Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki is attacking those critical of a Canadian carbon tax for, get this, attacking the carbon tax. In a weird world where it’s acceptable to criticize others in a manner that makes you no better than them, Suzuki says opponents of the carbon tax are stifling discussion around methods to help the environment. I don’t know about Canada, but here in the United States we call that a debate. And it’s not for the weak-at-heart. Maybe Suzuki needs to learn a childhood lesson …

After having read an article over at THBarb yesterday, I was inspired by a line or two there that made sense to me.  The decisions around anthropogenic global warming have been made for us.
With many other social factors - and that’s what global warming is, folks, a social factor - liberals have demanded that humans have a choice.  The people chose a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2006, and liberals were elated, although their approval rating plunged to nine percent most recently.  The people are going to choose a Democrat President later …

South Africa, as part of their voluntary greenhouse gas reduction plan, is exploring options to implement a tax on carbon to help reduce the country’s overall emissions according to Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk.  While not finalized yet, the carbon tax may start off with a small overall rate and increase as we get closer to 2018 or 2020.  In addition, the country is in discussions to implement a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions to limit the overall greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by the country.  …

As I was reading an article over at Hypisthermal’s site (Read More: hypsithermal.wordpress.com) on Kansas farmers trying to grow food in cool weather, I immediately began to ponder the possibilities of global cooling.  While my blog typically points out the lifestyle changes and tax consequences of global warming, it’s important to remember what can happen if the planet is truly on a cooling trend and what to expect from such a scenario.
Here in the United States, we have the land configuration all worked out.  The midwest is considered the breadbasket of …

Quick high-level: Clinton, Obama and McCain were no-shows. Would voting either for or against this bill hurt them in the Presidential election or could they not take enough time out of their day to vote for this bill? All three candidates are pushing for legislative action to stop global warming. Must not be that important, even if it was just a vote to move forward with discussion on the bill. (Original source).  Only 13 GOP Senators voted against bill.
Read More: www.senate.gov

All this discussion in the blogosphere about the McCain-Lieberman-Warner bill has me thinking about what true global warming hoaxers should push:  a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
But wait!  They are pushing for carbon dioxide emissions, right?  To a point, yes.  But not wholly.  Let me explain.
The current iteration of proposed legislation in the United States pushes for a cap-and-trade system, which allocates so many carbon credits to those who emit greenhouse gases.  Once the budget has been met, the entity must buy more credits or stop emissions.  But what about …

As each day passes, it becomes more evident that the “science” behind what could be the greatest hoax perpetrated on the world, global warming, is not only an inexact science, but one that is contradictory sometimes at best.
The activists of the global warming hoax continue to push for legislation to take your money and curb your lifestyle. I’ve written enough about this in the past so you know this is my pet peeve. However, the reasons cited for the need in massive cuts of supposedly man-made greenhouse gases …

I’m glad you’ve made the choice to spend part of your busy day at Read More: SkepticsGlobalWarming.com.  My site is but one of many in the pursuit of exposing the global warming hoax.  Below I’ve noted some of my favorite sites that either work to debunk the climate change myth full-time, or are conservative-based blogs that include the global warming hoax as part of their many topics of discussion.  I’ve built relationships with the owners of most of these blogs and can tell you that their commitment and dedication to exposing …

This blogger, Beth, has linked to a senate report that shows global warming to not have a consensus. When a scientific theory isn’t up for debate or discussion, there’s something hidden. Isn’t the whole point of science to learn and grow? Even the age of the universe and the big bang theory are under constant scrutiny in the scientific community. Why is global warming exempt from those same set of rules?
Read More: 5ft3.blogspot.com

While Al Gore may have convinced himself that there’s a consensus on anthropogenic global warming, only 56% of scientists buy in to the theory. Now if Gore hadn’t already closed the issue for debate, we might have been able to have some meaningful discussion on the topic. Guess it will take a grassroots effort to get the issue properly debated.
Read More: www.newsday.com