I just had my home heating oil tank topped off with 242 gallons of B30 biodiesel. With the recent pre-election plunge in oil prices, it ended up costing me a few pennies a gallon more than regular oil, but it’s worth the small premium to cut emissions and shift some of my energy consumption to renewable fuels. (For most of the past year, biodiesel has actually been cheaper.)
I know that’s not much of a personal sacrifice, but it’s a start. If you’re interested in shifting to biodiesel, check out Laurelhurst Oil. They also deliver B99, but considering how little oil I use (I last filled my tank in December of 2004) I couldn’t financially justify the $285.00 to put a compatible pump on my furnace. Perhaps when my finances improve.
Before you get to full of yourself in your efforts to save Mother Earth, I would recommend reading “The Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg (formerly a founder of Greenpeace activism)–
Bjørn Lomborg, born January 6 1965.
M.A. in political science (Cand.scient.pol.) 1991.
Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. 1994.
Assistant professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, 1994-1996.
Associate professor same place, 1997-2005.
Director of Denmark’s national Environmental Assessment Institute February 2002-July 2004.
Organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus May 2004, prioritizing the best opportunities to the world’s big challenges.
Adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School 2005-.
Director for the Copenhagen Consensus Center 2006-.
Bjørn Lomborg was named one of the 100 globally most influential people by Time magazine in April 2004. Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazine had him listed as the world’s 14th most influential intellectual in October 2005.
He is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, and author of the best-selling “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, where he challenges our understanding of the environment, and points out how we need to focus our attention on the most important problems first. His first book has been published in the major languages around the world and he is a frequent participant in the current debate, with commentaries in such places as New York Times, Wall St. Journal, Globe & Mail, The Guardian, The Daily and Sunday Telegraph, The Times, The Australian, the Economist. He has also appeared on TV, such places as Politically Incorrect, ABC 60 minutes, CNN, BBC, CNBC, and PBS.
In May 2004 he organized the “Copenhagen Consensus” which brought together some of the world’s top economists. Here they prioritized the best opportunities to the world’s big challenges, essentially answering the question: If we want to do good, where should we start? In June 2006 he assembled a number of top UN ambassadors, including representatives from China, India and the UN, representing about half the world’s population. They also answered the question, and came out with a similar ranking, the first of its kind for the UN. The conferences and their results have resulted in two books: “Global Crises, Global Solutions” and “How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place”
It all started in 1998, when Bjørn Lomborg is an associate professor at of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus. He published four lengthy articles about the state of our environment in the leading Danish newspaper, which resulted in a firestorm debate spanning over 400 articles in major metropolitan newspapers. The articles lead to the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001, which has now been published in Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French, Czech, Korean and Japanese.
In November 2001, Lomborg was selected Global Leader for Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum.
From February 2002 to July 2004 Lomborg was director of Denmark’s national Environmental Assessment Institute.
In June 2002, Lomborg was named one of the “50 stars of Europe” (as one of the 9 “agenda setters” in Europe) in Business Week (June 17).
In April 2004, Lomborg was named one of the world’s 100 most influential people by Time Magazine.
In June 2005 named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.
In October 2005 listed as the world’s 14th most influential intellectual by Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazine.
In all your long, long post, you’ve said little about the premise or the content of the book. From Wikipedia, perhaps part of the rest of the story . . . “
Hopefully, you are reading a diversity of scientists and economists on the subject. Wouldn’t want to put all your eggs in one basket, as they say . . .
skagit–
Nor would one want to buy the political ca-ca of such unesteemed institutions of lower learning like Evergreen College in Olympia where one can obtain a degree in Ecology without taking any hard science.
I agree with you, it is difficult to decipher the truth.
The enviro-Marxists certainly have everything to gain by convincing folks “the sky is falling” aka Chicken Little theory….
If successful, Marxism is the likely end product of enviro-fear.
What a tangled web, huh?
Leftout wrote:ould one want to buy the political ca-ca of such unesteemed institutions of lower learning like Evergreen College in Olympia where one can obtain a degree in Ecology without taking any hard science.
