Boehner on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos

[radiodj1520]

I Believe This Was A Video Clip Of ABC News' This Week With George Stephanopoulos' Report On Boehner On Sunday Morning, April 19, 2009.

[unclelight]

Boner wants to cut taxe for the rich and spend less on the poor! Vermin! Nazi nigger!

[toneyjl59]

Yep, your head is in "in the sand"(want to keep this clean). GET THE FACTS. You must be getting GREAT PERKS for Nobama too!!!

[pegaleen]

I love Boehner He should run for President!!!!

[perfectbark]

He's a reactionary with too much time in front of a TV camera putting him on the record, and it would guarantee another loss for the GOP.

[bubthegreat1]

at 3:00 he is lying. There are at this moment 30,000 scientists bound together expressing that CO2 does not contribute to climate change.

Anyone that wants to argue that, answer me this first: How did the Ice Age end?

[PokaPokaPoka]

Cyclical changes in climate

[bubthegreat1]

Not changes in climate, but changes in the Sun - - The sun's solar activity directly correlates with increased temperatures on the earth, and they cycle every few decades, but they diminish. We are currently in a period of cooling as per the season of flaring has stemmed down. I.E. Manmade emissions did not force us out of the last ice age, nor is it causing global warming today. It's a farce!

[perfectbark]

I was wondering if you are familiar with the data emanating from both NASA by James Hansen and the IPCC.

Of those 30, 000 scientists you speak of, how many are climatologists and atmospheric physicists?

How many are chemists and other scientists who are either retired or research in areas not related to climate change?

In your opinion, is is wiser to err on the side of caution, or throw caution to the wind and carry on as usual?

What are your credentials in the issue of climate change?

[bubthegreat1]

The IPCC is going to say whatever will promote climate change. The data published to date shows the correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric temperature to NOT be what Al Gore, the IPCC, and many at NASA once thought: that as CO2 increases, so does temperature. We are in a state of cooling though CO2 has risen, why? Because there is no correlation. As for my credentials, I have 2 science degrees, and finishing my doctorate. What are Al Gore's credentials?

[perfectbark]

Al Gore is obviously not a scientist, and neither are you. Since you are masquerading as an authority on the subject, you should be able to state the position of the IPCC.

Why would the IPCC wish to "promote" climate change when it states its position on climate change in terms of probability??

The IPCC states that current climate change is related to a climate cycle, but that the rate of change is do to something else ..... or anthropogenic causes....

are you an atmospheric physicist?

[bubthegreat1]

I hold two bachelor's degrees in science from the University of Utah and working on finishing my phD. You won't believe that because it didn't answer your question to your liking. I am not an 'atmospheric physicist but neither are you apparently. I'm simply saying that saying global warming being caused by increased CO2 output doesn't match the latest cooling period we are facing while the CO2 emissions have risen. And that, my friend, is what we call empirical evidence in 'science'.

[perfectbark]

I ain't buying buying your bullshit pal. I have a couple of degrees myself in science. I teach at a local college and while my expertise isn't in climatology or atmospheric physics I tend to pay attention to my colleagues who do have expertise in this field. And as I'm sure you are aware, since you are a man of science and all, science itself does not speak in absolutes but rather in probabilities. Again, I'd rather err on the side of caution and learn from past mistakes rather than be sorry.

[bubthegreat1]

You didn't answer my question. If global warming is caused by man, how did the last ice age end?

[perfectbark]

you seem to have trouble understanding the idea that climate change may be in part cyclical, and in part anthropogenic. The last ice age or at least the one that caused the Wisconson ice sheet to cover my area some 18000 years ago is related to a phenomenon referred to as a Milankovitch cycle. However, the data we have today indicates an acceleration of a warming cycle that is anthropogenic and likely caused by elevated CO2 levels. This makes sense considering

[perfectbark]

the carbon that has been sequestered in the Earth's crust for 200-300 million years. Again, science is not about absolutes, it's about probabilities.

[perfectbark]

30, 000 bubba?? Think again

[bubthegreat1]

The latest numbers have come out regarding atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. They are trending down while the CO2 levels have increased. How is CO2 affecting warming if the temperatures are markedly decreasing while emissions have increased? In scientific realms, we call this 'empirical evidence.'

