Blue Oval News Says No More Verbal Abuse Will Be Allowed

[ebritt]

Whosure, the debate on NPR, like this one om BON is amusing but in the end I just have to go with the majority of respected scientist's.

 

I mean do you really think that Einstein could have debated the theory of relativity in two hours and the audiance understand it?

 

That is a little different, astrophysics is above 99% of the populations head, while GCC invlolves more basic science that most of us had in high school. It is not rocket science.

[Savetheplanet]

I think one misconception is the idea that cllimate scientists have a dog in this fight, they don't. We see it in your guy's post's over and over! You guy's are conspirosy theorist's!!

If ACC were disproved tomorrow, they would be doing research on something else.

Even those who did not find jobs in climate research would find jobs doing models for hedge funds or something else that would paymore than climate research. The people who do this research do it because they think it is important.

They see that changing climate represents a variety of threats to modern human civilization, and they want to d something about it. To question their integrity by implying that their puny salaries could buy their scientific opinion is not just flat wrong, hell, not even just laughable, it is insulting,, first, based on this study

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/cpst/2003PhDSurvey.pdf

from AGU, most of recent PhDs in geo and space sciences found employyment in the sciences, (87%).

An AIP study found that 97 of 2003 and 2004 PhDs found employment--those statistics don't leave much room for desperate job hunters willing to sacrifice their integrity for a job.

Then there's the question of motivation: Why would funding agencies want a scientist to falsify their research in favor of anthropogenic climate change. After all, most climate research funding comes from the US and other governments, and having the scientists say humans are changing the environment doesn't exactly reflect favorably on the governments' inaction on greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

The number of true experts who doubt Earth is wrming is pretty darned close to zero. The number who think humans have nothing to do with it can probobly be counted on fingers and maybe a couple of toes thrown in. There is NO controversy in the scientific community just the normal process of consensus with some cranks who cling to dissent for their own contrarian reasons. It is the media and public who manufacture the controversy.

 

Since youguy's, are not a scientist, and since virtually ALL the experts have concluded that climate change is occurring and that we are responsible for it, don't you think that you ought to consider the possibility that they, with their decades of research and study, might understand it better than you?

 

Ya know there are parallel's between a climate scientist and a physician, thaey make a diagnossis and tell you what it is, what YOU do about it is up to you!!!

Edited March 27, 2007 by Savetheplanet

[Savetheplanet]

You guy's keep pointing out the very few papers written on global cooling in the 70's

What about the underestimated dammage to the ozone in the 80's?

I can provide links if you want, but they did not even think that CFC's would put a whole in the ozone but it did!!

Just goes to show, that even small amounts of CFC's can cause major change!! I think the amount of C02 in the air is a problem.

After all there are over 6 billion ppl on the planet!

[sprinter]

You guy's keep pointing out the very few papers written on global cooling in the 70's

What about the underestimated dammage to the ozone in the 80's?

I can provide links if you want, but they did not even think that CFC's would put a whole in the ozone but it did!!

Just goes to show, that even small amounts of CFC's can cause major change!! I think the amount of C02 in the air is a problem.

After all there are over 6 billion ppl on the planet!

 

 

That’s a funny thing about them cfc's. I had taken several HVAC classes a few years back and was taught that the cfc molecule is larger and heavier than O2 and nitrogen which air is mostly made of (99%). If you have a leak in an enclosed room the cfc's would start accumulating at the floor first pushing the air upward. Now how them heavy cfc molecules get way up to the upper atmosphere is beyond me. But if them damn penguins would stop using their leaky air conditioners down in the Antarctic, there wouldn't be a hole in the ozone layer there. Common sense tells me that the hole should be above the U.S. since we are the largest user of cfc's. But Dow Chemical sure made a bundle since everyone has to purchase new and improved refrigerants. Of course Dow's scientist on the panel who recommended these changes to the EPA had no bias.

 

That big hole down there in the ozone , it changes in size depending upon the season. Wouldn’t the cfc’s just keep making it bigger and bigger?

[ebritt]

I think one misconception is the idea that cllimate scientists have a dog in this fight, they don't. We see it in your guy's post's over and over! You guy's are conspirosy theorist's!!

If ACC were disproved tomorrow, they would be doing research on something else.

Even those who did not find jobs in climate research would find jobs doing models for hedge funds or something else that would paymore than climate research. The people who do this research do it because they think it is important.