And where did I indicate that you should do your research? Please don’t put words into my mouth.
It is always better, I’m sure an intellectual and informed fellow such as you would agree, to let the evidence shape opinion rather than opinion select evidence . . . no?
About “The Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg. This is what happens when a PolSci major tries to write a book about science: The Union of Concerned Scientists, Scientific American, Nature and other mainstream scientific entities have found Lomborg’s work flawed. Dr Lomborg has no background in the Environmental Sciences. I have a family member that does have a PhD in Bio-Statics, and a background in the Environmental Sciences. Their review of this book, one word “crap”. It needs to come with the disclaimer of: no science was used in writing this book.
BigGlen–
Let me guess……
Your PHD “family member” believes we are all gonna die soon, right?
Lomborg was highly successful in challenging enviro-Marxist propaganda using the very same statistics they used. Garbage conclusions that were being repeated over and over again were rightfully looked at objectively once again.
It is a great book BigGlen.
It’s not an easy read unless statistics are your thing….but you really ought to read it first before criticizing it 2nd hand.
Goldystein, Maybe President Hugo Chevez could give you a deal on heating oil?
Maybe the Kennedys have a HA.ORG heating oil program for minority liberal “progressives” like you.
The Chicomm and Fidel are drilling in the Gulf. Since they are commies and hate Bush, why no “axe” the Chicomms for oil?
Who votes Democrat? Felons, blacks, welfare hacks, “guvment” employees on the dole, guilty libs, 90% of Jews, and homo Hollywood fags. Add in the dead and illegal votes from illegal aliens.
9 years
119 days
12 hours
18 min
15 seconds
until
Al Gore’s predicted WORLD DESTRUCTION!
BOO!
It is a great book BigGlen.
It’s not an easy read unless statistics are your thing….but you really ought to read it first before criticizing it 2nd hand.
Guess it must be the only book you’ve read . . . unless you wish to compare it to another which tells a different point of view?
BTW, did you ever consider reading a book about science as opposed to statistics?
#7,
No, my Father does not believe that the world will end tomorrow. But he does believe that to solove a problem you must first address the problem. This book does not do that. It simplely says that there is no problem. And when science gets in the ways he ignores the science. And he makes claims that are just not true. And it does twist the truth where it wants to. Your own intro shows a twisting of the truth: (formerly a founder of Greenpeace activism)–
this implies that Lomborg was a founding member of Greenpeace. He was born in 1965, Greenpeace got started in the late 1960s. He was never a member of Greenpeace.
PS. No assume things, just because I relied the input form somebody that knows what they are talking about for a good review of the book, that I did not start reading it. I did start to read it, found it to be, well for the lack of a better word, crap.
it seems to take intelligence to recognize crap these days.
Hey Mooooooooslim terrorists!! JDB is selling ceramic bobblehead dolls of the Prophet Muhammed on EBay! Now, some might consider this to be “disrespectful” of Islam, so you ragheads might consider doing a site check on JDB, and giving him a Mooooooooooooslim “visit”!!! If you do behead JDB, could I buy the “YouTube” video for resale? Best regards, and “BUSH NO GOOD!” JCH
Commentby Leftout(of their minds!)— 10/1/06@ 11:10 am
Interestingly enough, I do not see any citations from any groups of climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, oceanographers or any other atmospheric or oceanic experts. (I deliberately left out “ecologists” and “environmentalists” as I presume you would discount anything those experts said.)
Time magazine, Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazine, Business Week, New York Times, Wall St. Journal, Globe & Mail, The Guardian, The Daily and Sunday Telegraph, The Times, The Australian, and the Economist have apparently commented positively about his work, but no scientific journals or publications were mentioned.
Global Leader for Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum, Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum, but nothing from any environmental group save the one he founded has praised (or apparently even acknowledged) him.
He organized the “Copenhagen Consensus” which brought together some of the world’s top economists, but apparently nobody from any of the earth sciences. I wonder how much credence we would give to an economic group that did not contain any economists.
