It is striking that his speech, at least the part reported in the Gazette, could easily have been given by a democrat.
McCain endorsed the myth of global warming.
"I believe there's scientific evidence that drastic things are happening to our planet," McCain said. "If I'm wrong and we move ahead with green technology, the only downside is leaving a cleaner world for our children."Carbon Dioxide is a natural substance, not a pollutant. Reducing it won't make the world any cleaner. Can McCain seriously believe that there's no downside to what he's proposing? There are no costs, no trade-offs, only benefits? The Club for Growth reports that the McCain-Lieberman global warming bill would cost America $76 billion per year. This would cost America many jobs and accelerate outsourcing to China and India. Alternative energy is basically a myth, in that it is not a significant source of energy.
A much worse option is doing nothing and hoping that climate change is a myth, McCain said.
He said lessening dependency on foreign oil is another reason to expand alternative energy sources.
Then there's this line.
"I'm convinced the best, most productive workers this world are in Michigan," McCain said.How will McCain break the news to the other 49 states?
Michigan's workers don't seem as thrilled with McCain. He was booed by union members when he spoke to the AFL-CIO. McCain said that America should import millions of foreigners to do jobs that Americans won't do, because they aren't tough enough.
So McCain would increase regulation, import foreign workers, and encourage outsourcing. Just what Michigan needs!
6 comments:
I am shocked and outraged that people like yourselves can consider climate change a myth when scientists throughout the world have ample evidence on it. Of course you will strike claims that their is contrary evidence, yet when the reality those "reports" have been financed by special interest groups and/or Exxon Mobil.
Furthermore you state that climate change solutions will cost the American people. The reality is do nothing politics will cost us more than if we took appropriate action. Under the current system of dependence, as demand along with fuel prices rise studies show that todays electricity supply costs of $1,130 billion will increase to more than $4,300/year. Do you want to continue importing billions of dollars worth of oil rather than relying on home grown technologies like wind or solar?
I think it is time you educate yourself on the science and the reality and quit watching bias media like Fox News. If America wants to continue being a world leader than we must step up to the plate and take advantage of the renewable energy market and set a precedent.
j-lo: your comment contains no specific citations of evidence for or against global warming.
The following information pulled together and reported by two-time Hugo and Nebula Award Winning author Orson Scott Card tells a story good enough that it could be science fiction, and it isn't. The facts it reports are that one of the most critical and oft-cited studies supporting global warming was found to have deliberately fudged data. Please read the entire thing if you would argue that you have arrived at your conclusions after carefully considering every possible vantage on the issue.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html
Meanwhile, this is why I do not support any Republican candidate other than Romney:
http://tinyurl.com/2sewg7
Young Republicans of Michigan - please go out and vote. Young Democrats of Michigan, I think this article sounds like a fantastic idea ;)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206
j-lo, do us all a favor and go to school. It's quite clear you're just running your mouth with no logic or facts to back it up. Climate change is a myth. Proof? There is a great connection between solar activity and global temperature (oh snap! The sun makes the earth warm!). I love how you write off such reports as being financed by special interest groups but refuse to consider the same with that which supports global warming. Can we say double standard (and by the way, I'm getting my information from NASA as well as scientists from around the world). And by the way, global warming research (as in the effort to prove it) is a multi-million dollar industry. It's in the benefit of many scientists financially to say it exists. Plus, it's proven that wind and solar technologies don't work by and large. Sure if I lived in LA where it's sunny every day I might be able to throw solar panels on my roof. But I live in Michigan. Where, for about 58 of the past 60 days, it's been cloudy, cold, and mostly windless. We can't rely on irregular sources of energy for our regular demand. Do I want to keep importing oil? No. But it has nothing to do with climate change. I'd rather we dig up ANWR and get some from home while we wait for a practical energy solution. It's people like you who probably think electric and fuel cell cars don't pollute. News flash, they do. They just don't have anything coming out of their exhaust pipe. But they got their energy (or the creation of their energy source) from the burning of coal in a coal plant. More electric and fuel cell cars means more coal plants until the libs in our country realize nuclear is the way to go.
