fbpx

Type to search

Climate Change Truther Marco Rubio Is Now A Scientist, Man

Memo Pad Politics

Climate Change Truther Marco Rubio Is Now A Scientist, Man

Share

In a 2012 interview with GQ magazine, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) memorably declined to answer a straightforward question on the age of the Earth, telling reporter Michael Hainey, “I’m not a scientist, man.”

“I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States,” the freshman senator continued. “I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.”

In the 16 months since that interview, Rubio has apparently been taking night classes.

During a Sunday appearance on ABC’s This Week, Rubio shared his thoughts on whether human activity is causing climate change.

“Our climate is always changing,” Rubio told ABC’s Jon Karl. “And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that’s directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity…I do not agree with that.”

“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” the senator added. “I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.”

It seems that Rubio is a scientist now, and a pretty terrible one at that.

What’s changed between 2012, when Rubio refused to answer science questions, and today? The answer lies in the very same interview with Karl, when Rubio acknowledged that he is considering a presidential run in 2016.

If Rubio does embark on a long-rumored White House bid, his first order of business would have to be repairing his standing with the right-wing voters who launched him to prominence in 2010, then turned on him when Rubio helped lead Senate efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill (efforts he later abandoned).

Absurd as it may seem, denying climate science is one way for Rubio to remind Republican primary voters that he is one of them. After all, as The New York Times recently illustrated, American Republicans are just about the only people in the entire world who don’t believe that climate change is a major global threat.

NYT climate graph

Like Rubio’s pivots from an advocate for immigration reform to a vehement opponent, and from a Paul Ryan acolyte to an anti-poverty warrior, his latest shift is just clunky 2016 politics at work.

One thing that hasn’t changed, however, is the scientific consensus on climate change: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that Rubio is dead wrong, and human activity is causing the climate to warm.

And if Rubio sticks around Florida instead of moving to the White House, he may find that his constituents have a problem with his anti-science stance as well. The Sunshine State — and specificially, Rubio’s home city of Miami — is one of the American regions most vulnerable to climate change’s damaging effects.

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Want more political analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Tags:
Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1

172 Comments

  1. 10acres May 12, 2014

    Won’t call Rubio a fool. He is a freaking idiot.

    Reply
    1. mah101 May 13, 2014

      I called him an idiot on Slate (I’m tired of trying to convince people of reality and just don’t have the patience for stupidity any more). However, apparently the editors over there thought that stating such an obvious fact was too controversial and they removed my comment. Glad to see we can at least speak truth here.

      Reply
  2. Paul Bass May 12, 2014

    Republican politicians lying about science? I thought that was a requirement for talking to their low intellect supporters.

    Reply
  3. Lynda Groom May 12, 2014

    Translation: He’s not a scientist, but he knows science when he does not see it. What a rube, and clearly not ready for the big time.

    Reply
  4. Bill McReynolds May 12, 2014

    Liberals like to describe people who question man-made global warming as “climate deniers” in the same way as people who deny the holocaust are holocaust deniers. Total B.S. Man-made global warming or man-caused “climate change” as the enviro-nutcases now call it is anything but proven science. The people who blindly swallow the “climate change religion” are the same zealots who ignorantly worship Obama as if he were the second coming. Of course there is and always has been climate change, kind of like believing in the fortune cookie that predicts you are going to meet someone new and interesting in the future. Useful idiots blindly following and supporting the folks who are profiting from the climate hoax. I’m glad Rubio had the courage to voice the truth and challenge the propaganda of the left.

    Reply
    1. Paul Bass May 12, 2014

      Wow, you know better than 97% of the scientists that study climate for a living? Those same 97 out of 100 scientists that say MANKIND is responsible for this?
      Great, please go solve mankind’s climate AND all our political problems too, since you are SO SMART as to be more knowledgeable then thousands of scientists. BTW what is your PhD in? From where? Liberty university?

      Reply
      1. Bill McReynolds May 12, 2014

        Paul, your PHD is in what? You parrot the 97 out of 100 propaganda number which if it exists at all, comes from left wing think tanks and “climate” scientists who have had to fake their results to come up with acceptable results. Not all that long ago they were predicting the new ice age if we didn’t stop burning fossil fuel and blocking out the sun light. Get a grip. I and I would venture, more than 97% of everyone else wants clean air and clean water, yes?? The problem comes when your leaders who by the way, ride in limousines and fly in private jets proclaim that the masses have to live without A/C and ride bicycles or drive electric Yugo’s to save the earth from Global “whatever”. America has led the way in cleaning up the environment. Your hero’s in Communist China on the other hand are choking on their central planning excrement, Clean up the real pollution, Carbon monoxide, lead, mercury, etc, etc and leave what we exhale co2 alone. Stop cutting down the rain forests, clean up the oceans so plankton and other plant life can thrive and carbon dioxide will promote more plant life and produce more oxygen for the animal kingdom which you do realize includes us. We don’t have to return to the stone age to save the planet and destroying our economy with hair-brained pseudo-science based regulations will only make the situation worse.

        Reply
        1. davidfishman2001 May 13, 2014

          You should move to the Maldive Islands where in the next few years there will be no islands left becouse of rising sea level.

          Reply
          1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

            No, I think I will move to Yuma, AZ and buy some beachfront property when California slides into the Pacific Ocean. You guys with your doom an gloom predictions. . . . The real disaster will be when your hero Obama completes his transformation of America from a free enterprise, free country into a socialist, central planning gulag.

            Reply
          2. Paul Bass May 13, 2014

            Bill you are showing your stupidity. Calif. has strike-slip faults, it is moving north, NOT sliding into the ocean.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

            Here is an article about the 97% of scientists that believe in climate change. This includes the AAAS, AGU, AMA, ACS, APS, AMS, and the GSA.

            So YOU know more then thousands of scientists, geophysicists, medical doctors, chemists, physicists, “weathermen” and Geologists? And these are only the American scientists.
            GO spread your lies to FOX news listeners, MOST EVERYBODY who can think, doesn’t believe you.

            Reply
          3. Bill McReynolds May 14, 2014

            Paul, it was a joke . . . the beachfront property in Yuma. geez. Oh and I think you left out a few. NAACP, PTA, AARP, UPS, RIP just to name a few. You should watch Fox News, good looking ladies, always entertaining and Fair and Balanced. Much better than always watching the weather channel. You might broaden your horizons.

            Reply
          4. Sand_Cat May 14, 2014

            Maybe you should try reality-based news, if you can find it these days, for the same reason.

            Reply
          5. F*ckZizek May 15, 2014

            The fact that you just touted Fox News as having “good looking ladies” is exactly why no one here is taking you seriously. You are exactly the kind of sexist, science-denying conservative that gives your entire movement a bad reputation.

            Reply
          6. Bill McReynolds May 15, 2014

            And I can only guess that you are the Nurse Ratched type of strident, no sense of humor old biddy that still resents that fact that you couldn’t get a date for the prom. Ugh! Oh and far from denying science, I love science and am fascinated with the study of the Universe, string theory, quantum mechanics and a whole host of other scientific subjects. I’m just not going to go along with an anti-American campaign to cripple our economy and lower our standard of living while totally ignoring the real pollution problems in China, Southeast Asia, Russia and South America. We have the cleanest environment of any of them and yet the left wing America haters only want to punish the American middle class with sky high energy costs and shortages.

            Reply
          7. F*ckZizek May 15, 2014

            You’re right, you can only guess. You also managed to guess wrong on all counts.

            I am very much impressed that you can accept quantum theory and do research into alternatives to the Standard Model, which are very theoretical, while simultaneously denying the science behind climate change, which is far more concrete. As someone who is familiar with string theory, I can assure you that the evidence for climate change is far, far stronger than the evidence for any aspect of string theory. I have spoken to people with doctorates in particle physics who take string theory about as seriously as the average joke. You’d be hard pressed to encounter the same disdain for climate science.

            Finally, please enlighten me as to where the responsibility for anthropogenic climate change lies if not with us? You speak about China, SE Asia, Russia and South America as though they are separate and detached places. Who consumes most of the goods from those countries? The Western demand for products to be perpetually cheaper drives pollution across the world. Laying the responsibility for change on others is not enough; every GLOBAL citizen has a part to play. Yes, factory owners in China need to implement change; yes, you can bike to work. Neither is more important that the other. Each person has to do what (s)he can, and that is the only way to solve the problem.

            (On a completely unrelated note, if what you say is true you should check out Brian Greene’s “The Elegant Universe.” I absolutely loved it! But as always with theoretical physics, it’s best taken with a grain of salt.)

            Reply
          8. Bill McReynolds May 15, 2014

            I read it and totally enjoyed it. It really expands the imagination just trying to get your mind around all the possible dimensions postulated in string theory. Just where we are on the continuum of size and what lies beyond the boundaries of our universe? Other universes, Infinity? Interesting to contemplate.
            As far as anthropogenic climate change, sure it’s a factor but is it significant to the point where we need to crippling our own economy and allow other nations, many of which are not our friends, to become the world powers and control our future. Ask the people of Ukraine how it feels to be weak and defenseless when dealing with their neighbor Russia.
            And I apologize for the prom comment, just getting a bit tired of being personally insulted for my opinions.

            Reply
        2. whodatbob May 13, 2014

          You may have actually given the solution to the climate change problem — stop cutting down the rain forest, increase plant life.

