2010: The Kyoto Election
by Christopher C. Horner
The New York Times reports this weekend that:
“SINGAPORE — President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.”
Read down the article and note the several claims by participants offering the greatest exhibits imaginable at the running absurdity — now in its 18th year! — that is this movable feast of conferences in Rio, Barcelona, Bangkok, Bali, Buenos Aires, Bonn, and next month Copenhagen: We had to declare it a failure in advance in order to ensure its success. Mmm. Yes.
But here’s the far larger point, and Team Tea Party and simpatico coalescences should take note and begin organizing accordingly:
This also makes the Kyoto II, the proposed twenty five-year extension of a five-year plan that was the Kyoto treaty, an inescapable issue for the 2010 U.S. mid-term elections.
The outcome of these elections will surely dictate the outcome of this scheme long-targeted, even by European diplomats’ admission, at the U.S. and exempting the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations including those bit players like China, India, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, Indonesia, where greenhouse gas emissions actually are growing–rapidly (just in case emissions really were the point, which they are clearly not).
If these November 2, 2010 elections go better than Team Soros/Obama fear, that will embolden them in the November 8-19 talks. A wipeout ensures the right result. Too busy saving my presidency to spend whatever capital remains to push the whole global governance routine just now.
This means every candidate for every federal office must be pressed to state whether this underlying issue of prophesied yet oddly non-existent catastrophic man-made global warming, on which they bob and weave if they’re not shrieking to the heavens about the horrors, is sufficient grounds for the sort of binding international framework we are to agree to mere weeks later. Those who still won’t answer the question need to go to the back of the line. The American public are with the UK and Norwegian voters, to name two about whom polls were just published revealing majority skepticism, and we don’t believe that, at all. And we’re the ones the deal is supposed to gore (so to speak).
Of course, Bill Owens in NY-23 showed you can vow opposition to, say, the “public option” to gain election and vote the other way within mere hours. But still, this, we’ve gotta ask and this means every candidate, on both sides, what with that Kyotophile McCain thing not having worked out so well and, if it had, we’d already have adopted cap-and-trade and would be facing a “successful” Copenhagen collapse.
Here’s a kicker: that treaty negotiation where it’s to all come together less than one week later happens to be in Mexico City, located in one of said free-rider countries, one which happens to be just to our south and an emotionally charged issue here in the country expected to cede by far the most there. It will serve as an excellent poster child for the dichotomy of obligations that is and, no matter which among the telegraphed stunts they pull to make this less obvious, will be the Kyoto scheme. Optically that should make things very uncomfortable for the Kyotophiles (note of caution to those mobilized principally around the issue of illegal immigration: resist the siren song of supporting the deal in order to keep the workers from our south home, where employment prospects will be much more favorable than here…).
So, 2010 is now on track to be the Kyoto Election. And, so long as we start early reinforcing that point, will be.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
52 Comments
This effort, or lack of it, on my part and the part of my Conservative brothers and sisters, will be an indicator of just how serious we are.
This is critically important. Losing this battle is tantamount to losing the war.
We must prepare. We must question the candidates standing for election in 2010. We must be super-vigilant and willing to raise tee-total hell to get the sane, correct result in Mexico City.
Kyoto…I don't know why they try anymore. Eleven years without warming coupled with massively rising CO2 levels would lead a reasonable man to conclude the hypothesis needs some tweaking (flushing). Too much money bet on CO2-caused global warming to do the right thing. Agree with the warning regarding illegal immigrants. We need to hang Kyoto on Dem's necks early and often.
We must hold every candidates feet to the fire on this one, we must know before election day, where they stand.
Al Gore was protested in his favorite Florida county. LINK
"Eleven years without warming "
?????
seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming...
what planet do you spend most your time on exactly?
are you scared of warm weather you pansy? Are you gaonna save the planet, how heroic of you. Dont get hysterical with fear you wuss. dumb ass libs…worthless
Our dear reader needs something to fire up the clowns.
The IPCC just needs the time to rig up some new fake data.
I wonder why no one ever fact checks Al Gore?
Are you going to join the discussion like a grown up, can you specifically refute the data on the US gov't website, collected during the Bush administration?
or are you just going to sit on the sidelines and call people names, like a child?
