Climastrologist Phil Murphy Heading From NJ To California For ‘Climate Change’ Conference As Florence Approaches

There’s a doubleshot of irony here, almost totally missed by writer Brent Johnson at NJ.com

Gov. Phil Murphy is heading to California for a quick trip to discuss climate change.

Murphy will leave New Jersey on Wednesday to take part in the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco.

The Democratic governor will participate in a Thursday morning panel at the conference about what cities, states, businesses, and society have achieved in the fight against global warming.

Murphy is scheduled to fly back to New Jersey on Thursday evening.

While he’s way, Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver will serve as acting governor.

The big irony here is that Murphy, who is a Total Believer in man-caused climate change, is taking a long cross country trip in a fossil fueled airplane, and you can bet he won’t be flying commercial, to participate in a conference that complains about climate change caused by fossil fuels. As Instapundit is fond of writing “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis” to which I like to add at the end “in their own lives”.

Murphy’s trip comes as Hurricane Florence barrels toward the East Coast. Murphy said Tuesday that the state is making emergency preparations, even though the storm is not expected to directly hit New Jersey.

Imagine that Phil was a Republican, and booking off even for a day. Imagine how the media and the Democrats would skewer him. In reality, they can do without him for a day, and, there are phones, email, and text. Still, the optics of booking to the other side of the country would have a Republican being blasted.

Regardless, why should we believe that we’re doomed when Warmists refuse to act as if we’re doomed in their own lives?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Post a Comment or Leave a Trackback

42 Responses to “Climastrologist Phil Murphy Heading From NJ To California For ‘Climate Change’ Conference As Florence Approaches”

  1. drownedpuppies says:

    “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis”

    Again, that ‘reasoning’ is letting another’s actions dictate your own scientific understanding of an issue.

    On top of that, it’s an obvious lie. It’s the ‘demanding perfection logical fallacy’ and is even an Alinsky Rule (#4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”). And of course it’s ‘moving the goalpost’. If 99% of those you slur as ‘climastrologists’ meet your demands, you’ll still declare victory. If 100% meet 99% of your demands, you’ll still declare victory.

    It’s a political ploy on your part, meant to attack your debate opponents, not to reach a rational decision.

    • dachs_dude says:

      I’d be happy if AGW believers could list how they themselves have taken steps to become carbon neutral.

      So far, zero responses anywhere, other than to call me names. Apparently, “other people” need to be carbon neutral, not AGW believers.

      • drownedpuppies says:

        Big problems often require big solutions. The point, of course, is that ALL need to participate. And anyway (read above) you’d certainly move the goalposts. Many have reduced their carbon footprints based on their understanding of global warming. But you’d always find an excuse – e.g., Al Gore flew to Miami, etc.

        Let’s say there’s a group that advocates for a balanced federal budget, with the serious intent of bringing the national debt to zero. Would you agree that those advocates should immediately stop ALL consumption of federal funds, e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment payments, and even start paying extra into the treasury to ‘prove’ their seriousness to others?

        Otherwise, how would others believe the burgeoning national debt constitutes a crisis?

        Or imagine there’s a group advocating for the invasion of another nation. If the advocates lined up to volunteer for service or encouraged their children to volunteer or started writing checks to the treasury to support the invasion effort, wouldn’t that ‘prove’ their seriousness to others? Instead they’d probably want ALL taxpayers to pay for the expedition.

        • gitarcarver says:

          Would you agree that those advocates should immediately stop ALL consumption of federal funds, e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment payments, and even start paying extra into the treasury to ‘prove’ their seriousness to others?

          You tied this argument before and it fails. The difference is that people HAVE to pay into the programs you mention. It is not a choice. It is not wrong for anyone to say “I want the services for which I paid.”

          That is not the same thing as warmists demanding others do what they will not.

          Leadership means not only believing in what you want to have happen, but acting on those beliefs.

          There is a reason that “don’t do as I do, do as I say” is rightfully mocked by intelligent and moral people.

          • drownedpuppies says:

            Sorry. But an argument doesn’t fail just because you stamp your feet.

            Do as I do? If you favor a balanced budget, be a leader and stop sucking at the federal teat. How many right-wing Senators and Reps forego their paychecks? Wouldn’t that be real leadership?

