A doctor in government once said "take two tax increases and see me in two years".

 

I say lets leave "government" to the people, health care to our doctors and the climate/weather to GOD.

 

I have absolutely no science to back this up, but IMO to believe the minuscule climate changes the earth's atmosphere are man made is ridiculous.

I see NO reason why we should be looking at paying ridiculous taxes or forced to buy 'green products' to line the pockets of the Al Gores out there for something that has absolutely NO PROOF. Absurd! There is NO proof that anything is happening that is caused by man and there is certainly NOTHING we can do to change what the sun does!

Stewardship is fine and dandy, but not at the cost these buffoons want.

 

 

Again, this is a philosophical argument. My philosophy is that the stewardship is a responsibility, and it costs. Yours is that your money shouldn't be spent on this particular issue. But, I'm not sure how you get that anyone is 'forcing' you to buy green products. If you object to buying energy-saving autos, appliances and home improvements, that's certainly your right, and there are other products out there that you can purchase. But, with the credits available to home owners who do purchase the energy saving products, then I'm not sure that I buy the "expensive" theory. Between the credits and the future savings, these items more than compensate for the initial cash outlay, for those only concerned about money.

 

If you object to buying environmentally friendly cleaning products, or object to recycling as much as possible, you certainly have other choices.

 

I think that you first object to Al Gore in his entirety, and secondly you don't like that people will make money on a theory that you don't believe. But, it's a capatilistic society that we live in, and I do wonder how you can object to environmental groups making money, but be OK with the cost of healthcare, including medicines.

 

Or maybe it's that you object to the push to have our government involved in environmental issues at all. In which case, I assume you object to scrubbers on the smoke stacks of chemical factories (for instance).

 

I would suppose as well that you don't really place the value that I do on national resources, and preserving them for more than environmental reasons.

 

Personally, I believe that quality of live is about more than personal convenience. But...that's just me.

I see NO reason why we should be looking at paying ridiculous taxes or forced to buy 'green products' to line the pockets of the Al Gores out there for something that has absolutely NO PROOF. Absurd! There is NO proof that anything is happening that is caused by man and there is certainly NOTHING we can do to change what the sun does!

Stewardship is fine and dandy, but not at the cost these buffoons want.

 

I agree. Everyone should take an active role in conserving the natural resources we have available to us. However, some of the ideas that have been put out there in the name of man made global warming go way too far.

Again, this is a philosophical argument. My philosophy is that the stewardship is a responsibility, and it costs. Yours is that your money shouldn't be spent on this particular issue. But, I'm not sure how you get that anyone is 'forcing' you to buy green products. If you object to buying energy-saving autos, appliances and home improvements, that's certainly your right, and there are other products out there that you can purchase. But, with the credits available to home owners who do purchase the energy saving products, then I'm not sure that I buy the "expensive" theory. Between the credits and the future savings, these items more than compensate for the initial cash outlay, for those only concerned about money.

 

If you object to buying environmentally friendly cleaning products, or object to recycling as much as possible, you certainly have other choices.

 

I think that you first object to Al Gore in his entirety, and secondly you don't like that people will make money on a theory that you don't believe. But, it's a capatilistic society that we live in, and I do wonder how you can object to environmental groups making money, but be OK with the cost of healthcare, including medicines.

 

Or maybe it's that you object to the push to have our government involved in environmental issues at all. In which case, I assume you object to scrubbers on the smoke stacks of chemical factories (for instance).

 

I would suppose as well that you don't really place the value that I do on national resources, and preserving them for more than environmental reasons.

 

Personally, I believe that quality of live is about more than personal convenience. But...that's just me.

Have you read any of the proposed bills by the Dems? If so, how can you question my point?

 

What I don't like is that the theory has no basis of proof. You can't give me any because there is none to give.

 

Who said I'm OK with cost of health care, including medicines? That's nothing more than an assumption by you because I'm against the government running it. An incorrect assumption, I might add.

 

You would suppose wrong, however, that's nothing new when you suppose about me. I simply don't buy into everything the Dems try to ram down my throat. For an Independent, I've yet to see you side with any Conservative opinions or proposals. Hmmmm... :idunno:

 

As I said, we as a country, do a very good job of trying to take care of the environment, but you choose to ignore the fact that China and Turkey tend to do nothing. What good will our further changes do if they continue to do little to nothing?

