I wrote an article (my first article on this blog) on August 17th describing how the elitists, led by Al Gore, have been successful in not only creating an unfounded global warming scare, but exploiting the fears of the citizens of the earth for the purpose of establishing and policing a world-wide environmental tax, also known to some as “Cap and Trade”.
After this bill passed, our President mocked the GOP and accused them of using hyperbole when claiming that energy costs will rise 1,000 percent to $3,000 per household. Well, it turns out that he was correct and that the Republican estimate was too high. They are only going to rise a mere 587% (or a 15% rise in personal income taxes), an approximate cost of $1,761 per household. Most middle class Americans pay between 10% and 35% of their income to the government, so just imagine tacking on an additional 15%. In a nutshell, this should mean that if we can keep all of our taxes from rising more than 600%, we will all have more than enough money to spend on things that are really important!
(Giving you time for the math to sink in.)
Okay. Now that you’ve regained consciousness, let’s continue, shall we?
Believe it or not, as bad of an addition of taxation this is – particularly for those millions who have fixed incomes and/or shrinking IRAs – this is not the part that bugs me the most. It is the fact that this whole scheme is yet another building block for control over and captivation of the masses. And, worse yet, it is for something that was basically invented by junk scientists (we will get to that momentarily).
Many of us have been convinced by the Gore-sympathetic media that we humans are the cause of the demise of the planet. On a side note, this is a big part of the globalist agenda as evidenced by the practices of the Chinese who have been receiving praise for their one-child policy which, in reality, is government-forced abortion and eugenics. It is truly sobering and fright- ening when people of power compliment a nation for their accomplish- ments when the things that are getting done are synonymous with rape and murder. Perhaps “success” and “advancement” are simply in the eye of the beholder.
I have found that most people have good intentions and are willing to give the benefit of the doubt. That is surely one of the reasons that media moguls and other influential people take advantage of the principle that “if you repeat something often enough, people will accept it as truth”. This never seems to be the case more than in the global warming debate. Because most of the media is in the back pocket of the elites who are toting this stuff, we are sitting ducks when it comes to being victimized by the barrage of continuous misinformation. As a qualifier, I am in no way suggesting that there are not oil spills in the ocean, or that a smokestack doesn’t affect a nearby community, or that it is not smart to recycle. I am, instead, strongly suggesting that the Gore-ites are using CO2 as a fear factor for promoting a flimsy (at best) agenda. CO2 is one of the four components necessary for survival (just ask any tree). The ominous suggestion of world degeneration started with emission (aka ‘greenhouse’) gases and evolved into the claim that people are the problem. Though CO2 is being misused for distraction and deception, the real motive is policed taxation and absolute power. And we have all heard about the results of absolute power.
There is some good news, however. More and more reputable scientists in the field of climate are jumping onto the anti-global warming bandwagon. Also, more and more Americans are starting to wake up . I suppose it could be because this theory is quickly becoming a reality in their wallets.
The fact is that there have been climate swings for centuries. Likely longer, except that they weren’t always measured. And now many are coming to terms that, perhaps, they have just been getting duped all this time, thanks to the U.N. and their cronies.
I would suggest that you get a bunch of tea and pour it into the lake and cry “No international taxation without national representation!” Except for the fact that you might kill a few fish while doing so.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
I call bullshit. The vast majority of scientists disagree with your views, which I think are politically driven rather than evidence-based.
M Wickham,
Are you SURE about that? For years, many scientists who were on the opposite side of the issue from you had been stifled by various organizations (jobs threatened, etc). But lately, more and more are coming forward and challenging those who are talking as if man-made global warming is above dispute.
You want to talk about something being agenda-driven? Put Cap and Trade on for size.
I learned in science class back in middle school that plants take in CO2 and release oxygen; while, animals breath the oxygen and release CO2. Volcanoes have been erupting since the earth was formed. The theory is that early plant life created most of the oxygen that we breath. I think the world is more than capable of handling any amount of CO2 we could ever put out. More CO2 = More plants to convert it to oxygen. It’s the chemicals that don’t occur naturally and cause harm to life, that are the problem. The cap and trade bill reminds me of the Dihydrogen monoxide scare.
The big difference between the dihydrogen monoxide scare, and the cap and trade bill is that the dihydrogen monoxide scare was funny and the the cap and trade bill is not because of its real economic harm.
Hi Jake,
I haven’t interacted on this article in a very long time. But this all comes down to the “create the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory” cliche.
