Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Turning Point on Global Warming (McCain and Lieberman Op-Ed Alert)
Boston Globe ^ | Februrary 13, 2007 | Senator John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman

Posted on 02/13/2007 5:15:20 AM PST by RWR8189

THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming.

In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may now be threatened as a species. The US Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health has cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge we face. And President Bush has himself called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront.

Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation.

To confront this challenge, we have reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. The bill, which has growing bipartisan support, would harness the power of the free market and the engine of American innovation to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough and quickly enough to forestall catastrophic global warming.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; lieberman; mccain; mccaingore; mccaingwarming; mccainlieberman; mccaintruthfile; rinomccain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-108 next last
To: curiosity

Don't be such a kool-aid drinker, a rise of .6 or .7 is statisticly insignificant and indicative of only a natural fluctuation. As a matter of fact the rise seems to have peaked in 1998, and not increased at all since President Bush took office. So, maybe that's Bush's fault, too, like everything else.

The post modern left keeps changing their meta-narrative to fit the circumstances. Now, that the world is possibly experiencing a record cold winter, they have changed the title of their fantasy to "Climate Change".


51 posted on 02/14/2007 10:03:04 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Don't be such a kool-aid drinker, a rise of .6 or .7 is statisticly insignificant

Really? How are you computing the standard errors to determine that? And how come your standard error estimates are so much higher than every one else's?

and indicative of only a natural fluctuation.

Yes, it could be a natural fluctuation, but that doesn't mean it isn't real, which is what the Czech president seems to be saying.

52 posted on 02/14/2007 11:09:12 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

You are making your error in only reading one side of the story. Do a little reading and don't accept consensus as science. I have a whole file full of articles that refute your global warming meta-narrative, but I think that it would be better if you did your own research before you make up your mind.


The problem with meta-narratives is that they create a truth that fits their overall world view, rather than prove a truth. Like Al Gore claiming that the oceans are going to rise twenty feet and swamp parts of the world. It just flat out not going to happen. The science indicates that the worst cast scenario is less than twenty inches and this was even included in the UN report on climate change. I could go on and on, but you really need to do some research on studies that aren't paid for by socialists.


53 posted on 02/14/2007 11:40:46 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Eva
You are making your error in only reading one side of the story. Do a little reading and don't accept consensus as science. I have a whole file full of articles that refute your global warming meta-narrative, but I think that it would be better if you did your own research before you make up your mind.

I have. So have lots of economists and climatologists who aren't leftwing wackos. The evidence points to a strong possibility that human-generated CO2 is causing at least some warming.

There are no serious climatologists who will deny that there is at least some non-negligible probability that global warming is at least partially being generated by humans. All the dissenters have done is show that there is considerable uncertainty regarding that proability. But no one can say with any confidence that that probability is zero.

Others will object that human caused global warming isn't proven. True, but that's beside the point. It can't be proven that human activies aren't causing global warming, either.

We live in the world of uncertainty, so it is simply irrational to wait until we have absolute proof before taking action. The fact is, if human caused global warming is real, it can hurt us regardless of whether it can be proven or not. Hence it is irrational to demand proof before taking action, just as it would be irrational for a doctor to wait for absolute proof before operating on a patient whom he strongly suspects of having a life-threatening condition.

Once you admit that there is some sigificant chance that global warming has a human cause (which everyone admits), it becomes an optimization problem. There are some expected costs associated with warming, and there are costs associated with measures we can take to reduce it. Like with most tradeoffs, neither extreme is likely the optimal solution (corner solutions tend to be rare in the real world). Rather, the optimum is most likely somewhere in between: to take some measures to curtail global warming, but not do everything possible. There are reputable, conservative economists working on this problem as we speak.

Besides, there are certain things that would help reduce global warming that we should be doing anyway for security reasons, such as building more nuclear power plants and start reprocessing nuclear fuel.

Of course, the hysteria of Algore and the rest of the extreme left engage is in equally irrational, but that doesn't mean the opposite extreme is any better.

54 posted on 02/14/2007 2:32:26 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Consensus is not science, but I think that you will have to admit that most economists state that given the unsettled science of global warming, the economic trade off that would be required to prevent it, are not worth it. Even the UN report stated that the steps that the radical environmentalists are advocating would leave the average person around the world 30% poorer and much less able to cope with any effects of global warming that might occur.

If the left were really serious about green house gases, they would be advocating nuclear power plants and windmills. But the fact remains that as long as China and India are not subjected to the same controls that the socialists want to put on the US, any steps that we would take would be meaningless.


55 posted on 02/14/2007 3:03:03 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Once you admit that there is some sigificant chance that global warming has a human cause (which everyone admits), it becomes an optimization problem.

No, everyone does not admit anything about climate change, except that it changes. Here is a statement from a professor at the University of Pennsylvania:

The Earth has been warming for abut 20,000 years. We've only been collecting data on that trend for about 200 years. For most of Earth history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has only rarely been cooler. Those cooler periods have meant things like two miles of ice piled over much of what is now North America. Nothing to be nostalgic for.

