Avery: Are Politics Realigning for a Non-Warming Planet? (PJM Exclusive)
As the Copenhagen climate conference tirelessly discusses the “evidence of climate change,” it also asserts the need for massive energy taxes and energy “rationing” to prevent still more climate disruption.
That’s a bait-and-switch tactic. The discussion has never been about the planet’s historically variable climate. It’s always been whether humans caused climate change.
To date, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has never offered any evidence of a “human fingerprint” on the modest (0.5 degrees Celsius) warming that occurred between the 1850s end of the Little Ice Age and 1940. They haven’t even given us a convincing story about the 0.2 degree Celsius warming that occurred from 1940 to 1998 (part of that tiny warming has disappeared). James Hansen’s predictions of massive overheating, given to the Senate in 1988, have been overtaken by a quiet sun and a telling drop in global ocean temperatures.
The public has noticed there’s been none of the long-predicted runaway warming — or any warming at all since 1998. They’re reading the Climategate emails of the “consensus scientists” confessing they don’t know why warming stopped. That’s a huge confession.
The public cares less and less for tired scare stories of a parboiled planet.
Are the world’s political parties now suddenly realigning on the basis of non-warming? Have global warming taxes become the Greens’ defining moment?
Australia’s Senate has just thrown out its long-time Liberal (conservative) leader, Malcolm Turnbull. He’d agreed with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that Australia should suppress greenhouse emissions. In his place, the Liberals elected conservative Tony Abbott, who has often called man-made warming a fad. He knows heavy fossil fuel taxes would penalize the coal that provides Australia’s electricity and much of its exports.
The Senate immediately rejected Rudd’s cherished cap-and-trade plan, and Rudd may now have to call a snap Australian national election.
Yet, another superb article from Pajamas Media.
Let’s hope you have just detected a real tipping point Sir.
Perhaps Algore could trade those carbon credits to ‘The Evil One’ who needs to offset all those sulfur fumes, although one suspects he doesn’t believe in that place, or the other one, or has anything left to sell. How’s that Gaia workin’ out Mr.Algore?
Just think; no more lame excuses not to drill for oil or build nuclear plants. No reason not to buy the light bulb your want. No more legislators wasting time on laws that tell you what kind of TV you can buy.
And no more politicians who believe in the hoax of “global warming” or “climate change” or any other wild idea that has no basis in reality.
“Australia’s Senate has just thrown out its long-time Liberal … leader, Malcolm Turnbull.”
Um, no, the Senate, with Liberal Party members voting with their coalition partners, the Nationals, voted against the ETS and won the day with the support of the Greens (who actually do want an ETS, but a far tougher one) and some independent senators. It was the Liberal Party members (from both the House of Representatives, the lower House, and from the Senate) who voted for a new leader of the Parliamentary party. The “long-time” leader had the job for only a year. I know that a week is a long time in politics, but still…
The PM does not need to call a snap election but, if the Senate thrice reject a Bill, then he has what is called a double dissolution trigger, and could try to call an election wherein the voters would elect a full quota of senators for each State (instead of the usual half) along with voting for one member of the House of Representatives.
Section 57 of the Australian Constitution:
A few questions regarding your hotel stay:
1. Would it be too difficult for the hotel chain in question to simply do away with electric lighting altogether and use candles instead?
2. Do burning candles emmit C02 and thus contribute to Global warming?
3.
3. Would it be too difficult for the hotel chain in question to do away with lighting altogether?
4. Who exactly calculated the hotel’s carbon neutrality, and how is it exactly offset?
5. Who exactly profits from this hotel? Or are we to believe it is also profit neutral?
Above, when I say “voting for one member of the House of Representatives,” I mean that each of Australia’s 150 federal electorates returns one member. My State, Tasmania, the smallest in size and population has only five MHRs out of 150, but, rightly, twelve out of 76 senators in the Senate. (Each of the original six States has twelve senators, and there are two each from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.)
Here’s to hoping you’re right. The whole Global Warming thing has been a triumph of marketing and positioning over sense for far too long.
Just as American Indians once danced around the fire to make it rain out west, global warming gurus are huddling in Copenhagen to make it cool.