It’s not a matter of whether or not we are getting warmer or if people recycle their garbage or dump bleach into the nearest stream. This has to do with a few Al Gore-ites trying to convince the general public that we are the culprits for ecological demise and that there is impending doom of we don’t turn around our behavior. In addition, since we are the “guilty parties”, we must make amends by paying a carbon tax. But I guarantee you that this is not about money – the people implementing this whole travesty, with Al Gore the appointed overseer, are already rich beyond imagination – it’s about global dominance and control. They know that when they can hold the first-world countries over a barrel, with the UNs hypocritical thumbs’ up, by taxing us to death and brainwashing us that it is for a good reason, it is only a matter of time before we wave the flag of surrender to the globalists and allow them to pave their way (over the backs of our heads) to complete, unrestricted dominance.
But, since I have been accused more than once of being a conspiracy theorist, please don’t take my word for it. Instead, feel free to click on the links I have supplied within the context of this article as well as Googling a few on your own and make your own determination. My guess, however, is that if you approach this sensibly, your final determination will be within a few inches of mine.
Peace
Global Warming is not an opinion issue. Earth’s biosphere is a finite, closed system, and it’s the only one in the known universe. Don’t be stupid.
Majority of Americans Still ‘Believe’ in Global Warming
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/majorityofamericansstillbelieveinglobalwarming
“Fully 71 percent of respondents said they trust scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely.”
Results also suggest Americans support government action to combat global warming, including:
86 percent of respondents said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution businesses emit;
78 percent opposed taxes on electricity to reduce consumption, and 72 percent opposed taxes on gasoline;
84 percent favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to use more alternative energy sources, such as making electricity from water, wind and solar power;
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html
Where is the irony?
I have been telling everyone since Day One that Rupert Murdoch is a member of the same Council on Foreign Relations as Al Gore. If one were to thumb through all of my articles and comments they would never see me refer to FOX News as a credible news source. They are simply another Establishment media outlet but are being used as “controlled opposition” for the purpose of confusing the public. Also, why would the global warming hoax be a partisan situation? Though Gore is a Democrat on stage, he is merely a global elitist puppet in real life.
This is not about Conservative or Liberal. This is about power and control.
Sometimes the irony is just too much…Right from the mouth of Murdoch
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/news-corp-aims-to-go-carb_n_549676.html
Al Gore-1
Sean and Glenn-0
Laura you said
“According to the EU, it would only take $7.4 to 10.4 billion over 3 years to help poorer countries become more evironmentally concious. In case that sounds like a lot of money, the top 3-4 Wall Street firms will be paying $70 billion in BONUSES this year, during a recession. They paid over $40 billion in bonuses last year.”
Let’s assume for a second it is true in every respect. They can’t even agree how large the problem is or an effective way to combat it. Do you really believe the EU or any entity could effictively put a price on all that would be required to meet the CO2 standards? And if this is really happening how the heck can anyone even estimate how much reduction it will take to change the temperature when we don’t even have an accurate idea of the ability of the world’s plants and animals (plankton) to process CO2? How about we spend that money getting them clean water and help them develop more effictive and sanitary farming methods.
In the big picture any action taken to combat this percieved threat will drastically effect everyone. We need to know the truth, perhaps the climate is changing, which way, are we really the cause? If we are facing climate change and it is simply another cycle of the Earth then Cap and Trade and other BS will be a waste. How can we develop a solution when there isn’t even agreement on the problem?
You know it’s going to be really sad when all of this great legislation gets passed and we shoot the sparkles in the air to cool down the climate when we finally we realize we are actually on our way to the next ice age. Another interesting thing is the possible relationship between solar activity and storms on the planet. During hurrican Katrina there was a solar maximum, and in 2012 many predict one of the most powerful solar flares we have seen in 150 years. Only now because we have sats floating around the electronic pulse generated could take ‘em out. Why isn’t there more research being conducted on this stuff.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
http://dsc.discovery.com/space/my-take/solar-storm-sten-odenwald.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/04/do_solar_storms_threaten_civil.html
HAHAHA!!! This is just too rich. The wheels are starting to come off the bus of global warming. Make sure to read the last sentence…
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
It’s true Consti, the whole man-made Global Warming Hoax is on the ropes and is getting pounded by facts.
So now it’s unexplained cooling! Can’t be that nature is cyclic! Must be all those farting penguins! WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOT THEM!
“The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cJYJjOTn
Just adding another article to the pile.
Consti,
This seems to be one subject that you and I are in full agreement both scientifically and politically.