The cause of global warming that the Penn prof. supports was developed by a Serbian scientist, and it explains the cyclical nature of the global warming and cooling. The Earth's orbit around the sun is more or less circular, but when other planets align in certain ways and their gravitational forces tug at the Earth, the orbit stretches into a more elliptical shape. Combined with the tilt of the Earth on its axis as it spins, that greater or lesser distance from the sun, plus the consequent difference in solar radiation that reaches our planet, is responsible for longterm climate change.

The prof also suggests that CO2 levels could be influenced by climate change, not the other way around.

I have a whole file of these professors who believe that global warming is a socialist meta narrative aimed at bringing about world socialism.

56 posted on 02/14/2007 4:35:59 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Eva

I see that you are from the University of WA, I assume that you have read Gregoire's executive order on climate change. She states that she based it on the same U.W. climatologists who made a fool of her two years ago, by getting her to declare a drought in Feb.

One of her requirements concerns biodiesel for school buses, but school districts which have already switched to the clean diesel experienced a lot of trouble in the cold weather. The buses started up just fine, but then the fuel thickened and the engines died, leaving kids stranded at school bus stops in freezing weather. Just what we need.


57 posted on 02/14/2007 4:45:55 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

This was supposed to go to you:

I see that you are from the University of WA, I assume that you have read Gregoire's executive order on climate change. She states that she based it on the same U.W. climatologists who made a fool of her two years ago, by getting her to declare a drought in Feb. She's not exactly a quick learner.

One of her requirements concerns biodiesel for school buses, but school districts which have already switched to the clean diesel experienced a lot of trouble in the cold weather. The buses started up just fine, but then the fuel thickened and the engines died, leaving kids stranded at school bus stops in freezing weather. Just what we need.


58 posted on 02/14/2007 4:49:16 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Eva
I see that you are from the University of WA, I assume that you have read Gregoire's executive order on climate change.

Yeah. It's just symbolism over substance. This is an issue that needs to be addressed on a national and international level. Token steps like Gregoire's aren't going to do any good.

One of her requirements concerns biodiesel for school buses

Yes, it was stupid. Biofuels are, for the most part, a worthless boondogle that aren't going to do any good.

59 posted on 02/14/2007 6:23:33 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

".....To deny it is to ignore reality."

so weather happens...some like it hot...some don't...sooo what
the he&* 's the issue?!!


60 posted on 02/14/2007 6:38:13 PM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
You say "No serious person denies that the globe is warming." But...

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Read the entire article at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Now that was just a bit less than 33 years ago, so in less than that time the earth has transformed itself from entering an ice age to another catastrophic global warming like the last one that ended the most recent ice age.

Do you wonder why some of us are skeptical of recurrent "sky is falling" hoaxes?

61 posted on 02/14/2007 7:44:06 PM PST by StopGlobalWhining (Only 3 1/2-5% of atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. 95-96.5% is from natural sources)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Gregoire's executive order was a sop to the leftist greenies who put her in office. She is very beholden to them for all the fraud. But I am surprised that you as an economist would support limits on capitalism to support unproven science, when China and India would out weigh any gains from the US effort, even if the science and technology supported it.

There can be no serious discussion of environmental issues until someone separates the political issues from the scientific fact and balances the real projected costs against the real projected benefits. That is never going to happen because you can't talk logic and facts with the post modern socialiststs who are using this issue to reign in the US capitalism.

Also, on another subject, someone was looking for an article on the court case by the Asian students who sued for in-state tuition along with the illegals who graduated from local high schools, but we couldn't find it. Do you have any information on that, or can you direct me?


62 posted on 02/14/2007 8:56:55 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: StopGlobalWhining
Now that was just a bit less than 33 years ago,

Which makes in ancient history. Seriously, the climate sciences have advanced a lot since then, and we now know the cause of the brief cooling period the article is talking about: particulate pollution. After catalytic converters and other pollution controls became mandatory, particulate pollution decreased, and the warming trend resumed.

63 posted on 02/15/2007 11:20:17 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Eva
But I am surprised that you as an economist would support limits on capitalism to support unproven science,

All science is unproven to a degree. In a world of uncertainty like ours, you have to go with what the data tell you is most likely.

BTW, as far as putting limits on capitalism, there have to be some. No one today, on the right or the left, seriously argues that there is no need for any government intervention. Do you want to end the regulation of natural monopolies like electricity transmission? If so, be prepared to pay through he nose. Do you want to end all regulation of air pollution? As an asthmatic, I would seriously object to that.

A free market works the vast majority of the time, but there are times when it does not. One of those instances is when there are what we call "externalities," that is, costs associated with certain economic activity not born by the person engaged in it. There are many costs associated with consuming a gallon of gasoline, for example, that are not factored into the price of gasoline, so they are not paid for by the user of gasoline. The exhaust that comes out of your tail pipe cause respiratory problems that you don't pay for. And the evidence suggests (though not with certainty) that the exhaust also contributes to global warming, which also creates costs. In these instances, it is necessary for some intervention to at least attempt to make prices reflect the external costs not born by either consumer or producer.

when China and India would out weigh any gains from the US effort, even if the science and technology supported it.

