And yet BOTH cause tornadoes and BOTH cause not only a decrease in snow, but an INCREASE in snowwww! Yayyy, convenience!
Global warming has kicked tornado season off to a bloody start. At least twenty-four confirmed deaths and hundreds of injuries are the result of a tornado more than a mile wide that ripped through an area outside Oklahoma City, OK. But don’t be fooled into thinking that tornado season typically does bring with it death and destruction. You may be thinking, “It’s a giant funnel of wind and debris; of course it’s going to kill people, and of course some tornadoes are going to be bigger than others.” Wrong, you moron. Global warming. Ask a Democrat.
Take Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, for example, who thought this to be the most advantageous time to whip up and bring to the Senate floor a nice little school project of his in the form of a piece of cardboard his parents printed for him at Kinko’s. The cardboard bears the image of Earth from space, accompanied by the evangelizing words of Gaianism, “TIME TO WAKE UP.”
Whitehouse, a liberal, raised the issue under the pretext of—you ready?—fiscal conservatism. “When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms.”
He goes on to say, “I don’t want…an America suffering from grave economic and environmental and diplomatic damage because we failed, because we didn’t wake up and do our duty to our people, and because we didn’t lead the world. I do not want that future. But that’s where we’re headed. So I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”
Good thing he brought his Kinko’s printout with him. (Seriously, what was it for? There wasn’t even a graph of forged data on it. What kind of effort is that? It was just a picture of Earth and a warning that he repeated in his stupid speech. Why did he waste the money to print that?)
Hey, I wonder if Whitehouse was the one behind my instant-oatmeal packet this morning having printed on it this trivia question: “What kind of gas is central in global warming?” (Answer on the back: Greenhouse.)
Wouldn’t it be really embarrassing to these Doomsday prophets of the left if one of their own teammates, back in 1975, published an article saying that, according to scientists, the surge in tornadoes back then was a direct result of global cooling? Why, yes, yes it would be embarrassing. That is, if liberals had any sense of shame.
“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” So proclaimed God in the Book of Genesis, but what does He know? He hasn’t got anything on Gaia.
Of course you can’t use biblical arguments when trying to persuade those of a different theological bent. A non-Christian will not listen when his opponent begins the debate with “The Bible says,” just as a Christian will not listen when his opponent begins the debate with “The Hadith say.” And that’s fine.
But using Bible-based arguments when debating with those who both subscribe to the alarmism of modern-day environmentalism and profess Christianity is a valid tactic. Pay attention, Gaians:
The Bible does say we should not be cruel to animals and that humans are to take care of the Earth, but not to such an idolatrous extent that you environmentalists would like us to. The earth is not God and must never be the object of our love.
As I mentioned at the top, the Bible also says that the seasons will always exist and that heat and cold will always be a part of them. There will be decades-long cycles during which the average temperatures around the world are slightly warmer than previously, and there will be decades-long cycles during which those temperatures are slightly cooler than previously. But this see-sawing of warmth and coldness will always exist; there will never be a time in which, say, the 20-degree winters of Virginia are exchanged for 70-degree winters. If you believe in the Bible, you must believe in good environmental stewardship, yes, but you must not believe in any sort of permanent global warming.
To those liberal “Christians” who pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe—that Paul hated both women and homosexuals and therefore his writings are not to be considered valid, for instance—you’re fools. Where did you hear about Christianity in the first place? Ultimately, from the Bible, of course. If Jesus were not mentioned in the Bible, you would have no basis for following His teachings. You follow His teachings because they’re in the Bible. So too you must accept all the other words of the Bible, and that includes those of the eighth chapter and twenty-second verse of Genesis at the top of this piece.
And finally, to those atheist environmentalists, I say this: You are not atheists; your religion is Ecology, your god, Earth. Carbon credits are no different from the Catholic Church’s selling of indulgences in the Middle Ages. “You may sin [against Gaia] if you pay us [the Government, the Prophet of Ecology].” Those “My other car is a hybrid” bumper stickers are receipts for the indulgence of owning a sinful, non-hybrid vehicle. Your fellow Ecologists may admire you for owning a hybrid that you own simply for the pride it gives you, and for the alleviation of your guilt, but to the rest of us, that bumper sticker might as well read, “I’ve been had.”
