Tim Flannery: "That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing
toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most
profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and
they will in?uence every aspect of our life, our economy, our
society.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/g...-savers/print/

"The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in
order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have
to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving
national “energy ef?ciency” standards, starting with a 50 per cent
reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal
for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer."

Defend that one Global Warmers.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:21:35 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Tim Flannery: "That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing
toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most
profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and
they will in?uence every aspect of our life, our economy, our
society.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/g...-savers/print/

"The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in
order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have
to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving
national “energy ef?ciency” standards, starting with a 50 per cent
reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal
for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer."

Defend that one Global Warmers.

So, in your mind anyone who believes we have a hand in global warming
also believes we're taking the right course in cap and trade.

Mind explaining that connection?

jps wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:21:35 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Tim Flannery: "That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing
toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most
profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and
they will in?uence every aspect of our life, our economy, our
society.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/g...-savers/print/

"The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in
order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have
to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving
national “energy ef?ciency” standards, starting with a 50 per cent
reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal
for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer."

Defend that one Global Warmers.

So, in your mind anyone who believes we have a hand in global warming
also believes we're taking the right course in cap and trade.

Mind explaining that connection?

There is no connection, it's an attempt to frame the argument for the
opposition. If they are allowed to get away with it, the result is that
their opponents are forced to defend a position that is not theirs.

You aren't here to defend Cap and Trade, are you?

Kind of a slippery slope argument. It's the same technique that was the
origination of the death panel argument. That connection was made out
of taking a small truth then blowing it way out of proportion and then
applying the wildest possible outcome.

Defend that, you anti-global warmers.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:21:35 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Tim Flannery: "That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing
toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most
profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and
they will in?uence every aspect of our life, our economy, our
society.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/g...-savers/print/

"The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in
order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have
to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving
national “energy ef?ciency” standards, starting with a 50 per cent
reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal
for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer."

Defend that one Global Warmers.

A little more on the same subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:41:29 -0700, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:21:35 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Tim Flannery: "That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing
toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most
profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and
they will in?uence every aspect of our life, our economy, our
society.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/g...-savers/print/

"The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in
order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have
to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving
national “energy ef?ciency” standards, starting with a 50 per cent
reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal
for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer."

Defend that one Global Warmers.

So, in your mind anyone who believes we have a hand in global warming
also believes we're taking the right course in cap and trade.

Mind explaining that connection?

There is no connection, it's an attempt to frame the argument for the
opposition. If they are allowed to get away with it, the result is that
their opponents are forced to defend a position that is not theirs.

You aren't here to defend Cap and Trade, are you?

Kind of a slippery slope argument. It's the same technique that was the
origination of the death panel argument. That connection was made out
of taking a small truth then blowing it way out of proportion and then
applying the wildest possible outcome.

Defend that, you anti-global warmers.

I am absolutely astonished that neither of you can see a connection
between 'anthropogenic global warming', Cap and Trade, and the U. N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen.

Read the Executive Summary to the following document to get an idea of
how flaky your global warming ideas really a

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

And then maybe you can explain why the EPA suppressed the study:

http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/06...warming-study/

or, http://tinyurl.com/ksag5n