 

If ACC were disproved tomorrow( which it hasn't been PROVEN to begin with) They would be unemployed,period. CGG is the only thing that keeps them in a steady job so naturally they are going to harp on it as much as possible.

 

They see that changing climate represents a variety of threats to modern human civilization, and they want to d something about it. To question their integrity by implying that their puny salaries could buy their scientific opinion is not just flat wrong, hell, not even just laughable, it is insulting,, first, based on this study

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/cpst/2003PhDSurvey.pdf

from AGU, most of recent PhDs in geo and space sciences found employyment in the sciences, (87%).

An AIP study found that 97 of 2003 and 2004 PhDs found employment--those statistics don't leave much room for desperate job hunters willing to sacrifice their integrity for a job.

 

You assume too much grasshopper, who says they have integrity to begin with? You don't know these people and you can't say that they are ALL honorable the same as I can't say they aren't. But to say that they are all beyond reproach is way to optimistic towards you side of the argument.

 

Then there's the question of motivation: Why would funding agencies want a scientist to falsify their research in favor of anthropogenic climate change. After all, most climate research funding comes from the US and other governments, and having the scientists say humans are changing the environment doesn't exactly reflect favorably on the governments' inaction on greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Why would they? Try control. If one side can conjure up impending doom they can use that to futher their own power. It's been done many times.

The number of true experts who doubt Earth is wrming is pretty darned close to zero. The number who think humans have nothing to do with it can probobly be counted on fingers and maybe a couple of toes thrown in. There is NO controversy in the scientific community just the normal process of consensus with some cranks who cling to dissent for their own contrarian reasons. It is the media and public who manufacture the controversy.

 

TRUE Experts? Or you mean only the ones who are on your side?

 

Since youguy's, are not a scientist, and since virtually ALL the experts have concluded that climate change is occurring and that we are responsible for it, don't you think that you ought to consider the possibility that they, with their decades of research and study, might understand it better than you?

 

Or maybe that their science is so shaky that a third grader could punch holes in it???

 

Ya know there are parallel's between a climate scientist and a physician, thaey make a diagnossis and tell you what it is, what YOU do about it is up to you!!!

 

But a doctor doesent charge you for not taking his advice does he?

[methos]

That’s a funny thing about them cfc's. I had taken several HVAC classes a few years back and was taught that the cfc molecule is larger and heavier than O2 and nitrogen which air is mostly made of (99%). If you have a leak in an enclosed room the cfc's would start accumulating at the floor first pushing the air upward. Now how them heavy cfc molecules get way up to the upper atmosphere is beyond me. But if them damn penguins would stop using their leaky air conditioners down in the Antarctic, there wouldn't be a hole in the ozone layer there. Common sense tells me that the hole should be above the U.S. since we are the largest user of cfc's. But Dow Chemical sure made a bundle since everyone has to purchase new and improved refrigerants. Of course Dow's scientist on the panel who recommended these changes to the EPA had no bias.

 

That big hole down there in the ozone , it changes in size depending upon the season. Wouldn’t the cfc’s just keep making it bigger and bigger?

 

 

It is the same reason why researchers found that half of the fine red dust Miami's air originates from the Sahara Desert, or China's pollution shows up in North America. Global circulation patterns carry pollutants far from their source. As far as the hole in the ozone, the winds are circumpolar - everything eventually goes toward the poles. It is quite a mix of some rather nasty air pollution in the Arctic. You never hear about it because the only ones that are affected is the Inuit's.

 

As far as the seasonal change, the air litterally freezes at high altitudes during the winter, hence, the hole is smaller. In the summer, the air grows warm and the ice crystals melt, I can't remember the reaction, some ion, chlorine? - reacts with the ozone and the hole expands.

 

The U.S. led the charge in the global effort to reduce the damage to the ozone, and look at the success. We do not hear much about it anymore, but Australia has quite a high incident rate of skin cancer, proper sun protection, hats, sunscreen, and proper clothing is taught early in the schools.

Edited March 27, 2007 by methos

[methos]

Methos,

 

But Methos, it was your guys, not an audience of nobodys. It was your scientists, not some non descript people from in the background.

 

Maybe my demeanor was a little strong earlier, and if so, I apologize.

