Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Annual property losses from hurricanes and other coastal storms of $35 billion; a decline in crop yields of 14 percent, costing corn and wheat farmers tens of billions of dollars; heat wave-driven demand for electricity costing utility customers up to $12 billion per year. These are among the economic costs that climate change is expected to exact in the United States over the next 25 years, according to a bipartisan report released on Tuesday. And that's just for starters: The price tag could soar to hundreds of billions by 2100. Commissioned by a group chaired by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Secretary of the Treasury and Goldman Sachs alum Henry Paulson, and environmentalist and financier Tom Steyer, the analysis "is the most detailed ever of the potential economic effects of climate change on the U.S.," said climatologist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

paneocon

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Paulson said in a statement, including from sea-level rise and from heat waves that will cause deaths, reduce labor productivity and strain power grids. By mid-century, $66 billion to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level. There is a 5 percent chance that by 2100 the losses will reach $700 billion, with average annual losses from rising oceans of $42 billion to $108 billion along the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf of Mexico.

The analysis goes further than previous work, said Princeton's Oppenheimer, by identifying places that will be "unsuited for outdoor activity."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Are sea levels rising, or aren't they?

I'd say this is the central question. If they are, then I guess you just have to hope that they stop on their own, because even at three inches every ten years my children may see a time when Galveston is abandoned.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-24 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#3 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-24

If the land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica melt, sea levels will rise. The water will go to the only place it can go.

So, what are you saying here, because frankly I've lost you?

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-24 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's why I used to love to call L.A. when I lived in New York: "What are y'all doin'? Talking to TV producers, huh? Bummer. Me? I'm reading a book! Yeah, we're thinkin' back East. Yeah, we're evolving. Is that the Big One I hear in the background? Bye, you lizard scum! Bye!" [whoosh] Ha ha ha ha! It's gone, it's gone, it's gone. It's gone. All the .... shows are gone, all the idiots screamin' in the ....' wind are dead, I love it. Leaving nothing but a cool, beautiful serenity called … Arizona Bay. Ha ha ha!

-Bill Hicks

Learn to swim
-Tool

#7 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-24 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#6 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06

The only question is whether the land ice is melting or not. Care to offer your position for the record?

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-24 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

'Risky Business' report: Climate change inaction will cost US billions

Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, billionaire Tom Steyer and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg warn in a new report that rising sea levels, increasing storm surges and warmer temperatures will cost the U.S. billions if little action is taken to mitigate climate change.

Paulson, Steyer and Bloomberg head the climate change initiative Risky Business, which released the report Tuesday.

"Climate change is the existential issue of our age -- it is cumulative and irreversible, and its impacts are potentially catastrophic and pose enormous threats to our country's economic and fiscal health," said Robert Rubin, former Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, and a member of Risky Business.

However, climate change remains a divisive issue on Capitol Hill, as Senate Republicans this week are pressing for a vote on a measure that would derail Obama's climate rule reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants.

Read more: thehill.com

#10 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-24 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States
riskybusiness.org

#11 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-24 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

They are only silly alarmists until they are ultimately vindicated, as is being proven by the Iraq War alarmists (see Kucinich, Paul, and California group who voted against the war).

#12 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-24 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Last Month Was The Hottest May In Recorded History

www.huffingtonpost.com

Facts are stubborn things.

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-24 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

but environmental alarmists are here to stay.

Until they die from extreme climate change.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-06-24 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Facts are stubborn things.
#13 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2014-06-24 01:38 PM | FLAG:

Especially to people that place faith above facts.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-06-24 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the scope of geologic history, man is but a millisecond, CO2 rises and falls, land mass's change and ice flow come and go, but environmental alarmists are here to stay.

#9 | Posted by paneocon at

Then I'd advise you to go ahead and buy that beach front property you've had your eye on.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-24 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why would a warmer planet lead to lower crop yields?

We evacuated New Orleans in a weekend. I'm fairly confident that given 150 years--if ever--we could move a few people out of Miami and NYC, should it become necessary.

#17 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-06-24 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

The bio from one of Paneocon's many bogus sources: "I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute ..."

