In the Northeast, people are against heating oil (oil is just bad period), liquified natural gas plants (NIMBY), wood heat (too risky for fires, cuts down trees, noxious fumes), AND windmills (NIMBY again, and dangerous to birds apparently). I honestly think environmentalists need to have a grievance or they can’t function, because ultimately everything has some kind of draw-back.
Anyone that says solar and wind is the answer has no idea how much space they would take to produce adequate electricity and how much vociferous opposition those projects would actually face, and that by “do-gooders”!
To all POLITICIANS, for 40 years and counting you have said the goal is to become less dependent on forein oil. what have you given us with all your leadership, more dependence. Drill and use our own, Lead the way in improving tech. use hydro, natural gas, thermal, wind, solar and yes nuclear energy. Stop playing us for fools and give the country what it deserves and tell the long haired hippies to move if they don’t like it.
Um, countrymike, it’s the long haired hippies who are leading the way on thermal, wind, solar and yes, nuclear energy. They have been ridiculed for years, and during the Bush administration, funding for domestic alternative energy was completely snuffed, and existing energy like coal and imported oil was given more tax breaks than ever; alternative sources were not allowed to compete. Now that more attention is being paid to those sources, existing energy providers like Exxon have started lots of new satellite “green” energy corporations to take advantage.
How do you figure that the long haired hippies need to move because they don’t like it? If you are advocating “drill baby drill” as a FIRST response,and if you are advocating unregulated natural gas pumping on national parklands, those are issues that hippies ARE standing up to.
But if you are honestly advocating thermal, wind, solar and nuclear as energy sources on a par with (sometimes superior to) oil and coal, I don’t think there are many hippies who would not like it.
HARLEYQUINN ! Loved your line “GOREBULL WARMING” . Now THAT is brilliant and right on! The left-wing lemmings are trying to stampede the U.S.A. off the cliff with them.
Admitting global warming is true, do the starving polar bears know the difference between a glacier melted by chinese CO2 and a glacier melted by american CO2?
good point, frog. Pup is woefully uninformed, but we know that.
The term “climate change” is more accurate than global warming. People like Pup tend to think that if it’s snowing where they are, that’s a refutation of global warming.
Pup, it’s not only temperature that signals problems. It’s wind patterns and changes in ocean patterns that change the very manner in which water is delivered all over the planet via rainfall, just for one example. Some places will get colder, some warmer, some dryer and some wetter. If no snow falls in the mountains, for example, no water in the spring and no water for food crops. No water to refill lakes and reservoirs. That type of thing.
So don’t worry if you personally aren’t cold today. That’s not really what we’re talking about. Think global climate change, not necessarily warmth/coolness to the skin.
Pup would just love to show us some current science. His sources, of course, will be michellemalkin, FoxNews, WashingtonTimes, etc. You know, from the real scientists.
cdward over 14 years ago
So they’re both singing “You go first?”
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Kum-bay-yah, my Liberal Messiah, Kum-bay-yah.
HabaneroBuck over 14 years ago
In the Northeast, people are against heating oil (oil is just bad period), liquified natural gas plants (NIMBY), wood heat (too risky for fires, cuts down trees, noxious fumes), AND windmills (NIMBY again, and dangerous to birds apparently). I honestly think environmentalists need to have a grievance or they can’t function, because ultimately everything has some kind of draw-back.
Anyone that says solar and wind is the answer has no idea how much space they would take to produce adequate electricity and how much vociferous opposition those projects would actually face, and that by “do-gooders”!
countrymike over 14 years ago
To all POLITICIANS, for 40 years and counting you have said the goal is to become less dependent on forein oil. what have you given us with all your leadership, more dependence. Drill and use our own, Lead the way in improving tech. use hydro, natural gas, thermal, wind, solar and yes nuclear energy. Stop playing us for fools and give the country what it deserves and tell the long haired hippies to move if they don’t like it.
ezdeb over 14 years ago
Um, countrymike, it’s the long haired hippies who are leading the way on thermal, wind, solar and yes, nuclear energy. They have been ridiculed for years, and during the Bush administration, funding for domestic alternative energy was completely snuffed, and existing energy like coal and imported oil was given more tax breaks than ever; alternative sources were not allowed to compete. Now that more attention is being paid to those sources, existing energy providers like Exxon have started lots of new satellite “green” energy corporations to take advantage.
How do you figure that the long haired hippies need to move because they don’t like it? If you are advocating “drill baby drill” as a FIRST response,and if you are advocating unregulated natural gas pumping on national parklands, those are issues that hippies ARE standing up to.
But if you are honestly advocating thermal, wind, solar and nuclear as energy sources on a par with (sometimes superior to) oil and coal, I don’t think there are many hippies who would not like it.
bikemaster over 14 years ago
HARLEYQUINN ! Loved your line “GOREBULL WARMING” . Now THAT is brilliant and right on! The left-wing lemmings are trying to stampede the U.S.A. off the cliff with them.
vhammon over 14 years ago
LOL!
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
Admitting global warming is true, do the starving polar bears know the difference between a glacier melted by chinese CO2 and a glacier melted by american CO2?
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
cOR fROG, DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 10 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING AND TEN YEARS OF GLOBAL WARMING? (Sorry about CAPS, to lazy to fix it today).
ezdeb over 14 years ago
good point, frog. Pup is woefully uninformed, but we know that.
The term “climate change” is more accurate than global warming. People like Pup tend to think that if it’s snowing where they are, that’s a refutation of global warming.
Pup, it’s not only temperature that signals problems. It’s wind patterns and changes in ocean patterns that change the very manner in which water is delivered all over the planet via rainfall, just for one example. Some places will get colder, some warmer, some dryer and some wetter. If no snow falls in the mountains, for example, no water in the spring and no water for food crops. No water to refill lakes and reservoirs. That type of thing.
So don’t worry if you personally aren’t cold today. That’s not really what we’re talking about. Think global climate change, not necessarily warmth/coolness to the skin.
You’re welcome.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Apparently you two, ^^ and ^, do not keep up with current science. But I would expect sycophants (Al Gore-worshippers) to have faulty info.
ezdeb over 14 years ago
Pup would just love to show us some current science. His sources, of course, will be michellemalkin, FoxNews, WashingtonTimes, etc. You know, from the real scientists.
mustbeunique2 over 14 years ago
Hey u global warmer heads, do u drive vehicles? STOP IT? Polluters.