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Also, since when are questions that I ask- none of which have been answered by any of the conservatives who post here- amount to a “stereotypical incrimination” of anyone. If a person reads a question and sees themselves negatively in light of that question, then they are identifying themselves negatively. Not me. They are choosing to identify themselves that way and responding appropriately. That is quite telling.
Erik,
Consti made the argument “the negative global environmental effects of humankind? There is NO substantiated proof that we are causing ANYTING!! That is the lie that is being used to hose the american public.”
While you may recognize that we have and continue to have a negative effect on our environment outside of global warming, some of your fellow conservatives do not agree with you and continue to believe that we have done nothing wrong and have no negative effects on the environment. I think that proves my point about there being conservatives who will use the possible non-existance of global warming as justification for dnying that we have no negqative effect on the environment period.
I was trying to speak to Consti and his denial, not you. You should read what is written and what came before for context before making comments and accusing people of things they have not done.
Laura,
I’m really not sure of how many times I’m going to need to say this. But, first of all, not only do I acknowledge real pollution right now, but I also acknowledged within the context of my post and a couple of times in my comments. However, “they” are basing the global warming hoax on man made “greenhouse gases”, which hasn’t been solidly proven and (if you read my article carefully again) have turned that around to implicate humanity as the problem. Anyone with half a brain knows that pollution exists and is even problematic in some areas of the world. And I have never heard anyone say that Love Canal didn’t happen. But this isn’t what I’ve been talking about. I am talking about shutting down or grotesquely overtaxing coal mines and other sources of needed energy in the name of CO2 reduction which is a farce. This aimed taxation of legitimate energy use is not for the “safety of the world” but, instead, is for the control of it.
Feel free to comment any time. But please, think about what I am saying before you write another comment that stereotypically incriminates all conservatives as being in kahoots with trashing this planet. It just ain’t so. But what IS so, is that “they” have created the disease and the remedy in the same laboratory.
Water does not pollute itself, smog is not created by plants and animals, oil does not spill by itself, DDT and other pesticides and hrebicides are created by nature…but I guess they’re hoaxes perpetrated on the American public. Love Canal never happened, bald eagles did not almost die out , species have not beenlost to deforestation and over hunting, and that’s just for starters- that’s right, maybe in our world they have, but since you live in your own world tehy’ve never happened there.
the negative global environmental effects of humankind? There is NO substantiated proof that we are causing ANYTING!! That is the lie that is being used to hose the american public.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33656913/ns/us_news-environment/
According to the EU, it would only take $7.4 to 10.4 billion over 3 years to help poorer countries become more evironmentally concious. In case that sounds like a lot of money, the top 3-4 Wall Street firms will be paying $70 billion in BONUSES this year, during a recession. They paid over $40 billion in bonuses last year.
Interesting…
The rest of the world EXCEPT us under Bush was on board for Kyoto, so I wouldn’t be pointing to that to bolster your case. Do you think global environmental policy of ANY kind has teeth or meaning without our participation? We are more than willling to tell the rest of the world what kind of government they should have and declare ourselves as leader, but we have tried to take the back seat when it came to environmental policy as endorsed by conservatives. When I said the world, I meant the world INCLUDING us.
And it’s the World Bank, who we support, who lends the money. It does not come from us directly. We spend far more trying to topple governments in foreign countries that don’t share our point of view, while promoting a nation’s right of self-determination. Neocons have NO problem spending money for that. Then we leave, leaving them to settle for themselves what industries to develop to support themselves. They are not ususally environmentally-friendly. And why is the word “green” an insult or badge of stupidity? It is not based solely on global warming, but a general attitude about our environment.
The question I have is- under the conservative viewpoint, if all three things I mentioned are unacceptable under conservative dictum, then just how do the conservatives feel we should deal with the negative global environmental effects of humankind? The impression I get is nothing, except now maybe rely on some old laws that are on the books for which the loopholes and ways around them have already been discovered and exploited. Without adequate enforcement or penalties and revisions to suit current conditions, they are meaningless and the polluters know it.
This isn’t about Al Gore; this isn’t about any one person. This has to do with the conservative movement and their ideology for dealing with the environment. If they wish to rest control from the GOP from the moderates or start their own party, then I want to know what they intend to do about it other than try to refute global warming and fluff theories in the hope that no one will turn any attention to the myriad of other environmental issues that are just as pressing, if not more so. They want to make this about Al Gore and global warming so that they can use their scientists to refute it and their PR cannons to assasinate the messenger, but the other negative impacts are still out there, larger than life. You pointed to some of them that occur on a local scale, but there are others that occur on a much larger scale than that.
