Opposition to Obama AGW policies

[TheBlueVue 177]

finally getting some legs. Hopefully, at last, some sanity will prevail. To hear barry tell it, the secular apocalypse is upon us if they dont get their carbon tax policies in place immediately. That'll show mother nature who's boss and beat back those risng temperatures and sea levels even tho neither are currently rising! LOL

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-seeks-alliance-to-thwart-president-obama-on-climate-change-policy-20140609-39t93.html

[AURaptor 1,137]

Anyone else see the pattern here ?

Obama proposes something radical. It's purely based on his belief system that the USA is bad, and or all that makes her great is the root of evil in the world.

There's blow back from his idea.

Those opposed to anything he suggests , despite the fact that its usually really a bad idea or has already been proven to fail, are none the less called racists, or worse.

Then his usual defenders jump on board.

The GOP get scared, and pipe down.

The TEA party / conservatives, for the most part, are left standing alone against this lunacy.

There aren't enough left to oppose Obama and his idiotic ideas.

The idea, after initially getting panned as a ridiculous idea, goes forward.

It's not enough that we have to endure this ' Emperor's new clothes ' routine. The other problem ? The old guard GOP, who don't really want to DO anything, but remain up in D.C., and enjoy the fruits of living large.

On the people's money.

[homersapien 12,658]

finally getting some legs. Hopefully, at last, some sanity will prevail. To hear barry tell it, the secular apocalypse is upon us if they dont get their carbon tax policies in place immediately. That'll show mother nature who's boss and beat back those risng temperatures and sea levels even tho neither are currently rising! LOL

http://www.smh.com.a...0609-39t93.html

Yeah right.

Keep saying it while you click your heels together......

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You nailed it Raptor.

[homersapien 12,658]

Anyone else see the pattern here ?

Obama proposes something radical. It's purely based on his belief system that the USA is bad, and or all that makes her great is the root of evil in the world.

There's blow back from his idea.

Those opposed to anything he suggests , despite the fact that its usually really a bad idea or has already been proven to fail, are none the less called racists, or worse.

Then his usual defenders jump on board.

The GOP get scared, and pipe down.

The TEA party / conservatives, for the most part, are left standing alone against this lunacy.

There aren't enough left to oppose Obama and his idiotic ideas.

The idea, after initially getting panned as a ridiculous idea, goes forward.

It's not enough that we have to endure this ' Emperor's new clothes ' routine. The other problem are the old guard GOP, who don't really want to DO anything, but remain up in D.C., and enjoy the fruits of living large.

On the people's money.

It's delusional to link AGW policy to Obama. The next POTUS - Republican or Democrat - will take up right where Obama left off.

AGW was an issue before anyone ever heard of Obama and it will be an issue when he is gone.

[Strychnine 1,811]

I'd be quite happy if more attention was paid to something like this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-21002385

Even though it's an old article, air quality in China has not really improved much. While AGW is certainly debatable, that the above is bad is not.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Homer - no other prez would attack the coal industry , or promote a carbon trade market ( based where? Chicago ! ) like Obama.

Wake the hell up.

ETA -( hand't followed the link , actually )

Australia's PM has come out against Obama & his AGW policies.

Last I checked, Australia wasn't China, Russia , or India. They're an ally of the USA .

But not so much of Obama , it seems.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Anyone else see the pattern here ?

Obama proposes something radical. It's purely based on his belief system that the USA is bad, and or all that makes her great is the root of evil in the world.

There's blow back from his idea.

Those opposed to anything he suggests , despite the fact that its usually really a bad idea or has already been proven to fail, are none the less called racists, or worse.

Then his usual defenders jump on board.

The GOP get scared, and pipe down.

The TEA party / conservatives, for the most part, are left standing alone against this lunacy.

There aren't enough left to oppose Obama and his idiotic ideas.

The idea, after initially getting panned as a ridiculous idea, goes forward.

It's not enough that we have to endure this ' Emperor's new clothes ' routine. The other problem are the old guard GOP, who don't really want to DO anything, but remain up in D.C., and enjoy the fruits of living large.

On the people's money.

It's delusional to link AGW policy to Obama. The next POTUS - Republican or Democrat - will take up right where Obama left off.

AGW was an issue before anyone ever heard of Obama and it will be an issue when he is gone.

