Digging deeper: The enviro-nitwit-ization of the GOP
Well, fun was had by all yesterday covering the stultifying Schoolmarm and the GOP candidates in Iowa. Fred Thompson earned his gold medal for refusing to follow Schoolmarm’s order for a show of hands on an inane global warming question. Now, let’s dig a little deeper.
As I noted yesterday, the rest of the leading GOP candidates’ responses to Schoolmarm’s global warming query demonstrate a rather disturbing greening of the party. And not just mild green. But bright, neon, Gore green. Total enviro-nitwit-ization. Can these guys really belong to the same party as stalwart, anti-fearmonger Sen. Jim Inhofe? Have they not been briefed on NASA’s shenanigans? Like John Stossel says: “What you think you know may not be so.”
Look at the screenshot Allah captured of the exact moment Schoolmarm asked the candidates to raise their hands if they “believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity.” I lightened, annotated, and labeled the pic for ease of scrutiny:
Faster than Al Gore’s Gulfstream, the hands of Giuliani, Huckabee, and McCain shot straight up in agreement with the First Commandment of Global Warming: Thou Shalt Blame Man. What about Romney? As Allah sharply noted (he’s also got video), Mitt’s mitt waffled at “half-hearted half-mast”–before he sheepishly turned it into a clap for Thompson.
You want to cringe some more? Here’s the relevant portion of the transcript of the exchange.
MS. WASHBURN: Thank you.
I want to take on a new issue. I would like to see a show of hands. How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, do you want to give me a minute to answer that?
MS. WASHBURN: No, I don’t. I –
MR. THOMPSON: Well, then I’m not going to answer it. (Laughter, applause.)
MS. WASHBURN: Okay.
MR. HUCKABEE (?): How about 30 seconds?
MS. WASHBURN: No, I — you know, I want –
MR. THOMPSON: You want a show of hands, and I’m giving it to you.
MS. WASHBURN: We’re going to follow up on that, but what I need to know is who believes global climate change is serious and caused by human activity.
MR. GIULIANI: I do.
MS. WASHBURN: And then we’ll talk in more detail about it.
MR. : Serious? It is.
MR. GIULIANI: I believe that global climate change is a serious –
(Cross talk.)
SEN. MCCAIN: And I think climate change is real, and I –
MR. HUCKABEE (?): Let’s have a chance about it –
(Cross talk, laughter.)
MS. WASHBURN: Go — I’m going to start with Senator McCain, come back to Mayor Giuliani.
SEN. MCCAIN: I’ve been involved in this issue since the year 2000. I have had hearings. I’ve traveled the world. I know that climate change is real.
But let me put — put it to you this way. Suppose that climate change is not real, and all we do adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we’ve done is given our kids a cleaner world.
But suppose they are wrong. Suppose they are wrong, and climate change is real, and we’ve done nothing. What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation of Americans? It’s real. We’ve got to address it. We can do it with technology, with cap-and- trade, with capitalist and free enterprise motivation. And I’m confident that we can pass on to our children and grandchildren a cleaner, better world.
MS. WASHBURN: Mayor Giuliani?
MR. GIULIANI: I agree with — I agree with John. Climate change is real. It’s happening. I believe human beings are contributing to it. I think the best way to deal with it is through energy independence.
MS. WASHBURN: Who doesn’t agree?
MR. GIULIANI: And I think energy independence is a –
MR. : That I agree with.
MS. WASHBURN: Who doesn’t agree?
REP. HUNTER (?): But he said “contributing” but not totally –
MR. : No — yes.
MR. : No.
MR. : Yeah.
MR. : Oh, okay.
MR. : Yeah.
MR. : Yeah.
MR. : Well, and I — (laughter) –
(Cross talk.)
REP. HUNTER (?): On our party, you’re getting closer –
SEN. MCCAIN: More than contributing, my friend –
MR. ROMNEY (?): Give us — give us each a chance.
MS. WASHBURN: I did.
MR. GIULIANI: And I think that our party should embrace this as an issue for us, in our positions –
MS. WASHBURN: Well, let me come at this way. Let me come at it this way. What impact on the economy would be acceptable in order to reverse global warming and greenhouse gas emissions?
Governor Romney?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, it’s going to help our economy because we’re going to invest in new technologies to get ourselves off of foreign oil, and as we get ourselves off of foreign oil, we also dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions. That’s good for the environment; it’s also good for our economy. Because $300 to $400 billion worth of oil a year from other people who use it against us, that’s bad for our economy, it’s also bad for the environment.
MS. WASHBURN: So then our –
MR. ROMNEY: We can do these things in a way that help both the environment and the economy and national security. That’s the beauty of what we’re talking about here, which is, yeah, is global warming an issue for the world? Absolutely. Is it something we can deal with by becoming energy independent and energy secure? We sure can.
But at the same time, we call it global warming, not America warming. So let’s not put a burden on us alone and have the rest of the world skate by without having to participate in this effort. It’s a global effort, but our independence is something we can do unilaterally.
No effort to challenge the fundamental premise of the question. Just Gore-approved soundbites and cheery “have our eco-cake and eat it, too” platitudes.
No full-throttled attack on radical eco-fear-mongering and the manipulation of environmental science for political gain.
Not even a mild-mannered “Well, the science isn’t settled and there is by no means a consensus.”
Is this the best we can do?
Bad enough we have border control cross-dressers leading the GOP presidential pack.
Must the Republican nominee also be a Gore-in-GOP clothing, too?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Right Wing News
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » Presidential Contenders Without Conviction
- Free In Idaho! » Blog Archive » Fred 1, GOP Enviro-weenies 0
- No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » The John F. Kerry Award in the Des Moines Register debate goes to…
- Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV) » Blog Archive » Repub Debate
- terryfrank.net » It’s a Presidential Debate, not a classroom
- Cao's Blog
- online games play drivers ed
- Michelle Malkin » GOP Florida debate: Show us the conservatism
- Michelle Malkin » The GOP debate at the Reagan Library
- Michelle Malkin » Distorting the Reagan record
Perhaps a British court will mandate that these 3 inaccuracies (Giuliani, Huckabee and McCain’s raised hands) need to be identified before this part of the Republican debate is ever shown in their schools.
I watched that tape from the You Tube site, playing, replaying, starting. stopping. At 00:15 this is what I saw:
I saw Rudy’s hand “shoot” up.
I saw McCain’s hand “shoot” up.
I saw Huck’s hand oooooze up.
I saw Mitt’s hand… what? I saw Mitt’s hand.
