Vision, Mission, and Strategy


Hillbilly Politics

It’s really hard to believe that, in spite of all the new evidence that has been compiled since Al Gore won the Nobel Prize, people are still trying to panic other people about global warming.

The Associated Press warns that the new administration won’t have much time to save the planet from a global warming apocalypse. Never mind that the “ticking time bomb” is a dud. […]

 Ticking time bomb, eh? What are they panicked about? It was a false premise in the beginning. The only thing running out of time is their chance to prove it’s true before too many people wake up to the fact that it was a bogus claim originating with an environmentalist blowhard who has nothing better to do with his time than try to sucker people into mad schemes. Not to mention that Pelosi, et al are losing millions from their investements in alternative energies before legislation can be enacted to turn the tide toward profitability. As usual, the cart was put before the horse… or donkey, in this case.

When there’s a cause around which the liberal brain can wrap itself around with “feeling,” they simply can’t let go, no matter the reasons or proofs of the opposite are presented. They jump to the conclusion (the premise) first, then try to prove it, or not, if they believe they can get away with it without having to put in that kind of work. We’ve seen it over and over, not only for the last eight years with Bush, but with anything that went against what liberals wanted to believe.

For instance, did you know that the Democratic Majority Senate had enough votes to pass the bailout but didn’t? According to Nancy Pelosi, Republicans are irresponsible.

Senate Republicans’ refusal to support the bipartisan legislation passed by the House and negotiated in good faith with the White House, the Senate and the automakers is irresponsible, especially at a time of economic hardship. The consequences of the Senate Republicans’ failure to act could be devastating to our economy, detrimental to workers, and destructive to the American automobile industry…

Guess who voted against it? How about the Senate Majority Leader, himself? Of course, Democrats aren’t irresponsible when they vote against the majority. That doesn’t fit the premise, does it? It doesn’t matter that the majority of the country is against the bailout. All that matters is Republicans are irresponsible for listening to their constituents rather than the Democratic majority.

This obsession with premises before having any indepth research to support them is killing the country. We hear them all the time, in the news, from politicians, from environmentalists, from the U.N., other countries, and so on. Yet, every time we question those premises, we get other premises to prop up the initial one rather than a reasoned argument backed by facts.

Not too long ago, I was called anti-American filth because of my attitude toward Obama and the pledge I made to treat him the same as Bush has been treated by him and everyone else. I thanked the person for it, considering he’s one of those rabid Bush haters with endless talking points (most of them provably false). I figure since he says the opposite of factual about everything else, he probably means the opposite of what he said about me, too. :lol:

Uttering such premises, ad infinitum, doesn’t make them true, unless you can nudge some into a self fulfilling prophesy such as this economic downturn, now recession, that we’re experiencing. Liberal politicians have been calling for such since at least 2004; probably longer, but I can only find evidence as far back as ’04. When it didn’t happen on cue, they simply moved the date. Since 2007, they’ve worked actively to bring it about, resisting changes to Fannie/Freddie, their refusal to rescind the oil drilling moratorium, the Iraq War funding shenanigans, the pork barrel spending while complaining about the national debt, and so on. They finally got their recession.

Now, they’ll do the same with global warming regardless of the facts on the ground (lots and lots of snow even in places that rarely see it). The only problem is: Mother Nature isn’t playing along with their games. And, of course, if it all fails and people die because of having to be so “green” via legislative encroachments on their private lives, it will always be the Republicans’ fault.

Senator Corker is coming under heavy fire for his opposition to the auto bailout. Why? Read the article. It’s full of class warfare ire and lots of accusations. Little to no facts. If the Big 3 don’t get bailed out, it will be all the Republicans’ fault if people lose jobs and the companies head to bankruptcy.  What’s being said is not even being well reasoned but it fits the premise, right?

Kinda reminds me of my grandsons, the older blaming the younger when they’re both caught doing mischief. The Democrats have a majority, darn near a supermajority. If you count McCain, Graham, and a few others they have that supermajority. But they’re still not going to accept responsibility. It’s not a disconnect between facts and perception, it’s the premise they operate under. I, for one, am getting sick of it.

