What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?

[GaryC 7]

Nah, I don't worship at the feet of the GW nuts. The left wants to believe in man made global warming. The religion of the left.

Better hole on up now with yer shotgun Gary, armageddon is coming with the 2008 election. Oh noes.

Keep telling yourself that Dev.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Everybody knows what channel the sheep watch...

Nah, I don't worship at the feet of the GW nuts. The left wants to believe in man made global warming. The religion of the left.

Better hole on up now with yer shotgun Gary, armageddon is coming with the 2008 election. Oh noes.

Keep telling yourself that Dev.

Seriously though, Gary...and I don't mean to rub it in...The Republican Party has never been so fractured and divided. The days of dittoism is dead.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[no name 1]

Nah, I don't worship at the feet of the GW nuts. The left wants to believe in man made global warming. The religion of the left.

Better hole on up now with yer shotgun Gary, armageddon is coming with the 2008 election. Oh noes.

Keep telling yourself that Dev.

Is it Fred for President? Or is it Huckabee? Neither one is likely. Fred has dropped out of NH already! Quitter. How on earth will you back a liberal Republican? One who believes in gay marriage? And amnesty?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He [Gore] could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis. " Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs.

Enormous cost? Consider this:

Earlier this week the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel approved a €3.3 billion ($4.8 Billion) policy package (more...) that aims to cut emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and to increase the nation's reliance on renewable energy sources.

COMMITMENT TO CLIMATE: Sweden First, US almost Last, Says Study

This is a forward looking, long term policy package aimed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift the focus from oil and gas based to renewable energy sources. To put this in perspective, we spend more than that on Iraq in a week and have done so for almost five years. Yes, the US is almost four times the population of Germany but it also has more than four times the economic output. The US GDP in 2006 was nearly $14 trillion (vs. Germany's close to $3 trillion). Based on the cost of the above mentioned policy package that Germany has recently passed, a relative cost for a similar policy package here would arguably be $12 - $16 billion. Peanuts, really, even if it was twice that amount. The cost argument simply don't count.

[HAL 9000 96]

Geeeez

[GaryC 7]

Nah, I don't worship at the feet of the GW nuts. The left wants to believe in man made global warming. The religion of the left.

Better hole on up now with yer shotgun Gary, armageddon is coming with the 2008 election. Oh noes.

Keep telling yourself that Dev.

Is it Fred for President? Or is it Huckabee? Neither one is likely. Fred has dropped out of NH already! Quitter. How on earth will you back a liberal Republican? One who believes in gay marriage? And amnesty?

Anyone but that walking distaster called Hillary is fine with me. I would even rejoice at Oboma if it meant Hillary goes back home to Bubba Bill.

[GaryC 7]

He [Gore] could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis. " Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs.

Enormous cost? Consider this:

Earlier this week the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel approved a €3.3 billion ($4.8 Billion) policy package (more...) that aims to cut emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and to increase the nation's reliance on renewable energy sources.

COMMITMENT TO CLIMATE: Sweden First, US almost Last, Says Study

This is a forward looking, long term policy package aimed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift the focus from oil and gas based to renewable energy sources. To put this in perspective, we spend more than that on Iraq in a week and have done so for almost five years. Yes, the US is almost four times the population of Germany but it also has more than four times the economic output. The US GDP in 2006 was nearly $14 trillion (vs. Germany's close to $3 trillion). Based on the cost of the above mentioned policy package that Germany has recently passed, a relative cost for a similar policy package here would arguably be $12 - $16 billion. Peanuts, really, even if it was twice that amount. The cost argument simply don't count.

And it simply will not make any difference. Reducing dependancy on oil if fine. To do it with the aim of "saving the world from Global Warming" is a joke.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He [Gore] could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis. " Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs.

Enormous cost? Consider this:

Earlier this week the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel approved a €3.3 billion ($4.8 Billion) policy package (more...) that aims to cut emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and to increase the nation's reliance on renewable energy sources.

COMMITMENT TO CLIMATE: Sweden First, US almost Last, Says Study

This is a forward looking, long term policy package aimed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift the focus from oil and gas based to renewable energy sources. To put this in perspective, we spend more than that on Iraq in a week and have done so for almost five years. Yes, the US is almost four times the population of Germany but it also has more than four times the economic output. The US GDP in 2006 was nearly $14 trillion (vs. Germany's close to $3 trillion). Based on the cost of the above mentioned policy package that Germany has recently passed, a relative cost for a similar policy package here would arguably be $12 - $16 billion. Peanuts, really, even if it was twice that amount. The cost argument simply don't count.

And it simply will not make any difference. Reducing dependancy on oil if fine. To do it with the aim of "saving the world from Global Warming" is a joke.

The major difference it will make, Gary, is that it will give those pesky European nations - as well as the developed Pacific Rim nations - quite a bit of a competitive advantage in the not so distant future. And they won't have to shed blood and tax dollars for oil. It would be worth getting on board just for that. Only those buying policy around here don't like that idea much.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He [Gore] could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis. " Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs.

Enormous cost? Consider this:

Earlier this week the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel approved a €3.3 billion ($4.8 Billion) policy package (more...) that aims to cut emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and to increase the nation's reliance on renewable energy sources.