However, even the offer of free nookie from Copenhagen’s infamous tarts hasn’t kept old Al Gore from taking a pass, contrary to Obama’s late decision—to give a speech, of course.
He had struck out royally there on Chicago’s bid for the Olympics, but whatever.
In any event, Copenhagen won’t matter. EPA’s actions will. Sad. But good for friend Dennis Avery—crying in the wilderness for so long but now validated.
Mr. Avery,
You’re missing an important point by saying that it’s not about “Warming” generally. If the “warming” cannot be proven … and it cannot … then man’s influence on the “warming” becomes irrelevant.
Instead, you simply assume as a given that the warming has occurred. How is this different from the assumption that man has caused it?
Since you’ve bought into the “warming” so fervently; I assume that you wouldn’t mind PROVING IT!
PROVE IT! PROVE IT HERE! PROVE IT NOW!
Or, admit to being a dupe and a fraud. These are really the only two choices.
You wrote, “the modest (0.5 degrees Celsius) warming that occurred between the 1850s end of the Little Ice Age and 1940″.
Will you prove this? Or will you continue to propagate this lie, just as those you’re criticizing have?
We dont’ know for sure if the world is warming but instead of playing-it-safe and possibly saving the planet, we should continue to live like Americans, “free”, to over-consume, polute, and direspect the planet until each and every American believes in Global Warming. Until then we do nothing, the GOP way! A huge majority of scientist that study this believe that the world is warming and a maority of them believe that it is significantly augmented by man. But we should instead listen to the polls of ordinatry citizens, like Sarah Palin, because they know that gloabl warming couldn’t be happening, I just doesn’t make sense. Who cares if this is not only a issue that if denied, could cause serious irreversible damage, but it could also save our enconomy. If the global warming was a hoax then it would be a hugely porfitable hoax that could position the US in a market that the whole world will eventually need to rally behind and we have a chance to be leaders. The only problem is Obama agrees with this approach so it must be wrong. Great!
Uriel, I believe you miss the point. There has been warmimg (and cooling) in recent history (last 1,000 years). I didn’t think anyone actually disputes it. There’s just no proof we (mankind) had anything to do with it. If we had nothing to do with it, how can we “fix” it? The fact that the “fix” has nothing to do with actually cleaning anything up and merely tries to curtail human activities for political reasons is what we’re talking about. It’s a bait and switch con.
It seems to me we need a lot of messengers to tell all of the Emporer’s and the Emporer wana be’s that they are naked. Perhsp then some reality will set in and Alo Gores house and plane will be on the bankruptcy aucition block long after he occupies a cell for fraud.
12. stoneman1:
“We dont’ know for sure if the world is warming but instead of playing-it-safe and possibly saving the planet, we should continue to live like Americans, “free”, to over-consume, polute, and direspect the planet until each and every American believes in Global Warming.”
Saving the planet? I wasn’t aware that there were any planet ending calamities on the horizon. It takes a lot to destroy a planet… ordinarily an impact from a very large object would be required.
Continue to live like Americans? Shall we live like Masai, or perhaps the Maori? (Dont answer that…)
Over consume? What is the correct amount to consume?
Pollute? Sorry but we’re proportionally doing a better job than most once you factor out the fictitious inclusion of CO2 into the equation.
Disrespect the planet… I’m sorry but the planet doesn’t actually care what you think!
It is obvious those still supporting AGW after the release of these emails have a political/financial agenda and depise america, and are more than willing to stab america in the back in the name of global environmental socialism. We now have the ammunition to challenge and defeat these frauds in debate. Make no mistake about it, AGW is history. The socialist democrats who continue to ignore this will pay a heavy political price in the upcoming elections.
it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings, i just noticed the “cartoon channel” is re-running those idiotic “captain planet” cartoons again. not just propaganda, but bad, boring and clumsy, overdone propaganda.
stoneman1@ 12; The issue isn’t really the warming, it’s the fraud perpetrated in the name of AGW and the massive transfer of wealth to third-world nations. Your economic argument is flat-out wrong re: profiting from this as a nation, but very few well-positioned individuals would, yes. Leaders? More like lemmings!
And, as with most of your like-minded ideologues, you seem to think that all history started w/ the anointment of your messiah. The rational-thinkers have been opposed to the obvious fraud since long before any of us even heard the name obama.
out
Good GOD. Is there not ONE person who will back up their UNFOUNDED claim that the Earth has warmed over the last 150 yrs, and PROVE IT?
