Political cartoonist Michael Ramirez was on a roll this week. Here were his contributions to Townhall.com, all great...
bo jumped the gun and hit the ground running from day one.
'Bush did it', the cops behaved stupidly...because Bush did it!
America is not a 'christian nation', but it is the worlds largest 'muslim nation' [If you count those other 7 states that bo said he visited during the presidential campaign].
Nidal Hasan is NOT a Jew hating mass murderer, even though mutliple witnesses have said that the self professed muslim had advocated the implementatin of sharia law in American and shouted praise to Allah, immediately before he openend fire on unarmed fellow soldiers and civilians and he was exchanging emails with known Jew hating muslim imams and terrorist sympathizers.
Yes we can...except for controlling the borders, enforcing existing federal immigration laws, implementing existing emergency response plans for oil spills, and enforcing the federal voting rights act against 'black defendants'. Felons and dead people can vote, but not 'crackers' or ethnic minorities who are NOT supporting bo.
The reason the liberal/progressive democRATs in congress are so determined to extend unemployment benefits is the very likely prospect that many of them will be out of work after the November elections.
And my favorite, according to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, who was appointed to the position by bo, Bolden's responsibility was "perhaps foremost, he [bo] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."
One little problem with that assignment, the historic contributions to science, math and engineering by these nations were made BEFORE the advent of Islam.
The NASA used to be an acronym for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The new meaning for NASA is 'Not About Space Anymore'.
I understand that the next NASA mission will be to construct a Mosque on the surface of the moon overshadowing the American flag that Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin erected there on July 20th, 1969.
The new sensitivities spawned by political correctness require that Americans be ashamed of our successes/excesses and applaud the mediocrity of other countries whose religious dogma has shackeled the minds of the faithful into a over a thousand years of darkness.
"Can't we all just get along?"
No, not as long as there are people out there who want to destroy, anihilate and obliterate anyone who does not think exaclty like they do.Posted by: yor bro ken at July 25, 2010 10:44 AM
I appoligze. I should have started my rant with the reference to the extension of unemployment benefits in order to more perfectly keep on topic with the post.
But the connection was made and the subsequent commenary was at least tangentially derived from one of the posted cartoons.Posted by: yor bro ken at July 25, 2010 10:49 AM
I don't quite know why anyone would want to be President. We all know that it takes several years (if not longer) to have economic policy changes actually influence main street (see unemployment numbers from Reagan's first few years in office), yet we all want to see change right away.
We all know that disasters like the spill in the gulf or attacks such as 9/11 come from security or regulatory lapses years in making - but the current President always gets the blame.
We all know that spending limits are reached from years and years of legislation, and revenue figures to combat spending limits from years and years of tax and economic policy - yet the current President always owns those numbers the second they walk in.
History will judge this President, and recent Presidents, in due time. For the sake of a lot of families out there, I do hope that America can come together somehow and better days are ushered in.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 25, 2010 11:44 AM
X-GOP I don't know why anyone would want to be president either.Posted by: Sydney M. at July 25, 2010 12:40 PM
I didnt realize America was supposed to be a Christian nation, I thought it was a nation where we weren't supposed to have a national religion. Maybe I just imagined the separation of church and state.Posted by: Sara at July 25, 2010 1:50 PM
Sara...yeah you imagined it. Its actually not in any official documents.
America IS a Christian nation. We just don't PROHIBIT citizens from worshipping in other religions.Posted by: Sydney M. at July 25, 2010 1:53 PM
Yes but Ex-GOP most Presidents don't start off making the economy and unemployment worse in a recesssion/depression. I think all these cartoons are spot on but I think I like the 3rd one the best " no business owner in his right mind will hire while I'm in office".
For prolifers we have never had a rabid pro-abort in the highest office of the land, the leader of the free world, the commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation of the world who has promised his allegiance to PP and NARAL so every woman who wants a dead baby is guaranteed to get one. (BAIPA and Jill Stanek come to mind with BHO sitting unmoved as Jill testified before him in the Illinois legislature describing how she held a DS baby who survived a botched abortion as he took his last breaths and he voted not once, not twice but three times to deny medical care to a newborn living infant.) I never would have imagined that such a cold-blooded, arrogant, narcissistic, "above my pay-grade", pro-death, Chicago Way politician would have ever held the highest office of the land, at least in my lifetime. May God save the United States of America. Continue to drink the Kool-aid, Ex-GOP the hopey changey thing you have been waiting for is in power the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.Posted by: Prolifer L at July 25, 2010 2:20 PM
For the sake of a lot of families out there, I do hope that America can come together somehow and better days are ushered in.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 25, 2010 11:44 AM
I sincerely hope that my neighborhood and my experience as an average American are not unusual. I live in a multicultural neighborhood, but differences in religion, politics, and skin color don't seem to prevent us from getting along or lending each other a helping hand. We don't have meetings or committees to promote harmony; it happens on its own.
Are we an atypical neighborhood? Or has the media and political discourse become so partisan and beholden to special interests that it no longer reflects typical America? I'm not convinced that Americans have failed to unite so much as I'm convinced that Washington (both parties) and the media have failed a united America.Posted by: Fed Up at July 25, 2010 2:32 PM
Prolifer -actually, pull a chart of the unemployment rate under Obama - and then go find one under Reagan.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 25, 2010 3:33 PM
That's no way to speak of the messiah ;-)
Posted by: Gerard Nadal
at July 25, 2010 5:01 PM
Ex-GOP voter. I agree that history will judge this coconut. In the interim, the Constitution affords us a Nielen Rating of sorts in two years. Perhaps history will be guided by the expressed will of the people in 2012.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 25, 2010 11:44 AM
1. "I don't quite know why anyone would want to be President."
2. "History will judge this President, and recent Presidents, in due time."
1. I do not know why anyone would want 'bo' to be president.
2. Most Americans do not require the benefit of 'history' to judge bo's job performance.
They have been steadily abandoning him since the day of his inauguration. His approval rating are sinking faster than any other president in history.
I do not know how history will be able to vindicate bo's incomptence in regard to containing the oil that flowed from the well in the gulf of Mexico or limiting the damage it might do to the Gulf Coast states.
The one thing bo did hastily was announcing a moratorium on deep water oil exploration, which did nothing to solve the immediate problem of a runnaway well. It did have an immediate 'negative' impact on the economies of the gulf coast states.
Then there was the persistent refusal of technical assistance and equipment from other countries to contain as much of the crude as possible at the source.
Then bo and democRAT congressman see an opportunity to regain some credibility with their leftist base by a public pilloring of BP CEO Tony Hayward, which did absolutely nothing to stop the flow of oil.
It seems every step of the way bo impeded BP's attempts to solve the problem.
But when one stops to consider that BP's fine will be calculated on the total volume of crude oil that flowed from the well, bo's actions begin to make sense.
Then there are trial lawyers lining up to exploit this new reserve of capital from a defendant who has some of the deepest pockets on the planet.
We all remember which political parties coffers benefitted the most from the tobacco law suits.
Then there was the 20 billion dollar shake down of BP. The american people have yet to see the transcripts of those discussion between bo and BP execs or the agreements which bo entered into on behalf of the american people.
Where is the transparency?
What we are witnessing is the creation of a slush fund to launder money extracted from BP execs when they were under threat of criminal prosecution for the oil spill.
There is a federal law against that kind of pressure being brought to bear by federal prosecutors against a criminal defendant.
It is not premature to judge bo's performance right now.
History will have difficult time proving us wrong in both the timing and the conclusion of our judgements.
Reagan made the right decisions about how to stimulate economic growth when we were in the midst of a recession. bo has chosen the opposite course of action.
Reagan made the right decision to confront communism. bo has chosen the course of appeasement and apology.
We will have to wait on history to prove bo wrong, but it is hard to imagine how choosing a course of action just the opposite of Ronald Reagan's will yield a successful outcome.
Posted by: yor bro ken
at July 25, 2010 5:39 PM
Ken - I still don't read your full posts - not after that lying thing - but I did catch the end.
Clinton went just the opposite of Reagan and he was the one President in a LONG time to have a balanced budget.
I also saw mention of BP - if you want to know about the political ties there, call Dick Cheaney. It is his spill.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 25, 2010 5:51 PM
The two most demonstrative ways people vote is with their pocketbook and with their feet.
These undocumented aliens have voted against the basket case economies they were born into by risking life and limb to come to the USA.
I do not see how these illegal immigrants can be convinced to turn America into the same kind of economic mediocrity they just abandoned.
But progressive liberals are set on granting amnesty to the tens of millions of people who are in this country illegally in the misplaced hope of maintaining their own unfetterred access to the reins of power.
The 'hopey changey' thing is not what bo promised and like the old southern democRAT said when he was asked if he was going to support Walter Mondull in his bid to unseat sitting president Ronald Reagan, 'Hell no! There ain't no education in getting kicked by the same jackass twice.'Posted by: yor bro ken at July 25, 2010 5:56 PM
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at July 25, 2010 5:01 PM
That's no way to speak of the messiah ;-)
I just can't help it. I guess I watched 'Robinhood' with Errol Flynn one too many times.
The 'irreverance' is almost uncontrollable.
Posted by: yor bro ken
at July 25, 2010 6:00 PM
Yes but Ex-GOP Reagan worked to decrease unemployment by decreasing the tax burden to stimulate business to help create jobs and to encourage economic development, independence and to strengthen the nation not "spread the wealth around", grow the government and apologize for America to the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure it was Reagan who said "Bigger government IS the problem". I must say BHO has had me praying and fasting as never before for my nation and for the President so "God is working all things together for good to those who love Him and are called according to his purpose". Peace.Posted by: Prolifer L at July 25, 2010 6:00 PM
It was not the democRATs who brought slick willy to the table of a balanced budget and it was the economic policies of Ronald Reagan that created an economic climate which produced the tax revenues necessary to balance the budget while rebuilding a military that had been decimated by the policies of a democRAT president and congress.
While BP contributed to both political parties, bo was the candidate who received more BP money than any other political candidate from either party.
As for my 'lying'to you. Produce evidence of me 'lying' and I will publicly aknowledge my fault and I will repent.
You lie with 'plausible deniability' because you do not want to endanger your bliss and as such remain willfully ignorant of the truth.
You know why Jimmy Carter endorsed bo for president. Cause Jimmy did not want to be forever remembered as the worst president in U.S. histroy.
That is one of Jimmy's few wise decisions.Posted by: yor bro ken at July 25, 2010 6:14 PM
Opinions aside - I'm just saying that you were factually wrong when you stated "Yes but Ex-GOP most Presidents don't start off making the economy and unemployment worse in a recesssion/depression."
What was interesting about Reagan is technically, he had one of the the biggest tax increases ever (in today's dollars) - it might have been the biggest - after he adjusted his cuts a year or two after he came in.
Thanks for the response - just wanted to point the error out.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 25, 2010 6:15 PM
I'm continuing to look for the post - you should remember it as I pointed it out about 8 times - you were so factually wrong on something, and when confronted, you never acknowledged it, retracted - nothing - so all I could deduce (again, since it pointed it out so many times in the aftermath) is that you were intentionally misleading.
I love it. So if Reagan gets credit for Clinton's budgets...then who gets credit for end of Bush/beginning of Obama? Could you maybe put together a grid or something? Wouldn't Reagan's situation be the bi-product then of somebody years before him? Maybe Lincoln? Good stuff as always Ken.
Google "Cheney's Katrina" some time for me - to put much blame on Obama is completely burying one's head in the sand.
At this point of Reagan's presidency, unemployment had shot even higher - he was ushering in a massive tax increase in readjusting his previous tax cuts - give it time - you need to have some patience my friend.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 25, 2010 8:26 PM
Opinions aside - I'm just saying that you were factually wrong when you stated "Yes but Ex-GOP most Presidents don't start off making the economy and unemployment worse in a recesssion/depression."
Reagan = 'most presidents'?
Just curious.Posted by: MaryRose at July 25, 2010 9:34 PM
At this point in Reagan's presidency, Carter's inept policies were still very much in effect, and the economy was still suffering the catastrophic effects of his four years in office. The economy had the momentum of a runaway train, and it took Reagan years to slow, halt, then reverse the momentum.
BO's successor will need two terms to bring us back to where things were under Bush....and that's being optimistic.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at July 25, 2010 10:28 PM
See Gerard - and I would argue that in your scenario - Bush = Carter, and it is going to take years for Obama to unwind the mess. Both Carter and Bush were enormously reckless regarding the economy - and that just doesn't get changed overnight.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 25, 2010 10:32 PM
Having witnessed people die from lung cancer I find it hard to feel too much sympathy for the tobacco companies. Had they not been aware of the effects of their product, it would have been different but they were. Tobacco is very depleting on the soil maybe they should start planting something that actually benefits people and has a good profit margin. And although I agree that our President should have done all he could to remedy the situation, I also believe BP has a large measure of culpability. I think the free market system is what makes our nation great but with that should come some measure of accountability. Something I have yet to see from pharmaceutical companies.
"20 billion dollar shake down of BP." T
"What we are witnessing is the creation of a slush fund to launder money extracted from BP execs when they were under threat of criminal prosecution for the oil spill."
"There is a federal law against that kind of pressure being brought to bear by federal prosecutors against a criminal defendant."
someone's been ready a few right wing talking points. Oh my. Ok, tell me how securing $20 billion in compensation now for damaged fisherman is a bad thing. The victims of the Exxon spill had to wait 15 to 20 years, and then got shafted by an activist Supreme Court.
Also, please let me know what federal laws were violated.Posted by: Hal at July 26, 2010 3:25 PM
Please forgive me if miscommunicated my message. I am not defending the tobacco industry or advocating the use of tobacco products.
Neither am I defending BP or it's contractors who are responsible for the millions of gallons of oil that poured into the gulf of Mexico.
Just pointing out that trial lawyer reaped millions, if not billions, of dollars from the lawsuits against the tobacco industry and unlike the tobacco industry, who butter both sides of the political biscuit, the trial lawyers contribute alomost exclusively to the democRAT party and democRAT candidates.
These same trial lawyers are lining up to take a run at British Petroleum and the contrators who were working for BP on the well that recently dumped millions of gallons of oil into the gulf of Mexico.
Imagine all those undocumented aliens/illegal immigrants who congregate at the Lowes or Home Depots looking for an opportunity to make some money.
Only picture them in three piece suits/pant suits and carrying brief cases, driving in their gas guzzling SUV's and limousines and flying in their own Gulf Stream jets that burn the jet fuel which BP produces from the oil it extracts from under US territory.Posted by: yor bro ken at July 26, 2010 4:46 PM
Do you trust the gov't to manage this fund?Posted by: Mary at July 26, 2010 5:22 PM
Not ignoring your legitimate question about what 'federal' law was violated.
When bo invited BP execs to the White House for a discussion of BP's responibility/liability from the out of control well gushing oil into the gulf of Mexico, bo had already stated publicly, 'before' bo had all the facts, that he [bo] would order the justice department to pursue all legal remedies, including CRIMINAL prosecution against BP's execs and contractors.
This was AFTER, BP personel, Transocean personel, Haliburton personel, and Swaco personel had already testified under oath at a hearing conducted jointly by the Departement of Interior, Mineral Mangagement Services and the United State Coast Guard.
In attendance at the meeting at the White House with BP execs was the 'top cop' and head of the Justice Department, United States Attorney General Eric Holder. This is the man who will prosecute BP execs if there is evidence that BP personel violated federal law.
It is against federal law to use the threat of civil lawsuits to 'leverage' criminal defendants into co-operating with federal prosecutors.
The transcripts of these meetings have not been made public, nor have copies of the written or verbal agreements been made available for public scrutiny. This in itself is violation of federal law.
You WANT to believe that the twenty billion dollars will only go to people and businesses adversely impacted by the oil released into the gulf of Mexico.
I have no reason to 'trust' bo or his thugs. I want to 'verify' exactly what was done by my elected representatives. You should expect no less.
bo and a democRAT congress have yet to give an accounting where all the bail out and stimulus money has gone.
But what the heck, what's a few trillion dollars here or there?Posted by: yor bro ken at July 26, 2010 5:24 PM
I realize that in the 'law' silence is equated with assent.
But you have stated that you no longer read the entirety of me lengthy posts.
Did it ever cross your mind that I might not read the entirety of your posts.
The 'law' aside, just because I did not respond to your question(s) comments does not meant that I concede the point you were attempting to make.
I will do this placate your tender feelings.
Give me one specific example where you believe I lied or deliberately attempted to deceive you.
I may be wrong, I often am, but I do not need to resort to lies and deceptions to burst your bubble.
Show me where I lied and I will acknowledge the error of my ways and beg forgiveness for my transgression.
If you cannot do that, then man up and get over your hurt feelings.Posted by: yor bro ken at July 26, 2010 5:43 PM
"It is against federal law to use the threat of civil lawsuits to 'leverage' criminal defendants into co-operating with federal prosecutors."
cite?Posted by: Hal at July 26, 2010 6:38 PM
I'm also very skeptical when it comes to fair distribution of monies collected to benifit the victims of the oil spill. Even if it was distributed fairly which I highly doubt I don't think BP will be required to compensate for all the damage that's been done. I'm just hoping that people are paying attention and make serious attempts to invest in green energy and earth friendly alternatives. My skeptism though is not limited to the democratic party it also extends to the republican party. I believe the base of the republican party is big business and big business profits from war. I think war is usually connected to profit and the sacrifice soldiers make don't really bother some people. My prayer though is that those who really care about the unborn and the real welfare of all of our citizens will fight with a little more stamina and a lot more intellect. That would mean democrats and republicans working togethor.
In between playing golf, enjoying a Paul McCartney concert, campaigning, and appointing useless panels, when did our fearless leader actually find the time to address the problem of the oil spill?
This meeting could better be described as BP officials meet Chicago thugocracy.Posted by: Mary at July 27, 2010 9:09 AM
myrtle miller, 9:49PM
I'm very fond of you myrtle but in all honesty, this post makes you sound like a 60's flower child. EEEEEVIL big business, which ususally starts out as small business, provides jobs, people with jobs are consumers who provide more jobs. They are taxpayers who pay for teachers, police and fire fighters. They buy homes. Children can be provided with education and a life free of poverty and want.
War is as old as the human race. Big business did not profit from Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire. Governments and individuals profited from conquest and power and always will.
My family lived comfortably thanks to my mother working in a war plant in WW2.
When haven't there been wars somewhere, if not between nations then civil wars? The only "profit" they have generated is death and destruction.