 

You gotta understand though, we have been continuously bomabarded by links in an attempt to prove the enviro case of CO2, the sky is falling, etc.

 

Now we have some of your top guys admitting they can't prove a thing by their own voting at an enviro meeting.

 

Forgive my glee, but to me sir, that is significant. If you get the doom sayers to admit there is probably no doom, from my way of thinking, that is a home run for the home team. (visitors if you want to use our dugout and claim home team status. 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other, not important)

 

So please, do not take it personally. I can imagine how I would feel if my own people blew what I thought for forever out of the water too. Because of human nature, I would try to investigate as far as I possibly could to rebutt what my own guys just said. It is human nature. Nobody wants to be mislead, and we feel violated when it is perpertrated on us.

 

Don't let it get you down. I am sure somewhere there are a whole bunch of enviros meeting as I write working spin control on this debacle, and will submit why it came out this way.......just like politicians do.

 

Within a weeks time, you guys will be back with a new link explaining this all away, and the debate will surge again.

 

Remember, regardless of which one of our positions is correct, the outcome will not necessarily take the correct position. It is all politics in the end.

 

If my side wins and it is wrong, I have not helped anyone on this planet, and the same goes for you should the opposite be true. Do not worry so much. No matter what happens in the short term, long term the truth will become obvious and mankind will respond no matter who is correct. Have an adult beverage my friend, take your shoes off, play with the kids, and admire the beauty of the world that surrounds us. All this other stuff is just cosmic noise in a political game of chicken that neither one of us can ever win, nor can we even be players in it. All we really are doing is regurgitating what they say, and betting on someone else instead of yourself is a crapshoot at best.

 

 

No offense taken. Trust me, I am not thin-skinned. I just see the direction of the debate and the rigidity of those involved in it, and decided it is time to call it a day - at least for the most part. Anyways, it is just to damn nice outside, and even for me, this stuff gets old after awhile <yawns>

 

P.S. I hope your new job goes well!

[Savetheplanet]

A fair amount of moderates in the republican party have already jumped ship and I think ACC will be a "wedge issue" in the GOP later this year.

Remember, most governments have signed off on the IPCC, from progressive Switzerland to countries dependt on fossil fuel $$ like Saudi Arabia, to heavy fossil fuel users like USA and China.

 

 

Just FYI the abv. ACC = (anthropogenic climate change)

 

 

Anthropogenic------------------ effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences.

 

The term is often used in the context of environmental externalities in the form of chemical or biological wastes that are produced as by-products of otherwise purposeful human activities. For instance, it is widely believed that the production of Carbon Dioxide is the primary factor driving anthropogenic climate change.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Savetheplanet

[ebritt]

Anthropogenic------------------ effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences.

 

 

We are all painfully aware of what that means...................professor poopy pants!

[sprinter]

It is the same reason why researchers found that half of the fine red dust Miami's air originates from the Sahara Desert, or China's pollution shows up in North America. Global circulation patterns carry pollutants far from their source. As far as the hole in the ozone, the winds are circumpolar - everything eventually goes toward the poles. It is quite a mix of some rather nasty air pollution in the Arctic. You never hear about it because the only ones that are affected is the Inuit's.

 

As far as the seasonal change, the air litterally freezes at high altitudes during the winter, hence, the hole is smaller. In the summer, the air grows warm and the ice crystals melt, I can't remember the reaction, some ion, chlorine? - reacts with the ozone and the hole expands.

 

The U.S. led the charge in the global effort to reduce the damage to the ozone, and look at the success. We do not hear much about it anymore, but Australia has quite a high incident rate of skin cancer, proper sun protection, hats, sunscreen, and proper clothing is taught early in the schools.

 

 

I believe the hole is still at the other pole, not the north pole which you say is sooo polluted. But why isn’t the hole above the U.S.? I have read their speculation; cfc's in the lower atmosphere which are inert , breakdown in the upper stratosphere due to uv radiation yadda yadda yadda. But even if it did travel to the poles, why isn't the north pole the one with the hole? Most of the industrial world is in the northern hemisphere and it is 1000’s of miles closer.

[sprinter]

The U.S. led the charge in the global effort to reduce the damage to the ozone, and look at the success. We do not hear much about it anymore,

 

 

The money maker for the scientist now is global warming so most have jumped on that wagon. Watch this video cold fusion and see how fellow scientist treat their comrades’ for deviating from accepted theory.

