If you like poverty, inefficiency, and bureaucratic controls over the economy, and therefore control over your choices, the "climate change" movement is ideal.
If you want to subsidize China and India, neither of which will enforce the rules laid down by unelected international bureaucrats, this movement is for you.
If you want to pay more for less energy, there is no better way than to pass the cap and tax bill which the House has passed. It will be sent to the U.S. Senate next week.
The rest of us should oppose it.
I certainly oppose it.
15 comments:
You agree with the Chicken Little of Y2K? The guy is a regular fount of wisdom and good judgment.
Perfect.
He's right this time.
And unless we light a fire under the Senate to shut down cap and trade, we will see the systematic dissolution of this economy. We already see jobs going to India and China for manufacturing. Just what do these clowns in Congress thing will replace those jobs? And before anyone says "green jobs" keep in mind that in Spain where such a program is already in place, each green job cost the equivalent of $700K and their unemployment rate is 18.8%
Power and money. Some guys are getting rich, like Al Gore and others simply like having power over others.
Global warming is based 100% on junk science. The most vocal promoters are not interested in the details of physical science. They are interested in two things: political control over the general public and the establishment of international socialism.
The iNazis.
International socialism? Is that similar to, the old international Jewry?
Having a look around that website, he seems like an old school gold standardist. They are cute and funny people, but not worth looking at for actual analysis. And he appears to be a creationist as well.
Creationist, Gold Standardist, Global Warming denial.. Ladies and gentlemen, we have the trifecta!
And yet he's *still* right on this case. Maybe I'll have to give more credence to those creationists and gold standardists!
You know, you *could* try attacking his claims on this particular topic rather than attacking his *other* claims. Or must a person be 100% right all the time? You're certainly not.
Well, his claim is "Nuh uh! You are wrong". That is not a claim that can be critiqued. If you can point to a paper in a scientific journal that offers evidence, we could discuss that
I have an idea. Why don't you tell me why the very first sentence I quoted of his is wrong. You might start by pointing to countries who've signed onto the Kyoto Protocols who are meeting their targets and have flourishing economies.
It's being passed because the Democratic party is indebted to the radical "green" groups. It's also a way to raise revenue to pay for Obama's increased budget, and grow government at the same time.
Imagine - being taxed on the very air we breathe!
Well, the fact that there is no link demonstrated between Kyoto and poverty is something of a clue that he is making stuff up.
Look up the Green Party. The Democrat party has been subjugated by the Greens and it began in California. California, thanks to this influx of Greens, now has an economy that is tanking, proof that their policies are economically unfeasible. Yet, being True Believers, Pelosi and Reid are pushing through the same programs on a national scale. And they are doing it over the alarm of people who actually do the work, make the products and run the factories. When the last manufacturing jobs have left for China and India, THEN will the UN force them to endure similar limitations? Or will it be like when the NCAA put the Death Penalty on SMU for infractions and then seeing the destruction, never used that option again?
(Did you like the football analogy, Darren? Believe it or not, I was raised watching lots of football...)
I brought up Kyoto, not him.
You are avoiding the question. I believe I know why that is.
Well, his claim is "Nuh uh! You are wrong". That is not a claim that can be critiqued.
Har! Yeah and those who question the correctness of global warming are labeled "deniers" which suggests rather strongly that it's global warming that can't, or at least mustn't, be critiqued.
Sorry Bubba but if your hypothesis is that carbon dioxide generated by human activity is responsible for global warming they you're on the hook to provide the confirming experiment or confirming observations.
So far about all I've seen are temperature-time charts with artfully selected starting dates, a more-or-less continuous announcement of the results of computer models which taken together signify nothing and the noisy claim that a critical mass of PhDs nodding simultaneously constitutes science. It doesn't and they don't.
Proving that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut, Gary North is dead right about the phoniness of global warming and the purpose for which it's being pursued - that some folks are just superior to others and that the superior should rule the inferior, i.e. socialism.
He calls it "Socialism's Last Stand" which makes him more optimistic then I. Some folks are just natural back-seat drivers and the human race is destined to be burdened by these natural socialists as long as we're identifiably human.
Given the religious fervor attendant to the ideals of Global Warming, why is this not labeled a religion? And if it were, would this Congress insist on separation of all vestiges of environmentalism from public funding?
Post a Comment