And Mitt’s answer was so generic his adequately covered his ass either way!
So…?
Vote for Fred!!!
I hate to defend these guys, especially since this is one of the issues that burns me up, because man made global warming is total crap. I’m not even going to get in to listing the thousands of reasons why.
But, this is clearly pandering for the general election, but all the leading candidates. Notice that the guys who don’t stand a chance had no problem not raising their hands, but all those who have a chance of winning the nomination did? This is because the public has been lied to and convinced that global warming is real, and the propaganda is forced on kids at younger ages and more heavily with each passing year. You’ve got movies (Gore’s, The Day After Tomorrow) and front page stories every day, and kids coming home and teaching their parents to be “greener”. You’ve got commercials scaring us with trains running down children (I’m sure you’ve all seen that one, and the others), and you’ve got “big oil” advertising all of their “efforts”, and we’re called “deniers” and compared to Nazi appeasers.
Despite the fact that anyone who’s spent a little time looking in to “global warming” knows it’s total BS, the general public has swallowed the lies they’ve been fed.
These candidates recognize that being a “denier” could easily sink their chances in the general election. Denying global warming would come back to haunt them in the sound byte fest that will be the general election. Can’t you just see Barry or Hillary on the trail or in a debate saying “He’s denying the scientific consensus” (which btw, is crap also). It would make headlines and be all over every cable and network news program for days.
Do you think one of them taking a strong stance would do them any good? People who buy global warming aren’t going to change their mind, because it would take a lot of explaining to get them to see the light, and again this is to be a sound byte festival, not something where tens of millions of people sit around and listen to someone explain to them that their beliefs are wrong, especially when these people have been told for a decade that it’s “science”.
Sorry, it pisses me off too… It pisses me off that Bush and Condi caved as well… But the bottom line is that they have to stay competitive in the general election, and being seen as a “denier” by an ignorant country could easily sink them. Principles be damned, I’d rather see a little pandering during the election, then an America under Hillary Clinton (or any modern day Democrat).
Is global warming caused by human activity?
Wrong question.
Will a concerted, over-the-top, 1000 per cent reduced emissions effort affect global climate change downward by any more than 1/2 degree centigrade by 2050?
The answer is yes. 1/2 degree centigrade. Wooo-hoooo! That’s cost-effective.
On the other hand, how much will the Gore family make on speculative trading of off-set credits in the unregulated exchange market?
Not enough zeros to tack onto that double digit prefix.
Stinks to high heaven. Keep an eye on your wallet and defeat “green” issues locally with restless taxpayers saying “NYET” to socialist centrally managed schemes “for the environment” and the “children.
I’d never vote for anyone who assumed that climate change was caused by man. Why? Anybody who believes that is going to be spending time and money on the wrong problems.
Amen to that!
Hm…the way Michelle describes the ’schoolmarm’ (I didn’t see the debate), I get a mental picture of Anne Robinson. Wouldn’t it be great to have a conservative version of Anne Robinson to moderate a GOP debate? Imagine…round one: Ron Paul, YOU are the weakest link. Goodbye! Round two: Mike Huckabee…
Excellent article, Michelle!
I’ve posted it on my blog with a back link to you. If the GOP is really serious about winning elections in the future they must reject all forms of Democommie cheap think to include Environmentalism.
A good rule to follow for the Republicans is to be against anything the Democommies are for — nine times out of ten you won’t go wrong.
That goofy McCain is latching a hold of man-made global warming just as he did Shamnesty. When his campaign donations nearly dried up and Shamnesty was stopped dead in its tracks, he FINALLY said, “I got the message”.
I wish he’d shut up and go home. I’ve no confidence in him.
They don’t really believe it… they’re doing necessary pandering. See my longer comment above. And if you really mean you won’t vote for one of them, then you’re effectively voting for Hillary (or whoever the Dems nominate).
Again, see my lengthier comment above… They are actually unable to reject this nonsense if they are to stand any chance in the general election. The global warming brainwashing has spread too far, if these guys want to stand a chance in the general election, they can’t fight it or they’ll be destroyed by the media (for the Dems). Again, just read my earlier comment, it’s all spelled out.
I think the point of the question was for the benefit of the Democrats (I understand the moderator has a liberal agenda of local fame). The Democrats could then say, see, see the Republicans don’t believe in global warming, and all good Democrats know it is scientifically irrefutable.
I second the motion for McCain to go home!
But, but most scientists are on the GW bandwagon. And we know that Hollywood and the Nobel Prize committee thought algore was doing yeoman’s work to save the planet.
I read a bit of leftist Camille Paglia’s latest blogging. Besides the usual Bush/Cheney bashing, she managed to diss the Goracle and, given the few responses I bothered to read, she had plenty of complaints about her ignoring what the scientific “consensus” says about man-made global warming,
If only we had elected Gore or Kerry, I’m sure we’d be well on our way to solving the GW dilemma. One easy way would be shipping more of our industry to an exempt from the rules India and China. Are people so blind they can’t see what the result has been from various Kyoto type measures pursued in the European community?
I’d like to know why no one on the GOP side makes any attempt to dispute the GW pc bs by pointing out some of the science that tends to disprove the current propaganda.
I wonder if it is possible that dems will somehow feed algore’s ego and draft him to run again? Many of us may think he’s a horse’s ass, but plenty of idiots buy into his spiel and dissembling. Locally in S.Fl. I still hear about how the US Supreme Court selected Bush over Gore. Some still have Gore stickers on their cars.
“Again, see my lengthier comment above… They are actually unable to reject this nonsense if they are to stand any chance in the general election. The global warming brainwashing has spread too far, if these guys want to stand a chance in the general election, they can’t fight it or they’ll be destroyed by the media (for the Dems). Again, just read my earlier comment, it’s all spelled out.”
NONSENSE! I don’t know the latest polling is on the issue but a considerbale number of Americans know the Leftard Global Warming Scam is just that and would love to support a Republican candidate telling the truth.
In regards to those who fell for the Leftard Big Lie of Global Warming — Many did so because GOP candidates for office rolled over and played dead.
I see Global Warming as an issue ripe for debate. The emperor has no clothes and those who point out that fact and the disaster that waits ahead down the road if we restrict our industry stand to gain votes.
It’s unfortunate that these “debates” are being conducted as if purposefully to make these guys look stupid (show of hands?). As we saw with the planted democrat activists’ questions, the questions are being asked from the liberal/statist perspective, not from a perspective of the GOP voter.