As far as I know, right now, Europe, the US, and the developed parts of Asia dwarf these two in terms of CO2 emissions. However, yes, you're right, their emissions are growing, and will eventually eclipse us in the not too distant future. However, both of these countries already have nuclear technology, so I don't see any problem with giving them incentives to move toward reliance on nuclear, which IMHO is the most cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse emissions. At any rate, this is a global issue and needs to be dealt with internationally.

And just so you know, I don't support Kyoto. That's a hysterical knee-jerk reaction to the problem that hasn't even considered the cost-benefit analysis. I would favor ripping that piece of garbage of an agreement to shreds and going back to the drawing board with a much more rational, cost-benefit approach.

There can be no serious discussion of environmental issues until someone separates the political issues from the scientific fact and balances the real projected costs against the real projected benefits.

I agree. There are lots of very reasonable and smart economists working on this as we speek.

That is never going to happen because you can't talk logic and facts with the post modern socialiststs who are using this issue to reign in the US capitalism.

That's why rational people on the right need to pull their heads out of the sand and deal with this isssue seriously. If we don't, then the post-modern socialists, as you call them, will dominate the discussion and the result will be something we really don't like.

Also, on another subject, someone was looking for an article on the court case by the Asian students who sued for in-state tuition along with the illegals who graduated from local high schools, but we couldn't find it. Do you have any information on that, or can you direct me?

Sorry, that's the first I've heard about it. I'm not tenured, so I try to keep out of political controversies here and focus on my research.

64 posted on 02/15/2007 2:16:29 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
. In a world of uncertainty like ours, you have to go with what the data tell you is most likely.

My nephew is an actuary, he says that you are wrong about what the data is telling us.

Consensus science is feminized science, it's about feelings, not facts. I have yet to hear one serious, rational proposal from an environmentalist. All they want to do is rage against big oil. They don't like nuclear power, they don't like hydro power, they don't like windmills, they don't even like people. To quote that professor from Penn, they are nothing but a bunch of "greenhouse gasbags".

The most important factor in a rational energy policy should be based on relative independence from OPEC. The left wants to use the politics of oil to strangle capitalism, and they are willing to sacrifice our national security to do it. They don't want to save the planet so much as they want to turn it upside down, with the white male on the bottom of the world heap.

65 posted on 02/15/2007 3:01:04 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Eva
My nephew is an actuary, he says that you are wrong about what the data is telling us.

Just about every climate scientist I have talked to says I'm right. I'm neither an actuary nor a climate scientist, so I have to defer to the experts. And no, most climate scientists are not leftwing moonbats.

Consensus science is feminized science, it's about feelings, not facts. I have yet to hear one serious, rational proposal from an environmentalist.

Me neither. That's why we can't let the wacko environmentalist wackos monopolize this debate. There are rational people who are coming out with proposals, however. Just because some of the people concerned about global warming are lefist moonbats doesn't make everyone concerned about it a moonbat. Nor does the presense of extremists on one side give any legitimacy to the other extreme position of global warming denial.

The most important factor in a rational energy policy should be based on relative independence from OPEC.

I agree, and this is a goal that would also reduce greenhouse emission. But national security concerns alone justify ending our dependence on oil. And it's not just imported oil, BTW. The problem is the market power that OPEC enjoys, not the amount of oil we import from OPEC per se. If we shift to other sources of oil, the rest of the world will continue to import OPEC oil in large qunatities simply because OPEC produces such a huge proportion of the world's oil. Thus OPEC's total share of the global oil market will remain unchanged, and so thus will their market power and hence their ability to hurt us. Unless we are able to find such huge reserves of oil so as to significantly reduce OPEC's overall marketshare, which is highly unlikely, the only solution is to get off oil. And I believe that is doable, given present technology.

The left wants to use the politics of oil to strangle capitalism, and they are willing to sacrifice our national security to do it. They don't want to save the planet so much as they want to turn it upside down, with the white male on the bottom of the world heap.

That's true, which is why we must not let the left monopolize the debate. But if we continue to deny reality and pretend global warming isn't a potential problem, that is exactly what will happen. The only rational way forward is to try to shift the debate to a cost-benefit analysis. We say, okay, there's a significant chance global warming is real and human caused, so what should we do? What are some things that could make an impact that don't cost too much, or that we should be doing anyway?

Again, much of what we could do to combat global warming are the same things we should be doing to reduce the power of OPEC. The left may not like some of these things (i.e. nuclear power and hydro), but they are things that we can sell to the public and thus use them to marginalize the left.

66 posted on 02/15/2007 4:17:11 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DB

the problem has been that for years, the right has ignored this issue, had not rebutted it, and the left has continued to make gains (through lies, but what else is new) in public opinion on it.


67 posted on 02/15/2007 4:20:41 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

you are mixing two concepts - energy policy and global warming. sure - nuclear power is good, alternative fuels are good, plug-in hybrid cars are good. that's an energy policy.


68 posted on 02/15/2007 4:25:16 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Now that was just a bit less than 33 years ago...