If people want to get this country back on the right track, it’s time to stop accepting talking about (aka premises) as truth without question. Question them, every one, every time. Demand facts and proof. If you don’t get it, assume it’s false rather than true and stand your ground.

Oh, one last thing, I heard on the news this morning that Dickson County TN is swiftly running out of salt to combat the icy roads. That was Channel 5 news for anybody in the middle Tennessee area, but, of course I can’t find it online, yet. It doesn’t fit the premise of global warming, does it? It’s all Mother Nature’s fault, you know. She just won’t let a good premise, that stands to make lots of money for lots of charlatan,go unchallenged. Yeah, that’s the culprit.

42 Responses to Premises, Premises, and the Obsession With Premises

  • mycowardice says:

    “t doesn’t fit the premise of global warming, does it?”

    It’s climate change, and I’m not sure how it doesn’t fit the premise of global warming…

  • StephC says:

    The quote from the AP, used in the post, specifies global warming. Regardless, what they’re talking about doing for “climate change” is exactly the same measure they talked about when it was “global warming.”

    If you’re not sure it doesn’t the premise, explain how it does fit. The world is not warming, it’s cooling, but the premise is that it’s still warming.

  • mycowardice says:

    You’re saying that what you are observing around your house is indicative of whether or not climate change is occuring?

    It doesn’t have to be warmer everywhere all the time for climate change to be occuring.

  • Big Mo says:

    Hey, Steph!

    You know why I have a hard time believeing Al Gore and similar people skwaking about **man-made** global warming? Because he didn’t do jack-spit when he was vice president and had real authority.

    (Oh yeah, he wrote a book. But that was when he was a senator.)

  • StephC says:

    Mo, the saddest part about the whole thing was I didn’t take a position one way or the other on the issue when it first became “big” news. Instead I did the research; the jard research the believers deny is out there and compared that research to the lack of hard research forwarded by the believers.

    But, of course, I’m just stupid for not believing. Ya know?

  • StephC says:

    But this post is more that about global warming or as they like to call it now, climate change. It’s about premises and accepting them as truth without evidence to support them. A premise is nothing more than a conclusion, as defined by the dictionary. Most premises used today by the left are unsupported by evidence, but they sure do sound pretty.

  • Big Mo says:

    Yep. They defeat their own arguments by appealing to “climate change,” which is a natural process. It’s too big and too encompassing to challenge when EVERYTHING is “climate change.” Real science gets burried.

  • BB-Idaho says:

    I agree about ‘class warfare’ and Senator Corker….
    but from the opposite point of view. We all recall back in October when he announced,
    “The government’s purchase of “senior preferred shares” in qualifying banks, if it works, should kick start the nation’s moribund financial and credit system as well as ultimately make money for taxpayers, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told a group of local bankers Wednesday at the Carnegie Hotel.”
    ..and we all recall how the poor banks took the $700
    billion the TN jr Senator voted for and gave bonuses, threw parties and purchased other companies.
    …but when 3 million American jobs are on the line,
    Corker terms the workers greedy and balks at spending a small fraction of what he thought the
    (ungreedy fat rich lazy immoral dumb MBA dolts)..er well meaning bankers needed. Sure, Corker may be right…bundling CDOs and over leveraging subprimes while sipping a tax deductible martini at a fine NY restaraunt may be hard work. Might even take a third grade brain. Perhaps if these panzies put in 55 hour
    weeks on the graveyard shift at some auto plant, your
    Senator would have voted against the bank bailout?
    OK, I confess..I buy American. I’m worried that when
    Corker lets Chrysler fold (to punish those awful greedy
    working folk), parts and repair for my wife’s minivan
    and my pickup truck will cease to exist. 😮 My own fault..I don’t buy asian cars and I don’t do business with AIG, CitiBank, WellsFargo or the mafia…..

