The Goracle, He Come, Mon, To Capitol Hill

What is that talking point the Lefties always used to bring up when Bush was in charge? Ah, there it is. Had to find it, there are so many they constantly repeated. This one is about “there being more important issues to discuss then…” Usually, this occurred when Democrats got in trouble. Well, in this case, aren’t there more important issues to be discussed on Capital Hill then Al Gore’s climate change hysteria? There is a big recession on, ya know!

Al Gore will exhort US lawmakers to renew US leadership on battling climate change next week, as “green” groups push for quick, sweeping action from President Barack Obama and a friendly Congress.

Gore will testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesdayas Democrats — who now control the White House and enjoy sizeable majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives — seek to wield their new power.

According to ye olde Weather Channel forecast for D.C.

Oh, please let he weathermen, um, weatherpeople, be correct this one time.

Waffles Kerry even manages to get a two short paragraph mention in the article,

“He understands the urgent need for American engagement and leadership on this issue. America must act decisively,” ahead of December UN talks on the issue in Copenhagen, said Democratic Senator John Kerry, the panel’s chairman.

Kerry “wanted to send a message that this is going to be a priority for the committee going forward this year. He wanted to set the tone, set the agenda,” and get his colleagues’ attention, said a committee staffer.

I wanted to ignore Waffles, but, he is the panel chairman. Don’t we have more important things to discuss, other then measures which can damage the economy and drive up the costs, which, to use another Liberal talking point, will harm the middle and lower classes? Besides, a majority of Americans ranked fixing climate change deadlast in a poll. Dems always talk about consensus…..

The rest of the story is about what the Dem Congress and President Obambi want to do, namely seriously reduce the economy in the name of anthropogenic climate change. I wonder if any of the critters, such as Obama and Pelosi, actually live the life themselves? We know Gore doesn’t.

To end this post up, before it starts getting really long, let’s ask Eric Fruits what climate change legislation can do to Oregon

There is no getting around it: both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs raise energy prices. If either program is put into effect, households, businesses, and the public sector will have steeper power bills and will pay more to drive their vehicles. To meet the reduction goals, the costs will have to be very steep. In a recent study I co-authored with Randall Pozdena, we calculated that meeting the goals would mean Oregon’s economic growth would be cut almost in half. In turn, state and local governments would collect $4.4 billion less in revenues.

All this for a mostly made up crisis. Imagine that nationally. And before any of you AGW Believers question who Eric Fruits is: Eric Fruits, Ph.D. is a Portland-based economist. He is President of Economics International Corp and an adjunct professor at Portland State University. I reckon he knows a bit. What is Al Gore’s degree in?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “The Goracle, He Come, Mon, To Capitol Hill”

  1. Maggie Mama says:

    Temps were down in the single digits last night with Artic winds but I know that ALGORE can explain this is all caused by Global Warming.

  2. Reasic says:

    What do you know? More red herrings, straw man arguments, and misconceptions from Teach. Nevermind actual climate science, the differences between weather and climate, or the fact that no one is telling Teach to live his life a certain way. Truth be damned! He didn’t just drink the kool-aid, he’s swimming in it, and it tastes good, doesn’t it? You just stay in that pool of climate ignorance, Teach. Whatever makes you happy. When you’re ready to join me in the real world, I’d be glad to discuss stratospheric cooling and the atmospheric lifetime of water vapor. Until then, drink up!

  3. The cold temps were caused by global warming, Maggie. Everything is. The snow in the UAE, the first time in recorded history, was caused by global warming, I’m sure. They do not even have words for it.

    So, Reasic, if you believe Man is at fault, what are you yourself doing to reduce your carbon footprint? Anything?

  4. Silke says:

    Teach, you said that you changed your mind about AGW after reading State of Fear. Does this mean you used to think Man was at fault? How long did you believe this before you changed your mind?

  5. Reasic says:

    So, Reasic, if you believe Man is at fault, what are you yourself doing to reduce your carbon footprint? Anything?

    It just amazes me that this argument is somehow convincing to you, Teach. Rather than ensure that you fully understand the science of climate change, and therefore understand the threat that we face, you cling to this concern about whether people like me are doing what YOU THINK we ought to do to fight climate change, if we really believed it.

    There are a couple of problems with this argument. First, you don’t understand climate change. This is apparent from the arguments you make, and your inability to debate your arguments with me on a scientific level. All you do is make a cursory mention of the Sun or water vapor, and then when called on it, you avoid my rebuttals and instead, revert back to your phony hypocrisy argument. Second, you don’t understand the proposed methods of mitigation, and their respective costs. This is apparent from (1) your insistence upon small personal actions, and (2) your assertion that macroeconomic changes would be detrimental to our economy. I recommend that you take a look at the IPCC AR4 WGIII report, or at least the SPM, which discusses specific mitigation methods, and gives estimated impacts to GDP. You will be surprised by what you learn.

    Most importantly, though, I hope that you would actually try to objectively learn about climate change as a whole. You can’t possibly agree to doing ANYTHING about a problem that you don’t think exists in the first place. At the very least, try to discuss the issue with me on a scientific level. Maybe that way, you could at least rationally defend your position.

    As to what I do, I will say that I have turned my heater down; drive a fairly fuel efficient vehicle; regularly replace my home’s air filter; turn off appliances and lights when not in use; only wash full loads of laundry; take showers; recycle; make smart shopping choices; reuse various products whenever possible; buy produce from local farmers’ market; and don’t engage in over-consumption during Christmas. I’m sure there are things I’m forgetting. I know there are some things that are just not practical for me, given my situation, such as carpooling, riding a bike, or taking mass-transit. These options are simply not available or practical in my area.

    Now, are you going to believe AGW? I doubt it. You’re just going to say it’s not enough, or point out other people that you think are hypocrits. The proof, though, is in scientific research. I guess that’s why you continue with this red herring, because you can’t win a debate on the actual issue. You have to rely on a distraction FROM the issue.

    What is needed to achieve a return to reasonable levels of carbon emissions is a large-scale mitigation effort, which focuses on sustainable development, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. This is how real mitigation will happen, and some steps have been taken in that direction with solutions such as LEED development benefits. However, much more is needed, and it all starts with public awareness. The more people know about the problem, the more people will favor working on a solution.

    You, however, are actually working against this goal, spreading confusion and ignorance on the subject. You claim to be concerned about the environment, but on the issue that could perhaps be the greatest detriment to our planet, you definitely side against the environment and in favor of those who seek to profit from the status quo. If you are really so concerned about the environment, I would hope that you would at least try to put an equal amount to effort into studying AGW sources as you have inactivist sources. You clearly have not.

Pirate's Cove