Politico quotes Lott calling Obama "foolish" for trying to pass cap and trade without noting Lott lobbied against it
The Politico quoted former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) stating that the Obama administration was "foolish to take all those big votes on cap and trade" because doing so endangered moderate Democrats. While Politico identified Lott as a lobbyist, it did not note that his firm lobbies for oil companies on issues including the cap and trade bill, and thus has a financial interest in its defeat.
Politico publishes Lott's comment calling Obama "foolish" for cap and trade
From the February 4 article:
The Big Bang, made famous by Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is giving way to a wary brand of incrementalism. It's not the small-bore, Clintonian agenda of V-chips and school uniforms but an admission that expectations are diminished -- not dashed -- and a determination to attack the same huge problems in smaller, smarter ways.
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) believes Obama still has time to adjust, but he says he's put moderate Democrats "in great jeopardy" because he hasn't been able to match his aspirations with the same levels of toughness and legislative know-how possessed by Hill veterans like Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
"They were foolish to take all those big votes on cap and trade and the stimulus," said Lott, now a lobbyist. "One of the lessons that Obama has not learned is that you can't feed Congress too much at any one time -- you can't feed it more than they can consume, or it becomes engorged."
Undisclosed by Politico, Lott's firm lobbied on cap and trade bill for several oil companies
Shell, Chevron, Entergy among Lott's firm's cap-and-trade clients. Lott is a founding partner in the Breaux-Lott Leadership Group lobbying firm, which lists Shell Oil Co., Entergy Corp., and Chevron Corp. among its clients. According to disclosure forms filed with the Senate Office of Public Records in accordance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act, Breaux-Lott lobbied Congress on behalf of all three companies on H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which would implement cap and trade. Lott himself is listed as lobbying on cap and trade for Chevron and Entergy.
Media frequently allow Lott to comment on issues without noting his clients' interests
Media outlets frequently allow Lott and his partner, former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), to comment on energy policy without noting that they lobby for oil companies.
This time they published incorrect information about the Netherlands that enraged Dutch ministers.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/sea-level-blunder-enrages-dutch-minister
The discovery comes just a week after a prediction about glaciers in the Himalayas proved wrong. Rather than disappearing by 2035, as IPCC reports claim, the original research underlying the report predicted the mountain ice would last until 2350.
GP
You can't shovel money to members of Congress in greater quantities than regulations allow, however now that the Supreme Court has gutted the law, your direct lobbying dollars can go farther.
In 1998 British Petroleum stepped-up to the challenges of the Kyoto summit, pledging to lower its greenhouse gas emissions 10% below 1990 levels by 2010 - they did, by 2007, with no effect on their bottom line.
It can be done, economically - the question is; are we brave enough and smart enough to step up to the challenge.
Or will we be perpetually bounded, like on an old map, with uncharted areas labeled "here be dragons?"
The hits keep on coming and coming.
I'm even doing my part. Proud moment. Cheers!
For example, one of your sources states:
"Climate sceptics have suggested that some of the higher readings may be due not to a warmer atmosphere, but to the so-called "urban heat island effect", where cities become reservoirs of heat and are warmer than the surrounding countryside, especially during the night hours."
Unfortunately, the so-called urban heat island effect is known to be false by several arguments, not just the one the deniers are calling into question. The same goes for the hockey stick and the other areas the deniers are gleefully thinking have been proven false.
(Hint: if a science teacher creates fraudalent data in a gravity experience, do Newton's laws cease to exist?)
As someone posted in another area, if I told you the Colts were going to be a good team this season, you would continue to show a team scoring a touchdown against them and keep touting that instance as proof.
Galatardo is a troll. You may not want to waste time on this thread. It's up to you. Do what you want.
If you look at the links "it" provides, you'll see a mash-up of... well.... whatever...
The underlying point, if you want to call it that, is that these denialists think the IPCC is some nefarious cabal of uber-scientists bent on ruling the world by raisng taxes on all conservatards, like galatardo. Actually, if the IPCC went away right now, it wouldn't change the science at all. It's not the IPCC's role to oversee the science, or how the science is done. (Boy, won't THIS start tardo on a rampage!)