Saying that we shouldn’t just dismiss this fellow because he has no background or training in the area he is writing about seems a bit silly. Of course we should dismiss him. He has no apparent expertise in the field. I would consider his work to be a slightly less reliable source than that of, say, an auto mechanic writing on the subject. (The auto mechanic would be expected to have some training in the field of proper disposal of environmentally hazardous waste. This fellow seems to have none.)
I don’t have the time or inclination to read every crackpot book written by people with no expertise in the area they’re writing about. This would include science fiction/horror novelists and also includes economists.
When I want to read a good novel, I’ll read Michael Chriton. If I find an interest in the economics of Sweden and Norway, I may read Dr. Lomborg’s work on that subject.
But… When I want to learn about the ecology, atmospheric dynamics and oceanographic changes, I’ll go find an expert in those areas.
Oh, and I probably won’t take anything a former Vice-President says without it being backed up by scientists in those fields either.
That Goldy sure knows how to conserve his energy! 242 gallons of home heating oil lasted him nearly two years — December 2004 to September 2006. Don’t see how Goldy manages to get by so inexpensively. That story would be a lot more interesting than the type of fuel that Goldy is using.
18 – I prefer “LeftOut (when they were handing out the brains)”…
Thanks Proud Leftist! (I think. Correct me if I’m wrong.)
Richard @19,
There’s no secret. I keep my house very cold. In fact, I rarely turn on the heat when my daughter’s not there, letting the temperature drop well into the 50’s.
That’s where my trademark fisherman gloves come from… it’s the only way I can keep my hands warm enough to still be able to type. I actually enjoy the brisk air; it keeps me alert and awake.
You know, Goldy, it is not good for a house to remain damp . . . watch out for dry rot and other expensive considerations (in the long run).
Goldy provides enough “hot air” to heat a large village in Wales.
No one need concern themselves with his freezing to death.
skagit–I hear “dry rot” also affects ones ability to reason. It may be too late for Goldy to heed your warning.
It is important for folks to look at exactly how Biodiesel they use is actually produced….and attempt to honestly evaluate the NET environmental impact…..rather than simply generalize that all biodiesel is good.
It’s just like Hybrid Cars. Difficult to evaluate the net Loss or Gain environmentally until we know precisely the life of the batteries and how they will be disposed of.
Just because something feels good and sounds good doesn’t mean it is.
It takes “perspective”.
For example…
How many of you are aware that fires being allowed to burn in coal mines in China produce more toxins to the environment than the entire U.S. vehicle fleet?
It’s mind-boggling.
And the questions still remain about the true negatives about some degree of so-called “global warming”.
Is it always ALL bad??
There are BOTH plusses and minuses.
That’s why The Skeptical Environmentalist is such an important book. It forces further discussion about cost/benefit of various actions in the name of the environment. Isn’t that reasonable?
Goldy provides enough “hot air” to heat a large village in Wales.
No one need concern themselves with his freezing to death.
skagit–I hear “dry rot” also affects ones ability to reason. It may be too late for Goldy to heed your warning.
Commentby Leftout(of their minds!)— 10/1/06@ 3:23 pm
That somethine else you gleaned from your economist expert on the climate?
How many of you are aware that fires being allowed to burn in coal mines in China produce more toxins to the environment than the entire U.S. vehicle fleet?
It’s mind-boggling.
And the questions still remain about the true negatives about some degree of so-called “global warming”.
Is it always ALL bad??
There are BOTH plusses and minuses.
That’s why The Skeptical Environmentalist is such an important book. It forces further discussion about cost/benefit of various actions in the name of the environment. Isn’t that reasonable?
Left out
It is reasonable and it is the first thing I’ve agreed with. Problem is, your perspective doesn’t take into consideration everybody’s opinions and you don’t seem to know how to synthesize from different resources. You have to choose one or the other . . . until we do know more and can figure out how to discard or use waste material, we still have to do what we can in the here and now.
