Unless we agree to the climate change bill:
If the Senate doesn’t pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and less money to favored, leftist interest groups who harp on the environment.
She says there’s a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation’s children and puppies, if you’re going to really make the pitch, make it bold!.
Boxer is engaged in her biggest con job ever. The stakes couldn’t be higher as she faces one of the toughest high-profile acts of her lengthy career: getting Congress to sign off on historic legislation to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. (Ed. Note: Content edited to bring it in line with reality)
Meanwhile…back in reality:
Chicago’s average temperature from June 1 through July 10 has been 67.5 degrees. This is the coolest since 1992, which followed the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 north of Manila. That eruption spread a layer of dust aloft around the world that cut back on the amount of solar radiation. This year’s average summer-to-date temperature is 2.1 degrees cooler than the normal of 69.6 degrees and only 0.9 degrees above the 66.6 recorded in 1992.
This year’s average temperature as of July 10 was 2.1 degrees cooler than the normal of 69.6 degrees and only 0.9 degrees above the 66.6 recorded in 1992.
Its a hoax, and the Democrats are determined to saddle us with a massive, money-sucking bill to combat the hoax. It doesn’t get more “through the looking glass” than this.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.

Sen. Boxer (D-Bankruptville) Predicts All Puppies Will Die!
Good. All those damn puppies do is pee and crap all over the place. Cats can go with them.
In other words, you took her statement, added something ridiculous to it, and then mocked it for containing the thing that you added. What does that have to do with reality?
Mark-
Are you willing to say that carbon emissions do not have any negative effects on society?
If so, then I can find quite a few doctors, biologists, ecologists, geologists, and economists (both agricultural and other) that would like to disagree with you.
Rana,
I didn’t realize that breathing had a negative effect on society.
Mark-
Oh how conveniently Glib…
Here’s a study about the medical costs associated with carbon emissions in an urban setting (I can’t reproduce the text without violating copyright).
Cifuentes, Luis, et al, “Assessing the Health Benefits of Urban Air Pollution Reductions Associated with Climate Change Mitigation (2000-2020): Santiago, São Paulo, México City, and New York City,” Environmental Health Perspectives, June. 2001, 109, Supplement 3, 419-425.
I restate my earlier question (with fancy new wording): Are you willing to say that the increased atmospheric carbon concentrations due to human activity have no negative consequences?
Oh, and I can keep on throwing up studies to put you in the right direction if you need help answering seriously.
ranafuetre, it’s not worth trying to engage in debate with Mark on this issue… better to just point out his contradictions. He really does believe, for instance, that exhaling CO2 is equivalent to burning billions of tons of fossil fuel:
So does that mean Mark favors population control?
;)