in any national climate change policy.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/etc/script.html
May 4th, 2007 at 5:31 pmI’d like to see a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. While we’re all schlepping around trying to get $3 a gallon gass in our tanks, they’re enjoying record-breaking profits. Stick it to em and use the money to finance a national program promoting renewable energy.
As far as BP is concerned, they’re just trying to sweeten up their image since they may be liable for tremendous damage due to not maintaining their own oil pipes in Alaska.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:44 pmWell, I’ve linked to many scientists with valid creds. So there is your intelligent dissent.
We can probably agree that we need to stop burning fossil fuels. I’d argue that the air that we breathe is more important than this exaggerated global warming hype. 200,000 people die a year due to respitory problems created from burning coal. Lets stop doing that. And this clean coal stuff is talked about like Star Trek transporters. Sure, it’d be great but the technology isn’t there. Nuclear energy is something other countries are doing. We can do that now.
We’re also wasting our natural gas generating electricity. Imagine if we were using natural gas to run our autos instead of gasoline. That’d be a better world right there.
You think we could just stop fighting in Iraq and spend that money elsewhere. I have bad news for you. Just because we say the war is over doesn’t mean the other side does. They will continue in their Jihad against you. If we pull the troops out now, we’ll just be sending them back in a few weeks, months or years down the road. It’s cheaper just to win the fight now.
And those troops over there are protecting YOU. So show them respect. They’re butts are on the line and folks like Harry Reid are saying the war is lost. What a numbskull!
May 4th, 2007 at 5:46 pmmuckdog: “It’s cheaper just to win the fight now.”
And, I take it you think that’s possible. Can you explain exactly how we would know we won? And please. Some of us believe that it shows more respect to troops to give them a defined goal and not lie to them. Some of us believe that the ultimate disrespect for military troops is to send them into battle under false pretenses. Do you think it shows respect for the troops to tell them when they are going home and then, at the last minute, extend their duty? Do you think it shows respect to treat them in underfunded hellholes like Walter Reed? Do you think it shows respect to use troops as photo ops?
Viet Nam was about an “international communist conspiracy” which was called “The Domino Theory.” Did we have to go back there in a few years after we left? Did they follow us home?
May 4th, 2007 at 6:07 pmperhaps the sea mammals will gain ascendancy, if they survive us humans………….
Comment by Raven — May 4, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Perhaps they will be wiser and when having elections they wont vote the most stupid for fear of the evil lobsters.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:11 pmWell, I’ve linked to many scientists with valid creds. So there is your intelligent dissent.
Comment by muckdog — May 4, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
As usual, you failed to answer the question. Once more – Why haven’t any of your ’scientists with valid creds’ published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Any whack-job can write an article and put it on a web page. Let’s talk science here! Show me the articles from scientific journals that focus on meteorology. It seems like that would be a good place to start.
The rest of your post is typical troll trash. If you really believe in reducing fossil fuel burning, why don’t you argue for stronger CAFE standards?
Last I checked, there were no terrorists from Iraq that attacked the U.S. before 9/11 or on 9/11. Even Bush agrees with that. There were also NO terrorist attacks from Iraq prior to our invasion and occupation of that country. You can recite the Bush line all you want – There simply never has been a terrorist threat from Iraq that requires 150,000 of our troops to repel.
And while we’re on the subject, just how long should we stay there? What signs should we look for to know that we’ve achieved victory and can safely pull out? What if we’re still in this state four more years from now? Will your patience wear out by then?
May 4th, 2007 at 6:14 pmAnd nuclear. I agree that that is still the cleanest, even with its disposal problems.
Comment by nanlich
Thats so wrong. Solar energy is the ONLY, again, THE ONLY SELF-SUSTAINABLE, CLEANEST SOURCE OF ENERGY. Period.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:17 pmAnd nuclear. I agree that that is still the cleanest, even with its disposal problems.
Comment by nanlich
Sure it is. Just ask any Russian.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:26 pmJuan,
Lo siento ché, I work in the pinche utility industry, specifically on the resource side so I have an understanding of the options. I am also probably as green as they come, even to the point of activism as a youth that would land my ass in jail (long time ago….), and the problem with solar as I see it is the huge amount of real estate that has to be chewed up for the MW’s we need. And we need some storage with solar, a cloud kicks your butt.
IF we weren’t such energy hogs, and IF we utilized roof-top solar (real estate already used), along with passive solar and conservation, I totally agree with you.
But realistically, do you see us (not only Americans, although we are the worst) cutting back on energy usage in a serious way? And if not, we are going to need some MW’s.
What we really need is some serious money thrown at research, like a tiny fraction of the cost of Bush’s discretionary egotistical war.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:36 pmnanlichi:
solar power technology has a lot of disadvantages to overcome. Periodicity and energy density. But if the amount of money spending in useless, illegal activities, you could bet that by tomorrow we would have a solar based energy system.
Nuclear energy? Make rocket launching 100% secure and there wouldnt be so many inconveniences. I agree…there is not only one solution. Solar energy was meant for: biomass, eolic, hydro, OTEC, solar thermal active and passive, solar quantum (PV).
May 4th, 2007 at 6:43 pmPoint taken Bluedog49. Nuclear is some scary shit and the waste is deadly for a long, long, long time. I just think they all have problems, and nuclear beats coal for the baseload plants we need under our current power structure. But I understand the resistance to it, and the resistance is for all the right reasons.
Let’s grind up the neocons and the trolls and feed them into a biomass generator? How many Btu’s in a typical Daryll?
May 4th, 2007 at 6:46 pm2,000 + scientists vs. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilley…
Hmmm. Tough to call.
The scientists win on the facts, but everyone know that people don’t want facts.
The blowhards win on the intensity of their moron-icity (is that right?). And the fact that most people don’t want facts. But I’m repeating myself.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:51 pmJuan C,
Solar and wind to hydrogen for fuel cells, wave energy too.
And my personal favorite….conservation. Stop using so much of the stuff!
Vonnegut compared humans to yeast in a jar. Yeast eat sugar and excrete alcohol and multiply exponentially until the alcohol level reaches a point where it kills the yeast off. We humans are in a closed system, consuming and excreting until we reach the point that we die in our own shit.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:54 pmBTW, nanlichi, thanks for the Argie remark. :)
May 4th, 2007 at 6:54 pmnanlichi: “How many Btu’s in a typical Daryll?”
I know there’s a lot of hot gas in there, but science hasn’t developed a way to harness it.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:56 pmJuan C,
I have admired your level-headedness, you don’t get riled and are more effective dealing with the trolls. Hang in there.
I am outa here, going to burn 20 gallons of gas to take my kids fishing and camping for the weekend. Typical hypocrite!
Have a good weekend all.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:11 pmAs far as BP is concerned, they’re just trying to sweeten up their image since they may be liable for tremendous damage due to not maintaining their own oil pipes in Alaska.
Comment by Bluedog49 — May 4, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Bluedog49 makes assumptions, “oh, they’re just (duh) said that because (uh) they…”.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:33 pmFunny, BP is a major maker of solor PV modules and has been pouring millions into education through grants to teachers. This effort began in 2003 in California and is now in several states. This was long before the Alaska Pipeline breakdown. If you’re a teacher, you can get a $10,000 grant to teach about energy: http://www.aplusforenergy.com/
BP’s solar panels are excellent….. .02 cents, please…
May 4th, 2007 at 8:52 pmIf it’s true the Bush family has acquired 100,000 acres in Uraguay, I wonder what is the crime family’s plan? Could it be a refuge from global warming? How many barrels of fuel would be needed to sustain the Bushes through a minor ice age of 50,000 years?
I bet the crime family has the answer.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:59 pmNo, demdandy, it is refuge from the American people. We have an iffy extradition treaty with Uraguay.