And Allen, might I ask why we need another story on how McCain's a RINO? I appreciate all you put into the blog, but I think everyone can see McCain's colors. At least the one's who visit here. Why so many people who call themselves conservatives vote for him is beyond me. I voted today. I voted for Duncan Hunter since he's the best we got. But here's a challenge for you, Allen that I think you might like. Compare the political stances of today's candidates to the political philosophies of people who came up with the ideas of our government like Thomas Paine and John Locke. Because as far as I can tell, only Tom Tancredo could claim to toally embrace all of their views. But unfortunately he dropped out.
I can provide ample citations especially regarding how in fact a pro active energy policy would benefit states like Michigan. Michigan which ranks in the top three for wind production could see an increase in employment and revenue by investing in such. According to studies done by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the United Steel Works - 24,350 jobs manufacturing components for wind turnines, 6,650 new jobs manufacturing solar components, and 3,783 new jobs manufacturing biomass and geothermal. Nationwide studies show the numbers to exceed 800,000. Just look at what individuals like Van Jones have to say.
To address Dan's comments about the connection between solar radiation and the earth's warming I have to say that is a farce. Claims that the increasing intensity of the sun is a major cause of our current global warming is demolished by the fact that nighttime temperatures are rising faster than daytime temperatures. Last time I observed - and here is the simple observation anyone can make - the sun doesn't come out at night. THe only plausible explanation for faster rising nighttime temperature is that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are trapping heat in the atmosphere at night. (Additionally NASA scientists who track the intensity of the sun say recent increase are far too small to account for the rises in temperature we now see.)
Trust me I have been to college and see the impacts myself in several developing countries. I've worked with farmers who now experience drought in tropical cloud forests.
Given the risks, ask yourselves this: On whose analysis would you stake your children's future, the Cato Institute or thousands of the world's top climate scientists who have counseled that we need to act now. Just look at the recent UN talks in Bali - skeptics like yourselves are alone.
Cheers comrades.
PS And if you think nuclear is so good, what do you do with radioactive waste that last tens of thousands of years. Oh did I fail to mention that a typical nuclear plant costs 200% more than estimate costs. Sure lets give out more subsidies.
Saying that the UN believes in global warming is like saying Christians believe in Jesus. .. and?
Dan's on it:
"I love how you write off such reports as being financed by special interest groups but refuse to consider the same with that which supports global warming."
No answer to that? To be more fair, it isn't the source of a study that makes it valid but the reasoning, data and methodology of the study.
It's unfortunate j-lo that you did not say a thing about the data collected by Scott Card which I presented a link to. No apparent process of aggregating data, processing it, thinking about it, responding. It gives the impression you are only out to put forward a preconceived point of view while not seriously considering anything anyone has to say. I'll give you this: the study you cite about bolstering the economy of Michigan by bringing forward alternative energy sources sounds good, if what is brought forward is a valid, self-sustaining industry without subsidies. Whether anything proposed would be self-sustaining I have no opinion on (I'd have to look into it further, and I think I will). I'm for alternative sources of fuel and conservation. I'm not for rhetoric that supports the global warming theory without directly citing sources of studies on it (you still haven't - the study you gave was economic) and which uses weasel words (look that up at Wikipedia) like "NASA Scientists" (to be fair, Dan is using similar language). Okay, *which* NASA scientists? Names of studies, authors, sources, links, please. "The only plausible explanation"? - how have you arrived at that when you glibly overlooked the links to other explanations placed right in front of you? (I don't believe the linked article goes into factors of heat at night time, but the point is to show whether thinking is open or not) You said nothing of the material in those links. Zero response. It is apparent you may not have looked at the page at all. Let's get to "the only plausible explanation" when we've explored other explanations and *shown* how they are implausible.
What you say about heat at night has no basis in any hard science or studies which you cite or which I could look at; I'm just going off your own personal speculation. I could offer the same, but it would just be returning hot air for hot air ;)
(I wonder how many liberals it takes to keep any state warm at night?)
"Carbon Dioxide is a natural substance, not a pollutant. Reducing it won't make the world any cleaner."
Ha ha! Straight from the alternative medicine "but it's natural!" crowd. Hilarious. Go eat some all natural amanita mushrooms, maybe with a pinch of all-natural botulin toxin, and post back here in the morning.
Post a Comment