  • StephC says:

    BB, I have to agree with you on the $700 billion but is it right to follow up one mistake with another? That’s the problem I have with the auto bailout, it’s not really an auto bailout or a workers’ bailout but a union bailout. The bailout won’t do anything to make the auto companies more profitable and it’s not meant to.

    What I’d suggest is, since the bailout is going to happen one way or another, why put the onus on the companies by requiring a car czar, regulations, etc? Why not just do what it’s supposed to be doing in the first place and just designate it for the union and let the pay the salaries of all those workers while the auto companies do what they need to do to restructure without government mandates? A structured bankruptcy doesn’t mean going out of business completely.

    Once upon a time unions used to do decent things but more and more they just suck the life out of companies and eventually the workers as well. In the south, actually a total of 21 states, there are what is called right to work laws. With those laws in place, unions don’t get much of a foothold in those states.

    I think a structured bankruptcy and right to work laws will do loads more for the auto industry than a 14 billion dollar bailout with union and government both dictating it will come close to doing.

  • StephC says:

    Mo, if you question a premise, you’re questioning their patriotism, their sincerity or integrity (even when they admit they have known), you’re a bigot or racist, or something else is wrong with you. It’s never the premise that is wrong.

  • StephC says:

    xsd, I had to fish your comments out of moderation. I’d up the number of links allowed but that would let a whole lot of spammers in, too. Sorry about that.

  • StephC says:

    xsd, the problem is not global warming, per se, so much as it is the scam being perpetrated because of it. In fact, since those graphs were published, new research indicates we are entering into a cooling period now. Climate is always changing, day to day, week to week, month to month…

    It’s the hoax of manmade global warming that really gets my goat and how they’re using it to bilk billions/trillions out of people in the name of it. It might make people feel good and believe they’re doing something but in the end, all that money, all those treaties, etc. won’t do much about it.

    CO2 is not a pollutant. If you think there’s too much of it in the air, plant some trees. Plants need it to grow and flourish. It’s their food.

    Or you can stop breathing until you turn blue but stop calling it what it isn’t.

  • xsd4tex says:

    StephC, without getting into the problem of attaching links which cite sources that you demand, there is additional evidence provided by NOAA for global warming in 2007. The final numbers of course are not available for 2008 so I can‘t rebut your claim of “new research” otherwise.

    As anyone can see by the graphs I included in my above earlier post, there are spikes during every decade in which temperatures are either above or below normal ranges. This is true with El Nino/La Nina and other weather events that are cyclical.

    The overall rising and increasing temperature trend, however, is the statistical proof that the Earth is heating up.

    As to CO2 of course in a balanced atmosphere it is not a pollutant any more than is oxygen or nitrogen. The excessive amount of CO2 is a problem and that’s what the concern is all about. Too much or not enough oxygen can be a serious health problem just as too much or not enough CO2 can be a problem.

    I’m sure anyone who has done some reading on the subject of CO2 and sulfur pumped into the atmosphere in China’s rapidly growing economy knows that there are 300,000 deaths in that country every year because of respiratory ailments. These illnesses are caused by easily controllable, Man-made, coal-fired plants that produce the greenhouse gases (any number of chemical compounds, including CO2, in the atmosphere). The greenhouse gases are not controlled in that country simply because the Chinese have less concern for public safety and health than we do.

    I know for some it is like committing heresy if you accept the position or the science that pollution can be man-made. But therein lies the debate. My reading of the science leads me to believe excessive CO2 that began accumulating at the beginning of the Industrial Age is a real problem today.

  • StephC says:

    I know for some it is like committing heresy if you accept the position or the science that pollution can be man-made.

    You see, this is what gets me with the whole premise thing. If I admit that there has been global warming, I must also admit that it is largely due to man’s activities and I don’t see where the two parts naturally follow. They use fancy charts to show the warming, blah, blah, blah, and then…. It’s Man’s Fault!!!!

    Since the 80s the US has been cutting emissions… and cutting… and cutting…

    Now, with the lack of solar activity, among some other smaller things, we’re entering a cooling period. It’s the nature of climate… it’s always changing… sometimes in small ways, sometimes in trends, sometimes in bigger ways.

