Posted on 01/26/2009 10:18:28 AM PST by Sub-Driver
depends on which facts, of course.
Ill. Senate convenes Blagojevich impeachment trial (No Blago)
AP on Yahoo | 1/26/09 | AP
Posted on 01/26/2009 10:22:14 AM PST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172051/posts
Secretary Clinton names climate czar
The Politico | January 26, 2009 | MIKE ALLEN
Posted on 01/26/2009 9:22:37 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172011/posts
This guy is bad news. His socialist/commie agenda is on steroids.
There is little or no human-caused global warming, but there IS global warming from natural causes. A fact-driven approach to managing problems that this warming might cause will involve human action to control climate, as opposed to the wacko enviroleftist demands for massive-scale cessation of human action.
We probably CAN figure out how to manipulate our climate effectively, in both directions, and I’m all in favor of getting to work on this. I won’t criticize Obama’s actions re climate until there are some real specifics to evaluate. It may be that he’s talking in vague terms, letting the enviroleftists think they’re hearing what they want to hear, but will actually be more cautious and fact-anchored when it comes to real action.
Reducing our dependence on oil, which largely means Arab oil, would certainly not be a bad thing, and if some measures the Obama administration takes toward that end make enviroleftists happy, that’s fine. If Obama starts pushing economy-sapping measures that address only fictional human-caused global warming, then I’ll get annoyed.
Live Presidential Speech [no press questions allowed]
FOX News | January 26, 2009 | self
Posted on 01/26/2009 7:35:50 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2171949/posts
Obama takes steps to reverse Bush climate policies
Rooters | Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:32pm EST | Jeff Mason
Posted on 01/26/2009 10:08:58 AM PST by rightinthemiddle
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172043/posts
Saying that the earth is warming is factual—though contestable. Saying that man is causing this change or increasing its rates is simply NOT fact. Period. It’s opinion. Some would argue an informed and supportable opinion, but even the most far-out loony bin nutjob can’t call the idea that man causes global warming “fact.”
The wind doesn’t blow in Michigan, its just that the DNC sucks.
So he opened ANWR?
Obummer sure likes to say this-or-that is over doesn't he?
“..my administration will not deny facts.”
Yes it will. Fact is that it is NOT happening at all like Al Gor has lied it will and its becoming quite clear we cant predict that it will rain tomorrow let along the FACT thta more ice has formed up North than in over 50 years.
I am tired of the liberals simply getting what they want by speaking a lie long enough to make it true to the willful ignorant who elect them.
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN HIS OWN WORDS
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S UPBRINGING
Like I’ve said before, the idiot voters have no idea what they have done.
Climate Research NewsClick on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
“US will lead on climate change - Obama”.....
And the U.S. taxpayer will lead on being raped - Obama.
“the idiot voters have no idea what they have done.”
The idiot voters wanted a change. It didn’t matter that it was going to swing the country to socialism. I doubt any of them have a clue what socialism is. Obama just looked better. What a bunch of damn fools!
Man-made global warming is over-hyped fearmongering. The facts are that the best action is NOT to regulate CO2. The administration is basing its policies on lies and hoaxes.
I think you got that just about right.
We tried to warn people BEFORE he was elected.
Thanks for the link. The presenter makes the very valid argument that risk management assessments are lacking in the debate. But then he passes from the acceptable to the dubious, arguing that we should accept the assessments of these big organizations. Since their reputations are at stake, they wouldn’t steer us wrong intentionally, he says.
I don’t find that argument convincing at all. Money, prestige, group acceptance, and ideology can be bigger motivators than perceptions of risk to organizational reputation. Besides, spin managers can repair reputation if you’re already part of the in group.
Also, he presumes we can’t wrap our little minds around the evidence and make our own judgments. Just trust the experts; they’ve never steered us wrong before. Have they? Oops. Don’t ask that.
And he makes his presentation in a snarky, condescending tone which I don’t associate with an objective seeker of “wisdom”, as he tries to be.
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.