Babs Boxer: Screw The Economy, AGW Legislation Is More Important

Gotta love liberals, they just live in their own little world. They got theirs, so, they feel no worry about fucking everyone else. As long as it doesn’t affect them

Democratic members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have pledged to “follow science” in their quest to quell the effects of global warming, even as some reports suggest that belief in the environmental threat is waning.

Follow the science. Um, sure. Whose science? The one that always ends with Man being mostly or solely responsible, or, the one that follow the scientific model and looks at all possibilities?

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the committee chair, told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference Tuesday that Democrats on the committee are writing a global warming bill that she says will not only preserve the environment, but also help remedy the nation’s economic problems.

global warming

“Don’t allow talk of an economic recession to stop our work,” Boxer said. “The surest way to create good jobs in this country is to mobilize for clean energy.”

In other words, peons, go fuck yourselves. Suck it up, and plan to get a job in walking distance.

Boxer said she does not agree with economists who say taxes are the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions.

And, as the AGW believers like to say, what is her degree in? Anyhow, the best way to reduce carbon emissions, if that is what she wants done, is for all those who believe in AGW to practice what they preach, and leave the rest of us out of their silliness.

She reaffirmed support for a cap-and-trade emissions system, though there is disagreement on the committee regarding whether that is the best option, she said.

“We’re working, let’s be clear, on cap-and-trade programs,” Boxer said. “The whole world is doing cap-and-trade, so we need to be consistent.”

Under cap-and trade, government sets a cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted, and companies that exceed the cap are allowed to trade or purchase credits from companies that pollute less.

Let’s see what does cap and trade do? OK, I run Teach Enterprises. I put out, let’s say, 100 ppm of CO2. Company Losing Money puts out 10ppm of CO2. The cap is 50. So, I need to get another 50. So, I pay off CLM for 40ppm. Quite a bit of that money goes to, you got it, the government. But, I need another 10. So, I go to Company No Business Model, and purchase another 10. Government gets more money. But, anyone notice how much CO2 I am still putting out? Ahem *scam* ahem.

We could probably cut quite a bit of CO2 if Obama and the Congress Critters would turn their thermostats down, and if the AGW leaders would stop flying all over the world to exotic vacation spots in private jets. Unfortunately, all the hypocritical activities by the AGW crowd is going to erase California farms, but, on the bright side, there will be plenty of reptiles to take their places.

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

6 Responses to “Babs Boxer: Screw The Economy, AGW Legislation Is More Important”

  1. Silke says:

    Teach said: Follow the science. Um, sure. Whose science?

    How about the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences?

    Or maybe our own governmental agency charged with protecting the environment – the EPA. This was their assessment even under the Bush Administration:

    What scientific organization do you think we should listen to? (that’s not a rhetorical question, please answer it)

    While I support efforts to reduce CO2 emissions I do think you are right that the cap-and-trade model has some flaws. There is definitely a potential for fraud and abuse.

    I disagree with you that Senator Boxer wants to screw the economy in favor of her global warming legislation. The fact that her committee won’t even submit a bill to the Senate until the end of this year and that one of the Senate’s first piece of major legislation is a stimulus bill refutes that claim.

  2. John Ryan says:

    Teach you should realize that whenever you have an argument based on “some people” that most people will not take it seriously. “Some” people are complete idiots. Some people believe all kinds of nonsense, Nor does it buttress an argument when “a scientist in Australia” or any other individual is used to make your case.

  3. Reasic says:


    You’ve demonstrated that you have NO idea what you’re talking about when it comes to climate science, and now, you’ve demonstrated the same with the cap and trade system. If you set up an argument for your opposition that you think is stupid, maybe it’s because you don’t understand the argument. Just a thought.

    You really need to learn something about climate science before you continue to embarrass yourself here. This is getting really ridiculous. Silke, myself, and others have offered reasonably simple scientific rebuttals to your nonsense, which you have consistently ignored. If you want to continue on in your ignorance on this subject, that’s your business, but it definitely doesn’t bode well for your credibility on the issue.

  4. So, illuminate me, Reasic. And, while you are at it, tell me why you have barely changed your lifestyle to match your beliefs. I mean, if AGW is true, why not walk the talk?

  5. Reasic says:

    So, illuminate me, Reasic.

    I’ve already tried that. You ignore everything you don’t agree with, much like a stubborn child with fingers in his ears. If you want some information, go back to my previous comments and read over them.

    And, while you are at it, tell me why you have barely changed your lifestyle to match your beliefs. I mean, if AGW is true, why not walk the talk?

    Please tell me, specifically, what I am not doing that I should be doing. I’ve given you a list of my actions, so you tell me what I’m missing. And while you’re at it, tell me what “draconian measures” I’d like to have applied to others instead of myself (from ARS). To my knowledge, I haven’t called for any.

    By the way, one of your favorite targets for “hypocrisy”, Al Gore, lives a carbon neutral lifestyle.

    It’s become clear that you’ve based much of your distrust of climate science on gossip about what certain people have done in their lives, rather than the actual science, and the funny part is that this whole “hypocrisy” schtick is a sham. What better way to fight against scientific evidence that you don’t understand, right?

  6. Silke says:

    Reasic, Teach isn’t interested in your efforts to reduce carbon emissions because to him it will never be enough. Ultimately, you either end up wasting time pointing out his flawed logic about what hypocrisy truly is or he thinks you’ve conceded the point when you explain that whether one is a hypocrite or not is irrelevant to the scientific evidence.

    The fact that Teach believes this is a strong argument against AGW reveals the inconsistency in his own position. Because then if even one person is truly living a carbon-neutral life, by his logic, he would have to accept their evidence. Of course he will then move the goalpost by declaring that’s not his definition of carbon-neutral.

    By the way Teach, you asked the question yourself. “Follow the science. Um, sure. Whose science?” What scientific organization do you recommend?

Pirate's Cove