          Reply
        3. Sand_Cat May 14, 2014

          Yes, he’s terrible about “parroting” those nasty little facts that challenge your delusions and stupidities.

          Reply
    2. mah101 May 13, 2014

      Nobody is “blindly swallowing” anything. We live in a world of fact and analysis, stop projecting your shortcomings on the rest of us.

      Reply
    3. Sand_Cat May 13, 2014

      Perhaps you’d like to list for us the peer-reviewed journals you persue to reach your scientific conclusions. I know, there are too many to list, but just your five or six favorites.

      Reply
      1. Bill McReynolds May 14, 2014

        If you didn’t spend so much time with your head in your sandbox you might be able to see the light. The climate change hoax is just a scheme to fleece the citizens of America and redistribute their wealth to the criminals running the United Nations. If we had a patriot in the white house we could have less expensive fuel prices, a higher standard of living for the middle class and many more jobs for American workers.

        Reply
        1. Sand_Cat May 14, 2014

          The scientific evidence, please. I already know your politics are delusional and plain stupid. Is your science the same? Why don’t you include citations for your published papers on climatology along with your favorite scientific journals?

          Reply
          1. Bill McReynolds May 15, 2014

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_warming_sceptic

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Garth_Paltridge

            Just a few other folks who are skeptical about the impending global warming disaster.

            Reply
          2. Sand_Cat May 16, 2014

            Interesting, but far, far short of anything resembling evidence, especially evidence sufficient to support your rather nasty and arrogant dismissal of opposing opinions based on evidence. Clearly, the one scientist specified is credible because he says what you want to believe, and the fact that the groups which support him are funded by industries whose entire business is based on carbon-producing fuels and ruthlessly destructive exploitation of every potential source without the slightest regard for human or non-human suffering resulting, so long as that suffering does not translate into monetary losses beyond the routine cost of doing business.
            The one source even points out that “skeptic” is a misnomer, since the “skepticism” applies only to opposing views, not confirming ones.
            It also mentions your level of denial: you appear to fall largely in complete denial, when most of the “conservatives” with actual brains capable of minimal thought have moved to either the “can’t do anything about it” or it will be too minor to notice” camps.
            You referred to acceptance of the evidence for global warming as a religion. In your terms then, it’s a religion supported by facts and evidence rather than a greed, fantasy, and wishful-thinking driven “faith-based” religion such as yours.

            Reply
  5. TZToronto May 12, 2014

    If this is the issue Rubio thinks will win him votes from the electorate, he’s probably picking the wrong one. While a lot of people have doubts about anthropogenic climate change (since they can’t uinderstand either the science or the math behind what 97% of climate scientists have agreed on), it’s not the first thing on their minds. People want jobs and the opportunity to make more money. That’s something they know about, especially when they have no job, no money, and no prospects. The problem for Rubio and most Republicans is that any other issue they latch onto will come right back and bite them for their failure to do . . . anything but attack President Obama.

    Reply
    1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

      I believe back in the middle ages 97% of the scientist agreed that the earth was flat and Columbus was sure to fall off the edge when he sailed west. Of course that was after the church burned all the books and threatened anyone who disagreed with the flat earth concept with burning at the stake. Now we have the environmentalists using the same tactics to silence anyone who disagrees with their latest climate change prophecies.

      Reply
      1. mah101 May 13, 2014

        One: We have known the earth was round, and even its diameter, since the time of the ancient Greeks.

        Two: The church did not burn anyone at the stake for suggesting otherwise – though they did excommunicate Galileo for empirically demonstrating that it was not the center of the universe as Copernicus had mathematically proven (they apologized recently…). It was popular opinion that said the earth was flat, not science.

        Three: You apparently have problems distinguishing what you refer to as “prophecies” from science. I suggest you learn a little bit more about science before expecting to make a meaningful contribution to the dialog.

        Reply
        1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

          Okay mah101, what about the settled scientific truth that by now we would be in the middle of the next Ice Age. Same scientists, different scientific model. Sounds more like prophecies than scientific fact.

          Reply
          1. mah101 May 13, 2014

            There was no such settled scientific truth. Science has been looking at warming since the 1970s, popular culture played up the ice age issue.

            Reply
          2. Bill McReynolds May 14, 2014

            There was a lot of agreement in the “scientific” community that we had moved through the interglacial warming period and were entering a cooling period which just might culminate in another glacial event. The popular culture was probably responsible for moving up the time table, but a significant number of climate scientists believed the earth was cooing.

            Reply
          3. mah101 May 14, 2014

            To be fair, Bill, the periodicity of cyclical changes in our global climate do suggest that we should be entering a cooling period at this time. That is what some people responded to in the 70s. However, even then, science noticed the warming trend, and further noticed that that warming was happening on top of what should have been a period of cooling.

            In other words, we have been experiencing dramatic global warming at a time when the earth’s natural climate cycles should be taking us into a period of cooling.

            Reply
          4. Bill McReynolds May 14, 2014

            Mah101, check these video’s out. I find them very interesting: (keep an open mind)

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-RvUedfKpk

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hob3-XCxdEk

            Reply
          5. mah101 May 15, 2014

            Thanks Bill. I watched with interest and open mind (I always do), and I appreciate a good discussion.

            However, I have to note that global climate is highly complex. These videos start from a position that climate change is not happening and then cherry pick data that supports that pre-ordained conclusion. While the complexity can be quite confusing to those outside climate sciences, I can assure you that climate science understands it better than these videos portray.

            Thanks for the lively discussion! See you around…

            Reply
          6. Mark Sales May 14, 2014

            Yeah but they were the minority then; now they are the popular culture, because their views align with the pols and academics that control the purse-strings. Still doesn’t make them right – if fact, scientifically it is still just a theory. A fact conveniently ignored by big Al.

            Reply
          7. mah101 May 15, 2014

            Gravity is a theory too. Want to go jump out a window and see how that works out?

            Anyone that uses “just a” as a modifier for “theory” does not understand what a theory is in science.

            Reply
      2. Sand_Cat May 13, 2014

        There weren’t any scientists in the middle ages, just lots of arrogant, ignorant morons like you.

        Reply
        1. Steve Batchelor May 14, 2014

          I love your posts…Straight to the point and succinct.

          Reply
  6. Irishgrammy May 12, 2014

    I do NOT believe for one minute this “little boy” truly believes his own ignorant statement, however, is patently playing to his Republican, completely ignorant base or those so in the pocket of AFP/Koch brothers group promoting and “defending” the oil industries! Rubio is shamelessly pleading, begging, for support from these sad uninformed proudly ignorant groups along with “hoping” the Koch boys will “donate” big time to his “campaign”. Little Marco is becoming so embarrassingly transparent in his unbridled lust after the presidency I almost feel sorry for him, ALMOST……… If some/any ADULT that might be left in the Republican/Tea Bagger party that has cursed this country now for several years, the groupings of bigots, racists, science deniers, conspiracy creators, hate mongers, government haters, misogynists, oligarchs…….well I guess we could say just about every unpleasant segment of our society that is destructive and a festering cancer on civility and progress. This misery that is paralyzing our country will continue to it’s obvious conclusion, when the Republican Party self implodes!! And it can’t come soon enough for me! The crazy and hate and relentless attacks on our government, while utterly refusing to fix whatever problems we need addressed and working on those issues ALONG with the Democratic Party, is just too much to suffer any longer!!!

    Reply
    1. latebloomingrandma May 12, 2014

      Grannies always speak the truth. We have nothing to lose at this point.

      Reply
      1. Irishgrammy May 14, 2014

        Latebloomingrandma, I just have to say this today 5/14/14, I live about 10 minutes from the Pacific Ocean in mid Southern Calif….have lived here for almost 40 years….have seen normal temps in May between 60 to a max of 70 degrees all the way up until late Sept. to Oct……for the last 10 years and especially the last 5 our average temp has increased by between 5 to 15 degrees….Today as the previous 2 days and for over a week at the beginning of May we have hit 95 to yesterdays 97 degrees. UNHEARD OF HEAT in my little beach city. We now today have wild fires all over So. California, something we usually faced in Sept. Oct with Santa Ana winds…..I have no patience with climate deniers or those in the hip pocket of oil and coal industries. I have 4 wonderful grandchildren and someday may have great grandchildren, I DO NOT WANT THEM TO HAVE TO FIGHT FOR WATER, OR FOOD OR STRUGGLE TO BREATH because the men like the Koch boys or an idiot like the sycophant Marco Rubio or even worse that nut job James Inhofe (R-OK) who is so in bed with the oil industry continue to threaten all of our children’s lives and futures for money and greed.

        Reply
        1. Mark Sales May 14, 2014

          Irish, do you think the observed temperature differences are because of excess carbon dioxide because some jake-leg looking for a government grant says so? Maybe if you used a little freeform thought and used your granny powers you might think on whether all the blacktop or heat-retaining concrete added over the years, combined with variations in sun output, might influence your local conditions. City folk will believe almost anything, as long as someone else does the heavy thinking.

          Reply
          1. MVH1 May 15, 2014

            Someone else does the heavy thinking? Like maybe you?

