House Passes Energy Bill by 7 Votes thanks to 10 RINOS

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml

The 10 RINOS are as follows:
Bono-Mack
Castle
Kirk
Lance
LoBiondo
reichert
Smith (NJ)
McHugh

Flake and Sullivan NO VOTE

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Bono-Mack
• Castle
• Kirk
• Lance
• LoBiondo
• Reichert
• Smith
• McHugh
• Flake and Sullivan
• Energy Bill
• Obama
• Pelosi
• Boehner

[Nickk361]

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!

[greyflcn]

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]

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.

[therealcaptobvious]

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

[greyflcn]

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?

[therealcaptobvious]

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.

[greyflcn]

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]

"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

[therealcaptobvious]

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?

[greyflcn]

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?