That’s what you don’t get. For you, if it isn’t a perfect solution, doing nothing seems to be the answer.
Goldy,
Congrats on good conversative move. As long as you gig isn’t socialized (e.g. some gov’t thing to unnaturally give you a sweet biodiesel deal), then we’re all for it.
Frugality, saving for rainy day, using less, conserving…yeah baby, we might convert you politically too..
26: I don’t know where your discussion of fires in Chinese coal mines comes from. But the quote seems to imply that the Chinese would be rather negligent in not putting out the fires. Problem is, coal mine fires are notoriously hard to put out. They just keep burning more or less forever, until they exaust their supply of fuel. Even if you shut off their air supply, they smolder until years later the seal brakes and the fire takes off again. There are currently coal mine fires in the U.S. that have continued to burn for decades. I don’t remember the locations, but I remember about ten years ago reading in the Wall Street Journal about a fire in the east (Pennsylvania or West Virginia, probably) that had burned for years, and the residents of a nearby town were concerned that eventually their houses would start to drop into sinkholes caused by the fire, and they all had to have carbon monoxide detectors in their homes because the gasses would escape through cracks in the earth and collect in their basements.
So you are going to have some coal mine fires, wherever there are coal mines, and the best you can do is try to prevent them and reduce their number and size. In the meantime, there are other things we CAN do to reduce CO2 emissions.
How many of you are aware that fires being allowed to burn in coal mines in China produce more toxins to the environment than the entire U.S. vehicle fleet? [..I’m shocked! What does Al Gore say? hehe, JCH]
Hey, is Jimmie on Foley’s speed-dial list?
Yes, ASS-Doc probably checks out each and every Foley ass.
rhp6033–
I made the point about the coal mines in China to provide a point of perspective of efforts in other areas.
If you let a fart in a room full of dying, rotting fish….it’s not going to affect the smell much.
FYI..I think there are many noble conservation efforts. Using less, looking for better alternatives like SOME biodiesels…nothing wrong with that.
But it still boils down to NET gain/loss of an environmental action. Look at recycling for example. What are the environmental COSTS of recycling…moving material by truck, processing etc. It isn’t all a net gain.
We need to be diligent but also realistic & honest….and keep things in perspective.
Let’s put it this way…
Depending about how Goldy’s biodiesel was truly produced…will determine the net gain of his actions.
Freezing his ass off in our cold, damp Seattle winters also likely has a cost. Goldy will likely have to drive himself to the doctor several times burning fossil fuels.
When are we going to learn not to feed the trolls on this site? Sheesh…
If you let a fart in a room full of dying, rotting fish….it’s not going to affect the smell much.
Commentby Leftout(of their minds!)— 10/1/06@ 6:44 pm
So much for science on the right . . .
Humor has it’s role in problem-solving…don’t you think?
My slightly gross, yet graphic example is to help you put a bit of PERSPECTIVE on the issue and solutions.
“That’s why The Skeptical Environmentalist is such an important book. It forces further discussion about cost/benefit of various actions in the name of the environment. Isn’t that reasonable?”
Commentby Leftout(of their minds!)— 10/1/06@ 3:34 pm
Certainly, a scholarly work with an economist and an ecologist working together would be an important study.
Interestingly enough, a bit of quick research brings me to several such works, all of which seem to be much further left than I am. Essentially, it seems that when a competent economist consults with a competent ecologist, the economist finds himself won over almost completely.
I can’t really speak to the content of the books and studies that I’ve found, as I have yet to read more than brief excerpts and reviews from most of them. Still, the book you recommend will be low on that reading list. Perhaps if the author would actually work together with some scientists that had some expertise in the ecology of our world, his work would be worth reading.
But, from what I’ve seen and read so far, his work might be far different from what he is currently producing.