            The conservatives gave massive tax cuts to rich conservatives and corporations and the national debt is increasing at a shocking rate – despite the silly argument that revenues would shoot through the roof.

            Now they want to cut Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare for others to offset their fiscal largesse. Shouldn’t conservatives stop taking federal payments?

            If you want people to take conservatism seriously, conservatives need to start living conservatively.

        • formwiz says:

          Big problems often require big solutions.

          Ah, the anthem of the Lefties. Let’s see how much money we can throw at this one.

          Actually, any problem requires a solution that actually works.

          • gitarcarver says:

            Sorry. But an argument doesn’t fail just because you stamp your feet.

            I agree. Your argument fails because you refuse to see the hypocrisy in the warmist position.

            Do as I do? If you favor a balanced budget, be a leader and stop sucking at the federal teat. How many right-wing Senators and Reps forego their paychecks? Wouldn’t that be real leadership?

            Once again, stamping your feet. Is it your position that people should not get paid? Or that people who are forced to put money into a program under the premise they will get a return should just walk away?

            If you want people to take conservatism seriously, conservatives need to start living conservatively.

            Once again, the hypocrisy of demanding others do what you will not.

            Tell me Jeffery, you talked about the tax break and how it was going to benefit you and put more money in your pocket. Since you hate the idea of the tax break and supposedly favor a balanced budget, did you give the money back to the government?

            I didn’t think so.

        • dachs_dude says:

          drownedpuppies — So you just proved my point. You’ve offered nothing that you have done personally to reduce your carbon footprint, instead you insist that the government needs to force (other?) people to do so.
          Question: if the price of electricity triples and the price of gasoline triples and the price of heating oil triples because the government has decided to tax these, will it make it hard if not impossible for you to afford these things?

          • drownedpuppies says:

            I am under no obligation to respond to your demands for my personal information. If I told you, you wouldn’t believe me anyway, right?

            Frankly, I don’t think we will ever make a difference. Global warming will continue as is and our great-great-grandchildren will suffer most for our selfishness today.

            Assuming for a moment that you understood that global warming will lead to long-term global disaster, what would you propose to slow or stop the generation of fossil-fuel derived CO2?

          • dachs_dude says:

            Since you call for solutions, you are the one who need to tell us how you have become more carbon neutral. Otherwise, you offer nothing but higher taxes, fees and more poverty and misery over something that you personally believe you do not have to do anything about.
            Come one. Squiggly bulbs? Hybrid Car? Moved from the suburbs to an apartment building? Anything to show that you put your money where your mouth is?

            I personally have switched to squiggly bulbs where it makes sense because I like to write a smaller check to my electric utility. You solution would have me writing huge checks to the utility company that may or may not supply me with power if there isn’t wind.

            You’ve done nothing but prove you’re a hypocrite and only want to inflict socialism on us.

          • drownedpuppies says:

            We understand how frustrated you must feel. Best of luck.

            My solution is to align fossil-fuel pricing to reflect the actual costs to society. At best, it can only be an estimate. Energy use is obviously different from tobacco use, in that transportation, heating/cooling, lighting are necessary, so we would need a way to lessen the financial burden.

            Economists suggest that the higher prices be rebated, the idea being ‘price at the pump’ would encourage more efficiencies but the rebates would reduce financial burdens. You can choose to save money by driving less, switching to more efficient means, moving closer to work etc. It’s a market driven solution.

            IF you understood that global warming was real, what would you propose to reduce CO2 pollution?

          • dachs_dude says:

            No answer. So you personally won’t do anything. OK, got it.

            So how is higher taxes at the pump going to encourage conservation if people are already driving the most efficient vehicle that’s practical and if they know they’re going to get that money back at the end if they’re poor?

            No, I don’t believe that the climate is changing other than the natural short term and long term cycles that have been going on for eons.

            Because of that I don’t offer any solutions to the “problem” that doesn’t exist.

            You socialists have been trying to destroy our way of life for 100 years. Now you’re trying the weather as an excuse. Pathetic.

            Good luck on the bread lines, the power outages and fuel shortages if you get YOUR way.

    • formwiz says:

      No, Teach is just pointing out he could have gone to Hertz and cut his carbon footprint.

      It’s fun when little Jeffery destroys his own argument.

