Graham's Response about Climate Change Legislation

Senator Graham via The Patriot's Flag ^ | The Patriot's Flag

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Senator Graham was asked in written correspondence why he is taking his position on Climate Change. He was kind enough to respond and I've posted his response HERE. You can make up your own mind about the content ... I added my comments at "the bottom line." I thought people on FR might like to see his official position.

[Dapper 26]

Carbon is not a pollutant. Graham is clueless.

[TomasUSMC]

exactly

[vbmoneyspender]

I’ll believe that CO2 is a pollutant when Graham volunteers to stop breathing.

[Vanders9]

CO2 CAN be a pollutant, in the sense that anything can be a pollutant if its where you don't want it to be. Heat can be a pollutant. Salt can be a pollutant. Heck even Oxygen can be a pollutant (and a very dangerous one at that).

Personally, I thought the Senator's arguments for more drilling and investing in nuclear energy were cogent and persuasive. Its very difficult for any politician now to ignore AGW, because the environmental lobby is so very strong, but its clear to me his main concern is not "saving the planet" but strengthening national security by ensuring energy independence.

[Dick Bachert]

Hey, all you incredibly dumb and uninformed Americans, I’m Lindsey Graham. I’m a really, really, REALLY smart lawyer from South Carolina. Almost as smart as John Edwards.

Because I am from South Carolina, some of you uninformed BIGOTS might call me a “cracker.”

Actually, that suits me just fine because that would make me a Graham Cracker. So if you don’t like my position (most often bent over Algore’s or Harry Reid’s desk) on globull warming, immigration or those OTHER unimportant issues (I slept through those classes on factual evidence in law school) you can

BITE ME!

[NonLinear]

Thanks,

I got the same form letter.

I used most of your points in a response to him. I also copied Senator DeMint, hoping he could knock some sense into that other goober that claims to represent SC.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

I disagree. You don't "save the planet" by getting in bed with the hoaxers and John Kerry to put together legislation that KILLS the USA economy just to get a "maybe ok" for nuclear and drilling. No, you stay away from the "lefties" who want the cap and trade bs ... you make YOUR OWN legislation to make Nuclear and Drilling happen ... then you get energy independence WITHOUT fleecing the American Public to pay for "carbon credits" which are total BS. NO to tacking these GOOD things onto a BAD piece of legislation just to (maybe!) get them. Stop with the CAP and TRADE talk, start with the Nuclear Now, Drill Here Now and handcuff the EPA now. As I said in my comments at "the flag" ... if he made these happen WITHOUT "lefty" legislation, then I would support him ... most conservatives would.

---

The Patriot's Flag - Graham on Climate Change

[The Comedian]

While there is still debate about the causes and impact of climate change, there is no question we have an obligation to reduce carbon pollution.

OK. Let's start with your breathing, Senator Bitch.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[ChessExpert]

I took a quick look at the linked site and was favorably impressed by his emphasis on nuclear power and offshore oil production.

[FreeStateYank]

Reading Graham’s letter, it was clear to me that he wasn’t going to deal with the AGW claims, but propose common-sense proposals for energy independence.

I can live with that. Once we are on the way to telling ‘those who don’t like us very much’ to get stuffed, the hoax aspects of AGW claims can be investigated. Fully. With clawbacks and jail time as appropriate.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

I took a quick look at the linked site and was favorably impressed by his emphasis on nuclear power and offshore oil production.

---

Of course you were favorably impressed, he pushed the conservative buttons ... said the right things. I said it was "well-written." The problem is he wants to do this as a PART OF CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION! We can do this WITHOUT giving our country to the likes of Algore!

Would you be in favor of this if he'd written:

We Need to have nuclear power
We Need to Drill Here Drill Now
And we'll attach it to a bill that gives Obama 4 terms.

Sure the first two sound fine and will "favorably impress" you ... its that troublesome 3rd one ... the "other" thing to which the "good" things are being attached. Also with the promises you seen from this congress and administration ... would you trust them to honor nuclear power and drilling? Did you trust them when they said the Health Care bill would be transparent with C-Span broadcasting it?

Bottom line

(1) There is no man made global warming, the sun causes it to come and go and even Democrats can't legislate the sun's activity.

(2) We do not need "climate change" legislation because CO2 "pollution" is part of the myth.

And to give Senator Graham the "ok" to move forward with the likes of John Kerry to create a huge tax on corporations, small businesses and individual taxpayers borders on criminal conspiracy!

---

The Patriot's Flag - Graham on Climate Change

[Vanders9]

The problem with making your own legislation is that it will have no chance of passing given the current composition of the house. The left instinctively shys away from drilling for oil because they associate oil production with big multinational business and pollution, and they automatically shy from nuclear plants because nuclear power is “bad” (of course, there is no logic in this thinking, because its all done on emotion rather than reason, but that is how left-wingers work). BUT, if you append these proposals onto whatever bullcrap type climate change bill they are pushing, they are in a quandary. Nuclear power is indisputably “carbon-neutral”, and increasing oil production is indisputably good for the economy (as well as improving security). So how can they oppose such measures in a bill that is supposed to improve quality of life and reduce the amount of CO2 being produced? I can put up with them reducing industrial pollution, not because of the miniscule effect (if any) its going to have on climate but because reducing pollution is a darn good thing to do anyway. The easiest way for most businesses to reduce pollution is just simply to become more efficient.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

The easiest way for most businesses to reduce pollution is just simply to become more efficient.

Now YOU are doing it ... WHAT POLLUTION????? You sound just like Graham ... so you propose to give in and give the libs the "ace" that there is carbon (man made) pollution so we can slip "carbon neutral" nuclear into the package? And if you would be naive enough to give them that ace, you've also lost the ability to take control of the EPA, you actually strengthen the EPA's position for the faux "CO2 reduction folly".

MAKE YOUR OWN LEGISLATION, make "THEM" come to "YOU". Right now we don't have the votes ... so vote "KNOW" (no) to any legislation even having a hint of leaning left. Draw a line in the sand and say, "That's it, here's our ideas, we reject yours and are not going any further [LEFT!]." The Dems will say, "hey, just one more 3 inch step and ..." NO!!! We have already appeased them and taken too many baby steps toward toward the left trying to appease them. The result is pure Socialism right here in our own precious USA! Look at the facts, when has giving in to the left resulted in anything for the right?

Giving in to Democrats and "moderates" is like appeasing Iran. You give in, they make promises, nothing happens and you have to give in more and make more promises. Soon there is NOTHING LEFT of your original position. Its time for some backbone, some lines in the sand, and maybe a little courage. There IS NO man-made pollution. CO2 is NOT causing a problem it is only .03% of the atmosphere and it is needed by the ecological flora for survival. Why don't you suggest the Democrats go after bubble gum ... the bubbles have CO2 in them! Now there's a real change you can believe in! Start laughing at these people instead of taking them seriously and "working with" them ... they are a JOKE and what they are doing to this country is a CRIME!

---

The Patriot's Flag

[Vanders9]

There's no need to shout.

You ask "What pollution"? I was talking, if you read carefully, about pollution in general, not "carbon pollution", or whatever the current phrase is. The vast majority of man made CO2 production is through industrial processes (CO2 in bubble gum, soda etc, uses the byproduct CO2 of these processes. Pepsi and Coca-cola dont actually make CO2. They use other peoples.) It therefore follows that if you tighten up the production process, you will reduce the amount of all manner of waste products released, one of which will be CO2. I personally think we need to worry more about far more unpleasant chemicals being released into the environment than CO2 (Sulphides, methane and Carbon monoxide for example) but if CO2 emissions are cut as a side effect of reducing the others, I'm not going to complain.

What will the GOP gain by making its own legislation? The leftists will just laugh at you. They dont need to "come to you". The Democrats have complete control of all branches of the government, executive, legislative, and judicial. They don't need republican or independent votes to push through their programs. The only real opposition comes from inside the democrat party itself, principally those senators and representatives in districts that have interests that will be affected by these programs.

What is gained by simply voting no, no, no, no! to everything that comes along? The GOP will become the party of "no", and that will be electoral suicide. Voters tend to vote for policies, not against policies. What the GOP needs is a positive policy that people can get behind, and energy independence and efficiency might be it.

You see this as giving in to their ludricrousnes. I see it as an opportunity to derail their green gravy train and push through some genuinely useful legislation that helps the country and actually does some good.

[ChessExpert]

You make some good points.

Senator Graham should get off the global warming bandwagon. Temperatures peaked in 1998. We haven't had global warming in eleven years! Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause global warming; it's an effect. Warming oceans release carbon dioxide. There is no good reason for thinking that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

Nuclear power and off shore oil drilling should be advanced on their own merits. Oil is not used for electrical production. But coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and wind are used to produce electricity. To some degree, one may substitute for another. Each has some drawbacks. For example wind towers are an eyesore and kill bats. Wind also requires subsidies, a major clue that it's a bad idea.