            Reply
          2. Mark Sales May 15, 2014

            If you weren’t shooting for snide, the observation was directed at city folk and was intended to refer to the herd following the academics self-promoted as “climate scientists”, because they live in an artificial environment. So either think for yourself or be a city folk. Your choice, no charge.

            Reply
          3. MVH1 May 15, 2014

            Thank you for demonstrating you are not a heavy thinker, once again. Nor informed on any meaningful level. Nor even very good at figuring out what’s being said in your presence. Have a good day. I hope your city is not one of the ones that will drown.

            Reply
          4. mah101 May 15, 2014

            Wow, I like the derogatory reference to “city folk” and the “self promotion” of academics, along with the “artificial environment” comment.

            I’m afraid you are living in a little bubble of misinformation, bias, and a bit of arrogance which has prevented you from engaging openly with reality.

            Reply
          5. Mark Sales May 15, 2014

            Peer-reviewed is just an attempt to “scientifically” describe having your opinion reviewed by the like-minded. Who then is in the bubble?

            Reply
          6. mah101 May 15, 2014

            Are you against all education, or just education dealing with climate science?

            Here’s the deal. Actually earning a PhD and working in a field requires more functional knowledge about a subject than other people have. Doesn’t mean they are better people, or elites, but simply that they have more functional knowledge of a field than you do.

            Furthermore, you don’t get ahead in science by just agreeing with others, we all have professional positions, employment, and different methods/data at stake. If you think peer reviewers all just agree, you should try going through peer review.

            Finally, to conflate an empirical approach to data based analysis with simple “opinion” is silly, childish, and demonstrative of a lack of functional knowledge.

            Reply
          7. Mark Sales May 15, 2014

            mah, tell me does any of the “education” you postulate involve training for independent thought? How does defending a thesis that was either proposed by an advisor or at least agreed with that person against “critical” review by a board with academic egos and their own positions at issue promote original thought?

            As you know academic advancement involves a certain amount of both arrogance and self-promotion; it is politics. It’s better to be loud than right, wrong can be explained away. From where I stand an empirical approach depends on the assumptions and attendant iterations with which the data is analyzed. You need to be critical of both the assumptions and the data, not just the method.

            Reply
          8. mah101 May 15, 2014

            Actually, when I earned my PhD it largely involved “independent thought”. You somehow seem to think that graduate level education is something like extended High School or the first couple of years of college, but that certainly is not the case.

            And as for being critical of the assumptions and data, that is what we do. The nature of peer review examines our epistemologies, data, theories, and methods from a very critical perspective.

            Reply
    2. stcroixcarp May 13, 2014

      The Climate Change report is frightening. I certainly do not like to think about the possibility that I and my loved ones will be drowned, fried or blown away by super storms. It is more comforting to deny it. The non believers should read the story of Noah again. People were warned of the coming flood, the warning came when people had time to prepare, the people who did something were ridiculed but saved. The non believers perished. There is a lesson here. Perhaps the hand of God in the climate change story is that we have been given a warning by the scientists who do know something, and the wise would listen and act. There is wisdom and truth in ancient myth.

      Reply
      1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

        Ancient myth, modern myth, all the same. How about we stop with the chicken little stories and get back to the business of making America the great country that it can be if freed from the chains of over-reaching government regulations and socialist theories and propaganda.

        Reply
        1. midway54 May 13, 2014

          Yes, let’s return to the golden age of laissez-faire capitalism and status quo ante 1937 jurisprudence wherein your corporate idols were running loose unshackled by any restraints, producing defective products many times,and insisting that average citizens fend for themselves in all circumstances, including atrocious and dangerous working conditions resulting often in serious or fatal injuries that were for a very long time left uncompensated because of ironclad defenses in tort cases favoring corporate defendants. I am sure that the plutocrats are all in favor of your opinion expressed in your post. Be assured that they and their flunkies are trying to reinstate their glory days even though we currently are in a Golden Age II Plutocracy complete with the robber barons you plainly admire.

          Reply
          1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

            And your idols are Carl Marx? Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Central Planning with the State in absolute control? I believe in free enterprise and the freedom of individuals to own their own business and operate at a profit with minimal government controls. Yes protect the public from unscrupulous scam artists, but keep needless regulation and government imposed costs to a minimum. When I started in business a building permit for a house cost less than $500. Now the cost is over $25,000 and it has added nothing to the quality of the product, only paid for a larger bureaucracy.

            Reply
          2. stcroixcarp May 13, 2014

            Cripes! Where do you live and what kind of house are you building? In my neighborhood a permit is about $12. Us bad elite liberals are not Marxists, Leninists or Stalinists. We believe in DEMOCRACY. We believe we are all citizens, and as citizens we believe that we have a responsibility not only to our own selfish interests as individuals, but to our society as a whole. Sometimes government regulations do go beyond common sense, but sometimes they do far too little. My advise to you is to work to modify or eliminate the onerous regs, and strengthen the weak ones. In a democracy we are able to do this. Free enterprise that serves only the wants of the individual is a disaster for all, including the individual,

            Reply
          3. Sand_Cat May 13, 2014

            All your outrage doesn’t change the facts, and most of it goes to show how ignorant you are.

            Reply
          4. S.J. Jolly May 13, 2014

            Why would the public support a larger bureaucracy over the construction industry? Unless it was in response to serious problems in the industry?

            Reply
          5. midway54 May 13, 2014

            Ignore those details of real history and the way in which this Country is headed toward recrudescence of those good old days as reported in the press and civic organizations if you choose.. Your impulsive reaction that my post amounted to my advocating Communism or perhaps Socialism in this Country is utterly juvenile and a telling measure of your thought processes. You might try some reading of the economic, social, and legal history of this Country if you can summon up and maintain any semblance of attention to it.

            Reply
          6. MVH1 May 15, 2014

            Where do you live?!! A building permit costs $25,000? Not in any sane place. Reminds me of one of today’s polls, Republicans are more likely to lie than just about anybody, apparently. Seems like some you follow have filled your head with more than a fair share of those lies.

            Reply
          7. MVH1 May 15, 2014

            I see you’ve removed the most ridiculous parts of your post, like a building permit costing $25,000. Too rich even for you, huh?

            Reply
          8. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            Not ridiculous, just too complicated for this audience. But if you want to figure it out here it is. (based on a $500,000. custom home plus lot) and here are the links.

            http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=61647

            http://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Development%20Services/DSD-Fees.pdf

            http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=63408

            and this is in Arizona, not San Francisco or New York.
            Basic building permit: $5,782. (3,500 sq.ft-Living, 5,500 under roof.(porches, garage, etc)
            Plan Check: $1,826.
            1″ water meter fee: $8,480.
            Impact fee: $5,478.
            and depending on location, this would be a typical home in the foothills, you will have hillside development zone fees, overlay zone fees, soil study fees, sewer hook-up fees or septic system fees and god forbid you have any changes, you will have plan change fees and the costs just go on and on and you still have to pay for labor and materials in addition to contractor, engineering and Architectural fees.
            Welcome to the real world.

            Reply
          9. itsfun May 13, 2014

            Do you mean the age when people worked and actually earned what they have. Do you mean the age where America was the number 1 country in the world because of the workers? Do you mean the age when America was actually respected by others in the world? Do you mean the age when America didn’t have more people on food stamps then the entire population of Spain. Do you mean the age when people could actually believe their President?

            Reply
          10. MVH1 May 15, 2014

            I agree right up to “believe their President.” I do believe this president. Misstatements do not constitute lying no matter how you twist it and torture it.

            Reply
          11. itsfun May 15, 2014

            How many times did Obama misspeak the word you can keep your doctor and your health plan?

            Reply
          12. Irishgrammy May 15, 2014

            A little reality check itsfun….I assume you have fun by spreading misinformation………#1 The Insurance industry regularly changes up plans especially when it is employer provided plans to where you have to pick a new doctor…this IS NOT unusual and has been happening for over 30+ years, news flash!!!!!! #2 The plans that are having to be replaced are inferior health plans created by the insurance companies that are worthless, cover almost nothing with outrageous deductibles and co-pays and are basically money to the insurance company with almost no pay-out, i.e., a continuing revenue source for insurance companies for absolutely NO value……with the ACA companies now have to provide a real product with value and certain criteria for coverage and for very reasonable premiums…….I know these facts are so hard to swallow for haters of the President like you, but as they say, “Handle it, get informed and take a deep breath, the ACA is here to stay and is saving lives” !!!!!!!

            Reply
          13. itsfun May 15, 2014

            Didn’t realize you are the know all of what is and what is not a good health care plan. The ACA may have another supreme court challenge. It seems the constitution says tax bills (revenue makers) must originate in the house, not the senate. Seeing as how the supreme court says the obamacare tax is a tax, it may not pass that challenge.

            Reply
          14. Irishgrammy May 15, 2014

            After reading your many posts on this subject, I have one question, has YOUR insurance changed in any way or are you on a policy provided by the ACA…..and have you had to find a new doctor. And is he an inferior doctor. Or are you just pushing Fox Noise talking points???????? I know people who have health insurance for the first time in their lives that they can afford it, for many reasons, the majority because they had pre-existing illness and were deemed un-insurable by INSURANCE COMPANIES. Now if you are a hateful troll and you think those human beings should just die or live painful lives with shortened life spans because they are not rolling in the bucks, well, all I can say is shame on you, but I guess hating the ACA because you hate the President goes with your kind of irrational thought process…….as far as incessant legal attacks on

            Reply
          15. itsfun May 15, 2014

            I have always said everyone should have access to health care. I also have always said that someone with a existing condition should be given the best care possible, but I don’t think private insurance companies should be forced to insure people with per-existing conditions. Those folks should be given health care either through medicaid or medicare. This is a case where the government does have a place in healthcare. How can one expect a private company to insure a person that is already sick with a terrible condition. They would be losing money on that and they are not in business to go broke. We as a society should take care of our folks with terrible sickness and do what we can to care for and hopefully cure them.