    • Nice try, Jeff. If people truly believed they’d change their own behavior to some degree, rather than demanding Someone Else be punished through taxes and fees and such. Eric Holthaus is one of the few who is at least doing something, such as refusing to take fossil fueled plane trips.

      • drownedpuppies says:

        Nice try, Porter. My point stands. You have no idea what people are doing in their lives.

        How large a decrease in carbon footprint would you consider “changing their own behavior”? 10%, 50%, 90%, 100%?

        And why another person’s actions affect your understanding of science?

        • gitarcarver says:

          So let’s look at this from another perspective to show the hypocrisy of your position.

          Assume there is a river next to a factory that is polluted. The owners of the factory decry the pollution and say that people should not pollute the water.

          Scientists come out and determine that the factory is polluting the water.

          The owners then say, “oh….OUR pollution doesn’t matter. The pollution of OTHER people and OTHER factories matter.”

          People would laugh that company right off the stage and rightfully say they have no say in what others do. They would say the people are hypocrites and don’t believe in the very science they want to foist on others.

          That’s what’s happening here with warmists and you support the hypocrisy which in effect means you don’t believe in the so called “science.”

          • drownedpuppies says:

            You and Porter have resorted to nothing more than namecalling. Hypocrites! you bray. It’s all you have left.

            The Earth is warming from CO2 we humans are pumping into the atmosphere.

            Speaking of hypocrites… “Abortion is murder!” Yet, pro-birthers stand idly by as babies are ‘murdered’.

          • gitarcarver says:

            You and Porter have resorted to nothing more than namecalling. Hypocrites! you bray. It’s all you have left.

            You know it is not about name calling. This is just a dodge from you.

            If you and others won’t live by your beliefs and what you demand from others, then the seriousness and validity of your beliefs is rightfully questioned.

            Speaking of hypocrites… “Abortion is murder!” Yet, pro-birthers stand idly by as babies are ‘murdered’

            This is what you get when you live in a bubble with your head in the ground. Pro-life people continue to work to end the murder of children (which you support.) We also don’t say “abortion is wrong” and then go out and run an abortion clinic.

            Your argument fails on so many levels.

            But I did notice that you never answered the question of returning the tax break you got via Trump. (That would be the tax break you say you hate while wanting a “balanced budget” and demanding others not partake of services for which they paid.)

            Leaders and people of moral character stand up for what they believe and their actions echo their beliefs.

            Warmists and liberals don’t do that. In their hatred, all they can do is demand others do what they will not.

          • You and Porter have resorted to nothing more than namecalling. Hypocrites! you bray. It’s all you have left.

            It’s name calling to point out that people are hypocrites? Damn, I really need to fix the emoticons for a good laughing one.

          • drownedpuppies says:

            So make an argument! Show your evidence that those who understand the dangers of global warming are more hypocritical than conservatives who rely on federal largesse. You keep saying conservatives ‘paid’ for their SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Not exactly. Most Americans will take out far more than they put in, even invoking ‘interest’.

            gc: You’re a polite name-caller but name-calling is still all you have. You’re smart enough to realize that global warming is real, right?

            Do you have an argument to make about global warming? Does atmospheric CO2 absorb infrared radiation or not? Is the massive increase in atmospheric CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels or not? Is the Earth’s surface warming or not? Can you explain why you expect this rapid warming to stop or even reverse?

            No, you’re reduced to calling others names, just because they disagree with your apparent (feighned?) ignorance, and apparently have no rational arguments to make.

            Again… Why would you allow the actions of others dictate your scientific understanding of an important issue?

            We get it. The new far-right states that the scientific community is involved in a massive conspiracy that includes communists, world governments, NASA, major religions, the US ‘Deep State’, scientific societies, Arctic, Greenland and Antarctic ice, thermometers and the liberal media to force American ‘patriots’ to pay more for gasoline.

            We don’t blame you for distracting from the real issue, since distractions are all that deniers have left.

            P.S. – I pay all my taxes without complaint, and will gladly match whatever extra payment you make to the treasury. But again, that’s just you distracting again. And it’s the cons who always complain about the debt, until a GOPher takes over, e.g., Reagan, Bushes, tRump, and start running up more and more debt. Isn’t that hypocritical? If you personally want to reduce the yearly deficits, than you personally can pay additionally to the treasury and/or reduce your takings from the feds. Simple.

