Predictably, the radicals at the Sierra Club dont like the US boom in domestic natural gas production. Nothing but hitherto impractical sources are acceptable. http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2012/06/02/seriously-sierra-club/ quote: With their opposition to the fossil fuels and nukes, the Sierra Club takes 91% of our current energy sources off the table Their plan is physically and economically impossible. They have a willfully foolish, craven and destructive agenda. They are not looking for solutions. They wish an end to our industrialized civilization. They wish us to return to mud huts. The Sierra Clubs ultimate goal, not surprisingly, is to save the planet from Global Warming. To that end, they wish to curtail 90% of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 thirty-eight years from now. What Taxcutter wants to know is why such a dopey organization gets the (undeserved) credibility the Sierra Club gets?
Says who? Certainly I've never assigned credibly to an organization who's representatives show up for meetings in the usual cavalcade of SUVs, and consist primarily lawyers. Ask them their solution to the 7 billion oxygen depleting, CO2 emitting biochemical organisms in the ecosystem and they tend to react poorly.
Taxcutter: They wish an end to our industrialized civilization. They wish us to return to mud huts.” Believe it or not, that is JUST what a few of the radicals do want. Some of the "diplomats" that started the AGW scam at the UN with the IPCC were quoted early on saying just that !!
Here are some quotes early on from those who started this scam at the UN: Richard Benedict, former advisor to Kofi Annan stated: A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no evidence of global warming. Timothy Wirth, former president of the United Nations Foundation, stated: We have to ride the theory of Global Warming even if it is wrong. Maurice Strong, a UN advisor, stated, The only way of saving the world may be for industrial civilization to collapse, deliberately seek poverty, and set levels of mortality. Sir John Houghton, the first chairman of the UNs IPCC stated: Unless we announce disaster, no one will listen.
Your death wishes towards certain people don't reflect well on you. And the bizarre attacks on their favorite strawmen by the denialist crowd doesn't reflect well on their willingness to address actual issues. Speaking of out-of-touch radicals, let's talk about one of Taxcutter's favorite claims, that carbon trading will cause energy prices to skyrocket. Rather than rely on denialist stories about what has to happen because it agrees with their cult dogma, I'll do something denialists hate, which is examine the real world. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise...ast-carbon-trading-system-a-startling-success http://www.analysisgroup.com/rggi.aspx http://www.environmentnewjersey.org/sites/environment/files/reports/A Record of Leadership vNJ.pdf Cap-and-trade has been in place in the northeast US for 3 years. CO2 emissions there are down 30%. (24% from the economic downturn, 6% from the cap-and-trade). Costs to consumers were down. Jobs in the power industry were up. The 8 northeastern RGGI states had better GDP growth than the national average. Dang. What happened to the unstoppable disaster that Taxcutter and all the denialists predicted? I'll say that the price drops and GDP increases are small enough to be explainable by other economic factors, and that cap-and-trade is not the economic miracle cure that some proponents claim. However, it is the case that cap-and-trade had no significant negative economic effects, being that no such negative effects were seen. Taxcutter and the denialists predicted catastrophe; they were proven to be 100% wrong on that prediction. And naturally, they're going to keep making that prediction, regardless of what happens in the real world.
Not a death wish. Just an ironic comment on the fundamentals advocated by some groups, and their insistence that every...single...one of us.....are the problem. Including them. Except they don't tend to mention these facts of their position very often.
Living in NH, the cost of dropping CO2 emissions has added 46 cents a month to my electric bill. I guess I will just have to go and take out a second mortgage on my house.
Because they're pseudo-intellectual liberals who get favorable treatment by fellow liberals, that's the only reason.