Well,well,well, seems like the oil has disappeared! Had Obama not fiddled while oil came to our shores there would have been minimal to no damage. Not that I would ever think it was deliberate dithering on his part. So where will those shakedown billions be going now? We know a few thousand gulf jobs are going to Libya, or was it somewhere else in Africa?
Seems the ocean gobbled it up, like it has always done when oil seeps up through the ocean floor. No one seems to know for certain.
Anyway, the earth continues another day in spite of man, as it has for billions of years.Posted by: Mary at July 27, 2010 4:02 PM
The closest I come to a flower child is that I was born in the 60's and have a lot of respect for anyone regardless of their generation who has the courage to choose peace instead of war. After rereading my post it does seem to generalize so I'll be more concise. Big businesses like Halliburton or organizations like Planned Parenthood that have a close association with any President should be subject to more public scrutiny when Presidential decisions enrich them with taxpayers monies. Especially when it involves the death of people. Unborn or born.
The oil disappeared? That's news I hadn't heard yet. Hopefully the Gulf businesses will be up and running soon and an accurate accounting will be made of payouts to those businesses affected negatively. (??)
Did you see a study in the news is showing that global warming is going to cause the mass migration of Mexicans to the U.S.
I don't know what the point is, or if the study indicates whether they will be legal or illegal immigrants.Posted by: Janet at July 27, 2010 5:55 PM
I didn't say you were a flower child, I said you sounded like one. Now that you make your point more specific I understand where you're coming from.
I was around in the 60's and the battle cry was eeeevil big business, oppressed workers, and warmongering CEOs, all of which was nonsense. Unions ran the city where I was raised, its now in the crapper. We could use lots more of big business.
Even now corporations are demonized. They must be silenced. HOwever powerful wealthy unions can be in bed with the politicians and spend all the millions they want to get someone elected.
Check out Michael Savage's website. I'm not surprised. The planet always has and will take care of itself. Some of the most disgusting things on the planet, flies, maggots, vultures, serve a very valuable purpose in nature.
We humans vastly overrate our importance.
Had Obama acted instead of fiddling while Rome burned most of the damage could have been avoided.
I don't believe he was as stupid and inept as he is portrayed, I think it was very purposeful.
Demonize big oil, shakedown BP for billions, clamp down on offshore drilling.
There is a purpose to his madness.
Global warming is still an issue? What won't it "cause" for heaven's sake? I heard the immigration law in AZ is causing a mass migration out.Posted by: Mary at July 27, 2010 6:14 PM
Mary - are you suggesting government should become bigger -step in more often instead of letting private industry deal with things?
Janet - the oil on the TOP of the ocean is mostly dealt with - unfortunately, there's a lot of oil within that will be around for a long time.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 27, 2010 8:37 PM
I'm saying gov't shouldn't stand in the way, like denying nations who offered assistance.Posted by: Mary at July 27, 2010 9:23 PM
Where is this oil? Check out Michael Savage's website. The experts are perplexed so don't feel bad if you can't say where the oil is.
Oh sure, oil got to shore and into the water table. Maybe this could have been prevented if Obama hadn't denied access to the foreign countries that offered to help.Posted by: Mary at July 27, 2010 9:27 PM
Which nations did we deny? The Unified Command has a press release in mid June that said there were 15 foreign vessels in the gulf. Plus, we got a bunch of boom from both Canada and Mexico.
Factcheck has a nice write-up as well - here's the short Q and A - you can go read the full one:
Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?
A: No to both questions. So far, offers from six foreign countries or entities have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter
at July 27, 2010 9:35 PM
- The one denied was from France on a chemical that we (the country) didn't approve. Is that what you are so upset about?
Ummm, Mary - have you not seen anything about the massive oil plumes?Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 27, 2010 9:39 PM
Mary I don't believe in too much goverment oversight when it comes to private businesses but something on this scale I believe there should have been more government intervention. I also see the moratorium as something positive. I don't know though about allowing other nations to come in and help because if they give incorrect advice to a private company who would be responsible for the consequences. I think it would have been better had our own nation's experts advised BP when the situation wasn't contained in a reasonable time frame.Posted by: myrtle miller at July 27, 2010 9:45 PM
Please check out the ABC News video at Michael Savage's website. You will note that's ABC news, the All Barack channel. Mother Nature strikes again!
Also EGV, do some extensive googling concerning the rejection of foreign help. The articles are there and are numerous.Posted by: Mary at July 27, 2010 10:10 PM
I'm sorry but I do not see anything positive in this moratorium, unless you consider unemployment and jobs going to another country positive. Every other country on the planet is drilling for heaven's sake! BP will have no problem finding willing gov'ts and workers. Here in the US, we're talking windmills. Give me a break.
So why didn't Obama immediately assemble experts to oversee this situation? Instead he's playing golf and entertaining Paul McCartney. A crisis of any kind demands leadership.Posted by: Mary at July 27, 2010 10:23 PM
Jobs are very important but wouldn't safety come first. With the technology and information that's present I really don't see how this couldn't have been contained sooner but as far as I know that's not his area of expertise. Even while on the golf course though I would think he's able to communicate with individuals who are trying to get a handle on the situation. I don't know if you know this but BP was also a contributor to his campaign so I think his verbal assessment of the situation probably says more to BP than if he were there physically. I think he's just having faith that they will get the job done and his verbal cues are letting them know there will be consequences.
Anytime you discuss alternatives to traditional energy you bring up the windmills. My prayer is that eventually scientists will come up with something that neutralizes nuclear waste where it not only does no harm to the environment but actually adds to it. Until that happens isn't it logical to look for better ways to produce electricity? And I'm familiar with the the earth can take anything argument but why should it have to put up with anything and why should people suffer because people that have the ability to make a real difference often choose instead to not only not make a difference but ridicule those who do.
Come on Mary - are you even trying these days? I went to the Michael Savage website (got a little dumber just for going there) - found the ABC story - about 2/3 down it has the words "oil patches remain below the surface". Click on that, and the article it links to is titled "HUGE OIL PLUMES FOUND UNDER GULF AS BP STRUGGLES".
