|
They just don't get it...
The administration is working hard to push the anthropogenic global
warming issue in it's attempt to have more government control. But these two headlines, in today's WaPo seem to suggest they just don't get it. On environment, Obama and scientists take hit in poll As President Obama arrives in Copenhagen hoping to seal an elusive deal on climate change, his approval rating on dealing with global warming has crumbled at home and there is broad opposition to spending taxpayer money to encourage developing nations to curtail their energy use, according to a n... (By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta, The Washington Post) http://tinyurl.com/ya29r6r U.S. urges carbon cuts in the developing world COPENHAGEN -- With an offer of significant new aid to help poor nations cope with the effects of global warming, the Obama administration began a major diplomatic effort Thursday aimed at saving the troubled climate talks before the president's expected arrival Friday morning. (By Juliet Eilperin and Anthony Faiola, The Washington Post) http://tinyurl.com/ye2ram6 From the second article: "...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth. Clinton pledged that the country would help mobilize $100 billion a year in public and private financing by 2020 -- an amount that is almost equal to the total value of all developmental aid and concessional loans granted to poor nations by the United States, Europe and other donors this year." Gosh, how many government jobs will be created to transfer all that wealth? I suppose those making over $250K will foot the bill, aided by the money generated from 'cap and trade' of course. -- Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! John H |
They just don't get it...
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote:
From the second article: "...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth. There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. Or, did you think Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country? |
They just don't get it...
On 12/18/09 12:50 PM, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote: From the second article: "...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth. There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. Or, did you think Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country? Wait, don't tell me...herring is trying to convince readers he knows something... :) |
They just don't get it...
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:50:32 -0600, thunder
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote: From the second article: "...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth. There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. Or, did you think Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country? You're right. But at least we're getting something for our money. We should definitely be doing a lot more drilling at home and building a lot more nuclear plants. You've got the right attitude. -- Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! John H |
They just don't get it...
On Dec 18, 12:50*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote: From the second article: "...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth. There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. *Or, did you think Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country? But that's okay, because as a whole, the democrats want to lessen our need for oil, and pollutants so that MUST be a bad thing. |
They just don't get it...
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:50:32 -0600, thunder wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote: From the second article: "...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth. There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. Or, did you think Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country? You're right. But at least we're getting something for our money. We should definitely be doing a lot more drilling at home and building a lot more nuclear plants. You've got the right attitude. -- Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! John H We're getting plenty of rope from the Saudis. You know what you do with plenty of rope, right? -- Nom=de=Plume |
They just don't get it...
"John H" wrote in message ... The administration is working hard to push the anthropogenic global warming issue in it's attempt to have more government control. But these two headlines, in today's WaPo seem to suggest they just don't get it. On environment, Obama and scientists take hit in poll As President Obama arrives in Copenhagen hoping to seal an elusive deal on climate change, his approval rating on dealing with global warming has crumbled at home and there is broad opposition to spending taxpayer money to encourage developing nations to curtail their energy use, according to a n... (By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta, The Washington Post) http://tinyurl.com/ya29r6r U.S. urges carbon cuts in the developing world COPENHAGEN -- With an offer of significant new aid to help poor nations cope with the effects of global warming, the Obama administration began a major diplomatic effort Thursday aimed at saving the troubled climate talks before the president's expected arrival Friday morning. (By Juliet Eilperin and Anthony Faiola, The Washington Post) http://tinyurl.com/ye2ram6 From the second article: "...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth. Clinton pledged that the country would help mobilize $100 billion a year in public and private financing by 2020 -- an amount that is almost equal to the total value of all developmental aid and concessional loans granted to poor nations by the United States, Europe and other donors this year." Gosh, how many government jobs will be created to transfer all that wealth? I suppose those making over $250K will foot the bill, aided by the money generated from 'cap and trade' of course. -- Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! John H I don't know where y'all will get that money (borrow from China?), but I sure as hell would like to know where to get in line for some of it. |
They just don't get it...
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:50:32 -0600, thunder
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote: From the second article: "...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth. There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. Or, did you think Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country? Explain this to me - why is it necessary to transfer money to under developed nations to keep them under developed and at or near the poverty level forever? That's what this is about you know - keeping the undeveloped or under developed nations and citizens in perpetual poverty not being able to develop their own energy resources all in the name of global warming. Why is that a good thing? |
They just don't get it...
On 12/18/09 8:44 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In article9447f5fd-78c4-4463-a85f- , says... On Dec 18, 12:50 pm, wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, John H wrote: From the second article: "...the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth. There are lots of weasel words in the above, but by far, the largest transfer of wealth is our purchase of foreign oil. Or, did you think Saudi Arabia was always a wealthy country? But that's okay, because as a whole, the democrats want to lessen our need for oil, and pollutants so that MUST be a bad thing. What makes your thinking narrow is your assumption that we don't or couldn't, just because we don't see the same solution you do... One wonders who this "we" is that Hate-a-Tosk refers to constantly...is it the group of certified morons? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com