Here’s a nugget:
[E]lectric cars have so far proven to be incredibly inconvenient. A BBC reporter drove the 778 kilometers (484 miles) from London to Edinburgh in an electric Mini, and had to stop eight times to recharge – often waiting six hours or more. In total, he spent 80 hours waiting or driving, averaging just ten kilometers per hour – an unenviable pace even before the advent of the steam engine.
That’s 6 miles per hour. This is the “progress” that liberals are trying to bring to America, cars that go 6 mph when you average that with how long it takes to charge and recharge and re-recharge and re-re-recharge.
Electric cars also fail to live up to their environmental billing. They are often sold as “zero emissions” vehicles, but that is true only when they are moving.
For starters, the manufacturing process that produces electric cars – especially their batteries – requires an enormous amount of energy, most of it generated with fossil fuels. A life-cycle analysis shows that almost half of an electric car’s entire CO2 emissions result from its production, more than double the emissions resulting from the production of a gasoline-powered car.
Democrats: Turning satirical ideas into American policy since 1913.
I love the Law of Unintended Consequences that always comes into play whenever liberals attempt to do anything good for anybody. See, when they’re not outright trying to screw people over, liberals do sometimes actually try to help—and end up screwing people over in the process anyway.
Remember the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? You know, the one that heralded the end of drinking water, animal life, and Earth as we know it? The reason it took so long to stop the leak is because enviro-fascists insisted that the oil rig be so far offshore that if it did spill, it wouldn’t make the beaches ugly (and also because the rig itself was an “eye sore”). Well, when it did spill, it was in too deep of water to quickly stop the leak. Way to go, greenies!
A similar incident has occurred thanks to this Law of Unintended Consequences. A mile-long train transporting crude oil from Canada to the US has derailed and spilled 30,000 gallons of the black gold as it was traveling through Minnesota. A few insects will die from this, maybe a gopher or two, but I must laugh nonetheless.
What’s so funny about it? The reason the oil is being transported by train is because Obama and his liberal puppet masters refuse to allow the finishing of the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. They fear that oil will spill if they build the pipeline—you know, like what happened that one time when they didn’t build the pipeline and a train crashed and spilled 30,000 gallons of the stuff in Minnesota. Yeah, they don’t want that sort of thing to happen, so they’re transporting oil in trains that crash and spill 30,000 gallons of oil.
The other thing that’s funny is that trains release carbon dioxide, which the self-describedly science-oriented liberals consider a poison, despite its being the foundation of all life on Earth. Trains release more black smoke than stationary pipes do, anyway.
And the third reason this oil spill is funny is because the reasons we’re using trains—19th century technology—to transport oil is because Obama crony Warren Buffett owns the the rail system that will be doing the transporting. Yes, it was Warren Buffett’s train that crashed in Minnesota and gushed 30,000 gallons of Texas tea.
So in attempting to save the environment from oil spills, liberals elected to transfer oil with dirty technology owned by one of Obama’s biggest donors, technology which ended up spilling the oil they said they were doing all of this to prevent from spilling!
If only this Law of Unintended Consequences took effect when liberals try doing harm, good things might actually happen in this country.
In response to a piece I wrote last week about the oil prohibitionists on the left, a liberal directed me to Wikipedia’s comprehensive “List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century” to justify banning drilling for oil.
It is a quite expansive list. If the list is to be believed—and I, for one, do believe it—there have been over 200 oil-pipeline accidents in the United States since the year 2000, the causes of which ranged from natural disasters to negligence. And, being that the list is specific to pipeline accidents, oil-rig accidents such as occurred on April 20, 2010, at the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico are not included.
I’d bet that most everybody looking at that list, including environmentalists themselves, would be shocked to see how frequently there have been incidents that resulted in oil spilling out into the natural landscape of America. So frequent that, based on how we’re told to feel and what we’re told to think about oil spills, it is worth noting that we’ve gotten along just fine being ignorant of those 200-plus accidents. We’re alive. We’re healthy. Our food isn’t oozing with oil.
Oil prohibitionists have done an impressive job getting the world to think of oil spills with much the same dread it once felt about the bubonic plague. Even we conservatives (or at least this one) stare agape when we’re presented with a list of all the oil-pipeline spills from the last decade alone.