Which makes in ancient history. Seriously, the climate sciences have advanced a lot since then, and we now know the cause of the brief cooling period the article is talking about: particulate pollution. After catalytic converters and other pollution controls became mandatory, particulate pollution decreased, and the warming trend resumed.

Yeah, right. LOL!

Do you think that the Maunder Minimum, which just conveniently took place during the 70 year period that coincided with the coldest period of the "Little Ice Age" from 1645 to 1715 was just a coincidence?

For readers not familiar with the Maunder Minimum, it was an unusual period of time when there was almost no sunspot activity for 70 years. Normally, sunspot activity follows about an 11 year cycle where sunspots go from a peak number to a much smaller number, and then back to a peak.

Most honest scientists today believe that the Maunder Minimum represented a period of time during which the energy output of the sun decreased enough to affect temperatures on earth and other planets.

69 posted on 02/15/2007 6:40:16 PM PST by StopGlobalWhining (Only 3 1/2-5% of atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. 95-96.5% is from natural sources)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Not that I'd ever vote for this nut anyway, but he certainly has now proven that he'll say anything to ingratiate himself with the leftist media. His problem is that he can never win the nomination. An Independent, Republican-killing, Ross Perot-like (who is just as kooky as McSane) presidential run coming up.


70 posted on 02/15/2007 10:54:43 PM PST by Thickman (Term limits are the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

Pray for global warming - no matter the cause. It can get real cold out there and has been for most of earth's history according to this chart. We are in one of just a few peak temperature cycles which historically have been hotter and have not lasted long (relatively speaking).


71 posted on 02/15/2007 11:05:55 PM PST by Thickman (Term limits are the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Thickman
We are in one of just a few peak temperature cycles which historically have been hotter and have not lasted long (relatively speaking).

Judging from the graph, if one were to normalize the tempurature, it would be about 5 degrees below the 1996 nominal that was chosen as a baseline for the graph. Immagine the average tempurature 5 degrees colder on average. Winter would start in Early Novemeber and last until mid April. 6 full months of winter as opposed to 3 1/2 months.

72 posted on 02/16/2007 7:00:30 AM PST by Ouderkirk (Don't you think it's interesting how death and destruction seems to happen wherever Muslims gather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
you are mixing two concepts - energy policy and global warming

My point is that global warming has implications for energy policy, and the energy policies that are good for us anyway would also help reduce global warming.

73 posted on 02/16/2007 9:27:11 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: StopGlobalWhining
Do you think that the Maunder Minimum, which just conveniently took place during the 70 year period that coincided with the coldest period of the "Little Ice Age" from 1645 to 1715 was just a coincidence?

What does the Mauder minimum have to do with the brief cooling period in the middle of the 20th century? Why are you changing the subject?

But to answer your question, no one denies that non-human factors, like sunspots and solar flares, can influence the climate. That's irrelevent to this question however. Just because other things like sunspots can influence the climate doesn't mean that we don't. There are multiple factors involved, and human created C02 is one of them. Why do global warming deniers try to cast this issue as if it were an all-or-nothing proposition?

74 posted on 02/16/2007 9:39:27 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
McCain and Lieberman:

"There is now a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it."

"Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren."

George Will's recent Newsweek column on the subject:

"The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs."

Geeze, Will nailed it.

What is happening with the Republican party? First we have Republicans in the House who support the Article of Surrender, now McCain selling out to the global warming "consensus".

McCain and Lieberman further state:

"The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity."

Oh really? The debate has ended? Who decided this? Did we have a cloture vote in the Senate which I failed to hear about?

75 posted on 02/16/2007 9:46:10 AM PST by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
"Why do global warming deniers try to cast this issue as if it were an all-or-nothing proposition?"

If anything, the opposite is more true. It is the global warming alarmists who promote an all-or-nothing proposition.

Just look at the article:

" ... global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it."

"The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity."

Not "The earth is getting warmer, and humans are one potential cause of it." Not "We need to do something about the part of global warming causes we can affect". No such pragmatism!

Are some using scientific evidence of solar cycles and cosmic radiation's effect on the climate to completely dismiss potential human causes? Yes. But these are the rank and file, along with some political commentators, not the skeptical scientists and other officials.

But on the pro-human caused global warming side of the debate, the opposite is true. It is scientists, politicians, and officials who refuse to acknowledge the other factors.

In fact, those scientists, politicians, and officials who do acknowledge multiple factors are attacked as "deniers", threatened with decertifications, and generally vilified by the pro-human caused global warming alarmists.

76 posted on 02/16/2007 10:11:02 AM PST by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
"After catalytic converters and other pollution controls became mandatory, particulate pollution decreased, and the warming trend resumed."

Can you provide a link to the evidence to support this claim?

I can buy the reduction in particulate in coal-burning plants, but catalytic converters are not particulate reducers. And low-sulfer diesel (diesel being a high-particulate fuel) is just now being mandated.

Also, my educated guess is the reduction in particulates in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s has likely more than been offset by increases in the developing world such as China and India. A wild-card in this would be the collapse of communism, which reduced economic output (and likely the particulate output) in the Soviet Union, and via the reunification of Germany forced a clean-up of the filthy air in East Germany.