May 5th, 2007 at 12:48 amI think we need to be as concerned about cleaning up politics as we are about cleaning up the environment. Tasteless rhetoric from the mouths of people like nanci pelosi encourage ignorance among us. FYI The communists were never in a religious war with the US and they weren’t strapping bombs to themselves blowing people up. If you knew any Vietnamese who wanted democracy you would have heard how much they wished we the U.S. had not whimped out and played politics to the demise of success and you would have heard about all of their dead imprisoned and deprived relatives (for being pro democracy)I’m all for a cleaner environment and more efficiency in the use of our resources but to stick your head in the sand and say all that really matters is global warming and I hate Bush is just admitting that you think very little of half the country and you are too lazy to find out the truth about people whom you think you disagree with. I’m not in a paranoid frenzy, there’s not some big evil guy out there h-ll bent to destroy the planet but the libs will tell you there is. There is a big jihad movement, though, h-ll bent to kill the infidel. Right now your tax dollars are paying the dems to breed resentment and nasty argue themselves into the whitehouse, rather than starting with what both sides can agree on and helping to bring the country to compromise and effectiveness. The congress has the power to stop the war right now. Why don’t they do it?? They know more than us and they know it isn’t best. So they lie to us and give us green feel good drugs. The truth is every good Christian and mindful republican cares about clean air and hateful people suck.
May 5th, 2007 at 1:54 amdemdandy
Their plan is simple – destroy the United States by merging it with Canada and Mexico to form the NAU.
This will start by pulling the plug on your currency (which is already bankrupt), and preparing for a fascist dictatorship by means of the use of mercenary armies – Blackwater USA for example. Probably also an attack on Iran, leading to increasing “tit for tat” terrorist actions, either real or “false flag”, and ultimately the detonation of a nuclear device on American soil to finish the job on your Constitutional Republic.
Anthropogenic global warming is a nice little distraction to keep the population distracted while the British Monarchy finish implementation of their 200 year plan to destroy America.
Prince Charles just this last week called for a “world war” kind of mobilization to “solve the problem of man-made climate change”. I wonder who that war will be aimed at … India, China, Russia? i.e. those countries who the USA in fact needs to co-operate with to solve the real crisis – the imminent collapse of the ENTIRE GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
If you doubt what I am saying – note that Al Gore is in effect an agent of the Monarchy. I can state this for fact as I have family who work at the CPI (look it up) and are heavily involved in promoting this “ecological” agenda.
May 5th, 2007 at 9:16 amnanlichi
Firstly, you are completely wrong in your characterization about humanity living in a closed system.
The argument you are making is ostensibly the same one that Dr Thomas Malthus made in 1798, which is that mankind is a simple biological organism, and having no creative intellect, is incapable of changing his relationship to nature.
This is clearly contradicted by the empirical fact, that since our species is fundamentally a mamalian hunter gatherer, our expected population on this planet should not exceed several millions – as with the great apes and other primates.
However, since we now have 6 billion people living comfortably on this planet, clearly, there is something unique to our species that allows mankind to wilfully increase his power in and over nature. That unique quality is called cognition.
The logical conclusion of your argument, aside from the proundly pessimistic and anti-human character of your world view, is that we should kill off as many people as possible, since we are clearly an interference in the “garden of eden” that intellectual barbarians such as yourselves see as some kind of utopia, despite the obvious fact that mankind has improved this planet in a vast multitude of ways.
May 5th, 2007 at 9:44 amIMF Chief Rato Joins Chorus Warning Financial System Is Finished!
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) joined the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve in warning that the global financial system is a goner. The risks of “disruption in the financial markets” are serious, and, if there were a “sharp depreciation of the U.S. dollar” followed by increases in U.S. interest rates, things could get very serious, IMF Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato told the Council of Americas annual meeting on May 2.
Rato identified three areas which could blow:
* The U.S. mortgage market, whose problems are still playing out, he said.
* The “increase in large private equity buyouts financed by a rising proportion of debt, as well as the deteriorating credit quality of leveraged loans.” If some of these deals were to turn sour, he said, credit for corporate borrowers could go, too.
* Hedge funds, 30% of whose investment today comes from pension funds, he reported. Rato, a Spanish banker with fascist ties whose name means what it sounds like, commented in his dry manner on this stunning statistic, which ought to get the attention of anyone serious in the U.S. Congress: “A situation where almost one-third of the capital for institutions on the cutting edge of financial risk comes from institutions whose first priority is safe investments certainly bears watching.”
Commenting on the fact that 30% of the investment in hedge funds comes from pension funds, Lyndon LaRouche said this is not a natural thing. Rather it is a quasi-genocidal intention to loot the pensions of the world. The people responsible for this want to kill off old people as soon as possible.
May 5th, 2007 at 10:00 amhttp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070501183732.qcbdhxdj&show_article=1
For those ignorant of real history, British Imperial policy has always been, and will always continue to be to pit the nations of the world one against the other, and thus, by means of divide and conquer, to emerge victorious in control of what remains of the world.
I say this as an English person in outreach to all Americans on this blog – do not fall for this claptrap about global warming. Get back to work impeaching Cheney and Bush, and ASSERT CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OVER THE ONRUSHING ECONOMIC CRISIS before you lose your Republic for ever!
May 5th, 2007 at 10:08 amI am a simple guy from Indiana – I listened to Russ Limbaugh up till the time in the early 1990s when he made the statement “No environmental interest should supercede any interest of business and commerce”. He lost me.
In the 1960s, 70s, 80s, we had unfettered pollution run off across America – A portion of Lake Erie caught fire! Lake Michigan was so polluted the fish caught were considered hazardous waste and could not be disposed of legally in a landfill in Indiana. Man learned ways to save our waters…why is the earth not as fragile? Why deny our responsiblity?
Man effects the environment – If you believe in God…He said…Man be a good steward of the earth. How this message is being perverted is a sin.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:10 amCan these reich-wingers be any more idiotic?
May 5th, 2007 at 12:10 pm“It has been shown for the first time that stopping climate pollution in a very ambitious way does not cost a fortune,†said Stephan Singer of the World Wildlife Fund”
How the hell would he know?
May 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm“How this message is being perverted is a sin.
Comment by Joe — May 5, 2007″
And just how is it being perverted?
May 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pm“Can these reich-wingers be any more idiotic?
Comment by Karim — May 5, 2007″
Care to explain that?
May 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pmThe trolls really fell down on the job regarding this thread.
Sheesh….
May 5th, 2007 at 9:32 pmGlobal warming is not crisis, it very overhyped.
Very few believe only believe what’s in their heart anymore. A very few rely on facts. The fact is that the sun is hot, you, I and the human race will die out eventually and the earth will keep heating and cooling. Why not just take the time to be nice to one another while we are here?
May 18th, 2007 at 3:45 pmI disagree with al politicians, but especially the ones who whine and whine about all the various crazy end of the world theories. Give me your money and votes and I’ll protect you they say. It’s a form of power grabbing.
I refuse to buy into that. The government is the only perpetual motion machine known to man. It keeps itself alive by staying alive. It seeks to build (more government jobs mean more power to the government) itself…and if there are huge problems in the world then you need a huge government to solve them right??? So why not make huge problems like global warming that are not necessarily true or proven.
A real problem is one where people fly planes into buildings and kill people, but that’s another topic. A real problem is starvation (especially when you live in a Tennessee or Massachusetts mansion and speak out of two sides of your mouth.
Lets take back power, lets decide the problems for ourself. Lets limit government together and really, independently figure out if we have major environmental problems and why. Could be chinese coal plants. Could be lack of trees from too much corn being grown for ethanol. Could be the sun. Could be peoples 4 computers and 10 cars (yes even toyata 2 doors are bad).
lets reduce government and figure it out for ourselves.
[...] disable the hummers in my neighborhood Crooks and Liars Don’t believe Inhofe’s hype Think Progress Blog Archive New Climate Change Report Debunks Key Right-Wing Talking Point On Global… Like I said Inhofe is full of sh!t and not even worth responding to. __________________ The facts [...]
April 6th, 2008 at 10:24 pm