I have looked into the foreign aid - again, several places, including fact check have talked about it. Seems like the French had a ship rejected (as I mentioned), and the Dutch had a ship rejected by the EPA (not from the Presidential administration). Again, 15 foreign vessels were involved - so it sounds like your conservative sources are lying to you.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 28, 2010 6:20 AM
Look again. Did you check out the ABC News video? Hardly a conservative source. Explains very simply how mother nature breaks down the oil and returns it to the environment. You might actually learn something. "Its Mother Nature doing her job" says Ed Overton a professor of environmental studies at Louisiana State University. I didn't say the oil disappeared, this will hardly occur overnight. The article points out it is becoming harder to find. Obviously its going somewhere, however gradually, and the video explains where and how.
Keep researching EGV, lots of Google articles. You might even find the video with James Carville's rant demanding Obama show some leadership and get something done. One could hardly call Carville a conservative hack.Posted by: Mary at July 28, 2010 7:09 AM
My brother sent me an article that stressed the importance of oil not only for the fuel that it is but for the petroleum jelly produced during the refining process that is used in almost 200 industries! If we stop drilling not only will we put people in that industry out of work but we will affect hundreds of thousands of people that rely on other industries. They're all dependent on petroleum jelly.
I'll have to dig out the article. Its a long list! I never realized that before.Posted by: Sydney M. at July 28, 2010 8:39 AM
Hi myrtle miller,
What's the great danger in oil drilling? Its taking place the world over. Countries like Vietnam and Cuba are drilling. If we don't want BP's business guess what, someone else does and their citizens will be employed while ours collect welfare.
Part of good leadership is to give the appearance of doing something. One historian said this was Roosevelt's great talent. Obama didn't even do that much. Even James Carville, certainly no conservative by any standard, says the president showed no leadership or concern, and if nothing else blew a great political opportunity. Obama isn't supposed to send "verbal cues" he's supposed to display leadership. You are far more charitable about his motives than I am.
My reference to windmills is that while the world drills oil and develops nuclear energy, we take a trip back to the middle ages. We can't sit on our hands and wait for some green revolution. The rest of the world certainly isn't and they're leaving us in the dust.
Actually oil and technology have done much to improve life, the standard of living, and the environment. That's probably why other countries are drilling and going nuclear.Posted by: Mary at July 28, 2010 9:56 AM
Let's see 11 people lost their lives. Eco-systems are being compromised and the fishing industry in these areas have been effected. Am I advocating for no drilling, no I'm saying while decreasing our dependence on oil we look for alternatives that are good for people and the environment. Nuclear waste is not a good thing. That's a fact. There are by products from drilling that are not good for our oceans. That's another fact. So to be given the opportunity to make positive changes and say no is to be irresponsible. Let the other countries not show balance in utilizing the earth's resources. Let their greed pull them by their noses till their left with nothing and when they decide to immigrate here will gently explain the rules to them. Restraint is usually not a popular choice but it's long term effects are far more lasting. I don't think the choice is either or the choice is do we trasition into a more greener future or do we continue on a path that we know is not good for us.
Yes - the stuff on the surface is disappearing. At least we agree there is a lot left.
In regards to the ships - do you deny that there were 15 foreign vessels in the gulf? Are you saying there were more denied other than the French and Dutch vessel out there? I've looked around - seems like a myth debunked.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 28, 2010 5:21 PM
Hi myrtle miller,
152 people just died in an airline tragedy in Pakistan. So when do we put a moratorium on flying? You take a risk every time you walk out your front door.
Please give me an example of an ecosystem destroyed by oil drilling. A species that became extinct, anything. Good heavens we have volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, raging forest fires(started by lightening)landslides, tsunamis, yet somehow life continues. Oil spews from the ocean floor naturally and is broken down by the ocean and its bacteria and microscopic life. Climate change has occured time and again, species and humans adapted and survived. You're worried about oil drilling? It sounds like the Gulf of Mexico is gobbling up the oil. Not good for the oceans? My dear if it is man or the ocean I put my money on the ocean. The human race is no match.
I have no problem with alternative energy but I do not condone sitting on our hands waiting for it to fall from the sky. Until these enegy sources are up and running oil is king. Well so is coal.
Did you hear about the electric car put out by GM, aka Obama Morons, I mean Motors. Its called the Volt. How appropriate. From what I've read it gets 40 miles to the charge. After that a gas engine kicks in for 400 miles. Only 40 miles before you have to use gas, why even bother with the battery? Since there are no "charging stations" as yet I suppose your house is the only source. According to what I have googled the battery will have to charge the entire nite. Bet that's gonna run up your electric bill plus increase your "carbon footprint" which is a crock of crap right up there with global warming. Anyway, electrical energy demands will increase considerably since something has to charge these cars and it most likely will be your home. Will all this electricity come from windmills and solar panels? Also, when you travel, unless you want to use the gas motor, you will have to stop every 40 hours for a charge, assuming of course you can find a charging station and if you are a guest in someone's home, assuming they'll be happy to pay a bigger electric bill so that you can charge you car.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
Now given a choice will you pick a vehicle like my SUV that gives me about 4+ hours of travel on a tank of gas, I never did look into mileage, has a real attitude, and will be much more practical and considerably less cost and hassle, not to mention no where near the energy demand?
Most important myrtle is that oil is a natural product of the earth, like coal, diamonds, and steel. The Gulf of Mexico is breaking it down. Just like the planet has vultures, flies and maggots to clean up. The planet takes care of itself in spite of the human race, not because of it.
Posted by: Mary
at July 28, 2010 5:46 PM
Well you can't expect the oil to disappear overnite. Of course much is left. However, it is disappearing and the video from ABC NEWS explains why. Gee, kind of sound like Mother Nature at work again. Give it to Obama though, at least he got his shakedown from BP first.
According to the Houston Chronicle:
Three days after the explosion the Dutch gov't offered to help. It was willing to provide ships with oil skimming booms and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.
The response from Obama and BP which are coordinating the cleanup
"The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said "Thanks but no thanks," said Geert Visser, consul general of the Netherlands in Houston.
After 7 weeks, Obama and BP reconsidered.
By mid June 15 ships were in the gulf? That's two months after the explosion! Sure I'll admit there are 15 ships in the gulf. I'll also admit 30 countries offered assistance that by mid June Obama was considering. Will you admit Obama initially refused assistance from the Dutch until forced to reconsider?Posted by: Mary at July 28, 2010 6:40 PM
Will I admit it? I was the one who threw it out there - I said TWICE that there were two times help was denied. So now I should admit something that I already said? Hmmmm.