If you and the conservatives don’t want a “police state,” then make what the government is trying to do a moot point by getting Americans to step up to the plate and do it themselves. Stop being backseat drivers…
chel,
Based on my studies of the issue, “Cap and Trade” almost exclusively has to do with the environment and “Global Warming” has been used to enact this taxation. The irony would be humorous: that of tax-paying industries leaving the country. However, revenue doesn’t appear to be the main goal, power and enslavement does. Revenue is definitely an effective way to step on the necks of the masses but the money itself is only a means for a greater end.
Laura,
(1) I personally don’t know of any Conservatives who like to breathe noxious air or drink contaminated water and/or give it to their kids. My point? Industry is already plagued with all kinds of regulations and restrictions for environmental purposes. Some possibly for legitimate pollution concerns, and others undoubtedly for the ultimate goal mentioned above. But for whatever reason, there are a plethora of choking policies in place to hinder big industry. I suppose there are politicians and lobbyists who support these industries and oppose these regulations. But most of the policies have been around for 40 years and are unlikely going away:
http://civil.engr.siu.edu/301I_Ray/he_regs.htm
(2) First of all, there are a LOT of nations who are on the same page (remember Kyoto). Second, that would almost be benevolent if this were as serious of a crisis as they claim. But it all comes back to motive. If you recall, a few decades ago, there was an approaching ice age scare.
(3) I am not knowledgeble as to the extent that other countries have fallen for (or have had themsleves forced upon) this whole “green” movement. But since it is common knowledge that the US lends gazillions of dollars to 3rd world countries (at US tax payers expense) with the expectation of never getting paid back, I am guessing that most of these beneficiaries must do some kissing up in return, and that likely includes adhering to the movement.
For the record, I am an avid recycler and am eco-conscious. Though I am in real estate, it irks me to see a hoard of trees being demolished to be replaced with condominiums, particlularly when there are thousands of houses that are sitting vacant. But for the umpteenth time, this is not about legitimate pollution, it is about creating a police state. If it were about legitimate pollution, you and I would be on the same page. But it’s not, and we’re not.
Regarding “quack” or “junk” scientists, most people will gravitate toward the side which they happen to be in agreement with. There are possibly valid points from each group. But my point was that the Gore crowd, who essentially has the media in their pocket, will try to dupe the gullible public with slanted information (sometimes subtly, like a dripping I.V.) in favor of the warming proponents who basically claim that this is “the way it is” and that, if you disagree, you are downright crackers. They will never welcome an open, honest debate on the issue because they know that they will likely have their reputation handed to them on a platter. As a matter of fact, at a UN Global Warming event approximately 10 years ago, Al Gore was put on the hot seat in this very way in front of thousands of people. Since he, obviously, didn’t have an intelligent comeback, he resorted to “gotta go, I’m not taking any more questions at this time (paraphrased)” and took a hike. Check out the book “The United Nations Exposed” by William Jasper who is not only the author, but was the person who grilled Gore at the conference.
The “few” who are doing what you are saying are the “few” I am talking about. The elite few who live high on the hog at the expense (life-wise and money-wise) of the many. Just ask Al Gore and his 10,000 square foot home and three SUVs for starters.
I was asking a question. What would conservatives suggest we do, other than deny there is a problem? I was asking becuase I want to know.
Maybe you missed the questions…
As usual it’s all conservatives fault. All I am going to say is WOW.
So if we do what most conservatives suggest, which is:
1. Nothing to very little in terms of regulating the environmental impact of industry in this country, and
2. We refuse to cooperate with the other nations of the world in coming up with a global plan to minimize the environmental effects of industry because of the fear of the threat a “one world government,” or
3. Not support the growth of more environmentally friendly business in third world countries to give them the ability to say no to polluters,
then what? What exactly, without doing any of these three things, are we going to do to help reduce the negative imprint we humans are having on this planet? If government does nothing, then it is left to all of us as individuals. Then we are then being told by conservatives that we shouldn’t have to sacrifice from our way of life in order to protect the environment; that our comfort and convenience is more important and that arguably our actions are not having an effect on this planet at all. All this so that we don’t stop buying all the products that support the materialist structure that keeps those with money in power. Lack of global warming does not equal no negative environmental impact.
Does anyone else see how unrealistic, dangerous, and willfully blind this attitude is? And then they promote any scientist that will juggle the facts to come up with a scientific basis to justify this line of thinking, while accusing any scientist who produces as valid of an alternative theory as a quack.
