Climatologists ask to "hide the decline" in temperature data, amongst other things

I'm no lawyer - I'm merely pointing something out, based on pure language, like anyone with a grasp on words ought to be able to do.

You are going off on some tangent where Machiavellian tactics are totally kosher in the public eye, which I find tends to uphold as true when the topic is volatile and partisan, especially when it falls on the side someone supports. Global warming has been a hot (ho ho ho) topic lately because you've got a group who refuses to believe it at all versus another who is attempting to prove it via scientific research.

Now we've got this hacking thing, showing that some people were being jerks, manipulating data, hushing opponents, etc. Essentially being lobbyist assholes. I can accept that. And in terms of being public information, I can accept that too, and further understand that it'll impact the situation, and generally drive the divide further, because now we'll have the science group trying to downplay this against the tides of I-told-you-so's.

Myke is pointing out something that has NOTHING to do with any of the above, by citing the leak as criminal activity. That's it. A simple point - hacking is illegal. All this after-the-fact discussion doesn't factor in. In fact, I doubt he gives a shit whether or not it is admissible in court - you were the one who brought up that point.

Here I am, trying to show you that there's a difference between the two, and that they are separate points entirely. You're connecting them and then further making a comment about how "well really it barely matters anyway since Joe American is now totally vindicated when he took a sip of beer and said this is sum bu-huuuuuuuullsheet." Which is to say, step back and actually look at what the discussion originally is.

You're asking me to cook some chicken, ok? And then further telling me "you don't know how to cook chicken." Brother, I can cook that fucking chicken a dozen different ways.
 
It's public because that's easiest. All you need is one some dirt on one out of a million, publicize it, and claim is represents the entirety of science, and bam, done.

They can't win legally, they apparently can't win using science, so they do it illegaly and try to turn the public against the scientists. It works especially well if the public doesn't understand any of it anyway and you can frame it however you like.
 
[quote name='SpazX']They can't win legally, they apparently can't win using science, so they do it illegaly and try to turn the public against the scientists. It works especially well if the public doesn't understand any of it anyway and you can frame it however you like.[/QUOTE]

Science has a liberal bias.
 
What I still don't get really is the motive. Maybe Gore is an attention whore and just wants fame, that doesn't exactly work out given he's been talking about environmental stuff since way before any of this got to that level, but whatever, maybe for him it's just greed.

But what exactly do all the scientists get out of lying about it and apparently conspiring to keep out anyone who thinks differently? I'm sure there's been some explanation of this somewhere that I've missed.
 
[quote name='SpazX']What I still don't get really is the motive. Maybe Gore is an attention whore and just wants fame, that doesn't exactly work out given he's been talking about environmental stuff since way before any of this got to that level, but whatever, maybe for him it's just greed.

But what exactly do all the scientists get out of lying about it and apparently conspiring to keep out anyone who thinks differently? I'm sure there's been some explanation of this somewhere that I've missed.[/QUOTE]

NWO of course. The Alex Jones faithful will just come out and say it. The Sarah Palin/Ron Paul worshippers will just imply it. But that's what the conspiracy theory comes down to.
 
[quote name='SpazX']What I still don't get really is the motive. Maybe Gore is an attention whore and just wants fame, that doesn't exactly work out given he's been talking about environmental stuff since way before any of this got to that level, but whatever, maybe for him it's just greed.

But what exactly do all the scientists get out of lying about it and apparently conspiring to keep out anyone who thinks differently? I'm sure there's been some explanation of this somewhere that I've missed.[/QUOTE]

1. Dollaz and bitches.

2. Assuming policies are adopted that stop global warming or whatever pet phrase it uses today, control over the masses.

EDIT: Damn it. Camoor got it first.
 
[quote name='SpazX']What I still don't get really is the motive.[/QUOTE]

What I've seen argued is, ironically, that those people involved in advancing the theory of manmade global warming have a vested financial interest in making sure we all believe and are all scared that we're killing ourselves via industry.

Of course, it, like everything else, is treated as self-evident and not detailed any further than that. Nor is it ever considered with regard to the seeping irony that such a claim merits when defending free-market enterprise, who is never regarded by these same folks as having a vested financial interest in propagating that global warming is a myth.