I'm glad much progress is being made to clean up Cheney's mess. Once again, Obama and the administration gets to come in with the mop and bucket.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 28, 2010 6:50 PM
Not quite my friend. You said the Dutch had a ship rejected by the EPA. I pointed out the immediate Dutch offer of assistance was rejected by Obama and BP and eventually accepted 7 weeks later. When exactly did those 15 ships arrive by the way?
Cheney's mess. Sure, whatever. EGV, I do not believe in dignifying stupidity by arguing with it. I'll check in later as I have a bathroom to clean and I've already put it off long enough.Posted by: Mary at July 28, 2010 7:14 PM
I'm not suggesting you're stupid, just what you are saying. I happen to be very fond of you personally.Posted by: Mary at July 28, 2010 7:16 PM
Yes, you do take risk and a reasonable risk in my opinion is part of life. Had he not issued a moratorium he could have been putting workers at an increased risk. Transitioning from anything that is not good for people or the environment is not sitting on yours hands. Knowing that something is bad for people or the environment and not making serious changes in my opinion is the equivalent of sitting on your hands. I don't think will ever agree on environmental issues but it's always good to hear a different perspective on global warming?! Have a blessed evening. :o)
Using your rationale myrtle we should put a moratorium on police work and fire fighting.
The only thing BP did was take their business elsewhere and thousands of Americans are out of work. Meanwhile the drilling continues and thousands of people other than Americans have jobs. Believe me myrtle, Obama is not motivated by concern for anyone's lives.
I didn't suggest that transitioning is sitting on one's hands, I said we can't sit on our hands and wait for green technology. I have no issue with it, I just haven't seen it yet. No one else on this planet is waiting, they're drilling.
How is oil, gas, and coal bad for people and the environment?
Thank you for the kind words. Now that I have finished cleaning that bathroom my night will be much better. :)Posted by: Mary at July 28, 2010 8:52 PM
I don't know personally if Obama told the EPA or not - not sure how it happened -most some to concede that it was the EPA - I mean, google it and you'll find a billion articles.
Sure the fingerprints of Cheney are all over this - have you not seen any of the billion stories on it? The very switch that could have stopped it was deemed too expensive by his energy task force.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 28, 2010 9:01 PM
When police officers and firefighters sign up they know that there job has more risk factors than most jobs do. If at any time this risk increased to the the point that they were taking on risks that they were not trained to handle than yes you remove them and send in those who are trained to handle the situation. You do not send in more firefighters or police to handle a situation that involve risks they might not be able to handle.It's called consideration or good judgement. I'm glad you are happy with the way things are going. I'm not. I'm going to summarize because although I like to debate I don't like to argue. Nuclear energy is not good for the earth or people. That means I believe in transitioning away from it. Transitioning that means gradually decreasing our dependence on it while replacing it with something better. I'm glad your happy with the abundance of natural resources we have as citizens of the earth, I am too. Where we differ is that I believe any resource is a gift and should be treated as such.
When oil workers go on rigs they know the risks. When lobster fishermen go out on the ocean they know the risks. When you drive your car you know the risks. Working an oil rig is just one of countless activities that put people at risk. A moratorium on oil drilling to save lives is absurd. Obama has alterior motives myrtle.
Ever hear of nuclear medicine? Xrays, CAT scans, etc? Should this use of nuclear energy be banned?
Nuclear power and oil energy is used the world over. Please I ask again, tell me of ecosystems destroyed by it.
If you believe in something better that's fine with me, but while we're waiting for these so called alternatives what do you suggest we do?
Like you myrtle I agree resources are a gift and should be treated as such, by using them wisely to better our lives. If a nation has mines full of precious stones as a resource, by all means exploit it to better the lives of citizens and to give enjoyment others. Its better to leave them sitting in the ground? We have oil to provide us with energy, go for it. Nuclear power can be and is used wisely. Go for it.Posted by: Mary at July 29, 2010 5:14 PM
As much as I dislike researching anything I guess I will so I can point you in the right direction. I think we implement what we do know about green energy use balance with the resources we do have have and transition gradually away from anything that we know to be bad for people or the environment. The word I used repeatedly was compromised not destroyed but I'm about to do a little research, so I can enlighten you on the joys of nuclear energy. Then we can begin to use the word destroy and it will be more applicable
It didn't take a lot of research to learn about the joys of nuclear energy. I started with Chernobyl. Twenty-four years later it is still doing damage. You can google it though. This is how I feel I think as humans we have the capacity to do better. I think we can make better decisions than the ones we have been making when it comes to the environment. Thank you though for your opposing views because I could not see completely the importance of math when it came to science. Now I can. Have a wonderful earth friendly weekend!
I don't quite understand your point about math and science.
I also did a little checking. Seems there are 438 nuclear power plants worldwide with 61 more under construction. Sounds like nuclear power if anything has an impressive track record for safety. Please tell me of an ecosystem destroyed by nuclear power.
What do we do about the use of nuclear medicine in hospitals all across the country? Could one of these hospitals experience a nuclear accident?
The electricity in our homes can be dangerous, even deadly. We learn to use it wisely. Of course there are still accidents where people are severely injured or killed, but we do not call for stopping the use of electricity. We do not call for ending the use of cars because thousands are maimed and killed every year in vehicular accidents.
myrtle the forces of nature trigger far more massive destruction and death than any nuclear plant has yet to do.
I understand and respect your perspective but I am convinced nuclear energy is here to stay. I believe your fears are unfounded, but I certainly respect your concern. Also, oil has drastically improved the human condition and environment. If "green" practical alternatives are down the road, that's great. You'll get no objections from me. Until then, oil and nuclear are the way to go.Posted by: Mary at July 29, 2010 8:43 PM
I am very earth friendly. We keep our two acres lush and green, lots of trees. We recycle religiously. I buy special filtered water from the store using my own containers, no plastic bottles. My kids laugh at me for getting them special water filter pitchers to cut down plastic water use. I even had to buy my bull headed daughter paper cups to get her off plastic bottles but she agreed to the compromise. I clean with steam, vinegar and water, and a special biodegradable cleaner. Also, I use the blank side of paper from junk mail, etc. as copier scratch paper. Paper I would otherwise throw away I use again. Save a lot on buying paper.