 

BTW, I never said I don't use energy efficient appliances, you assumed that because I said I don't want the government to tell us what we have to use. It just so happens that I do recycle, have for years. Another incorrect assumption by you. Heck, I even use the little "swirly" light bulbs. However, unlike you seem to be, I want the government out of my life as much as possible.

Have you read any of the proposed bills by the Dems? If so, how can you question my point?

I can question it because I don't require the same "proof" that you require. As I said (twice previously), I look at this more philosophically than scientifically. Therefore, I look at this in a sense of what is right for the future of the earth, not what the cost is or what specifically is needed to "prove" anything.

What I don't like is that the theory has no basis of proof. You can't give me any because there is none to give.

I don't need the kind of proof that you evidently do. I don't need statistics or scientific research to tell me that the effects of pollution, deforestation and depletion of natural resources will have an adverse effect on the environment now and in the future.

 

Who said I'm OK with cost of health care, including medicines? That's nothing more than an assumption by you because I'm against the government running it. An incorrect assumption, I might add.

You've done a lot of criticizing of government involvement, yet very little, if any, crticizing of what healthcare has become today. You're not concerned that millions are uninsured, because some choose to be uninsured. You feel it's someone elses responsibility to assist the needy with healthcare costs, instead of society's. I'm not sure whose responsibility you feel it is. I just feel you feel it's not yours in any way shape or form.

You would suppose wrong, however, that's nothing new when you suppose about me. I simply don't buy into everything the Dems try to ram down my throat. For an Independent, I've yet to see you side with any Conservative opinions or proposals. Hmmmm... :idunno:

You haven't paid much attention to my posts on education I guess. :lol: And the Democrats aren't alone in jamming things down people's throats. Personally, I feel that the military action in Iraq was jammed down my throat by Republicans. I feel that currently, the "issue of the day" is healthcare, and since I personally feel this is one of the most important issues facing us today, then I don't feel it's been rammed down my throat. I feel both parties rammed the bailouts down my throat.

As I said, we as a country, do a very good job of trying to take care of the environment, but you choose to ignore the fact that China and Turkey tend to do nothing. What good will our further changes do if they continue to do little to nothing?

I don't think that just becaue others do nothing, it relieves us of our responsibility to keep finding ways to do more. I'm not a citizen of China or Turkey, and I can't influence their policy indivdually. However, as collectively, as citizens of the United States, given that we are seen and want to be seen as the leaders of the Free World, it's our responsibility to lead on this issue as well.

 

 

BTW, I never said I don't use energy efficient appliances, you assumed that because I said I don't want the government to tell us what we have to use. It just so happens that I do recycle, have for years. Another incorrect assumption by you. Heck, I even use the little "swirly" light bulbs. However, unlike you seem to be, I want the government out of my life as much as possible.

 

I didn't say you didn't. You said you were forced to. But you have do have a choice, which you did choose to use the energy efficient choice and recycle. The point I was trying to make is that nothing is being forced on you in your personal choices, which your post seemed to indicate were.

I can question it because I don't require the same "proof" that you require. As I said (twice previously), I look at this more philosophically than scientifically. Therefore, I look at this in a sense of what is right for the future of the earth, not what the cost is or what specifically is needed to "prove" anything.

What is right in you're opinion only. So, the heck with our opinion? For the third time, we do and have done things to improve the environment.

 

I don't need the kind of proof that you evidently do. I don't need statistics or scientific research to tell me that the effects of pollution, deforestation and depletion of natural resources will have an adverse effect on the environment now and in the future.

What you should need is proof that this is or isn't man made. What you should need if proof that will tell us if we can or can't do anything about it. I'd rather see the money used to actually have an impact on improving things than to waste it on a wild goose chase.

 

You've done a lot of criticizing of government involvement, yet very little, if any, crticizing of what healthcare has become today. You're not concerned that millions are uninsured, because some choose to be uninsured. You feel it's someone elses responsibility to assist the needy with healthcare costs, instead of society's. I'm not sure whose responsibility you feel it is. I just feel you feel it's not yours in any way shape or form.

Oh, it's more than some. So, now statistics matter? I'm trying to keep up...

It's not the government's responsibility. It's really just that simple. How would you know what responsibility I share? How do you know what I do for charities or to help others? You're basing all this on my opinion about the government? Odd.

 

You haven't paid much attention to my posts on education I guess. :lol: And the Democrats aren't alone in jamming things down people's throats. Personally, I feel that the military action in Iraq was jammed down my throat by Republicans. I feel that currently, the "issue of the day" is healthcare, and since I personally feel this is one of the most important issues facing us today, then I don't feel it's been rammed down my throat. I feel both parties rammed the bailouts down my throat.

The "issue of the day" isn't health care, just check the polls. It's jobs.

I agree on the bailouts and that both parties ram things down our throats. You just seem to always keep rather quiet when it's the left doing the ramming.

 

I don't think that just becaue others do nothing, it relieves us of our responsibility to keep finding ways to do more. I'm not a citizen of China or Turkey, and I can't influence their policy indivdually. However, as collectively, as citizens of the United States, given that we are seen and want to be seen as the leaders of the Free World, it's our responsibility to lead on this issue as well.

Again, for the forth time, we do our part and that continues. However, what's being proposed now is simply absurd.

You can certainly influence our government to try to do something about them.

 

We don't want to be seen as the leaders of the free world, we are. We've taken the lead, it's up to others to follow. That doesn't mean we need to waste money on something we can do nothing about.

 

 

 

I didn't say you didn't. You said you were forced to. But you have do have a choice, which you did choose to use the energy efficient choice and recycle. The point I was trying to make is that nothing is being forced on you in your personal choices, which your post seemed to indicate were.

Look at the bill being proposed. There's a lot of "force" in there.

What is right in you're opinion only. So, the heck with our opinion? For the third time, we do and have done things to improve the environment.

I'm confused....my opinion is not right, but your is? As to your second statement, so we stop now?

 

What you should need is proof that this is or isn't man made. What you should need if proof that will tell us if we can or can't do anything about it. I'd rather see the money used to actually have an impact on improving things than to waste it on a wild goose chase.

I guess YOU decide what I should or shouldn't need as proof, although I've already stated what I believe and why? What do you suggest as a use for the money that will have an impact?

 

Oh, it's more than some. So, now statistics matter? I'm trying to keep up...

I'm confused. I've stated several times that I don't think statistics do matter because of the ease of manipulating them to either prove or disprove the theory. I've stated that I believe what I believe for philosophical reasons not scientific.

 

It's not the government's responsibility. It's really just that simple. How would you know what responsibility I share? How do you know what I do for charities or to help others? You're basing all this on my opinion about the government? Odd.

I can only go by what you post. Your posts don't state what you do, only what you don't feel you should do. It's all I've got to go on. Your posts indicate you don't like being told what to do by anyone, but you also don't offer what you think an individual's responsibilities are. To be clear, I'm sure you do what you feel is your responsibility. But, your posts indicate that you feel that you don't share a responsibility in society unless you choose to take on that responsibility. As a person who feels that responsibility is shared, I believe there will be some things I must do in the interest of the society as a whole that I don't feel benefit me individually.

 

The "issue of the day" isn't health care, just check the polls. It's jobs.

I agree on the bailouts and that both parties ram things down our throats. You just seem to always keep rather quiet when it's the left doing the ramming.

Jobs and healthcare go hand in hand at this point. No job, no private insurance most often. Again, I said that I[b/] feel the issue of the day is healthcare. You have once again told me that I'm wrong. I'm trying to figure out why my priorities are wrong, and that you are correct. It leads me to feel that while you don't want others to tell you what is important or what is right, you have no problem deciding the same for others.

Again, for the forth time, we do our part and that continues. However, what's being proposed now is simply absurd.

You can certainly influence our government to try to do something about them.

Simply, I do choose to support our government, because I live in the US. I stated I couldn't influence Chinese or Turkish policy because I don't live there. And, again I ask...because we do our part, do you feel that what we've done to this point and do now can't be improved?

 

We don't want to be seen as the leaders of the free world, we are. We've taken the lead, it's up to others to follow. That doesn't mean we need to waste money on something we can do nothing about.

What we here is a simple matter of difference of opinion on what constitutes waste.

 

 

Look at the bill being proposed. There's a lot of "force" in there.