That ain't how science works, but that doesn't matter to denialists. Their "theories" work better with a conspiracy. Without the conspiracy, the denialists position falls like the house of cards it is. BTW - Denialsts really don't have any theories - first they say "it's not warming", then "it's warming but not caused by us", then "it's cooling". I can't keep up with their shifting positions any more. They're crazy people.
Anyway, take a look at its links. What's the message? Nothing.
It thinks just because someone wrote a paper about carbon particles being ONE of the reasons the Himalayan glaciers are melting, it proves.... nothing. The paper still says global warming is playing its role too. No point in particular. Just deflection.
And the article about something with electricity and .... whatever. Not sure what that's all about. Again, deflection.
And finally, these nut-cases can't separate science from politics, ideological crap and policy decisions. The normal person knows they're separate things, but a denialist has no clue what's politics and what's science. It's easier to deflect, when they bring up Al Gore. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed work by Mr. Gore. He's a politician.
Denialists are crazy, disturbed people.
Here's a good site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
PS - I'm SURE galatardo will have some wacked-out response to this. Wait for it.... wait for it.....
I must commend you on your propaganda piece. Your level of attempted manipulation on so many fronts (quite trollish of you) is high level, but alas, your message is ineffective, especially when coupled with your absolutely unhinged demeanor (for someone who throws around the terms "crazy" and "disturbed" and "nut-cases" you aren't exactly coming across as moderately sane).
I can see you are somewhat, to borrow a phrase, disturbed that your weak theory is disintegrating before your eyes, especially given the amount of time you have invested in believing in and promoting AGW. And I see it is quite normal for a deeply-entrenched believer such as yourself to lash out angrily when your reality is threatened.
But none of that changes the science. Your best attempts at "tide's changing" fantasy speak will do nothing to keep AGW from collapsing. The thing you intentionally miss consistently is that you were required to support your theory. And you put your eggs in the CO2 basket and your science failed to prove the theory despite a crescendo of consensus speak.
Your ever-present claims of the premature robustness of AGW theory over the last near-decade are coming back to bite you hard. You did need robust evidence. You failed to provide it. Evidence mounts that natural forcings and variability are the primary climate drivers. And apparently you can't take it. The jig is up. That's reality. Your evidence can be summed up with the greatest quote IMO from all of the emails:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
You got nothing! Science hasn't yet a clue as to how to balance the energy budget. To hinge all of your sustainable development hopes on CO2 was foolish. To claim the evidence was "robust" was delusional. You simply couldn't back it up. In fact, as the knowledge within the field expanded, the evidence for CO2-driven anthropogenic forcing weakened considerably, a weakening trend that continues week after week.
Since you will likely again play manipulator and claim "deflection" or "proves nothing," I'll point out to anyone who happens to read this what is the content of those two links.
The first link is about last week's peer-reviewed paper in Nature that contends, as the headline trumpets, "Amplification of global warming by carbon-cycle feedback significantly less than thought." How significantly? The "nine global-scale temperature reconstructions" exaggerated fivefold the feedback strength of CO2 per degree Celsius.
The headline of the second link also does the article justice: "Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified." While admitting the IPCC's false Himalayan glacier claims were based on "grey literature," the IPCC scientist responsible for authoring the AR4 chapter added:
We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
What would one call that other than pure activist political science? But I know. None of this matters to you. Nothing to see here yet again.
The succession of links I provided, and you again attempted to get people to ignore, speak for themselves, and they as per usual don't say what you claim.
They are the AGW headlines over a short recent period and there are hundreds of such stories that you choose to ignore (denial anyone?). I "cherry-picked" a few gems from the links for your enjoyment. The first one is exceptionally good since you tried to deflect and sneak by with this drivel:
It thinks just because someone wrote a paper about carbon particles being ONE of the reasons the Himalayan glaciers are melting, it proves.... nothing. The paper still says global warming is playing its role too. No point in particular. Just deflection.
To rope you back into reality, here is what the article actually says:
Most of the change in snow and ice cover—about 90 percent—is from aerosols. Black carbon alone contributes at least 30 percent of this sum.
Doesn't leave much room for CO2, does it? But in your world it would be wise to prioritize controlling the maximum 10% attributable to CO2 forcing (and that's being very generous).
Before I give you more quotes from my links, I want to point out another of your deflections. About the article at the link I provided when I said, "I'm even doing my part," you said the following:
And the article about something with electricity and .... whatever. Not sure what that's all about. Again, deflection.
Who is deflecting? That is a link to an article I wrote via comment (upgraded to article) and yep, I'm proud of it. Or did you think I wouldn't be proud of having my research published on the world's most popular (by far) climate science blog? It was one of their top-10 stories of the week. Since you were hoping nobody would read it, here's the headline: "IPCC AR4 references NYT story." Here are some more quotes from the other "no point" links I provided:
The University of East Anglia flouted Freedom of Information regulations in its handling of requests for data from climate sceptics, according to the government body that administers the act.
Last week the charge became more serious when the Information Commissioner's Office said that in withholding information, UEA had broken the law.
There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report...
If we get a new person in with an open mind, prepared to fundamentally review how the IPCC works, we would regain confidence in the organisation. (That's the director of Greenpeace UK speaking, not Richard Lindzen.)
Asserting balance does not make it so. The facts here are what the IPCC should respond to: The IPCC report highlighted a single non-peer reviewed study to make a claim that (a) that study did not support, and (b) that was countered by the entirety of the peer reviewed literature (much of which went uncited)....The only balance that was achieved was between misrepresentation and error.
Almost done. What can I say? Your sorry anti-science troll nature brings out the best in me. Just two more things. You brought up Al Gore (not sure why). And finally, you had a classic mirror moment when you said, "[T]hese nut-cases can't separate science from politics, ideological crap and policy decisions." That coming from one of the most ardent AGW/IPCC-defending Inquisitorial zealots in this joint. Beautiful.
You can go back to praying for more sunspots and a strong ENSO now. Cheers!
You mean like the over 600 peer reviewed article supporting AGW, and the complete lack of them refuting it?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The only one who is anti-science is you. Below you like to a wiki article, an omit the criticisms of it, and then accuse the other side of cherry picking!
To prove your point that AGW is weak, you keep pointing to the false statement by the IPCC about the one glacial problem. Like I said, that would be like playing again and again playing a clip of a team scoring against the Colts and then claiming that the Colts are a bad team. You think that a mistake suddenly undermines decades of solid research.
(Hint: If a scientists gets caught fudging data on gravity, do Newton's laws cease to exist?)
When you can use peer reviewed science to back up your claim, I'll take you seriously. Until then, you are propagandists.
And here is more propaganda. When you link to peer review study, you hype them beyond recognition. The summary of the paper states clearly
"Uncertainty in the magnitude of this feedback has led to a wide range in projections of current global warming: about 40% of the uncertainty in these projections comes from this source."
In other words, scientists are trying don't clearly understand this. The debate right now is how bad the warming will be. No one has disputed this uncertainty, so I can't think why you would trumpet an article coming to a different conclusion than before.
This doesn't in any way undermine AGW. (Do you have any links to real scientists who claim otherwise?)
Pointing to a study that comes to a different conclusion about feedback and trumpeting this as undermining AGW is just dishonest on your part, as dishonest as linking to a wiki article using the Wegman report, but omitting the obvious problems with that report. Like I said, pure propaganda.
Since you conceded that those accusations were false in your other comment (for the record you repeat those accusations at the end of your second comment here), nothing else needs to be said about it. One other thing:
The only one who is anti-science is you.
I guess that's your opinion. Allow me to share mine. Judging by your posts on this subject I can say with near certainty that I have investigated the science behind AGW in far more depth than you have over this last decade. Anyway, you go on:
To prove your point that AGW is weak, you keep pointing to the false statement by the IPCC about the one glacial problem. Like I said, that would be like playing again and again playing a clip of a team scoring against the Colts and then claiming that the Colts are a bad team...When you can use peer reviewed science to back up your claim, I'll take you seriously.
On that last note first, come on yet again. I believe I reference peer-reviewed articles more than just about anyone posting about AGW on this site. There are plenty of articles to choose from as previously noted.