“The issue isn’t really warming”?
“Nobody disputes it”?
Seriously?
I DISPUTE IT.
It is YOUR claim, YOU must PROVE IT.
If you can’t, why should anyone listen to you? Why would anyone listen to anyone who makes outrageous claims and then REFUSES to back them up with proof?
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
Why has this simple point eluded so many people?
I’ll wait.
(but I won’t be holding my breath)
#19 Uriel
Basic summary that’s accessible by the avg person. Possibly even you.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Therein one can find the reconstruction showing the MWP and the LIA.
Oh, and please STFU. Adults are speaking here.
stoneman1:
we should continue to live like Americans, “free”, to over-consume, polute, and direspect the planet
NONE of what you claim is true. This is just left-wing BS. Who are YOU to tell citizens how to spend their money.
Stop telling people that they “disrespect the planet”. That is just nonsense. Grow up. Learn to think for yourself. Stop spouting Communist agitprop.
Stop thinking that you can somehow sidestep your own mediocrity (or worse) and lack of accomplishment by wrapping yourself in some self serving and narcissistic rhetoric about “saving the planet”. You give not one fig for the “environment”–it is all just a hustle and a dodge for you–and in any event, the environment is just fine. You are not fooling the adults.
This is really what you object to: A prosperous and independent middle class.
You HATE the idea that someone can earn his way and prosper and you cannot. You want to drag us all down to your level of irrelevance. You will have a civil war first.
I tell you who is “over consuming”, the parasitic, Democrat/socialist Nomenklatura in the government, academia and the NGO’s. They do not honestly and honorably earn a living; they suck the blood of the productive and the decent, and then live the high-life at the taxpayers expense while they lie to them. They produce nothing of positive value whatsoever. They are trying to pull us back to the middle ages. They have corrupted every institution that they have touched.
If the is any group that is “over consuming” it is them. They should be fordce to repay all that they have stolen.
Warming is questionable over the past fifty years and OUT OF THE QUESTION for the past ten. If you take Briffa’s data/formulae off the table (and you should) and you put an end to “Mike’s nature trick” of pasting thermometer temps over the past fifty years to a chart of PROXY temps that ENDS fifty years ago, the hockey stick disappears… and without Briffa’s tree rings from ONE tree, the Medieval Warm Period reappears.. and presto, you see that recent temps are just not warming, certainly not since 1998, and the recent decline is enough to erase the warming of the past century.. IT AIN’T HAPPENIN…
So get this right, Avery, cuz it’s IMPORTANT.
Theres some lib bull going around about co2 lasting in the atmosphere for 100 years. And more bull about methane being the 2nd most common greenhouse gas. FIRST OF ALL-WATER VAPOR is the most common greenhouse gas. You cant have precip without water vapor. And hate to tell you commiegreens-50% of co2 is absorbed by PLANTS and plankton, which is needed by both to SURVIVE. COMMIEGREEN IDIOTS WANT TO DESTROY MANKIND-DESTROY PLANTS. No plants, no food for animals, no oxygen for the plants to breathe out. And by the way Leftycommies-79% of the eaths atmosphere is NITROGEN. When you going to blame THAT for your failures?
Oh “stoneman”. I noticed you said “continue to live like Americans”. Guess what commiepig. Your fellow commies RED CHINA happen to be the most polluted country on the planet. Ever been to East Germany? tell me brains ofstone, why is it that 3mile island is still there, but no one can get anywhere near Chernobyl? No, brains of stone, your PROBLEM is with FREEDOM. Your real problem is you are plain stupid. Too stupid to think for yourself, too stupid for common sense. Please peddle your wares on DAILY KOOKS. Or you can join your envirocommie hero MAURICE STRONG and live in COMMIE RED CHINA. I will remind you the Chinese are creators of the worlds oldest and most brutal forms of torture. While your at it, you can join Anita Dunn and think of MAO as your favorite “philosopher”. Karl Marx with a little yellow bigotry thrown in.