Black is white, up is down, yadda yadda. And these knuckleheads lap it up.
 
There's gotta be something that at least kinda makes sense. The NWO stuff is always around and of course doesn't make any sense, but clearly all of these scientists don't have a vested financial interest. Is it just that the scientists at the top (scientists at the top, haha, I guess maybe the IPCC people or something) are going for the money and power and all the others are just stupid?
 
[quote name='SpazX']There's gotta be something that at least kinda makes sense. The NWO stuff is always around and of course doesn't make any sense, but clearly all of these scientists don't have a vested financial interest. Is it just that the scientists at the top (scientists at the top, haha, I guess maybe the IPCC people or something) are going for the money and power and all the others are just stupid?[/QUOTE]

I'll try.

Perchance the people running the journals which scientists use to make names for themselves could be bought off or threatened.

How many scientific journals are out there? How many legitimate scientific journals are out there? How many people have to be controlled? A few dozen?

After you have the outlets for scientific data controlled, you can apply the screws for scientific study.

Gee, we would like to give you a grant for a few million, but you're unpublished. No thanks.

The scientists singing the right tune get the grants, the published articles and the tenure.

With tenure, the scientists get to push their findings on malleable students.

The students push the agenda for free and eventually become the professors pushing the agenda for free.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'll try.

Perchance the people running the journals which scientists use to make names for themselves could be bought off or threatened.

How many scientific journals are out there? How many legitimate scientific journals are out there? How many people have to be controlled? A few dozen?

After you have the outlets for scientific data controlled, you can apply the screws for scientific study.

Gee, we would like to give you a grant for a few million, but you're unpublished. No thanks.

The scientists singing the right tune get the grants, the published articles and the tenure.

With tenure, the scientists get to push their findings on malleable students.

The students push the agenda for free and eventually become the professors pushing the agenda for free.[/QUOTE]

I could maybe buy the journals being controlled, since I'm sure they're relatively few, though it would still require a pretty good conspiracy as peer reviewers aren't always the same people. But it seems to completely break down from there. Apparently these scientists will willingly lie to other scientists and students simply to get published (even after they're tenured and it doesn't really matter all that much anymore).

Too many people involved that would have to tell everybody everything they know isn't true. And then of course the students and then professors are assumed to just be believers that don't think about it at all. I could see plenty of students just accepting whatever is said (and then forgetting it, since they don't care), but the ones who actually like it and go through the trouble of getting into grad school, getting doctorates, and continuing research in that specific area would figure it out, and then have to start lying about it all themselves to keep the whole thing up.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I could maybe buy the journals being controlled, since I'm sure they're relatively few, though it would still require a pretty good conspiracy as peer reviewers aren't always the same people. But it seems to completely break down from there. Apparently these scientists will willingly lie to other scientists and students simply to get published (even after they're tenured and it doesn't really matter all that much anymore).

Too many people involved that would have to tell everybody everything they know isn't true. And then of course the students and then professors are assumed to just be believers that don't think about it at all. I could see plenty of students just accepting whatever is said (and then forgetting it, since they don't care), but the ones who actually like it and go through the trouble of getting into grad school, getting doctorates, and continuing research in that specific area would figure it out, and then have to start lying about it all themselves to keep the whole thing up.[/QUOTE]

Let's start with controlled journals.

In order for a person to succeed in science, you need to be published. If you can't get published, your PhD lands you a job at a bookstore, tech support or begging.

Let's assume some people gather, look and report data incorrectly. They're honest, but wrong. This isn't math. It's science. They get published. They get stipends to grad school instead of paying for it out of pocket. They get research grants. They get jobs at universities. They train the next batch of students to gather, look and report data incorrectly. After 20 years, nobody has lied or is lying.

...

Assuming somebody fakes their way to success, you have to assume they're going to sacrifice everything for what? The truth? At what point in time would you admit to being a fraud?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Assuming somebody fakes their way to success, you have to assume they're going to sacrifice everything for what? The truth? At what point in time would you admit to being a fraud?[/QUOTE]

When the money dries up.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Let's start with controlled journals.

In order for a person to succeed in science, you need to be published. If you can't get published, your PhD lands you a job at a bookstore, tech support or begging.

