GW: Questions for presidential candidates

[dynosor]

Senator James Inhofe says the threat of global warming is a scam. How many presidential candidates for 2008 are willing to risk being unpopular by stating more than,
"global warming is a serious problem"?

Voters must ask what policies each candidate would support; how effective these would be against global warming, and how much our energy bills would increase as a result.

Why the urgency towards binding international treaties that would severely limit US fossil fuel consumption? ENRON petitioned for ratification of the Kyoto protocol,
so who would be enriched by new policies at our expense?

The last time we heard that immediate action was required to avert impending doom, that action lead the US into an extremely costly search for non-existent WMDs.
Any politician that insists on extreme measures without sufficient justification should not be trusted to lead this country.

Weather station temperature data (public information) for the last 100 years show warming and cooling periods about every 27 years. This suggests the reason why
"we must act now" is because in 5 years we will be well into the next cooling period. By then it will be obvious that no action is required to prevent catastrophic
global warming.

[NinerSevenTango]

Originally Posted by dynosor How many presidential candidates for 2008 are willing to risk being unpopular by stating more than, "global warming is a serious problem"?

There is one: Congresssman Ron Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst121597.htm

"Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is a fantasy because at the end, the bad senators are shamed into doing the right thing. Fact is, they have no shame. Imagine going to Washington and voting according to the constitution on every issue. The mainstream media has to ignore him most of the time because the best they can do is to try to ridicule him, and that cannot be kept up too long with weak arguments against his positions. It must be very lonely.

He is the only man in Congress that I consider worthy of my respect.

--97T--

[fizzissist]

Originally Posted by dynosor ...Weather station temperature data (public information) for the last 100 years show warming and cooling periods....

Funny you should mention that, as I was just reading some pretty serious discussions by Steve McIntyre (one of the guys that blew Mann's famousHockey Stick out of the water) and others about weather station data....specifically, stations whose data is NOT being included, and the selective inclusion of data.

On the subject of presidential hopefuls, I just got an email from Chuck Muth, hardcore right-winger who sometimes has some pretty good stuff. It's a spot about Hillary, her fundraising efforts with Timbaland, and her visit with the Rutgers team. It doesn't paint a pretty picture of her.

[dynosor]

Ron Paul would be a departure from the pretentious self-serving idiots that somehow managed to get elected. He is the best Republican candidate, but somehow I think a Democrat is going to be elected as backlash for getting the US into Iraq.

Most of the "popular" Democrats buy into GW and seem intent on giving away the US to outside control.

Bill Richardson is liked by Democrats that support the RTKBA, but he wants to "start reversing global warming".

http://www.richardsonforpresident.co...s/#environment


http://www.richardsonforpresident.co...to_bear_sterns

[fizzissist]

"Everything's difficult, isn't it? In the Democratic presidential candidates' debate, Sen. Barack Obama was asked what he personally was doing to save the environment, and replied that his family was "working on" changing their light bulbs.

Is this the new version of the old joke? How many senators does it take to "work on" changing a light bulb? One to propose a bipartisan commission. One to threaten to de-fund the light bulbs. One to demand the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for keeping us all in the dark. One to vote to pull out the first of the light bulbs by fall of this year with a view to getting them all pulled out by the end of 2008........."

--Mark Steyn

Good for you, Barack! For every light bulb changed, the earth cools by .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 degrees.

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango There is one: Congresssman Ron Paul http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst121597.htm

Interesting debate between Ron Paul and the other Republican candidates:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...rigsdebate.htm

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by fizzissist "Everything's difficult, isn't it? In the Democratic presidential candidates' debate, Sen. Barack Obama was asked what he personally was doing to save the environment, and replied that his family was "working on" changing their light bulbs. Is this the new version of the old joke? How many senators does it take to "work on" changing a light bulb? One to propose a bipartisan commission. One to threaten to de-fund the light bulbs. One to demand the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for keeping us all in the dark. One to vote to pull out the first of the light bulbs by fall of this year with a view to getting them all pulled out by the end of 2008........." --Mark Steyn Good for you, Barack! For every light bulb changed, the earth cools by .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 degrees.

Say fizzissist,
Is that Fahrenheit or centigrade?
xyzdonna

[HapSmo19]

Originally Posted by dynosor so who would be enriched by new policies at our expense?.

Hmmmmm......the rich?

Originally Posted by dynosor Weather station temperature data (public information) for the last 100 years show warming and cooling periods about every 27 years. This suggests the reason why "we must act now" is because in 5 years we will be well into the next cooling period. By then it will be obvious that no action is required to prevent catastrophic global warming.

It's OK though. You can count on them giving back the carbon tax you paid.