Its an issue most people dont really care about. It ranked 14th in a poll that listed 15 issues people care about in this election cycle. It'll be an issue because politcians on the left wont ever let it go. Its their secular apocalypse and they will use it as often as they can to scare people into giving them thus the govt more control.

http://www.gallup.co...al-warming.aspx

[autigeremt 7,458]

Funny.....I never knew who Obama was until a speech in 2008. Sent shivers down my leg. Then I remembered I had spilled something cold.

[homersapien 12,658]

Anyone else see the pattern here ?

Obama proposes something radical. It's purely based on his belief system that the USA is bad, and or all that makes her great is the root of evil in the world.

There's blow back from his idea.

Those opposed to anything he suggests , despite the fact that its usually really a bad idea or has already been proven to fail, are none the less called racists, or worse.

Then his usual defenders jump on board.

The GOP get scared, and pipe down.

The TEA party / conservatives, for the most part, are left standing alone against this lunacy.

There aren't enough left to oppose Obama and his idiotic ideas.

The idea, after initially getting panned as a ridiculous idea, goes forward.

It's not enough that we have to endure this ' Emperor's new clothes ' routine. The other problem are the old guard GOP, who don't really want to DO anything, but remain up in D.C., and enjoy the fruits of living large.

On the people's money.

It's delusional to link AGW policy to Obama. The next POTUS - Republican or Democrat - will take up right where Obama left off.

AGW was an issue before anyone ever heard of Obama and it will be an issue when he is gone.

Its an issue most people dont really care about. It ranked 14th in a poll that listed 15 issues people care about in this election cycle. It'll be an issue because politcians on the left wont ever let it go. Its their secular apocalypse and they will use it as often as they can to scare people into giving them thus the govt more control.

http://www.gallup.co...al-warming.aspx

So that proves the science must be wrong?

I suppose that conclusion shouldn't be surprising coming from someone who thinks 97% of all climate scientists are collaborating in a vast global hoax.

[autigeremt 7,458]

The science is only half truth in my opinion, and science isn't always perfect so there....run with it.

[homersapien 12,658]

The science is only half truth in my opinion, and science isn't always perfect so there....run with it.

Run with your opinion? No thanks.

[autigeremt 7,458]

The science is only half truth in my opinion, and science isn't always perfect so there....run with it.

Run with your opinion? No thanks.

Good...the next time (which could be tomorrow) you read a story where the "science" has been debunked by new discovery just ignore it....like the weather in Florida it will change again in 20 minutes.

[homersapien 12,658]

The science is only half truth in my opinion, and science isn't always perfect so there....run with it.

Run with your opinion? No thanks.

Good...the next time (which could be tomorrow) you read a story where the "science" has been debunked by new discovery just ignore it....like the weather in Florida it will change again in 20 minutes.

You remind me of the saying, "if you think education is expensive, try living without it".

[autigeremt 7,458]

The science is only half truth in my opinion, and science isn't always perfect so there....run with it.

Run with your opinion? No thanks.

Good...the next time (which could be tomorrow) you read a story where the "science" has been debunked by new discovery just ignore it....like the weather in Florida it will change again in 20 minutes.

You remind me of the saying, "if you think education is expensive, try living without it".

Luckily I don't have to. You remind me of a two sided coin....no matter what the bet is, it's always landing on heads and it shows.

[Tigermike 4,082]

The science is only half truth in my opinion, and science isn't always perfect so there....run with it.

Run with your opinion? No thanks.

Good...the next time (which could be tomorrow) you read a story where the "science" has been debunked by new discovery just ignore it....like the weather in Florida it will change again in 20 minutes.

You remind me of the saying, "if you think education is expensive, try living without it".

And you remind me of the saying, "That boy is educated beyond his intelligence".

[TheBlueVue 177]

Anyone else see the pattern here ?

Obama proposes something radical. It's purely based on his belief system that the USA is bad, and or all that makes her great is the root of evil in the world.

There's blow back from his idea.

Those opposed to anything he suggests , despite the fact that its usually really a bad idea or has already been proven to fail, are none the less called racists, or worse.

Then his usual defenders jump on board.

The GOP get scared, and pipe down.

The TEA party / conservatives, for the most part, are left standing alone against this lunacy.

There aren't enough left to oppose Obama and his idiotic ideas.

The idea, after initially getting panned as a ridiculous idea, goes forward.

It's not enough that we have to endure this ' Emperor's new clothes ' routine. The other problem are the old guard GOP, who don't really want to DO anything, but remain up in D.C., and enjoy the fruits of living large.

On the people's money.