Let's assume some people gather, look and report data incorrectly. They're honest, but wrong. This isn't math. It's science. They get published. They get stipends to grad school instead of paying for it out of pocket. They get research grants. They get jobs at universities. They train the next batch of students to gather, look and report data incorrectly. After 20 years, nobody has lied or is lying.

...

Assuming somebody fakes their way to success, you have to assume they're going to sacrifice everything for what? The truth? At what point in time would you admit to being a fraud?[/QUOTE]

The problem with saying that they're being honest and are wrong is just that they would all have to be wrong, repeatedly and systematically. But then again, if that were the case currently then there's no conspiracy and no reason to believe that they would lie to cover it up rather than simply change their minds when they found out they were doing it wrong. That shit happens all the time and it's really not that big of a deal to find out you've been doing it wrong. Though, the idea that everybody is wrong is always possible.

And if they're lying to get published, etc. then everybody would have to be lying or else the data wouldn't match up. Then there would have to be a complicated conspiracy to keep it all together. Some random climatologist in the UK really doesn't give a fuck about some other random climatologist in the US, for example, and wouldn't really have any reason to corroborate their data. They would suffer no consequences if their shit came out differently. Unless there was a vast international conspiracy keeping them all down or buying them all out, of course.

But really, if the scientists were stuck having to give certain data in order to get published, do you think they wouldn't bitch? Scientists love to bitch. And global warming isn't all of climatology, there are other subjects for research that are published regularly, and those people apparently would also have to be kept in line by denying them publications in unrelated subjects.

And again, when you've got tenure then you're good. You wouldn't get tenure and then suddenly say everything you did before was a lie, but you would lose pretty much every reason to lie afterward. So the threat of not getting published wouldn't keep you from researching honestly and refuting the data of other researchers.
 
So the idea for global warming first came from the government, and then trickled down to the scientists (in other countries under different governments as well)?

Is that what I'm supposed to get from that article?
 
[quote name='SpazX']So the idea for global warming first came from the government, and then trickled down to the scientists (in other countries under different governments as well)?

Is that what I'm supposed to get from that article?[/QUOTE]

Big government conspiracy, bro. Did you know they want to take our gun as well?
 
[quote name='SpazX']So the idea for global warming first came from the government, and then trickled down to the scientists (in other countries under different governments as well)?

Is that what I'm supposed to get from that article?[/QUOTE]

The idea for global warming, or any coming climate catastrophe (1970's it was a coming Ice Age, remember?) may not have been directly started by governments. They were likely started by the very entities that push most all agendas in government - Corporations looking for profit.

But hey, every generation needs a crisis to live for and define it. Control and profit are harder otherwise.

In other news;

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
 
on Fox News Sunday the argument wasn't 'oh this proves global warming isn't real'. It was well is it as bad as Al Gore says it is, and is it an imminent threat, that requires cap & trade.

BTW Dana Perino was REAL careful to call it climate change instead of global warming, since global warming sounds more 'negative'.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The idea for global warming, or any coming climate catastrophe (1970's it was a coming Ice Age, remember?) may not have been directly started by governments. They were likely started by the very entities that push most all agendas in government - Corporations looking for profit.[/QUOTE]

This what I was talking about earlier. The absolute, positive, unadulterated fucking IDIOCY that is the above explanation: "Global warming was a theory posited by corporations for profit, by pushing forward the notion that corporations are harming the planet via industry."

Do you realize how fucking RIDICULOUS that sounds? Who stands to profit by curbing industry? How will they profit? Be specific, because (1) this explanation you're working with above is beyond inherently contradictory - it's fucking stupid - and (2) you state the above claim without noting that the opposition to this profit-driven global agenda of Captain Planets consists of profit-driven corporations who make real products without regard to their environmental impact.

The "green agenda is profit-driven" is hands down more absurd than anything I've read recently. That shit makes the birthers and tenthers seem plausible by comparison. And that's not hyperbole.
 
I'd have to agree with myke on that (though I probably wouldn't have worded it quite the same way...). I don't see why there stands to be more of a profit with global warming than there is without it. The most powerful industries are going to have to change their business plans in order to profit off of a change to renewable energy, fewer/more efficient cars, etc. while the status quo is quite profitable as it is. I just don't see what they're set up to gain. To me it makes as much sense as saying that the research linking lung cancer to cigarettes was pushed by philip morris and rj reynolds, who also encouraged subsequent legislation limiting the places where people can smoke, the places they can advertise, etc. and that they did it all for profit.

