Lindsey Graham Is A Democrat In Drag
Sun, October 11, 2009 at 22:05 Just like McCain, Lindsey Graham is actually a DID, a democrat in drag. I would like to say that I am terribly sorry for all of this but I cannot. He is friends with McCain and friends with the morons in the other party. You know. They have to "reach across the aisle". I'd like to reach out.
Michelle Malkin: What did I tell ya? Lindsey Graham signs on to cap-and-tax
I hate to say “I told you so.”
But, well, I told you so.
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham has signed on to the Democrats’ massive green redistribution scheme masquerading as a planet-saving, national security-enhancing “energy independence” scheme.
Can John McCain and the rest of the Climate Change Republicans be far behind?
First, a quick trip down GOP eco-sellout memory lane: [...]
Go read that list. Bring laughing gas...you'll need it. Bipartisanship means to a "republican" to BOHICA.
Gateway Pundit: GOP Senator Graham Backs Cap-&-Tax Bill -- Will Cost Families $1,761 a Year
Senator Lindsey Graham is backing the democrat's junk science bill. Senator Graham is a disgrace. [...]
How about THIS one! CEI: Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
OOPS! Gee. If ONLY I could BELIEVE this one! THEY LOST THE OLD STUFF? LOL!
Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
CEI Petitions EPA to Reopen Global Warming Rulemaking
Washington, D.C., October 6, 2009―In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding.
In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.
In a declaration filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists.
CEI’s petition, filed late Monday with EPA, argues that CRU’s disclosure casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide. EPA stopped accepting public comments in late June but has not yet issued its final decision. As CEI’s petition argues, court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when those facts change the underlying issues.
CEI general counsel Sam Kazman stated, “EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU’s suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable. If EPA doesn’t reexamine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face.”
Among CRU’s funders are the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy – U.S. taxpayers.
> Read the CEI petition to the EPA.
> Read more about the data dump: The Dog Ate Global Warming, by Patrick J. Michaels.
Idiots.
Newsbusters: BBC Climate Correspondent Opens Eyes, Starts Walking Back Global Warming Baloney
How well I remember it. In April 2006, when Bob Carter, in a UK Telegraph op-ed, observed that there had been no warming of the earth since 1998, global warming advocates screamed that Carter didn't know what he was talking about; that he was only "a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research," not a real climatologist; and that anyway, the science was settled, so he (and we) should shut up already.
3-1/2 years later, Paul Hudson, the climate correspondent (at least for now) at no less than the previously climate koolaid-poisoned BBC, without naming him, is acknowledging the correctness (HT Instapundit) of Carter's observations. The Beeb reporter also concludes .... brace for it .... that "it seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over." Imagine that.
As I've been writing for years, "Consensus, conschmensus." [...]
No WONDER they "lost" the "old stuff". Everyone that knows that the global warming climate change deteriorating atmosphere is a crock of crap have been saying it for YEARS but, since it is all "political", the politics gets in the way of reality. Only the socialists "know" global warming climate change deteriorating atrmosphere is "true". Morons.
The Snooper Report. Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly
Reader Comments (12)
Yup, I have determine that unless there is someone better, which should be hard to find, I will be checking that "none of the above" box the next time he is up.
Graham. ASSHAT!
I find it difficult to believe that intelligent individuals actually believe the bullsh.t about "global warming." There's more to it than that. It probably traces back to some type of political/economic support reason. I think some of these journalists might have a story if they care to look for it but regardless, let's take the easy route and vote them all out of office once and for all. These are the same type of individuals that argued that revolt against the British was foolish folly while they received political and economic favors. Let's purge ourselves from these sellouts.
2010 and 2012 will be GREAT to vote the cretins OUT OUT OUT!
Oh goody! I've found where all the crazies hang out!
DIG? Shouldn't that be DID? How can I take you seriously if you can't even get the easy part right?
I fixed it, so there.
VOTE RON PAULLKLLLLLLLLLLLL PURESTRAIN GOLD
Has anyone who's so confident that global warming is a crock actually reviewed the science? I'm I'm talking about going beyond WUWT and Climate Audit. If you can tell my why e.g. Murphy et. al (2009) is flawed, and provide a credible explanation for current warming trends (and it is still warming) that don't involve a non-existent trend in solar output, I'm all ears.
Hint: "The climate varies naturally / It's been warmer X thousand/million years ago" does not debunk current human influence any more than the existence of wildfires due to lightening strikes proves that arsonists can't set wildfires.
Oops- I omitted some links:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_09.jpg
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
Yes. It is a damned hoax. And yes, I have studied the program for at least 40 years. You?
Ron Paul? You have GOT to be kidding me.