[fmccap]

What does Al Gore really want?

Gore can fix that. He ends his speech by calling, among other things, for an immediate freeze on carbon dioxide emissions--which is to say, an immediate freeze on the generation of additional power--to be enforced by massive new "carbon taxes." On this proposal, he piggybacks the whole leftist welfare-state agenda, demanding that most of the money from these carbon taxes be "earmarked" for "those in lower income groups." Scocialist

But Al Gore is not getting it all his own way. In New York's Newsday, Ellis Hennican describes a three-on-three debate held last week in New York City, in which opponents of the global warming hysteria--including that meddling novelist Michael Crichton, along with distinguished British scientist Phillip Stott and MIT's Richard Lindzen--took on some of the scare's defenders. The interesting things about this debate is that the organizers polled the audience before and after the event. The result? The number of people who thought that global warming is a "crisis" dropped from 57% to 42%.

 

That's why folks like Al Gore have to keep claiming that there is an iron-clad "consensus" on global warming and that the debate is "over"--because the moment the debate on the scientific merits of global warming is actually allowed to begin, the alarmists start to lose.

Al Gore is trying to dragoon science in an attempt to win over converts who don't share his sense of personal spiritual crisis and don't find his anti-industrial moral vision compelling. But the moment people see through his charade--and realize that what Gore is really pushing is a not a scientific campaign against "pollution" but a quasi-religious crusade against industrial civilization--his campaign will collapse.

This sounds like IMA, did you write this?

[Savetheplanet]

What does Al Gore really want?

 

This sounds like IMA, did you write this?

 

The debate over ACC in the sceintific community is basicly over, the only debate that continues is in the media. Hence the talking points you guy's use over and over, Gore, NPR debate, etc.

[methos]

I believe the hole is still at the other pole, not the north pole which you say is sooo polluted. But why isn’t the hole above the U.S.? I have read their speculation; cfc's in the lower atmosphere which are inert , breakdown in the upper stratosphere due to uv radiation yadda yadda yadda. But even if it did travel to the poles, why isn't the north pole the one with the hole? Most of the industrial world is in the northern hemisphere and it is 1000’s of miles closer.

 

 

Good question. Here is a link below that explains why the hole is over Antarctica and not the Arctic or Detroit - although there is a small hole over the Arctic, but not nearly as big as it's southern counterpart.

 

http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/arctic/ozone.htm

[NorfolkBuilt]

So are you guys saying that like the Earth is really hot and stuff,and its like melting lil kids ice cream and stuff ?

 

Its ironic how the one thread designed by the BON staff to stop verbal and personal attacks has become probably the most constructive thread on these forums,lol.

 

Its almost enough to bring a tear to my eye. :D

[methos]

The money maker for the scientist now is global warming so most have jumped on that wagon. Watch this video cold fusion and see how fellow scientist treat their comrades’ for deviating from accepted theory.

 

Nonsense. Think about it what you just wrote, "most have jumped on that wagon", which is true. That means more people have to share the same pie. The real money is in the "skeptic" side of the argument. Think tanks, Exxon, and other businesses and organizations pay large sums of money for good research or papers arguing against anthropogenic climate change. I think it was American Enterprise Institute that recently offered $10,000 for a good paper. Then you have the lecture circuit. There are only a few legitimate scientists left that are skeptics, there is a great deal more money to be made - personal income - being a skeptic than versus being a proponent of climate change. Of course, who knows their reasoning, and I think it would be bad no matter how strong the evidence if there were no skeptics.

[fmccap]

The real money is in the "skeptic" side of the argument. Think tanks, Exxon, and other businesses and organizations pay large sums of money for good research or papers arguing against anthropogenic climate change. I think it was American Enterprise Institute that recently offered $10,000 for a good paper.

There money cannot even closely be compared to Governments money. Our Government is an endless supply of money at our expense. $10,000 comparing the two is like the change that's in our pockets to some CEO. The US spends 2.3 or 2.8 billion a year in just this. I remember reading that just our current administration has spent over 20 billion in 6 years.

[Bluecon]

Can you imagine if that money was actually used for something constructive?

 

Instead we have the chicken little syndrome, and billions down the drain.