If I or many of my other registered “R” friends asked that question, it would sound more like “do you think global warming or cooling, manmade or not, is worth corrupting our sovereignty by taxing Americans to give to a global authority that’s proven itself UNtrustworthy (with dollars and authority), and worth lifestyle changes that are guaranteed to have microscopic impact on the purported problem?” Actually, that could be answered by a show of hands…
It’s really annoying, and it has corrupted the process. At this point, I’m wondering where the national RNC is? I definitely keep getting emails asking for money, so they must be out there somewhere.
And? Ron Paul also has a “considerable number” of Americans who “would love to support him”, but that doesn’t mean he stands a chance. “Considerable numbers” don’t win elections.
You can’t win the debate by saying it will hurt the economy, because the tens of millions of brainwashed masses will claim that “science” says there won’t be a world to worry about an economy in if we allow global warming to continue, etc. etc.
And sure the debate should be had, but you’re clearly ignoring how the media treats it. Does the media cover the state climatologists who lost their job for countering the lies? Does it cover the NASA GISS’s sneaky “adjustments” showing most of the hottest years were in the 1930s. Do they cover the flaws in where and how temperature readings are taken? They don’t even cover below average hurricane seasons (the last 2) after hyping “global warming will cause this to be a busy one” in the spring/summer months.
What makes you think we can “have a debate” and change any minds, when the media will simply ignore it, and the rest of the time smear anyone who challenges the religion of global warming, while citing the UN’s “hundreds of scientists” (again, a lie), to silence all opposition.
The “debate” is being had by plenty of REAL scientists who know it’s crap, but it hasn’t woken people up… because they don’t know. Sorry, but unless you figure out a way to get the media on board, your wishful thinking is frankly silly. At best, we’ve just got to wait out the cycle… sadly, short memories will prevent us from jailing people like Al Gore and UN officials who affected our lives so gravely, which is what I truly think should be done with them.
Why not attack bad science as Michelle suggest????
Vote for Fred!!!
The science ignorance in the USA is towering. It’s as the WSJ said in an editorial last week based on information “availability bias’ — We used to call this the rumor mill.
I have a simple question, if CO2 has caused global warming, if in the last 50 years it has been building up in the atmosphere, temperature already raised 0.7 C and will continue — Then wait for it, here is my question —– Why not just measure it directly with satellites instruments? Shut down all the arguments against AGW.
The answer is they have, and found the unique signature of CO2 caused global warming was not present in the satellite data, nor in the weather balloon data. Oops. They just haven’t told anyone about that — News by omission. If you want more, just read the site ICECAP.
Vote for Fred! He’s the most consistent, the most conservative and the most focused on what needs to be done. He also seems to have the fewest skeletons in his closet. Plus, this man is never intimidated. All of those that raised their hands on the global warming question were just doing what they were told. Fred stood by his convictions and took the lead and refused. That’s leadership.
Why not emphasize the most common-sense solutions the kooks propose to address this ‘problem’? And address the obstacles the left has erected against those solutions?
The right Fred I mean candidate ought to say this:
While the planet may well be in a warming cycle, there’s no clear evidence-only alleged consensus-that it’s caused or even significantly exacerbated by the presence of humans.
That said, it would serve our economic and national security interests to encourage the continued development of alternative energy-for which there is clearly a demand-by means of our competitive free market system, and accountable tax incentives toward that end.
The reduction of pollutant emissions and the achievement of energy independence are vital to our national security and will benefit the economy, in both the short and long run, and I will work diligently toward those goals if elected.
$5.00 says Nurse Ratchet ask the Dems the same question and all they’re hands are raised emphatically to the point of almost reaching the ceiling.
People People People….I’m not so sure the “unwashed” masses are quite that on-board with humans have caused global warming. In fact, IF the masses believe it, that belief sure hasn’t affected their behavior. As far as I can tell, the only reason “the masses” slowed down their buying of SUV’s is the price of gas going up, not “I’m going to reduce CO2 emissions”.
If people believed it, they would change their behavior.
The Democrats will tear their pectoral muscles trying to be the first one to get his hand up.
There is one correction in the Times reporting transcript of that tidbit in the debate. Having reviewed the video that is here, it looks to me as if it was Romney that said, “How about 30 seconds”, and not Huckabee. Watching that portion alone of the debacle debate,(sorry that was no debate, it was an exercise in 30 second lightning round sound biting), it concerns me that the top tier of candidates acted then retracted …their hands at the behest of one man. Only one man had the courage of his convictions to stand . Yep that would be Fred.
I believe that a politician saying he “Believes in Global Warming” is really “Code Words” for “I believe that Big Government should control everything” because that is the only means that they could achieve the “Green” goal. So “Go Green!” and go “Pro-Dictatorship“. A majority of member governments in the UN are Dictatorships and other politicians in the world are feeling left behind.
I stumbled on to http://www.junkscience.com/ a couple years ago from a link from Fox news online when a lot of talk about the Kyoto Treaty was in the news. This led to my entering the blogosphere a direct cause of my education by reading Michelle’s site, LGF, Red State, Jihad Watch, Free Republic, etc. I can’t thank my curiosity enough about the Kyoto Treaty for leading me here.
I found a very good argument for the various flaws in the “hockey stick” model used to predict our supposed influence to the con job called “Global Warming.” I also found junk science was behind the removal of DDT, which was never conclusively proven to cause all the evils lazy scientist in the 60s blamed it for. Instead it has allowed an epidemic of Malaria to slaughter millions over the decades in undeveloped countries not to mention the spread of West Nile Disease in the US.
As more and more reports come out from scientist debunking this load of crap I can’t believe how many people have been suckered into this new religion. Every company that wants us to know how green they are has turned me to their competitors for goods and services I originally sought from them. I will not support anyone stupid enough to believe this junk science rapidly turning into the latest religious fad led by the all knowing and seeing Goracle.
I am not surprised at all by the response of the gang of 4 RINOs each anointed by the MSM as the guys to vote for during this election cycle. The more and more I have seen from each I from what I have been able to dig up looking into their past I know they are not the men to lead this country during this very dangerous time. Thompson’s performance was outstanding despite the Gestapo tactics of the moderator and I am already sold on Hunter.
Nice catch by you and Allahpundit. I already knew about Giuliani and McCain (who I derisively termed “Gorebal Warming acolytes”); guess I have to add that to the list of things to play Hack-A-Huck with, and throw another waffle in the toaster for Romney.
