McCain and Climate Change: Sci-Fi as Policy

It's Huckabee ......not Romney

THE AVERAGE REGAN REPUBLICAN'S DON'T CARE ABOUT "THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT"

REASONS HUCKABEE WILL BE THE PICK- NOT ROMNEY THE MORMON

EVEN WHEN MCCAIN WAS LAST IN THE POLLS, HUCKABEE NEVER ONCE SPOKE AN ILL WORD OF MACCAIN. HE ALWAYS SPOKE HIGHLY OF "RESPECT, EXPERIENCE AND COURAGE IN SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

1. MAC'S 1ST AD (HILLARY AND BIDEN COMMENTS OF LACK OF EXPERIENCE TO OBAMA ) EVEN WHEN MAC WAS LAST IN VOTES AND POLLS - HUCKABEE CONSISTANTLY SPOKE HIGHLY OF HIM. HE SHOWED CLEAR RESPECT FOR HIS EXPERIENCE AND COURAGE IN HIS SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY

2. MAC'S 2ND AD (HILLARY WON MILLIONS OF VOTES AND WASNT CHOSEN..) HUCKABEE RECEIVED MILLIONS OF VOTES.

3. HUCKABEE HAS A NATURAL CALM WAY ABOUT HIM. HE CAN TAKE BIDEN IN ANY DEBATE. WITH HIS SOFT SPOKEN CLEAR MESSAGE AND INTELECTUAL VOICE - HE WOULD MAKE BIDEN LOOK LIKE A SHOW OFF AND BULLY

4. HAS GREAT FAMILY VALUES AND STICKS TO THEM. EXPERIENCE AS A GOVERNOR.......CAN BRING MANY, MANY STTES - NOT JUST THE SOUTH

5. IF YOUR CHRISTIAN OR NOT, PEOPLE JUST LOVE MIKE HUCKABEE.

IN REGARDS TO "the chosen one" ROMNEY, THE PEOPLE VOTED HIM OUT..remember??? HIS ATTACKS ON MAC, HIS EVERCHANGING ISSUES ON LIFE AND GAY MARRIAGE, HIS MORMON FAITH. PEOPLE ARE NOT BIGGOTS. I THINK THEY JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY RELIGION IN EXISTANCE JUST OVER 100 YEARS.

SINCERELY,

SHARON MOLLEMA

Huckabee, Lieberman Have Highest Favorables among Possible McCain Veep Choices

Monday, July 28, 2008 Email to a Friend

Advertisement

John McCain’s camp signaled last week that the Republican might name a running mate to deflect some of the media glare from Barack Obama’s overseas trip, but ultimately no names were announced. Meanwhile, at least one of the key contenders for the job, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, announced that he is not interested.

The names most frequently in circulation these days are former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who challenged McCain for the GOP presidential nomination, and two sitting governors, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that the two possible Republican running mates with the highest favorable ratings among voters – Mike Huckabee and Joseph Lieberman -- are not even on most of the short lists currently being discussed. Premium Members can review crosstabs.

sharon of AZ @ Aug 28, 2008 05:11:22 AM

THE AVERAGE REGAN REPUBLICAN'S DON'T CARE ABOUT "THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT"

REASONS HUCKABEE WILL BE THE PICK- NOT ROMNEY THE MORMON

EVEN WHEN MCCAIN WAS LAST IN THE POLLS, HUCKABEE NEVER ONCE SPOKE AN ILL WORD OF MACCAIN. HE ALWAYS SPOKE HIGHLY OF "RESPECT, EXPERIENCE AND COURAGE IN SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

1. MAC'S 1ST AD (HILLARY AND BIDEN COMMENTS OF LACK OF EXPERIENCE TO OBAMA ) EVEN WHEN MAC WAS LAST IN VOTES AND POLLS - HUCKABEE CONSISTANTLY SPOKE HIGHLY OF HIM. HE SHOWED CLEAR RESPECT FOR HIS EXPERIENCE AND COURAGE IN HIS SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY

2. MAC'S 2ND AD (HILLARY WON MILLIONS OF VOTES AND WASNT CHOSEN..) HUCKABEE RECEIVED MILLIONS OF VOTES.

3. HUCKABEE HAS A NATURAL CALM WAY ABOUT HIM. HE CAN TAKE BIDEN IN ANY DEBATE. WITH HIS SOFT SPOKEN CLEAR MESSAGE AND INTELECTUAL VOICE - HE WOULD MAKE BIDEN LOOK LIKE A SHOW OFF AND BULLY

4. HAS GREAT FAMILY VALUES AND STICKS TO THEM. EXPERIENCE AS A GOVERNOR.......CAN BRING MANY, MANY STTES - NOT JUST THE SOUTH

5. IF YOUR CHRISTIAN OR NOT, PEOPLE JUST LOVE MIKE HUCKABEE.

IN REGARDS TO "the chosen one" ROMNEY, THE PEOPLE VOTED HIM OUT..remember??? HIS ATTACKS ON MAC, HIS EVERCHANGING ISSUES ON LIFE AND GAY MARRIAGE, HIS MORMON FAITH. PEOPLE ARE NOT BIGGOTS. I THINK THEY JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY RELIGION IN EXISTANCE JUST OVER 100 YEARS.

SINCERELY,

SHARON MOLLEMA

RASMUSSEN POLLS THE PRESS WONT SHOW YOU ! WHAT A SHAME !

Huckabee, Lieberman Have Highest Favorables among Possible McCain Veep Choices

Monday, July 28, 2008 Email to a Friend

Advertisement

John McCain’s camp signaled last week that the Republican might name a running mate to deflect some of the media glare from Barack Obama’s overseas trip, but ultimately no names were announced. Meanwhile, at least one of the key contenders for the job, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, announced that he is not interested.

The names most frequently in circulation these days are former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who challenged McCain for the GOP presidential nomination, and two sitting governors, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that the two possible Republican running mates with the highest favorable ratings among voters – Mike Huckabee and Joseph Lieberman -- are not even on most of the short lists currently being discussed. Premium Members can review crosstabs.

SHARON of AZ @ Aug 28, 2008 05:09:59 AM

I like how economists "opinions" are considered a rebuttal

Will someone please let me know when opinion was considered a legal form of argument?

I could point to plenty of occaisions when economists were wrong, and then say. "Why should we trust them now?" but I know that it would be an ignorant line of argument.

What your using is considered a "Straw Man" fallacy. Until you can debate the topic without resorting to fallacies, I'll have to take the "win" on this one.

*bows*

I'd like to thank everyone who participated, and I'll take this victory with a grain of salt, since no one brought any *real* points to the table. My only regret is that I didn't think to check back sooner.

Eric of FL @ May 23, 2008 13:48:05 PM

Lets talk about the truth!

False prophets of doom

Environmentalists would prefer that we forget these predictions

WALTER WILLIAMS

Creators Syndicate

AP PhotoMembers of the Alaska Wilderness League, dressed in polar bear costumes, sit in the last row during Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne's news conference to announce the status of the polar bear, Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at the Interior Department in Washington.

Polar bear gets new protection

Global warming leaves polar bears threatened

Oil cos. expect battles over polar bear listing

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich said 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 work "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. According to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?

When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?

In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken?

Why believe them this time?

Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

A few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. And natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.

Walter

Williams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Write him c/o Creators Syndicate, 5777 West Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Rooney of SC @ May 16, 2008 09:08:35 AM

Chris

Given the shear quantity of scientific research going on, I think we'd know if movement relative to the sun was the source of the problem.

The term "zealot" is a bit odd, given that global warming is a theory that is well supported by scientists in the field. I believe the number is somewhere around 80% concurrence among the climate related scientific community.

Eric of FL @ May 16, 2008 08:29:43 AM

Global warming zealots always get me. So convinced that the Earth is going to hell in a handbasket because we produced too many CO2 emissions, but of course the Earth is going to explode into a giant fireball in 2050, or some silly year in the future (this alone should make people be skeptical about global warming, but I digress.). Of course, for all we know the Earth could've been hit with an asteroid several billion years ago and since that time the Earth has slowly been moving towards the sun. Somehow, I think that if this were the case these same zealots would be saying that we should spend our entire wealth into building space thrusters to put the Earth back on its original rotation.

Chris of AZ @ May 16, 2008 02:12:23 AM

Patrick

Where is your source for these predictions?

And what about the trends illustrated in this picture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

It has a bit of a larger view to it, but I'm not seeing your trend fitting in.

Also, in my reasearch I found that water vapor is the biggest contributor to global warming... however, I couldn't find any numbers on the change in water vapor content.

An interesting thing to note, however, is that your comparison of values above attempts to drown out the effects of CO2 because it is less than 1% of the atmosphere. However, if there's even .00001 % arsenic in the water you drink, your cancer rates start to soar ( < 10 parts per billion is a drinking standard). The point? Even relatively small quantities of something can have large effects on complicated systems.

Now, everything I've said is confirmable by peer reviewed sources. Nothing you've said even has a citation to check. Please respond with your source on this "cooling" prediction you've got.

Eric of FL @ May 15, 2008 13:53:52 PM

Citing earth's atmosphere in % increase misleads

Eric of Fl makes a major issue of the % increases of CO2, methane and oxides of Nitrogen which in actual fact are extremely small as the following composition of the earth's atmosphere shows:

Nitrogen 78.0842%

Oxygen 20.9463%

Argon 0.93422%

Carbon dioxide 0.03811%

Water vapor about 1%

Other 0.002% (This includes methane and Nitrogen oxides).

There has been no scientific proof that increasing CO2 causes the earth to warm but analysis of a number of ice core samples have shown that increasing CO2 follows warming periods by hundreds of years. Since the earth's temperature peaked in 1998 it has remained constant, except for a slight cooling in 2007, for the last 10 years as CO2 increased and now scientists in the UK, Russia and US are forecasting a cooling trend for the next decade or two.

Rational thinkers would conclude that CO2 has no or little effect on the global temperature.

Patrick49 of NY @ May 14, 2008 17:42:33 PM