You know the fools that look at us as serfs in power don't give a damn how much we protest or complain. To them we are just ignorant insects to be stepped on when we get in their way. Think of when you happen to run in to a high society jerk and how they just look down their nose at to like you are inferior. People like Gore and Obama are ten times worse. The only solution is a armed uprising before it is to late. They will slowly tighten the noose on our right to bear arms until one day we are disarmed and bam we are slaves. I looked to honorable men in our military to keep us from being subjugated. But after seeing that loser Casey groveling after the terrorist attack in Texas I have no hope of this now. You want to keep freedom better wake up get off your asses and do something about it. They disarmed England now look at how they are treating the people there. Time is getting short.
The largest single emitter of CO2 is volcanic emissions. So if we tax the countries for allowing their volcano’s to erupt then we can stop this “The single greatest source of Climate Changing Gases”. Unless of course, climate change is nothing but a religion based on belief and not fact. Then they are wrong in the analysis and this is not the Cause of climate change then it is all simply linked to external activities such as solar flares, the earth moving closer to the sun or maybe it is being caused by too many people wearing clothes with glitter.
In all of the projections by the “Experts” there was never a dip in temperatures, 2009 set far too many “Coldest or next to coldest summers of all times”. If our temperature can shift down with El Nino then let’s work on controlling the El Nino Effect and tear up the stupid Kyoto agreement. If it is so easy to control the weather then let’s see the experts tackle that little change.
you are being disingenuous.
volcanic emissions have a natural corresponding carbon sink in the forests oceans. it's a delicate balance that has developed over geologic time (many millions of years)
what humans have done,is create a new source of carbon without introducing a corresponding "sink"… somewhere for it to go, or be absorbed by.
even if human activity accounts for as little as 5% of carbon output per year, that extra 5% accumulates year after year after year. and has been doing so at an accelerated pace since the industrial revolution began 150 years ago.
folks, if you haven't taken the time to even learn what human caused global warming actually *is*, how can you (or better yet, why would you) try to refute it with such blind ideological rage?
Okay dipstick: You want facts? Here Goes:
The seven years you refer to appear in chronological order with temperatures ascending, peaking and then descending and leading to one of the coolest years in the last three decades. That thirty year period includes the trail end of the "Ice Age" scare perpetrated by the same idiots in the IPCC today.
I can assume that by your statement of 95% humidity, you were in Qatar or Kuwait. bump up the temperature another 15 degrees and drop the humidity 8% and you have the climate I served in.
I am proud to call you a comrade-in-arms, but your still a dipstick. Such is Life.
"2009 set far too many “Coldest or next to coldest summers of all times"
global climate change is GLOBAL. your "coldest summers" are all locally measured cities, there is nothing that disproves climate change there. quite the opposite, the IPCC report on climate change predicts locally erratic weather patterns as a result of the global disturbance.
When measured GLOBALLY (and not cherry picking the data points you feel like to suit your case)
seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming...
The Son of Kyoto not welcome.
What is wrong with CO2? OK, so we become warmer, our plant life goes berserk, the forests replenish themselves and oxygen gets put back into the atmosphere. Are we worrying about polar ice caps? You'll never see a single tree grow in either polar region. The polar bears will adapt and so will the seals and walruses. Life goes on and as we contemplate what will happen in 50 more years, a big friggin asteroid will crash next to you and destroy all life. What in the hell are you worrying about? Get a life.
"you are being disingenuous at best. "
Disingenuous – not candid or sincere, typically by by pretending one knows less about something than one really does.
How nice. Had you left out that first statement I would have responded with a discussion on data. However I've noticed here and elsewhere recently you can't seem to discuss anything without character attacks (something you sometimes rightfully point out to others on this site). I can only conclude that you are selective when applying the ideal of "no character attacks" which means further discussion with you is nothing more than an exercise in juvenile taunts. I'll close with a simple suggestion: leave out the character attacks and perhaps you'd get some serious responses. As it is I can't take you seriously enough for any further discourse.
Not so, because "on record" notably exempts those cases when proper measurements were absent (again, the "Medieval Warm Period" of Scottish and English vinters), refuses to note regional increases and decreases, and in general is rather unscientific.
And as for what planet we spend most of our time on, that would be Earth. That might explain the gap.
"what humans have done,is create a new source of carbon without introducing a corresponding "sink"… somewhere for it to go, or be absorbed by. "
Perhaps, but the fact is that ALL ORGANIC LIFE has the SAME EXACT ISSUE save for the industrialization matter: even if we had not invented fire, there were still billions upon billions of life forms living, dying, and generally giving off carbon dioxide by a considerable level without a corresponding heat sink. And while the planet did have several warm periods during this time, it also had plenty of cold ones (see the Ice Age). And even if we suppose that the forests were somehow able to adapt for these billions upon billions of animals but not for the 6+ billion humans that displaced them (often into extinction) while cutting down those "heat sinks", it STILL does not explain how the temperature has not always gone up during the modern and early modern eras, when human-sourced Carbon emissions continuously reached unprecedented levels.