However, many other countries, especially in Asia, had horrible air pollution before the recent rise of India and China. Japan in the 1980s and 1990s had filthy air. As did Korea and Malaysia.

If you are correct that U.S. EPA actions around air pollution in the 1970s caused a worldwide climate effect, someone somewhere has to be predicting the effect of China's and India's air pollution output.

77 posted on 02/16/2007 10:24:28 AM PST by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: magellan
Here's a good article on the global cooling period in the middle of the last century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I may have been wrong about catalytic converters. I know that they were a big factor in reducing smog, but you may be right that they had little to do with reducing particulate pollution.

78 posted on 02/16/2007 10:49:00 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: magellan
Are some using scientific evidence of solar cycles and cosmic radiation's effect on the climate to completely dismiss potential human causes? Yes. But these are the rank and file, along with some political commentators, not the skeptical scientists and other officials.

Most vocal skeptics of global warming are not scientists.

But on the pro-human caused global warming side of the debate, the opposite is true. It is scientists, politicians, and officials who refuse to acknowledge the other factors.

Every single scientific paper on global warming I have seen aknowledges other factors. Even the UN's recent report does that. It's true that politicians (like the two in the article) and leftist columnists often ignore the other causes, but that's not true of the scientists.

In fact, those scientists, politicians, and officials who do acknowledge multiple factors are attacked as "deniers",

Nonsense. If that were true, then every single climate scientist would be called a denier. The only ones attacked as "deniers" are those who deny the evidence of a significant human component to the warming.

79 posted on 02/16/2007 10:56:07 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Before I'll listen to anyone even express an opinion on anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, I've been asking them to take a simple, 3-question quiz for the past five years or so:
1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?
2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B) Absorber of carbon dioxide?
3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?


80 posted on 02/16/2007 10:59:40 AM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

If Manmade Global Warming was a done deal and proven, why is over a $Billion still being spent to prove it? I mean how much do we spend to prove the earth is round?
If Manmade Global Warming were a fact how come none of there predictions have come true?


If you BELIEVE in Manmade Global warming then you have less understanding then I do.

You cannot give me one provable fact to support your hypostasis, or a consistent prediction as to the effects of manmade global warming. Do you even know the ‘Scientific Method?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

The environmentalists pushing the 'global warming' myth have never gotten past Step # 2!


81 posted on 02/16/2007 11:09:28 AM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Answers:
1. Water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is less than 2% of the total effect, with methane taking up most of the balance, and other gasses responsible for the remainder. But all we EVER hear about is CO2.
2. The U.S., with it's vast forests (more now than in pre-Columbian times) and farmlands is a net ABSORBER of CO2...as opposed to Europe and Japan, which are net emitters.
3. Let's see...they were raising crops of oats in Greenland, and the Icelandic/Viking explorers were calling what is now the chilly area of Newfoundland "Vinland" because of the grapes which grew there. It's an era referred to as the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in old climate textbooks, and was followed by the spread of Black Plague (the fleas of the rats taking advantage of the warmer climate to spread to northern Europe). That period was followed by what used to be referred to as the "Little Ice Age", in which England saw snow in areas never before seen, and the River Thames froze quite solidly on a regular basis. That period ended in the early/middle 1700's, and we've been in a warming trend ever since.
When an eco-fanatic that I'm talking to fails the first question, I have to enquire why they feel that they are entitled to demand legislation on a technical topic of which they have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about.


82 posted on 02/16/2007 11:17:14 AM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
I'll answer your questions and the preempt your arguments based on them.

1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?

No single gas amounts to that large a percentage of the greenhouse effect. I know you are going to claim it is water vapor, but that's an internet myth with no scientific support.

It is true that water vapor accounts for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect, but it's not 95%. it's more like 65-85%. Here's a source:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220

But okay, I know where you're going with this, and 65-85% is high enough for you to do it. You're going to say that we don't have to worry about CO2 because it's so much smaller a proportion of current greenhouse gasses than is water vapor. This is an absurd argument, however, because the current proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevent to the question of what increases in the gas will do to our climate.

2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B) Absorber of carbon dioxide?

Emitter. I bet you think we're an absorber. Well, that's a myth, debunked here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?

Warmer. I know where you're going with this too. You're going to claim that the temperatures during the Mediavel warming period 1000 years ago were higher than today. This is smiply another internet myth.

See here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

83 posted on 02/16/2007 11:43:13 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

Your answers are wrong, as you can see from my post just below yours. BTW, why did you not wait to let me answer your post?


84 posted on 02/16/2007 12:39:44 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
If Manmade Global Warming was a done deal and proven, why is over a $Billion still being spent to prove it?

Money is being spent to get more precise estimates of its magnitude and figuring out what can be done about it.

If Manmade Global Warming were a fact how come none of there predictions have come true?

They have come true.