D. Avery…
Actual science being done here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/how-climategate-ranks-in-a-media-interest-index/
Interesting to me is that this has application beyond climate crap; it’s actual PROOF beyond any possible doubt that the media is biased and trying to create news rather than merely report it.
We have all heard about media bias. Dr Spencer has just invented the metric that shows it beyond a doubt. This will work for anything.
Did you know that Google is not auto-suggesting “climategate” despite this being a word more popular than 95% of what IS autosuggested? Of course it’s mere coincidence that one the google board members is a corpulent blowhard with a [stolen] Oscar for his propaganda film.
#12 stoneman
If you want to invoke Pascal’s Wager you’re going to have to be careful and clever enough to provide a similar scenario. Given that you invoked it but are seemingly unaware of the name of it, chances are that you’re the lefty regurgitating parrot version of some of the far right wingnuts that often infest this place. Your argument is constructed on top of this (and rather poorly.) FAIL.
#23 — Dave So get this right, Avery, cuz it’s IMPORTANT.
Just because one is paranoid does NOT mean that they’re not out to get you. Similarly, a lull is a lull and not evidence that there is no warming. The world is rebounding from the LIA temps and this looks to continue in the longer term (say 100 years.) The only viable question is to ask whether or not this is natural.
Chernobyl’s just fine- nobody lives there because the government tells them not to live there, not because it isn’t safe. Sure the Cs-137 levels are a little high, but the radiation isn’t much above background. The wildlife has adapted just fine.
So man did not invent carbon dioxide after all, only Coke, Ginger Ale and other bubbly drinks! Damn! I don’t even know where I can git myself some carbon discredits!
#26 Mr. Alston,
While we’re talking about lulls, have you seen the SUN LATELY???
IF there is a lull that has not rebounded, its the lack of flares/sunspots and the reduction in solar radiation coming to earth. The new cycle, #24, is now years overdue. And counting. Another Maunder Minimum is entirely possible, and if it has begun, the ‘ice age’ feared by the mid 1970′s leftish cognescenti will indeed arrive forthwith.
This flat dead sun is clearly and painfully related to global temps, as recent history shows.. the cold temps of the time of Napoleon’s failed Russian winter campaign, decades worth of cold, are related to the Maunder Minimum of the beginning of that century, the relative lack of observed sunspots by solar observers of the time.. same goes for the little ice age..
I have yet to buy into the idea that we’ve rebounded into more warming. I think it warmed for about twenty years from the late ’70s on, and has cooled since then. Certainly the recent cool has knocked off all the ‘AGW’ of the past century.
We had snow in Dallas this week, and Houston got its earliest snow EVER… it’s going to snow in Sacramento tonight and drop to well below freezing. Los ANgeles might see snow, for God’s sake.
Google is merely a good word. So, I’ll google on Bing from now on.
21. G.L. Alston:
#19 Uriel
Basic summary that’s accessible by the avg person. Possibly even you.
The American Thinker piece in no way proves that it has warmed in the last 150 years; in fact it ASSUMES the warming as a given, just as you do.
I ask you to prove an unfounded claim, you throw a red herring and tell me to STFU. Nice.
Actually, Mr. Avery is not quite right. The fundamental question isn’t whether man’s activities are causing the warming but rather whether man’s activities can or should be used to reduce the warming. If we had a natural warming process occurring it would be reasonable to consider whether we ought to try to do something about it. (I suspect strongly that the answer would turn out to be “no,” just as it is for anthropogenic warming.)
In this natural warming scenario, where irrational appeals to guilt for economic productivity would be excluded, the political lineup and the proposed actions for mitigation would probably be completely different. The leading proposals to cool the planet would be geoengineering solutions and the biggest opponents to doing something about global warming would be the Greens. Think about it.
Anyone want to take another shot at PROVING that the earth has warmed over the last 150 years.
Re Copenhagen,
These kind of gatherings generate a mass-hysteria for a common cause.
Like George Orwell’s Animal Farm book, where mass hysteria meant one pig
overtrumping another in self-sacrificial willingness
- except here it’s always someone else (not the jet-setting politicians) who has
to make the sacrifice…
“We must all cut down to save the planet”
There is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with CO2 emission
limits set as deemed necessary)
and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would
– limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
– make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
No need to legislate for it.
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x
And since when do light bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
Not like cars.