We either change things while we can or be forced to deal with the change that will be thrust upon us and that will be beyond our control. But as long as it is not us who is paying the cost, but others of future generations or in parts of the world we forget exist, it’s okay to some.
The world is, or at least was, a system in balance. You can’t change one aspect of it without regard to the long term, widespread effects and expect it to stay in balance forever. Remove a leg from a table that is designed to stand on four legs and it eventually topples when you place weight on it. Remove another leg and it collapses.
The only thing is that those who are making the decision to ignore these things are making that choice for all of mankind, as well as all the species on this planet and the earth itself. The right of a small amount of the world’s population to like a bloated lifestyle and to spend money trying to export that lifestyle out to others does not outweigh the rights of all the rest of the world’s peoples and creatures, and the earth itself.
I think we agree, Erik. Global warming or not, all Cap and Trade does is hurt the US economy and move any problems to other parts of the world. A two-for-one whammy of a mistake.
chel,
Though real pollution can be a problem, it has not proven to be a cause of global warming. I agree that some industry may escape taxation by defecting to other countries but that just means that instead of a smokestack emitting fumes in West Virginia, it will emit them in Laos instead. Whether or not they dump all of their waste into the lakes and rivers would remain to be seen and would, indeed, be unfortunate. But that could possibly mean that the result would be undrinkable water, not necessarily a rise in the earth’s temperature.
Cap and Trade will just cause more corporations to move industry overseas to third world countries, where they don’t have the LUXURY of worrying about the environment and they just take what they can get to survive, dump their wastes into rivers, and don’t bother limiting atmospheric emissions. Then we’ll see some REAL man-made climate change.
Did you not see what I wrote about both President Bushes in my above comments? It just so happens that global warming was introduced by the left. Of course, I’m just waiting for the likes of a Newt Gingrich and his lackeys to follow suit. Though I already knew it, he showed his true colors by pushing a left of left Republican in Upstate NY and criticizing her Conservative replacement.
As far as talking about the GOP, by the way, who have pitifully lost their way, we have you and others in here to do that for us. Though I could roll out a scroll long enough to cover Broadway that lists the folly of both parties, the Republicans frankly sicken me – particularly in NY and New England. They are wimpy and get knocked around, even when they had the majority in the House. And though the Conservative lost in NY, it was still refreshing to see a pseudo Republican get kicked to the curb. Maybe there is hope for the NY Conservative Party after all. Of course, I’m not holding my breath. When I voted here on Long Island, there were some candidates who ran under D/R/I/C (Dem, Rep, Independent, Conservative). What a big, fat joke. Since I didn’t have time to study every candidate, I resorted to voting Conservative down the line. I’m guessing that is going to be at least a partial mistake.
I didn’t place a slant on your comments at all. Scroll up and look again. And yes, when a person shows that they are liberal on basically every, single subject and then misread my entire article followed by a comment that is irrelevant to the context, combined with sappy (though, admittedly, well-written) articles, I consider it “senseless” due to the fact that it doesn’t seem to line up anywhere close to the view of the average John Q Public. But, with this being said, I have had a lot of liberals during my writing days who have accused me of the same thing. Except that, instead of calling me a “bleeding heart”, they have called me a “NeoCon”, which is downright laughable.
I don’t take it personal. I just get fed up how I carefully address every question you ask of me and, yet, you constantly evade those questions that you don’t feel the need to answer. I’m really not into one-way conversations.
I didn’t respond because the point I was making was that we can’t let the possible non-existence of global warming keep us from acting in an environmentally conscious way. It was not a personal statement about your beliefs. I was not arguing with you about it. That you choose to make it personal or take it as a personal statement about you is your choice. Anyone who reads what I write knows that I speak to America as a WHOLE on most issues, not just one side of any divide or issue. You are the one that placed a slant on what I wrote while on my “soapbox” spouting “bleeding heart senselessness.”
I have pointed out numerous times that both paties are guilty of playing from the same rule book, but that two wrongs don’t make a right. Plenty of conservatives and GOPs are using the fact that the Dems did it to Bush as an excuse to use the same guerilla tactics, all the while whining about how unfair it all was to Bush and the GOP. If it is so wrong, then they shouldn’t be doing it either. If it is fair play, then they need to suck it up when they are the targets and stop whining about a “liberal media agenda” and the like. You can’t have it both ways and maintain any integrity. That applies to BOTH sides, so don’t imply some kind of integrity to the GOP and not the Dems when they are both equally guilty.
