“CO2 helps crops” Will pass that along to midwest farmers.
It’s in the Bible.
Paul Ryan Good.
Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s new running mate, has a history of anti-climate science statements and votes, according to Brad Johnson:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, is a virulent denier of climate science, with a voting record to match.
A favorite of the Koch brothers, Ryan has accused scientists of engaging in conspiracy to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” He has implied that snow invalidates global warming.
Ryan has voted to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting greenhouse pollution, to eliminate White House climate advisers, to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture from preparing for climate disasters like the drought devastating his home state, and to eliminate the Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E).
He has also said there is “growing disagreement among scientists about climate change and its causes.”
In addition to his opposition to meaningful action to reduce global warming pollution, Paul Ryan’s budget called for “drastic cuts in federal spending on energy research and development and for the outright elimination of subsidies and tax breaks for wind, solar power and other alternative energy technologies.”
Solving the climate crisis requires political leadership that recognizes the serious reality of global warming and fights for policies that move us toward a clean energy economy, not backward.
The fact that these clowns get voted into office in the first place is mindboggling.
Ahem… Clowns are honourable people that turn our tears into laughter, suffer in silence and deserve respect.
So true, so true. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Given these….people are dishonourable, turn our laughter to tears, are rarely silent and are generally unworthy of respect, should I perhaps refer to them as anti-clowns?
Nope.
nope? non-clowns?
I was delighted with the first version: “The fact that these clowns get voted into office…”
Brevity is the soul of wit. You made your point. Intelligently. The first iteration.
The rest is muddy, pointless political correctness run amok. 🙂
Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5os4NFeKFFs
No, that disrespects anti-clowns (whatever they are!)… I’m not sure what to call them, apart from being out of touch with reality. (‘Moron’ is just too overused nowadays).
In a functioning democracy with balanced media, the majority usually get what they deserve (ha ha), so blame the voters’ lack of taste and education.
However, American democracy and media is highly dysfunctional – the obscene amounts of money required for marketing can only come from corporations, and favours are expected to be repaid.
I’ve just read a very informative article about Paul Ryan as a “Fussbudget”:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza
[Note: There’s only one minor reference to Ryan’s position on climate change which is in line with the typical denier belief system.]
If Paul is for cutting one type of energy (energy research and renewables), and if he believes in libertarian economic values, he should be in favor of cutting all other forms of energy subsidies. A “true” libertarian is one who believes in an even playing field when it comes to the marketplace. In fact, Paul Ryan did tell a town hall meeting and ABC in April of last year that he would support ending oil subsidies:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-paul-ryan-backs-ending-oil-subsidies/story?id=13502937
But, then he reversed himself in his budget propsal:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/ryan_big_oil.html
And right before he told the town hall meeting and ABC that he supported ending oil subsidies, he voted to extend them:
http://www.uppitywis.org/node/47368/view?destination=taxonomy%2Fterm%2F3922
Why? This link suggests an answer:
http://www.desmogblog.com/paul-ryan-lies-about-ending-oil-subsidies-protect-his-family-s-cash-bonanza
Ryan is a fake libertarian – one who says one thing and votes another:
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-paul-ryan-is-worse-than-bill-clinton
His voting record is a mess of supporting spending when it comes to the priorities of his political party. He uses the “need” to cut spending to justify slashing the areas of governmental spending his political party (and his campaign donors) doesn’t support – all while supporting tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
It’s an old Republican trick called “starving the beast”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
Make no mistake, Captain Ambiguous (Romney) just tipped his hand.
decades of scientific research all for nothing. the answer was in the bible all along.
Spencer & McKitrick (co-“debunker” of hockey stick) were mad to throw away the illusion of credibility by becoming signatories of Cornwall Alliance
how a scientist can think “providence” (divine intervention) sustains the planet for “human flourishing” is batsh*t crazy
cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Out of Jewish theology we get
“When God created the first human beings, God led them around the Garden of Eden and said: “Look at my works! See how beautiful they are—how excellent! For your sake I created them all. See to it that you do not spoil and destroy My world; for if you do, there will be no one else to repair it.” (Midrash Kohelet Rabbah 7:13)
Then there is Revelations 11:18
And the nations were angry, and your wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should give reward unto your servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear your name, small and great; and should destroy them who destroy the earth.
Actually reading Revelations, knowing what we are to face it is indeed rather scary. A visit from each of the four horsemen would appear inevitable. As for the projections we will get to a population ten billion I very much doubt it.
That does not mean we should not take action. On the contrary while very bad is probably already locked in, we have the potential to make it very much worse.
Salt is good for humans, but it is easy to have too much. What is so hard about the concept of enough
Off-topic comment:
TEA-party types are currently pushing Republican congressional representatives to implement a 33 billion reduction from the “SNAP food stamp program” as suggested by the “Ryan Plan”. Not many Americans know that 45 million Americans receive assistance in this manner every month. What is worse, is that these time-limited coupons immediately go into the cash machines of grocery stores so reducing (or eliminating) SNAP will have an immediate negative effect on the whole economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program
Personal Comment: so let me get this straight: TEA-party people don’t care if fellow Americans starve as long as there are no cuts in defense industry spending? Do they really think this is the smartest thing to do when the general public appears to be so well armed? And why do Republicans allow themselves to be bullied in by the TEA-party?
Yet this anti-science, anti-education, anti-reality buffoon is lionized as a “conservative intellectual” by his supporters.
Seems the opposite of conservative to me. Especially when you remeber what ‘conserve’ menas (No, its other meaning – not in the sense of jam!)
On hearing that Ryan was to be Romney’s co-pilot on the GOPs ongoing “flight from reality”, my first thought was, “God help America” but of course that is the problem: Many of these evangelical adherents to Churchianity believe that:
— Ecological scarcity is not possible because the Bible says God has made abundant provision for humans.
— Over-population can’t happen because God has commanded us to go forth and multiply; and
— We can’t trash the planet because God won’t let us (and/or Jesus is coming back soon so who cares; let’s just use it up and wear it out…).
Sadly, the history of the Jews as set out in the Old Testament – and indeed the entire history of human civilisation – suggests that they may well be wrong about all of this… We were supposed to look after Creation; to live in harmony with it; and God has intervened in human history once already (and he seems to have given up on breaking the Laws of Physics to correct our stupid mistakes about 2000 years ago).
Such ideological if not theological refusal to accept what science tells us about the world is very dangerous: Such people are like the man on the roof of his flooded house praying for God to save him, who sends away the man in a boat and the man on a winch lowered from a helicopter; telling them both that God is going to save him…
I would wish that man “good luck with that strategy”, were it not for the fact that I am stuck on the roof of the house with him.
Maybe this is an evangelical experiment to show the world what Hell actually looks like.