Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 06/30/2009 6:17:37 PM PDT by Kaslin
A 1,500-page bill to tax, regulate and penalize all U.S. hydrocarbon energy use to "save the planet" from climate Armageddon has passed the House 219-212 despite the fact that not one member read it. The Senate promises an August vote.
But average global temperatures peaked in 1998 and since have fallen slightly, even as carbon dioxide levels continued climbing. Thousands of scientists say CO2 has little effect on planetary temperatures, and there is no climate crisis. The legislation would cost millions of jobs and trillions of dollars, for a hypothetical 0.1 degree F reduction in global temperatures.
The administration responded to these inconvenient truths by issuing another "report" by government scientists carefully selected to include only climate crisis believers. It then hired an activist media firm that specializes in environmental campaigns, to hype meaningless computer-generated Hollywood disaster scenarios:
Catastrophic sea levels, floods in lower Manhattan, California beaches permanently submerged. Ferocious hurricanes. Droughts. Food shortages, epidemic diseases, a quadrupling of heat-wave deaths. Aged sewer systems convulsing from massive storm runoff. Polar bears disappearing from the Arctic. It may be the most flagrant attempted con job in U.S. history.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
just as much of a con as algore.
bflr
(2 free throws and possession.)
IBD is one of the few print media outlets with any credibility. The WSJ seems to have sold its soul.
No, we're all going to drown in a few months to we HAVE to pass this bill tomorrow without reading it!!
Amen to that, brother. Amen. It's been going down hill since Bob Barkley died.
What would happen if 1 freeper from each district faxed the entire 1500 to his congresscritter, and every one of them got it?
What good would that do if they don’t read it?
The WSJ is a first-class newspaper/web site, along with IBD, in both its news and opinion sections.
If you’re going to slam it, please be specific as to what displeases you. You might also note if you take the trouble to look at it daily.
If you’re going to slam it, please be specific as to what displeases you...
I admit I don't read it much anymore, not since the amnesty debates of a few years ago where their editorial board seemed to favor more cheap labor leagal or otherwise. While I don't put them in the same litter box as the New York Times, IMO they just aren't as good as I remember them.
bttt
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.