Don't flood this site with climate denier BS. [...]

#20 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-24 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

#20 | POSTED BY RCADE

Flood? It was an opinion piece from Forbes. A little harsh, RCADE. Is this going to be a site like REDDIT that outlaws anything that questions ACC? What kind of journalistic or scientific credibility does that afford you?

I was just about to point out the fact that the author in PANEO's link only points to 20 years of data that shows a downward trend. The same exact graph provided in the article showing the downward trend over 20 years also shows the still very upward trend over 50 years. Now that you have suspended PANEO, I have no chance of reading PANEO's retort to my argument.

So thanks for that.

#21 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-24 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

The bio from one of Paneocon's many bogus sources: "I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute ...Climate deniers have been told repeatedly to stop posting that fake and dishonest crap here. Paneocon cited the Heartland Institute as a source

What is an acceptable 'climate denier' source for the purposes of posting here?

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-24 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is this going to be a site like REDDIT that outlaws anything that questions ACC?

Have you considered that for Reddit to ban something, there must be a good reason for it? That site tilts heavily towards the free exchange of ideas, but like the Drudge Retort and many other sites it has been exploited in a sustained campaign of propaganda funded by big energy companies through groups like the Heartland Institute.

After tolerating it for years, I decided enough was enough.

I'll reconsider letting Paneocon post, but all climate denier BS is going to continue to be deleted.

#24 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-24 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I believe wholeheartedly this whole climate change global warming bruhhaha is a sham to gain dollars. It's a money making scam.

#25 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-24 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#24 | POSTED BY RCADE

I've never believed that censorship is an answer in simple discussions. Consider it a difference of opinion.

#26 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-24 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Understood, but the climate denial BS was preventing discussions from taking place. Every time a story was posted here, there was an unending torrent of dishonest and fake BS, a lot of which could be traced to Heartland and similar clowns.

It's akin to every story on vaccines being filled with anti-vaccine crackpots linking to bogus information that would cause harm to the public health and individuals who believe it.

#27 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-24 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

the thread's primary link is certainly not climate change denier based but rather calculating the costs of climate change.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-24 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"heat wave-driven demand for electricity costing utility customers up to $12 billion per year"

Rising electric costs couldn't be because we are replacing 4 cent electricity with 22 cwent electricity. Na has nothing to do with it.

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then I'd advise you to go ahead and buy that beach front property you've had your eye on.

#16 | Posted by Zed

Really? What elevation should I move to?

#32 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pretty funny when the crony capitalists who are not in the energy bidness take on the ones who are over financial losses they may incur due to the latter's propaganda machine.

Wait, was that fasciati obfuscation?

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-24 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

can't see why we are still debating this point in this day and age.

don't 9 out of 10 scientists believe climate change is real?

if that's the case...if any of you posting here, post a a poll supporting your point...save it

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
Neil deGrasse Tyson

P.S...Santa is white

#36 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-06-24 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll reconsider letting Paneocon post, but all climate denier BS is going to continue to be deleted.

#24 | Posted by rcade

While I respect your decision regarding your site I am not sure what the difference is between these climate change deniers and many other claims made by the GOTP and the religulous based on bogus and dishonest information campaigns sponsored by Big Money interests.

They all follow the same pattern.

And I for one enjoy debunking them... though it does get tedious debunking the exact same false and misleading claims over and over.

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-24 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

As gasoline moves towards $4/gal AGAIN, lets forgetabout it. Just stick your head in the sand and give it all up for Rockefeller, Koch Bros, etc.... They want and need your money more than you do. Investment in other technologies is unpatriotic. Just give 'em your money and die.

#40 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-24 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Figure out a way to power a 4,000-pound vehicle more cheaply than with gasoline, and you'll become rich. Nothing stopping you.

Or maybe it's not as easy as you think. The Koch Brothers don't have a lot of influence in countries not called the United States of America. Are Canadians morons? The French? The Japanese? Apparently they're not making a lot of headway on the problem either. Good thing Nutcase is around to remind people that we should be looking into alternatives.

