12 Comments

• 1. OhioOrrin  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 am

  burrrr - it’s still chilly here in Ohio also.

  but that’s ok cause folks luv gathering round a backyard fire…in late May!?

  now - what were we discussing? - oh yea, global warming.

  go ahead…

• 2. SEW  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 am

  FatAl needs to encourage his cultists to eat more red beans to increase atmospheric gas. His carbon offset businesses will take a big hit if the uneducated quit buying his offsets, this is proven science. Even if this is just a “10 year lull” in the march to Global Warming Doom.

  Maybe Reverend Wright will help him sell it on Sundays now that the hate whitey business is also in decline.

• 3. Street Riot  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am

  Thanks for the VT weather forcast, now when will you have a real discussion on climate change?

• 4. Danish Artist  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 am

  Global Warmng errrrrr, Climate Change - what a scam and these imbeciles are falling for it. The politicians are taking advantage of their ignorance.

  HOW ABOUT A POLLUTION FEE

  The San Francisco Bay Area is about to approve a new set of rules that will charge businesses a fee for their pollution. The fees will be imposed on factories, power plants, oil refineries and other businesses that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

  The “modest” fee (that’s according to the article) is 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide. More than 2,500 businesses will be required to pay the fee. Most businesses will pay less than $1, but about seven oil plants and oil refineries will have to pay more than $50,000 a year. This is expected to generate about $1 million in the first year. And guess where the money will go? It will help pay for programs to measure the Bay Area’s emissions and figure out ways to reduce them.

  Backers of the fee are miffed that 4.4 cents probably won’t be enough to force companies to change their emissions, but they are happy to be setting an important precedent in fighting climate change. As of right now, the fee will not be imposed on cars … that’s for now.

  If I were a business in San Francisco, you know what I’d be doing? Packing my bags. This is just a start. San Francisco leftists aren’t going to be satisfied with a small fee and the fact that too many evil businesses get away with less than $1 in payments per year. In the San Francisco Bay Area it is time for small businesses to start charting their escape route.

  In the real world, this would be mail fraud.

• 5. SEW  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 am

  Street Riot, try this for a starter.

  http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/05/07/environmentalists_wild_predictions?page=full&comments=true

• 6. Brett Michaels  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am

  I guess John McCain is a liberal kook
  http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/Read.aspx?guid=0b381abd-e573-459d-8716-fbd83ab62d8d

  Whether we call it “climate change” or “global warming,” in the end we’re all left with the same set of facts. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention.

  Or is he just pandering?

  and this is the best the GOP has to offer…a closet Democrat?
  :)

• 7. Neologizer  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm

  Apparently the moderator of this Global warming/climate change post doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate.

  I guess its hard to accept climate change when you don’t even know what it is

• 8. Danish Artist  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm

  Climate and weather are coupled systems.

  If you knew the definition of climate, then you would know the above is true. Climate is predictable? Hardly, since it is the average of unpredictable weather patterns of a region.

  So, if climate is affected by CO2, that would mean its coupled weather patterns would be also. Since the trend is a warming, according to liberals, then the weather patterns of that particular climate would reflect that also for any measurable climate result.

  Face it libs, you shaky arguments are just that for a scam of human induced climate change.

• 9. Theo  |  May 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 pm

  Danish Artist

  Climate is predictable? Hardly, since it is the average of unpredictable weather patterns of a region.

  Hah!

  Big hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

  It’s basic statistics.

  I begin to understand why folks such as yourself have such difficulties understanding the difference between weather prediction and climate prediction.

  Thanks for the enlightenment!

  Regards,
  Theo

• 10. Danish Artist  |  May 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 am

  Theo,

  obviously you do not know the basic definition of climate. Yes, climate is SOMEWHAT predictable, but to predict is with such an absolute degree of accuracy, as liberals have presented for their doom and gloom scenario is foolish at best.

  The climate prediction models have admittedly been flawed because they cannot accurately predict the weather patterns in that region. The weather patterns of the region is quantified into climate. If prediction errors of the basics of the coupled system exist, then those errors compound on the the overall final system prediction.

  DSP uses statistics in their prediction models for analog signal processing to restore old recordings. If errors are in the original signal, there is no accurate prediction and errors in the final result are carried over. The restored recording will have obvious errors. The same can be said for climate prediction.

  Thank you for enlightening me on the ignorance of spoon-fed liberals. What the master Goracle has told you is law, while selectively ignoring those errors because it does not fit his agenda.

• 11. Brett Michaels  |  May 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm

  DA,
  So what you are saying is McCain is full of BS?

  Whether we call it “climate change” or “global warming,” in the end we’re all left with the same set of facts. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention.

  and this is the best the GOP could nominate? A closet Democrat.
  :)

• 12. Danish Artist  |  May 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm

  BM,

  When McCain made his speech, he was in the cradle of the environmentalists.

  He just used the same tactic that Bill Clinton used during his election. When in Louisiana, talk about offshore drilling. When in Florida or California, talk about halting offshore drilling.

  The only problem I have is that when Bill Clinton or Obama uses that tactic, you people can’t help swooning all over it, without question. But when a Republican, does it………………

  You people are just so predictable.

  Your candidates are closet socialists/Marxists and are looking to buy their votes and what’s worse, you libs are more than willing to sell them or pimp them.

  Question: What are you planning to do with MY MONEY that you will get as wealth redistribution eerrrrr … “economic stimulus”?

Matt Margolis on Twitter