Reading list:
Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics, by Herman E. Daly (Editor), Kenneth N. Townsend (Editor)
Economics for the Common Good (Advances in Social Economics) (Paperback) by Mark A. Lutz
Ecological Economics (Paperback) by Robert Costanza
One more rather odd thing I’ve noticed. These are primarily written or compiled by economists that have undertaken a study of ecology and have collaberated with ecologists. They deal with the exact subject you recommend that we should consider, the cost/benefit analysis of various facets of current and projected trends in the ecological balance of the world. I’m looking forward to some very interesting reading.
@#4 Actually, you can’t earn a degree in ecology at Evergreen (at least at the BA level). Evergreen hands out a (useless- I have one) liberal studies degree (again, I’m talking BA) to all it’s grads
Okay moonbats here goes on your science:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/spee.....;id=264027
AMERICA REACTS TO SPEECH DEBUNKING MEDIA GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM
——————————————————————————–
September 28, 2006
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE, CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
Contact: Marc Morano (202) 224-5762 ( marc_morano@epw.senate.gov ) Matt Dempsey ( matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov ) (202) 224-9797
Click Here To Watch or Read Full Speech from Monday Debunking Global Warming Hysteria ( http://epw.senate.gov/speechit.....;id=263759 )
This past Monday, I took to this floor for the eighth time to discuss global warming. My speech focused on the myths surrounding global warming and how our national news media has embarrassed itself with a 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories.
Over the last century, the media has flip-flopped between global cooling and warming scares. At the turn of the 20th century, the media peddled an upcoming ice age — and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 1930s, the alarm was raised about disaster from global warming — and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 70’s, an alarm for another ice age was raised — and they said the world was coming to an end. And now, today we are back to fears of catastrophic global warming — and again they are saying the world is coming to an end.
Today I would like to share the fascinating events that have unfolded since my floor speech on Monday.
CNN CRITICIZES MY SPEECH
This morning, CNN ran a segment criticizing my speech on global warming and attempted to refute the scientific evidence I presented to counter climate fears.
First off, CNN reporter Miles O’Brien inaccurately claimed I was “too busy” to appear on his program this week to discuss my 50 minute floor speech on global warming. But they were told I simply was not available on Tuesday or Wednesday.
I did appear on another CNN program today — Thursday — which I hope everyone will watch. The segment airs tonight on CNN’s Glenn Beck Show on Headline News at 7pm and repeats at 9pm and midnight Eastern.
Second, CNN’s O’Brien falsely claimed that I was all “alone on Capitol Hill” when it comes to questioning global warming.
Mr. O’Brien is obviously not aware that the U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto style carbon caps when it voted down the McCain-Lieberman climate bill 60-28 last year – an even larger margin than its rejection in 2003.
Third, CNN’s O’Brien, claimed that my speech earlier contained errors regarding climate science. O’Brien said my claim that the Antarctic was actually cooling and gaining ice was incorrect. But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.
CNN’s O’Brien also criticized me for saying polar bears are thriving in the Arctic. But he ignored that the person I was quoting is intimately familiar with the health of polar bear populations. Let me repeat what biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, said recently:
“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”
CNN’s O’Brien also ignores the fact that in the Arctic, temperatures were warmer in the 1930’s than today.
O’Brien also claimed that the “Hockey Stick” temperature graph was supported by most climate scientists despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts have made it clear that the Hockey Stick’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable.
So it seems my speech struck a nerve with the mainstream media. Their only response was to cherry pick the science in a failed attempt to refute me.
It seems that it is business as usual for many of them. Sadly, it looks like my challenge to the media to be objective and balanced has fallen on deaf ears.
SPEECH BYPASSED THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
Despite the traditional media’s failed attempt to dismiss the science I presented to counter global warming alarmism, the American people bypassed the tired old traditional media by watching CSPAN or clicking on the Drudge Report and reading the speech online.
From the flood of overwhelming positive feedback I received, I can tell you the American people responded enthusiastically to my message.
The central theme was not only one of thanks, but expressing frustration with the major media outlets because they knew in their guts that what they have been hearing in the news was false and misleading.
Here is a brief sampling:
Janet of Saugus, Massachusetts: “Thank you Senator Inhofe. Finally someone with the guts to stand up and call it what it is — a sham. I think you have taken over Toby Keith’s place as my favorite Oklahoman!!”
Al of Clinton, Connecticut writes: “It’s about time someone with a loud microphone spoke up on the global warming scam. You have courage – if only this message could get into the schools where kids are being brow-beaten with the fear message almost daily.”
Kevin of Jacksonville, Florida writes: “I’m so glad that we have leaders like you who are willing to stand up against the onslaught of liberal media, Hollywood and the foolish elected officials on this topic. Please keep up the fight!”
Steven of Phoenix, Arizona writes: “As a scientist, I am extremely pleased to see that there is at least one member of congress who recognizes the global warming hysteria for what it is. I am extremely impressed by the Senator’s summary and wish he was running for President.”
Craig of Grand Rapids, Michigan writes: “As a meteorologist I strongly agree with everything you said.”
My speech ignited an internet firestorm. So much so, that my speech became the subject of a heated media controversy in New Zealand. Halfway across the globe, a top official from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition challenged New Zealand’s television station to balance what he termed “alarmist doom-casting” and criticized them for failing to report the views of scientists in their own country that I cited here in America.
( http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0609/S00306.htm )
As the controversy in New Zealand shows, global warming hysteria has captured more than just the American media.
The reaction to my speech keeps coming in: Just this morning, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper wrote an editorial calling my speech “an unusual display of reason” on the Senate floor.
I do have to give credit to another publication, Congressional Quarterly, or CQ for short. On Tuesday, CQ’s Toni Johnson took the issues I raised seriously and followed up with phone calls to scientist-turned global warming pop star James Hansen’s office. CQ wanted to ask Hansen about his quarter of a million dollar grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation, whose money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune.
As I have pointed out, many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the partisan Heinz Foundation. It seems the media makes a distinction between ketchup money and oil money.
But Hansen was unavailable to respond to CQ’s questions about the ‘Ketchup Money’ grant, which is highly unusual for a man who finds his way into the media on an almost daily basis. Mr. Hansen is always available when he is peddling his increasingly dire predictions of climate doom.
ABC NEWS PROMOTES CLIMATE HYSTERIA
I have been engaged in this debate for several years and believe there is a growing backlash of Americans rejecting what they see as climate scare tactics. And as a result, global warming alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate.
Perhaps that explains why the very next day after I spoke on the floor, ABC News’s Bill Blakemore on Good Morning America prominently featured James Hansen touting future scary climate scenarios that could / might / possibly happen. ABC’s “modest” title for the segment was “Will the Earth Become Too Hot? Are Our Children in Danger?”
The segment used all the well worn tactics from the alarmist guidebook — warning of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, melting glaciers, mass extinctions unless mankind put itself on a starvation energy diet and taxed emissions.
But that’s no surprise – Blakemore was already on the record declaring “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” about manmade catastrophic global warming.
( http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2374968 )
You have to be a pretty poor investigator to believe that. Why would 60 prominent scientists this last spring have written Canadian Prime Minister Harper that “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” ( http://www.canada.com/national.....b87559d605 )
On Tuesday’s program, the ABC News anchor referred to Blakemore as “passionate” about global warming. “Passionate” is one word to describe that kind of reporting, but words like objectivity or balance are not.
I believe it’s these kinds of stories which explain why the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of the hype. Despite the enormous 2006 media campaign to instill fear into the public, the number of people who believe that weather naturally changes — is increasing.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.
Given the diminishing importance of the mainstream media, I expect that trend to continue.
I hope my other colleagues will join me on the floor and start speaking out to debunk hysteria surrounding global warming. This issue is too important to our generation and future generations to allow distortions and media propaganda to derail the economic health of our nation.
Don’t worry moonbats, this is not the whole speech.
The reason Kyoto was not signed and voted down 95-0 was India and China got a pass. If the kook lefty moonbats would hold China and India and a few others accountable maybe Kyoto would have a chance!