"even if burning fossil fuels accounts for as little as 5% of total carbon output per year, that extra 5% accumulates year after year after year. and has been doing so at an accelerated pace since the industrial revolution began 150 years ago."
Which doesn't explain the sudden spike in heat 130 years ago followed by a considerable period of cooling for about 20-30 years. If the Industrial revolution truly fueled this, and the Revolution only grew in intensity as time progressed, wouldn't there have been a continuous or relatively continuous climb upward?
"humans have dramatically changed the composition of the atmosphere."
Perhaps, but that also does not explain the Carbon record, which has occasionally seen levels far higher than those today with neither the corresponding human activity or the corresponding high temperatures.
"global climate change is GLOBAL. your "coldest summers" are all locally measured cities, there is nothing that disproves climate change there. quite the opposite, the IPCC report on climate change predicts locally erratic weather patterns as a result of the global disturbance. "
And here, you trip on the trees by discounting the forest. IF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS TRULY GLOBAL, THEN WHY DO WE SEE THESE REGIONAL DISCREPANCIES? Certainly, we can agree that some regions would heat faster or slower than others, but would we REALLY have this many decreasing? Would we REALLY have the first "snow" seen in Jerusalem or Marseilles in decades if this were true?
You forget that the global IS MADE UP OF "the local." ALL of them. And the results from some of them do give reason to question the overall assumption.
"When measured GLOBALLY (and not cherry picking the data points you feel like to suit your case) "
Then WHY are a good 60%+ of these data points in the Northern Hemisphere, rather than truly spread out (and while most of those discrepancies are in the Southern)? If you REALLY wanted a good balance (and regional climate differences and differences in change have been noted for literally millennia), wouldn't you spread them out evenly?
"seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. "
You are defining "record" very, VERY strictly, giving the other evidence available (carbon dating, remnants of English Vineyards, etc).
And yet you accuse US of blind ideological rage?
And even if we DO accept that CO2 is a contributing factor to the global temperature (which I can), is indeed the dominant factor (which I don't), and that cataclysm will occur down the road, pray tell me WHY are you not lobbying for the far LARGER CO2 generators of China, India, Indonesia, and the Middle East to join the club?
This inconsistency is… interesting, to say the least.
Do your homework before criticizing us on the issue.
What I'd like scott to explain is how the did the lush forests of north africa turn into a desert? There was no pollution from industrialized nations at that time. I would also like him to explain how the ice age came to be.
Mother nature does what she wants to despite Gore's blathering.
scott> do a bit of research.
I find it quite interesting that our forests and oceans can differentiate between carbon from volcanic emissions and carbon released by human activities. Especially considering that whether it comes from volcanoes or fossil fuels, both sources are of carbon previously stored underground that are released into the atmosphere.
I would be interested in the research that established this "delicate balance" where the highly variable volcanic emissions are precisely absorbed yet our relatively constant human-based emissions are disrupting this system. The underlying principles of how such a highly reactive mechanism can be disastrously upset by such a small constant force could be adapted for making a more stable Segway.
CO2 levels may indeed be a problem. Though someone else correctly pointed out that a single volcanic eruption can put more CO2 in the atmosphere than we could ever produce. Water levels aren't rising and has everyone has apparently forgotten what happens to the water level in a glass when all the ice melts. (Do they not have that experiment in schools anymore?)
As long as global warming zealots like our friend Al Gore (who profits quite nicely from all this) runs about spewing false information, we can't come to any sort of consensus. The discussion has been hijacked from scientists and put in the hands of politicians and charlatans. A perfect example (aside from Al's regular graphs that exclude inconvenient data) was Al's statement: "..the debate in the scientific community is over…" That is not something a scientist says. (Let's gloss over the fact Al Gore is not a scientist and couldn't pass freshman physics.) The argument is never over, rather the argument is continually on going. Constantly test, retest, and challenge new models. That's how discovery is made. Imagine if everyone just decided to accept the earth was flat? (In point of fact, I haven't encountered a single physicist that buys into the hyperbole and I've looked.)