    When the cooling hits full force, you’re going to wish we had done more towards heating the place up but I guess that won’t happen until it happens.

    Most of the “plans” out there call for trillions to be spent on reducing CO2 for little to no gain. If you want to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, plant trees. For every mature tree you cut down, plant 6 smaller trees. It won’t cost trillions to do and the earth will “heal” itself over time. It took time to get to this point, it will take time to fix it. Panic is not the answer.

    You mention China and I concede the point there. So, tell me, what signing any kind of treaty anywhere is going to do if China refuses to be a part of it. Of course to the ones getting the money, it won’t really matter will it?

    I also note, that you didn’t read at least one of my comments above where I said that initially I took no position on global warming until I did some research into it.

  • BB-Idaho says:

    C02 is a greenhouse gas and therein lies the problem.
    I think planting more trees is an excellent idea, kudos!
    Mr. Limbaugh notes that trees are best when made into furniture, his version of ‘the only good tree is a dead tree’. So, if we take your advice, both GreenPeace and Limbaugh will be delighted… 😆

  • Big Mo says:

    I do agree that the earth is warming as part of a cyclical pattern, and there’s not a damn thing we can do to stop it, reverse it or even accelerate it. What I don’t accept is “man-caused” global warming. So, here are my questions for those who believe that HUMANITY has caused the current warming trend:

    1) What is the mean temperature of the earth supposed to be?

    2) If mankind caused what’s going on now, then how do you explain the cyclical changes in earth’s climate many times before the advent of the industrial revolution, such as the Medieval Warming?

    3) Why are scientists who disagree with the so-called consensus shouted down or dismissed as “tools of Big Oil” or other such nonsense?

    4) How can we take mankind-causes global warming seriously when practically every weather event is now assigned a global warming cause? Or were the bad hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods before the industrial age just imagination?

    5) Is the seeming increase in storms really due to global warming, or because we now have much more sophisticated detection equipment AND a 24-hour, global news cycle that can show an F2 tornado in Lickspittle, Oklahoma, that does no damage and harms no people?

    6) If we are in such dire circumstances as Al Gore claims, why didn’t he do anything substantave during the time he was a senator or the 8 years when he was vice president and had real authority? (Oh, yeah: he wrote a book.)

    7) If global warming is such a dire and immediate problem, how come the rich and famous and other “beautiful people” can mess around with the phoney-balony “carbon credits” nonsense while living high on the hog while we poor schlubs have to drastically change our lifestyles?

    8) If sunspot activity (or lack thereof) is a major player in global warming, what makes them think WE can do anything about that?

    9) If global warming is such a dire and immediate problem, how come worst-polluters China and India are exempt from international carbon treaties?

    10) How can learned scientists say with a straight face that there is a “consensus” on global warming when A) there isn’t and B) the very idea of a consensus flies in the face of the scientific method?

  • Gary says:

    “…C02 is a greenhouse gas and therein lies the problem…”

    Really? Then how can one explain this?

    “I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

    FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.

    When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

    The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

    But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

    There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

    1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

    “Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever…”

    I have argued that our climate is dynamic; rising and falling throughout time as history has shown. Of course it’s easy to say there is warming when one takes a snap shot of any size and applies it to a theory. Just as easy in fact to say there is now global cooling because it snowed again last night in Southern California.

    People have been duped into believing in a lie, but hey, the 104 billion added revenue from ‘Green’ goods and services this year is certainly intoxicating, don’t you think?