We are made to forget that oil is natural. We are made to forget that oil is created by the Earth (or, if you prefer, gestated in the womb of Gaia). The Earth has survived through and thrived after countless disasters, natural and man-made (though far more natural), and will certainly continue to survive and thrive no matter how much oil we take out and no matter how much of that oil is spilled. And we, too, will survive those future oil spills just as we’ve survived the hundreds (when counting oil-rig accidents as well) of oil spills just this past decade, as evidenced by the fact that we’re still alive.
The reason nobody was even aware of all those oil spills in that list is because no great disasters have come about from those spills. There is the misconception that the spills themselves are the disasters, but that is incorrect. If oil spills and a few animals die from it, that does not constitute a disaster.
I really do love animals, but humans are more valuable, not just from my Christian perspective, but from the atheistic evolutionary perspective that I don’t believe in and that is mostly adhered to by environmentalists and liberals. According to their own teachings, humans have earned their position at the top of the food chain by virtue of the fact that they are at the top of the food chain. If a species of moth cannot survive the progression and evolution of humans, then the moth deserved to go extinct. Isn’t that survival of the fittest? Humans are the fittest, so we run the show. If some plants get covered in oil temporarily before Earth naturally washes the oil away, or if some animals get killed, how does that compare to the well-being of we who are at the top of the food chain?
Regarding the Wikipedia list again, after coming to the above realization, I now respond: So?
Thomas Friedman writes in The New York Times that he hopes President Obama turns down further proposals to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline. After all, he says, “Who wants the U.S. to facilitate the dirtiest extraction of the dirtiest crude from tar sands in Canada’s far north?”
What is with liberals making judgments of everything, from oil to people, based on color?
Yes, oil is dirty. It’s black, it’s slimy, and takes a while to clean up. But that is why the Keystone pipeline is not the Keystone River. Why should it matter how dirty it is if it is being transported in a sealed metal tube? It’s not as if the proposal is that they build an unlined creek running from Canada to America and then tossing the oil into it to run downstream. That is one scenario that would warrant mentioning how dirty oil is.
But the stuff is in a pipe. It’s metal. It’s sealed. Who cares how icky it is?
Friedman is not the only liberal who complains of oil’s dirtiness. Indeed, that seems to be the primary concern of liberals with oil. But it’s odd that instead of proposing ways to make sure oil companies do a competent and environmentally friendly job building the pipe system through which the oil will be flowing, they scoff at such logic and embrace our regression into the 1600s, when oil wasn’t providing civilization with such nuisances as reliable transportation and rubber-soled shoes.
Instead of making sure the oil is transported safely, liberals want to just take away the oil altogether. It’s tantamount to someone purposely destroying his own car for fear that the steering may go out one day while driving, or that the brakes may fail. So he swears-off automobiles altogether while, in the meantime, he tries to invent another mode of transportation as practical as the automobile. If someone told you he was afraid that his car would one day malfunction, so he destroyed it, you’d call him insane. Liberals would call him progressive.
The one thing Friedman gets right in his Times op-ed is that we “we need to be realistic about the need to keep building a bridge to a different energy future….” We will one day run out of oil, and for that we (entrepreneurs, not the government) do need to be looking into a more sustainable form of energy. That form isn’t here yet. Until we find it, society cannot be expected to give up something on which it has become virtually dependent. We still have oil; there is no reason not to be drilling for it as we look for other energy sources.
Who wants the U.S. to facilitate the dirtiest extraction of the dirtiest crude from tar sands in Canada’s far north? People who live in the modern era.
It becomes a difficult task for those in power to resist the lure of acquiring even more power. The more they have, the more they want.
No such example exists greater than that of New York City mayor-king Michael Bloomberg.
This is the man who brought into existence the absurd and absurdly named National Salt Reduction Initiative, an incentive-based program designed to reduce the amount of salt in restaurant and prepackaged food. This is the man who, last year, banned the sale of sugary drinks, like sodas, in more than 16-oz containers. Why? Because what’s good for Bloomberg is what’s good for us. (Don’t worry, though, he told us; if you want more than 16 ounces, you can buy two 16-oz drinks no problem.)
Bloomberg’s next victim? Styrofoam. Why? Because it’s “hard to recycle.”
And how! Sometimes when I try to throw a Styrofoam container into the recycling bin, its light weight allows it to be softly guided off course by the air around it, and it will hit the edge of the container and bounce off of it and onto the ground. Then I have to bend over to pick it up and gently place the container in the bin. It becomes a real hassle.