If you ever want to quickly cut through the hyperbole listen to what an individual says. A scientist will say "I think this is happening, here's the data and model to prove it." An opportunist will say "Here's what's happening, I know because of this graph that kinda looks like it's going up." Scientists point at the data. Charlatans want you to trust them. Scientists can change their model to reflect new data. Charlatans want you to belief regardless of new data. Global warming has become a religion. Adherents must hold true to several key tenants and shun all data and individuals that disproves those tenants. It really is a shame because while the global warming priests exhort from their green pulpits, legitimate environmental concerns are overlooked and ignored.
Sorry for the mini rant, but as I see all this global warming hysteria I can't help but think it's not really 2009, but instead right in the middle of the dark ages. Since when are used car salesmen who can't manage freshman calculus (ie Al Gore) an authority on climate models?
Run citizens of swaziland!
Whatever happened to "The Greenhouse Gas Effect"? Was it not 'modeled' by computers that between the tropics (Capricorn and Cancer) the world would soon turn into hellfire due to all the emissions we were causing? And, are we not also relying on these same 'computer models' to assert these claims that again, we will soon all burn up?
What you need to know about the "scientific truth" that really got Global Warming with the now-debunked "hockey stick" graphs, how bad research has proliferated despite being debunked, with helpful links to further education to differentiate the scam from the reality. Enjoy.
[...] Big Government » Blog Archive » 2010: The Kyoto Election It will serve as an excellent poster child for the dichotomy of obligations that is and, no matter which among the telegraphed stunts they pull to make this less obvious, will be the Kyoto scheme. Optically that should make things very … more .. [...]
Scammer Al Gore came out with a new book peddling religion to push for GW. Next time you will paying tithes for Scammer Al Gore to build the GW Temple.
Yeah, they put it off just just like the health care BS bill. Until they can influence enough of those in power to go along with there lust for total control and power over the citizens of the world!!
Whoever, believes that GW cause by men and by Al Gore wisdoms can only stop GW are idiots. Al Gore is enriching himself. He is the only one benefitting on this. Jet-setting around producing more CO2 to pick up awards, eating kobe beef, 10 SUV entourage, 18000SF house, getting money from mining company to mine his land and 1000 foot yatch. DON'T PUT TOO MUCH FAITH ON ONE MAN. Don't be a fool.
"F GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS TRULY GLOBAL, THEN WHY DO WE SEE THESE REGIONAL DISCREPANCIES?"
everything you asked can be explained in the IPCC reports. it is completely clear you have not done much research.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicat...
read that and get back to me.
STOP GOREBULL WARNINGS.
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff
"everything you asked can be explained in the IPCC reports. it is completely clear you have not done much research."
And it is equally clear that you have not studied much history. Yes, I read the 4th IPCC, and I was bluntly unimpressed, in large part because it fails to acknowledge the possibility of another source and also does not explain regional weather aberrations. After all, while the wind systems may account for some of the strange diffusions regarding where the carbon is generated VS where it ends up, but the fact is that many of the dropping temperatures are in the same region as the Industrializing Asian and Pacific economies (particularly China, India, and Indonesia), while the rising temperatures are mainly in the North Hemisphere.
And it also does not explain why they disproportionally placed monitoring stations in the Northern Hemisphere, as opposed to a relatively even cut throughout the world. Naturally, a perfect diffusion is impossible, but I honestly cannot think of a reason for this.
In addition, it also contradicts the historical and archeological records (again, it is worth noting that the world went through the Ice Age and its downfall with nan absolute dearth of both human and animal activity), and it is well worth noting that a few hundred years ago (a relative minute in the life of the planet), temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warm enough that vineyards could grow in some of the clearer areas of the Scotch Highlands and even in Greenland- in the Northern Arctic Circle!!- with comparatively little complication. And it also fails to examine and address regional (and, indeed, global) temperatures before the 2nd half of the 20th century, particularly in the 1870's, where the temperature was- if anything- far higher.
And this is before we get into the Arctic Ice Cores, where the evidence for the MMGWT is sketchy and uneven at best.
In short, it fails to address WHY, if the forests act as heat sinks that can relatively cancel out the volcanos, we had these considerable variations in climate. If we accept the IPCC's bottom line, we must concede that ultimately, we have no truly reliable way of tracing this because all the possible sources are relatively flawed. In effect, none of the contradicting evidence can truly make a dent on the issue because there is no real way to disprove it save hopping on a time machine and arriving in 2060 (provided there is no apocalypse in 2012).