You cannot give me one provable fact to support your hypostasis,

Hypostasis? I think you mean hypothesis. Well, here's one provable fact: the earth is warmer now than it has been in about 1,300 years. Here's another provable fact: C02 absorbes UV radiation. Here's another provable fact: CO2 concerntrations in the atmosphere are orders of magnitude higher now than they have been in that same period.

The environmentalists pushing the 'global warming' myth have never gotten past Step # 2!

They have, your willful ignorance not withstanding.

85 posted on 02/16/2007 12:44:08 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
2. The U.S., with it's vast forests (more now than in pre-Columbian times) and farmlands is a net ABSORBER of CO2...as opposed to Europe and Japan, which are net emitters.

I just realized that I gave the wrong link to debunk this myth. Here is the correct one:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-is-net-co2-sink.html

86 posted on 02/16/2007 12:48:49 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: sono

Yes and they'll have to run as independents, thus splitting the conservative vote and ushering in the second Clinton presidency.


87 posted on 02/16/2007 12:53:43 PM PST by 38special (I mean come'on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
I'll add a few things to my pre-emption:

1. Water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is less than 2% of the total effect, with methane taking up most of the balance, and other gasses responsible for the remainder. But all we EVER hear about is CO2.

I already debunked the nonsense about 95% being water vapor. I'll only add one thing. The reason we hear about CO2 and not the others is because the amount of CO2 is increasing faster than the others by several orders of magnitude. The other gasses are have been pretty stable over the past 150 years.

#2 is already debunked.

3. Let's see...they were raising crops of oats in Greenland, and the Icelandic/Viking explorers were calling what is now the chilly area of Newfoundland "Vinland" because of the grapes which grew there.

I already posted a link which debunks the myth that global temperatures were lower during the Medieval Warming period. As to the annecdotes about milder climates in South Greenland and Europe, there is strong evidence that these were just local effects. Just because one part of the world gets warmer doesn't mean the same thing happens to the entire globe. In fact, the evidence points to the fact that the world as a whole was cooler then than today (though it was warmer than say, during the mid 1800's).

When an eco-fanatic that I'm talking to fails the first question, I have to enquire why they feel that they are entitled to demand legislation on a technical topic of which they have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about.

Unfortunately, you have demonstrated that you know about as much as the typical ecofanatic. You don't do the conservative cause any good by perpetuating internet myths that have been shown false long ago.

88 posted on 02/16/2007 12:59:31 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Here's an article from Opinion Journal that demonstrates what I was saying about feminized science with constructed outcomes, instead of proven science.

An Ohio State University press release, meanwhile, says that temperatures in Antarctica during the late 20th century "did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models":

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

But David Bromwich, a professor of atmospheric sciences at OSU, "said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong." The important thing is that they work in theory, not in practice.

89 posted on 02/16/2007 1:19:01 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

The name of the game is Carbon Trading. There will be big money ripped from the vulnerable through the Carbon Trading racket.


90 posted on 02/16/2007 1:26:05 PM PST by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Curiosity,
Do you even read the stuff you linked?
Your OWN source http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html States the following:
There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century.

What double talk. Fist they say there is no “high degree of confidence” then they make a statement that with a high degree of confidence.

Lets see the thermometer was not invented till the 1700’s. So to get “carbon, temperatures or what ever” we have to rely on “tree rings and ice cores.” There are so many variables besides temperature and carbon that can affect these that the scientist have to an average. Trees rings are also affected by the age of the tree, moisture, and soil content. Ice cores are affected by wind, moisture, age, debt, ect.
What do we have today” Satellites and hypersensitive electronic gear that allows us to measure smaller an smaller amounts. So to compare information from tree rings and ice cores with today’s reading is like comparing the time taken by a hour glass or sundial with an atomic clock. This is why your site says that they cannot construct anything with a HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE.

So how can anyone make statements that the temperatures today are higher than anytime in the last 500, 1000, 10,000 or what ever they do?

In addition the site http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html uses the computer program called the “hocky stick,” which has been proven to be worthless.
See Global Warming Bombshell http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm

What it basically says that when they put random numbers into the program they got the same results something like 87 or 90 time tried. If you do more study on the Hockey Stick you find that it was written to eliminate that pesky medieval warming period.

In fact the people behind your ncdc website are talked about at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

It is obvious from your answers and web links that you have never take a real science class or understand statistics or the scientific method. One thing you will notice in the links you gave there is really no math talk about variables.

See Pseudoscience http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html
All the links you gave do is use rhetoric. For real science see CO2: Reality vs. Fantasy http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/Search%20This%20Site.htm
And Debunking Modern Climate Myths
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

But before we get into a link vs link. I have to ask you have you looked at the motivation behind the Manmade Global warming pushers? Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart. said 'Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.' Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians - and most citizens of the world - would not otherwise accept.
http://www.junkscience.com/dec98/corcoran.htm

That is why the UN, AL Gore, Vladimir Putin, amoung other are big Greens and manmade global warming pushers. They are all pushing for more GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OF ALL OUR LIVES, this is SOCIALISM. Haven’t you noticed that ALL CURES FOR THESE SO CALLED DISASTERS IS MORE GOVERNMENT?
Should we get environmental laws passed there will not be any aspect our lives that will not be under governmental control.