 

Frankly, I have, and I'm not offended by the ideas, the people behind the ideas or the such. Therefore, I don't feel anything is being forced and I support it.

Again, this is a philosophical argument. My philosophy is that the stewardship is a responsibility, and it costs. Yours is that your money shouldn't be spent on this particular issue. But, I'm not sure how you get that anyone is 'forcing' you to buy green products. If you object to buying energy-saving autos, appliances and home improvements, that's certainly your right, and there are other products out there that you can purchase. But, with the credits available to home owners who do purchase the energy saving products, then I'm not sure that I buy the "expensive" theory. Between the credits and the future savings, these items more than compensate for the initial cash outlay, for those only concerned about money.

 

If you object to buying environmentally friendly cleaning products, or object to recycling as much as possible, you certainly have other choices.

 

I think that you first object to Al Gore in his entirety, and secondly you don't like that people will make money on a theory that you don't believe. But, it's a capatilistic society that we live in, and I do wonder how you can object to environmental groups making money, but be OK with the cost of healthcare, including medicines.

 

Or maybe it's that you object to the push to have our government involved in environmental issues at all. In which case, I assume you object to scrubbers on the smoke stacks of chemical factories (for instance).

 

I would suppose as well that you don't really place the value that I do on national resources, and preserving them for more than environmental reasons.

 

Personally, I believe that quality of live is about more than personal convenience. But...that's just me.

 

You do not regulate philosophy. If there is no scientific fact to do anything, then what you do personally is up to you, otherwise leave government out of it. I believe in what we have done is good, but the cap and trade is nothing but a power grab.

Whether it was a hacker or an inside job, e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia of Great Britian have been released showing that data was manipulated to keep the lie of global warming going. Hopefully this will expose the global warming crowd for their attempt to grab power and money from everyone on the planet. Al Gore will have to find another way to fleece the American people.

Excuse me, as I now have to go fill-up my V-8, 4-wheeled drive Silverado.

 

Why did this story not surprise me. One of the global warming advocates siad the cooling data was "devastating" to their effort and the original hard copys of the data were thrown away when they moved. Give me a break. Al Gore should be thrown in jail with Bernie Madoff for stealing millions.

Michael Barone's article, I read it on Townhall.com, clearly states how the global-hoaxers tried to cover up their phony data. What I am for is truth and there are no facts that shows global warming in man made. I believe in using new technology as it comes along, but to force me to pay taxes to give to anyone in the name of saving the planet is just stealing. Carbon credits are a joke. They do not stop pollution, it is just phony trading that takes money from one entity and giving it to another. The same amount of pollution goes into the air, nothing changes, except handing money from one person to another.

Michael Barone's article, I read it on Townhall.com, clearly states how the global-hoaxers tried to cover up their phony data. What I am for is truth and there are no facts that shows global warming in man made. I believe in using new technology as it comes along, but to force me to pay taxes to give to anyone in the name of saving the planet is just stealing. Carbon credits are a joke. They do not stop pollution, it is just phony trading that takes money from one entity and giving it to another. The same amount of pollution goes into the air, nothing changes, except handing money from one person to another.

According to one of the documents hacked from Phil Jones center, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

 

As I've said in the past, follow the money.

So, it occurs to me.....

 

People are outraged that there's apparently been data that's been manipulated regarding Climate Warming..............

 

But no one's concerned that this info has been hacked and stolen? :ohbrother:

So, it occurs to me.....

 

People are outraged that there's apparently been data that's been manipulated regarding Climate Warming..............

 

But no one's concerned that this info has been hacked and stolen? :ohbrother:

 

Let us stick to the thread of the cover up and lying by these so-called men of science. Let us stop this hoax and attempts to steal our money and freedom under the hoax of man-made global warming.

Let us stick to the thread of the cover up and lying by these so-called men of science. Let us stop this hoax and attempts to steal our money and freedom under the hoax of man-made global warming.

 

 

I'm sorry, but considering many of the post here cite that the info was hacked and stolen, I find it very relevant to the topic.

I'm sorry, but considering many of the post here cite that the info was hacked and stolen, I find it very relevant to the topic.

 

What relevance do you think it gives to the story of the manipulation and cover up of data? It seems to me big scandals often come to light via stolen or hacked data.