[sprinter]

Good question. Here is a link below that explains why the hole is over Antarctica and not the Arctic or Detroit - although there is a small hole over the Arctic, but not nearly as big as it's southern counterpart.

 

http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/arctic/ozone.htm

 

 

Since the ozone depletion was only discovered in the '70s, how do we know this has not been happening since the beginning of time? It is only a theory, maybe like "the earth is flat", “global warming”, or "cold fusion". Could be wrong, could be right. Practical experience tells me everything in nature takes the path of least resistance, electricity, water and air currents. wind currents

 

Take the time and watch the video I posted above. Pay close attention to the ridicule that Ponds and Fleishman received from their colleagues over their discovery. There is a lot of competition for the "grant money" from those cut throats. They all think their own ideas are the most worthy of funding.

If the UN can convince the world this is happening (GW), get ready to open your wallet.

[ebritt]

There money cannot even closely be compared to Governments money. Our Government is an endless supply of money at our expense. $10,000 comparing the two is like the change that's in our pockets to some CEO. The US spends 2.3 or 2.8 billion a year in just this. I remember reading that just our current administration has spent over 20 billion in 6 years.

 

Somebody is collecting that money.....who could it be....maybe .... just maybe.....the GCC scientsts!!!!!????

Lets see what would they get , gobs of cash, new labs and equipment, travel the world....dude there is lots of money to be made on the GCC scam, Al Gore is makin millions, got an Oscar and is nominated for the Nobel Peace prize....

 

[fmccap]

Somebody is collecting that money.....who could it be....maybe .... just maybe.....the GCC scientsts!!!!!????

Lets see what would they get , gobs of cash, new labs and equipment, travel the world....dude there is lots of money to be made on the GCC scam, Al Gore is makin millions, got an Oscar and is nominated for the Nobel Peace prize....

 

No, I know. I was responding to methos saying the money was

The real money is in the "skeptic" side of the argument. I think it was American Enterprise Institute that recently offered $10,000 for a good paper.

. That's chump change compared to what the GW scientists are getting. He needs to

Think about it what you just wrote

.

[fmccap]

Hence the talking points you guy's use over and over, Gore, NPR debate, etc.

Hence the junk science you use over and over. Not once could you answer just one of my questions pertaining to your "experts".

[fmccap]

Wow!! More conspiracy theory evidence, tell me more.....................

Answer these for me.Goto the bottom of the page

The mass media that is controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations, Skull & Bones, and high freemasonry of the 33rd degree level want you to believe that anyone who says there is a conspiracy for world government and therefore destroy the Constitution is a quack. They use such phrases as: oh, another conspiracy theorists; right wing nuts, etc.

 

The mass media was used to destroy the credibility of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s even though he only discovered 10% of the Communist infiltration into the U.S. State Department. Even the Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities used the word conspiracy in its findings.

 

The key is: DISCREDIT ANYONE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE WHO COMES AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY! That was testimony in the Alger Hiss trial by a former Communist who left the conspiracy to fight and expose Communism.

 

All of the founding documents of the United States make clear that WE, THE PEOPLE, were to be free to enjoy LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY.

 

**LIFE ­ increasing taxes starting in 1913 are sucking the LIFE out of Americans.

 

**LIBERTY ­ Americans can be jailed for any infraction or held hostage in jail until fines or taxes are paid.

 

**PROPERTY ­ Bank accounts can be seized; homes, automobiles and businesses seized to pay the ransom of taxes, penalties and interest.

 

How and why is this all happening to Americans? It is all based upon the Communist Manifesto! The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto are being enforced in America that usurps our Constitutional Rights. This is being done BY OUR OWN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS EVERYTHING ­ THAT IS COMMUNISM!

 

1st Plank of Communism: Abolish Private Property. This is being accomplished by land use laws, property taxes, zoning laws, environmental laws, etc.

 

2nd Plank of Communism: A heavy progressive income tax. There was NO income tax until 1913 when it began at 1%, never to go above 2%. What are you paying?

 

3rd Plank of Communism: Abolish all rights of inheritance. Today, we have heavy legal and probate fees plus inheritance taxes.

 

4th Plank of Communism: Confiscate all property of emigrants and rebels (anyone who speaks out against the government). Unconstitutional Regional Government has been installed which controls all of the physical, social and economic assets of all the counties.

