Jim Bunning (R-KY): The other side wants you to be afraid.

Posted on  

"Jim Bunning (R-KY): The other side wants you to be afraid."

Cap and trade is the biggest threat to the US economy I’ve ever seen.

The reason this legislation is on the floor is fear. The other side wants you to be afraid. [But not our side, no, we don’t want you to be afraid of anything, except that this bill will raise energy prices, destroy the economy, cost jobs….]


Carbon emissions are a function of economic growth.

We don’t even know if carbon has a bigger impact on climate than solar radiation. [Uh, yes we do.]

If every industrialized country did this, it would only reduce temperatures 0.07 degrees in 20 years. [didn’t hear whether this was Celsius or Fahrenheit, not that it matters. Why not point out it won’t reduced temperatures at all over the next five years!]

Just 20 years ago the same scientists were talking about an ice age [actually, this is the 20th anniversary of Hansen’s famous congressional warning about global warming].

In 2008, airlines are expected to pay $62 billion for fuel, compared to 40 billion last year. And we have eight airlines that have just gone bankrupt….

« »

3 Responses to Jim Bunning (R-KY): The other side wants you to be afraid.

  1. JMG says:

    Oklahoma, Kentucky, what’s the diff?

  2. Uosdwis says:

    Is anyone covering the House debate? I’m watching Rep Dana Rohrabacher, and that guy is just plain BAT-CRAP CRAZY. First of all, he says Al Gore won a “noble” prize, and says something about a “cock-a-phony” (cacophony), and repeatedly says “nucular.” He actually says the Three Mile Island incident was PSEUDO-SCIENCE!! Excuse me, what part of “hydrogen bubble” is pseudo-science? How is ionizing radiation pseudo-science? This guy is so far off the mark, he should be disqualified from serving in the Congress. Please, for the love of God, VOTE HIM OUT AT YOUR EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa!

  3. keith k. says:

    to Uosdwis: I agree about the ‘honorable’ mr. rohrbacher. When he refuted the intergovernmental panel on climate change in feb., 2007 I thought he was BAT-CRAP CRAZY. Has anyone listened to the scientists in regard to the short term effect on climate change? What I remember is that no matter what is done, or (God help us!) not done, in the next 15 or so years (??) it won’t significantly change the short term outcome of the clmate. What we do now, or don’t do, will however effect things beyond that short term window. PLEASE, let’s take this out of the hands of those who have a financial stake in short term, status quo, profit…I don’t want the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal influencing science fact and scientific hypotheses by saying it’s bad for the economy…how much is at stake for those who are pulling the strings @ the “journal”?…follow the money…