[perfectbark]

OK, I'll bite ....... citation please. I'll read it and get back to you. And by citation I mean peer reviewed article from a journal on climatology not sarah palin's opinion or the opinion of a graduate of the limbaugh school of environmental studies... OK?

[jayblazai000]

I feel bad for Boehner's constituency. If I did this interview, I would try to hide it, not post it on youtube.

[jworkerbee]

In re: Congressional staff, science policy, and youtube.

The really sad thing is what this says about science literacy of Congress in talking points and POLICY Obvious errors in simple science facts are put up on several republican youtube channels.

Every politician makes oral mistakes, but if you have a staff that knew an area they probably would try to bury mistakes, not put them on youtube.

Probably not going to respond further here. no point in debating a willful science-denier.

[gismotech]

there is anything unusual

or unnatural or unprecedented about earth's current air temperature compared to the temperatures of prior

interglacials, it is that it is so much colder now in spite of there being so much more CO2 and methane in

the air. Clearly, therefore, earth's climate system does not operate the way the world's climate alarmists

claim it does.

Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core. Nature

429: 623-628.

Kirchner, J.W. 2002. The Gaia Hypothesis:

[jworkerbee]

i do not think you understand the points.

First, I have NOT argued here for or against confidence in manmade carbon and warming. My point was much simpler. Simpler facts in talking points are often seriously bungled by a subset of GOP (Barton, this youtube, Bachman, Inhofe, etc.). (e..g

--methane, not CO2 is primary greenhouse gas from cows.

--not understanding plate tectonics, now used in junior high earth science (Barton)

--mistakes in geological origin of oil.(Barton)

and others.

[gismotech]

sorry you are wrong I just cited studies that prove co2 and mehane are not greenhouse gases at all.

after you call be A sience denier and what do you cite wikipedia

try again you lost and just don't want to admit it. Go read the stuides before you even think about responding

[jworkerbee]

gismotech,

Second, even if was about complex issues in re global change, you appear not to actually understand what papers say that you cite.

e.g. The Nature paper 429: 623-628.

..is not relevant in way you cite. My guess if authors were asked, they would not agree with your conclusions.

If anything contains support for it, including a notion that work "showed the very close association between greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4) and climate.

This is a bad misuse of literature.

I am done here.

[jworkerbee]

Forgot to close quotes from Nature article "showed the very close association between greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4) and climate."

Not sure how that quote supports a position that article proves CO2 & CH4 are not greenhouse gases.

The article presents additional questions in some details without enough data to answer...but does not challenge the underlying idea that these act as greenhouse gases.

I first suggested Wikipedia to get a general understanding that you do not seem to have.

[gismotech]

Tinsley, B.A., and Yu, F. (2002): Atmospheric ionization and clouds as links between solar activity and climate. In AGU monograph Solar Variability and its effects on the earths atmosphere and climate system.

its the SUN as for willfull science denier

that would be you. I'am not the one using

wikipedia as a source.

[jworkerbee]

In re gismotech, I said I was done, but "Tinsley and Yu" is too delicious to pass up. This article and more general Wikipedia article recognize clouds as **partial** explanation for climate.

Now if this article overturned basic ideas and said that CO2, CH4, etc. do not ALSO contribute, you would expect article to mention "CO2", "greenhouse" or similar. Yet, unless my pdf searcher fails to work it cannot find those words (control--> it works with "cloud")

In this, "Silence implies consent"

[jworkerbee]

Not so much for gizmotech, but the debate raises issue. I mourn for the GOP of Lincoln, Teddy R, and the intelligent industrialists that drove the US growth of last century. The party is now relying on those that show contempt for science and misuse even simple facts. The party is too often in the hands of those that do not even get basic facts right, let alone trying to build policy from complex science.

It is quickly making itself an irrelevant party of ignorant science-denying goobers..

[gismotech]

you still did answer the question on extinctions did you. I dont dismiss science. I dismiss theory formed with bad science. Since even the Michael Mann report was bogus using data minning program that only used numbers to back him up and did not use numbers that did not. Making the foundation of global warming false. Or the fact that temps go up before Co2 as in the oceans get warmer and release more co2.

green house theory fails. You see I have read both sides including Mann report.