And cars are taxed.
They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy
efficient alternatives.
Governments make money on the reduced sales, they can pay for CO2
emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.
Yes, taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.
Few seem to know about the industrial politics behind the supposedly
environmentally justified bans
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
Too late the EPA is bypassing congress and Copenhagan!
Scrambling because she knows it is falling apart.
Can’t stop her! We are screwed
4. BackwardsBoy:
You have just come up with the death of the democrat party.
obmammy mammy is a traitor, his followers are enemies of the nation. Thy are miserable un gorebal warming lying pukes.
CRU Shill: “If the global warming was a hoax then it would be a hugely porfitable hoax that could position the US in a market that the whole world will eventually need to rally behind and we have a chance to be leaders”
Give it up. I am NOT buying your carbon credits. Maybe you can use them as toilet paper? And remember, one square at a time please.
Uriel: Are you stuck on stupid or merely acting that way? It’s warmed. It’s cooled. It goes round and round. Prove you exist and I’ll get back to you.
For all the trees that have been felled to make paper so that the AGW “scientists” could tell us that the earth is warming and we need massive govt regulation to stop this warming, I have one simple question:
What is the ideal global temperature that we should be aiming for?
Has anyone seen an answer to this question? I haven’t. Don’t you think it’s a little odd that for all the hype over the past few decades over the horrors of global warming that not one of the alleged experts has mentioned what the ideal global temperature should be? The reason we’ve never seen such an answer is that if we ever had the planet reach that temperature, the left would be robbed of the issue that provides the opportunity to impose massive govt control over us all. I could ask several other questions that the AGW alarmists have no answer to.
Don’t expect the left to give up on global warming/climate change because of some inconvenient emails that prove what a fraud the whole issue is. The issue is not the environment, that is just a vehicle. If George Bush (or anyone else besides Barack Obama) could snap his fingers and magically fix the GW “problem,” do you think liberals, in their heart of hearts, would be happy about it? I don’t. The issue is about govt control. Instinctively, the left wants to be able to dictate to the masses what kind of cars to drive, light bulbs to use, what kind of food to eat, etc, etc, etc… Govt regulation “to save Mother Earth” is the (last?) best way to do it. Socialism got discredited, so something had to take its place. Thus was born the “global warming” myth.
Make no mistake, the environment is not the issue.
It’s about starting a new industry to get rich off of. gore is in on the ground floor. The really cool part is “they” get rich while they spread “our”" wealth around.
The AGW moonbats are running scared. I think that because sites that support the AGW fraud are starting to delete posts about Hadley CRU and Climategate.
Over the next few days you will see the paid fools flooding the web with gushing articles on how they are saving the planet. It won’t matter. Let the moonbats bark. AGW is a fraud. No amount of baying at the moon will change that.
The politicians will make happy faces and soothing noises to the swampies, but nothing more will happen.
#29 Dave I have yet to buy into the idea that we’ve rebounded into more warming. I think it warmed for about twenty years from the late ’70s on, and has cooled since then. Certainly the recent cool has knocked off all the ‘AGW’ of the past century.
Look at a longer term. You’re one of the “last 10 years is flat, therefore there ain’t no warming” people. You’re wrong.
See the answer to [troll] uriel — look at the American Thinker summation. It’s been warming on the rebound from the LIA for 150 years. The info is accurate. Vikings called the place they discovered ‘greenland’ for a reason. In the 1100′s it was perfect for farming. It froze over in the 1600′s. It’s still ice now. There’s nothing unprecedented here, nor would there be if you could plant grapes there again. Try looking at something beyond 30 years; that’s relatively meaningless. The trend since 1850 has been warming. It seems natural. This warming may well continue after a few years, but this doesn’t mean we need to wet our panties about it or paint a temporary hiatus as evidence that the LIA was imaginary.
Oh, and there was another spotless mimima cycle around 1913. A lull may last 10-50 years, but this doesn’t overturn a general trend. Similarly there was a “roman optimum” and the following dark ages were cold enough to set back progress for a very long time. Yes the climate change of the day affected the roman empire (it got cold right around the time the empire started to crumble, causing crop failures, etc. Coincidence? Not entirely.) Over the centuries the climate changes. And right now we’re still rebounding from the last big cold spell.
