She's on record saying that the Democrats who control Congress are "standing in the way" of $2/gallon gasoline by not allowing "common sense" Republican legislation - if that legislation were to go forward, according to Bachman, gas would go back to being $2/gallon or less in four years time.
What planet is she from?
Recently Bachmann had this to say on Nancy Pelosi and climate change:
"[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she's just trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet -- we didn't need Nancy Pelosi to do that," says Bachmann.There it is. It's all unnecessary because Jesus saved the planet 2,000 years ago.
This is not surprising, this "fool for Christ" (her words, not mine) has also said that it was God who called on her to run for Congress.
By the way, I spoke to God this morning. God said unto me and I quote, "Bachmann is a loon."
Amen.
(H/T Talking Points Memo)
aahhhhhh. religion.
ReplyDeletewhat a fun topic.
don't forget, democrats are heathens. we don't have faith or spirituality. that is specifically reserved for the religious right, the moral majority, god's own party.
Didn't Sen. Santorum provide a similar sentiment about the lack of any need for environmental laws (because the Rapture would take care of any problems, and maybe soon)?
ReplyDeleteI liked Republicans a lot better when they were for reason and competence -- in other words, before they let religious kooks take over their party apparatus.
Maybe this is why people are skeptical of AGW (anthropogenic global warming).
ReplyDeleteThis post destroys the idea of scientific impartiality, and consequently the value of peer-review, the hockey-stick graph and the idea that we are being told, in any way, the truth.
It absolutely must be read, absorbed and understood; it is the story of how a certain section of the scientific community deliberately set out to deceive the people and politicians who encountered them. It is the story of how this same set of the scientific community obfuscated data, refused to allow replication of experiments, falsified conclusions and lied, repeatedly, to force a particular point of view.
And cathcatz AGW (anthropogenic global warming)is the new religion of secular progressives.
Global Warming Fever
John K: Oops how incovenient is this. The polar ice cap is increasing. Man those facts get in the way of a good rant eh?
ReplyDeleteLet me recommend the wikiedia article on the global warming controversy. I only skimmed it, but it seems fairly balanced. McIntire's (Mcintyre?) ideas are described and the Wikipedia draws no conclusion, only saying that on two issues he has not submitted to a peer reviewed publication, according to them.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I don't think anyone argues that pollution is a *good* thing, and if we can get a fair amount of electricity through solar and wind power without harming the environment or animals any more than coal burning does now, we should. That said, it would be fine to know how bad coal, natural gas and petroleum burning pollution actually is, whether it just contributes to lung disease and acid rain, or whether Miami is going to disappear.
I think there is room for discussion in the scientific community on this. I don't think Al Gore should be expected to defend his movie, although certainly James Hansen should be. I think it is premature to say one blog post has totally disproven Global Warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I sense that Rep. Bachman isn't smart enough to recognize the irony of someone who claims to talk to Jesus about political races chastising someone else for being susceptible to fanaticism.
ReplyDeleteThere is no irrational zealot quite like the right-wing religious kook.
John K: Oops again. Chicago has had the fewest 90 degree temps this decade since record keeping began in 1930. Man these facts just get in the way.
ReplyDeleteBefore we can even get to the point of criticizing the Democrats for "standing in the way of $2.00 gasoline", shouldn't we at least evalaute whether or not it would be a good thing to have gas at $2.00 per gallon? I'm personally delighted to see that we've finally hit the price point that caused a reduction in consumption. And now that we know where that price point is, the last thing I want to do is to cut the price to half of that level. In fact, I'd rather see a slow ramping up of the price even more, so we can figure out the best balance point between reduced consumption and negative economic impact.
ReplyDeleteTax the hell out it, so that we reduce consumption while sending the additional money to Washington instead of Al Queda (via Saudi Arabia).
Not that either presidential candidate has the balls to say that, of course. They are both acting like pandering idiots on this issue. See today's WaPo for an excellent op-ed on this topic.
I don't get why the right feels the need to debate whether global warming is real or not. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's all a bunch of bullshit, and that warming would continue for the next century even if we eliminated carbon emmissions tomorrow. Even under those conditions, it's still far better for our country to stop burning gasoline in our damn cars. We import something over 70% of the oil we need, and we are buying from people who aren't really on our side (many of whom would be delighted to see a mushroom cloud over New York City).
There are things that simply require the dense energy supply that is currently found only in hydrocarbon fuels. Ships need that kind of energy to cross oceans, and airplanes need it to get airborne and fly along at 38,000 feet. But we don't really need it to drive our cars back and forth to work. It makes far more sense to save those hydrocarbons for the things that only they can do for us, and not waste it driving up to the Giant Eagle and back to pick up some French onion dip.
So even if AGW is a gigantic hoax, who cares? It's still far better for our nation for us to make gasoline more expensive and use far less of it. There are excellent reasons for doing this, even without the global warming argument.
That being said, though, the global warming argument makes our need to do this even more clear.
Stop lying, John K.
ReplyDeleteJohn K: Stop lying LOL LOL LOL LOL So we have had more than 3 days of 90 degree weather in SW PA this summer eh? And the temperatures from Chicago came from WGN, Chicago news. LMAO The facts are only lies when the right says them. Man made global warming is a myth. And Gore and now Pickens are about to make a ton of money off of you left wingers. Curly light bulbs anyone. LMAO
ReplyDeleteJeebus, do we REALLY have to do this again?
ReplyDeleteOk here goes:
NASA on Global Warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
National Academy of Science on Global Warming:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.
Do I need to continue? There's lots of European science agencies that all say basically the same thing.
Of course there's this statistician named McIntyre who says otherwise, so I guess global warming's a hoax
but if ONE person validates their opinion, while hundreds of others do not, they are STILL right.
ReplyDeleteduh.
Climate scientists need to do a better job of explaining that there are non-human causes for global warming but humans do contribute. There hasn't been a lot of openness and honesty about the multiple causes and just how much or little humans contribute. Mostly what people are exposed to is Chicken Little stuff. When they learn about non-human causes for global warming, they become justifiably suspicious of the alarmists.
ReplyDelete