COMMITMENT TO CLIMATE: Sweden First, US almost Last, Says Study

This is a forward looking, long term policy package aimed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift the focus from oil and gas based to renewable energy sources. To put this in perspective, we spend more than that on Iraq in a week and have done so for almost five years. Yes, the US is almost four times the population of Germany but it also has more than four times the economic output. The US GDP in 2006 was nearly $14 trillion (vs. Germany's close to $3 trillion). Based on the cost of the above mentioned policy package that Germany has recently passed, a relative cost for a similar policy package here would arguably be $12 - $16 billion. Peanuts, really, even if it was twice that amount. The cost argument simply don't count.

And it simply will not make any difference. Reducing dependancy on oil if fine. To do it with the aim of "saving the world from Global Warming" is a joke.

If it doesn't make any difference its because Germany is only responsible for its own industrial output. What's wrong with taking "personal responsiblity" for the state of your environment?

[GaryC 7]

He [Gore] could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis. " Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs.

Enormous cost? Consider this:

Earlier this week the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel approved a €3.3 billion ($4.8 Billion) policy package (more...) that aims to cut emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and to increase the nation's reliance on renewable energy sources.

COMMITMENT TO CLIMATE: Sweden First, US almost Last, Says Study

This is a forward looking, long term policy package aimed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift the focus from oil and gas based to renewable energy sources. To put this in perspective, we spend more than that on Iraq in a week and have done so for almost five years. Yes, the US is almost four times the population of Germany but it also has more than four times the economic output. The US GDP in 2006 was nearly $14 trillion (vs. Germany's close to $3 trillion). Based on the cost of the above mentioned policy package that Germany has recently passed, a relative cost for a similar policy package here would arguably be $12 - $16 billion. Peanuts, really, even if it was twice that amount. The cost argument simply don't count.

And it simply will not make any difference. Reducing dependancy on oil if fine. To do it with the aim of "saving the world from Global Warming" is a joke.

The major difference it will make, Gary, is that it will give those pesky European nations - as well as the developed Pacific Rim nations - quite a bit of a competitive advantage in the not so distant future. And they won't have to shed blood and tax dollars for oil. It would be worth getting on board just for that. Only those buying policy around here don't like that idea much.

Let me clarify my position here. I am 100% in favor of getting away from oil. Renewable energy just makes sense. I just don't buy it from the position that we should do it to "save the planet". That will result in a hurried policy that will in the end do more harm than good. Take bio fuels for example. We are starting to use corn for fuel and the result? Corn prices going through the roof and hurting the worlds poor. Fuel from corn sounds good but in practice is a bad idea. We just can't grow enough corn to make a difference. But since it makes the enviromentalists feel good we are doing it anyway. My favorite idea for energy is hydrogen fuel cells. Make hydrogen from water with the power coming from nuclear plants. Run cars, homes and business from fuel cells. It takes our dependance with oil away and pleases the GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

Edited December 12, 2007 by GaryC

[eric&gen 0]

What in the wide world of sports os going on here lol is this VJ sheep night out?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He [Gore] could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis. " Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs.

Enormous cost? Consider this:

Earlier this week the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel approved a €3.3 billion ($4.8 Billion) policy package (more...) that aims to cut emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and to increase the nation's reliance on renewable energy sources.

COMMITMENT TO CLIMATE: Sweden First, US almost Last, Says Study

This is a forward looking, long term policy package aimed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift the focus from oil and gas based to renewable energy sources. To put this in perspective, we spend more than that on Iraq in a week and have done so for almost five years. Yes, the US is almost four times the population of Germany but it also has more than four times the economic output. The US GDP in 2006 was nearly $14 trillion (vs. Germany's close to $3 trillion). Based on the cost of the above mentioned policy package that Germany has recently passed, a relative cost for a similar policy package here would arguably be $12 - $16 billion. Peanuts, really, even if it was twice that amount. The cost argument simply don't count.

And it simply will not make any difference. Reducing dependancy on oil if fine. To do it with the aim of "saving the world from Global Warming" is a joke.

The major difference it will make, Gary, is that it will give those pesky European nations - as well as the developed Pacific Rim nations - quite a bit of a competitive advantage in the not so distant future. And they won't have to shed blood and tax dollars for oil. It would be worth getting on board just for that. Only those buying policy around here don't like that idea much.

Let me clarify my position here. I am 100% in favor of getting away from oil. Renewable energy just makes sense. I just don't buy it from the position that we should do it to "save the planet". That will result in a hurried policy that will in the end to more harm than good. Take bio fuels for example. We are starting to use corn for fuel and the result? Corn prices going through the roof and hurting the worlds poor. Fuel from corn sounds good but in practice is a bad idea. We just can't grow enough corn to make a difference. But since it makes the enviromentalists feel good we are doing it anyway. My favorite idea for energy is hydrogen fuel cells. Make hydrogen from water with the power coming from nuclear plants. Run cars, homes and business from fuel cells. It takes our dependance with oil away and pleases the GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

I can live with that. As long as we leave cleaner, less polluted air for our children and achieve less dependency on fossil fuel sources, I'll sign up. There just needs to be more of a policy push in the US, more stimulation of research and development. Why do we let Europe and Japan take the lead on this? What happened to America's leadership role?

