It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


GOP Attacks Democrats for Climate Proposal (making an actual good argument)

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:29 AM

Republicans on Saturday attacked the climate change proposal crafted by congressional Democrats and endorsed by President Barrack Obama as doing little to reduce global warming while saddling Americans with high energy costs.

Okay, Im listening now. If the GOP wants to save my money I will gladly side with them on this issue.

Here's some more quotes you'll be interested in...

"The cost for all American taxpayers will be certain, huge, and immediate. Any benefits are extremely uncertain, minuscule, and decades distant," maintains Daniels.
Yes yes, someone finally telling the truth about this.

"The national energy tax imposed by Speaker Pelosi's climate change bill would double electric bills here in Indiana, working a severe hardship on low income families, but that's only where the damage starts," says Daniels. "In a state where we like to make things, like steel and autos and RVs, it would cost us countless jobs. ... Our farmers and livestock producers would see their costs skyrocket. and our coal miners would be looking for new work."
Something I already know, but more information the better! Anyone else liking the GOP just a tiny bit more right now?

Congressional Republicans said that instead of a mandatory cap on pollution, they want to expand domestic oil and gas development, using some of the proceeds for renewable energy development, expansion of nuclear energy and more support for research into ways to capture carbon from coal burning.

The Democratic bill also would devote billions of dollars to carbon capture research and would require utilities to generate at least 12 percent of their power from renewable energy.

Okay, Im sure there is some faults in their efforts but I am liking the GOP's ideas a lot more than the cap-and-trade bull# that Obama wants to put into effect.
Let me list some things wrong with Obama's plan:
(1) Taxing people in a recession is extremely stupid.
(2) Trading "Carbon-Credits" will no doubt hurt small businesses and help big corporate ones.
(3) Higher Gas prices? nonononono!

I dont know the full details on the GOP's idea but doesnt it sound a lot better than Obama's at this point and time?

Just so you guys know, Don't like either party these days. I just go with whatever looks better for the people.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:16 AM
BUT have you looked into alternative arguments?

I am sure that there are plenty out there... and more actual details about the bill.

I simply do not believe the GOP as it stands now about anything.

That is not to say that I necessarily believe the Democrats either but the GOP currently has less than zero credibility on just about anything... especially if Obama likes it.

If Jesus Christ himself proposed something and Obama supported it the GOP would be against it simply because Obama liked it.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:20 AM

Honestly I believe all this is nonsense. In the 70s it was global cooling and the coming ice age. Then it was global warming in the lat 80s thru the 90s. Well People the data is in for this decade (2000-2009) It has gotten cooler. But in the eyes of the people who hold this "green" agenda this is a "pause" in what they now call "climate change". I agree that climate change is happening, its always happening, thats why its called a climate, otherwise would it not just be called, oh I dont know, the weather of earth?
Humans are having a minimal impact on the climate of the planet. Disagree? Then please explain how our carbon emissions are heating up every other planet in the solar system equally.

I think its another case of human arrogance to think we matter that much.

Its the sun people .... wanna be Algores please get over yourselves

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:28 AM
Why does the first source spell "Barack" wrong?

Anyway... it's going to cost money in the short-term but save money and headaches in the long run.

I think pollution and deforestation are important issues, global warming or not. If we keep cutting down trees and sticking ANY pollutant, CO2 or otherwise, into the atmosphere, we are going to have a problem. It's simple logic.

Edit- when there are more hybrid and no-gasoline cars available, gasoline prices should be higher. Because if we keep using it like it's no issue, destroying habitats to get it, eventually it will run out. And we'll all go "Um, oops. Now what?"

[edit on 5/30/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Explain this then...

In Europe, the world’s leading emissions trading scheme commenced in 2005. The first phase of “ETS” ran two years, from 2005 to 2007. The result? Carbon dioxide emissions actually increased some 1.9 percent over that period.

Since most estimates indicate a cap and trade scheme would increase the costs of fuel somewhere between $0.30 and $0.40 a gallon, the real question is will this money be reinvested in transportation?

Aviation produces less than 3 percent of the world’s CO2. Aviation has also improved its fuel efficiency without any government intervention by 70 percent over the past four decades.

Not yet mentioned is the likely effect of vehicle down-sizing on highway fatalities. Safety experts estimate that even the 1975 fuel efficiency standards increased fatalities on US roads by some 2,000 lives a year. "Blood for oil"?

While the Air Transport Association (ATA) and our airlines are strong supporters of improved greenhouse gas (GHG) efficiency and have an exceptional track record to back that up, we have grave concerns about the application of one-size-fits-all cap-and-trade legislation to airlines. Such legislation – including that proposed in the Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft – would operate as an additional tax on aviation, siphoning away the very funds that the airlines need to invest in new aircraft and other advances that have allowed the U.S. airlines to improve their fuel and GHG efficiency by 110 percent since 1978.

You can read a ton more here: Click ME.
Edit: Thought I would add that these comments arnt just bloggers these are CEOs, Researchers and Analysts.

[edit on 5/30/2009 by Tentickles]

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:07 AM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Anyway... it's going to cost money in the short-term but save money and headaches in the long run.

Not in your lifetime, yellowstone will blow first.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:20 AM

Still More on Diminished Solar Activity and Global Cooling
By Bob Ellis on May 30th, 2009

Just a few days ago we looked at the extensive report from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which showed the correlation between temperature change and solar activity. Not only does current science show this, but the examination of historical climate data shows up-and-down climate cycles across the earth long before SUVs and power plants were ever dreamed of.

Just yesterday Space Daily featured an article about the recent diminished solar activity:

According to the forecast, the sun should remain generally calm for at least another year. From a research point of view, that’s good news because solar minimum has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined. Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract.

New Solar Cycle Predictions

This plot of sunspot numbers shows the measured peak of the last solar cycle May 28, 2009
There is a well-publicized campaign around the world to reverse the alleged impact of mankind on the world's climate. This campaign includes proposed destructive taxation on the very businesses, and the population as a result, that mankind depends on for its well being and survival. Cap and trade, or carbon taxes, will cause the prices of most things that the population uses to be increased substantially. By the time an ear of corn gets put into a can and onto the shelf at the store, it will have been taxed at least eight times. Seed suppliers, farmers, transporters, storage facilities, processors, packagers, wholesalers, distribution centers, and everyone else involved will have greater energy costs that they will be forced to pass on to the consumer. You can expect that can of corn, peas, carrots, green beans, loaf of bread, and everything else that you consume to cost 50% more.

In the mean while

Barack Obama Eats Another Food Item

Ain't life grand?

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:31 AM
reply to post by Tentickles

There are enough moderate Republicans who long to be loved by Democrats and the media to get this passed. This is why the party is struggling right now.

Posted by Grover

If Jesus Christ himself proposed something and Obama supported it the GOP would be against it simply because Obama liked it.

If Jesus Christ proposed something, Obama would wait until Mohammad chimed in as not to offend his Muslim buddies. "We are not a Christian Nation"....remember!

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by RRconservative
If Jesus Christ proposed something, Obama would wait until Mohammad chimed in as not to offend his Muslim buddies. "We are not a Christian Nation"....remember!

That is utter bullhooey and ignorant even for you RR.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:39 AM
Tent Hope you don't mind if I post this here, this is all connected.

Speech given by Mo Strong

What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the
principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?
And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an
agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will
the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will
they agree to save the earth?
The group's conclusion is 'no.' The rich countries won't do it. They won't
change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn't the only
hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it
our responsibility to bring that about?
This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world
collapse. It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists -
they're world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world's
commodity and stock markets. They've engineered, using their access to stock
exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the
markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the
rest of the world leaders at Davros as hostage. The markets can't close. The
rich countries...?" and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if
he were flicking a cigarette butt out of the window.
I sat there spellbound. This is not any story-teller talking. This is
Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of
the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He
is in a position to do it
What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

Don't mind at all.

It does corporate nicely into the topic at hand.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by grover

It is "ignorance and bullhoey" to suggest that Obama would even give Jesus the time of day.

Your suggested Jesus teaming with Obama and Republicans opposing them is not based on reality, and it is getting old.

Obama has got to be the most anti-Christian president ever.

"America is not a Christian nation.." Obama said that. His total diss of the National Day of Prayer also backs me up. His pandering to the Muslim community should also tell you something.

Anyway....To avoid this minny feud getting tossed out by the mods I will add something pertinent to the topic of this thread.

Global Warming is just an excuse to raise taxes. A carbon tax raises the price on EVERYTHING, and taxes EVERYONE! Something Obama said he wouldn't do.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by RRconservative

His comment about America not being a Christan nation was in relation that we are a nation of many religions.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:06 PM
Anything that will double electric bills I'm against period.

There is the potential for a good 20 percent increase in every single thing bought and sold if that was to happen to electric bills. Well for the exception of the made in (overseas) products of course causing even more business to be diverted over seas and Mexico's standard of living to be better that ours in the end. (no offense to Mexico).

All in hopes for something cleaner? What happened to all the money and research that went into reducing emissions and curving global warming 15+ years ago? I don't believe in the global warming junk as the actual numbers reflect global cooling is happening but at least they could show me what they did with all that money over the years. Oh wait I think they bought jets with it never mind I forgot.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by grover

His total diss of the National Day of Prayer also backs me up.

Since when have you cared? By your own account you haven't seen the inside of a church in years.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by grover much as I am trying to stay on topic....some things can't go unanswered.

First of all what Church did Jesus belong to? Answer: NONE

Did Jesus still pray everyday? Answer: YES

Should I post something in this post to stay on topic? Answer: YES

Here goes: Republicans who do not oppose this government money grab AKA Global Warming should be thrown out of the party!

top topics


log in