It's delusional to link AGW policy to Obama. The next POTUS - Republican or Democrat - will take up right where Obama left off.

AGW was an issue before anyone ever heard of Obama and it will be an issue when he is gone.

Its an issue most people dont really care about. It ranked 14th in a poll that listed 15 issues people care about in this election cycle. It'll be an issue because politcians on the left wont ever let it go. Its their secular apocalypse and they will use it as often as they can to scare people into giving them thus the govt more control.

http://www.gallup.co...al-warming.aspx

So that proves the science must be wrong?

I suppose that conclusion shouldn't be surprising coming from someone who thinks 97% of all climate scientists are collaborating in a vast global hoax.

No, it doesn't prove anything but nice straw man argument. I was making a point concerning the politics of the issue and you were compelled to make a leap that was not implied at all. Right wrong or irrelevant, right now, most people do not care about AGW and many more than that refuse to believe the government can change the weather with policy decisions. If that is not what they're implying, what are they trying to accomplish by making it a continuous talking point.

[homersapien 12,658]

Anyone else see the pattern here ?

Obama proposes something radical. It's purely based on his belief system that the USA is bad, and or all that makes her great is the root of evil in the world.

There's blow back from his idea.

Those opposed to anything he suggests , despite the fact that its usually really a bad idea or has already been proven to fail, are none the less called racists, or worse.

Then his usual defenders jump on board.

The GOP get scared, and pipe down.

The TEA party / conservatives, for the most part, are left standing alone against this lunacy.

There aren't enough left to oppose Obama and his idiotic ideas.

The idea, after initially getting panned as a ridiculous idea, goes forward.

It's not enough that we have to endure this ' Emperor's new clothes ' routine. The other problem are the old guard GOP, who don't really want to DO anything, but remain up in D.C., and enjoy the fruits of living large.

On the people's money.

It's delusional to link AGW policy to Obama. The next POTUS - Republican or Democrat - will take up right where Obama left off.

AGW was an issue before anyone ever heard of Obama and it will be an issue when he is gone.

Its an issue most people dont really care about. It ranked 14th in a poll that listed 15 issues people care about in this election cycle. It'll be an issue because politcians on the left wont ever let it go. Its their secular apocalypse and they will use it as often as they can to scare people into giving them thus the govt more control.

http://www.gallup.co...al-warming.aspx

So that proves the science must be wrong?

I suppose that conclusion shouldn't be surprising coming from someone who thinks 97% of all climate scientists are collaborating in a vast global hoax.

No, it doesn't prove anything but nice straw man argument. I was making a point concerning the politics of the issue and you were compelled to make a leap that was not implied at all. Right wrong or irrelevant, right now, most people do not care about AGW and many more than that refuse to believe the government can change the weather with policy decisions. If that is not what they're implying, what are they trying to accomplish by making it a continuous talking point.

The science is the science and the politics are the politics.

If you really want to make the case that the politics won't necessarily deal with the reality, I won't argue with that at all. In fact, that's my inclination also. Frankly, I don't think our politics will allow for a significant response until the reality is all too obvious to everyone and by that time it may be too late.

But as someone who admittedly rejects the science, I can only assume you were using the politics to justify that rejection. Perhaps I assumed too much, but it's certainly not a straw man argument.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"But as someone who admittedly rejects the science, I can only assume you were using the politics to justify that rejection. Perhaps I assumed too much, but it's certainly not a straw man argument."

You make a lot of assumptions. It is a straw man argument to leap from a political point which, incidentally, is completely true and accurate to claiming based on having made that point that I believe that disproves the science. The way i see it, scientists haven't proved the science yet. When the alarmists started beating the global warming drums their forecast was we would, by now, already be experiencing famine and pestilence due to global warming if a carbon tax wasn't passed and already beyond the point of no return. How'd that work out?

[homersapien 12,658]

The science is only half truth in my opinion, and science isn't always perfect so there....run with it.

Run with your opinion? No thanks.

Good...the next time (which could be tomorrow) you read a story where the "science" has been debunked by new discovery just ignore it....like the weather in Florida it will change again in 20 minutes.

You remind me of the saying, "if you think education is expensive, try living without it".

And you remind me of the saying, "That boy is educated beyond his intelligence".

LOL! Well, that's probably true enough.

Anyway, I'll provide three responses for you to choose from:

1. I didn't mean to imply that emt was uneducated or even less educated than I am. I was speaking generally of the consequences of being ignorant about a given issue that is vitally important. I respect emt and I am sure there are subjects about which is more educated than me.