And this gets particularly galling hwen you consider the record of the "Big Freeze" rumor that went around during the 40-70's.
Long story short: the basic explanation from the IPCC is that due to a myriad of factors, the increasing heat will be canceled out in the near future, and that we won't truly be able to see global warming until it hits us right in the face and it is already too late.
Sorry , but the very basic rule of scientific inquiry is that when something is unprecedented, do not assume it derives from an unprecedented source (which some of the temperature levels would indicate). And so I must err on the side of caution.
Let's just put the disagreement about temperatures aside for a minute.
Since the borders of all nations do not extend like a wall up into the atmosphere then the behavior of all nations are essentially one force. Even if I believed that humans can control the climate to the extent that you imply what in the hell are you going to do about China.
Even if I did believe your intentions I wouldn't believe you if you rationalized how you can get China and India to play ball. The mere fact that you would believe either China or what China would tell you puts your credibility in jeopardy.
Now if you don't care that the United States must play ball under different rules than other countries around the world like China and India and Brazil then your loyalty to America is questionable. And then I don't care if I believe you or not.
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is no idiot. Lord Monckton is a man not lacking confidence on the issue. They are out there yelling for real pubic debate. Michael Mann is running from it. Al Gore is running from it.
So knowing this with the will to put the American economic security at risk is not just reckless it's TREASON.
"the basic explanation from the IPCC is that due to a myriad of factors, the increasing heat will be canceled out in the near future, and that we won't truly be able to see global warming until it hits us right in the face and it is already too late."
Well, that is simply not true. Please explain your thoughts further?
"but the very basic rule of scientific inquiry is that when something is unprecedented, do not assume it derives from an unprecedented source (which some of the temperature levels would indicate"
that is not the basic rule of scientific inquiry. that is not the basic rule of scientific inquiry at ALL! What are you even talking about?
LOL @ you, and all your smart sounding pseudo science talk. you typed a lot of words strung together there, but on all accounts failed to disprove one single claim made on ANY of the IPCC's reports.
"Let's just put the disagreement about temperatures aside for a minute"
hey. lets not.
How much harder do you think it will be for the US military to maintain and properly exercise American military superiority as nations weaken and crumble due to the globally destabilizing effects of human caused global climate change?
If the US finds a cheaper, cleaner, more sustainable way of power, it would be sheer folly for india and china and all other developing nations to jump on board. they do not like buying expensive oil, and dirtying their own countryside with burned coal.
it is time for America to once again take a global leadership position on yet a new venture.
why you oppose this makes me very curious. it's almost like you do not want America to be technological leaders. Maybe you can reply and better explain your position?
you have not stated anything that refutes the IPCC climate change reports. the trend is clear, despite a one year statistical outlier. 7/8 of the warmest in 100+ years occurring since 2001, and the 10 warmest years in 100+ years occurring since 1995 certainly trumps one cold year since 1980.
this is a clear scientific TREND in the data.
beside and beyond anything else, however we may disagree. THANK YOU for your service- i was a mere civilian servant stationed out there. Indeed, far out of harm's way.
Scottie old man…flush it down the sink !
Flush that too !
"If the US finds a cheaper, cleaner, more sustainable way of power"…….it is called nuclear power. clean, reliable and actuallly provides enough power to actually power things (unlike wind and solar). no one on your side discusses this because its not really about power with clean energy its about POWER over the people.
It's been proven that the more people know about this subject, the more likely they are to think Al Gore is full of it.
Yet another great article Chris. Keep up the good work.
BTW, I recently saw a person who described herself as an environmental journalist say that dropping temperatures
were "depressing" her. Now if you really believed that global warming was a problem, wouldn't you be happy? She
knows that dropping temperatures means that Al and the rest of the Gorebots will be less likely to shove their sick
green religion on to the rest of us.
Once it is warm enough to farm Greenland, then we are on par with the Vikings. I know their SUV's were bigger back then but it is just Nature! There is no more tangible link to CO2 then annactotal link to the Space Program and Water. Yes you have to have water to make hydrogen to escape the earth's atmosphere but CO2 seems to be a gas that comes and goes on it's own or by volcanic eruption. Unless we can stop volcano's or control the El Nino effect we will never have a chance of controlling the Climate. So if most of the US was cooler than average why isn't that tangible proof that there is not link to climate change?
Scott, unless you are using a solar powered computer, don't own a car and live in a home greater tha 900 sq ft. you are guilty of creating more global warming so Stop It! I like my car, computer, Air Conditioning and Fresh Lobster flown in from Maine. So if Al Gore is so concerned why does he fly in private planes? Maybe the do as I say not as I do liberals want it good for themselves and the rest of us are just Serfs.
.While Mr. Gore espouses Global Warming, etc.( of course it has nothing to do with his company stands to make Zillions) and flys around in his Jet, I am sure he doesn't want to take about his Zinc mining operations.
My , my , such an environmentalists. Folks around Nashville had this guy figured out years ago. He tells folks one thing and does another.
The caption to that picture of Al ( who dosent know who the bust of Ben Franklin is ) Gore is :
Once we get the Cap and Trade Tax passed, we will have them "LIKE THIS".
I agree that knowing the scientific method from hypothesis to theory to conclusion is extremely important.
Here's the dilemma: Republicans hold "beliefs" about religion and existence for which they don't apply science – to them, a consensus has decided. It's the same that gorebal warmers do.
Here's the solution: belief systems are personal & subjective; we don't argue such things because it belongs to the individual conscious mind to decide.
Here's the problem: Republicans, most often Conservatives, want their beliefs favored in order to impose laws on marriage, education, etc. it's hypocritical
Here's the solution: Republicans uphold limited government by advocating for government to get out of our personal lives, let free market innovation & creativity solve these issues so that each American can live his life as he sees fit, not imposing on others or asking for favor/entitlement.
Republicans can't offer credibility when it comes to science when they try and "prove" god existence – there isn't any, it's subjective opinion, which no freedom loving American would care about, it just can't be pushed onto others, thru courts or legislators or schools, otherwise, Republicans make a target for themselves losing the debate every time.
Republicans are so good at self-evaluation & self-correction, it's control then manipulation that gets 'em into trouble because then it just seems like they are doing the same thing liberals are doing.
Now, once on solid footing, demanding evidence from gorebal warmers & those who make the claims about climate change, especially the models/date utilized to "project", becomes an argument that really says, "put up or shut up" and reveals liberals as the frauds they are! It's a tall order, but it can happen.
Cheers!
Kyoto is a liee and its designed to steal Americas wealth and give it to the dictators incharge of the UN. Wake up Amerifca! Lets get out of the UN and force these communists and facist dictators to make it on their own. We don't ned them and we sure as hell don't need to give them our money1! Stop thinking Al Gore is an American! He's not! He's internationalist that is running the con game for the UN to sell global warming across the world blaming us for the problem with out any real scienctific proof and when challenged he cuts and runs. He stealing your rights. He's doing the global warming con to benefit personnally. He doesn't care about global warming. Just lok at his life style if he cared would he fly in private jet everywhere? Use more electricity than the entire county where he lives? Wouldn't he donate money to the cause beyond minor sums? Sure he would! He doesn't because he doesn't care he just wants to make money and in good favor with the UN and the dictators who have all sworn to destroy our country! Wake Up AMerica! don't accept celebrity trash talk in exchnage for your freedoms!
[...] chance. Let’s settle things, once and for all. We have eleven months and, this way, the 2010 “Kyoto Elections” will be resounding and conclusive in their result. A climate change mandate! At [...]
keep believing everything the govt. tells you, see where it gets you. so typical of schizaphrenic Lib to be insulting and then tell others not to insult your cherished comments, lol, here let me give you a compliment youre an idiot.
Isnt it funny that this terd scott z. was complaining about people fear mongering about trying the terrorists in NYC but then gets his panties all bunched up about global warming, lol, libs are schizaphrenic clowns, keep entertaining me with your inanities, i enjoy it
I am captivated by your thinking. Being a Christian and being a conservative – I can understand what you are saying. I agree that the Republican Party must stop interfering with religion. I absolutely agree that we should uphold limited government. Separation of church and state is a healthy and wise idea.
But that would make us Libertarians. My growing interest in this political party is only slowed by the fact that it is built on the premise that people are rational.
And your appealing solution does not allow for the fact that I will have to subsidize the gay couple's lower tax payments and benefits. I don't want to do that. As I don't want to fund the procedure that pierces an unborn human skull with a sharp instrument to end its life.
View this! Best news in 100 years. Happening now!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-ne...
Thats very sad. Lets just hope that someday there would be a great leader who could give justice to us all
Bali Aga means probably the original Balinese. The old Bali Aga people live in finally, the villages of Tenganan and Trunyan.
[...] [...]