Green New Deal

[baileyn45]

Platitudes? Have you read the bill? It's basically a list of platitudes.

and you don't believe in global warming so your opinion, actually brainwashed garbage, makes your opinion worthless.

Some of us prefer to look at the actual science behind claims as opposed to sheepishly getting in line at the slaughter house.

No denier has looked at the science.

The simple fact that you use the term "denier", speaks volumes.A more apt term would be skeptic. Any scientist that isn't skeptical has no place in science.

The deniers are not scientist

Do you mean people like this...

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...-lindzen/RK=2/RS=e9oN7BI77LV2cK5gTOCNFLnqpNE-

Something tells me he knows more about the subject than all of us on this forum.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only a stupid fuck thinks we need to collect all of it.

Ok, so you only want to cover the land with solar panels and windmills. There is continuous wind off the coast of the Kennedy compound why are there no windmills there? and what does it cost to build all those solar panels and windmills? are they free? Solar panels need liquid silicon and it takes a lot of heat to melt silicon, what fuel does that?

I wish you libs would actually think about the practical side of your foolish fantasy world.

For years they were considering a huge windmill on lake Erie. We have a lot of wind here in Cleveland, in fact, we are windier than Chicago. However they could not justify the cost with the production of electricity. The windmill would actually lose money between what it cost to build and the maintenance required.

Buffalo has a whole bunch down by the lake and they work fine WTH? And My county here Wyoming county New York has several hundred work great no problems. Cleveland was going to have one giant one? Silly Republicans...

It's not a matter if they work or not, it's about how cost effective they are.

One of our former customers was a big global warming lib. He ran his business with a windmill. One of his workers told me it was just about to pay itself off in about three months. About a month later, I went there and the top of the windmill was gone. The owner was in the warehouse, so I asked him what happened to it? He just too his too hands up and swished them down and said "Aaah."

That was about four years ago, and I noticed last time I was in the industrial park it was never re-installed.

Well we have hundreds of them around here and they are about 400 ft tall and they work great. Made in Finland.

And you're probably paying dearly for them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No kidding. Solar is great but it just isn't viable Neither is wind.

If neither were viable, they wouldn’t be building solar and wind farms and renewable energy labor wouldn’t be the fastest growing job market.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

You'll note that the article points to the private sector pushing this along. It's what many of us have said for years, keep the govt out of it. They'll just screw it up.

Has government screwed up the oil industry with subsidies?

The renewable industry has expanded with government subsidies. Same as the oil industry.

Talk to Ray from Cleveland.

Oh I agree that it's all subsidized but let's face it, the plans being put forth are hardly simple subsidies. Not to mention the silly notion of carbon free by 2030. In addition the current slate of renewables just won't do it. Wind and solar aren't going to keep my house livable when it's 10 deg outside and I haven't seen the sun in a month. It's a nice thought just not realistic. Not only the energy itself but the infrastructure is mind boggling. I keep hearing people compare this plan to the lunar mission or the interstate highway, those were minute projects compared to these proposals. I like bold audacious plans but this is just silly, I much prefer realistic.

There is no requirement for subsidies in bill, although there probably will be.
There is no requirement for carbon free by 2030

Global temperature (increase) must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—

• 
  (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and

(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050​

In many ways this bill lays out lofty goals but like the Paris Accord is short on details as to what is to be done and how it is to be done.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.

It's not a bill, Comrade. It is a nonbinding resolution.

A bill would have to get past the grown ups in the Senate and face the scrutiny of daddy Trump. The resolution allows the Marxist morons to masturbate for the press with no concern for the actual legislative process.

 

[baileyn45]

I have a question for the global warming enthusiasts out there. Can you explain the following.

The following is about gistemp, NASA's Goddard Surface Temperature Analysis.

They are continually changing historic data.

A sample...

The Nov 2018 data vs the supposed exact same data set in Feb 2019.


nov 2018
1941 21 33 8 17 14 12 21 14 2 34 24 21 19 19 27 13 16 20 1941
feb 2019
1941 21 32 8 17 14 12 21 14 1 33 24 20 18 19 27 13 15 20 1941

nov 2018
1942 26 2 10 11 9 5 1 -3 -4 0 8 8 6 7 17 10 1 1 1942
feb 2019
1942 26 2 9 10 8 4 0 -4 -5 -1 8 7 5 6 16 9 0 1 1942


nov 2018
2001 42 44 56 51 56 54 60 48 54 51 70 56 53 51 38 54 54 58 2001
feb 2019
2001 43 44 57 51 57 55 61 49 54 51 71 56 54 52 39 55 55 59 2001

nov 2018
2002 75 75 90 56 63 55 61 53 62 55 58 44 62 63 69 70 56 58 2002
feb 2019
2002 76 76 91 57 64 55 62 53 63 56 59 44 63 64 69 71 57 59 2002

Anyone care to explain how Feb 1941 cooled a degree between Nov 2018 and Feb 2019? Or how Jan 2001 warmed a degree in the same span?

They are cooling the earlier parts of the 20th century and warming the latter.

A quote from where I found this....


"The latest GISTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index LOTI came out a few days ago, and compared to the November 2018 edition, 47% of the 1668 monthly entries had been changed. All of the adjustments for the months of 1972 through 2018 (except for December 2004) were adjusted up. Of the 442 adjustments prior to the 1972 data 90% were adjusted down.

This goes on every month."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Control can also mean regulation, dumbass dupe. Like every intelligent rich country in the world that doesn't have greedy idiot GOP dupes running things... Everywhere outside your bubble of stupid ignorance and garbage propaganda, socialism is defined as well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now!" --Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Guess what shithead dupe? Everyone in the world but you brainwashed jackasses who deny global warming and progressive taxation know what socialism is since people found out the USSR was a totalitarian scam. Most successful modern countries have socialist parties and none of them thinks socialism is communism. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the brainwashed GOP morons...

No you ignorant and uneducated sot, socialism is not capitalism of any form.

Capitalism is based on a free market. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Now you're in my backyard. Arguing economics with me is very dumb, as you have found on dozens of occasions.

The issue we have is that you lack a grasp of the most basic and fundamental concepts. I speak of the market, but you have no idea what that means. Simply put, a market is an exchange of value for value. The seller will relinquish goods if the value of money offered is greater TO HIM than the value of his good. The buyer will offer cash if the goods are of greater value TO HIM than the cash. No one save the buyer and seller have input into what the value of the goods are. Price then follows the judgement of buyers and sellers.

I teach freshmen who grasp these concepts, but YOU fucking don't, regardless of how many times and how basic I explain it to you. Under socialism, the GOVERNMENT is the only entity that decides value. The market is perverted. Under Communism the market is eradicated. Any system where an entity other than the buyer or seller set the price of goods is NOT capitalism.

Would it be socialism if we taxed millionaires and billionaires at 70%?

No, just insanely stupid.

I get it, a thriving economy ensures Trump wins reelection in 2020. You leftists are desperate to throw the breaks on the economy. America suffering is democrats winning.

 

[francoHFW]

Control can also mean regulation, dumbass dupe. Like every intelligent rich country in the world that doesn't have greedy idiot GOP dupes running things... Everywhere outside your bubble of stupid ignorance and garbage propaganda, socialism is defined as well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now!" --Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Guess what shithead dupe? Everyone in the world but you brainwashed jackasses who deny global warming and progressive taxation know what socialism is since people found out the USSR was a totalitarian scam. Most successful modern countries have socialist parties and none of them thinks socialism is communism. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the brainwashed GOP morons...

No you ignorant and uneducated sot, socialism is not capitalism of any form.

Capitalism is based on a free market. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Now you're in my backyard. Arguing economics with me is very dumb, as you have found on dozens of occasions.