Every little bit helps! :)
Morning. My point about math and science is I'm majoring in environmental and sustainable resources and math is important. I love learning about the earth, I don't love math. For me math is a chore. What I wanted to help you to see the propencity that nuclear energy has to do a lot of damage one of the first things that came to mind was creating a graph or chart to help you see this. Will the graph or chart be done today, I suspect not. But a reasonable attempt will be made to get it here eventually. The challenge you issued was to find an eco-system destroyed by nuclear energy. I was going to be snarky and go over what I read but that would not be honoring a very good teacher so I will attempt to do a graph and would like to do it well but yesterday was finals and today I have other things to do. I will post again when I have completed that process. Resist the urge to be snarky as I have. Have a wonderful day. :o)
My goodness myrtle put your schooling first and foremost. Good luck to you on your finals and your schooling. I know what you mean about math, I could never master arithmetic. I still have to write it all out and then some.
Good luck to you :)Posted by: Mary at July 30, 2010 3:55 PM
Summer semester has ended. Final exam was Thursday did not go to well but I'm believing things will get better. I wanted to do a nice graph so you could see how dangerous nuclear energy is so I did a little research did not find what I wanted but found enough to conclude that they don't completely understand the amount of damage a certain amount of radiation can do. I'll share a few sentences that should give a good word picture. This is from the Environmental News Service and it's findings from a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences. Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor. The initial findings said that only 31 people had died among the liquidators. The new findings are that out of 830,000 liquidators, those in charge of extinquishing the fire @ the Chernobyl reactor and deactivation and cleanup of the site, by 2005 between 112,000 and 125,000 liquidators had died. :( So exactly when do we seriously start transitioning away from it. Maybe we should wait until peoples have been so affected that they no longer have the intellectual or physical capacity to do anything about it. :( On a lighter note you know if you put your mind to it you would do really well in math, right. That's my plan. On a ligher lighter note I'm believing that some scientist or somebody who has one of those lab sets that you can order by mail will find something that will completely neutralize the radiation that is associated with nuclear energy.
I'm sorry the final did not go so well but wish you the best in your education. I had more than a few bad finals and setbacks in my extended life so don't let it get you down.
While these deaths are indeed tragic how many have died in natural disasters? While there is much wailing over the deaths of thousands of Japanese citizens by the nuclear bomb at the end of WW2, nothing is said of the hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens tortured,raped, and massacred by Japanese soldiers during WW2. I understand the most recent Asian tsunami death toll was 150,000+ people. The 2004 Sumatran tsunami killed 225,000 people. That's only a small sample of the death and destruction Mother Nature inflicts on a regular basis.
I'm sure you support the use of electricity. Electricity has caused fatalities, fires, burns, neurological damage, has been used as a method of torture and capital punishment. Do we have any clue the number of fatalities resulting from electrical power? I've been zapped a few times.
Would any of us argue for transitioning away from electricity?
Yes Chernobyl was tragic, as is any accident or natural disaster resulting in massive loss of life. The fact remains that nuclear medicine and power continue to be used safely on a massive scale.
Again, I wish you the very best on your studies.Posted by: Mary at July 30, 2010 9:50 PM
Don't be discouraged about the final. Keep up the chin and the hard work and you will do well.
I in no way trivialize the tragedy of Chernobyl but this happened when, 24 years ago? How many accidents have there been since? Have hospitals closed down nuclear medicine depts?
myrtle, what about electricity and fire. How many people have died or been severely injured because of both? They've both been used as methods of torture and execution. Should we transition away from electricity?
Should we never again have campfires and barbeques since fire has a long and deadly history? Or do we stress the positive of both and practice and promote safety and good judgment where both are concerned? Will either ever be completely safe? Absolutely not.
Like fire and electricity nuclear energy must be treated with the respect it deserves and for the most part is. The same with oil drilling and protecting the environment. From what I can see natural disasters have had a far more devastating impact on the environment and humans than nuclear energy or oil drilling could even come close to having.Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2010 11:49 AM
Oh my goodness myrtle,
I rewrote my post from last nite and included some other things thinking that it hadn't been posted because of an internet snafu. Sorry about that myrtle, I wasn't just trying to repeat myself.Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2010 11:54 AM
You are so patient. Something that came to mind as I read your comments is that if there were a logical, sustainable alternative to fossil fuels, our best minds in this country would have figured it out by now, don't you think? Why haven't they? Perhaps costs are prohibitive, the trained labor force is not available, I don't know. We can't shut down one industry without another up and running and I don't think the liberals are practical enough to realize or patient enough to wait. They don't look at the negatives before going ahead full steam ahead. (Political expediency?)
Look at the light bulb situation in this country. People are hoarding the old bulbs because they will cease to be manufactured soon (date?); the replacement light "bulbs" are environmental hazards containing poisonous mercury! In twenty years people will be suing the manufacturers and boy, the lawyers will be happy.
Then there is the Volt car which gets 40 MPG on a battery before having to run on gas. What will electric stations charge for a re-charge? Anyone know? And it costs $41,000!!!! The only people who will purchase them will not drive them, the car will sit in driveways as green status symbols.
Besides producing metal water bottles (most likely produced overseas) and growing organic vegetables and raising windmills, are there any other "green jobs"??Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2010 4:02 PM
I've never heard of a fire that resulted in a million people dying. I'm not sure why serious attempts to seriously transition away from nuclear energy have not been made maybe this is the promise of the near future. There are very serious options to nuclear energy that exist presently maybe if environmental lobbyists start putting more pressure on polititians or if inventors and businesses start taking more initiative in the free market system this will soon be a reality. You do know that there are vehicles that exist that contain a lot of steel that get awesome gas mileage right? You always bring up Mother Nature. Mother Nature is just that she's the mother, madre, mom of nature her processes work with the earth every thing she does works with the earth even though it may not seem that way. I don't suscribe to the belief that she is responsible for all natural occurences ie. weather. I believe the earth itself at times acts independently of her influence, as does God. Thanks for all of the encouragement I will be needing it.
For heaven's sake over history fire has killed millions and will continue to do so. Entire cities have burned. Ever hear of the incendiary bombs dropped on civilian populations in WW2? Not nuclear, fire. Electrical storms trigger massive destructive and fatal fires.