[jworkerbee]

Given the channel, I hope some of his staff read this....preferably someone with hiring authority.

Your office and the office of several others in your party need to hire more scientists interested in policy (and not all scientists are raving liberals). AAAS has a program.

Some republican staff are ill-preparing your bosses to understand and cite simple science facts. Reasonable people can differ on policy implications, but mis-citing basic facts might show a lack of needed staff expertise.

[jworkerbee]

A broader issue: GOP, wake up! I love the dynamics that result from a functional two party system. It is not functional, in part due to the science denalism of *some* Republicans.

It is one thing to debate different ways to interpret complex science and balance complex implications for policy, but it is another to not be able to use simple science facts from high school.

A part of the GOP seems to want to make itself a permanent fringe minority of & for ignorant, science-denying goobers.

[jworkerbee]

Re: the CO2/climate discussion.

Not just Boehner, but others like Bachman, Inhofe, Barton make clear they do not know how to use simple scientific facts from high school science, let alone the more complex facts and models of a large body of recent peer-reviewed science. What the implications for society of science is, of course, more difficult. The balancing of risk/benefit analysis or science and non-science issues needs a sophisticated understanding on all sides. This is not it.

[gismotech]

sorry buddy anyone THAT THINKS THEY CAN CONTROL THE GLOBAL CLIMATE

IS A FOOL.

[jworkerbee]

Gizmotech,

You do not appreciate my point. I never expressed *conclusions* on climate policy issues. My opinion may be close to yours (altho based on economic considerations.).

My point was that several Congressman and staff do not do even enough research to get basic clearcut facts correct Some science is complex, but some is clearcut. They are not accurate about even the most basic and clearcut facts about issue.

e.g Methane is the major greenhouse gas from cows.

[gismotech]

first off No congressman has anyone that knows anything including democrats.

as for methane Let me know when it breaks 1% and as for the extintions just how many where from global Warming??? zero, its Global cooling that kills on a massive scale.

[jworkerbee]

gismotech,

It is not true that no one has staff that knows anything. The 'AAAS Fellowships in Congress' (google phrase) puts ~30 qualified people there. While most other staff probably have non-science bkd., probably some were science undergrads. The latter might prepare simple, basic facts correctly in talking points, but perhaps be out of depth in complex areas like Global Warming. It is a sad that even basic science as talking points is wrong, let alone deriving policy from complexity.

[jworkerbee]

Gismotech,

Ah, I think I see at least one problem. You assume that greenhouse gases must be very plentiful (e.g. 1%) to have effect and 1% would be huge, by either weight or molecule number. Effects of greenhouse gases are seen at very low concentrations. The natural production of these gases--at present levels-are enough to keep the earth much warmer than it would be without them. The only issue of ANY debate is whether the man-made increase is enough to have effect. Most reviews say yes.

[gismotech]

sorry buddy Co2 and Methane can not absorb that much Heat. C02 no more than 8% if that much. and we contritbute about 3% of the total. Lets put it this way everyone thinks the big Ozone hole is caused by freon type gases. whichs makes no sense what so ever that they would all collect over the south pole when most were generated in the northern hemisphere. SO J lets hear how they all collected at the south pole??? and why would C02 not do the same????

[jworkerbee]

Perhaps read the Wikipedia entry on 'greenhouse gases' and 'greenhouse effect' or even the primary sources cited. If you understand these and physics, I believe that you will see your errors.

The basic greenhouse effect has been well established by research since 1824. A role for natural level of CO2 & methane was seen. A recent concern about man-made increase is (only slightly) more difficult.

Denying science from personal incredulity is not nearly as good as citing real science sources.

[gismotech]

first off don't ever cite wikipedia as they are bullshit at best. and just to prove Basic greenhouse wrong IN a green house Co2 levels will drop not rise as the plants absorb the C02 and the temps inside will continue to rise even with less C02. Since I do have a green house

and unless you let in cool air it will get too hot even with a lack of C02

water is a far better green house effect on temp by far.