#41 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-06-24 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

So...
What exactly can be done to mitigate climate change?
How much *can* it be mitigated, realistically?
How much will it cost to implement it, realistically?

#42 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-06-24 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

We'll, this pretty cool for me, actually.

All of that fear of massive property losses is a boon for the insurance industry as we'll determine how to price it right. Crop losses? Funny.....as much of that is insured as well (and subsidized by tax payers)

Thanks for the doom and gloom.........keep it coming.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-24 09:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wait, was that fasciati obfuscation?

That sounds like something you'd order at Carrabba's.

#48 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-24 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

If anyone wants to get serious about glowable warming, they better shut China down. They are polluting the Planet 5...No 10...No 20 times faster (wild owl bore guess) than the US.

#49 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2014-06-25 05:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

birther Steve Goddard who wrote that the 2012 data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Center was "meaningless garbage" and the U.S. only "appears" to have warmed due to data adjustments. However, temperature data typically has to be adjusted to account for flaws in the raw data that occur, for example, when temperature measurement stations are moved. These adjustments are publicly documented in peer-reviewed literature. Furthermore, satellite data from climate "skeptic" Roy Spencer, who was quoted criticizing the data, also found 2012 to be the United States' hottest year

www.skepticalscience.com

Steven Goddard real Science website on Obama was born in Kenya

stevengoddard.wordpress.com

#54 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-06-25 07:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Whatever costs we absorb from climate change should be billed to India, China and other developing countries, since they use low cost energy sources like coal & fossil fuels. How dare they screw up the environment while trying to make a better life for their people!

Or, we could just invade these countries, set up puppet governments and demand they use solar & wind power. That is one invasion that Libs would probably get behind.

#56 | Posted by CaseyJones at 2014-06-25 07:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

You know someone denying we have climate, RCade?

#60 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG

Obama said we have a Climate. Therefore it must be a lie.

#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-25 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Rcade I am going post a whole lot of Garbage that has proven to be B.S. including 1 talking point proven to be false just a few posts above.
then I want you to debunk them then I will post the same B.S. anti global change talking points over again on some other global warming thread.
why is this happening?

tontonmacoute

#62 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-06-25 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The only people that could still believe that a world which has more than tripled in population, and quintupled the use of energy, all within several generations are either mindless or clueless.

Alternatively they could be robots of the greedy corporate oligarchs who want it all to continue until billions of the masses are exterminated as a result, and they then get to buy up the remaining assets on the cheap.

#64 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-25 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

neocon may be full of it on a regular basis, but isn't the point of this site to debate whats in the news?
Most if not all propaganda( from both sides ) gets called out here and that's why i come here, to see points of view from both sides i might not see for myself.
Anyone doubting climate change needs help in my opinion, but debating the issue should not require censorship. IMO the whole solar system is heating up and ain't a thing we can do about it( I hope that doesn't label me a denier and get me a vacation, just an opinion)
www.livescience.com

#65 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2014-06-25 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

#64 | POSTED BY ROBSON AT 2014-06-25 11:32 AM | FLAG: Terrific imagination. Should be writing science fiction books and making movies.

#66 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-06-25 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

#64 Correction: The only people that could still believe that a world which has more than tripled in population, and quintupled the use of energy, all within several generations, has no affect on our environment including climate, are either mindless or clueless.

#67 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-25 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

99% of the scientific community agrees that global climate change is taking place, that it is man made, that it's being caused by pollution, and that it's a bad thing.

I know from research of my own that in my region we haven't suffered weather like this for 150 years.

I know In Alaska glaciers are retreating at a rate I can see every year.

It's happening and YOU and I need to combat it.

#72 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-25 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

71 | Posted by foshaffer

See post #54

#73 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-06-25 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I know In Alaska glaciers are retreating at a rate I can see every year."
#72 | Posted by Tor

Are you sure that you are seeing Alaskan glaciers, or are you just seeing Russia as Tina Fey claimed when playing Sarah Palin? ;)

#76 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-25 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

What I don't understand is why would anyone put more stock in rwingers on the DR or political talking heads like Rush and Hannity than in people whose whole life work is in the subject; who have spent years getting educated in the subject and who are in almost unanimous agreement on the facts: that the planet is, in fact, warming and that human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuel, is a major contributor to that warming. The idea that there could be a "conspiracy" of scientists promulgating false science "for grant money" is patently absurd. Nobody becomes a scientist to get rich (unless they go to work for the tobacco or fossil fuel industries or Wall Street).

#80 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-06-25 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Why would a warmer planet lead to lower crop yields?

A warmer climate equals a drier climate. Australia is already suffering massive crop losses due to climate change. Since we are already farming marginal areas as far as water supply goes (like California, Texas and Arizona), less water will take more crop and forage land out of production. And northern tundra is not a farmible soil. A warmer climate will, however, lead to increased cropland in Greenland, Antarctica and the North Pole. Just too bad there's no soil in those places....

#82 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-06-25 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm pretty sure that 99% of the scientific community is not going to ascribe climate change to pollution.

I bet you're pretty sure the Detroit Lions are gonna win the Superbowl too.

MMGW is no longer a theory, it is a scientifically accepted fact. And yes the climate done change on an ongoing basis, it is the rapidity of the rate of change that is at issue. At no time in Earth's history has it changed so fast.

Also, at no time in Earth's history has it had the potential on humanity impact that it has today. The Earth will survive MMGW. The question is, how well will we as a species?

#83 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-06-25 10:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#81 | POSTED BY MATSOP

That's an inaccurate statement----what you probably meant to say is that those specializing in the field have a 99% concurrence. The general science community does not have a concurrence of anywhere near that magnitude.

Oh, so the 99% concurrence only by people who actually study the subject is somehow invalidated by the fact that scientists in other fields don't have the same level of concurrence? Why would, say, a molecular biologist even have a professional opinion on the subject?

#84 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-06-25 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#64 | Posted by Robson

Robson - if Reagan had come out worried about MMGW, the Righties would all be driving Volts. But because they can only see through the glasses given them by their corporate masters, they only see MMGW as a "liberal" thing. Even when FOX pronounced MMGW real, they still refuse to believe anything Al Gore has to do with. The last time they were so reluctent to believe liberals, we got 9/11.
###
In fact if the warming is a function of CO2 enrichment, crop growth is actually more efficient. Especially in drier climates.

Apparently only on conservative planets Mad. Ask the Texans, or the Australians.

#85 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-06-25 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I believe wholeheartedly this whole climate change global warming bruhhaha is a sham to gain dollars. It's a money making scam.

#25 | Posted by LarryMohr

I believe wholeheartedly that you're an idiot who has chosen to listen to exxon's lobbyists over scientific experts.

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-25 11:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

MSGT it's called a vacation. [...]

#88 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-25 11:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Apparently only on conservative planets Mad. Ask the Texans, or the Australians."

Are you denying that CO2 enrichment benefits plants?

Are you a biology denier?

I don't know that we have the technology to alter climate change? It makes me think of the movie Aliens, where a large multigalactic corporation sets up machines that make the atmosphere favorable to humans.

#94 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-06-26 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know that we have the technology to alter climate change?

It doesn't take new technology to stop pumping catastrophic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It takes political will.

#95 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-26 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

It does take technology to keep the world's engine of production going. Stop that engine and we slide back into the stone age.

#96 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-26 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

#95 It takes nuclear reactors that liberals hate, hydroelectric dams that liberals hate, natural gas that comes via fracking that liberals hate, wind turbines that kill eagles (which PETA hates) and solar that is as yet too inefficient to be viable without jacking up the price of electricity (which everyone hates). All of those would require batteries in our vehicles, which are particularly nasty to dispose of and require mining of rare metals (which liberals hate).

Let's not forget cow farts, human exhalation, hair spray, golf balls, yada yada yada....

I read yesterday where Sullivan vilified conservatives who point out the flaws in Obama's foreign policy without offering alternatives, but I don't see anyone offering any viable alternative to fossil fuels or explaining how the US cutting everything back is going to prevent the rest of the world from accelerating their consumption.

#97 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-06-26 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

It wouldn't stop the engine to reduce massive carbon polluters, put more of the true cost of polluting on the polluters and put those billions into developing less- and no-polluting alternatives.