IT AIN’T ALL ABOUT YOU OR ANY ONE PERSON!!!! It is about the responsibilities and future of us all. And I never said that the left is immune to any criticism. I will however play devil’s advocate and point out logical discrepancies…You and others here claim to not have sides or play favorites, yet only seem to spend your time attacking and using negative examples from only liberals and Dems, while showing no such diligence in examining and exposing similar acts from the conservatives or GOP. It’s not because there aren’t plenty of them out there…they just don’t fit the slanted viewpoint you continually put out on display.
I was not lecturing you- if you choose to ignore the environmental consequences of your actions in favor of convenience and a couple of extra bucks that y9ou throw away without thinking, you will pay the cost. Unfortunately, so will I and everyone else on this planet. I just hope that you are right…
See? That is proof right there that you only acknowledge what you wish to acknowledge. Within the context of my article I mentioned that I realize that legitimate pollution exists. It was also the first sentence of my last comment in response to your comment. Yet you TOTALLY ignored it – again. And, to top it off, you couldn’t curb the urge to lecture me when you have no idea who I am or how eco-conscious I may or may not be. Eco-awareness and sensitivity have nothing to do with the Elitists plan to enslave us all with unnecessary taxation for the purpose of absolute power and control via something that scientists are split down the middle on, at best.
I humbly suggest that you remove your Dem/Rep – Left/Right goggles and start seeing things the way they truly are: both parties are using the same playbook. Obama is just a continuation of what Bush was doing who was just a continuation of what Clinton was doing who was just……….
These guys are simply puppet frontmen who are the Billy Mays’s of the New World Order (recall Bush Sr’s out in the open declaration).
FDR once said that presidents are “selected, not elected”. There is much more significance in that statement than most people admit or even realize.
Laura,
Logically and rationally based? TRY the Obama administration blocking it’s OWN EPA report! Which inconviently knocks the global warming sham(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28456.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5329380.shtml
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Big_Dem_cash_dump_on_eve_of_climate_vote.html?showall
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-41050320090715
http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, then it’s not a goose.
Just the fact that you dismiss statements that are logically and rationally based as if they are beneath you because it is “bleeding heart senselessness” displays a lack of objectivity enhanced by an obvious bias.
I’m not going to go tit for tat with you either, because if you have already dismissed anything that I write as “bleeding heart senselessness,” no amount of evidence, logic, or facts I produce would matter. I’m not going to waste my time…I just hope to dear God that if you are wrong about climate change that we don’t find out in 50 years when it is too late to change it. I hope maintaining your present lifestyle and an extra $5 a day for your whole family is worth it…
Laura,
If you would have taken the time to read the 4th paragraph from the bottom, you will see that I am not belittling legitimate pollution.
Kindly stop using my article comment section as a soapbox. You already fully utilize the opportunity to write your own bleeding heart senselessness. Perhaps you have way too much time on your hands. I don’t mind comments and have, thus, shown that I will take the time to respond. But I don’t write an entire article as a comment on someone else’s post (as a matter of respect) and I am no longer going tit for tat, particularly when you’ve shown time and time again that you prefer to hopscotch over the issues you don’t want to deal with. I have always answered every question or have directly addressed every issue you’ve brought up, yet the same courtesy has never been reciprocated.
dfunzy,
Whether it be “falling meteors” or “fallout from meteors”, they are equally irrelevant in my eyes in regards to our present situation. I got your point crystal clearly that you believe that meteors (falling or fallout) could result in climate change and my answer is “what does that have to do with the above article?” Also, I got your point loud and clear about global warming being one cause of climate change. And I directly answered you by saying that, in my opinion, it is taking the cart before the horse. Global warming is a product, not a cause.
My head is nice and cool, believe me.
Al Gore HAS been commended – particularly by Hollywood and the “Green” industry. However, as aforementioned, his hypocrisy on the matter is staggering. And do you know why it has been on the front pages of major newspapers? Because they are in kahoots with the whole thing, as mentioned within the context of the article.
I am going to allow you the last word on this. If I don’t, this will go on all night, because you are seeing things I am not writing.
I will make this reply, then you make your rebuttal, and I shall let that be that on this topic. (from me)
One final thing. To illustrate where this discussion is going, you continue to respond to comments I didn’t make. For example, you just wrote–” Falling meteors have n0thing to do with today s global warming theory.
Please read what I wrote: I wrote: “What I wrote in my comment was : ‘The earth s climate has changed many times over the centuries. Solar activity, the fall- out from a large, single meteor ‘.
