Good article.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cf...d=15719298

Just reading the first sentence,... "FOR anyone who thinks that climate science must be unimpeachable to be useful".....Science is observation test measure ....observation test measure...... in a controlled environment. It is not have a well estimated guess. Yes it must be unimpeachable.

I do not want a drug company providing me a new drug because it looks "pretty good" and I have gained weight so you might get a heart attack if current trends continue. No, that is not good enough. Global warmers want to spend TRILLIONS of dollars on pseudoscience. NO! That is not good enough.

Psuedoscience.. I guess you did only read the first sentence. Or you just didn't understand it. A lack of comprehension on your part doesn't make it a psuedoscience.

Again, I'll stick with Lindsey Graham on this one. The guy who should be leading the Republican party (although a bit too conservative on social views for me). If he was in charge they'd have a much better chance of getting middle America back on their side instead of embracing the insane tea party types, scaring off moderates. Has the right ideas on energy independence, climate change and immigration.

As he says, we're falling behind.. again. Time to embrace the new technology and move forward, it's embarrassing how stuck people are in their ways. It's time to become energy independent. The fact that means saving the environment in the process is only a bonus. Even if you think climate control isn't real, you should still be supporting the ideas of going green anyways, it's common sense. It's unacceptable for us to not be at the cutting edge of energy technology.

(03-24-2010 08:52 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Psuedoscience.. I guess you did only read the first sentence. Or you just didn't understand it. A lack of comprehension on your part doesn't make it a psuedoscience.

Again, I'll stick with Lindsey Graham on this one. The guy who should be leading the Republican party (although a bit too conservative on social views for me). If he was in charge they'd have a much better chance of getting middle America back on their side instead of embracing the insane tea party types, scaring off moderates. Has the right ideas on energy independence, climate change and immigration.

Why do liberals insist on giving Republicans advice, or even worse, why would Republicans listen to them. It is obvious that even if the Republicans did everything that HF84 suggests, he still would not vote for them himself, so why take any of those suggestions?

The left-leaning media lauded John McCain as the sensible and electable Republican, until he won the primary. Then he suddenly became "as bad as Bush".

Lindsey Grahamnesty is the type of wishy-washy moderate that is bringing the party down. If the Republicans had stuck to their conservative principles in the first place, there would be no need for TEA parties. The TEA parties came about precisely because the Republicans had caved to the Democrats so much, that people no longer felt that there was any fiscally conservative representatives, and they had to take to the streets.

Republicans just do the exact opposite of what democrats suggest.

I would suggest that the St Louis Cardinals cut Albert Pujols.

Quote:As he says, we're falling behind.. again. Time to embrace the new technology and move forward, it's embarrassing how stuck people are in their ways. It's time to become energy independent.

The liberal vision of energy independance, involves restricting the available energy, and hoping that we learn to live without it. Its like banning lunch to disgourage obesity. Increase government and decrease the market - the free market.

Quote:The fact that means saving the environment in the process is only a bonus.

Not bonus. Bogus

Quote:Even if you think climate control isn't real, you should still be supporting the ideas of going green anyways, it's common sense.

Hitler used to claim that the farmer was growing his crops to support the "common good". The truth is that the farmer is just trying to make a profit and a living, which is a much more noble cause than some vague concept of "common good".

If you happen to buy a low milage car because you want to save a few bucks in gasoline, that is common sense. As for doing something just for the sake of "going green", you might as well just ask yourself "what would Jesus drive?"

Quote:It's unacceptable for us to not be at the cutting edge of energy technology.

Restricting the market will restrict the incentive to create any new technology. The cutting edge of energy technology created the gasoline powered engine.

I would vote for Lindsey Graham over many Democrats, probably most. I said I disagree with his social views, but I disagree with at least some views of all politicians. No politician is going to have the same view as me on every issue. I've voted for Republicans before, as I've voted for Democrats. I don't vote by party line, I vote on which person running agrees with the most important issues. I would put fixing the energy problem at the top of my list, so to say I wouldn't vote for him is ridiculous.

Re: Common sense, That's exactly my point, you would be saving money anyways by going green, so why do you care what the reason behind it is? It's still improving our lives and saving money at the same time, while lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

Also, yes it was cutting edge technology.. 100+ years ago. Your making my point for me. That's like telling someone in the 1900's they should continue using a high-pressured steam engine b/c it was the cutting edge of technology 100 years prior.

since we're being so short sighted, looks like we're starting to lose ground in the "renewable" arena already.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/25/news/int.../index.htm