“Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.” — MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, via Sen. James Inhofe’s website.

Carbon is now Spice..

move through red tape without moving at all..

If we’d stop launching all those darn probes there, we wouldn’t be polluting their atmosphere as well. I mean we have had two electric probes running around there for….oh, wait.

Never Mind.

/sarc off

Fine print… What if it turns out that the earth is actually entering a cooling cycle, as several scientist claim there is evidence for. Are government’s then going to start paying everyone back their CO2 credits so everyone burns more CO2, drives bigger cars, etc, etc. To help warm the earth? Not on your life! They’ll continue to push this carbon tax and trade stuff. Even when it makes no sense at all to do so.

Hence, carbon credits isn’t about global warming — it is really about finding a new way source of taxation.

Meanwhile, in Congress, the cap-and-trade charade moves forward. One Democrat says “there is a sense of inevitability.” Not if some Republicans can help it:

Problem 1: Some Repubs

Problem 2: Another area where the Repubs will have NO BALLS. They will give in when they see how much money it will involve and the ammount of pork that will line their pockets.

P.S. to all of you people who think GW is man made. You must be mad as hell that it has become so bad that we are melting the polar ice caps on Mars as well.

Second, why is a state official allowed to barter deals with foreign governments? Isn’t there a little document called the constitution that forbids that? Rather like Burqa Pelosi in Syria, it seems there is something wrong with that picture.

Finally, even if global warming is real and is man made (Which I personally doubt) hasn’t society survived through many such (mysteriously … especially if it is man-made) REOCCURRING cycles throughout recorded history and always made it through to reflect on it at a later date?

Also, if global warming is man made, that would explain some of the conspiracy theorists about the Mars missions as well I suppose eh? After all, global warming on Mars must be indicative of mankind being there too since we created the problems right?

The Farmer’s Almanac has accurately been predicting the weather since 1792 I think; based on solar flares and sun spots and other solar cycles. (Cycles: Meaning they repeat) It is strange how they have predicted so many cooling and warming trends, not to mention accurately predicting the weather based on something so far beyond human control eh? Couldn’t be that they have such a good record because they are going right to the real source could it?

Could it be that these are actually natural cycles based on historical realities far beyond the control of humans, which ironically, are then manipulated by humans in an effort to gain power and control by a select few over the rest of the said humans?

No science involved? Top scientists agree? Like journalism, if science is based on facts it can only lead to one possible conclusion. Scientific “THEORY” is called theory because it cannot be proven. Facts lead to truth and not to consensus. It certainly should not lead us to the door of the UN with its UNAmerican leanings.

First) Bloomberg wants another hefty tax he’ll never have to pay. This is why all these billionaires always talk about how taxes aren’t high enough – they never have to pay them.

Second) This is another reason I’ll never vote for nor support McCain. I want a President who fights hard against the liberal global “climate change” hysteria.

To know that lgm supports so-called “climate change science” is enough to convince me that it’s the usual lie and fraud.

Among top scientists it’s 50 to one in favor.

I’m curious, so enlighten me. Who are these 50 top scientists, and where can I validate this information you have provided? Are they all climatologists, or do they come from a variety of disciplines and just have an opinion?

My wife is a scientist, and is tops in her field. She is of the opinion that manmade climate change is nothing more than mis-informed, emotionally based opinion.

Oh, and she is NOT a climatologist, but she IS a scientist who relies on scientific research to formulate logical conclusions. Does her opinion count?

SHUT THE HECK UP AND LEAVE ME ALONE!

lgm said:
Among top scientists it’s 50 to one in favor.

If so, one may still ask:

- what % of warming is caused by man
- how much can man help it (2%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, less?)
- what are the economic (i.e. human) costs of the help in the above line and are they worth it
- is the current global warming a bad thing

If we can cut global warming 0.01% by inflicting significant human suffering … then that’s not worth it, in my mind.

How about something like “If what is stated (about climate change/ global warming)as factual and true, and turns out to be false, those making the false statements shall be fined a monetary penalty equal to the amount lost in economic growth, or will forgo all federal pensions earned, or will forfeit all assets accumulated during the period affected.”

Let them put their money where their mouth is!