The issue we have is that you lack a grasp of the most basic and fundamental concepts. I speak of the market, but you have no idea what that means. Simply put, a market is an exchange of value for value. The seller will relinquish goods if the value of money offered is greater TO HIM than the value of his good. The buyer will offer cash if the goods are of greater value TO HIM than the cash. No one save the buyer and seller have input into what the value of the goods are. Price then follows the judgement of buyers and sellers.

I teach freshmen who grasp these concepts, but YOU fucking don't, regardless of how many times and how basic I explain it to you. Under socialism, the GOVERNMENT is the only entity that decides value. The market is perverted. Under Communism the market is eradicated. Any system where an entity other than the buyer or seller set the price of goods is NOT capitalism.

Would it be socialism if we taxed millionaires and billionaires at 70%?

No, just insanely stupid.

I get it, a thriving economy ensure Trump wins reelection in 2020. You leftists are desperate to throw the breaks on the economy. America suffering is democrats winning.

It is not a thriving economy for the middle class and the working class, Super Dupe. The worst inequality and upward Mobility ever just keeps getting worse with these giveaway to the rich GOP tax rates and cuts in services for the rest. Everything you know is wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes you brainiac there were electric powered autos and gasification autos that burned trash for power, so why don’t you stfu for once.

And how did those electric cars work out?

The VIABLE means of locomotion used an internal combustion engine. That a farmer somewhere harnessed 20 rats running on a wheel to power his tractor is irrelevant. As frankly, most of the idiocy you post is....

Trains are electric so that is where it ended up..

SOME trains are electric. Noticeably, the ones that have to haul heavy loads over long distances are not.

Electric trains must be on a closed loop. This means that they are generally only used for light rail in subway systems, Further, electrified tracks are dangerous and create extreme liability for operators, meaning only government can really take the risk of using them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A group of progressive-minded activists and industry experts have proposed that the federal and state governments, together with the railroad industry, invest in a long-term project to electrify U.S. railroads. In a book published in October 2016, Solutionary Rail, a people-powered campaign to electrify America’s railroads to a clean energy future,

Trains are electric so that is where it ended up..

Trains are electric? Not in this country.

wanna bet?
Electric locomotives are used on freight routes with consistently high traffic volumes, or in areas with advanced rail networks

Give us a link champ.

why do you not know how it's done?
You have never seen electric subway systems?
Diesels engines are going away like the dinosaur because electric locomotives and more energy efficient and cost less to maintain. You personally can't stop progress because you believe fossil fuels are the darling of humans..



Electric Trains vs. Diesel Trains
Though trains are more efficient than trucks, not all trains are equally efficient. Diesel-powered trains transfer about 30-35 percent of the energy generated by combustion to the wheels, while supplying electricity directly from an overhead powerline transfers about 95 percent of the energy to the wheels. Powering trains with electricity rather than diesel has several other benefits, according to the authors of Solutionary Rail:

.Electrification of U.S. Railways: Pie in the Sky, or Realistic Goal? | Article | EESI

You know what's realistic? The fact that people are not going to trade traveling cross-country in a matter of hours for doing it over several days.

The left doesn't intend to give people a choice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

DERP

No stupid, some subway systems are electric, virtually ALL trains are diesel. Hybrid technology started in trains, using 2000 HP Rolls Royce diesels to run generators to drive electric motors on passenger trains is where it all started. But they are still diesel.

That is why there is a move to electrify the rail system. The only thing standing in the way is capitalist who do not want change but they die and things change anyway.

You didn't claim "a move" by a group of enviro wackos, you made the statement that "trains are electric." They are not.

So what some are electric and some are not. Electric motors have a usde you people think everything should be internal combustion driven yet that is not the state of the world.

The point is that electric motors have a VERY LIMITED use, because the technology is nowhere near advanced enough to let it go any further, and certainly not to let it replace more traditional engines in ten years.

Very limited?
It's a 122 billion dollar market growing at 6.5% rate per year. It doesn't sound very limited to me.

For TRAINS?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Control can also mean regulation, dumbass dupe. Like every intelligent rich country in the world that doesn't have greedy idiot GOP dupes running things... Everywhere outside your bubble of stupid ignorance and garbage propaganda, socialism is defined as well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now!" --Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Guess what shithead dupe? Everyone in the world but you brainwashed jackasses who deny global warming and progressive taxation know what socialism is since people found out the USSR was a totalitarian scam. Most successful modern countries have socialist parties and none of them thinks socialism is communism. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the brainwashed GOP morons...

No you ignorant and uneducated sot, socialism is not capitalism of any form.

Capitalism is based on a free market. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Now you're in my backyard. Arguing economics with me is very dumb, as you have found on dozens of occasions.

The issue we have is that you lack a grasp of the most basic and fundamental concepts. I speak of the market, but you have no idea what that means. Simply put, a market is an exchange of value for value. The seller will relinquish goods if the value of money offered is greater TO HIM than the value of his good. The buyer will offer cash if the goods are of greater value TO HIM than the cash. No one save the buyer and seller have input into what the value of the goods are. Price then follows the judgement of buyers and sellers.

I teach freshmen who grasp these concepts, but YOU fucking don't, regardless of how many times and how basic I explain it to you. Under socialism, the GOVERNMENT is the only entity that decides value. The market is perverted. Under Communism the market is eradicated. Any system where an entity other than the buyer or seller set the price of goods is NOT capitalism.

Would it be socialism if we taxed millionaires and billionaires at 70%?

No, just insanely stupid.

I get it, a thriving economy ensure Trump wins reelection in 2020. You leftists are desperate to throw the breaks on the economy. America suffering is democrats winning.

It is not a thriving economy for the middle class and the working class, Super Dupe. The worst inequality and upward Mobility ever just keeps getting worse with these giveaway to the rich GOP tax rates and cuts in services for the rest. Everything you know is wrong.

DERP

Dumbfuck.

{
As much as Democrats and the lying liberal media would like to see President Trump fail and the country go down the drain, the opposite is happening.

Minorities are doing better under President Trump than Obama, and now, we’re getting numbers that probe the middle-class is thriving as well.


From Washington Examiner

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its newest jobs report on Friday, and the data clearly show, under the pro-business policies implemented by the Trump administration, low-income and working-class families are enjoying significant economic gains not experienced in nearly 20 years.

Democrats and liberal pundits have argued the recent economic improvements are only helping a relatively small, mostly wealthy segment of the country, but nothing could be further from the truth. According to BLS, the national unemployment rate for December was 4.1 percent, a 0.6 percentage point drop from December 2016. That’s an impressive figure, especially since the unemployment rate stayed flat at 4.9 percent from January 2016 through October 2016, the final month before Trump’s election victory. But what’s especially remarkable is the extent to which working-class Americans are profiting under Trump and Republican leadership in Congress.

For instance, the unemployment rate for Americans without a high school diploma was 6.3 percent in December 2017, down from 7.6 percent one year earlier. Further, the average monthly unemployment rate for this demographic in 2017, 6.5 percent, is the lowest it’s been since 2000 and the second-lowest figure in BLS’ data for that demographic, which goes back 26 years to 1992.}

Sorry Liberals, Middle Class is THRIVING Under President Trump

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A group of progressive-minded activists and industry experts have proposed that the federal and state governments, together with the railroad industry, invest in a long-term project to electrify U.S. railroads. In a book published in October 2016, Solutionary Rail, a people-powered campaign to electrify America’s railroads to a clean energy future,

Trains are electric? Not in this country.

wanna bet?
Electric locomotives are used on freight routes with consistently high traffic volumes, or in areas with advanced rail networks

Give us a link champ.

why do you not know how it's done?
You have never seen electric subway systems?
Diesels engines are going away like the dinosaur because electric locomotives and more energy efficient and cost less to maintain. You personally can't stop progress because you believe fossil fuels are the darling of humans..