It’s all part of Bloomberg’s effort to create a “greener” New York, an environmental utopia to be envied by eco-freaks the world over.
Other parts of that effort, according to The Associated Press, include proposals to have NYC “install curbside electric vehicle chargers that would let drivers recharge in 30 minutes” and to “change the city’s building code so that up to 20 percent of new public parking spaces are wired for electric cars, with the goal of creating 10,000 spaces for electric cars over the next seven years.”
This is where the law of unintended consequences comes into play. When liberals are put in charge of solving problems, they create more problems. The plan is that 20 percent of new parking spaces must have outlets for electric cars to pull into and charge up for half an hour, right? This means there will be people charging their cars because they’re almost out of juice, using up parking spaces that would otherwise go to someone who had a legitimate reason to stop. It creates another excuse to use up a parking space, thus reducing the number of parking spaces available to average New Yorkers, thus increasing the traffic, thus increasing the pollution, thus negating whatever environmental benefits his program seeks to create.
Power does not equal wisdom. Case in point: Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
What ever happened to the looming ice age that was to spell doom for humanity? Remember the warnings from the 1970s? (Well, I don’t remember them—I wasn’t alive—but I have read about them.) If politicians, by which I mean liberal ones, were consistent in their conclusion-jumping—and not only consistent, but smart—they’d quickly latch back on to that story to fleece the public out of even more money, because, given the Snowpocalypse of 2010 in which we here in Virginia had to shovel two feet of global warming out of our driveways, and given the Snowmageddon that’s expected in New England as of this writing, it looks like an ice age is on the horizon.
I do miss the fears my elementary school teachers tried to fill me with regarding that nefarious acid rain. We kids knew what acid was. It was what burned and melted everything it came into contact with. It was what gave Two Face two faces. We felt pretty invincible drinking orange juice and reading the ingredient “citric acid.”
But warnings in the ’90s that the rain would eventually do to Earth what the pail of water did to the Wicked Witch at the end of The Wizard of Oz was not scaring us kiddies or the low-information voters near enough to be a lucrative addendum to our education. Politicians needed something more immediately apparent to take the place of acid rain.
What is something that people actually witness and feel, and not only that, but what is something that people actually complain about?
(This is where liberals say that “climate change” is not about the temperature, but about the climate. But that’s a bunch of crap; the initial warning of “global warming” was that the globe was warming. The word “warming” refers to temperature. The only reason the politicians have changed the label to “climate change” is because there was no warming occurring out of the ordinary. Temperatures are cyclical and travel over the globe in such a way that there are years of warmer temperatures followed by years of cooler temperatures. Get over it. It was originally called “global warming,” not “climate change,” so I’m calling it “global warming.” It’s not my fault if that label no longer perfectly fits the liberal narrative.)
Changing the temperature of an entire planet was a great cause to get low-information voters behind. Who doesn’t complain when it’s a hundred degrees outside and the humidity makes you want to cry? Thus global warming became the cause du jour, something of which the politicians could remind everybody every single summer, when people are really feeling the heat. Autumn comes, then winter and spring, and global warming is forgotten about. But the advent of summer always brings with it sirens being sounded by politicians. “Man, d’ya feel that heat? Can you feel it suckin’ the water right outa ya? Sheesh, that global warming is really somethin’! Say, if you slide me over a bit a’ your money, I can make that go away for ya.”
Remember when congressional Democrats told us that global warming would cause less snow? Remember when alarmist David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (of Climategate notoriety) said that global warming would soon render snowfalls a “very rare and exciting event” and that ”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”? Remember Greenpeace and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change telling us the same thing in 1993 and in 2001, respectively? (Both those links are dead now, but those were the original sources.)
Well, now that the facts of more snow are contradicting original prophecy, the consensus among scientists is that global warming—a heating up of the planet—causes more snow.
So heads up, New England. Feet and feet of cold, icy global warming is snow-falling your way.
You’ve certainly seen the news stories trumpeting data from the National Climatic Data Center purporting to show that 2012 was the warmest year on record in the continental United States. This AP story, to note just one example, is headlined “US roasts to hottest year on record by landslide.” And news reports invariably try to link this claim with human-induced global warming, even though the U.S. represents only 2% of the Earth’s surface area. No doubt the Russians, who have endured record-smashing cold in recent months, wish they could have enjoyed a little of our warmth last year.