2. Assuming educated means actual understanding of the subject matter in question, the prospect of being educated beyond one's intelligence is impossible. One cannot truly understand something without the intelligence to do so.

3. If education is assumed to mean the mere acquisition and mastery of knowledge without necessarily understanding the implications of such knowledge - which would naturally be a function of intelligence - then to be education beyond one's intelligence would simply make one a microcosm of our species.

[homersapien 12,658]

"But as someone who admittedly rejects the science, I can only assume you were using the politics to justify that rejection. Perhaps I assumed too much, but it's certainly not a straw man argument."

You make a lot of assumptions. It is a straw man argument to leap from a political point which, incidentally, is completely true and accurate to claiming based on having made that point that I believe that disproves the science. The way i see it, scientists haven't proved the science yet. When the alarmists started beating the global warming drums their forecast was we would, by now, already be experiencing famine and pestilence due to global warming if a carbon tax wasn't passed and already beyond the point of no return. How'd that work out?

Do you reject the science of AGW or not?

[TheBlueVue 177]

"But as someone who admittedly rejects the science, I can only assume you were using the politics to justify that rejection. Perhaps I assumed too much, but it's certainly not a straw man argument."

You make a lot of assumptions. It is a straw man argument to leap from a political point which, incidentally, is completely true and accurate to claiming based on having made that point that I believe that disproves the science. The way i see it, scientists haven't proved the science yet. When the alarmists started beating the global warming drums their forecast was we would, by now, already be experiencing famine and pestilence due to global warming if a carbon tax wasn't passed and already beyond the point of no return. How'd that work out?

Do you reject the science of AGW or not?

I reject the alarmism altogether. I acknowledge the climate is changing, it changes year to year but, there are 2 other things that are worth mentioning as caveats. #1 I do not believe govt policy can change weather patterns. #2 passing a carbon tax on the back of science that is losing steam because NONE of its apocalyptic warnings have eventuated as predicted would be a fool's errand. What would it accomplish?

[homersapien 12,658]

"But as someone who admittedly rejects the science, I can only assume you were using the politics to justify that rejection. Perhaps I assumed too much, but it's certainly not a straw man argument."

You make a lot of assumptions. It is a straw man argument to leap from a political point which, incidentally, is completely true and accurate to claiming based on having made that point that I believe that disproves the science. The way i see it, scientists haven't proved the science yet. When the alarmists started beating the global warming drums their forecast was we would, by now, already be experiencing famine and pestilence due to global warming if a carbon tax wasn't passed and already beyond the point of no return. How'd that work out?

Do you reject the science of AGW or not?

I reject the alarmism altogether. I acknowledge the climate is changing, it changes year to year but, there are 2 other things that are worth mentioning as caveats. #1 I do not believe govt policy can change weather patterns. #2 passing a carbon tax on the back of science that is losing steam because NONE of its apocalyptic warnings have eventuated as predicted would be a fool's errand. What would it accomplish?

That is a very obscure answer.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"But as someone who admittedly rejects the science, I can only assume you were using the politics to justify that rejection. Perhaps I assumed too much, but it's certainly not a straw man argument."

You make a lot of assumptions. It is a straw man argument to leap from a political point which, incidentally, is completely true and accurate to claiming based on having made that point that I believe that disproves the science. The way i see it, scientists haven't proved the science yet. When the alarmists started beating the global warming drums their forecast was we would, by now, already be experiencing famine and pestilence due to global warming if a carbon tax wasn't passed and already beyond the point of no return. How'd that work out?

Do you reject the science of AGW or not?

I reject the alarmism altogether. I acknowledge the climate is changing, it changes year to year but, there are 2 other things that are worth mentioning as caveats. #1 I do not believe govt policy can change weather patterns. #2 passing a carbon tax on the back of science that is losing steam because NONE of its apocalyptic warnings have eventuated as predicted would be a fool's errand. What would it accomplish?

That is a very obscure answer.

Im sorry I don't know how to make it any plainer. IMO its pretty simple..until the science IS proven and, clearly its a LONG way from that, I think it would be a fools errand to tax industry and individuals based on computer models projections. Tax policies will not prevent climate change. I think any sober and honest person would concede that point, however, the left's insatiable thirst for tax revenue drives them into obsession over flimsy hypothesies.

[AURaptor 1,137]

You're going to have to find another way to convince India and China to clean up their act. Carbon taxation is a non starter.