Its a fact, Global warming is made up

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Tsavo85

I don't know any words small enough that you would understand. ... ...

[Texdentist]

Originally Posted by Tsavo85

Patriot Act.
Warrantless Wiretaps.
Blackwater in Pakistan.
Abortion Bans.
Gay Marriage Bans.
Family Values members.
Christian Coalition.

Shall I elaborate?

Conservatives are much better at generating systems of control than liberals.

Are you kidding me? Which one of those things above took decision making power out of your hands? Try Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade on for size. You think your ability to make decisions about your life (without penalty) might be a little impaired here?

[Tsavo85]

Originally Posted by Texdentist

Are you kidding me? Which one of those things above took decision making power out of your hands? Try Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade on for size. You think your ability to make decisions about your life (without penalty) might be a little impaired here?

Plenty! Tons, in fact. But just like the Cap 'n Trade idea, the 'side' that developed it has a 'for your own good' and 'end of the world if it does not go our way' mentality.

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by Tsavo85

I don't know any words small enough that you would understand.

Translation: "I can't elaborate on a topic I am clueless about"

[Poncherello]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

Translation: "I can't elaborate on a topic I am clueless about"

That's never stopped the goolglemaniac before.

[minitech]

Originally Posted by Tsavo85

Plenty! Tons, in fact. But just like the Cap 'n Trade idea, the 'side' that developed it has a 'for your own good' and 'end of the world if it does not go our way' mentality.

Lets put up a simple example of how cap and trade would work:

Guy owns a factory with 3000 employees. He makes stuff that needs forges and other things that put out carbon. Over the last few years he has been trying to hold the company together and has let some people go, asked and got employees to lower wages, needed to lower benefits due to high cost of insurances, etc... (This is VERY common these days.) Hanging on by a thread but hanging on and still providing jobs.

cap and trade comes into law and the owner is asked to pay one billion dollars per year due to the emissions he has.

What is going to happen?

Will he just pay the money? Is a bank going to lend him money to pay that? (Bank will not lend because they know this shop is going to close.) Will anything need to be done as far as employees and jobs? Is there room to raise his prices high enough to cover the extra billion? Is the owner taking home a billion extra he can throw in each year? (THIS is what liberals think along with other fantasies about how business works.)

No, the place will probably not continue. Owner might bail, sell off all his property, bankrupt. Town loses 3000 more jobs. 3000 families out of income except unemployment (Now at 110 weeks with extensions I think.)

SO we need to be REAL SURE that CO2 emissions is even a problem and that is looking more like it is not and the scientists destroyed and didn't share data.

This will kill the economy.

[Vette_Newb]

Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

The former vice president said new research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years, but the scientist his estimate was based on denies the timeline.

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was hit by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former vice president, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," became entangled in a new climate change row.

Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/...aims-dont-add/

Lying bastard needs to be dropped into the Artic sea to check the ice for himself..

[minitech]

Well, I guess this is the end of this thread.

Dose of reality really shut the mouths of the liberals.

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by minitech

Well, I guess this is the end of this thread.

Dose of reality really shut the mouths of the liberals.

No matter how many times you kick a liberal in the face with facts, they always come running back nose first. Entertaining, at least.

[minitech]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

The former vice president said new research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years, but the scientist his estimate was based on denies the timeline.

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was hit by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former vice president, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," became entangled in a new climate change row.

Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/...aims-dont-add/

Lying bastard needs to be dropped into the Artic sea to check the ice for himself..

Isn't it the height of irony that a movie called "An Inconvenient Truth" had so many inconvenient truths they knew and lied about to make the movie accusing others of "inconvenient truths" leading them to be "deniers" of "global warming!"

Now the Oscar people want their Oscar back. How inconvenient!

[duneripperxx]

Originally Posted by minitech

Well, I guess this is the end of this thread.

Dose of reality really shut the mouths of the liberals.

Sorry...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/...limate_ap_poll


there's just no need for debate.

[duneripperxx]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

No matter how many times you kick a liberal in the face with facts, they always come running back nose first. Entertaining, at least.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/...limate_ap_poll

Step to the back of the short bus.

[vfpreacher]

Lets see... The National Association of Manufacturers or Yahoo news... Hmmm... which one to choose... ???


NAM, NFIB Launch Media Campaign Opposing Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill

* cumulative loss in GDP up to $3.1 trillion (2012-2030);
* employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030;
* residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030;
* gasoline price increases (per gallon) up to 26 percent by 2030;
* the manufacturing sector would absorb 55 percent to 66 percent of the jobs lost.

http://www.nam.org/NewsFromtheNAM.aspx?DID={8E440DDE-E6D4-4D74-B90F-6A678FE166CB}

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by duneripperxx

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/...limate_ap_poll

Step to the back of the short bus.

I am driving son, now put your helmet on and take yer seat..

From your link:

The poll, however, also suggests that Americans have limits to how much they want to pay to address global warming. Obama and many Democrats in Congress envision shifting the country away from burning fossil fuels to cleaner forms of energy, in a part by passing a new law that would set up a cap-and-trade system that puts a price on pollution.

While three-quarters of respondents said they support action of some kind on climate change, just as many said they would oppose the cap-and-trade system if it raised their electricity bill by $25 a month. A majority — 59 percent — wouldn't support cap-and-trade if it meant paying $10 extra a month for electricity.



Read your link before posting, and I won't use it to make you look dumb.

[Texdentist]

Originally Posted by duneripperxx

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/...limate_ap_poll

Step to the back of the short bus.

Typical poll results. They want to feel good, but they don't want to pay for it:

"The poll, however, also suggests that Americans have limits to how much they want to pay to address global warming. Obama and many Democrats in Congress envision shifting the country away from burning fossil fuels to cleaner forms of energy, in a part by passing a new law that would set up a cap-and-trade system that puts a price on pollution.
While three-quarters of respondents said they support action of some kind on climate change, just as many said they would oppose the cap-and-trade system if it raised their electricity bill by $25 a month. A majority — 59 percent — wouldn't support cap-and-trade if it meant paying $10 extra a month for electricity."

Anybody who thinks our response to global warming will cost the average family less than $25/month, please stand up............I thought so.