[GaryC 7]

He [Gore] could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis. " Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs.

Enormous cost? Consider this:

Earlier this week the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel approved a €3.3 billion ($4.8 Billion) policy package (more...) that aims to cut emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and to increase the nation's reliance on renewable energy sources.

COMMITMENT TO CLIMATE: Sweden First, US almost Last, Says Study

This is a forward looking, long term policy package aimed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift the focus from oil and gas based to renewable energy sources. To put this in perspective, we spend more than that on Iraq in a week and have done so for almost five years. Yes, the US is almost four times the population of Germany but it also has more than four times the economic output. The US GDP in 2006 was nearly $14 trillion (vs. Germany's close to $3 trillion). Based on the cost of the above mentioned policy package that Germany has recently passed, a relative cost for a similar policy package here would arguably be $12 - $16 billion. Peanuts, really, even if it was twice that amount. The cost argument simply don't count.

And it simply will not make any difference. Reducing dependancy on oil if fine. To do it with the aim of "saving the world from Global Warming" is a joke.

The major difference it will make, Gary, is that it will give those pesky European nations - as well as the developed Pacific Rim nations - quite a bit of a competitive advantage in the not so distant future. And they won't have to shed blood and tax dollars for oil. It would be worth getting on board just for that. Only those buying policy around here don't like that idea much.

Let me clarify my position here. I am 100% in favor of getting away from oil. Renewable energy just makes sense. I just don't buy it from the position that we should do it to "save the planet". That will result in a hurried policy that will in the end to more harm than good. Take bio fuels for example. We are starting to use corn for fuel and the result? Corn prices going through the roof and hurting the worlds poor. Fuel from corn sounds good but in practice is a bad idea. We just can't grow enough corn to make a difference. But since it makes the enviromentalists feel good we are doing it anyway. My favorite idea for energy is hydrogen fuel cells. Make hydrogen from water with the power coming from nuclear plants. Run cars, homes and business from fuel cells. It takes our dependance with oil away and pleases the GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

I can live with that. As long as we leave cleaner, less polluted air for our children and achieve less dependency on fossil fuel sources, I'll sign up. There just needs to be more of a policy push in the US, more stimulation of research and development. Why do we let Europe and Japan take the lead on this? What happened to America's leadership role?

Ok, now we can say we agree. The US is dropping the ball on this. France gets a lot of it's power from nuclear. Why can't we? Just open yucca mountain with a reasonable emphasis on safety and build power plants. Give the oil companies some incentive to build infrastructure to deliver hydrogen and slowly phase out gas. Just do all these things from the idea of energy independance and not from "saving the planet". In the end both sides would be happy.

[Caladan 19]

He [Gore] could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis. " Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs.

Enormous cost? Consider this:

Earlier this week the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel approved a €3.3 billion ($4.8 Billion) policy package (more...) that aims to cut emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and to increase the nation's reliance on renewable energy sources.

COMMITMENT TO CLIMATE: Sweden First, US almost Last, Says Study

This is a forward looking, long term policy package aimed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift the focus from oil and gas based to renewable energy sources. To put this in perspective, we spend more than that on Iraq in a week and have done so for almost five years. Yes, the US is almost four times the population of Germany but it also has more than four times the economic output. The US GDP in 2006 was nearly $14 trillion (vs. Germany's close to $3 trillion). Based on the cost of the above mentioned policy package that Germany has recently passed, a relative cost for a similar policy package here would arguably be $12 - $16 billion. Peanuts, really, even if it was twice that amount. The cost argument simply don't count.

And it simply will not make any difference. Reducing dependancy on oil if fine. To do it with the aim of "saving the world from Global Warming" is a joke.

The major difference it will make, Gary, is that it will give those pesky European nations - as well as the developed Pacific Rim nations - quite a bit of a competitive advantage in the not so distant future. And they won't have to shed blood and tax dollars for oil. It would be worth getting on board just for that. Only those buying policy around here don't like that idea much.

Let me clarify my position here. I am 100% in favor of getting away from oil. Renewable energy just makes sense. I just don't buy it from the position that we should do it to "save the planet". That will result in a hurried policy that will in the end to more harm than good. Take bio fuels for example. We are starting to use corn for fuel and the result? Corn prices going through the roof and hurting the worlds poor. Fuel from corn sounds good but in practice is a bad idea. We just can't grow enough corn to make a difference. But since it makes the enviromentalists feel good we are doing it anyway. My favorite idea for energy is hydrogen fuel cells. Make hydrogen from water with the power coming from nuclear plants. Run cars, homes and business from fuel cells. It takes our dependance with oil away and pleases the GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

I can live with that. As long as we leave cleaner, less polluted air for our children and achieve less dependency on fossil fuel sources, I'll sign up. There just needs to be more of a policy push in the US, more stimulation of research and development. Why do we let Europe and Japan take the lead on this? What happened to America's leadership role?

I believe the canonical phrase is 'we sold it for thirty pieces of silver.'