[jworkerbee]

If you do not like Wikipedia, then use the primary peer -reviewed sources in scientific literature the article cites. Should be at least at the quality of sources cited in those articles. Given time, I could understand the primary sources even though outside my field, but given your understanding, I am not sure you could. You have cited no sources for quite dogmatic statements, Your science-denying mind appears to misuse random 'facts' (often wrong) & logic to support predetermined policy..

[gismotech]

there are a number of other studies that demonstrate a complete uncoupling

of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature during periods of significant climate change (Cheddadi et al.,

1998; Gagan et al., 1998; Raymo et al., 1998; Indermuhle et al., 1999). Hence, there are no historical

analogues for CO2-induced climate change; but there are many examples of climate change-induced CO2

[gismotech]

and you did not answer the question just how many of the extinctions were caused by global warming???? We both know the answer is zero. all extinctions were cause by global cooling after metors and what ever natual cycle

[jworkerbee]

Perhaps see wikipedia entry "Paleoclimatology" or peer-reviewed sources cited. As graphs make clear there has been BOTH global cooling and warming, in part, due to wholesale changes in the biota and their effects on atmosphere. To assume warming parts had *no* extinctions just seems oounterintutive to how biology & ecology works. Changing environments in any way may lead to some extinctions.

I do not know the past climate field well, but seems that some transitions happened in warmer times.

[gismotech]

you do not need wikipedia for any info

and sorry its a fact animals and man have done much BETTER DURING WARMER TIMES. the medival warming. the warming during early Roman history.

neither caused by man and both warmer than now. How do you think green land gots its name???? It was in fact much warmer 1000 years ago than now again with out mans help.

and No all extinctions can be traced to global cooling caused by metors or other causes but not to warming.

[slightlymentholated]

Out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?

[gismotech]

its more like 5 billion

[padude64]

Boehner says releasing these memos is dangerous? No Boehner is scared to death!!!!!!!!!!

[Kettle17]

Breathing out produces CO2 and cows farting produce the greenhouse gas Methane. If your gonna make an argument then you better actually do your homework. Boehner your a joke and it seems your whole party is a joke now too.

[chanelgia]

Forgot also, I think you have been in the tanning bed to long, your brain is warped, and lose the sidepart, just brush your hair straight back

[chanelgia]

Boehner or Boner whatever it is, get a life, you have done nothing, you stand for nothing, you pick Obama apart for everything, what do you have to offer????

why weren't you complaining when your Buddy Bush rushed his Bailout through the door before he left. Give me a break, only stupid, clueless people would listen or even think of believing you.

[gismotech]

so for all you climate change morons

just what is the ideal global temp????

Since it has been warmer and cooler in the past with zero chance man caused it.

and you dummies blame C02 that has gone from ...........34% to a wopping .38 percent in a hundred years. And will take another 300 years to hit a wopping .5%

you are fools. guess what its summer and my god its getting hotter, Must have something to do with the sun. But thats right you idiots claim the sun has nothing to do with it

[ohshityesyesyes]

fail

[theastrusmega]

If I were Boehner I wouldnt have added this to my youtube channel.

[JMBSM61]

Nuclear Power is the answer.Stephanopoulos is a tool. Global warming is BS. Wake up people!

[ergie2008]

ay yay yay. he should be incredibly embarrassed! i am embarrassed for him. to speak in such an uninformed way about such an important topic (climate change)...well, you've seen it now too. not good for you. not good for me. certainly not good for the US or our world.

[davemartin8686]

The idea of letting Reich-wing Republicans shape environmental policy is just comical.

[maxrampertshammer]

Funny you say that.... Nazi policies was where the green movement started in the political sphere.... planet before people and all that.....

[davemartin8686]

This arrogant jerk needs to spend less time in the tanning machine and more time reading up on what he's talking about.

[lashsash]

I am a democrat that believes that our country needs two parties with different opinions. I found Boehner's comments on global warning so disturbing. Did this guy look into anything on global warning before he made these ignorant comments. He had no ideas, he came off as a bumbling idiot. WOW he was really scary.

[FreedomAintFree1]

Don't you agree with nuclear energy, green energy, alternative energy, and American made oil and gas?

Watch video from 2:00 until 2:35 - - How is that scary?

Shipping jobs overseas is scary. Buying oil from dictators is scary.

Carbon dioxide is what trees need to breathe.

Do you think nuclear energy is a powerful, clean solution?

[bakusho]

Carbon dioxide is not a carcinogen. That is not the mechanism that is a threat to the environment. Its threat is the fact that CO2, in combination with other gasses (methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs), keep solar radiation from escaping, thus increasing temperatures.

It's not as if CO2 gives the earth cancer, Mr. Boehner. Please study about things before you talk about them on TV.

[bushputz]

CO2 is a good thing - in moderation.

Plants can't live without it, and we can't live without plants.

Bonehead Boehner fails to realize that there is a delicate balance to our ecosystem, and when we start screwing with it, bad things can and do happen.

[JMBSM61]

but when a volcano erupts it puts more CO2 into the atmosphere then humans produce in 10 years. Calling CO2 a pollutant is silly. The oceans produce more CO2 in 1 year then humans produce in 100. You go on though.

[greyflcn]

re: JMBSM61

==but when a volcano erupts it puts more CO2 into the atmosphere then humans produce in 10 years. Calling CO2 a pollutant is silly. The oceans produce more CO2 in 1 year then humans produce in 100. You go on though.==

You really shouldn't recite things from that documentary.

greyfalcon. net/ carbon2

greyfalcon. net/ carbon

greyfalcon. net/ swindle3

greyfalcon. net/ swindle

[JMBSM61]

For every point/graph /report you can present I can find one that says something different. I've been down this road before many times. It's an exercise in futility.

[greyflcn]

re: JMBSM61 Oh really. Then clearly you have an explanation for the primary cause of the warming trend over the past 4 decades. greyfalcon. net/ forcing4.png Hint, it ain't these: greyfalcon. net/ solar1.png greyfalcon. net/ enso.png greyfalcon. net/ milankovitch greyfalcon. net/ cosmic greyfalcon. net/ cosmic2 greyfalcon. net/ spencer Backed up by a peer reviewed source, I would hope.

[JMBSM61]

If you're so hell bent to debate the subject go to Cassiopeia Projects video on Global Warming

[greyflcn]

re: JMBSM61

==If you're so hell bent to debate the subject go to Cassiopeia Projects video on Global Warming ==

Well it's a trick question anyways.

Since there is no known natural mechanism to explain the warming trend we've seen over the past 4 decades.

And until we get solid evidence otherwise, we have to treat the premise of "natural" mechanism explaining this temperature increase, the same way we do Unicorns.

[JMBSM61]

Well, What has the trend been for the last 10 years?

[greyflcn]

re: JMBSM61

==Well, What has the trend been for the last 10 years?==

Oh come now, you should know better than to cherry pick 1998 and 2008.

greyfalcon. net/ enso.png

greyfalcon. net/ elnino

greyfalcon. net/ lanina

[JMBSM61]

so don't cherry pick the last 40 years and quit posting links to dated videos.

[greyflcn]

re: JMBSM61

For how much you trumped up that Cassiopeia video, I was expected some dramatic incontrovertible evidence, which would utterly shatter my understanding of climate science.

Looking at it, all I get is some slick visuals, and some laughably stupid strawman arguments.

I'm actually kinda disappointed.

greyfalcon. net/ casio

[JMBSM61]

Funny, You call it a "strawman argument" . Sorry you were disappointed but you hardly advance your argument by saying so. The facts are presented, the references are given and you just poo poo it as a straw argument. Where is your great argument. You post video links of Barbara Boxer talking to Dr. Roy Spencer. Please.

[JMBSM61]

Have you read Dr. Roy Spencer's books? Do you even know who Dr. John Christy is? Or do you just funnel dated videos to validate your argument.

[greyflcn]

re: JMBSM61

==You post video links of Barbara Boxer talking to Dr. Roy Spencer.==

You mean the one where he's championing his brand new theory of everything that he neglected to ever put through peer review, because it's only got 90 days worth of data?

greyfalcon. net/ spencer2

[JMBSM61]

Remember this from earlier in the year: 2008 to be in Top 10 Warmest Years say Forecasters? Does it even look like 2008 was in the Top 10 for the last 25 years? 2008 has erased any global warming that has occurred since at least 1983, if not before. Is this truly the year that global warming is exposed as a hoax? This is from your link greyflcn

[greyflcn]

re: JMBSM61

Do you really have to be so childish about the El Nino cycle?