Electric Trains vs. Diesel Trains
Though trains are more efficient than trucks, not all trains are equally efficient. Diesel-powered trains transfer about 30-35 percent of the energy generated by combustion to the wheels, while supplying electricity directly from an overhead powerline transfers about 95 percent of the energy to the wheels. Powering trains with electricity rather than diesel has several other benefits, according to the authors of Solutionary Rail:

.Electrification of U.S. Railways: Pie in the Sky, or Realistic Goal? | Article | EESI

You know what's realistic? The fact that people are not going to trade traveling cross-country in a matter of hours for doing it over several days.

The left doesn't intend to give people a choice.

Democrats don't like choice. Choice means freedom.

 

[Flopper]

What makes you think taxing them at 70% is going to make them a failure.... when they’re going to make the money back on the back side of a new green economy! AS I’VE ALREADY EXPLAINED!

Do you not think that would also be a measure of success? The wealthy are NOT GOING TO LOSE OUT ON THIS!

All I’m hearing from you Trumpies is rationalizing doing nothing.

And I’ve already told you.... doing nothing is not an option.

WE DON’T HAVE THAT LUXURY.... ANY MORE TO SET AROUND WITH OUR THUMBS UP OUR ASS!

Global warming IS HAPPENING. It is the existential threat OF OUR TIME AND GENERATION. And we BY GOD have to meet this head on and DO WHATEVER IT TAKES to address this.

If it means throwing some billionaires and millionaires on the sacrificial TAX THEIR ASS ALTAR...... then SO BE IT!

If you have a better plan then spill it! Otherwise.... it’s AOC time.

But make no mistake....... one way or the other..... this is going to happen.

Your problem is you are brainwashed. You believe more in this climate change thing than God himself. You really think that a planet that's possibly hundreds of millions years old can rely on temperature changes that took place the past couple hundreds of years, and say that those changes are indicative of something.

Let me ask: how many factories were there at the end of the ice age? How many cars were around at that time?

If green anything were able to produce the jobs, the energy, the results you think, private industry would have capitalized on it decades ago. You wouldn't need government promoting or subsidizing it. But the facts are that we are not going to put our country in such a hole that it can't ever dig out because of you (and your ilk) beliefs.

So tell me, how many windmills do you have on your property? How many times a year do you use mass transit? How many times do you use your electric car? I would be willing to bet you don't participate in any of those things. Instead, you want government to force everybody else to.

I think what you don't realize is that a very small change in the average temperature of the earth by only a few degrees Celsius can create major changes in the environment. It has risen only about 4 degrees in the last million years but .7 degree in less than a century. For example, just a few degrees average rise in the sea temperature would eradicate thousands of species including oysters, crab, and coral which in turn would disrupt the food supply for a host of small creatures which are the food source for many of fish that humans and other creatures depend on.

The huge cost of dealing with climate change is nothing compared to the cost of doing nothing.

I guess that depends on who you ask.

Nocookies

2018 was the fourth-warmest year on record behind 2016, 2015 and 2017. Even more concerning, the World Methodological Organization predicts a 5- to 9-degree temperature rise by the end of the century.
A picture is worth a thousand words.

As you know, ten years is weather not climate anything.

Ten years is less than a heartbeat when discussing "Climate Change". Why do you post such silly things?

Year after year of rising average temperatures of the earth is not silly. 20 years ago the data was sketchy but not today. One would have to be blind or a fool to ignore it.

 

[Flopper]

and you don't believe in global warming so your opinion, actually brainwashed garbage, makes your opinion worthless.

Some of us prefer to look at the actual science behind claims as opposed to sheepishly getting in line at the slaughter house.

No denier has looked at the science.

The simple fact that you use the term "denier", speaks volumes.A more apt term would be skeptic. Any scientist that isn't skeptical has no place in science.

The deniers are not scientist

Do you mean people like this...

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrDQqMkJWJcPSoAgF9jmolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1549964709/RO=10/RU=https://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen/RK=2/RS=e9oN7BI77LV2cK5gTOCNFLnqpNE-

Something tells me he knows more about the subject than all of us on this forum.

He focuses on the interaction between science and policymakers. He studies whether the move from largely private funding to public support has introduced biases into science and the public policies. Which has nothing to do with the data being collected nor the results of climate change which we are just starting to see.

 

[Markle]

Year after year of rising average temperatures of the earth is not silly. 20 years ago the data was sketchy but not today. One would have to be blind or a fool to ignore it.

IF the data was sketchy at the turn of the century, only 20 years ago, how do you have anything accurate to compare today's "accurate data"?

Twenty years, less than a heartbeat in the history of the earth. Let's see, what part of 6+ billion years is 20 years?

 

[baileyn45]

Some of us prefer to look at the actual science behind claims as opposed to sheepishly getting in line at the slaughter house.

No denier has looked at the science.

The simple fact that you use the term "denier", speaks volumes.A more apt term would be skeptic. Any scientist that isn't skeptical has no place in science.

The deniers are not scientist

Do you mean people like this...

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrDQqMkJWJcPSoAgF9jmolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1549964709/RO=10/RU=https://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen/RK=2/RS=e9oN7BI77LV2cK5gTOCNFLnqpNE-

Something tells me he knows more about the subject than all of us on this forum.

He focuses on the interaction between science and policymakers. He studies whether the move from largely private funding to public support has introduced biases into science and the public policies. Which has nothing to do with the data being collected nor the results of climate change which we are just starting to see.

That's currently. Before that he was a professor at Harvard and MIT. You should try listening to him some time. You'll hear more science on the subject of climate than you will anywhere else.

 

[easyt65]

Ocasio-Cortez blasts Trump’s comparison of Green New Deal to ‘HS term paper'

She's right - no HS student would turn in such a fantasy-filled piece of crap. We're talking kindergarten here at most.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Students at The University of Miami loved the idea of the Green New Deal… But they seemed to change their mind after hearing what was actually in it.

 

[RealDave]

No denier has looked at the science.

The simple fact that you use the term "denier", speaks volumes.A more apt term would be skeptic. Any scientist that isn't skeptical has no place in science.

The deniers are not scientist

Do you mean people like this...

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrDQqMkJWJcPSoAgF9jmolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1549964709/RO=10/RU=https://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen/RK=2/RS=e9oN7BI77LV2cK5gTOCNFLnqpNE-

Something tells me he knows more about the subject than all of us on this forum.

He focuses on the interaction between science and policymakers. He studies whether the move from largely private funding to public support has introduced biases into science and the public policies. Which has nothing to do with the data being collected nor the results of climate change which we are just starting to see.

That's currently. Before that he was a professor at Harvard and MIT. You should try listening to him some time. You'll hear more science on the subject of climate than you will anywhere else.

Same guy who said tobacco doesn't cause cancer & testified for tobacco companies.

The same guy who is funded by coal companies.

The same guy in Cato institute.

 

[iceberg]

The simple fact that you use the term "denier", speaks volumes.A more apt term would be skeptic. Any scientist that isn't skeptical has no place in science.

The deniers are not scientist

Do you mean people like this...

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrDQqMkJWJcPSoAgF9jmolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1549964709/RO=10/RU=https://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen/RK=2/RS=e9oN7BI77LV2cK5gTOCNFLnqpNE-

Something tells me he knows more about the subject than all of us on this forum.

He focuses on the interaction between science and policymakers. He studies whether the move from largely private funding to public support has introduced biases into science and the public policies. Which has nothing to do with the data being collected nor the results of climate change which we are just starting to see.

That's currently. Before that he was a professor at Harvard and MIT. You should try listening to him some time. You'll hear more science on the subject of climate than you will anywhere else.

Same guy who said tobacco doesn't cause cancer & testified for tobacco companies.

The same guy who is funded by coal companies.

The same guy in Cato institute.

you never talk about the issues themselves.

you just slam people who don't think like you and then their sources. that's it.