So what corporations are pushing for global warming restrictions and how do they have the power to do so (ie, how do they have more money and influence than the corporations that pollution restrictions will make less profitable)?

I can see plenty of companies starting up to take advantage of this "greening" stuff, but I don't see where they have more power than those who stand to lose and therefore are the ones calling the shots. That reasoning also contradicts those who say how much limiting co2, etc is going to hurt companies and the economy, so they must be separate, opposing arguments.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This what I was talking about earlier. The absolute, positive, unadulterated fucking IDIOCY that is the above explanation: "Global warming was a theory posited by corporations for profit, by pushing forward the notion that corporations are harming the planet via industry."

Do you realize how fucking RIDICULOUS that sounds? Who stands to profit by curbing industry? How will they profit? Be specific, because (1) this explanation you're working with above is beyond inherently contradictory - it's fucking stupid - and (2) you state the above claim without noting that the opposition to this profit-driven global agenda of Captain Planets consists of profit-driven corporations who make real products without regard to their environmental impact.

The "green agenda is profit-driven" is hands down more absurd than anything I've read recently. That shit makes the birthers and tenthers seem plausible by comparison. And that's not hyperbole.[/QUOTE]

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...next+bubble&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=be5ffa94030d2d34

Corporations and government profit by curbing industry.

Government taxes unfriendly businesses and individuals into oblivion. Businesses or individuals who have paid their bribes or pledged fealty are allowed to survive.

Monopolies will have to be allowed again, but whose fault is it that other companies can't pay their taxes?

That soldier needs to be allowed to set his heat to 80 degrees and drive a Humvee. He is protecting our collective freedom.

...

You are aware that Al Gore buys indulgences for his excess carbon footprint from his own company, right?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The first line of the article in the OP sez "Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in temperatures."

Also, http://rawstory.com/2009/12/repeated-breakins-point-orchestrated-campaign-climate-skeptics/[/QUOTE]

Yes, many articles have said the same thing. CRU has said it was a "hacker." But no proof has been offered up as to the alleged hacking, and when you look at the selective files released (no personal-type e-mails released, just work-related), including non-sequentially numbered e-mails, it looks more in line with an insider than a random smash-and-grab. But there is no proof either way, so this is conjecture, just as saying it was "criminal" is conjecture.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I wonder who the patsy will be.[/QUOTE]

Phil Jones has already resigned pending the investigation. Al Gore has canceled his appearance in Copenhagen. Hmm. Michael Mann would be a good patsy given his demonstrably false "hockey stick" work (still featured on The New York Times' website as of today, of course).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Phil Jones has already resigned pending the investigation. Al Gore has canceled his appearance in Copenhagen. Hmm. Michael Mann would be a good patsy given his demonstrably false "hockey stick" work (still featured on The New York Times' website as of today, of course).[/QUOTE]

No, no, no. Who is going to be "the hacker"?

Will he be a fan of Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity?

Will he have ever owned a computer?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No, no, no. Who is going to be "the hacker"?

Will he be a fan of Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity?

Will he have ever owned a computer?[/QUOTE]

It'll be The Plague himself.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I'd have to agree with myke on that (though I probably wouldn't have worded it quite the same way...). I don't see why there stands to be more of a profit with global warming than there is without it. The most powerful industries are going to have to change their business plans in order to profit off of a change to renewable energy, fewer/more efficient cars, etc. while the status quo is quite profitable as it is. I just don't see what they're set up to gain. To me it makes as much sense as saying that the research linking lung cancer to cigarettes was pushed by philip morris and rj reynolds, who also encouraged subsequent legislation limiting the places where people can smoke, the places they can advertise, etc. and that they did it all for profit.

So what corporations are pushing for global warming restrictions and how do they have the power to do so (ie, how do they have more money and influence than the corporations that pollution restrictions will make less profitable)?

I can see plenty of companies starting up to take advantage of this "greening" stuff, but I don't see where they have more power than those who stand to lose and therefore are the ones calling the shots. That reasoning also contradicts those who say how much limiting co2, etc is going to hurt companies and the economy, so they must be separate, opposing arguments.[/QUOTE]

Since you are far more civil than myke, in admitting what you don't understand, I'll respond to you.

It's really simple. Yes there is a lot of profit being made by the big energy company's right now. If you study just a little bit about cap and trade it's pretty easy to see that is basically an usurping of power/money from those company's to other company's. The same money will exist with fascist environmental rules in place, it will just be redirected differently.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can possibly think that putting harsh global warming-driven policy in place on corporate America could somehow stop the flow of money all together (which seems to be what myke is bellowing about). The money stops going one place and gets put in another place. It's as simple as that.

It's using government to reroute power and money. It's no more complicated than that really. We can argue over the who's and the why's all day long, if that's the preference here, but the fact remains that if cap and trade passes, it won't stop any corruption it will just who benefits from it.

I am not directing this at you, really, but what's really hard to believe is how anyone can be so impossibly dense to believe the global warming movement along with cap and trade is all rooted in altruistic heroism to save the planet. Wow.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM

I don't disagree that Cap and Trade is a problem - but it's a naive extension to think that global warming is being advanced as the backdrop for cap and trade and the new bubble market for the same old profitmongers. They're trying to cover their assess on both sides of the fence for sure. But that doesn't mean it's cool to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And it doesn't change the litany of paid-for-by-energy-corporations studies exist that deny global warming's reality, while you can't make the same claims in the converse with any genuine evidence.
 
Gotta hand it to thrust, a post replete with butthurt casually tossing in a reference to fascism.

Anyhoo this is the first time I have ever seen saving your own damn skin and those of your children defined as "altruism".
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Since you are far more civil than myke, in admitting what you don't understand, I'll respond to you.

It's really simple. Yes there is a lot of profit being made by the big energy company's right now. If you study just a little bit about cap and trade it's pretty easy to see that is basically an usurping of power/money from those company's to other company's. The same money will exist with fascist environmental rules in place, it will just be redirected differently.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can possibly think that putting harsh global warming-driven policy in place on corporate America could somehow stop the flow of money all together (which seems to be what myke is bellowing about). The money stops going one place and gets put in another place. It's as simple as that.

It's using government to reroute power and money. It's no more complicated than that really. We can argue over the who's and the why's all day long, if that's the preference here, but the fact remains that if cap and trade passes, it won't stop any corruption it will just who benefits from it.[/QUOTE]

I know the money will still be around, but if the government is controlled by money and the government is creating the idea of global warming, then I would think the companies with the most money would be the ones that would benefit from this fake global warming idea. It seems that they will be losing money as it goes to other companies.

[quote name='thrustbucket']I am not directing this at you, really, but what's really hard to believe is how anyone can be so impossibly dense to believe the global warming movement along with cap and trade is all rooted in altruistic heroism to save the planet. Wow.[/QUOTE]

There have been environmental movements around forever that weren't going for money, but I realize that when a for-profit company says something they're probably doing it for profit. But I don't assume that means that they actually invented the idea. When Target advertises this or that "green" shit or sc johnson comes out with a "green" cleaner I don't think they fabricated the threat to the environment, I see that they're marketing using a current social trend.

So of course they're not all altruistic, and of course there are for-profit companies using global warming for profit. What I don't see is why a corporation would invent an environmental threat in order to funnel money away from themselves. So I'm still wondering what powerful corporations are benefiting from caps on industry that industry says will be too much of a burden on them (so that they actively kill legislation that will have these limits and fund research to deny that any limits are necessary).

I see the profit angle, but it seems to be entirely reactionary. It seems to me that the idea (wrong or not) came from scientists, spread around, and industry and government reacted to it in the ways that they usually do.
 
There is plenty of evidence and stories out there to support what I am saying. The trick, unfortunately, is finding links to sources you guys won't make fun of; which is almost a reason not to try, since the only sources myke tends to find credible are the ones he agrees with. It's a viscous circle.

I have never directly said the energy/oil company's are going to some how profit off of global warming induced legislation, although I think it's obtuse to think that trillion dollar company's will just roll over and take it, or anything close to that. They have several plans in place to adapt and monopolize whatever happens. They have to.

I don't have a lot of time here at work but I'll try to toss you a nugget or two to chew on to further the discussion at least.

Keep in mind that I am not saying there is no nail in the coffin evidence that shows a large conspiracy. I'm just saying there is more going on here than an effort to clean up the environment and address the dubious belief in mans impact on climate change.

From the leaked emails:
Link
Link
Link

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

Link to leaked doc.

Indeed, the whole thing is about power and money, and nothing else.

Not human rights, not the environment, but money and power for a select elite.

I'm all for the environment and healthier people but this whole process is corrupt to the core.

I have to get back to work now but will look for more later.
 
I have no doubts that industry will attempt to make/prevent losing as much money as possible. Which is why they fund research opposing global warming and lobby to kill or otherwise weaken any legislation that will affect their bottom line in that regard.

What I don't accept is that idea of global warming was created by industry and/or government in order to make money or gain power.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Since you are far more civil than myke, in admitting what you don't understand, I'll respond to you.

It's really simple. Yes there is a lot of profit being made by the big energy company's right now. If you study just a little bit about cap and trade it's pretty easy to see that is basically an usurping of power/money from those company's to other company's. The same money will exist with fascist environmental rules in place, it will just be redirected differently.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can possibly think that putting harsh global warming-driven policy in place on corporate America could somehow stop the flow of money all together (which seems to be what myke is bellowing about). The money stops going one place and gets put in another place. It's as simple as that.

It's using government to reroute power and money. It's no more complicated than that really. We can argue over the who's and the why's all day long, if that's the preference here, but the fact remains that if cap and trade passes, it won't stop any corruption it will just who benefits from it.

I am not directing this at you, really, but what's really hard to believe is how anyone can be so impossibly dense to believe the global warming movement along with cap and trade is all rooted in altruistic heroism to save the planet. Wow.[/QUOTE]

Even if all that was true, it still wouldn't explain why scientists wanted to manipulate the data. Why do they care if we serve this corporate master or that regulatory master, scientists still get their paycheck from the uni either way. It also ignores the fact that preaching the corporatist message is in any scientists personal best interest. Due to their rarity, any scientist willing to sellout and prostitute themselves to anti-conservationist policy pundits gets a instant media platform - Fox news loves these guys, the Republican party's peanut gallery can't get enough, and even CSPAN gave one of these idiots almost an hour of morning primetime.
 
A ten minute video? I don't have time for that yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

...

Are there any paid-for-by-energy-corporations-proxies-aka-the-government studies claiming global warming is real? ;)

EDIT: Nice article, thrust.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']A ten minute video? I don't have time for that yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

...

Are there any paid-for-by-energy-corporations-proxies-aka-the-government studies claiming global warming is real? ;)

EDIT: Nice article, thrust.[/QUOTE]

And then they fight any legislation that acknowledges global warming because...
 
foxpoll120.gif
 
Is that real?

Oh, I found the rasmussen for it...at least somewhat likely.

35% Very likely
24% Somewhat likely
21% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
15% Not sure

Good job Rasmussen in the wording and Fox in the broadcasting of course.
 
I think corporations are in a hard place.

If they sit quiet and Cap & Trade dies in the Senate, EPA is going to come down on them HARD. I work for the State DEP so I'll witness this firsthand lol.

If they push against EPA, and it looks like they will, then Cap & Trade seems like a better alternative. We'll see what happens, but all of a sudden people want the EPA dissolved and shit. Don't forget it was the Repubs tricky dick that created it in the first place.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No, no, no. Who is going to be "the hacker"?

Will he be a fan of Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity?

Will he have ever owned a computer?[/QUOTE]

John McCain? :lol:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']John McCain? :lol:[/QUOTE]

lol, I doubt it. This is what McCain does whenever hes confronted with a computer:

mccain-tongue-animated.gif
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That video makes me a sad panda. Greatest crisis facing our planet? Even bigger than MAD? Not quite.[/QUOTE]

It will become quite a serious crisis if we pass something like cap and trade. Nothing like destroying hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth and more than a million jobs on a yearly basis in exchange for 0.1 degree of lower temperatures to give new meaning to the word "scam."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top