If the limits to growth analysis of our predicament is correct we have no choice but to undertake radical changes in lifestyles, values, the geography of our settlements and especially change to a different economy. http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/12b-The-Alt-Sust-Soc-Lng.html

If you believe in manmade global warming you are what Lenin called a useful idiot, remember he called for abolition of private property and if you read what he wanted to do it is the same as the manmade global warming pushers.



91 posted on 02/16/2007 1:58:33 PM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it.

There is a broad consensus amongst the MSM and leftist-influenced scientists...the rest of us have huge doubts that they have proof that humans are causing global warming, or the global cooling they also propagated a few decades back. Liberals don't seem to understand, consensus does not equal truth...it is simply agreement.

92 posted on 02/16/2007 2:01:38 PM PST by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
Do you even read the stuff you linked?

Yes.

What double talk. Fist they say there is no “high degree of confidence” then they make a statement that with a high degree of confidence.

Do me a favor and go take a class in statistics. It's possible to have a low degree of confidence about a mean temperature in a short period while at the same time have a high degree of confidence in a temperature range over longer periods of time.

So to get “carbon, temperatures or what ever” we have to rely on “tree rings and ice cores.” There are so many variables besides temperature and carbon that can affect these that the scientist have to an average. Trees rings are also affected by the age of the tree, moisture, and soil content. Ice cores are affected by wind, moisture, age, debt, ect.

Sure. So there's a margin of error. There are ways of measuring this margin, and the difference between today's temperatures and estimates of 1000 years ago lie outside that margin. Please, please, take a class in statistics.

So to compare information from tree rings and ice cores with today’s reading is like comparing the time taken by a hour glass or sundial with an atomic clock.

Yeah, one estimate is more precise than the other. So what? If the difference between estiamtes is large enough, you can still tell that there is a difference with a high degree of confidence.

Let's use your example. Suppose at one point during the day I use a sundial and I estimate that the time is 9:00 AM. Later in the day I look an an atomic clock and find that it's 5:00 PM. That first reading isn't very precise. It may have as late as 9:20 or early 8:40. On the hand, the second reading was very precise. I can still say with confidence that the atomic clock reading was made at least 7:40 hours after the the sundial reading, and at most 8:20 hours later. I can't say it was 8:00 hours on the dot, but who cares?

So how can anyone make statements that the temperatures today are higher than anytime in the last 500, 1000, 10,000 or what ever they do?

Gee, you tell me. How is it that you make statements the earth was warmer 1,100 years ago than it is today?

93 posted on 02/16/2007 3:16:10 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Hot And Bothered
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 2/2/2007
Climate Change: A U.N. panel officially releases its report telling us the planet is warming, man is the primary cause and doom is imminent. But can computer models that can't predict the past predict the future?
We'll stipulate that the planet is warming. It's been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. It's been warming since Newsweek warned in the mid-1970s of the onset of the next ice age.
We'll even agree that man has contributed to rising carbon dioxide levels by activities that include breathing and driving the kids to soccer practice.
But the 21-page report released in Paris on Friday portrays man as a plague on the planet that has produced everything from rising seas that will flood coastal areas to monster storms that will flatten everything in their path. Katrina, in the experts' view, was just an appetizer before the apocalypse.
Problem is, they ignore the planet's own history. About 20,000 years ago — long before the first SUV — global sea levels were 400 feet lower than they are now. Sea levels were rising long before the Industrial Revolution and will likely continue to rise, just not at the cataclysmic rates predicted by computer models.
Last year was supposed to be the year hurricanes would start arriving with greater frequency and strength. But nature didn't get the memo. There were only nine named storms during the Atlantic season, with just five becoming hurricanes.
In 2005 there were 27 named storms, 15 of them hurricanes, an exceptional year. The average is 15 named storms and 8.5 hurricanes. Last year was the first since 1997 in which the Gulf of Mexico had only one named storm and the first since 1997 when there were no Category 4 or Category 5 Atlantic storms. Apocalypse not?
All these prophecies of doom are based on computer models that are based on agreed-upon assumptions and fed a relatively small portion of the immense number of variables that affect weather or climate. Not all these variables are known or fully understood, which helps explain why these models can't even predict the past.
When the Clinton administration, which never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification, produced a voluminous climate report, it selected two climate models.
One, from the Canadian Climate Center, forecast dramatic temperature increases. The other, a British model, predicted dramatic increases in precipitation.
Climatologist Patrick Michaels examined these two models and discovered they could not reproduce recorded temperature trends regardless of the period selected. The Canadian model overestimated actual U.S. warming in the 20th century by 300%.
When you can't grasp the past, how can you predict the future?
Even the man credited for starting the warming hype, NASA scientist James Hansen, has been spectacularly wrong in his own predictions. As author Michael Crichton has noted, Hansen's prediction in 1988 of a 0.35-degree Celsius rise in temperatures over the next decade overshot the actual rise — 0.11 degrees — by 219%.
Of course, that's the big problem with these mammoth mathematical models that have dozens of variables. Even minor errors or mismeasurements in key input data can result in huge errors. And these errors aren't without cost.
Global warming advocates want us to spend trillions of dollars to mitigate global warming based on an error-prone approach. It's a risky investment.
As a matter of both fiscal policy and common sense, we need to ask ourselves whether global warming warrants such massive spending — or whether we'd be better off spending that money on other things that would save lives now, like ending the scourge of malaria or helping to provide clean water in developing nations.
These things might not be very sexy, but the money spent would save literally hundreds of thousands of lives each year. Some 2.8 billion people —nearly half the world's population — now live on less than $2 a day. Must we spend trillions to make them — and us — poorer?
Earth has repeatedly warmed and cooled over eons. It's been warmer than now and colder than now. There have been numerous ice ages followed by subsequent warming periods.
We're in one now. It might be argued that man's greenhouse gas emissions have had the beneficial effect of postponing the next ice age, perhaps indefinitely.
We frankly don't see the apocalyptic nature of warmer winters, longer growing seasons or abundant vegetation and crops from increased precipitation and higher CO2 levels.
One thing we do know is that if the environmentalists say it's going to rain tomorrow, it might be wise to apply some sunscreen.
Your example of the sundial and atomic clock. Suppose your accused of a crime and your alibi needs to be within 10 minutes of the time the crime took place. However all your witness can say is that using a sun dial says that the last time you were seen may have as late as 9:20 or early 8:40. How would a more accurate time piece looked at 12 hours later help you out?