The AGW does have one thing correct, and like all big lies this is the kernel of truth: man is emitting lots of CO2 and in effect running an open ended experiment. We don’t know whether this is significant, and if so, whether this results in nicer winters here in MN or a frozen tundra better suited for mastodons and penguins. What is clearly needed is more data and understanding. I’d be more willing to DO SOMETHING NOW if there was assurance that my back yard would be buried under a mile of ice. That’s a great deal more frightening than milder winters. My guess is that you plant stuff (e.g. fast growing CO2 loving bamboo) which soaks up the CO2 and this eventually erases the increase; this seems a great deal more effective than letting the socialists tax us into oblivion.
#32 srp — (I suspect strongly that the answer would turn out to be “no,” just as it is for anthropogenic warming.)
If the LHC at CERN ‘cloud’ experimants turn out as expected, this will validate Svensmark’s cosmic ray cloud seeding hypothesis. Water vapor is 90% of all greenhouse gas. You can’t exactly put up cosmic ray deflector shields. Not yet anyway. Seems that Milankovich cycles may have something to do with galactic positioning, etc. as per the recent long term analysis by that one Israeli scientist (sorry but I forgot his name) who showed that the ‘snowball earth’ ice ages just so happen to occur depending on where we are in our orbit about the galactic center. Whether this is THE 900 lb gorilla or just one of many factors is unknown (obviously.) You may want to read Lubos Motl at The Reference Frame blog.
Couple of corrections to your correction deadman at #5
Yes it was the Australian Liberal Party that changed leaders not the Senate, and yes that was followed by the Senate rejecting the ETS by the Labor Party being stuck in the middle between Libs/Nats thinking it went too far on one side and the Greens saying not far enough on the other (despite two Libs crossing the floor, for our US readers this is much rarer in Westminster parliamentary systems and is usually very much frowned upon). But a bill only has to be rejected twice by the Senate, not thrice as you stated, to give Rudd the option of calling a double dissolution (snap) election – which means he could do it now. And while the fact that all senators are up for re-election in a double dissolution instead of the usual half (halves the number of votes required to be elected to the Senate, this is the quota you describe), the real point of a DD is that a joint sitting is held afterward to vote on the legislation that triggered it. Because there are many more members of the House of Reps than the Senate as you point out, this usually results in the legislation being passed. So if Rudd wants the thing passed, he has to call an election – and he has caved and decided not to do it. And that’s the important point – he blinked.
There are two reasons why this might be – 1) he is worried about more Greens getting in in a DD (quite likely), and 2) he’s worried he might actually lose the House. So he’d rather see the ETS die than take either risk. Which gives the lie to his “we have to act now” talk, if he really cared he would have negotiated with the Greens to get it passed. He’s stuck between a rock and a hard place, he can amend it to make the Greens happy to vote for it which would be electoral suicide when the impact was felt, or he can go to an election to get it passed which he is obviously worried he might lose. He’s not an idiot and he can see which way the wind is blowing. He really could lose an election on cap and trade, and even if he won they would carry all the blame when it starts to bite for having passed it without Liberal/National support. Plus he would never get anything passed again without negotiating with the Greens for his next term (because they would get most of the warmist moonbat vote and probably double their representation in the Senate). So he’s going with option 3 – continue the empty rhetoric about urgent action while hoping to pressure the Libs into supporting it in February so they share the electoral pain to stop them using the issue as a hammer at the next election.
So although Mr Avery’s details were incorrect, his point is valid – the politics seem to be re-aligning. We’re just lucky he didn’t call us Austria
Sorry for the long diatribe US readers, we dodged a bullet by less than 3 days and I wanted to set the record straight.
#43 LTW. Thanks for the clarification. BTW would Australia be interested in a slightly used, I mean useless, president.
Not much point really Paul. We’ve already got a do-nothing leader who loves to hear himself talk, flies round the world embarrassing us, spends massive amounts of tax money on not much, wants to reform health care, and wants an ETS. He’s just a lighter and dorkier
It is an Inconvenient truth that there is no valid evidence that global warming is real or that it is man-made. The problem is that the global warming alrmists belief is akin to religious fervor. It will take a lot to stop them and even more to reverse the damage that they have caused.