Maybe, rather than dismiss them so reflexively, you can actually read some of those papers from the link with hundreds of papers that do not support the AGW theory I provided. After all, I thought scientific discovery was about bringing an open mind to all of the evidence. Well open your mind and take a more thorough inventory of the actual full body of science taking place beyond your blinders.
Back to your quote, I have pointed out many issues with the IPCC, not just the glaciers, and please do not forget, despite SLR's protests that they are not important to the science, what happens with the IPCC is crucial to what happens with AGW.
The theory was primarily a political construction, not a scientific one, and the IPCC was supposed to represent the mechanism by which the world would adapt to and potentially avoid catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
Regardless, since you seem such a fan of peer review, the activist science within IPCC AR4 is not limited to the Himalayan issue (funny how those lowly pesky blogs are the ones by and large exposing the peer-review process of the IPCC, eh?).
Actually there is so much in AR4 (15,000-plus references) that any curious mind can have a go at it. Here. Have some fun like I did and do a search for your favorite NGO or newspaper.
Last night I found references to the National Resources Defense Council, World Resources Institute, Friends of the Earth, Worldwatch Institute, and Union of Concerned Scientists. Maybe a new story for WUWT in the works, no? Another day, another chip. (Psst! That one's peer-reviewed). We're getting close to "mercy rule" territory at this point. I doubt the IPCC will survive this, but if it does, it will be an entity entirely transformed.
To return to your football analogy to describe the AGW debate, I have a different version of it that I believe is far more accurate. I'll use the 18-1 Patriots from 2007 as the example. Here you had a team that looked exceedingly strong and after a month or so of convincing victories, more and more analysts claimed they were unstoppable and that grew into the consensus idea until they finally reached the record-breaking 18-0 mark, shattering many other long-standing records along the way. All of the talk leading up to the Super Bowl was about the Patriots and their potential perfect season. Little attention was paid to the New York Giants who had made it into the playoffs as a wild card. In fact, they were largely discounted from contention.
The alarmist AGW theory = the vaunted Patriots, overly hyped, overtly selected as the top dog; AGW skepticism = the wild card Giants, marginalized and largely ignored. And you know how that story ended.
You can retreat to your ivory tower and claim victory, but that won't keep skeptics like me from eventually toppling your poorly-constructed house of cards. The AGW theory may look strong on the outside to the casual observer or apparent dabbler such as yourself, but it doesn't really take that much effort to knock the shine off the facade and see AGW's ugly and flimsy sides. To your second comment, in regards to the Nature paper you say:
And here is more propaganda. When you link to peer review study, you hype them beyond recognition.
Slow down. Hyped beyond recognition? Please. Maybe you can read again what I actually said because them's the facts. The feedback strength of CO2 per degree celsius was found to be grossly exaggerated. Spin it however you want, call it dishonest, whatever, but that is what the paper said.
Throw in your error bars for uncertainty and you are still exaggerating the CO2 feedback to the tune of at minimum three times the true median. That is inconsequential to you? A scientific paper comes out that states that CO2 forcing in the reconstructions has been ridiculously overstated and this "doesn't in any way undermine AGW"?
Have it your way. Just don't try to claim that you can assess this on a scientific level. You and many other pro-AGW commenters here speak on a wholly emotional level rather than on the basis of the science. Study of this period and the effects of "pure propaganda" on public perceptions will make for many a social science dissertation in the coming decades. Unfortunately for you, in my opinion you and SLR will make good test subjects.
I see that you have not been "untouched by the propaganda" as most of what you claim is IMO false and not supported by the science. The evidence that CO2 added by man is what may be heating the Earth up is weaker than ever, and I add that it was never even strong to begin with.
I do not agree with most of what you say, but you are unintentionally right in at least one respect: "AGW is real and man made" (though I would have said "manufactured" instead of "made"). As to your other points, you say:
[T]he so-called urban heat island effect is known to be false by several arguments...
No, actually, it isn't. There is a UHI effect. I didn't think that was in dispute. What is disputed is how well the effect is accounted for in the adjustment protocols maintained by the major providers of the temperature data. Needless to say, the topic has not been settled just yet.