  • BB-Idaho says:

    HB,
    Me listen to Limbaugh? Wash out your mouth!!
    (I googled the fellow) 😆 😆
    Big Mo asks some well-reasoned questions, which though I am a retired scientist, but not a climatologist,
    need be addressed:
    1. No one knows..although most humans prefer temps we grew up in (global 13-14C)
    2. Normal cycling includes solar, which contributes perhaps 30-50% to the situation. A 150,000 year cycle
    shows sharp temp spikes, thought to be CO2 related…thawing vegetative matter. The medieval warming trend and ‘little ice age’ of human times were actually rather minor Globally, but horrific to certain popoulated areas, IMO likely oceanic El Nino type oscillation.
    3. Some scientists who disagree are in fact funded by engery companies, others legitimately interpet data as they see it. (skipping to 10, that is how the scientific method works. IMO, the data is preliminary, the models therefore open to such interpetation. As for shouting down, the Bush Admin was famous among scientists for that..probably why all 65 living Nobel Science laureates endorsed Obama?
    4. As global temperature rises or falls it affects the
    local meteoroligies. How much is a question the climatologists continue to argue and discuss.
    5. Big Mo nailed it: there have always been striking weather phenomena and now we know about it even before it happens sometimes. Not enough info to
    say storms are more or worse.
    6. Don’t know. I pay as much attention to AlGore as I do to RushLimbaugh and consider neither a climate
    expert.
    7. Carbon credits is a weird idea, sort of a compromise between shutting down a polluter, or letting them swap credits. Its economics which never has nor never will make sense to scientists. No, we cannot (at present!) control sunspot activity and it is, as you note a major player.
    9. China & India are major industrial polluters. Less
    commonly blamed, but also important, is the diminishing forest cover (CO2 gobblers) being destroyed in the Amazon, Madagascar, Sumatra etc.
    They get away with it, because we and the rest of the world population let them.
    10. Forty or fifty major scientific organizations have come out agreeing with man-made global warming theory..Nat Acadamy of Sciences, American Chemical Society, etc etc. So, it is far to say, a preponderance
    of these folk weigh in on that side. Scientists take pride in being open-minded (true or not) and even
    pride in being hide-bound stubborn..thus the naysayers. Which is very good..it makes both sides work that much harder. To paraphrase that curmudeon Hegel, thesis + antithesis = synthesis.
    …back to Limbaugh. HB, I was driving across Montana
    several years ago, and he was the only station. I was so upset, I turned the radio off and spent the next 9 hours whistling Christmas carols. It was July!! 😆

  • BB-Idaho says:

    Oh gee, I got so involved with Big Mo’s question list, I forgot the most important factor about warming. It, along with CO2 has shot up at an alarming rate, not seen in the human era (late Pleistocene to present).
    Beginning in the mid 1800s, the rate of increase has
    accelerated more and more. The last 25 years markedly so. That is worrisome to some. Hey! speaking of warming it has been zero up this way.
    So, if I get busy thawing pipes or freezing to death,
    Merry Christmas, HB to you and yours! 😉

  • xsd4tex says:

    There’s still a chance that the scientific agencies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NOAA climate studies and the World Meteorological Organization, might still convince some of the global warming deniers with solid evidence that increased CO2 caused by human activity is a major contributor to global warming.

    The question that should be answered, are all these scientific agencies and their worldwide climate research studies dead wrong and have no credibility?

    ://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3

  • StephC says:

    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
    Last Updated Thursday, 08-May-2008 14:30:45 EDT

    In other words, this info doesn’t account for the new research and evidence that finally got a voice around mid-late summer when the sunspots “died.”

    xsd, I have a question. With a few exceptions like the AP and Al Gore, most of those pushing the global warming hoax, started calling it “climate change.” Why?

  • xsd4tex says:

    StephC, well I guess the info I hoped would help answer that question somehow got ignored.

    The NOAA site clearly explains Global Warming and its causes. I saw nowhere in the scientific analyses where it mentions “global warming hoax.” That’s a term that has become an axiom uttered by Rush Limbaugh.

    But, if the “new” evidence, presumably within the last few months, related to dying sunspots proves the global warming hoax claim then I’ll admit I don’t have any knowledge of astral or solar physics to argue the issue.

    If there is solid scientific evidence for global cooling I’m sure it will be extrapolated into a new trend line that will begin its downward descent starting in 2008. I’ll keep my eye out for it. 😆

  • StephC says:

    xsd, the hoax is not that it was warming but the claims that we can do something about it by sending trillions to the U.N. to combat something that is going to change all on its own, expeically when you consider the two biggest polluters are being exempted.