 

5th Plank of Communism: Centralization of Credit in the hands of the state. In America this was done in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act. At first, it was simply the International Bankers who controlled the Federal Reserve; but by 1933, the U.S. was bankrupt and these bankers foreclosed on America. They created a new form of government called Socialism that has replaced our once Constitutional Republic. Public Law 91-151 prohibits any person to extend credit without a special license: a $1,000 fine or one year in prison could result (not yet enforced). A Social Security number is required in a business transaction.

 

6th Plank of Communism: Control all means of Transportation and Communication. The mass media has been in the hands of the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations for years [One of the Communist Rules of Revolution was to get control of all media and use it for their propaganda]. Presidential Executive Orders #10999 and #10995 provide for the take-over of all transportation and communications. They provide for the regulating of airlines, railroads, highways and the news media. Look at Homeland Security and the military at airports.

 

7th Plank of Communism: All production is to be controlled BY the State. There is a massive number of federal guidelines that industry must follow. The federal government is now involved in over 850 businesses. The Federal Bureaucracy forces farmers to grow [or not grow] specific crops and sell them below production costs. No wonder thousands of farmers leave the land every year and conglomerates take over. We have Corporate Socialism in America!!!

 

8th Plank of Communism: Equal liability of ALL to labor. Women are forced out of the home to work just to survive. Equal opportunity employment for both sexes. Executive Order #11000 will force civilians into government work brigades.

 

9th Plank of Communism: Combine agriculture with manufacturing, thus abolishing the distinction between town and country. We have seen the emergence of Urban Renewal, Population Control, Metro Councils, Regional Government Planning Programs, and the plans to eliminate Counties, Local Government and State Borders.

 

10th Plank of Communism: Control ALL Education. Federal “aid” to education means we have government-controlled schools and curriculum.

 

All Ten Planks of the Marxists’ Communist Manifesto are being forced upon us in America. Repent and cry out to God for deliverance. Our Senators and Representatives seemed to have no concept as to WHAT they are legislating upon our once FREE nation. If we continue on our present course, America will fulfill the prophecy by a presidential candidate in the 1930s that said they will give us small doses of Socialism until we wake up one day to find we have Communism.

[fmccap]

Really? I don't suppose you have any hard evidence to prove that do you?

Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction

The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. 1 Incredibly, the team of engineers from the ASCE that conducted the only investigation of the building "collapses" before Ground Zero had been cleaned up lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- at least until they signed waivers that they would not use the evidence in a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2

[Imawhosure]

All Ten Planks of the Marxists’ Communist Manifesto are being forced upon us in America. Repent and cry out to God for deliverance. Our Senators and Representatives seemed to have no concept as to WHAT they are legislating upon our once FREE nation. If we continue on our present course, America will fulfill the prophecy by a presidential candidate in the 1930s that said they will give us small doses of Socialism until we wake up one day to find we have Communism.

 

Well while I don't agree with the whole article, and I don't know which presidential candidate uttered those profound words, I tend to agree with him.

 

 

When was that article written anyway?

 

It appears they missed the 11th article of communism------------->

 

11. Invent a sky is falling problem for the masses to worry about, so they won't have time to notice exactly what is happening to them; not global warming mind you, but rather MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

 

I am off to work Mr Cap, and I must hurry, but if you find the time in your last couple of days off, could you research something for us?

 

Here it is----------->

 

1. How many gallons of gas did the United States use last year including diesel fuel.

 

2. Multiply that by the tax our friends in the UN want to impose. (is it a buck, a 1.10, or is it Al Gores 4 bucks? I dunno)

 

3. Find out where THEY suggest this money go to?

 

4. Will this stop the use of purchased carbon credits, or is this supposed to be above and beyond that.

 

 

5. Since they will call this something else than what it really; and what it really is would be a consumption tax, figure out using math what rise in taxes in percentage this causes the average taxpayer making 40 to 50 grand a year to incur.

 

(easy formula = find out what taxpayer making 45,000 a year averages in income tax, then take average mls driven by populace per year, average fuel economy for American fleet, that tells how many gallons are used. Now multiply that by the tax, and we shall see how much of a bigger percentage they pay, plus we will know how much money is taken OUT of our economy roughly. Not to mention, states with tourism goes into the crapper, but that's ok, we fighting to SAVETHEPLANET)

 

If ya find time, see if ya can put hard numbers to it!!!!!!!