"The evidence mounts daily" that surface temperature data, the data spliced onto the hockey stick to "hide the decline" and manufacture the blade is warm biased. UHI is not the crux of the matter here though, just a component. In regards to Mann's stick work you state:
The same goes for the hockey stick and the other areas the deniers are gleefully thinking have been proven false.
"Deniers" don't think it has been proven false. Skeptics know it has been proven false and the evidence supports that contention as I noted here. Since that report, the dismantling of the stick has continued in earnest. So if knowing the truth makes me gleeful, then I'm guilty as charged.
As for your 600 peer-reviewed articles, your statement makes it sound as though peer review is a one-way, pro-AGW street. It is not. Your Colts analogy doesn't hold water and for the record, I'm a Patriots fan. Go Saints! Regardless of who you are rooting for, enjoy your weekend.
"As for your 600 peer-reviewed articles, your statement makes it sound as though peer review is a one-way, pro-AGW street. It is not."
There are *note* 500 papers. What you linked to is a popular blog listing 500 articles, none of which are peer reviewed. Yet you fell for the hype. If you want to know the real record, look here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Oreskes is a real science historian, and the article appeared in a real scientific journal. At the time of the writing, there were over 600 peer reviewed papers that supported global warming, and *none* that refuted it. Since that time, a few papers have appeared to refute global warming, but the scientists have pointed out the flawed nature of these articles each time.
>>The evidence that CO2 added by man is what may be heating the Earth up is weaker than ever, and I add that it was never even strong to begin with.
Again, see the Oreskes article. The theory is one of the most robust theories in science, supported by multiple lines of reasoning.
The UHI effect is not the controversy you claim. You link to a bunch of denialists, but surprise! Not one peer reviewed article that refutes it.
>>Skeptics know it has been proven false
That is outright false. The National Academy of Science has ruled on the hockey stick theory and found it to be true. You linked to yourself, and linked to the Wegman study. But here comes the surprise: that was not peer reviewed! From your *own* link:
"The report was not subject to formal peer review by paleoclimatologists"
And
"Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstruction"
And
"Mann has himself said that the report 'uncritically parrots claims by two Canadians (an economist and a mineral-exploration consultant) that have already been refuted by several papers in the peer-reviewed literature inexplicably neglected by Barton's 'panel'. These claims were specifically dismissed by the National Academy in their report just weeks ago.'"
WOOPS! Did you even read your own link?
I know the game you denailists like to play. You like to link to the bogus propaganda you have created in order to prove your point. But none of your porpaganda is peer reviewed.
When you can start using peer reviewed science to back up your argument, I'll take you seriously. Otherwise, you are simply a propagandist.
My bad. I see that you did read the criticism of the Wegman report. Why in God's name would you think Wegaman has any validity in light of these criticisms, especially since the the National Academy ( real science body) dismissed them, and since they have been "refuted" in peer review literature? Do you just think if you post a lot of words you somehow prove a point?
Let me get this straight: you are gleeful that the hockey stick has been disproved, but then you link to an article that refutes your claim, you acknowledge this refutation, but then pretend it doesn't matter, still pretend that you have absolute proof?
And you call us zealots?
Wow!
Excellent!
What you linked to is a popular blog listing 500 articles, none of which are peer reviewed. Yet you fell for the hype.
To borrow yet another phrase, that "is outright false." Come on now. You are not the first to make that baseless claim. Aside from the fact that in just one of the other links I provided are included five peer-reviewed papers/comments on just the subject of UHI alone, to say that none of the papers at the 500 articles link are peer reviewed is "bogus propaganda."
What do you think, people can't just start clicking on the links to prove you wrong? I guess I'll have to remove the following from my list of peer-reviewed publications since they are represented in the list:
Nature, Science, International Journal of Climatology, Geophysical Research Letters, Climate Research, Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, Physical Review Letters, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Nature Geoscience, Environmental Geosciences, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Journal of Climate, International Journal of Modern Physics, Climatic Change, Solar Physics, Quaternary Science Reviews, Climate Dynamics, Environmental Geology, Science of the Total Environment, Annals of Glaciology, Global and Planetary Change, Astronomical Notes, Quaternary Research, Holocene, Energy & Environment, Pure and Applied Geophysics, Astronomy & Geophysics, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Ambio, Space Science Reviews, Theoretical and Applied Climatology, GeoJournal, Climate of the Past, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, American Scientist, Geology, Surveys in Geophysics, Environmental Research, Weather, Nature Geoscience, International Journal of Biometeorology, Ecological Complexity, Interfaces, Paleoceanography, Astrophysical Journal...
Shall I go on? There are dozens more peer-reviewed publications in the list, but you get the point hopefully. Go ahead and read some of the abstracts and then come back and defend your claim. More from you:
You link to a bunch of denialists, but surprise! Not one peer reviewed article that refutes it.
Again, please read before posting. A link to a paper in Geophysical Research Letters on UHI (the first one I provided) is a "link to a bunch of denialists?" And that paper wasn't peer-reviewed? But you're right. It was "not one peer reviewed article" but many. At the second link, as mentioned you apparently missed the succession of links to peer-reviewed papers from Pielke on UHI?
So again, just so I can have the record straight, papers published in Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research, and International Journal of Climatology are apparently not peer reviewed in your world? Or is it that these articles don't actually even exist and are a figment of my imagination?
Now let's move on to your revisionist history in regards to the NAS/Wegman studies of the hockey stick. Let's start with the facts, and a quote from Michael Mann rarely suffices (no exception with your quote from him--who exactly is falling for the hype here?).
It is important to point out first that a large percentage of the Wikipedia articles about climate change were written, edited, or monitored by William Connelly until just a few months ago. I included that Wiki Wegman link so warming alarmists wouldn't try to claim bias.
Back to the stick. The NAS/NRC study came first, followed by the Wegman report. Edward Wegman is chair of the NAS CATS (yes, the same NAS) so you can stop trying to marginalize him. In your second comment you summarize your take on this by saying:
Let me get this straight: you are gleeful that the hockey stick has been disproved, but then you link to an article that refutes your claim, you acknowledge this refutation, but then pretend it doesn't matter, still pretend that you have absolute proof?
Really? So at the Wikipedia link you apparently missed what Gerald North, chairman of the same NAS/NRC hockey stick study, said about the Wegman study:
In testimony when asked if he disputed the methodology conclusions of Wegman's report, he stated that "No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false."
So which is it? Was Wegman wrong or right? Right according to the chair of the NAS/NRC study, but wrong according to you and Mann. And how exactly is me having included the criticism of the Wegman report "acknowledg[ing] this refutation?" Isn't that just offering a balanced view of the matter (or at least as balanced as Wikipedia can offer on the topic)?
Please review the findings of Wegman and the criticisms of it I highlighted. The conclusions far from refute the findings. In fact, given that North did not dispute "the methodology conclusions of Wegman's report," please explain to me how you can claim that the hockey stick is alive and well when reviewing these conclusions:
The report claimed that the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data....Many of the same proxies are reused in most of the "independent studies" so these "cannot really claim to be independent verifications"....Overall, the committee believes that Mann's assessments, that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium, cannot be supported by his analysis.
We'll finish here with your combined parting shots from both messages:
I know the game you denailists like to play. You like to link to the bogus propaganda you have created in order to prove your point. But none of your porpaganda is peer reviewed. When you can start using peer reviewed science to back up your argument, I'll take you seriously. Otherwise, you are simply a propagandist....And you call us zealots?
Actually, really there isn't much to say here. I have disproved your points about bogus propaganda, lack of peer review, and my own personal citations of peer-reviewed studies.
I guess the last thing I'll correct is your claim that I called you a zealot. Actually, I called SLURTAX a zealot, though, in light of your responses, I concede that you are much further toward the extreme end of the alarmist bell curve than I initially thought. Cheers!
Excellent!!!
Keep up the good work galileonardo!
Cap and trade is going absolutely nowhere in the U.S., and never will.
This is because of the U.S. senate, not my personal views.
One way or another, the government will raise taxes on everything including energy. That is what they do best.
Sweden has the coldest January temperatures since 1824.
Washington DC has the worst snow storm in its history
China has the coldest temperatures in generations.
Wow. We are just burning up from global warming.
Oh yes, I know, this is just weather, not climate.
GP