          • dachs_dude says:

            drownedpuppies said: “Why would you allow the actions of others dictate your scientific understanding of an important issue?”

            Stupid question.

            The actions of others doesn’t dictate my understanding of an issue.

            However, the actions of others DOES dictate to me THEIR sincerity of the seriousness of an issue.

            If, for example, you were seriously concerned about flooding in an area, (regardless of the reason), you wouldn’t build/buy a house in an area prone to flooding, would you? Nor would it alter my perception of whether flooding can pose a hazard nor the science behind the flooding.

            Since you refuse to show what personal steps you would take to mitigate flooding, (in this example), and insist that the government impoverish all of us to fight this solution, then it’s really pointless for you to insist that others change their lifestyles where you show no willingness nor evidence of a change of your own, (move to higher ground, raise your foundation, build a dam or levy, etc.).

            Hypocrite.

          • gitarcarver says:

            gc: You’re a polite name-caller but name-calling is still all you have. You’re smart enough to realize that global warming is real, right?

            This gets tedious after awhile. As Teach said, describing someone’s actions is not “name calling.”

            Secondly, the issue is not “global warming,” it is the cause of the warming.

            Again… Why would you allow the actions of others dictate your scientific understanding of an important issue?

            Are you really asking people as to why those who advocate anthropomorphic global warming do not follow their own beliefs is an indicator of the strength and veracity of those beliefs?

            You cannot be that silly.

            P.S. – I pay all my taxes without complaint, and will gladly match whatever extra payment you make to the treasury.

            We all get it, Jeffery. You say that people should do one thing and then you do another. You demand in name of a balanced budget (which you claim to support) that others should not take what they have paid into the government for services, and then turn around and take the money from a tax break you have decried.

            It is clear your words seldom, if ever, match your own actions.

            And for the record, you were the one who brought up the taxes and government services. Not me. You were the one who brought up the killing of children. Not me.

            Now you claim that others such as myself are bringing up “distractions?”

            Once again, it is an example of you doing what you demand others do not (and have not) done.

            I didn’t start what you call “distractions.” You did.

            You don’t like when those “distractions” show the fallacy of your own position, beliefs and actions.

          • drownedpuppies says:

            dachs,

            You know little about me, yet you label me a hypocrite for not answering your personal questions.

            Do you believe abortion is murder? If so, why aren’t you in jail for stopping the murders? Does the fact that some people call abortion murder but do little to stop it invalidate the anti-abortion position?

            Do you believe in balanced budgets? If so, why aren’t you paying extra into the treasury and eschewing all federal benefits? Does the fact that some people claim national debt is catastrophic but do little on their own to address it invalidate the balanced budget position?

            You guys like to change the subject, make ad hominem attacks, and do anything to avoid the actual topic.

            The science on global warming is conclusive and that’s why so-called ‘skeptics’ want to argue about hypocrisy.

          • drownedpuppies says:

            gc,

            You do not agree with the scientific consensus that greenhouse gases are causing the current period of rapid warming? Yikes.

            The distractions were not abortion and federal monies (as you well know), but that you and Porter call those with whom you disagree, hypocrites. Why do you not want to discuss global warming?

            Actually, I care little about the national debt, but use it occasionally as a shillelagh to pummel hypocritical Cons. My question is, If Cons think a balanced budget is important, why do they keep running up huge deficits? Answer: So they can punish the working classes with cuts to social programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment payouts etc). Succor the wealthy at the expense of the working classes.

            The point is that ‘hypocrite’ is a relative term, a near meaningless pejorative to distract from discussing issues. Do you think calling pro-birthers hypocrites for not stopping all abortions to be unfair? Do you think calling balanced budget conservatives hypocrites for not stopping all their uses of federal benefits to be unfair? If you do, then maybe you’re beginning to understand.

            I do agree that discussions with you are tedious. You always prefer to slide off topic. Best wishes.

          • dachs_dude says:

            drownedpuppies — Wow! You change the subject to debate about taxes and abortion but won’t stay on topic about AGW and your personal changes to this crisis that apparently other people need to pay for.
            You’ve lost this one, and fortunately, it’s online for all to see.

            Enjoy the weather while it’s still free! 🙂

          • gitarcarver says:

            You do not agree with the scientific consensus that greenhouse gases are causing the current period of rapid warming? Yikes.

