Obama has said that if Congress does not pass a substantive climate bill, he will use executive orders to implement one
By Michael Bastasch –
Shortly after Democrats held a 14-hour “Climate Talkathon,” Republicans took to the Senate floor to slam Democratic calls for climate regulations that would raise energy costs for families.
Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said that while global warming is a serious issue, lawmakers need to approach it with a “level of humility and a level of respect” for the impact it will have on people throughout the country who will see their energy bills skyrocket under cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.
“I can’t support anything that would increase the energy costs of the people in my state,” Murkowski said on the Senate floor, adding that Alaskans pay high prices for power — in some areas gasoline and heating fuel cost more than $6 per gallon.
Murkowski also commented on President Obama’s willingness to bypass Congress in order to implement global warming policies. Obama has said that if Congress does not pass a substantive climate bill, he will use executive orders to implement one.
It Is good to see you are still at it Dan! Also it is good to see Neil is still plugging away. I am sorry I have taken so much time away. Battling major life crisis puts perspective on the forefront. I am here again to battle the deceptive Rob. Some day he will accept the truth and admit climate change is a tax swindle!
Welcome back. Hope things are going better for you now.
Hey Hal, I was wondering what happened to you. Glad to see you back!
About this story, I watched some of the 14-hour long diatribe by Senate Dems, and I was not impressed in the least. It was all the same old hat. It could have all been penned by Al Gore. The old “the science is settled” line popped up a lot. I must admit that I could only stomach watching for a few minutes at a time, as I seemed to repeatedly have an uncontrollable urge to vomit… on occasion.
Blast of hot air from the past! (pun intended). Uh, you can’t really blame people for continuing to try to save their beloved planet when they truly believe it is in danger, especially when it also would effect the human race meaning their progeny, i.e. kids and grandkids. Not to mention civilization was we know it. However, they are fighting a losing of not already lost battle. Even treehuggers like myself have resigned ourselves to the fact that global warming science has also updated itself to indicate, sadly enough, we are too late now to stop it even if we did as much or more than has been recommended. In other words: YOU WON. It’s over. Now the fat lady (mother earth) can sing either her death throes or an in your face song about what a tough bitch she is and how we humans suck at being earthlings.
Stop what? The reason we are on the winning side is because what we believe is based on facts and evidence rather than computer model projections, and visceral emotional reactions to outlandish claims.
It is true that we can’t “stop it”, but that is more of an indication that we didn’t cause “it”.
Your problem is a matter of perspective. You have been led to believe things that were never true, and now that some of those things are beginning to reveal themselves as complete BS, you are having an emotional reaction to it.
Grab both of your ears and pull! The popping sound you will hear will be your head popping out of your rear end.
You so cute. Nobody likes a sore loser, but even less so a sore winner. I am being gracious in defeat am I not? Uh oh, asking a question of you is asking for an insult or a rant in defense of, in this case, pretty much nothing- other than the temerity of suggesting your “side” has won. Of course, you probably think I’m trying to trick you into letting your guard down. I know better than that, and also I could not persuade you of anything so I stopped trying some time ago. In fact, I am starting to think, as stated above, that any action at this point is worthless, so in that regard we are closer to agreeing than ever before. Of course being beyond the point of no return may in and of itself be some kind of hoax, but I don’t think so based on the science. Granted you disagree there is a problem or even some kind of artificial or unusual anomaly occurring, I get that. That notwithstanding, my giving you this resignation letter, of sorts, is a gentlemanly gesture if nothing else. Can’t wait for your knee jerk disagreement of everything I just posted…
I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings. But that is a fundamental difference between us I think. I’m not saying that I don’t have emotions, I do, but I do not let them determine what I think about things. Take the global warming issue. I was afraid, at first. I think I have mentioned that I used to believe in it. I bought it hook, line, and sinker. But I am not one to let my fears rule me. So, one day I heard Al Gore say “the debate is over, the science was settled, the Earth has a fever, and we are the cause.” And from those words the first thing that went through my mind was not, “Oh God, we’re doomed!” It was, “What? Is that right? Is the debate really over? Is the science really settled?” That was all lies. It took me literally minutes to find out that:
A. The debate was far from over and, in fact, raging on.
B. That the science was far from settled, and was in fact, just barely out of diapers, and far too reliant upon speculative computer models.
C. That the warming that had occurred was well within the range of natural variability, and that it was much warmer during the Roman warm period, and the Medieval warm period.
See Rob, once I stopped being afraid, and began asking questions it all became clear to me that the whole thing is a huge manipulation. An attempt to scare people into agreeing to do things that they would not agree to if they were thinking logically, and clearly.