Now do you see that, my reference to falling large meteors was to show that in the past meteors have caused climate change by creating dust and debris that linger in the atmosphere, that block out sunlight. Global warming is only one cause of climate change.”
Never said that meteors caused global warming. Probably caused global cooling.
I understand that you are an advocate for your cause, and your head is hot with facts supporting your point of view. I think Al Gore should be commended for putting the issues of global warming and climate change on the front pages of the world’s newspapers. Also I am not sure that a “new tax” is the way to go.
Now, your turn. And that’s it for now, from me, until the next topic.
Science, despite its best efforts, has not proven that sentient life begins at conception, yet the right want to err on the side of caution and ban abortion to prevent “murder”. Science has proved that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore natural, but the right says that in their minds it is “unnatural” and forget what science says. They are more than willing to disregard science or to err “on the side of caution” when it suits them.
Yet somehow, when it comes to any proof of environmental harms being caused to the enviornment by human activity, not just in regard to global warming but on all kinds of environmental issues, they refuse to err on the side of caution and side with whichever supports the big corporate money interests. Then they sell it to the American public as a fiscal concern (this will cost you money), forgetting about the other costs that are attached (which don’t matter, because there is no dollar value to clean air and a healthy environment), not to mention the future costs.
Interesting…
(1) Falling meteors have n0thing to do with today’s global warming theory. Even if one crashed onto the earth millenia ago and it was big enough to make an impact, that would have nothing to do with today’s climate unless, of course, you want to include the main ice age and all the mini ice ages along the way (not counting the Year Without a Summer in 1816 due to volcanic fallout);
(2) Global warming would be a product, not a cause (if it were real);
(3) No. The $3,000 (actually $1,761) per household reflects what the typical household would pay AFTER the Cap and Trade bill were ratified. Again, nothing to do with the falling dollar but with the rising taxation created to fund a bogus situation;
(4) That is exactly what Gore, Inc are doing. He made a gazillion “convenient” dollars off of his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” when it is obvious, by his personal life, that it isn’t a problem worth getting fit to be tied over. He owns a humongous mansion that uses tons of energy per year and at least three SUVs which are known to guzzle gas and are an environmentalist’s nightmare;
(6) Oh I DO think it’s made up – at least to the degree of human responsibility. I just said it wasn’t Gore who did it though he would, undoubtedly, love to take the credit for it, along with the invention of the internet;
(7) The scientists I am talking about are not from the oil companies. Sure, oil companies would have a vested interest in global warming being bogus but, fortunately, this time, they aren’t leading the way. Don’t be so quick to dismiss the climate scientists who are debunking this theory. Most of them are well-respected in their field and more and more are joining them on the debate all the time.
I read your article three times very carefully before I wrote my comment.
You wrote in your reply:” …, falling meteors, even if we could somehow stop them, have nothing to do with global warming.”
What I wrote in my comment was : “The earth s climate has changed many times over the centuries. Solar activity, the fall- out from a large, single meteor “.
Now do you see that, my reference to falling large meteors was to show that in the past meteors have caused climate change by creating dust and debris that linger in the atmosphere, that block out sunlight. Global warming is only one cause of climate change.
In your article you wrote: “After this bill passed, our President mocked the GOP and accused them of using hyperbole when claiming that energy costs will rise 1,000 percent to $3,000 per household. Well, it turns out that he was correct and that the Republican estimate was too high. They are only going to rise a mere 587%”
In your reply to my comment on your article, you wrote: “… the Cap and Trade bill has nothing to do with the falling dollar.”
What I wrote in my comment was:”Whether a tax is the way to go, I don t know. The cost of energy is rising now because of the falling dollar. ”
Now do you see that my reference to the falling dollar was a response to your comment that the price of energy is rising?
In your article you wrote: “Al Gore, have been successful in not only creating an unfounded global warming scare, but exploiting the fears … ”
And you wrote: “many are coming to terms that, perhaps, they have just been getting duped all this time, thanks to the U.N. and their cronies.”
Sounds to me like you think somebody or bodies, Mr. Gore and company, have been hoodwinking people.