            As you well know, consensus is not “proof” and does not even meet a standard of “scientific certainty.”

            The problem is, of course, that we are starting to see more and more research that disputes the so called “consensus,” – research that warmists like to ignore or make ad hominem attacks upon the author.

            The only conclusion that one can make is that the AGW crowd is not serious about what they claim.

            The distractions were not abortion and federal monies (as you well know), but that you and Porter call those with whom you disagree, hypocrites.

            I wish you’d make up your mind. When you wrongfully claimed that I brought up the issue of federal monies and child murder, you claimed they were “distractions.” Now because you brought them up, they are not distractions at all but something else (which would be the definition of a distraction.)

            Actually, I care little about the national debt,….

            So when you claimed that you did care, that was a lie? So please tell us that as an admitted liar, why anyone should believe anything that you say?

            The point is that ‘hypocrite’ is a relative term, a near meaningless pejorative to distract from discussing issues.

            It is not a relative term, Jeffery. If one says one thing and does another, that makes them a hypocrite. I suspect that in the case of warmists, you simply don’t like where the hypocrisy of warmests takes critical thinking – that if AGW was true and was “factual,” those who hold to the theory would do what they can to limit their contribution to the very issue they claim is important. As they do not, the only conclusion is that either they, the premise or both are not honest, moral people and are nothing more than hypocrites who should not be listened to.

            Do you think calling pro-birthers hypocrites for not stopping all abortions to be unfair? Do you think calling balanced budget conservatives hypocrites for not stopping all their uses of federal benefits to be unfair?

            We’ve been down this path many times and you always come out on the wrong end. As you said earlier, stomping your feet doesn’t make something true (which is what you are doing here.) However, demanding one thing of others while doing the same thing yourself does make you a hypocrite.

            You always prefer to slide off topic. Best wishes.

            Wait….you changed the subject and then say I slid off topic?

            That’s laughable on its face. Typical of you, but laughable nonetheless.

          • drownedpuppies says:

            We’ve learned to ignore most of your lies…

            But you are clearly confused on the scientific method. Scientific theories are not proven but as supporting evidence accumulates with little valid evidence to invalidate it, the theory becomes accepted by the scientific community. That’s not to say that some scientist may drive a stake through the heart of global warming – but it certainly hasn’t happened yet.

            We put little stock in your declarations of victory and your conclusions of failure in others.

            All you have is your slippery misdirection, slurs and name-calling. Let us know if you want to return to the topic of climate change.

          • dachs_dude says:

            drownedpuppies said: “Scientific theories are not proven but as supporting evidence accumulates with little valid evidence to invalidate it, the theory becomes accepted by the scientific community. That’s not to say that some scientist may drive a stake through the heart of global warming – but it certainly hasn’t happened yet.”

            Which is laughable as those same “scientists”; collude to ban any studies that disprove AGW, “adjust historical temperature data” to match their failed predictions, ignore or willfully mis-represent rural temperatures that are usually cooler than city temperatures, and on and on.

            All in a push for more funding, more socialism, more control and less freedom.

            This will go down as the biggest scam in history and you’re one of the dupes.

          • drownedpuppies says:

            dachs,

            You seem to believe in the conspiracy theory that scientists are colluding with commies et al.

            Is the Earth’s surface warming? Is the ocean warming?

            Is atmospheric CO2 increasing? Is this CO2 from burning fossil fuels?

            Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation?

            Are Arctic sea ice, Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic ice sheet losing volume?

          • gitarcarver says:

            But you are clearly confused on the scientific method. Scientific theories are not proven but as supporting evidence accumulates with little valid evidence to invalidate it, the theory becomes accepted by the scientific community.

            Did I mention anything about “scientific theories being proven?” Please show where I said such a thing.

            You are clearly confused on the difference between a “consensus” and a “scientific certainty” which is what I talked about. Once again you tried to distract by going off topic.

            We put little stock in your declarations of victory and your conclusions of failure in others.

            Is that the stamping of feet I hear?

            You putting “stock” in anything has little to do with the validity of what was said. In short, you tried another deflection and changing of topic that failed.

            All you have is your slippery misdirection, slurs and name-calling.

            Says the guy who tried misdirection and calls people names all the time. Fact of the matter is I did not call you or anyone a name. You tried that misdirection of playing the victim before and it fails again.