94 posted on 02/16/2007 4:23:12 PM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Curiosity,
Let’s face it you are a “believer” to the Church of Global Warming and Liberalism. No matter what proof of explanation is given you, you will quote the gospel of Al “I invented the internet” Gore. And come up with absurd truths. See "Environmentalism as Religion” by Michael Crichton, or Environmentalism: A New Religion? By: David G. Danielson

You did not respond to the fact that Socialist and Communist are the manmade global warming pushers, who want to control all of us and dictate our life style. Are you for Government Control of your total life?

You missed my point but pointed out what the Pushers do. The tree rings and ice cores can only give a magnitude over a range. You can say that 1,000 years ago the temperature was warmer over a period of time than today. It cannot be determined the exact years or exact temperatures. You can say that carbon was 300 time higher in concentration 5,000 years ago but not the years or days it was higher. Only the magnitude and the approximate time frame. However, today the Pushers will see a miniscule change that can only be detected by precise instruments and then extrapolate it for extended periods of time. It is only the Pushers that will use such phrases as the hottest “year” in over 1,000 years. The phrases is meaningless because when you change measuring systems you can multiply errors. Tell me the average temperature of the year 100 AD?
Further with carbon they make two major errors, 1. That the increase will go on indefinitely; and, 2. Ignore the fact that a some point there will be a saturation of carbon to the point that more carbon will have no additional affect on warming.

So Curiosity, I told you what the motivation for the manmade global warming pushers is. World Socialism. What is the motivation of the manmade global warming skeptics? Don’t use money, because the Pushers receive over a $billion and companies like Exxon have given only a few million.
And do you agree with the Stalinist tactic of attacking the skeptics? Or if you’re a believer I guess they would be considered heretics.


95 posted on 02/16/2007 4:24:30 PM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

Your example of the sundial and atomic clock. Suppose your accused of a crime and your alibi needs to be within 10 minutes of the time the crime took place. However all your witness can say is that using a sun dial says that the last time you were seen may have as late as 9:20 or early 8:40. How would a more accurate time piece looked at 12 hours later help you out?


96 posted on 02/16/2007 4:25:59 PM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Exton1; curiosity
You might want to have a look at this paper. Pay attention to the data which shows the effects of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The basis for this is the overlapping IR spectra shown below.


97 posted on 02/16/2007 4:47:57 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Exton1; curiosity

Temperature increases lead CO2 increases by approximately 1000 years in Vostok and Dome ice cores. Why?

Even if CO2 is a positive feedback it is a very weak one because of the IR absorption spectra discussed above. How can a relatively small increase in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 cause catastrophe?


98 posted on 02/16/2007 4:53:51 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Exton1; curiosity
Whoops, here's the paper by Jack Barrett
99 posted on 02/16/2007 4:55:24 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

jwalsh07
The important point to remember is that Manmade Global Warming (MGW) is not a science it’s a POLITICAL movement connected to a religious belief.
A man who ceases to believe in God does not believe in nothing; he believes in anything.
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
The socialist are pushing MGW to steal our rights and put in place bigger government. To help them they have used the useful idiots to believe in the power of man and like a religion all they have to offer is belief and a rule of behavior. Thou SHALT recycle, thou SHALT not drive a gas combustion engine but take public transportation, Thou shalt not drill or use oil, Thou shalt see the Al Gore film and not use his name in vane, Thou shalt reduce your standard of living, Thou shalt not have children or abort them if you do. Thou shalt give all money and power to the government that will tell you how to live and what you can buy. Thou shalt feel guilty for being white and living in America.


100 posted on 02/17/2007 12:12:25 PM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson