Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: Cincinatus' Wife
(U.S will have to join Kyoto)
Over my dead body.
2 posted on
04/23/2007 11:21:38 AM PDT by
sageb1
(This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Over my one-ply square of toilet paper....
3 posted on
04/23/2007 11:22:18 AM PDT by
kromike
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Canada just dumped Kyoto.
Reminds me of the stargate,sg1 episode where the majority of society was kept toiling in subsistance factories and propagandized for communal suffering and sacrifice while the rest of the world lived in elitist entitlement.
IOW only the little people will be forced to pay the price for the elites.
4 posted on
04/23/2007 11:25:53 AM PDT by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
From the same organization that gave us ‘Oil for Food’?
No thanks. My dogs are brighter than most at the UN.
And they don’t embezzle from me.....
5 posted on
04/23/2007 11:27:44 AM PDT by
Badeye
(it's Badeye Derangement Syndrome! LOL PRICELESS. BE will get a kick out of this!)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
6 posted on
04/23/2007 11:28:53 AM PDT by
PeaceBeWithYou
(De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))
To: Cincinatus' Wife
They could have had the US join Kyoto, but they chose not to. All they had to do is make it a balanced treaty instead of placing all of the burden of greenhouse gas reduction on the US.
7 posted on
04/23/2007 11:31:04 AM PDT by
Brilliant
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Stand by to pay the “Carbon Tax”!!!
9 posted on
04/23/2007 11:34:23 AM PDT by
beethovenfan
(If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Under a best-case scenario for heading off severe damage, the global economy might lose as little as 3 percentage points of growth by 2030
No one ever achieves the best case scenario. What’s the worst case? 50%? That would be the more likely outcome.
10 posted on
04/23/2007 11:38:05 AM PDT by
saganite
(Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
...via carbon taxes... The primary goal.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Notice the use of the words “Climate Change” rather the Global Warming in more and more of these stories? When you have much of the North East recovering from a brutal early spring snow storm, it’s hard to convince anyone global warning is a serious issue.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
I read the IPCC is revising their forecasted sea level rise to something like 0.5M or less, not 6M.
14 posted on
04/23/2007 11:45:23 AM PDT by
finnman69
(cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
To avoid Global Warming and signing Kyoto, the USofA must pay Al Gore's London-based employee-owned company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), for all of the USofA Carbon Offsets in order to keep on using fuel as normal.
It's always about money and in this case, what's good for the 'savior of the earth' is good enough for the USofA.
It's about fuel, fool. (say that 3 times really fast)
PS I'm not calling anyone here 'fool' that term is directed to AlGore, the creater of the internet, global warming, and GIM (see above).
May I introduce:
Cheat Seeking Missles destroying DEM-entia blog.
16 posted on
04/23/2007 11:56:19 AM PDT by
HighlyOpinionated
(Everybody should have the right to carry a firearm openly. And to use it if necessary.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
The Bush administration rejected the protocol's mandatory cuts Repeat it often enough, people will believe it. The Senate said it wouldn't ratify Kyoto back in 1998, and Clinton never submitted it. Bush also simply refused to submit it. The reason for everyone not going along is that it gives a free pass to "developing" nations like China (which will, as a Kyoto country, surpass us in CO2 in 2010).
IOW, to put this on Bush's head is a flat-out lie meant to make it look like he doesn't care about the environment.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
China and other poorer developing countries were exempted from the 1997 pact, but most expected growth in greenhouse emissions will come from the developing world.
Unless they are subject to the same constraints as everyone else, what is the point? Do we really want to see our industry keep moving to where it is cheaper because of the lack of environmental controls?
22 posted on
04/23/2007 12:20:58 PM PDT by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
One wonders what the biggest threat of our age will be, Muslim Fundamentalism or Environmental Fundamentalism. The Muslims have a head start, but the Environmentalists are having a better success rate in the West.
24 posted on
04/23/2007 12:32:27 PM PDT by
TheDon
(The DemocRAT party is the party of TREASON! Overthrow the terrorist's congress!)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
manure controlsFer Gawd's sakes!
I is already gots an outhouse and sack of lime; wha' more does they wants from me?
Sounds laik jes' another way tah pick honest men's pockets!
25 posted on
04/23/2007 12:32:48 PM PDT by
ApplegateRanch
(Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
If they got a tax on carbon we could start seeing reductions in growth of total CO2 levels as quickly as they could get the instruments reprogrammed.
When the reductions become reversed, around the time the money is spent, we will have to pony up a few bucks more.
This should last us (them) until a new generation of idiots can be born.
27 posted on
04/23/2007 12:38:46 PM PDT by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
The one-worlders can’t have their utopia until they destroy America.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
U.N. Scientists to lay out ways to curb worst of climate change (U.S. will have to destroy all their vehicles and air conditioners and give the UN the keys to the U.S. treasury) There! Fixed the title!
33 posted on
04/23/2007 1:50:43 PM PDT by
50mm
(algore uses 20 times as much energy as me)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
by embracing technologies ranging from nuclear power This alone will do it. Nothing else would be needed. And the Bush administration supports nuclear power but the Democrats are against it. Funny how no one in the "corporately biased" (as the liberals call the MSM) point that out.
34 posted on
04/23/2007 1:56:59 PM PDT by
techcor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson