Skip to comments.(from 2007) Republican Governors Who Wilt (Globalwarming Hoax)
Posted on 03/21/2009 1:06:51 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
For the last twenty years of my life, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising ocean levels at our farm in Beaufort County. In some cases, it's been watching pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marsh; in other cases it's meant finding roots in areas that would never grow a tree, given the current salt water levels. While I understand very clearly the debate on whether or not these events come as a result of man's activity -- or just the effects of nature taking its course - I've had other personal experiences that strongly suggest to me that man is having an impact on the environment. The last time I was in Beijing on a trade trip, we happened to be there on a bad smog day. When I went outside I could see no more than a quarter of a mile and my eyes watered.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
So many Sanford hit pieces, so little time.
Quoting from the article..
In general conservatives earn their stripes by being able to set aside the experiential and anecdotal, and instead make decisions based on actual data and evidence. Pawlenty and Sanford have bought the “human cause is incontrovertible” side of the global warming debate despite legitimate scientific challenges to the prevailing wisdom.
Fine. But is it too much to ask that the chosen solution-provider prove that his plans will actually do anything about the alleged problem?
As for global warming extremist Mark Sanford, I still don't know why Sanford wants a socialist President to succeed. Would Reagan have wanted a socialist President to succeed? I don't know what conservative wants a socialist President to succeed. Don't make a lot of sense.
They are in good company, with McStain, Romeny, Huckabee, Rudy, Arnold, Fred, etc etc...
That list is not 100% accurate.
SMOG does not equal ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.
That is an entirely disingenuous argument.
Smog is SMOG. To argue “global warming is true becauase of smog”
Gets you SQUARE on my ‘tard list.
True. It needs about 50 more prominent GOP names added.
Yes. And 1, maybe 2 subtracted.
No. All are global warming alarminsts
Care to back that up about Fred with some links?
“Care to back that up about Fred with some links?”
Not possible. Fred copy/pasted “Romeny’s” platform on this issue.
Maybe it is. Or maybe I forgot a /sarc tag.
Or maybe, just maybe, at this point, all the indiscretions are oozing out from under the doors of even the most conservative Republican politicians, including Sanford and even Paul.
Wait, that's the key word right there: politician.
Right on. McCain is not the only one who has great respect for Al Gore.
He cosponsored the largest (to date) global warming boondoggle legislation nightmare.
Thanks, that is what I was looking for.
Ok, I was wrong about Fred. Only one name to subtract then.
Some are trying to get you off message.
The same ones who dish it out but can’t take it.
You can't say that with complete certainty.
To blithely suggest that human activities have zero impact on the surrounding environment is just as idiotic as saying that their impact dwarfs that of natural physical processes. I can be certain that humanity does have an impact on its surrounding environment, however, I believe that humanity, on the whole, has a super-sized ego and a penchant for arrogance...that's been around for a long time, in its attempts and desire to control the weather.
The bottom line here is that yes, human activities do influence the environment, but no, I don't think humans are sufficiently sophisticated to accidentally terraform an entire planet in just over two centuries. Now, if Sanford is arguing that the Government ought to protect the common, shared environment, just as New England towns once maintained their village greens as public property, by promoting such ideals as energy efficiency and conservation in the actions of Government with respect to public property, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree with him. The Government has a duty and obligation to the citizenry to not act in a wasteful manner. However, if he is promoting energy rationing and Government interference in the lives of individuals, e.g., through carbon cap-and-trade, then no, I won't support him.
I was making an argument in private on his behalf yesterday. I’m getting a might bit sick at people now establishing standards for which are so high not even Christ Himself could measure up. The attacks on Palin, and now the stepped-up attacks on Sanford. Guess who we’re going to have left with ? Sanford is one of our best Governors in the country, and I’m not going to jump on this bash bandwagon. I don’t believe virtually any story that comes out of the MSM and even some allegedly “Conservative” outfits when the headline is Palin or Sanford. All they have to do is make a claim about this or that, and far too many of us will denounce them as a Socialist or idiot or whatever. We talk about the rodents being gullible, but a lot of us can wear those shoes just as well.
Believing that all human activities have zero impact on the environment is a sign that you should stop sniffing what comes out of your car's tail pipe.
Human activities do impact the environment. Case in point: litter. However, humans have not, I repeat, not, terraformed this planet in the way that idiots like Al Gore would have us believe.
So Mark Sanford is a so called RINO based on a comment about his state and one stupid comment about Obama. Wow. Never mind his 12 years of fiscal responsibility consistency, his votes and advocacy for less government, and his correct stances on life and 2nd Amendment issues.
Hey, bub, you have ZERO credibility here. Nada. Zip.
You are a Slick Willardbot agent.
And I hope everyone reads your posts as a Socialist apologist for one of the worst Governors in American history, they are quite telling.
Post #31. Take a gander at this troll’s postings going back to 2007. We know who Barnicle works for.
Climate, Energy and Commerce AdvisoryRight Committee
The CECAC was tasked with considering, evaluating, and compiling a multi-sector set of recommended policy options and presenting them to the Governor. Appointed by the Governor, the CECAC comprises a diverse group of stakeholders bringing broad perspective and expertise to the topic of climate change in South Carolina.
“So Mark Sanford is a so called RINO..”
You said it, not me. You can look elsewhere on this thread for the ones resorting to namecalling and posting unfounded accusations. A sure sign of defeat.
It looks like somebody's gunning for Romney's most formidable opposition in 2012.
But let's ask ourselves, do we want to get stuck with a RINO like Romney in 2012? Doing that kind of junk is what got us where we're at today. No thanks on the rerun.
None of the 2008 frontrunners were worth a crap as far as I'm concerned. Palin was alright (great compared with the others who were running), and propped up a bit here because of the crap she's (unfairly) had to deal with.
So far, I'd like to see Sanford, Jindal, or Barbour run. No senators.
What’s amusing in all this is that nowhere in Sanford’s quoted statement does he say anything about global warming. Sanford DOES talk about the effects of pollution, etc. and makes a general statement that man is affecting his environment. That much is obvious to any person with an IQ above room temperature.
Sorry folks, but simply being concerned about the state of the environment doesn’t make someone a RINO.
RomnacleCenturion does seem to be on a payroll of some sort....
After Fred pulled out (and with apologies to Duncan Hunter, who was a good man, but he had Defense Secretary written all over him (not a bad thing, because he had a serious role he could fill)) there was nobody in the race with any credibility. I called it a Fellinesque midget sideshow. First time since I was eligible to cast a vote that I didn't vote in the GOP primary because Fred was gone. We needed giants, not liberal RINO egotists.
Yes, Even Sanford
by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
October 07, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
You’ve got to wonder if there’s any room for climate sanity left in governance and politics if a man recognized as one of the most conservative governors in America has bought into global warming alarmism.
That’s what has happened with Gov. Mark Sanford in South Carolina, who last year created the Climate, Energy, and Commerce Advisory Committee to gin up some plans (extracted from the ideas of the Center for Climate Strategies) to cut down on carbon emissions in the state.
You might think that Sanford did so as a political nod to the environmentalists in his state, but his executive order (PDF) that created CECAC reflected a passionate tone:
For the last twenty years of my life, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising ocean levels at our farm in Beaufort County.
In some cases, it’s been watching pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marsh; in other cases it’s meant finding roots in areas that would never grow a tree, given the current salt water levels.
While I understand very clearly the debate on whether or not these events come as a result of man’s activity or just the effects of nature taking its course - I’ve had other personal experiences that strongly suggest to me that man is having an impact on the environment. The last time I was in Beijing on a trade trip, we happened to be there on a bad smog day.
When I went outside I could see no more than a quarter of a mile and my eyes watered.
Man is quite clearly having an impact in that part of the world, and while it’s been my longtime belief as a conservative that I should exercise as many rights and freedoms as possible, those rights and freedoms end when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others.
Fast-forward to a couple of weeks ago when CECAC released its final report, which included 51 policy recommendations to reduce greenhouse gases in South Carolina. Here’s what Sanford had to say:
Some of these recommendations will make a whole lot of sense for South Carolina and others wont. But we believe this report is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate - and it is our sincere hope that many of these findings will be implemented in South Carolina.
The governor’s press release added that with the CECAC process he hoped South Carolina “could begin to act on those issues on its own, before being saddled with costly future mandates from Washington, D.C.” as if any state could avoid that burden.
As for CCS/CECAC’s assertions about its final recommendations, they claim to have done an economic analysis of 33 of its 51 proposals and found that if implemented they would cost approximately $1.6 billion by the year 2020.
This is a big change from the kinds of economic claims CCS used to make with commissions in other states, when they would boast that their ideas would produce net gains in state economies (billions of dollars) and net increases in jobs (hundreds of thousands). They don’t do that so much any more.
As for the other 18 recommendations they don’t quantify, well, I guess they don’t want to make it appear the state will be that bad off because of carbon mitigation measures.
Still, it appears that even those numbers in the Palmetto State are short in their estimations, and thank God for the South Carolina Policy Council and the Beacon Hill Institute for bringing some reality to the discussion. The upshot:
Economic analysis of the Climate, Energy and Commerce Advisory Committee (CECAC) report would cost taxpayers billions of dollars while offering a negligible environmental benefit, according to the Policy Council study performed by economists at the Beacon Hill Institute.
The Center for Climate Strategies, authors of the CECAC report, propose tax increases and heavier regulations on businesses.
Findings from the study:
-CECAC recommendations would cost South Carolina taxpayers $11.9 billion between 2008 and 2020.
-In 2009 the recommendations would cost the state 13,542 jobs.
-In 2009 private investment would drop by $204 million
-In 2009 the average South Carolina family would incur a direct cost of $1,836.
-Projected global emissions for 2025 would be reduced just 0.012 percent.
And Gov. Sanford thinks this “is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate?”
Quoted statement? He created a new government bureaucracy to study the effects of global warming in SC.
The Executive Order...
An even better question is this: What is worse - Mark Sanford saying that there may be climate change going on, while not definitely attributing it to man's action, or Mitt Romney's liberal record on all kinds of stuff from guns to abortion to state-run health care?
Oh big whoop, he established a committed of 30 or less appointed officials to “assess” the extent of the threat, if any, from climate change. He even directly states that he supports market-based responses to any threat.
Try again, Romneybot.
"Begin the conversation and debate" probably means just that. Anything read into it further by yourself is just that - imagination on your part.
Now I don't like this, but this is much different than carbon taxes, CAFE bills, and the like.
Let me get this straight
You want congress to implement a new tax revenue system based on CO2 called a CO2 Cap and trade program.
As a consumer, which pays for all taxes and fees for the exchange of goods and services, I will not support a new tax system, tax, hidden tax or fees based on CO2 regulations.
Starting today I am going to cut my spending by 15 percent.
I will never purchase a new automobile.
Lost of revenue to the Auto, Finance and Insurance industries.
I will not travel outside my city on vacation for next several years.
Lost of revenue to the Travel Agents, Airlines, Hotels and Vacation Destinations industries.
I will reduce my utility consumption.
Lost of revenue to the Electric, Natural Gas and City Water, Sewer industries.
I will reduce my entertainment
Lost of revenue to the Hollywood, Restaurant, Concert and Sports industries.
Im going to ask 10 of my friends to reduce their spending by 15 percent and encourage them to ask 10 of their friends to do the same.
Im neither a register Republic, Democrat or Independent.
I am a register VOTER and a member of the Tea Party
I will work toward unseating any politicians regardless of party affiliation who votes for any type of CO2 regulation.
One thing that all conservatives know is that their worst enemy is that Romney and his people like barnacle will be working against them like barnacle is on this thread.
This isn't a Mark Sanford thread, this is a Mitt Romney thread.
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.