  • Gary says:

    steph,

    I believe the hoax is that we insignificant humans can globally effect our climate. I am not saying we don’t ‘microlly’ influence the weather, but to say we have a ‘macro influence’ is really very silly.

    If every person in the entire world was given .25 acre to farm (which is enough to sustain the life of one individual), they could be put in an area just a little bigger than Texas and Alaska. That’s 6 plus billion people in a relatively small area speaking in terms of the earth.

    Most of the countries on this planet are not industrialized and do not produce any off gasses. We may affect the climate locally, but certainly not globally.

  • xsd4tex says:

    Gary, that’s a curious statement, “We may affect the climate locally, but certainly not globally.”

    Ever hear of Chernobyl (1986), the worst nuclear accident in history? Iodine pills were recommended for people living on the west coast and in other parts of the world because the prevailing westerly winds aloft carried radioactive particles thousands of miles.

    The volcanic eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines and Mt. St. Helens in Washington state caused sunlight to be diminished resulting in colder temperatures in wide areas for over a year. Dust storms from the Gobi and Mongolian deserts and smoke from major burning of agricultural areas are carried thousands of miles away by strong jet stream winds, also reducing sunlight.

    There are literally hundreds of incidents where airborne pollutants like acid rain can and do affect land masses for decades. Acid rain draws out calcium from lakes and rivers, wiping out vast areas of life in those waters.

    Earth’s magnetic field traps whatever is pumped into the atmosphere, including excessive amounts of CO2, which has become more concentrated in the atmosphere over decades.

    Epidemics can run through a population rapidly or slowly. The slower ones may get less attention but the end results are more devastating over time.

    I don’t believe the overwhelming empirical evidence for global warming proven by the best science and scientists worldwide is a deliberate trick or a hoax.

    What is really silly is the mind-set that insists we cannot possibly foul our own environmental nest globally.

    By the way, huge swaths of rain forest in non-industrialized countries are being burned off to gather charcoal and clear the way for cattle grazing. All of this burning reduces the amount of carbon dioxide that trees absorb, exacerbating global warming.

    But, then again, Galileo’s colleague, Giordano Bruno, was burned at the stake for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around.

    So, who are the heretics, the preponderance of scientists who offer the evidence for global warming or those who insist that global warming is a hoax and that human activity has nothing to do with it?

  • StephC says:

    We may affect the climate locally, but certainly not globally.

    We could argue this to a point. Much of California’s problem stems from China, carried on the winds. The irony is that California has willingly imposed an enormous burden on the state’s residents while the world exempt China from “cleaning up its act”. Treaties and mandates that it would impose on countries who really aren’t doing that bad a job of keeping the environment as clean as the earth itself will allow while exempting the biggest polluters is just crazy.

  • xsd4tex says:

    “Treaties and mandates that it would impose on countries who really aren’t doing that bad a job of keeping the environment as clean as the earth itself will allow while exempting the biggest polluters is just crazy.” I could not agree more.

    One problem with that, however, is that it puts us on the same plane as those who refuse to take positive action to clean up their own back yards. I think we are better than that in spite of all the resistance from corporate power brokers who think only in terms of their bottom line.

    Having lived in San Diego I can tell you that because of a northwest wind that carried pollution down the coast from Los Angeles San Diego was often cited and fined for failing to meet clean air standards. In other words, we were fined for LA’s problem.

    The same standards applied for PCB’s, mercury and other toxic chemicals that were dumped in the water north of San Diego. The prevailing ocean current moves from northwest to southeast all along the west coast. As a result, San Diego often measured higher parts per million for hazardous wastes which weren’t even caused locally.

    It makes no sense to impose strict air quality standards without recognizing that transported particulates can cause serious health hazards as well. It’s sort of like second-hand smoke from cigarettes, only on a larger scale. Nonetheless, it is man-made and it is controllable.