#98 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-26 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

It doesn't take new technology to stop pumping catastrophic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It takes political will.

#95 | POSTED BY RCADE

Nothing being proposed by the Left will make a damn bit of impact on the rate of warming. But these scams WILL dramatically increase the cost of energy which will hurt the poor and middle class the hardest - the 2 classes of people the left purports to love.

Green energy, in its current state, is an unmitigated boondoggle - a scam.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Green energy, in its current state, is an unmitigated boondoggle - a scam.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 11

You can't look at Texas and say that. Its a major industry here and looks like its just getting bigger.

#100 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-26 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

You can't look at Texas and say that. Its a major industry here and looks like its just getting bigger.

#100 | POSTED BY ZED

It meets only a fraction of our needs. It's expensive, inefficient and unreliable.

It is being propped up by government. In particular, this administration, (although we can tie ethanol directly to Bush) which is mandating usage and granting massive taxpayer subsidies to force it into a market where it could never compete on its own merits. It's exactly the type of cronyism that lefties claim to hate.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wind energy is meeting up to a third of TEXAS needs. That can only increase.

Its weird that you get off on this unprofitable kick when there's an obviously enormous investment in it in a RED STATE.

#102 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-26 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Its (green energy) being propped up by government....."

You have absolutely no understanding of the oil business, do you?

#103 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-26 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It is being propped up by government"

by how much?

#104 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Green energy, in its current state, is an unmitigated boondoggle - a scam.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ

Then why are republicans trying to keep it in its current state instead of funding green energy development?

#105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-26 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can't look at Texas and say that. Its a major industry here and looks like its just getting bigger.

#100 | Posted by Zed

Thanks to all the taxpayer money o'bummer dumped into it.

#106 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-26 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks to all the taxpayer money o'bummer dumped into it.

#106 | Posted by Sniper

It's hard to argue that taxpayer money shouldn't be invested in technology that could prevent climate destruction and human suffering.

But be my guest. You got exxon boots to lick.

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-26 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks to all the taxpayer money o'bummer dumped into it.

#106 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-26 01

You people are so strange. How does the US taxpayer subsidize Big Oil?

Tell me you don't know.....

#108 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-26 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

[...] Only point to get across is the fact that alot of models are terribly wrong (hint: you cant write a script detailed enough for a computer program to simulate earth in its entirety- too many variables) and basing our policies off such flawed logistics is silly and dangerous. Just like the miscalculations of going into iraq, and the mess we now have there, the cluster-frack that is proposed 'green' legislation is just as ludicrous and possibly much more threatening to our economic survival. Even worse are the politicians who ride this wave of emotional fanaticism who are just pulling your strings. But whatever, your political party leaders are much more honest and well meaning than mine right?

#109 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-06-26 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

But whatever, your political party leaders are much more honest and well meaning than mine right?

#109 | Posted by monkeylogic42

YES.

#110 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-26 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even if nothing even gets solved, the politicians (on both sides) get to keep enjoying their rule playing everyone for fools. Politicans have NO incentive to fix anything as long as they get what they want, and the legislation that has come with it will only serve to burden the taxpayer even more.

For the record, all politicians are SCUM. [...] Youre not solving anything.

#111 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-06-26 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just like the miscalculations of going into iraq, and the mess we now have there, the cluster-frack that is proposed 'green' legislation is just as ludicrous and possibly much more threatening to our economic survival.

I am pretty sure they didn't run a computer model to calculate the risks of going into Iraq.

If they did they completely ignored the resultant output.

Fact is a lot of intelligent people predicted exactly what would happen in Iraq and they were completely ignored and marginalized. Just like they are being done now on the effects of not addressing our changing climate and the energy crisis.

#112 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-26 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Green energy, in its current state, is an unmitigated boondoggle - a scam.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-26 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Horse Apples Wind energy and Solar are huge savings and they actually work great. The only reason why you guys poo poo on Wind and Solar is 1. it hurts oil and gas corporations and 2. NO corporation owns the sun nor the wind maker.

#113 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-26 04:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort