Posted on 04/03/2006 8:28:27 PM PDT by calcowgirl
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"Its all about posturing and buttering up to the Golden State's enviro wackos."
===
No, actually it's all about wrecking CA's economy and that of the US, since CA is the 8th largest economy in the world ( or the 5th -- somewhere in between, I think this year it's the 8th -- but it's pretty significant.)
The envirowackos and the terrorists both have the same goals: wreck the economy, they just use different methods to try to achieve it.
You don't think environmental regulations are bad for CA's economy?
Yes, I can see how consistent it is with conservative principles to allow the Dems to forever control CA and even actively help them do it. (/sarcasm)
"At least then legislative Republicans will resist a regressive agenda "
===
Yes, all 5 of them, that'll really scare the Dems. (/sarcasm)
I like the op-ed by George Will they printed:
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_3663223
(snip)
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
In fact, the earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change — remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Middle West — must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is "over"?
About the mystery that vexes ABC — Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? — perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon. Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
Sigh.
An excellent article posted by Exton1 -- it's from 1998, but hits the nail on the head and it's applicable today:
Global Warming: The Real Agenda
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1608765/posts
Great find! Thanks for the posting, it made my day!
The article at your link is a very superficial analysis of what the environmental move-mint has in store. It's redistribution all righty, but the real benefits accrue to a select group of the investor class.
--
after seeing the lukewarm version of republicanism being served up under the auspices of the Wilsonegger gang along with the New Majorityites and the 19th holers at country clubs, you really want to talk about who is peddling what here, FO?
Your boy is dishing out dough by the bucketsful and collecting it by the same.
Can't wait for McCain to come back and campaign with him at his side.
btw FO, question for ya, do you want to see more rigid air quality standards all over this state?
Any time a politician mentions global warming or greenhouse gases he may be ignored except as his suggestions impact the wallet.
And yet some continue to apologize for the agenda being implemented in California.
"Today, California will be a leader in the fight against global warming . . . I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat and we know the time for action is now. Global warming, pollution and the burning of fossil fuels that caused it are threats we see here in California and everywhere around the world . . . We have no choice but to meet this challenge."- Arnold Schwarzenegger, speaking at World Environment Day
San Francisco City Hall, June 1, 2005Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.