            I have 3 friends that lost their insurance and doctors because of the obamacare tax, and now all 3 are paying more for their coverage. They all hate it. Why did Obama have to lie to them about keeping their doctors and plans?

            I used to respect Obama and said he was the American dream. He came from nothing to be the President of the United States. I don’t agree with his political views. Now, I have lost all respect for him as a man. He lied to get the healthcare plan passed. The emails that have come to surface in the last few days, prove he has lied about Benghazi and the IRS scandal. I expect (no I demand honesty from my President) honesty from the President. Now I don’t believe a word he says. He draws a red line, then he didn’t draw a red line. He still blames everyone he can for his failures. I just don’t have any use for a liar.

            Reply
          16. Irishgrammy May 15, 2014

            I am done, when you put up the Benghazi or IRS crap that’s it. I have followed and read every/all reporting on Benghazi by those WITHOUT an agenda, no one lied least of all the President this was an opportunistic terrorist attack at a time when Muslims were rioting and protesting across the Middle East, to ALL, that is all except the Republican propaganda arm of the GOP, Fox Noise all in the name of politics for 2014 and 2016……

            http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

            I know EXACTLY what this was and your comments prove your bias in total and your complete ignorance of factual information….. And BTW, I really don’t believe ANY OF WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT “supporting Obama” BS or the stories of your 3 .”friends”…………If your 3 “friends” were paying a tax, it’s because they did not want to buy their own insurance and were being charged a penalty for going uninsured!!!!!!! Or they are lying for some inexplicable reason……and BTW, WHY should society pay for an accident or illness these 3 will want taken care of because they took it upon themselves to go without health insurance…..stupid. Might be some intellectual dishonesty going on here!!! .

            If you are soooooo offended by what you call Obama’s “lie” on a stupidly inane comment on keeping or not keeping your doctor or poor health plan, when the ability of keeping their health plans THAT IS THE CASE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT THE ACA DOES NOT AFFECT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM other that improve policies and coverage The reality of being forced to change doctors is a fact in the insurance world for decades when plans change year to year!!!!!! I worked in the insurance industry for over 45 years I know how it WORKS!!!!!! You must have been apoplectic when Bush was in office, assuming you think he was the most “truthful” person on the planet along with his real President Whisper, Dick Cheney……the most awful man in politics!!!

            Reply
          17. itsfun May 16, 2014

            Big Increases in Obamacare Premiums and Deductibles Coming in November

            By Edward Morrissey
            May 15, 2014 6:00 AM

            The Obama administration postponed a portion of the
            employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act in order to avoid paying the
            political consequences of a market disruption in the group insurance
            sector. If new premium pricing proposals from insurer filings in the
            states of Virginia and Washington come to pass, the White House may have
            no way out of accountability for their health-care reform folly.

            Related Stories

            Already? Obamacare 2015 premiums begin rollout CNBC

            Obamacare Numbers: What Does the Falling Uninsurance Rate Mean? Wall St. Cheat Sheet

            Obamacare Update: Lots of Unanswered Questions The Fiscal Times

            Here’s How Many People Actually Gained Insurance Because Of Obamacare Business Insider

            4 more companies want to join Washington exchange Associated Press

            When Obamacare first rolled out last fall, the
            failure of the federal and state exchanges were only the first signs of
            disaster. Premiums spiked upward in both the individual and group
            markets, and insurers raised deductibles and narrowed provider networks
            to save themselves money. Millions of people lost their existing
            insurance plans in the individual market, and many ended up in plans
            that either didn’t fit or cost far more than they spent in the past.

            Related: Obama’s Biggest Lie: The ACA Will Lower Health Care Spending

            The
            law’s supporters claim that the higher prices result from better
            coverage, but that depends on one’s perspective. The main point of
            Obamacare was to provide insurance to the uninsured, but the
            “enrollment” numbers showed that precious few of those actually gained
            coverage. The White House announcement of 8 million enrollees turned out
            to be more like 6.65 million
            when discounting those who hadn’t paid their first premium, just barely
            above the estimated 5-6 million who lost their existing plans after the
            coverage mandates were imposed.

            The numbers get worse when
            looking at how many of these enrollees were previously uninsured.
            Earlier estimates put that number at around a third, but a new study
            from the McKinsey Center for US Health System Reform
            pegs the number lower at 26 percent. When filtering out those who have
            paid their premium, the number drops to 22 percent of the
            administration’s claimed enrollees, or about 1.7 million people.

            Most
            of the individual-market enrollments were simply churn created by the
            market disruption of Obamacare itself. Those enrollments barely made a
            dent in the claimed numbers of the uninsured, estimates of which range
            between 30-40 million.

            Now that insurers have seen the
            composition of their new risk pools under Obamacare, they have to
            calculate their new pricing levels for state and federal regulators. The
            pricing jump for 2014 was more speculative, based on the presumed
            demographic composition of incoming enrollees. The pricing proposals
            from Virginia and Washington indicate that the new enrollments made the
            risk pools riskier than first thought.

            Rate-proposal filings
            in the state of Washington show the four largest insurers proposing
            average increases across their plans ranging from 8.1 percent to 11.2
            percent in a single year. Jonathan Wu of Value Penguin
            analyzed the proposals and concluded that the insurers tried betting on
            success, and came up short. “What is troubling about the data is that
            among these insurers, there is clearly an issue with the premiums
            offered in the first enrollment period,” Wu writes. Noting that the four
            companies offered the lowest prices in the market this year, their
            enrollment numbers are not surprising, but their consumers may get a
            less-pleasant surprise by the end of the year.

            Related: A Little-Noticed Glitch Could Derail Obamacare

            In Virginia,
            two insurers control 86 percent of the market, and both propose steep
            increases in 2015 premiums. Anthem, which has 113,614 of the roughly
            170,000 enrollments, wants to boost prices by an average of 8.5 percent
            next year, while CareFirst wants a hike of 14.9 percent. All five
            insurers in the Virginia exchange want price hikes, with only Kaiser’s
            proposal falling below an 8.5 percent increase. If the Obamacare
            experience in these two states provides any indication, Wu writes, “then
            consumers might need to brace themselves for rate hikes in the coming
            months.”

            So much for bending the cost curve downward.

            That
            brings us to the group-insurance market, where most Americans get their
            health insurance. Shortly after the passage of the Affordable Care Act,
            the Department of Health and Human Services produced an analysis
            that predicted the employer mandates and increased costs would force
            “66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer
            plans” to be canceled. That was the “mid-range” estimate, one that went
            unnoticed until the mass cancellations of plans in the individual
            market.

            As Forbes’ Avik Roy argued at the time,
            it meant that the churn in the individual market provided just an
            appetizer to the main course of market disruption that will come this
            fall.

            The White House has been attempting to avoid its
            consequences ever since. They have delayed the implementation of the
            employer mandate for businesses with fewer than 200 employees until
            2016, and pushed open enrollment this fall for 2015 until mid-November –
            well after the midterm elections.

            Related: Over $5 Billion and Counting for Obamacare Websites

            However,
            the steep price increases coming in this market already have businesses
            looking at bailing out of health coverage for their employees, NPR reported this week,
            with the impossibly sunny spin that employers had begun considering
            plans to “give workers a chunk of cash” to get pushed into the
            individual markets.

            Ignoring months of failures in federal and
            state exchanges, NPR’s Michelle Andrews quoted one expert as saying,
            “The technology has caught up with the concept.” That would be news to
            states like Oregon, Massachusetts, and Maryland, which had to dump their
            exchanges and start over from scratch, or anyone who expected
            Healthcare.gov to track the simplest data – such as whether an enrollee
            actually paid a premium.

            Another NPR report this week
            got much closer to the truth of why businesses want to get out of
            health insurance coverage. Sarah Jane Tribble profiled AmeriMark, a
            catalog retailer with 700 employees that has long provided coverage for
            employees. However, the premiums for their 2013 plans escalated 30
            percent for 2014, so they switched carriers and forced employees to pay a
            higher share of premiums with higher deductibles and co-pays.

            AmeriMark
            is planning for an 8 percent increase for 2015 and expects to keep
            insurance coverage – for now. If prices continue to escalate, AmeriMark
            President Louis Geisler warned, that decision will likely change.

            Geisler
            won’t be alone in that decision. Businesses will have to react to
            dramatic price increases, either by passing them onto the employees and
            eating into their wages or by passing them along to the consumer. When
            insurers start making their new prices public, the resulting market
            churn will make this past fall look like a mere frolic.

            Reply
          18. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            itsfun, good job and very informative. I doubt if Irish or many others on this blog will read it though since it is critical of their Messiah.

            Reply
          19. itsfun May 17, 2014

            Isn’t it just amazing if you disagree with Obama, you are automatically:
            A: A listener of FOX
            B: A racist
            C: A liar
            D: A person that makes up numbers and issues
            E: Whatever terrible name liberals can make up

            You are so right about the NYTimes.

            Reply
          20. Bill McReynolds May 17, 2014

            It is truly amazing. Their first instinct when challenged on a point if fact is to start slinging personal insults and assumptions of how stupid, ignorant and dishonest you are and top it off with their top insult in their minds, to accuse you of being a “Conservative” oooooh very bad!

            Reply
          21. itsfun May 16, 2014

            I don’t really care if you believe me or not. I said that people with existing conditions, should be made eligible for medicaid or medicare and have their health care needs taken care of that way. You logic is an insurance company can be forced to give me auto insurance after I have a accident. Private insurance companies should not be forced to provide millions of dollars of insurance for hundreds of dollars for people that are already sick. That is something we as a society should take on and give the best possible care to those folks. Three of my friends did have insurance and were cancelled . they were happy with their policies and are not happy with the new huge premiums they now have. What happened to the Presidents promised 2500 a year savings in health care cost?
            If you like have Obama lying to you, so be it. Just stay in your little fantasy world and believe everything Jay Carney says in his daily press conferences. You should follow the news better, you would know about the new findings of the emails about Benghazi and the IRS.

            Reply
          22. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            Save your breath. Irish and his/her comrades only listed to Amerika’s version of Pravda.

            Reply
          23. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            When you site the NYTimes to prove a point it just proves how bias and clueless you are. Actually, disoriented, you think you are in the center when you are hanging off the left end of the scale.

            Reply
          24. Irishgrammy May 16, 2014

            I have read many of your incessant arguments, insulting with regularity expounding on YOUR conservative ideology and bias, isn’t that the “pot calling the kettle black” attacking a liberal for their beliefs??!!…..There are several truisms I believe, the “TRUTH HAS A LIBERAL BIAS”, as the truth is not ideological BS it simply is what it is…..or, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away!”, or “Reality has a well know liberal bias”…..Just because you choose to not believe the truth with reference to your attack on the NYT, David Kilpatrick is a highly respected investigative reporter! Just because you CHOOSE to believe lies and propaganda, for what ever reason, does not mean the truth of Kilpatrick’s reporting is not valid and truthful because you don’t like the final product!!!! Especially when all the investigative reporting from others STILL bears out the same conclusions which do not validate the far rights fantasies and purely political scandal mongering!!!

            Reply
          25. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            Hopeless.. As a wise man once said, Liberalism is a mental disorder, and here a link for another highly respected Doctor who has come to the same conclusion.

            http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/56494/

            Reply
          26. Irishgrammy May 16, 2014

            Now there you have it you pompous idiot, WND, are you serious…….World Net Daily……really????!!!!!!! If I ever believed anything that far right piece of inflammatory garbage web site pontificated about, in 2008 we would all be praying to Mecca at this point with their scurrilous attacks and fantasies put forward and directed towards President-elect Obama, and WE MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT, ARE WE…….. Highly “respected Doctor” really.???????????? No “highly respected doctor would ever make the comments/assertions calling Liberals/Progressives those with a “mental disorder” and actually be respected by ANYONE in the medical community, with the exception of a hateful name caller like you who clearly enjoys the debasing arguments you seek out to attack those you find so intolerable, Liberals!, Disgusting misinformation and lies that clearly thrill and excite you, you cannot wait to dispense where ever you can……..Pathetic. Creatures like you are the cause for the incivility that now is poisoning the public discourse in this country when even accepting those of a different political mind set are intolerable to you, ie that those who proudly call themselves Liberals/Progressives are not in your opinion even fit to listen to and have no right to even exist, let alone voice their opinions or policies, who are attacked by phony “experts” who reinforce your hateful obsession against those who will never agree with your twisted thinking…..your feeble attempts to call names and insult, to silence in some way while pushing your far right obsessive attacks will never work, all it does is inspire people to fight back AND YES, it will always be hopeless with people like you on the other side!!!!!!!! There once was a time when real conservatives were respected and I listened to their thoughts and ideas, those conservatives are gone and it’s miserable haters like you that have taken their place and have destroyed the Republican Party…..And if you are referring to The National Memo as “Pravda”, why the Hell do you bother to comment on it, just to throw sink bombs, or feel important??? Do you have any idea how foolish you sound…….using World Net Daily as your source of information…………OMG, next it will be Brietbart.com jeeze……………..Congratulations, you have exposed your true soul, I along with probably most of those on this site, which you know damn well is a Liberal site, now know what you are Billy boy……………I’m done …….

            Reply
          27. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            OMG! You just proved my point beyond any doubt. Please someone call the folks in the white coats, Irish has completely flipped out! Glad You are done Irish, so am I. Nite nite, Now take you med’s and get a good nights sleep. I’m sure we have a few more days left before the Gods of Global Warming wipe us all out.

            Reply
          28. dpaano May 20, 2014

            You’re full of it……

            Reply
          29. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            Keep drinking the cool-aide Irish.

            Reply
          30. dpaano May 20, 2014

            I’m afraid you and your cohorts have already drank it all up!!

            Reply
          31. MVH1 May 15, 2014

            How many times did Bush and all his spokesmen say there were weapons of mass destruction? Give me a break. So you can’t keep your doctor and your lousy health plan. You get a better plan and a different doctor. The world will not come to an end and you will have health care coverage and millions of people who were shut out of it for way too long. Now see if you can get that black cloud to quit following you around. It’s most unattractive.

            Reply
          32. itsfun May 15, 2014

            I don’t care who you have for a doctor. I care who i have. Why do you think you or the government have the right to tell me who my doctor will be, or what health plan I want. if you don’t mind having a “president” that is a liar and a complete failure its ok with me. You socialists that believe you have the right to tell me what I can or can not have are just jerks. Have you ever earned anything in your life? How much welfare are you getting every month?

            Reply
          33. MVH1 May 15, 2014

            You poor little thing. I feel so sorry for you. Does what I have dictate how you feel? I know it would make you feel so much better if I were on welfare and destitute. Sorry. Obviously I’m in a very very comfortable place since I’m not constricted and confined like you are. Poor little thing. Bless your heart. Move to Mexico.

            Reply
          34. itsfun May 15, 2014

            I couldn’t care less about what you do or don’t have. Makes no difference in my life. I just don’t understand why you think you have the right to decide what kind of health care I have. You are just a typical do what i say not what i do person.

            Reply
          35. MVH1 May 15, 2014

            I didn’t decide anything about your life, certainly not about your health care. I know nothing about you and after today, believe me, I don’t want to know anymore. You obviously care a great deal what I have or not since you’re the one that brought it up in such a rage, accusing me of being on welfare and/or not earning anything. How ridiculous is that? You are so off base on what my comments were about, it’s truly mystifying what generated the comments you made and instead you just burp up all your rage and hate. I’m sorry things aren’t going your way. I like for people to get what they want and need. It makes for much nicer people who aren’t so angry they spill their vileness all over everybody else and can’t discuss anything with any bit of reasonable thought.

            Reply
          36. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            Very patronizing don’t you think? You’d make a great nurse in a mental hospital. Or a patient. . . It’s exactly people like you that rise to the top like scum in a socialist system. Maybe you can get appointed to the “death panel”, I mean, “medical review board”, that will make all those end of life decisions for everyone.

            Reply
          37. dpaano May 20, 2014

            Interesting…..I kept MY doctor and MY health plan with ACA…..not sure what exactly you mean, but then again, you never really take the time to research anything, do you?

            Reply
          38. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan, the average family will see their annual healthcare costs go down by over $2,500. with the “Affordable Care Act”, there’s not a smidgen of deception in the story offered by the White House regarding Benghazi, NSA is not spying on American citizens, IRS is not targeting conservative groups & tax payers or it’s just a couple rogue agents in Cincy, Al Qaeda is defeated and on the run, the Mexican border is secure. Kind of like “The Kings New Clothes” if you’re old enough to remember the story. Everyone trying to show how intelligent they are by believing the lies.

            Reply
        2. S.J. Jolly May 13, 2014

          What, you see NO problems with letting the conservative oligarchs run free — free of any effective government restraints on their business and industrial activities, free to massively fund efforts to impose libertarian theories and propaganda?
          Note: I’m not advocating denying the Koch bothers, et al, freedom of speech, buy why should they get to use rock concert-grade sound systems, when everyone else uses unaided voice (allegorically speaking)?

          Reply
          1. Bill McReynolds May 15, 2014

            I certainly don’t have a rock concert-grade sound system, just voicing my opinion on this little ol’ blog. Also, I don’t know any conservative oligarchs, I thought most were liberals like the Kennedy’s, George Soros, Jay Rockefeller, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and even Oprah, not to mention all the filthy rich movie stars in Hollywood. What do we have, the Koch brothers and poor ol’ Mitt Romney. Together with 95% of the mass media the liberal point of view has plenty of exposure, so stop whining. Good solid conservative principles are what this country needs much more of. How about we get out of debt by 2020 instead of adding another 10+ trillion.

            Reply
          2. MVH1 May 15, 2014

            Oh, please. Why leave out Adelson? Why leave out the Chambers of Commerce? If you think you’re under-represented, you are woefully uninformed or some kind of hybrid ostrich.

            Reply
          3. MVH1 May 16, 2014

            Your life is filled with hatred.

            Reply
          4. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            Now don’t accuse me of hate speech. That and calling someone a racist are the two favorite methods you lib’s use to try and silence free speech. I think you are just voicing what you feel inside and you are the one filled with hate. Personally, it’s Friday and I’m ready for a great weekend. 🙂

            Reply
          5. MVH1 May 16, 2014

            Better hang out with your own kind, Bill, no minorities, immigrants, women, Dems, Libs, Moderates, thinkers. 🙂

            Reply
          6. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            Just read this article, there may be hope for you.
            http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/56494/

            Reply
          7. MVH1 May 16, 2014

            Oh, my, you have now lost all credibility forever. Apparently there is no depth too deep for you to get something, anything, to try and back up your weird, factless positions. Go away, Bill. Forget the sense of humor thing. You are not a real person.

            Reply
          8. MVH1 May 17, 2014

            My last words to you are I’m done. I don’t engage in any kind of conversation or discussion with someone who uses terrible, discredited sources. Have you found extraterrestrial aliens yet?

            Reply
          9. S.J. Jolly May 20, 2014

            Where did I describe you as a conservative oligarch? If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t put it on.

            Reply
        3. MVH1 May 15, 2014

          Who on earth with a brain agrees with you?

          Reply
          1. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            I can only say, I am very relieved that you don’t agree with me.

            Reply
          2. MVH1 May 16, 2014

            Not nearly as glad as I am, earth worm.

            Reply
          3. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            Earth worm, now don’t you think that is hitting below the belt. Naughty, naughty,,,

            Reply
          4. MVH1 May 16, 2014

            Aha, you have a sense of humor. Not a bad thing.

            Reply
    3. MVH1 May 15, 2014

      I feel exactly the way about this you have so eloquently expressed. Thanks for covering the territory on this one.

      Reply
  7. latebloomingrandma May 12, 2014

    I know politicians of all persuasions engage in hyperbole and spin. But it seems as though to be a Republican running for federal office, one has to practically sell their very soul. It’s not worth it, Marco. THEY are not worth it.

    Reply
  8. Grannysmovin May 13, 2014

    Someone should tell Rubio his Political Science Degree didn’t mean he was a scientist.

    Reply
  9. IKE SEMAYA May 13, 2014

    Marco Rubio would rather have the world polluters continue to pollute and cost the American people more money that the polluters can put in the pockets of the Republicans in office. The American people who vote for them continue to vote against themselves.

    Reply
  10. Ford Truck May 13, 2014

    Rubio says: “I’m not a scientist, man……. “I can tell you what the Bible says.” Typical, when you are too damn stupid to understand science, turn to religion.

    Reply
    1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

      Global Warming “now climate change” is a religion. Everyone put a little propeller on their beany and generate their own electricity. Talk about ignorance!

      Reply
      1. mah101 May 13, 2014

        Please, do tell us about ignorance. You seem to have some experience with it.

        Reply
        1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

          Hummm. matr101, that’s a strange name, where are you from?? Yes ignorance. I once was lost but now I’m found, I once was ignorant but now enlightened! Look outside, perfect weather and a beautiful day, think I’ll go for a bike ride and get some fresh air.

          Reply
          1. mah101 May 13, 2014

            Hardly enlightened, especially with your silly weather reference in a debate about climate.

            Reply
          2. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

            Watch out mah101, I’m starting to like you.

            Reply
          3. mah101 May 13, 2014

            How could you not!

            Reply
          4. rome44 May 13, 2014

            The subject is climate change not todays weather outlook. Keep looking

            Reply
          5. Bill McReynolds May 14, 2014

            This year has been the coldest year in history through May 6, according to the network of nationwide thermometers monitored by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Summer officially arrives later this month, and it better be a warm one if the United States is to avoid setting a new record for its coldest year ever.

            Reply
      2. Mortalc01l May 14, 2014

        So, the 97% of PhD. scientist are wrong says random Internet dude # 7,567,432 Oh pray tell, when will you be collecting your Nobel prize for science for disproving all the actual experts?

        I mean someone who’s as OBVIOUSLY intelligent as you, should be able to breeze right into any scientific facility in the Western World and sit down and school these obvious dimwits.. what with their Petabytes of factual data and their core samples and their particulate studies… I’m quite sure your case will blow them out of the water; I can see the headlines now.. ” Man who can barely add two and two together, disproves all climate change theory in 10 minute lecture”.

        This is going to be FANTASTIC..!! I can’t wait for your groundbreaking theory on aerodynamic boundary layer theory, not to mention your treatise on entropy pool design and how it affects initialization vectors…

        We ae SOOOOOO lucky to have people like you and Rubio, who somehow KNOW everything about a subject, yet have precisely ZERO education in that field.. WOW it must be nice to be as smart as you guys are.

        Reply
        1. rome44 May 14, 2014

          You don’t give Bill enough credit he can make his presentation in less than 2 minutes with the old adage “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit.

          Reply
        2. Mark Sales May 14, 2014

          Ooooh you’re so academic sounding. Please tell me all about the global warming effects of water vapor and volcanic ash. Why don’t we focus on the eco-loons’ next cause celeb already?

          Reply
          1. Mortalc01l May 14, 2014

            A nice, fact free, content free retort. I see you addressed precisely NONE of the points I raised. I assume you are also one of the rocket scientists with zero actual first hand knowledge of the subject, commenting using a complete lack of fact, data, subject specific education.

            I have to hand it to you guys, you certainly have a high opinion of your intelligence, given your ability to create what you think is fact, but is instead UNINFORMED PERSONAL OPINION.

            I would be FASCINATED to hear you opine on the torsional rigidity of grade 7 autoclave carbon fiber vs. Extruded titanium in aerospace use, because I guarantee you know as much about THAT as you actually know about climate science.

            Thanks for proving my point so effectively.

            Reply
          2. Mark Sales May 15, 2014

            Actually your post is entertaining gibberish so, if your position is that really thinking for yourself constitutes “uninformed personal opinion” and continue to defer to official “climate scientists”, then your point is indeed well made.

            Reply
          3. Mortalc01l May 15, 2014

            And so it continues; a Man who knows nothing about the subject he is pontificating about, spews unrelated tripe with no evidence or substance to support his personal uninformed opinion.

            Thinking for yourself would constitute seeking out poven, peer reviewed scientific EVIDENCE that you could then post as an actual rebuttal of the 97% of PhD. scientists published, peer reviewed work. If YOU in fact had done that, then I suspect you would be lauded and feted for your wonderful discovery…

            What YOU have is exactly as I stated; a layman’s completely useless personal UNINFORMED opinion … you have zero knowledge of the subject at hand and my posts are a way of showing you just how pathetically uninformed you are. As I stated, your personal opinion on climate change is about as much use as my Cat’s opinion on particle physics; he knows as much about particle physics first hand as you do about climate change.

            If I’m wrong and you do in FACT have an advanced degree in something closely related to climate change, then I will concede that you do in fact have SOME real World, actual knowledge of the subject, but you don’t have said advanced degree in ANY subject that’s close to the issues being discussed.

            You can blabber on all you want with your less that informed OPINION, but don’t expect not to be called out on being completely lost at sea when it comes to actual facts, data, education, common sense.

            So glad that you continue to prove my point and to drive home the EXACT point of the article; dumb people with zero education in a subject seem to think that their opinion will be taken seriously.

            Reply
    2. Sand_Cat May 13, 2014

      Truth be told, he probably can’t tell what the Bible says, either.

      Reply
    3. MVH1 May 15, 2014

      Because that’s worked so well for them in the past.

      Reply
  11. itsfun May 13, 2014

    Just follow the money trail folks. See who is getting rich from “climate change”. Just look at Al Gore, he is one of the biggest energy users in Tenn. but is getting richer and richer preaching energy conservation.

    Reply
    1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

      Amen brother!

      Reply
      1. mah101 May 13, 2014

        No, because he has nothing to do with the issues or the science. Anyone that brings him up in a debate does so for one reason, to smear and obfuscate. When you do so, you have lost the debate on its merits and facts and show that your argument and position is hollow. And yet, whoever does bring up Gore tends to strut around with pride, as if they have undercut any fact and analysis that stood in the way of their opinion. Its painful to watch such embarrassing ignorance on display.

        Reply
        1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

          Okay mah101, just for the record, do you believe Al Gore’s book “An Inconvenient Truth” is based of fact or fiction including his predictions of global catastrophe.

          Reply
          1. mah101 May 13, 2014

            I don’t give a damn about Al Gore’s book. It is not relevant to the science.

            Reply
          2. SeekingOut May 13, 2014

            Bill McReynolds……Do you think it’s reasonable to believe that nature can assimilate whatever amounts of effluents, garbage, contaminants, carbon dioxide, etc., which humankind puts out and simply neutralize it?

            If not, where is the limit of what nature can reasonably deal with?

            If we have to wait until we obtain compelling evidence that our behavior/activities are a root cause and it is then too late, what then?

            Reply
      2. Sand_Cat May 13, 2014

        Not even close, idiot.

        Reply
    2. mah101 May 13, 2014

      Oh my God, somebody please come up with a corollary to Godwin’s Law that says that sooner or later any discussion dealing with climate will eventually involve a comment about Al Gore!

      Please, when you raise Al Gore as a talking point, you have lost.

      Reply
      1. itsfun May 13, 2014

        lost what? just saying to follow the money and see who is getting rich from this issue.

        Reply
  12. CarolyneMas May 13, 2014

    97% of what scientists, or should I say whose scientists? Where is the list? Interesting how there is never a peep about the government funded geo-engineering/weather modification programs that have been going on for decades right over our heads.

    Reply
    1. Paul Bass May 13, 2014

      As I pointed out above,

      http://climate.nasa.gov/scient

      Here is an article about the 97% of scientists that believe in climate change. This includes the AAAS, AGU, AMA, ACS, APS, AMS, and the GSA.

      So YOU don’t believe thousands of scientists, geophysicists, medical doctors, chemists, physicists, “weathermen” and Geologists? And these are only the American scientists.

      Reply
      1. CarolyneMas May 14, 2014

        All of these organizations rely on federal funding. While I do believe that there is something very wrong with the weather, I believe it is far more profitable to lie as to why this is happening and to shift the blame, rather than tell the public the truth. Geoengineering is very real, and is openly being discussed by scientists in the mainstream media (Google it) as a solution to global warming, but in truth it has been going on for decades without public knowledge or consent…and it is out of control. I can only recommend that people do their own research, and pay more attention to what is happening in our skies. I believe that geoengineering awareness among the public will greatly increase in the next couple of years as things spiral even further out of control. Here is a good place to start, for those who are interested. http://www.zengardner.com/covert-geoengineering-insanity-true-source-climate-change/

        Reply
  13. midway54 May 13, 2014

    Rubio is a shameless, opportunistic hack who deserves to be voted out of office in his next election cycle. He and Scott and the crackpot West were all elected thanks to the ignorant teabaggers and rednecks so plentiful in Florida….especially in the region north of Interstate 4. Traveling around in that place is the equivalent of enduring a trip through Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia. Mercifully, because of a boundaries change in the District, West was tossed. However, he shows up on Fox “News” currently, where he decidedly belongs.

    Reply
    1. Bill McReynolds May 13, 2014

      My, aren’t we the proud elitist! Princeton, Harvard, American Beauty Academy? You have obviously drank a large dose of liberal cool-aid and most likely are beyond all hope or reason. Suffice it to say, Al Gore is you man and common sense a foreign concept.

      Reply
      1. Paul Bass May 13, 2014

        University of Chicago is HARDLY the American Beauty Academy! Yea, all those Nobel Prize winners only study Cosmetics.
        Bill you are showing what a tool you are, and yes I have a BS and Masters, so what was your PhD in?

        Reply
      2. midway54 May 13, 2014

        Nothing in there worth the time to reply. However, I will say that I rarely have “drank” Kool Aid of any variety

        Reply
  14. Bob Williams May 13, 2014

    On the chart shown with the article, only 25 percent of the Republicans are concerned about Climate Change, while 65 percent of the Democrats are concerned about it. The one bar they left off the chart is that 99 percent of Idiots are concerned about Climate Change, while only 97 percent of Idiots are concerned about the sky falling.

    As far as Marco Rubio is concerned, I don’t know if he has any scientific training, but I do know that Obama has none. Oh, wait! Obama has sealed all of his educational records, so nobody knows exactly what kind of education he has. I’m betting that he took Socialism 101, but we will never know on that.

    Reply
    1. midway54 May 13, 2014

      Yes, it’s a real plot involving Columbia and Harvard and especially the faculty at the University of Chicago as well as all the necessary personnel actively to accomplish it. I have yet to find in any curriculum a course titled Socialism 101. Brilliant post from you.

      Reply
    2. Paul Bass May 13, 2014

      Again, an outright lie by a troll.

      http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

      SO, no, Obama has NOT “sealed” his records. Go peddle your lies elsewhere.

      Reply
      1. Bill McReynolds May 14, 2014

        He was born in Kenya and raised by communists, what else is there to know.

        Reply
        1. Paul Bass May 14, 2014

          OK, Bill, This I can believe is a joke! Especially since it is well documented Barack was born in Hawaii and raised by a middle class WHITE grandmother! You have a great day.

          Reply
        2. Sand_Cat May 14, 2014

          And that’s obviously about the sum total of your “knowledge.”

          Reply
  15. mah101 May 13, 2014

    The science is settled, the Earth’s climate has changed and is changing outside of normal variability (yes, we know what that variability is). Though there is plenty of debate IN science about details (that is how science works, folks), there is consensus around the basic conclusions. Our climate has changed and is changing further.

    The debate now is about what we do about this established fact. When you bury your head in the sand, or–as Rubio has done–pander to those who do, you become irrelevant to the discussion going forward.

    So here’s the deal. Addressing climate change is about US, not saving the planet. Earth will be just fine, but we won’t. A changing climate has serious consequences on political stability, global hunger, population movements, economies, and a number of other social issues that must be anticipated, alleviated, or for which we must prepare.

    Climate change is also an economic opportunity. Those that cast it as dangerous to our economy only try to protect monied special interests, rather than see and promote the opportunities for growth that a response to climate change may provide.

    So those that deny, simply aren’t relevant to the debate other than stifling innovation and growth, while preventing us from preparing for real problems and issues. Lets rise above the ignorance and move forward.

    Reply
    1. SeekingOut May 13, 2014

      The questions I ask Climate change deniers are:

      Do you think it’s reasonable to believe that nature can assimilate whatever amounts of effluents, garbage, contaminants, carbon dioxide, etc., which humankind puts out and simply neutralize it?

      If not, where is the limit of what nature can reasonably deal with?

      If we have to wait until we obtain compelling evidence that our behavior/activities are a root cause and it is then too late, what then?

      Reply
      1. Bill McReynolds May 14, 2014

        Just insist that the rest of the world come up to the same clean air & water standards that we have in America. Problem solved.

        Reply
        1. Steve Batchelor May 14, 2014

          That would work but won’t be a viable response if the RightWing idiots are elected and get their way of small Gov’t…One of their first cuts would be the EPA..

          Reply
          1. Bill McReynolds May 15, 2014

            Steve, read some of the other posts, I am a RightWing idiot. Just about everyone here has said as much. I believe America would be better off with a smaller bureaucracy and lower government spending. I do think America should maintain a strong military to keep our adversaries from believing they might be able to win if they start a war with us, We can maintain a campaign against Al Qaeda with intelligence and surgical strikes without a massive military presence on the ground and we can let Russia and China know in no uncertain terms that going to war with the United States is still a losing proposition.
            And the big one, I don’t accept man-made global warming as “settled science”. There are too many variables involved in global climate changes, many of which we do not fully understand, to predict with any degree of certainty that the atmosphere is getting warmer on a continuing basis because of human activity. With Solar radiation and magnetic variations, orbital variations, earth’s magnetic field variations and a multitude of other atmospheric variables, it’s possible we may experience a global cooling cycle before the next warming of the atmosphere. Bottom line is nobody knows for sure and it makes no sense to cripple the economy by cutting off our carbon based energy supply just on the off chance we might influence the average temperature by a degree or two.

            Reply
          2. Steve Batchelor May 15, 2014

            Bill…I’ll agree with you that we need smaller gov’t but where to start cutting. If you listen to Rand Paul and Paul Ryan all they want to do is cut everything for the poor and give more subsidies to the 1%. They’re both dumber than a box of rocks just like every other Right Winger.
            Our Military complex is a major reason our economy is the way it is…We spend more on our military than the next 13 countries combined and every one of those countries are allies. We could cut the military in half…Come up with better management, a progressive approach, and tactics and still be the best. Another thing would to be is to keep Congress(both parties) out of their way because most of the time it’s the lobbyist’s pushing for more and more that adds to our military expenditures.
            I agree that it is the biggest one,”THE DEATH OF OUR PLANET”. Got a good question for ya…With all of the pollution, in the air,on land and in our oceans, is that not man made? Not saying the scientists are 100% correct but what if they are….Do we procrastinate and wait until it’s too late to do anything or do we take proactive measures to assure that our grandchildren and great grandchildren have air to breath, water to drink and food to eat? If you actually read what Oceanic scientists have said you might be alarmed. I don’t know. If it was up to me I’d say go back to the horse and scrap the car and too hell with all the oil…All the Arabs can choke on it for all I care.

            Reply
          3. Bill McReynolds May 16, 2014

            Gee Steve, I don’t know where to start. You obviously believe you are way smarter than anyone who disagrees with your politics and I do, so what can a monkey say to a philosopher that will be meaningful? You do know that “progressive” is now code for communist or radical left-wing socialist. Ronald Reagan did manage to drive a stake in the dark heart of the Soviet Union although Obama has manage to remove the stake and revive the monster. I do believe that Man is responsible for much of the “pollution” in the air and water and Man should do as much as possible to operate his industry as clean as practical while still maintaining a high standard of living (like here in the U.S.) Maybe if we re-established ourselves as a true super power instead of the shell we have become over the last several years, we could persuade China, India, Russia, Southeast Asia and the South American countries to clean up their act. If everyone did as much as the U.S. does to reduce pollution the world would be a much cleaner place to live. Finally, if you want to reduce coal powered electrical generation you and all who believe as you do, should support nuclear power. (no not Chernobyl) but state of the art designed nuclear power plants. Clean, stable power generation which can fulfill America’s power requirements unlike wind and solar. Finally, I enjoy riding my bike, but I’m not ready to give up my car or my house and live in a cave.

            Reply
          4. Steve Batchelor May 17, 2014

            I’m no smarter than anyone else…But if you think that we can right this country without using progressive action, and for you to say that progressive is code for communist or radical left-wing socialist shows how stupid you are. By that statement I can see you have been riveted to what Beck,Limbaugh,Hannity and all the other nutjobs spew out. Do you ever have a forward thinking thought of your own or do you have to get your talking points from racist, hate mongering idiots?
            I can see that you never thought to bring up my points on your St Ronnie and his disastrous economic policies because you can’t. I thought we were the lead by example country. As long as we sit by and let this world to to the dogs no one in other countries is going to do crap until we lead the way.

            You’re really getting tiring with your nutjob Rightwing rhetoric so do me a big favor and don’t answer. Thanks!

            Reply
          5. Steve Batchelor May 15, 2014

            Here’s a good idea for ya about the economy…I’ll even take a Republican approach…Eisenhower’s…Tax the rich at 91%. Put the brakes on Wall Street and and the banks by reinstating the oversight and rules that they had to live up to until Saint Ronnie got his stupid ideas about “trickle down” economics enacted…
            It worked for us as a nation before and gave us or most prosperous time in American History…I can hear the Tea Turds screaming about these ideas even as I type them.

            Reply
          6. Sand_Cat May 16, 2014

            Yes, we’ve noticed that you’re a right-wing idiot. You show all the signs: arrogant dismissal of scientists as involved in some sort of conspiracy, insane overreaction to the black person in the white house and claims that he’s a foreigner, not a “patriot,” etc. You demand that we keep an “open mind” when yours, is clearly locked up tight and hermetically sealed against any hint of an opposing view, regardless of whether it’s supported by facts of evidence.

            Reply
  16. Sand_Cat May 13, 2014

    Well, at least he isn’t denying that climate changes are taking place. Better than most of our troll friends.

    Reply
  17. rome44 May 13, 2014

    I heard Rubio’s interview and I noticed his mouth runs ahead of his brain. I was stunned like the rest of you he is more concerned about the “Economy” than he is about ecology. I have a question for this buffoon, of what good is the economy if we destroy our planet in the process ? In the very least injure our health. Lets not let this guy anywhere near the White House.

    Reply
    1. SeekingOut May 13, 2014

      The questions I ask climate change deniers are:
      Do you think it’s reasonable to believe that nature can assimilate whatever amounts of effluents, garbage, contaminants, carbon dioxide, etc., which humankind puts out and simply neutralize it?

      If not, where is the limit of what nature can reasonably deal with?

      If we have to wait until we obtain compelling evidence that our behavior/activities are a root cause and it is then too late, what then?

      Reply
  18. BenAround May 13, 2014

    You don’t have to be a scientist to do the 3rd grade math on the effectiveness of climate change legislation. Even if all of the claims about anthropogenic climate change are true–which even the government funded scientists can’t confirm–the math is pretty simple. Just take the greenhouse gas output of the rest of the world and divide it into the U.S. output to determine the impact of cutting off the greenhouse gas production of the U.S. entirely. That is the “green” opportunity of the U.S. if all carbon emissions were stopped. Now take that and divide it into the amount that could be reduced by all of the green legislation on the liberal docket–assuming that not everyone will give up driving and heating their homes, for example, using carbon based fuels. Also, accept as a political reality that the same people who are in favor of solar and wind won’t also suddenly give up their anti-nuclear agenda. And, since solar covers tortoise habitats, wind power kills birds, etc.,–all of which are counterculture for the climate change constituency–the political opportunity to actually create enough power with those transducers is also limited. And that is just on the side of the equation relating to the ability to affect “global” climate change by changing energy policy in the U.S.
    On the other side of the equation is the economic impact of creating a unilateral war on carbon. This is really simpler math. It is ideologically pure to ask scornfully, “you mean you are only worried about the economy when the future of the global climate is at stake?” However, I know a lot of folks where I work who believe in all kinds of green measures. They want to recycle cans and bottles, etc., etc. However, when it came down to a choice between using their vacation hours (a paycut, virtually) or doing the recycling on their personal time, their idealism quickly flickered out. If someone else wasn’t going to pay for it, then they weren’t quite so ideologicaly pure. They didn’t think it was fair for them to have to bear the cost of their private war on waste–knowing that the rest of the country wasn’t sharing the cost. By the same logic, if the U.S. has to take a severe economic hit for taking a stand against carbon fuels when the rest of the developing world (China, India, South America) is doubling down on carbon fuels, with cheaper labor costs, and fewer business killing regulations, it amounts to the U.S. taking a salary cut and making hardly any difference in the war on climate change in return.
    So, even if the scientific models were making accurate predictions (to date, they have not been), there is precious little that the U.S. can do to change the global warming curve–no matter what legislation we enact against our own carbon fueled economy–until after we have solved the problem of cheap clean energy, not only for ourselves but for the entire planet.
    So, go ahead and buy into the science if it pleases you–then, as a homework assignment, do the math on the global energy economy! I say this with a complete understanding that the eduction of a liberal is pretty light on basic arithmetic. But, it is very simple and you can do it if you really put your minds to it.

    Reply
    1. mah101 May 13, 2014

      One of the greatest speeches in US History had this line:
      “We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

      We used to be a nation that confronted problems head on and said “yes we can”. Your position is just the opposite, and if I may summarize: “It’s hard, nobody else is doing it, and it won’t do any good anyway”

      Besides, you set up a false dichotomy. Dealing with climate change both through government action and through private innovation does not need to be economically damaging – it can actually stimulate economic growth as well as offset future economic downturns and conflict.

      You are correct, though. It is hard. Particularly since so many people deny reality or wring their hands in an un-American display of despair.

      Reply
      1. Bill McReynolds May 14, 2014

        Un-American?? I think it is un-American for the government to institute regulations that force our citizens to give up carbon based energy and rely entirely on solar and wind energy which won’t even come close to supplying sufficient energy to sustain a reasonable standard of living for our citizens. The rich will always have the lifestyle money can buy, but the average person (middle class) will suffer enormously as energy prices go through the roof and daily transportation, housing, food and freedom of choice become unaffordable luxuries. Ration energy and you create poverty. That is Un-American!

        Reply
  19. midway54 May 14, 2014

    Another report revealing this clown’s credibility: http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/fact-averse/

    Reply
  20. 1standlastword May 14, 2014

    I recall a biology professor who made a biological argument that all humans start out like a parasite that feeds on the host until such point when it birthed and then it learns to forage for itself

    From this position, it seems natural that we should refer to Earth as “Mother Earth” because we are totally dependent on it to sustain us–and it follows from the current state of the natural world that we cannot evolve from our primordial parasitic nature.

    For me, all the political ballyhoo about Global warming and climate change is folly–just a political charade: Of course there are deleterious effects of humans on the biosphere!

    What this means is our obituary is already written because humans are hooked on growth and ALL politicians are the ministers of the religion of growth–regardless affiliation.

    So what does it mean?

    Well if we are truly parasites then all we can do is breed and feed ourselves out of existence it is our nature and it is EXACTLY what we have been doing since we came down from the trees millennia ago!

    I’m not an advocate for burning our house down all at once but I do see that we are “condemned” to burning it one room at a time.

    So even Obama (or any politician X’) can preach about growth, pass climate control policy on one hand and sign approval for Key Stone XL with the other hand and receive accolades from all around because that is how we humans roll.

    I’ve heard extinction is more the rule than the exception.

    The problem with humans (especially a certain class of conservative humans) is we think we are exceptional and that is why I believe we will likely burn the house all at once instead of one room at a time

    Reply
    1. A4ffdn May 18, 2014

      very interesting…like your point of view outside the “Global warming and climate change is folly–“…i’m guessing that smoking causing cancer is a folly also ITS THE EXACT SAME THING…climate change, of course, is a natural phenomenon but it is absolute plain ignorance to say humans have no affect on climate…the effects humans have on the climate and the environment are REAL and just as DEADLY as smoking causing cancer…

      Reply
      1. 1standlastword May 18, 2014

        Folly is what politicians do with facts of nature like global warming and climate change!

        You and I both agree (as I stated above) that there are anthropogenic effects on our biosphere and those are detrimental to all life forms.

        Politicians, as the ministers of unlimited growth can’t take global warming and climate change seriously and do what they do (as I illustrated above).

        They simply provide us with theatre and the actor on center stage here happens to be the “putz” from Florida Mr. Marco Rubio.

        At this juncture the only thing humans can do is mitigate the damage already done.

        To use your metaphor we should smoke less since we can’t all together quit

        Reply
  21. dpaano May 20, 2014

    Watched an interesting program on NatGeo Wild the other night about volcanoes in the Caribbean ocean and how they can affect the Florida and east coast coastlines. I know these have little to do with climate change, but all the oil drilling in the ocean doesn’t help. They’ve already found out that some earthquakes in California and other oil fracking states are causing earthquakes that would not have occurred had this not been done…..what’s that say to us all? Mother Nature has her own agenda, and I’m pretty sure she doesn’t listen to Marco!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.