[JMBSM61]

What does that have to do with watching the Cassiopeia Project Video? I recommend anyone reading this watch the video from Cassiopeia Project entitled Global Warming.

[JMBSM61]

Unicorns....A fantasy like the one you subscribe to?

[JMBSM61]

WTF is that supposed to mean???????

[issanel]

But Al Gore said it so it must be true. After all what reason would any politician have to lie? :P

[greyflcn]

re: issanel

==But Al Gore said it so it must be true. After all what reason would any politician have to lie? :P ==

Heh, Gore isn't a scientist, he's a pundit.

That said, when it comes to scientific institutions.

There isn't a single one that disagrees.

greyfalcon. net/ nameone

Including every major National Academy of Sciences.

[issanel]

You silly conservatives and your facts:P

heheh, sorry couldnt resist but I agree with you 100 % Just enjoy a good joke at a liberals expense.

[bushputz]

JMBSM61:

Did you actually do any research, or just regurgitate something you read somewhere.

Humans produce approximately times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

As far as the oceans producing CO2? Where did you come up with that? The ocean absorbs and releases CO2, depending on the temperature, but does not 'produce' it. Excess CO2 is being dissolved into the oceans, making respiration more difficult for marine animals.

[lovemakinmusic]

Damn, even a 7th grader knows that it's methane, John. I would be seriously embarrased to say that I have anything to do with this guy. It's people like these who keep marginalising the republican party, and until they are gone and an opposition that has seen the inside of a classroom (or shows evidence thereof) comes to power, long live the dems!!

[tawnynicole001]

THE IDEA OF CO2 and GLOBAL WARMING IS COMMICAL?!?!?!?

[maxrampertshammer]

sure - CO2 is what plants are breathing... didnt you pass high school? how can calling something that is essential for our lives be anything but comical. Its not a greenhouse gas - deal with reality.

[slightlymentholated]

We're made of 70% water—does that mean I can't drown in it? With your rather ignorant outlook, how did you survive to pass high school?

[maxrampertshammer]

That is the most spurious arguement ever. We aren't drowning in CO2, which is an entirely benign and natural gas that is important for our ecosystem. Nowhere is CO2 being blamed for Climate change. Its all political spin so that the intellectual undergraduates can keep up. The perfect act of seeming rather than doing.... you should like that.

[slightlymentholated]

The point of that analogy (since you missed it entirely) is that "benign and natural" substances can be harmful, particularly when you have a large group of people (while well short of a majority) demonstrating willful ignorance.

[maxrampertshammer]

Dont worry - i got it. Although, im not sure how exactly you call a benign substance harmful (you need a sense checker on your PC?) That aside, the analogy doesn't stick. - just because something is harmful doesnt make it a pollutant either. The balance of the gases is what makes it all work. Earth is not out of balance... unless you believe the spin....

[slightlymentholated]

I used quotation marks around the word "benign", as it was your terminology, not mine. Point being, and I think you understand this, that there is a such thing as TOO MUCH CO2.

Earth is out of balance... unless you don't believe the science.

[maxrampertshammer]

Of course i believe science - when its objective and reasoned... the exact thing that is lacking from your heroes. You do realise you are reacting to Models that have been disproven, and responding to fear. One day people will look at all this and wonder what all the fuss was about.

[JMBSM61]

Well, How much CO2 is too much, what SHOULD the earths climate be. I suppose your answer will be "anything but what it is now." I think the temperature is quite comfortable and my garden grows just fine, I go to the beach every year and the sea level is just the same. They have been telling us for thirty years we only have ten years to do something. What a crock!

[gismotech]

are you really that guillable lets see co2 was .34% and is now at ....... .38% and you consider that out of balance

well they say a sucker is born every minuite you sure prove that

[FreedomAintFree1]

The idea of CO2 "Causing" global warming is comical. Yup.

By the way, we are cooling now.

Do you like nuclear power?

[billyshake]

Say, Mr. Boehner, how's YOUR health plan working out for you? Pretty good, I'm guessing.

[bellajj75]

Congressman Boehner is not giving any answers. He is speaking mumble-grumble. He shouldn't be the minority leader. The Republican Party has to have someone better than this congress person. I am of the school where I want all political parties to have intelligent members. This guy needs to be replace.

[thesoothsayers]

Socialism, communism and liberalism should be classified as mental disorders since most of them already work for the government or are on some sort of welfare system.

[billyshake]

So I'm guessing by calling yourself a "soothsayer," you're being ironic, huh? Being a liberal is NOT the same as being a communist and you know it.

[gismotech]

Socialism communism and liberalism there is no differance.

and you know it

[billyshake]

If you actually believe that, then you're an uneducated idiot. It's spelled "difference," by the way.

[gismotech]

ah a spelling nazi, and there is no difference and yes you are uneducated idiot.

[billyshake]

It never takes more than two comments for a moron to turn to Nazi references. (Btw, you're missing the article "a" between "are" and "uneducated." It really isn't that hard, just read a book or something. It won't hurt, I promise.)

[gismotech]

typical you must be one of those english majors that can't change a light bulb without directions. Yet think you are smarter than everyone since you NEVER MAKE A MISTAKE IN ANYTHING YOU WRITE.

bite me asshole.

And I bet I read far more than you ever have.

[billyshake]

Settle down, there Bucky.

[videomixalot]

Science fail. Humans expel a tiny amount of carbon dioxide compared to other large-scale sources and cows fart methane. What a doofus.

It's almost as if he's trying to be dumb, a la George "just one of the people" Bush.

This isn't just embarrassing for Republicans, it's embarrassing for all US citizens. We've elected ignorant, uneducated leaders.

[PutannaXXX]

Information gained from torture is NOT reliable, moron.

People will say ANYTHING to stop the pain.

You TWAT.

[PutannaXXX]

John Boner hasn't had a Boehner in years.

[BlankMee]

George is an ASS!

Just keep asking where is your plan even after someone tells you.

Then make statements in your questions,like EVERYBODY believes in gases causing global warming.

[jbranstetter04]

Come on Boehner get with it. Don't let that Obama loving George Step-on-all-of-us get the better of you. I will give you your answers for next time.

We have a 1.7 trillion dollar deficit this year which should have been paid for with higher taxes, but our economy cannot handle that much taxation; it would destroy it. So we have instead decided to borrow the money, thereby destroying our children's future, and not our own. We should feel proud of ourselves, should we not?

[jbranstetter04]

And as far as this man-made global warming crap, you should have told him that global temperatures in the last ten years have not risen, and in fact have gone down. Then you could ask "you're a Christian, not a Muslim" George why we should destroy our economy on a theory? Ask him why we should give these low income people he was talking about, who pay little or no income tax, why we should give then a $2,000 dollar hidden carbon tax.

We need Mitt Romney. Where is he when we need him?

[AlianceSuck]

George is a such a ass trying to trap John Boehner into a wrong answer............

[warmongerii]

You have to tell assholes like this guy that more than half of the world's scientists and weathermen do not agree that Carbon emissions have any effect on climate change. All climate change is caused by Solar activity. Also human emissions are insignificant compared to volcanic and animal emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases.

[underbird]

NO universal healthcare!

NO Cap & Trade!

Dont be afraid of these idiots

Its like the president is saying: What is your plan for beating your wife?

[Morrakiu]

Jesus Christ, just say nuclear. Nuclear is the best we have right now.

[pennyann333]

you have your finger on the pulse of America, keep strong

[pfizzbones]

If this administration goes forward with this Green energy plan, the American individual is going to go bankrupt. And while we waste our time on it, China and Russia will be laying claim to all of the oil off our coasts. When this country wakes up, it will be almost too late. Peaceful Tea Party protests will become angry million people stances surrounding the Capitol.

[perfectbark]

what oil? Haven't you heard of the Hubbert curve? How many primary extraction wells are left in the world? dumb teabagger