No, I don’t consider that I’ve won anything. I’ll consider it a victory when people like you, who are still afraid, who are still falling back on an emotional argument, can come out from under the veil of fear, calm down, and look at facts objectively, and go “Hmm, this really isn’t that scary. I’m not afraid anymore.”
That’s when I will have won.
With due respect to all global warming deniers kindly bringing are attemtting susside thats my personal beleave and its 99.9%right someday i will prove it.
First, I think you should tackle the issues of spelling, syntax, and grammar. No, really. Please.
Look, Ali, this is what I’m talking about. The emotional argument. You say we are attempting suicide but that is pure hyperbole. There is no factual evidence to support that. You have been manipulated by fear to believe what you believe. All of the dire warnings of catastrophe are based on computer model projections that have not turned out to be even remotely accurate. Look at the facts. Fact #1, the global average mean temperatures have not risen for 16 years. Fact #2, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have continued to rise throughout the last 16 years. Those are facts. Not conjecture derived from computer model projections, but actually gleaned from recorded events. If you compare those two facts to the AGW theory, and use some logic and reason, you can only conclude that the AGW theory is false.
You are being lied to, and manipulated by those lies so you will support an agenda that you would probably not support if you weren’t scared half to death. Wake up!
There is no pause because the heat in the Arctic wasn’t taken into account. The pause has been debunked and is bogus.
So there you go, what you call fact is actually your own perception. Facts don’t exist. We regard something as fact when there is scientific consensus, but that can always change until new insights arrive.
What are you talking about? There is no warming in the Arctic. There has been no significant warming for 17 years across the entire planet, and that includes the Arctic. Where are you getting this “heat in the Arctic” from? What is the evidence? Where can I see this evidence if it exists?
The pause has not been debunked. Who debunked it? Where can I see this debunking?
I’m sorry but you seem to not really know what you are talking about, and you do not present any kind of persuasive argument for your points. Give me a link to what you’re looking at so I can see it for myself. Don’t just assert that it is true. Or, are you afraid I might do a little debunking of my own?
And waiting………. I guess you can’t back it up.
What was emotional about my post? Nothing. My prediction re: your inevitable response? Accurate. Were you by chance being emotional? Perhaps.
Your post wasn’t necessarily emotional, but you do hold your opinion of AGW from a position of being afraid. I think it’s obvious.
Did I indicate any fear? Nope. Just some facts, which I thought you always appreciated, Neil. Resignation perhaps, but not fear.
6 dollars per gallon, you pay so little for fuel in Alaska? Here in The Netherlands we pay 9 dollars per gallon and I don’t see people driving less.
Are you monitoring traffic 24 hours a day? How would you know if people are driving more, or less?
Please can I get the exact quote of this: “Obama has said that if Congress does not pass a substantive climate bill, he will use executive orders to implement one”
And the context of it please. I would like to spread this to people I know, but only if it’s the truth.
Um.. What do we look like, your personal research staff? Go find it yourself. I’m presuming that you have heard of the internet, right?
Sheesh Neil, you used to be so helpful re: all the dirty details. Could this one not actually be true thus nothing to cite?
If you are so inclined then why don’t you look it up for The Truth?
Climate change “claimers” have 7 BILLION tax dollars annually at stake in the form of Government grants and susidies. With all due respect, expecting tax payers to fund this “theory” based on computer model speculation is obsurd. I have a suggestion: If the Global Warming “claimers” would raise money via the private sector in the form of donations, we “critics” would not have an issue with any of these thoery’s.
Well, climate change deniers have certainly made use of the private sector. Or should we say the private sector has made good use of the climate change deniers…Chicken or the egg? Either way, you deniers have loads of private funding, that’s a fact. So I guess that makes you superior in that respect as well, according to your narrow-minded and “obsurd” viewpoint. Look up the word “denial” and you will see that what it boils down to psychologically is it’s a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are very helpful for us humans, we utilize them every day to one extent or another depending upon what is going on. To use one or more in a permanent fashion however is unhealthy and counter-productive. But you have that right, obviously. As do others with opposing views. I hate the huge amount of “Defense” (war) spending for example. You could even look upon that as a for profit conspiracy. At least that one is real, vs. the climate change one, which is nothing in comparison, nor will be.
Please try to stick to issues and avoid assumptions about motives and avoid insults.
A refresher on the rules: http://www.globalclimatescam.com/posting-comments/
I don’t know Dan, I think it tells a lot about the weight of their argument when they resort to this kind of tactic. Change the subject, call them names, accuse them of being in denial…. It’s a sure sign that the argument is lost.