"Oh 2008 was cold! This must mean a long term trend!!!"
greyfalcon. net/ lanina
greyfalcon. net/ rsstemps2.png
Or worse yet, they were quoting David Archibald. A guy who picked 6 weather stations out in the middle of nowhere, and then from that deduced that we're headed for an iceage.
These are ten seats in democrat districts that we are lucky to have as republican seats. I don't expect them to vote as conservatives. If the republican party would have run conservative republicans in those districts, then those seats would now be occupied by democrats, and today's roll call vote would have turned out the same.
The reason we want to keep these seats is so that when the republicans come within 10 of gaining control, these 10 will vote for it.
Well quite simply pollution causes economic damage. And if you cause economic damage, you should be liable for it.
Just the same as if you crashed into the side of a storefront. You would be liable for the cost of repairing it.
_
Then again, you're probably of the opinion that every scientific institution in the world must be wrong, because it doesn't match up to your political ideology.
That if you can simply Will a problem not to exist, that it's no longer part of your reality.
I guess it would be more accurate to say that there isn't a single scientific institution in the world that disagrees. With positive statement from every major national academy of sciences.
I agree with DrDissent. There's concrete info from NASA scientists and others out of Russia claiming that sunspots are the cause of climate change. Just recently a sunspot burned out and did you notice the planet just got cooler?
And regardless, why is it necessary to rob the american people if you're going to "save the atmosphere"? You're taxing air. There's no good fucking excuse to gouge people in a bad economy. There ARE other ways to clean the air.
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin? He's an oceanographer. Why would we care what he has to say about the Sun? (Which incidentally, he's citing Habibullah Abdusamatov. Remember him?)
greyfalcon. net/ mars
greyfalcon. net/ mars2
As for Senator James Inhofe, he's not even a scientist.
greyfalcon. net/ gingrich
Remind me, why do you get all your "science" from Opion articles, rather than something sourced to peer reviewed physical science journals?
Not sure where you got Gerald R. North from, but he's a professor of both Oceanography, but more importantly he's also a professor of Meteorology. And apparently he's written quite a few formal papers on the subject of climate science. Oleg on the otherhand? He hasn't even written one.
As for "outnumbered", what are you talking about?
greyfalcon. net/ nameone
greyfalcon. net/ whatwouldittake
Also, it's not "legitimate" if it's not backed up by peer reviewed physical science journals.
The following eight Republicans voted FOR Waxman-Markey and were instrumental in helping the bill to pass today. They should be targeted for defeat in the 2010 election. The Ignominious Eight are: Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) Mike Castle (R-DE) Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL) Leonard Lance (R-NJ) Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) John McHugh (R-NY) Dave Reichert (R-WA) Chris Smith (R-NJ) My state (NJ) representatives are among the worst. They suck!
It's "necessary", much in the same way that dealing with a large meteor headed straight for earth would be "necessary".
As for what to do about it. I actually agree with you that trying to force the market to incorporate the cost of atmospheric pollution isn't a good idea.
The more appropriate response would be fund it the same way we do military spending. i.e. Deficit Spending.
Not just because of present economic issues. But especially since the beneficiaries are future generations.
This video sure hits the nail on the head. I am going to be writing to each of these traitorous bastards and letting them know how they were responsible for destroying our economy.
And please? Inhofe is anything but "legitimate".
The link you gave was just rambling on how
"Oh 2008 was cold! This must mean a long term trend!!!"
greyfalcon. net/ lanina
greyfalcon. net/ rsstemps2.png
Or worse yet, they were quoting David Archibald. A guy who picked 6 weather stations out in the middle of nowhere, and then from that deduced that we're headed for an iceage.
greyfalcon. net/ archibald
greyfalcon. net/ archibald2
greyflcn 2 years ago
These are ten seats in democrat districts that we are lucky to have as republican seats. I don't expect them to vote as conservatives. If the republican party would have run conservative republicans in those districts, then those seats would now be occupied by democrats, and today's roll call vote would have turned out the same.
The reason we want to keep these seats is so that when the republicans come within 10 of gaining control, these 10 will vote for it.
jbranstetter04 2 years ago
TAX REVOLT TIME... and you know whats next.
DrDissent 2 years ago
re: DrDissent
Well here's a question for you.
If you are causing economic damage.
Should you be charged money to pay for fixing that damage?
For instance, let's say you plow your car into the side of a building.
Or would that be considered a "tax"?
greyflcn 2 years ago
economic damage?
Boy you sure have all the illogical talking points down.
DrDissent 2 years ago
Well quite simply pollution causes economic damage. And if you cause economic damage, you should be liable for it.
Just the same as if you crashed into the side of a storefront. You would be liable for the cost of repairing it.
_
Then again, you're probably of the opinion that every scientific institution in the world must be wrong, because it doesn't match up to your political ideology.
That if you can simply Will a problem not to exist, that it's no longer part of your reality.
Right?
greyflcn 2 years ago
You are wasting my time. Get your FACTS straight before you comment.
FALSE "every scientific institution in the world must be wrong"
FALSE PREMISE "pollution causes economic damage"
Does this stop pollution? Answer NO. Its simply a scam to tax production.
PS I wont reply to any further drivel. TYVM
DrDissent 2 years ago
re: DrDissent
Fair enough,
I guess it would be more accurate to say that there isn't a single scientific institution in the world that disagrees. With positive statement from every major national academy of sciences.
greyfalcon. net/ nameone
greyfalcon. net/ whatwouldittake
=FALSE PREMISE "pollution causes economic damage"=
Huh? Pollution by definition damages and degrades the quality of a resource.
=Its simply a scam=
Do you have a better approach to solve the problem?
greyflcn 2 years ago
I agree with DrDissent. There's concrete info from NASA scientists and others out of Russia claiming that sunspots are the cause of climate change. Just recently a sunspot burned out and did you notice the planet just got cooler?
And regardless, why is it necessary to rob the american people if you're going to "save the atmosphere"? You're taxing air. There's no good fucking excuse to gouge people in a bad economy. There ARE other ways to clean the air.
What is wrong with you?
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
"Concrete info" you say?
Lemme guess, you're talking about that flimsy theory put out by Habibullo Abdussamatov; That was later torn to shreds?
greyfalcon. net/ mars
As for the sunspots, they've been on a 15 year decline.
greyfalcon. net/ solar0.png
What you're confusing that is with the 2008 La Nina.
greyfalcon. net/ rsstemps2.png
greyfalcon. net/ lanina
Got any other rhetorical arguments about the science?
greyfalcon. net/ climate
greyflcn 2 years ago
um, no.
here's a link from BBC citing Professor Mike Lockwood of Southampton University.
tinyurldotcom/nlnz52
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin calls mans contribution to global warming a "drop in the bucket"
tinyurldotcom/246yyf
US Senate Committee on Environmental works.
tinyurldotcom/32hnn3
Now this is the real reason for the bullshit cap and trade tax
tinyurldotcom/cpolfs
It's regressive taxation in a bad economy. Larsony, taxation without representation. Bullox.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
Mike Lockwood? You're kidding, right?
tinyurldotcom/34wsj4
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin? He's an oceanographer. Why would we care what he has to say about the Sun? (Which incidentally, he's citing Habibullah Abdusamatov. Remember him?)
greyfalcon. net/ mars
greyfalcon. net/ mars2
As for Senator James Inhofe, he's not even a scientist.
greyfalcon. net/ gingrich
Remind me, why do you get all your "science" from Opion articles, rather than something sourced to peer reviewed physical science journals?
greyflcn 2 years ago
Sorry you're out numbered.
The fingers are all pointing out to theft in this energy cap and trade bill through the global warming hype.
1. I just gave you legitimate information sources. Sorry they didn't fall out of the sierra club tree, but they're not biased on their behalf.
Turkey, you cited a source that also cites another oceanographer, Gerald R. North.
BTW, this is all profit motivated.
Your rebuttal=epic fail
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
Not sure where you got Gerald R. North from, but he's a professor of both Oceanography, but more importantly he's also a professor of Meteorology. And apparently he's written quite a few formal papers on the subject of climate science. Oleg on the otherhand? He hasn't even written one.
As for "outnumbered", what are you talking about?
greyfalcon. net/ nameone
greyfalcon. net/ whatwouldittake
Also, it's not "legitimate" if it's not backed up by peer reviewed physical science journals.
greyflcn 2 years ago
Nickk361 2 years ago
It's "necessary", much in the same way that dealing with a large meteor headed straight for earth would be "necessary".
As for what to do about it. I actually agree with you that trying to force the market to incorporate the cost of atmospheric pollution isn't a good idea.
The more appropriate response would be fund it the same way we do military spending. i.e. Deficit Spending.
Not just because of present economic issues. But especially since the beneficiaries are future generations.
greyflcn 2 years ago
This video sure hits the nail on the head. I am going to be writing to each of these traitorous bastards and letting them know how they were responsible for destroying our economy.
The last time I was this angry was on 9/11.
Avigadro 2 years ago
send them our energy bills. :o)
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
We are fucked..
snoopdog68 2 years ago
More than 40 Dems voted against. Many would have voted for it if the vote were closer. The most vulnerable were given a pass.
Rorschach65 2 years ago
maybe we should convert them and lose the RINOs
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
SAD DAY FOR THE USA!!!
coolhardway 2 years ago
DEMOCRATS who voted NO to the energy bill: Altmire, Arcuri, Barrow, Berry, Boren, Bright, Carney, Childers, Costa, Costello, Dahlkemper, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), DeFazio, Donnelly (IN), Edwards (TX), Ellsworth, Foster, Griffith, Herseth, Sandlin, Holden, Kirkpatrick (AZ), Kissell, Kucinich, Marshall, Massa, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Minnick, Mitchell, Mollohan, Nye, Ortiz, Pomeroy, Rahall, Rodriguez, Ross, Salazar, Stark, Tanner, Taylor, Visclosky, Wilson (OH) MAYBE keep these Dems in in 2010
LHZZ12MM 2 years ago
excellent! we should recruit them to the republican party.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
Come election time they will pay their Dues
brder4ev 2 years ago
These people forget whom they serve.
We will be reminding them come election time. Don't forget, and continue to remind everyone you know.
They work for us...
I know i won't forget, one of theses skunks is in my state.
040895 2 years ago
oh this can't be good.
:(
SafeArmsReview 2 years ago
we know who our enemies are.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
Remeber the 8 Republicans who ensured that this energy rip off bill passed.
GiovannaNYC 2 years ago
I see 8 heads rolling
I see 8 heads on a stake.
I see 8 heads on a stake chasing Pelosi around Capitol Hill.
:o)
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
"The dirty eight."
Remember, remember, Election Day in November.
GiovannaNYC 2 years ago