            Let us know if you want to return to the topic of climate change.

            In your zeal to misdirect and accuse others of doing what you do, you missed that we did return to the topic of climate change. You stamped your feet, glossed over it, called people names, tried distracting and then changed the topic.

            If you took that our noting your actions were hypocritical, that’s on you for looking to be offended by assuming that we called you a name.

            Nice try, but your own words condemn you and show you to be the type of person you are.

          • drownedpuppies says:

            You hypocrite, you. (Calling a X-tian Conservative ‘hypocrite’ is redundant, though).

            Actually it was you who brought up ‘proof’.

            As you well know, consensus is not “proof” and does not even meet a standard of “scientific certainty.”

  2. Bkhuna says:

    It’s as if the Environgelicals have never heard of teleconferencing.

    • dachs_dude says:

      Most companies are realizing that they can get just about the same results with way less business travel and save money.
      Greenies, being all about virtue signalling, and spending “other people’s money”, feel the need to show up in person so they can tell us all how to be happy with the poverty Socialism will bring while we still get hammered by a Climate that’s going to do what it will regardless of what we do.

  3. Jl says:

    The Bad Weather Preventers meet in San Fran…

  4. Jl says:

    “The earth is warming due to CO2…”. Not hardly at all according to this paper..
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta

  5. dachs_dude says:

    You seem to believe in the conspiracy theory that scientists are colluding with commies et al.

    Is the Earth’s surface warming?

    Unfudged data shows a slight warming. What you might expect after coming our of a “Little Ice Age” Wikipedia: “The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] ”

    Is the ocean warming? It is because of the natural warming from exiting a period of unusual cooling.

    Is atmospheric CO2 increasing? Placing your main CO2 measurement next to a volcano is a little dubious, however, it is increasing, but CO2 is a trace gas and methane and water vapor are far, FAR better heat retainers. That’s a science fact, correct?

    Is this CO2 from burning fossil fuels? It could be from any combination of fossil fuels, volcanic emissions or the exhaling of all animal life.

    Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation? It does so slightly. The main issue is, Jeffrey, does what we do make any difference at all. Since the data is fudged, and the methodology is not shared with other scientists for verification, we have all the makings of a scam.

    Are Arctic sea ice, Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic ice sheet losing volume? It varies with each year. Some years seeing much higher and some much lower ice coverage. We only have RELIABLE satellite imagery from 1979 forward. Way too short of a time to determine any long term trends, (39 years vs 4,700,000,000 years). We’d need at least a few hundred years to determine a long term trend as we’ve seen from lower latitude data that stretches back 2000+ years in some places.

    But hey, according to you AGW believers, “Who cares if the science is wrong? This is a chance to finally displace Capitalism with Socialism.”

  6. drownedpuppies says:

    Thanks for confirming your belief in the commie plot. Sad.

    There is no evidence that data are ‘fudged’ or the methodology is not shared.

    Do you really believe a carbon tax is what separates capitalism from socialism? Sad.

    What is causing the so-called ‘natural’ warming of the surface and oceans?

    Yes, methane and water vapor are potent greenhouse gases. Methane has a short half-life in the atmosphere, so its long term effects are not as great as with CO2. The overall amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature, i.e., higher temperature, more water vapor.

    • Liljefferykeeneofst.louis says:

      New day, same old shit, huh, little fella?
      https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • drownedpuppies says:

        That’s the convenient thing about telling the truth. It’s the same from day to day.

        Do you think enacting a carbon tax in a capitalistic economy converts it to socialism?

        • dachs_dude says:

          drownedpuppies — Do you thinking enacting a carbon tax that will impoverish the poor and decimate the middle class will actually change the climate??
          If you do you’re the delusional one.

          • Jethro says:

            There is no reason to think a carbon tax system will impoverish the impoverished and decimate the middle class. Anyway, the imporverished and middle class hasn’t been doing so well since about 1980. And the 2007-2008 Great Recession hurt them much more than a carbon tax.

            If your question is will reducing global CO2 emissions eventually slow global warming, the answer is yes.

Leave a Reply

https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_bye.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_negative.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_scratch.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_heart.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_rose.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_smile.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_whistle3.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yes.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cry.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_sad.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_unsure.gif 
https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wink.gif 
 

Bad Behavior has blocked 6221 access attempts in the last 7 days.