    I have no idea how much China spends on treating respiratory conditions that shorten life spans but I do believe if we had 300,000 deaths and probably millions more affected by toxic air per year in the U.S., we would be talking about billions in extended health care costs to keep people alive and treat patients.

    Weigh the cost benefits of keeping our citizens healthy against the so-called financial burden on industries that cause pollution (most of which get huge tax breaks anyway) and decide whether you want quality of life or quantity of profits.

  • Gary says:

    “Ever hear of Chernobyl (1986), the worst nuclear accident in history? Iodine pills were recommended for people living on the west coast and in other parts of the world because the prevailing westerly winds aloft carried radioactive particles thousands of miles

    Yep, and I live on the left coast. I was alive then and am alive now. It may have been recommended, but so were leaches in the 18th century.

    “The volcanic eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines and Mt. St. Helens in Washington state caused sunlight to be diminished resulting in colder temperatures in wide areas for over a year. Dust storms from the Gobi and Mongolian deserts and smoke from major burning of agricultural areas are carried thousands of miles away by strong jet stream winds, also reducing sunlight.”

    Not sure we had anything to do with those eruptions… though I could be wrong. 🙄

    “Earth’s magnetic field traps whatever is pumped into the atmosphere, including excessive amounts of CO2, which has become more concentrated in the atmosphere over decades.”

    Well, had you read the link I provided in my first comment on this thread, you would see there is no signature for ‘Greenhouse gases.’

    As I said, our climate is dynamic; the temperature rising and falling. We can and often do have a ‘micro’ affect. But imperical data clearly shows a significant cooling trend over the last 7 years, with 2001 being the warmest of a 30 year warming trend.

    Who here remembers the early 70’s when our brilliant scientists proclaimed the world was heading for another ice age? I remember coming home after school that day in a near panic because I didn’t have enough coats to stay warm in the ice age.

    I say global warming is a hoax because the world’s top CEOs decided to alter their business prospectives to accommodate the forecast revenue of $104 billion dollars that was spent on Green goods and services in 2008.

    How does one make money in sales? Offer a product that fills a need. No need? create one. Voila!

  • BB-Idaho says:

    Confusing: I read Gary’s link to Dr. David Evans,
    rocket scientist
    as well as some fellow Aussie PhDs like Dr. Brook
    …both apparently smart fellows….but neither a climate specialist. Nor am I. But I will stick with the basic
    data set which shows extraordinary increase in both
    atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature over the last 30 years. Almost tracks the population and technology acceleration over the same time period.
    Seems fairly straight forward, and no, I haven’t seen the AlGore movie or heard his views on the subject..he is less a climatologist than the first two referenced
    experts. 😆

  • StephC says:

    xsd, it seems as if your argument against what I said is more an argument against your own stance. Tell me how one benefits from being fined, cited, or otherwise penalized for someone else’s mess?

    Weigh the costs and benefits, indeed. 😕

  • Jeanette says:

    I’m going to start selling air in a bottle and selling it as off-settin carbon footprints. Heck, I’ll even throw in
    a branchling as a new tree planted.

    I’m going to Pelosi, Reid and other Dems in Congress and, sadly, soon the White House. I figure I can make enough money to clear the national debt and put the economy back on track in six months.

    If it would just warm up a bit. 😈

  • Jeanette says:

    How many here are old enough to remember the Global Cooling we were supposed to be having back in the late sixties/early seventies?

    It’s cyclical and have we considered it may be the sun?

    The most global warming I’ve seen has been coming from the hot air spouted by Al Gore and his clones on the left side of the aisles in Congress.

    When they start walking and riding bikes I’ll follow suit. Until then I won’t be convinced of this scam to make money off idiots who believe anything if it helps “save the environment”.

    They want us all to freeze in the dark or roast in the dark depending on the time of year. Gore is always unfortunate enough to give a big speech on global warming on the coldest day of the year wherever he’s speaking.

    Snow in Las Vegas? It’s a desert! That seems like cooling to me. 🙄

December 2008
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  


    


Copyright © 2012 Hillbilly Politics. All Rights Reserved.