If the alternatives are out there and up and running I'm all for them. Where are they? What do we do in the meantime? I'm all for turning the free market forces loose, and getting the gov't and lobbyists out of the way. Do you want to fly on an airliner run on a charged battery? Do you want to pay a fortune to run an "electric" car which will in fact demand more energy?
I know vehicles can get awesome gas mileage, so what's with this colossolly expensive clown car put out by Obama Motors? That's the problem myrtle, people are motivated by some political cause, not good sense and market forces.
myrtle the earth has always survived in spite of us, not because of us. Whatever force one believes is behind this I respect. Any notion the human race is going to "save" the planet is laughable. We are no match for the forces of this planet and are at their mercy.
You are welcome for the encouragement. Been there done that.Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2010 8:19 AM
Thank you for the kind words. The examples you give illustrate the colossol stupidity of putting a political cause, and a dubious one at that, ahead of good sense and market forces.
Maybe there are just not good alternatives to oil and nuclear.
Oh and when I see Al Gore and Obama riding in these clown cars, and not their fuel powered jets and limousines, I might, might, reconsider.Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2010 8:27 AM
Please give an example of a fire that was not the result of war that resulted in the death of a million people. President Obama has made attempts to help the country become greener. I believe he could do more but I see this as more the opportunity of the market system with some type of serious initial contribution by our government and then sustained by the market place where citizens and government benifit. There are serious alternatives to nuclear energy. Countries that have their thinking caps on and have pushed passed the rhetoric of the safety of nuclear energy have already made serious attempts to start this process. Hopefully, soon our country will take up the same challenge and if our history says anything will probably do an excellent job of it. I think a major point of dissention is the risks associated with nuclear energy. There are people who find these risks acceptable. There are people who don't. I do agree with you that there are risks in life that's just the way it is. Where we differ is what we consider to be acceptable risks. I don't think nuclear energy presents an acceptable risk and should be transitioned away from at a rate that is sound.
Exactly what has Obama done to make the country greener? Flying AF1 to "town hall" meetings? He nearly screwed up my trip a year ago when he decided to grace my place of residence with one such waste of time, I mean town hall meeting. As it was I just made my connection and only because he departed early. I was not amused.
I said over the years fire has killed millions.
One can only guess how many died when Rome burned, but at least 600 died in the Iroquois Theatre Fire in 1903, 146 female garment workers died in the Triangle Factory Fire, citizens of Pompeii were incinerated when Mt.Vesuvius erupted, the Coconut Grove Nightclub Fire that killed 492 and injured scores others, at least 96 died in a nightclub inferno in Rhode Island in 2003, deaths from fires and burns are the fifth most common cause of unintentional injury deaths in the US (CDC 2006) and the third leading cause of fatal home injury(Runyon 2004). On average in the US, someone died in a fire every 158 minutes and someone was injured every 31 minutes(Karter 2009).
I'll take my chances with nuclear energy myrtle.
Again find the alternatives and I am a supporter. Until that time I have no issue with nuclear energy and oil. Since electricity has caused more than a few deaths and been used as an instrument of torture and execution, when do we discontinue its use?Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2010 6:42 PM
Google, Obama-Biden environmental plan. I was not aware that they had done so much. Thank you. Yes people have always died as a result of fires. Find an example of a million dying as the result of one. No, I know we can just wait and do very little to replace nuclear energy and then we can have that example. Why because we were comfortable and the death of a million did very little to stir our lazy minds and it's all about me, hearts. Kinda reminds you of the abortion debate. Me first, me first, who cares what the cost is. If you're not aware of renewable energy sources that already exist just google it.
Sorry about that. That was their plan. I will see what they have actually accomplished. I was told that part of the stimulus package helped people who were building their own homes when they intstalled solar panels. They were recompensed up to 80 percent. I stand by the rest of my remarks though.
I have just googled Scientific Facts on the Chernobyl Accident by of all people "Green Facts", 2006.
1. Those receiving the highest doses of radiation were the 1000 or so first responders.
2. It is difficult to tell precisely the number of deaths-past and future-attributable to Chernobyl because people who have been exposed to low levels of radiation often die from the same causes as unexposed people.
Confusion about the impact of the accident has given rise to highly exaggerated claims that tens or even hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of the accident. In fact a much smaller death toll can be directly attributed to Chernobyl. 28 emergency workers died from acute radiation syndrome, 15 patients died of thyroid cancer, and its estimated that the total number of cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl may reach 4000 out of 600,000 people who received the greatest exposure.
The current needs of affected people.
1. Substantial material help is needed by 100,000 to 200,000 people who are caught in a downward spiral of poverty, isolation, and poor health as a result of the accident.
2. Help to normalize their lives is needed by several hundreds of thousands of people who's lives have been significantly affected by the accident but who can already support themselves.
3. Access to information on the effects of the accident, good quality health care, social services, and employment is needed by the several million people who's lives have been only mildly affected by the accident.
I'll take my chances with nuclear power.
Please, what exactly has Obama done to create more green energy besides forcing GM to create an energy guzzling clown car?
There's a new book out that shows the numbers were higher than first thought. Keep looking. Google Earthday @ 40 Progressive Fix when you get there where it has search type in, what has Obama done to help the environment. He's done a decent job so for but there expecting more. This is only reasonable because he promised a lot. And before becoming President he was also involved in environmental issues. Guess what President in the last 4 decades has the best environmental record? Hint I think he was a Quaker. Obama's record on environmental issues is pretty good. He's not getting my vote though until he becomes pro-life.
There is obviously a difference of opinion on the numbers. At least we know there are opposing opinions out there and it isn't carved in cement that one million people died because of Chernobyl.
I checked the website myrtle.
CO2 is a pollutant? You better stop exhaling.
Copenhagen? Didn't they have a snowstorm during this conference on "global warming"?
sorry myrtle but I'm not impressed. This is the liberal environmental agenda that produces clown cars like the one at GM.
myrtle, global warming is a crock and nothing and no one pollutes and destroys like Mother Nature.
Climate is determined by such factors as earth axis, energy emission from the sun, and the sun/earth rotational path, not by "greenhouse" gases. Climate is so incredibly complex computer models often cannot be made. Please google "gloabl warming hoax". You'll find the human race gives itself entirely too much credit.
I'm very happy we agree concerning a pro-life president. Best of luck on your studies.
Google, Global surface temperature. Have a blessed evening.