Although most thought that the debate was underwhelming, I thought that it was the defining moment for the entire GOP field. What a bunch of cowards! Everyone knows that the ones who raised their hands either don’t believe in man-made global warming, or they don’t know one way or another. Yet, all the frontrunners dutifully raised their hands in a show of pandering cowardness. I thought that question was the perfect RINO test. It was obvious which of them had the courage of their convictions. I thought that Romney had courage and I think that he could have made up serious ground by taking Fred’s position. It’s too bad he raised his hand.
The bottom-line…if they’ll fold on that issue, they’ll fold on every other issue as well. That is why I agree with other posters here and will vote for Fred. I will not accept form over substance from a candidate.
If conservatives want more RINOs in office, go ahead and vote for someone who raised their hand.
I believe there are aspects of our fossil fuel use that do contribute to environmental problems but not to the extent the liberal scientists claim. Considering that millions of years of sun energy went into nourishing the vegetation that became coal and oil, the burning of same releases bursts of super-concentrated heat. This isn’t to say that the collective usage globally is causing temperatures to increase, but there are causal relationship that don’t help. Blaming whitey (man) seems to be the popular tact for imposing Federal and Global (UN) Controls on pollution, which is where I register primary beef: we don’t need A government telling us what to do. Though there are lots of nitwits on the enviro-front, I think it’s too easy and lazy to herd everyone into that camp just because you don’t agree with it.
I watched parts of the debate on a replay last evening - couldn’t sit through the whole thing - I kept expecting the moderator to pop-off with “You ARE the weakest like - Good Bye”
I couldn’t help but wonder - AGAIN - about Fred Thompson and his campaign.
He was such an undeclared force before he announced - and since has fizzled into the shadows. He seems to be campaigning from his lazy-boy, and it’s truly disheartening because when he DOES speak - there is a lot of power to what he says.
Whether it’s his campaign strategy / style or the MSM’s fault for not covering him as much as Rudy, Mitt, and the rest - I’m not sure.
But he needs to push his way to the front and really start making his voice heard.
On another note - what the hell is up with Alan Keyes? Was he debating or performing an audition at Juliard?
That man had more drama going on than a production of the Mikado…
The plot thickens.
My head hurts.
Thanks Fred for having a set of gum balls on this issue.
Hope…
Wake me up in 2012. please
I’m noticing a lot of pro-Fred comments in this thread. I’m hoping what we saw was one of those defining moments that shifts the momentum of a campaign. Just as the “unstoppable” Hillary has been slipping in the polls ever since she fumbled the drivers licenses for illegal aliens question, Fred’s standing up to the moderator yesterday may have started his approval rating on the upswing.
Time will tell.
Wow, this stuff is out of hand. I remember a few days ago I seen an article that proposed in Australia to place a Carbon emission tax on CHILDREN! And what’s sad is the link was on a US based forum, what’s sadder is many Americans on said site agreed with it. With comments from we are a plague that should die out some, Its good for the planet. And lastly Good, it keeps the poor from having children.
What sort of monsters are we becoming, how long will this Madness be allowed to grow!? The Global Destruction scare is stupidity of the highest Magnitude. We are only nearing the Global Average temperature of the early Roman Empire. And as I recall land was around. Sure NO And Holland will be under water. But as they say the foolish man builds his house upon the sand. I know there’s global warming, but I also know that anything from a Volcano, to said warming can make a mass cooling effect, truth is we know little.
But this is out of hand, with a bit of conservation, new global binding laws to the regulation of fishing and farming, with new technologies that are derived from necessity and not profit we would not be having this problem. To “save” the earth at the price of humanity, is not an option. I said it once and I’ll say it again, members of orginizations such as Green peace, namely the Pagan tree worshiping ones, are the greatest threat to human survival and would wipe us all out if they could find a weapon that could only kill humans. God lord won’t people accept we need to learn how to roll with the punches and that the global weather will not always go as we dictate?
There’s a pattern here. See if you can spot it . . .
The world’s experts (with one or two exceptions from hundreds) think man made global warming is a threat, but MM and the right wing can’t accept it. They make their point by coloring funny faces on whose who take the experts seriously.
The Republican candidates to a man say we will increase revenue tomorrow by lowering taxes today. No serious economist thinks that, not even very conservative former members of the Bush administration (Mankiw, for example).
Studies show that abstinence only education is worse than actual sex ed, if your goal is keeping girls from getting pregnant. What do the Republican candidates support?
Experts up and down, in and out of the military say waterboarding is torture, and that torture leads to bad intelligence and harms our image around the world and puts our soldiers at greater risk. Yet (you get the idea).
Is there something noble about being wrong on every issue?
Well, if that’s your argument, we may as well give up period, as the Republicans aren’t going to get the media on board about anything.
The bulk of the public, especially Republicans, see global warming for the scam that it is. At the least, it isn’t high on their list of concerns. All they need is someone to reinforce the beliefs they already have, not some pandering puss trying to appeal to the other side, which only causes Republicans to continue to lose faith in their party, and their candidates.
Leaders lead. It would be nice to have a candidate who is interested in leading step up to the plate.
“Although most thought that the debate was underwhelming, I thought that it was the defining moment for the entire GOP field. What a bunch of cowards! Everyone knows that the ones who raised their hands either don’t believe in man-made global warming, or they don’t know one way or another. Yet, all the frontrunners dutifully raised their hands in a show of pandering cowardness. I thought that question was the perfect RINO test. It was obvious which of them had the courage of their convictions. I thought that Romney had courage and I think that he could have made up serious ground by taking Fred’s position. It’s too bad he raised his hand.
The bottom-line…if they’ll fold on that issue, they’ll fold on every other issue as well. That is why I agree with other posters here and will vote for Fred. I will not accept form over substance from a candidate.
If conservatives want more RINOs in office, go ahead and vote for someone who raised their hand.”
Hear! Hear! THE MAN!
Yes, indeed we have as a choice a sorry pack of RINOs running for the GOP nomination. This is the best we can do?What the hell happened to the party of Lincoln and Reagan? Republicans should stand for capitalism, limited government and individual rights! In my never humble opinion for a true Republican to support “The Leftard Global Warming Scam” is tantamount for Republicans in the 1850s to have supported slavery, because make no mistake about it, Global Warming laws will make us all slaves of the Democommie Party.
Wake up Republicans! We are in the early stages of Second Civil War and we must draw a line in the sand against the Party of Slavery and Segregation — the Democrats.
We must again become Radical Republicans who do not compromise our republican principles one iota or retreat one inch from from the same sort of degenerate people who will once again light the fire civil war.
I have been committed to Rudy since he announced, or even before, but unless he modifies this crazy stance on the biggest hoax of the last hundred years, I will rethink this and maybe support Fred.
“Is there something noble about being wrong on every issue?”
lgm, no one’s more qualified to answer that question better than a liberal. So, are you noble or not?
the real science on global has been put shouted down, and attacked by the media and all of the goreical followers. i wonder how many of the ‘republican’ leadership has actually sought out the science: mathematical equation in the programming used by these kooks was incorrect, asked to fix, they refused; nasa’s computer for calcuating and tracking climate didn’t get that needed Y2K bug fix until about 6 months ago, gee found out that hottest decade in last century was the dustbowl period during the 30’s; and, last but not least, solar activity has not been seen in the last few months and looks like it has stopped and we will be heading into a mini ice age sooner than thought.
the fact that these nuts refused to fix the mathematical equation after being told by mathmeticians it was incorrect shows their agenda driven global possession.
if they don’t have the science..well i for one am going to start letting my representatives know the other side of the climate coin…
I’ve had it with the GOP “front runners”! I’ve been for Tancredo and Hunter since the beginning and they did not disappoint here, but, as in this debate, the “drive bys” have totally ignored them. There is a MSM plan to ignore true conservatives. I have not been excited about Fred, but his willingness to smack down the school marm may be indicative of a willingness to take on the drive bys. Wouldn’t that be refreshing in the White House?
In an otherwise pathetic waste of time.This question and the way it was framed got my attention. This question came right from the liberal talking points for their candidates. Why Rudy,John,and Mitt didn’t recognize this is distressing. Senator Inhofe has done good research and they need to sit down with him.
Very good article at American Thinker:
December 10, 2007
How Green Was My Bali
By Marc Sheppard
A little long but, worth the read. Updates all the Bali nonsense on Global Warming and it’s mentally disturbed step child Climate Change.
“All those, who’ve stopped beating their wives, raise your hand.”
Howizzit, only ONE candidate saw through the question?
[ sigh ]
I don’t want the Democrats to win, that would be a disaster - but neither do I want to vote for stupidity and ignorance.
Science can’t tell us with much accuracy if it will rain this weekend or not, and can’t predict the path of a hurricane to within plus or minus 250 miles 3 days out, much less tell us how many and where in a hurricane season they will occur - but we’re supposed to believe in “anthropogenic global warming” as an article of faith?
And the “leading” Republican candidates believe in this nonsense, too? More and more they just look opportunistic. They are not leaders - they just want to jump on whatever bandwagon happens to be passing along, that they think is headed in the direction that’ll take them to the Presidency.
Fred Thompson with his laid-back, measured adult judgement and refusal to play stupid games, is looking more and more attractive. Anyone who pursues the Presidency with that “fire in the belly” that some say he lacks, strikes me as lusting for power and fame more than wanting to implement true conservative principles.
Seems to me that the frontrunners, as someone once remarked about BJ Clinton, have no principles that they cannot rise above.
Open your eyes folks!
Can’t you see this is “global warming” BS is a co-ordinated attack on the American middle class?!?!?
Have you ever been to Peking, Mexico City, Bombay, Bangkok, Tokyo, Rio, or any other third world megacity? …. I have!
I can tell you, as a first hand witness, that the air over Los Angeles, is as pristine mountain wilderness, when comparing air quality to these other, third world cities!!
You ever notice that neither the socalled poor, nor the wealthy and powerful, upper-class are expected to give up anything, or change their lifestyles? It’s just the American middle class!!!
We eat too much. We drive too much. We drive the wrong vehicles. We actually live in houses, and not rabbit warrens. We dress in the wrong cloths. We light too many candles. We eat meat. We do this. We do that. We, the American middle class, have a whole list of global warning no-no’s.
Nobody else on the planet. Just the 100 million, or so, of us in the American middle class. The other 6 billion, or so, are just innocent babes in the woods.
Of course, the republican party is going green!! It fits right into their elite agenda to destroy the middle class.
I’m going out to get into my Ford Super Duty and drive to the farthest Walmart to buy some meat and potatoes….
Out!
Romney showed his true colors. He’s a flip flopper. He’s a Mass liberal. I don’t trust him on taxes, abortion, gun control, immigration, or anything else. Like most of the power structure in the LDS, his motivating value is power. I think a person’s religion is relevant to the debate about leadership. A person’s beliefs should guide their behavior. I certainly wouldn’t vote for a Muslim who followed the Koran. Though our constitution does not bar anyone from public office based upon religion, neither does it command me to ignore a person’s religion in making my choices. In his faith speech Romney said he held to the faith of his fathers. Well, so then he believes he will be a god with his own planet and multiple wives. His fathers believed in polygamy and that black people were cursed. Does he hold to that faith as well? Also, Mormon doctrine does teach that Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers.
Don’t excoriate me for being intolerant without first checking the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. For more information on Mormons check
, Fawn Brodie,
, Krakauer.
Yep lgm - I spotted it. Each of your things (I’d say points but they really aren’t points) at some level claims “the experts say”.
I trust that is the pattern you are trying to point out.
My question to you is: What makes “an expert”? Do you get to decide your “experts” and I get to decide mine?
If you are aware of any history, you will discover that often “the experts” have been wrong.
I don’t know. Why don’t you enlighten us given your vast experience?
On December 13th, 2007 at 9:19 am, lgm said:
There’s a pattern here. See if you can spot it . . .
The world’s experts (with one or two exceptions from hundreds) think man made global warming is a threat, but MM and the right wing can’t accept it. They make their point by coloring funny faces on whose who take the experts seriously.
It’s more than one or two experts. You need to do some more fact checking before you make a blanket statement like this.
It isn’t even that they held up their hands. McCain’s and Guiliani’s answers were either outright lies, or they believe the global warming crap. Either they are too dishonest or too stupid to be my president. I’m done with both of them and don’t know that I could vote for Giuliani in the general (I also don’t trust him on illegal immigration or 2nd Amendment), even against Hillary. Huckabee, well, I never did support that two-faced tax and spend it on the immigrants campaigner anyway.
Romney at leased parsed his answer and indeed was pandering, but not jumping all over himself, as Giuliani did, to say that YES global warming exists and YES it is caused by man. Unfortunately, this morning I saw on the news his response about Huckabee’s apology. Romney went into the leftist “everyone knows this is a nation of diversity” bit and BAM - unelectable in the primary and only votable in the general to stop a democrat. He must have thought he was still in MA.
So where does that leave it. Totally Fred who understands that global warming is utter dog poo. I also happen to agree with nearly all of his stances, excepting taxes where I am big supporter of the FairTax. Fred must be reading articles like the one in Science Daily that presents the findings of the second recent study to find that the computer models used to predict global warming in 100 years, cannot accurately predict any of the weather for the last 30 years. They consistently over estimate the temperatures. That’s pretty conclusive and damning.
Almost forgot: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm
(and yes that website publishes pro-global warming stories too which is why I used it as the source … it seems to be pretty balanced about just presenting the stories)
I agree with #3 that pandering to the general election is not necessarily a bad thing, when it comes to this issue.
However, I am withdrawing consideration to those who jumped at the opportunity to profess that they are in the kool-aid pool, as we shall only see more RINO acts from them if elected POTUS.
SHAME!
Hardly 1 or 2…. check your facts please… there is no ‘concensus’ varied opinions abound, including that of the so-called ‘father’ of climate change studies who disagrees with your view.
And as for the waterboarding issue - I constantly hear that ‘Waterboarding is torture and it doesn’t work’ - but in all the recent stories about the waterboarding tapes - there was never a headline which included a portion of the story ( usually buried about 5 paragraphs in ) which was that the waterboarding DID work, gave accurate, actionable intelligence and saved lives.
I’d also like to say (before the trolls decide to mention it) that the Pope is just as qualified as The Algore on commenting on global warming.
Global warming is not linked to anything mankind has done (just as the last ice age wasn’t); but to be honest I do really think that the world’s dependency on fossil fuels should be replaced by something else, if only because the following countries would suddenly find themselves with a lot of oil and gas that has suddenly depreciated in value: Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, to name but four. Just to see the look on their faces when the only economic clout they have turns out to be pointless will be worth it.
It’s not as if it would be bad for the world economy either (notwithstanding for the above named countries): we managed the transition from steam to oil without a hitch; whatever comes next will be just as easy.
According to the ‘experts,’ revenue will not increase after lowering tax rates. Unfortunately for the ‘experts’ revenues did increase after the early Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts. Hmmmmmmmm.
Antaradus#52 Why should we listen to these same people that have worked very hard to get us where we are with dependence on foreign supplies. We can’t drill for oil in Alaska. We can drill offshore. They have hindered the use of low sulfur coal. We have an economy based on oil and the world economies depend on our stability. Why should America take the hit just because some anti-american loons “think” we are ruining the world’s climate?
This is REALLY discouraging. Given a chance to show real leadership, the major candidates buckled and decided to pander to the MSM and the “conventional wisdom” they have propagandized into reality.
I had hoped that Giuliania and Romney would have challenged this absurd and potentially disastrous falsehood.
Apparently, there are NO leaders left in this country. Only consensus followers.
Global Warming is not science. It is politics. Only a politician would say, “there is no debate, it is proven and a agreed on by most scientist” - ignoring the obvious contradiction. Any politician who buys into this scam will not get my vote.
The entire human population is nothing but a big yawn to Mother Earth. One sneeze and us fragile creatures are off her skin.
I want to hear a politician say that he rejects the religion of Global Warming.
Right on Mister P.
If we do have global warming it is because Satan is riding piggyback on the liberals’ behinds.
Hey Russ!
There’s thousands of other “experts” that also say this Global Warming being a “man made” phenomenon, is load of horse manure!!
50 years years from now, are all your “experts” going to say “nevermind” when it’s pretty well proved over time that the “Global Warming” hysteria was all a contrived crisis to achieve leftwing political agendas, and to enslave the human race?
Guess it won’t matter then! Most of us who know this is crapola won’t be around. The rest of you will be good little workers living in your grass huts, killing your unborn, eating dirt, and watching porn!
Reason #428 why Rudy McRomney would be the Harriet Miers Disaster for the GOP.
The only difference is that there’d be no Alito to bail us out.
Thompson/Tancredo anyone? I’m still undecided.
Ya know… I followed FRED! when he was still just writing columns, and I liked what I read. Our Founding Fathers were avid writers, eloquent and well-versed; undulled by the onset of the television age. I left messages on his original website, to his “exploratory committee” asking… no, begging him to run. Thus far the MSM has chosen to ignore him and reduce his comments to second-tier status. However… for that brief shining moment during the debate, he once more showed me WHY he should be the one to lead our country for the next four years. You want to know the REAL conservative in this horse race, look no further than Mr. Thompson. I am squarely, once more, in the Fred 08! camp, and that’s where I’ll remain (unless someone has photos of him clubbing baby seals or something).
I just can’t tolerate Liberal Light (Romney) or Liberal Lighter (Guiliani) or the Man from Hope (Huckabee) as none of the three have shown me any more than simply another career politician trolling for a higher office.
Let me see a show of hands… Who here would like to see Fred walking in to the next World Climate meeting in Bali, standin’ tall and proud and stating for the record “Ya’ll know this Global Warming “consensus” is just bull-hockey, right?”? Must we have more episodes of Al Gore speaking FOR this country on the world stage?
radio relay #59 You may be mistaken. I was commenting on lgm’s comment in #33.
“Green” is a religion. Green believers tend to be ignorant and short-sighted, and Green “solutions” are typically cost-ineffective and are seen to do more harm than good once the fervor has dissipated (DDT comes to mind…).
McCain said, “We’ve got to address it.” No, we don’t. And becoming independent of oil imports is not necessarily a Green solution, as it will require ramping up the use of coal and nuclear power - something Greens oppose.
Bad showing for the major candidates. Why are they so afraid of taking a factual, though controversial, position on this? Do they believe Republican voters are incapable of sorting out the issue? Have they lost sight of the fact that the Great [phony] Global Warming Prophet is Al Gore? Ugh.
deepdiver (#48) posts a link to a summary of a scientific paper questioning the accuracy of global climate models in forecasting future climate. That ship has sailed. Ten years ago scientists were arguing over whether global warming would happen. Now data show it is happening.
SHoward said (#53):
Reagan ballooned the deficit, as did Bush, Jr. The Reagan deficit was brought into surplus by the tax hikes enacted under Bush, Sr. and Clinton. Those of you who live in northern Maine or Minnesota or New York know another symptom of Bush Jr. economic policy, the US dollar is for the first time ever at parity with the looney.
jrlingreenbay said (#50):
I don’t think you really think there is important scientific disagreement over global warming, any more than you think there is disagreement over whether smoking causes cancer (though there are “scientists” who disagree). If this were a question of your personal health rather than a question of politics, you would go with the majority (expert majority) in a heartbeat.
GREEN is the color of the new “progressive” socialists.
She did not say Global Warming. She said climate change. That is because the warming trend has stabilized over the last 8 years. In fact the Southern Hemisphere has cooled and the Northern ice sheet is within 1% of its century norm. The new meme, in order to account for these inconvenient truths, is Climate Change. Of course climate changes every minute.
#33 and #64, lgm:
You’re silly.
Here’s a graph from Nasa showing US temperature since 1880. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708_1.gif
Why were the 1930s hotter than the 1960s - 1980s? Did human activity suddenly stop? Guess what happened during the mid-70s when the mean temperatures were plummeting? Yep. Experts started whining about “global cooling” .
Given that a cursory glance at climate data shows there is nothing to worry about, do experts really agree on the link between human activity and global warming? A quick Google search shows that many don’t.
But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way. Global warming is happening and the world is doomed unless we consult the great Goracle and buy carbon offsets. That is until the next cooling phase begins and then we’re going to all freeze to death. Guess we’ll need to start burning more fossil fuel then.
I think many of the so-called scientific experts have no choice but to agree with the consensus on global warming. They have a vested interest in continuing to receive various grants and other $$$ to continue their works. Should they actually go against the grain, they lose their status and budgets.
Loads of cites in Crichton novel State of Fear that points out many of the bogus GW “facts”.
The media refuses to point out little things like fact that satellite studies since 1998 show that we are back to ‘83 temp levels. The man on the street just buys into whatever the vaunted media pushes on them. How could GW possibly be bogus issue when the UN, Nobel Prize committee, Euroweenies and Hollywood tell us the Goracle is our god and savior?
I intend doing my part to contribute to global warming by buying a fuel inefficient rocket auto from the 60s. Not that we couldn’t as a nation be more efficient. The sheep sure do love their big SUVs and pickups pushed by Madison Ave. I’ll try harder when Gore and Breck girl live a bit more prudently with their own carbon footprints. Let’s all lease private jets and speed off to Bali to support the goracle.
Thank you Senator for the definitive scientific explanation.
I saw a polar bear in the zoo. Obviously the Arctic is way too hot or he wouldn’t have been in San Diego.
Just look at the heating bills for maintaining a 5,000+ sq ft residence! If this isn’t indication of a warming problem I don’t know what is! Ahem, eh Michelle?
The ONLY evidence that global warming might be man made is - FEEDING TROLLS.
The biggest evidence that man is NOT responsible for GW is right outside your door.
Go outside on a clear day without a shirt (outside temps make no difference) and what will you get in a few hours. It is called a sun burn - duh.
*cough cough FRED! cough*
This “new energies” and “energy independence” thing is BS also. I’m not opposed to the discovery by any means, but dammit, do it for the right reasons and let private industry do it! Anyway, we have cheap energy sources for everything except petroleum and natural gas.
The last analysis I saw as to domestic oil and gas reserves was about a year ago after the new oil field discovery in the Gulf. At that point it was estimated that the US had enough oil in known reserves, not counting shale oil reserves, for 500 years of consumption at the current rate. We are not exploring for or drilling for oil, or it’s partner natural gas, in 2 of our largest reserves.
We haven’t built an oil refinery in about 40 years. Our refineries are usually operating at or above designed capacity. After Katrina, one of the Saudi royal family commented that they would be happy to send oil as a gift for the recovery, but what would the US do with it? And he was right. We had plenty of oil at that point, but gas prices went through the roof because we couldn’t refine it into gasoline. If we drilled in the Gulf and ANWR we could be oil and natural gas independent in 7 years according to several estimates (although it wouldn’t work that way as the oil, being a global commodity, wouldn’t be sold exclusively to the US market and it would be subject to world market conditions, so that independence is only theoretical and based on a closed border, isolationist existence - but it would allow us to have enough oil production capacity to influence the global market as OPEC does on whims).
A comprehensive energy plan involves:
1) Open ANWR for oil exploration
2) Open the eastern Gulf of Mexico to expanded oil exploration to within 25 miles of the coast.
3) Build at least 2 new domestic oil refineries.
4) End all subsidies for ethanol
5) Build enough nuclear power plants to increase the electricity supplied by nuclear energy to 25%.
6) Institute the FairTax and eliminate subsidies for energy research. This will free up ALL researches, without having to panhandle for agendized earmarks, to look for new and renewable energy sources or to make existing sources commercially viable. It also would free up trillions of dollars in offshore tax sheltered American capital for venture capital contribution into such research.
Now that IMO would be a good start in the right direction.
I went back and looked again and it looks like it could be a screenshot of “The Weakest Link”
Rudy, you are the weakest link, Buh-Bye!
OH, dear. Runaway spending, first by the long entrenched Dems, later by the Rinos is what drove up the deficit. I wonder how high it would have gone had the tax cuts not been enacted. Just like gloabal warming, some people are only looking at one side of an issue, not all the others.
As to global warming, what is the explanation for the medieval warming period? What caused us to come out of the Little Ice Age? If the use of carbon-containing compounds in industry and transportation is the cause, how does one explain these earlier events?
Global warming doesn’t even pass the smell test at this point.
Despite the risk of Hijacking a thread, there is NOTHING fair about the fair tax.IT is double taxation. You are taxed on your income your entire life, then you get taxed on your spending.
No, Huckabee is the worst of all the candidates by far. On Laura Ingraham this morning he sounded very insincere on conservative positions, so it is no surprise he believes in the myth of manmade global warming. The guy is a far left liberal posing as a “moderate” Republican. He even wants to move the Gitmo terrorists into the Kansas City metro area (Fort Leavenworth) to appease Europeans. Have we learned nothing?
Even the Vatican just yesterday did a 180 on the myth of global warming, and Huckabee, a supposed conservative, believes it.
Someone needs to ask him:
1) Why is Mars getting warmer?
2) Why is the southern hemisphere NOT getting warmer?
3) Is 1 degree F in one century that big of a deal?
4) If man is causing global warming, why has it not gotten warmer in the past few years?
4) Is global warming bad? Wouldn’t it cut down on heating costs and increase agricultural output?
Huckabee is the scariest Republican candidate by far.
Sorry to disagree with you there, Mister P, but Global Warming isn’t science OR politics. It’s religion!
The weakest link was the Mod. and today she gets another chance. Dont chew gum, she will KEEEEEL you.
Very well said, Hunter.
Gabe,
Let’s call it a tie. Rudy is a liberal as well. I just happen to think Rudy is far left of Huck on the majority of conservative issues.
On-My-Soap-Box,
At least we know Giuliani will be tough on terrorists; we don’t even know that about Huckabee. Huckabee wants to send all the Gitmo terrorists to the Kansas City metro area. He invited a Mexican consulate to set up shop in Little Rock. The NEA endorsed him. On Laura Ingraham this morning, he sounded very apologetic about every conservative position and wants to work with liberals in Washington. He is the “compassionate conservative” (liberal pretending to be “moderate”) all over again. We know if somehow he managed to beat Hillary or Obama (very doubtful), he would not govern as a conservative, even on foreign policy. At least we can be pretty sure Giuliani would.
I think Romney is the best one. Definitely not Huckabee.
OT - If only the trolls knew that deficits happen through spending they could see that cutting high taxes does increase revenue…
Back on topic, Hunter and Fred should be rising as Huckabee sinks.
lgm….if the computer model can’t predict accurately “backwards” then it sure as heck can’t predict going forward. That is the point. The computer model is only as good as the data being fed into it and the algorithms. The algorithms in this case are little more than suppositions. To claim otherwise is dishonest.
You are correct that the computer models indeed do show temperature increases…but guess what - computer models show hurricanes doing stuff they actually don’t do. When the models “predict” accurately historically, then I’ll BEGIN to look at them. (Only begin then as it is possible that looking backward was correct purely by luck - and not correct theory and/or data.)
I can tell you are not an environmental scientist - only try to play one on blogs.
As shown by his “open borders” policy? We have zero proof he will be more tough on terrorists.
Abortion and family values - Huck.
I am NO Huck fan (and I am a charter member of the “Vast Right Wing Conservatives” and the “I must be a bigot becasue I am a Christian” Club). I am even less of a Rudy fan.
Looking hard at Hunter and, now, Fred. I really thought Fred would be a fad. He showed some Gum balls yesterday.
I’m just a little puzzled - why do we “trust” NASA with temperature forecasts. It seems to me their “mandate” is space “flight”. So when we look at what they do “within” their “mandate”, and we we find failure (Space shuttle, they have failed a couple times (not saying it’s not complicated and all - just they are fallible)), I’m hard pressed to swallow hook line and sinker stuff projecting outside the “mandate”.
#74 Deepdiver- amazing that socialist France managed to build all those nuclear power plants and made themselves far less dependent on oil.
Some wag pointed out that Hanoi Jane and the movie The China Syndrome dealt a serious blow to the US nuclear industry.
So- ANWR is off limits, the offshore Gulf shore oil reserves are off limits, cannot build oil refineries, can’t get permits to build new nuke plants, gasbags like Fat Teddy oppose wind power because of NIMBY.
What with oil prices where they are, I have to wonder about the efficacy and feasability of our vast oil shale reserves; not to mention all the domestic coal reserves.
The election is over. Why? In a race between a Democrat and a Democrat, the Democrat always wins.
Its not going to happen. You are not going to heat a candidate that is trying to win an election say something like that and isolate potential voters. But you are right, Michelle.
@87
Those aren’t temperature forecasts, they’re historical records of average annual temperature. Unless you’re accusing NASA of being dishonest and misrepresenting historical data, I don’t see why using their graphs presents a problem.
The Enviro-nitwits are winning the PR battle. But their dream of having the US senate ratify the Kyoto Protocol is far from reality.
But they do control the powerful California Air Resource Board that’s fighting to shove a ‘tougher’ emmision standard down the throat of all Americans.
Credulous people like lgm who keep telling us that debate on GW is “over” should hie themselves over to climateaudit.org and get the FACTS. Literally HUNDREDS of refereed and peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals challenge the premises, evidence and conclusions put forth by the GW zealots. Faced with so many articles refuting the claim of “consensus”, the GW zealots shift to arguing that such articles have ALL been “debunked” — which raises the question of how they all passed peer-review and refereeing prior to publication. And, of course, the idea that hundreds of scientific articles could be summarily “debunked” betrays a shocking ignorance of how science works — but that’s to be expected, given the scientific idiocy betrayed by Gore and his acolytes.
I must add a final thought to this global warming nonsense. This is the very same type of rhetoric that was flying about concerning chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer. Yes, in a lab environment cfc’s would cause a deterioration of O3 when O3, O2 and O exist inside a closed vessel in a state of equilibrium. The problem is that no one was ever able to actually prove this was happenning in the upper atmosphere. Yet, we signed the Montreal Protocol and have done away with dastardly cfc’s. Oh, they are still produced in large quantities around the world, but we don’t seem to be hearing about the ozone layer any more.
Fast forward — no one has actually been able to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that CO2 emissions are in fact causing even the slightest increase in temperatures, yet we are in a big hurry to control them — this time at a high economic cost. To think we can just snap our fingers and make it happen like they can on Star Trek is really juvenile. We need to be certain, and right now we are not.
If you compare just these two issues, the ozone layer and global warming, it sounds like someone is always looking for a “Crisis of the Month.” Right now, that is global warming.
pg #91,
The leading NASA Gorical, James Hansen, claimed for a year or two that 2005 was the warmest year on record. It wasn’t, his data was wrong - discredited by a Canadian scientist. It’s not even in the top ten. NASA changed the data quietly - shown in the graph in #87 above, but his claim regularly comes back from the dead in the MSM.
From This Article:
Liberalism/progessivism doesn’t work unless there is a crisis. The democrat party hold no sway over anyone unless there is a non-military crisis. Their entire platform is about duping stupid little Janey,who is the victim of an NEA controlled government
educationindoctrination, into voting for them because they are going to save her or her children from some perceived crisis.If there is no crisis to save her from, the platform of “we are going to confiscate money from you, your family and your children and give it to other people who don’t work as hard as you do to earn a living and are generational welfare recipients, and to farmers (including multi-national conglomerates with billions of dollars in annual profits) to subsidize their product but not to subsidize the products of other small business owners, and to terrorist governments, and to dictators who starve and abuse their people, and to a bunch of other stupid crap that no one really wants or needs so that we politicians can stay in power,” doesn’t float at all even with 30 something year old single women living in Chicagostan or New York even who have had 3 abortions, 100 sexual partners, have been on birth control since Jr High, currently are on WIC, were abused as a child, sexually harassed at work and is now bouncing against the glass ceiling. Even a flaming liberal with that background, without the context of a crisis, would see that the democrat party is about power not compassion, wealth destruction not wealth creation, subjugation not freedom, and … oh crap, I just realized, that’s why the liberals love the muslim fanatics - they are exactly the same underneath it all!