But was 2012 really the warmest year on record in the U.S.? It may have been, but the truth is that we don’t know. There are two reasons for this. First, the historical data sets published by NCDC and NOAA lack integrity. Those organizations, which receive many millions of government dollars to promote global warming theory, do not publish raw data. Rather, as we explained here, they first adjust the data. How do they adjust it? They depress the temperatures that were actually recorded in past decades, in order to make today’s temperatures look warmer by comparison:
Below is a copy of the national weather data summary for February 1934. If we look at, say Arizona, for the month we see that the state average temperature for that month was 52.0°F. [Ed.: This is the paper version that was published at the time.]
However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published.
Why do they do this? Follow the money. In another universe–a universe without Democratic Party-controlled media–this would be a major scandal.
Then there is the fact that weather stations in the U.S. are generally sited in areas that are getting warmer for reasons having nothing to do with global warming, i.e., urbanization. Moreover, Anthony Watts’s research found that no less than 89% of weather stations in the U.S. fail to comply with the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements because they are located too close to heat sources.
So, was 2012 really the warmest year on record in the U.S.? Maybe so; but we will probably never know, because our government provides massive financial incentives to the people who create, maintain, “adjust” and publish the data to promote global warming hysteria rather than engage in objective science. As a result, the data are corrupt.
That Al Gore is so successful at his con game is a sad testament to the gullibility and ignorance of society.
America dodged a bullet in 2000 when we elected George W. Bush over Al Gore, I’m telling you what.
Al Gore, who at this point will go down in history not as the 45th Vice President of the United States of America, but as a hapless neophyte weatherman so proficient in PowerPoint as to render him a prodigy, helped spread the fear (or at least attempted, as nobody remembers this anymore) that the northern polar ice caps could be entirely melted by the year 2012.
I do not wish to be too hasty in judging the man, for though it is currently the very year that the ice caps were supposed to have vanished and have in fact not, the year is not yet over; America’s treasured clairvoyant still has three days for his prophecy to come true, for the North Pole, Santa’s homestead, to disappear. (In light of Santa’s having just visited our homes three nights ago to bestow us our holiday bounty, do we root for him or for Gore?)
Of course, even some alarmists are quick to dismiss Gore as a hypocritical profiteer, the worst kind of capitalist, exploiting our fears for his own personal gain. “Gore’s a goon,” they say, not only because it’s true but because I’m feeling especially alliterative today. “He doesn’t speak for the environmentalist movement.” Oh yes he does.
But if they wish to denounce Gore now in light of his poor record of failed prognostications after previously embracing the man’s prophecies a decade ago, fine; let’s see what the more respected environmentalist outlets are saying.
According to an article posted in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the ice sheets of Greenland consistently increased from 2003 to 2010. Expounding on this for Forbes.com, Larry Bell writes:
In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed them to estimate that the annual loss acceleration was much lower than previous research suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons annually, Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year. Such rates of Greenland ice loss were barely larger than the margin of error in their readings, making it difficult to discern any difference between a supposed loss curve on a graph from a straight line.
But that’s just Greenland. What about all ice-covered regions in the aggregate? Well, during that same period (2003 to 2010), according to the climate-change-advocates at Colorado University Sea Level Research Group, the amount of glaciers and ice caps that melted worldwide was roughly 30 percent less than the alarmists estimated there would be.
And according to the Journal of Climate, as the aforementioned Larry Bell reports:
Although the UN’s IPCC, based upon its highly theoretical climate models[,] have predicted an increase in the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century, that rate has actually been rather stable, with no significant rise over the past 50 years.
So this global-warming/climate-change disaster is shaping up to be wildly exaggerated.
Never fear, though, for there will be other phony Armageddons to fear in the near future once this weather panic subsides; then we can all be nice and scared again. I wonder what will be the next fashionable catastrophe to be propagated by the politicians and their lapdog media.
Today is the first day and the last day of our last winter on Earth, what with the Apocalypse coming any hour now, so I figured I’d get one last shot in at liberals and their environmental alarmism.
A sure sign that a hoax is being perpetrated is if the advocate for the hoax tells you that although scenarios A and B are opposites, if A happens, C is true, while if B happens, C is still true.
To wit, a very warm winter proves global warming, while its opposite, a very cold winter, also proves global warming. Eco-freaks set the rules of the game so that they can’t lose the game. It’s rigged. No matter what the weather, they are right. It’s brilliant, really, albeit dastardly.
This winter season—okay, fine, this late-fall season, since today is only the first day of winter—here in Virginia has sometimes been unseasonably warm, one week reaching temperatures in the mid-60s, and other times its been blistering-cold. On the warm days, you hear liberals say, “Man, that climate change is really somethin’,” and on the cold days, you hear liberals say, “Man, that climate change is really somethin’.” They’ve been brainwashed to accept that no matter what the weather, climate change is really somethin’! They’ve been trained not to think for themselves.
In Russia right now, the global-warming situation is such that they are experiencing their coldest winter in over 70 years. It’s because the planet is heating up, dont’cha know.
And here in Virginia, the average for this season has been, by my estimation, warmer than past winters. That’s caused by the same thing that makes other places freezing: global warming.
Quick, give your money to the politicians so they can change the weather, or rather, prevent it from changing!
Of course the climate changes. Can you imagine if it didn’t? If the average temperatures in a year did not vary by a couple of degrees when compared year-to-year—that is, if the average yearly temperatures were the exact same each year—that would be freaky. And if ever global warming gets widespread acceptance as a hoax, you just know the government will try to cash in on that and claim some other catastrophic event is occurring: “The temperature refuses to change by even one degree! The end is nigh!” And then they’ll pay scientists to create—not discover, but create—data to support the latest Earth-is-doomed fad.
What’s harmful to the planet is not a 0.0006-degree change, but gullible idiots without a shred of independent thought.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have an apocalypse to attend. December 21, 2012, bring it on!
The Climate Reality Project’s second annual 24 Hours of Reality is a whole day and night dedicated to reaffirming in all the attendants’ minds the belief and fear of the impending apocalypse coming from a less-than-one-degree change in the temperature, much like a Hollywood sci-fi movie.
Some fellows from Grist.com attended the convention. Grist describes itself as having “been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a wry twist since 1999—which, to be frank, was way before most people cared about such things.” So you know this 24-hour-convention was just a riot.
And who do you turn to when you really want to inspire the masses? None other than the god of gasbaggery, the Herodotus of hot air, the three-time loser of a single election in the year 2000, the Reverend Al Gore.
Yes, Mr. Gore gave a titillating interview to Grist’s David Roberts to offer his opinion on the climate and carbon credits, but I want to talk about the very first question Roberts poses.
Roberts asks Gore to comment on what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said two weeks ago, that “We would never propose a carbon tax, and have no intention of proposing one.”
Gore responds in part:
I don’t think that comes as a big surprise to anyone. Those of us that hold out some hope that we will find a way to get a price on carbon, and know there are multiple ways to do it, have felt that the convergence of the fiscal cliff and the climate cliff could produce some surprising results. [Emphasis mine.]
First of all, I’m glad to hear Jay Carney say the administration has no plans to tax carbon, though I somehow suspect he is either ignorant or lying.
But look at what Gore says: he “hope[s] that we will find a way to get a price on carbon.”
Think about what that means for a moment.
Okay, got it?
Gore is not a lone wolf in his pursuit to squeeze out of every human being money that ultimately ends up in his pockets via his carbon-credit-selling company, General Investment Management. There are hundreds of millions of liberals just like him who not only wish to make humanity suffer for the millennia of progress we’ve achieved, but to charge us for breathing! Breath is carbon. A carbon tax is a tax on life!
Try to comprehend the brilliance of the man who first devised the plan to make money off of human ambition and breathing, and the pure evil of the man who first endeavored to put that plan into action, making others feel guilt for their comfortable lives and then profiting handsomely off of that guilt. Ladies and gentleman, Mr. Al Gore.
This is who the Democrats feel is a man worthy of the office of the leader of the free world—the man who wishes to sell us breathing air. And to think he actually won the popular vote in 2000.
Anonymous asked: Let us "pretend" that, as it wold turn out, anthropogenic climate change is real. How would you react, and what would you feel?
I would head for higher land with my flying pig.
Paul Ryan Now Supports Gay Adoption
No, I’m serious. Go.
As far as I’m concerned,...
Leftybegone is wicked smart.
BOMBSHELL: Mayor Sarah Palin Denied Police Protection to Family, Resulting in Their Murder
[Posting this earlier than...
so i googled gangster goose and let me tell you that i was not disappointed