Any way, I am pleased to know that you don’t think global warming is a made up. So many who cite the so-called scientific studies, financed by the oil industry, have in so many words said just that. Most scientific literature show that climate change is real and global warming is real, but that other factors as well as the buildup of CO produces global warming.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html?section=cnn_latest
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY
Et al…
There is plenty of evidence of climate change that coincidentally has happened in the time period where we have stepped up our use of fossil fuels. I happen to think it’s a very telling coincidence, but even if you accept that it is just a coincidence, you cannot say that our changing of entire landscapes, atmospheres, environments, water patterns, etc. has not had an effect on this earth. Even IF it turns out that global warming is not caused or advanced by humans, we cannot use that as an excuse not to act in an environmentally responsible manner. Toxic waste, water pollution, chemical and oil contamination of our soil and water- those are not natural, they are manmade. It is too easy to say global warming is bogus and use that as justification to back to the old ways of doing things with no regard for our role in the degradation of this planet. Just because there is no global warming does not mean that we are scot free, that how we are managing the resources of the world is okay. If I eat 5 double cheeseburgers, smoke two packs, and a 6 pack of tall boys a day, just because I haven’t had a heart attack or stroke doesn’t mean that my behavior is good for my health.
Just because we can change the environment doesn’t mean we should. We are not the only species on this planet and I’m sorry to say that convenience is not a birthright. If safeguarding the planet so that my great-grandchildren and their great-grandchildren can breathe fresh air and have a good quality of life, and the necessary biodiversity of this planet is maintained, costs a few bucks, then so be it. The price my great-grandchildren will pay will be much higher. People blow money on unnecessary stuff every day. What’s one less fast food meal or mochachocalatta per day? Is that extreme deprivation? Is using public transportation more and driving less a life-threatening hardship? Is driving a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle going to turn your life into a pit of dispair? And I know that separating recyclables is it’s own fresh ring of hell, right? But those simple steps, if taken by everyone, would make a huge impact. Yet our convenience and the ability to live life without responsibility is more important, right?
We are a PART of this planet. We are but ONE species on it. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT US!!!! We were not given carte blanche to trash this planet for our exclusive benefit. Money is a human invention and comfort is a relative concept. The earth and the lifeforms on it are REAL. Since when are mere concepts more important than what’s real? And when did the rest of the life on this earth that we are destroying buy into and accept this hierarchy of concept over their survival.
The benefits of responsible behavior and moderation extend beyond politics, diet and lifestyle. If the earth dies, then so do we. Our futures are tied together, as is our present and our past.
dfunzy,
Based on your comments, I’m really not sure that you either fully read my article or paid attention to it.
First, I never said that Al Gore and the elitists created global warming, I said they have created the “scare” and have exploited it.
Second, the Cap and Trade bill has nothing to do with the falling dollar.
Third, falling meteors, even if we could somehow stop them, have nothing to do with global warming. There is not even proof that a meteor was the demise of the din0saurs – it is still only a theory. You were a lot closer to target when you mentioned the sun being a cause but us not being able to control it. The sun has existed for a very long time and has had an impact on the earth for the almost as long and there is nothing significant that can be done to change that unless the one-world govt (of the near future) wants to invest a bazillion dollars in creating a dome or something.
Fourth, I never mentioned the Dems or the Green Party anywhere in this post. Perhaps you know something I don’t?
Fifth, please don’t take my word for it. Listen to the scientific community who are debunking this theory (and that’s exactly what it is) who are growing daily in numbers and who disagree with you about the “greenhouse effect” (as believed by many of the masses). Even if it exists, it’s not man made as they have been pumping into our psychees for decades.
All your comment has done is reinforced what I am saying: that a select few have succeeded in capturing the imaginations of much of the public for the reasons of planned panic for the purpose of controlling them since the public is much more cooperative when they think their lives are in danger.
The earth’s climate has changed many times over the centuries. Solar activity, the fall- out from a large, single meteor, or from frequent meteor hits, the cooling of the earth’s core, changes in the earth’s magnetic fields, or in the speed of the earth’s rotation, or in the tilt of earth’s axis –these and a dozen other variables have been major causes of climate change. A build up of CO gas in the atmosphere, will produce a greenhouse effect, and this will contribute to climate change. Man is not able to control solar activity, and can not, as of yet, prevent meteor fall, though the US Space Command is working on the problem, making plans to keep any large meteor from crashing on to the earth. We can do something about global warming. Whether a tax is the way to go, I don’t know. The cost of energy is rising now because of the falling dollar. Something needs to be done to stabilize energy costs. Whether that is the use of alternative power and the development of more domestic energy resources, that is a different topic.
In summary. Al Gore did not invent global warming,. Climate change isn’t something the Dem and the green parties made up. It is real And we need to deal with it in an effective way.
Thank you.
Eric,
You don’t often speak, but when you do it’s to the point and very concise. Bravo!