[goldstategop]

The New York Times libs want YOU to pay more. Higher taxes or more in regulatory costs, in the name of fighting "global warming." Protecting the environment? NO! Its all about the revenue, stupid!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[j. earl carter]

Exactly right. If it were really about CO2, we’d just build a few nuke plants and be done with it.

[A message]

The Times writers are too stupid to realize maybe higher fuel costs we are currently paying is one of the reasons NY Times has declining customers as consumers choose between filling up the gas tank or buying their fishwrap.

[sourcery]

Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):

• Science, not politics
• Statistics needed
• The original denier: into the cold
• End the chill
• They call this a consensus?
• The limits of predictability
• Unsettled science
• The ice-core man
• The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science
• Polar scientists on thin ice
• The sun moves climate change
• Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
• Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
• Read the sunspots
• Forget warming - beware the new ice age
• Little Ice Age is still with us
• Fighting climate 'fluff'

Other References:

• Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'
• IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore’s View of Global Warming Consensus
• Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence
• Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
• Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
• Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (PDF)
• The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
• New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual
• Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
• Global Warming as a Religion
• I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (By David Evans)
• Still Waiting for Greenhouse
• GREENIE WATCH
• Why Global Warming Would be Good for You
• Temperature vs. Cosmic Ray Flux
• Global Warming Primer (PDF)
• Global Warming: An Official Pseudoscience
• Fiddler On The Roof
• Debating Global Warming
• Climate Resistance

[Tzimisce]

...at least they’re giving us a reason they want to raise taxes this time...

[dasboot]

When the market, on its own, fails to arrive at the proper price for goods and services, we want $10 for each of our papers it’s the job of government to correct the failure. each registered voter shall have a subscription, of lose tax witholdings There are two ways to do so: higher taxes and new regulation. what color is the sky in our world?

for all the talk about warming, leading politicians have yet to educate if you don't agree with us...you are an idiot their constituents (and their colleagues) about an unpleasant and inescapable truth: any serious effort to fight warming will require everyone to pay more for energy. According to most scientists, the long-term costs of doing nothing — flooding, famine, drought — would be even higher than the costs of acting now. stop laughing at us...we're gonna wreck your capitalist dog and pony show one way or another...VIVA HUGO!

[nyyankeefan]

think of the positive impact on the environment without the nyslimes!!!!

[rabscuttle385]

The Senate’s recent approval of higher fuel economy standards is a constructive step and key lawmakers are promising comprehensive legislation this year that will, for the first time, limit the emission of greenhouse gases.

One would think that the moonbats and RINOs in the Senate would have learned their lesson after getting bitchslapped not once, but twice, by American voters, on amnesty for illegal aliens.

Apparently, it turns out that yes, Virginia, the liberals may really be that stupid.

[libstripper]

A tax on carbon, the main greenhouse gas, would cause energy prices to rise, thereby curbing consumption and providing a powerful incentive to invest in alternatives.

The writers of this editorial either forgot their high school chemistry or didn't bother to take it. Carbon is a solid element at normal temperatures; carbon dioxide is the gas that's a compound of carbon and oxygen. Why should any reasonably educated person accept the technological work of a bunch of nitwits who don't even know basic high school chemistry?

[Halgr]

Global Warming is a tool of the Darkside...the globalists need this fabrication to further their own agendas.

[an amused spectator]

Sounds like the NYTimes needs the lead&brass cure for global warming delusions...

[endthematrix]

"the long-term costs of doing nothing — flooding, famine, drought — would be even higher than the costs of acting now."

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."

[Old Professer]

“We are now using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for carbon emissions.”

If only stuff would just stay in the air; then I could quit dusting.

[cgbg]

I was eating lunch in a deli-type place here in enemy territory and the guy sitting next to me was reading this grotesque excuse for an editorial.

It was all I could do to keep my lighter in my pocket and away from that sorry excuse for a newspaper.

[Sapper26]

Energy is currently underpriced in part because its cost does not reflect the damage inflicted by fossil fuels.

Since energy is “underpriced”, would I be correct in assuming that this fine newspaper hasn’t printed any articles on the effects of “high prices” on the poor?

[StACase]

They want to tell me to turn my thermostat down and what bus to take.