2nd that.

Be green or turn green?

Set up the straw dogs and convince that you're the only one that is willing to eliminate them. An excuse as old as history.

Obama's not the most corrupt. That honor goes to the Clintons. At least BHO has a bit of an excuse in that he was raised and educated by radicals. The Clintons, on the other hand, created their own corruption and built upon it through an astounding degree of intelligence, deceit, coercion and conscienceless evil.

I think it was Joseph Goebbels who said that the most effective propaganda is that which has 20-30% truth in it, because then it is harder to refute by the ignorant masses. By the way, that stupid fossil at the EPA emits CO2 every time she exhales. Maybe she should stop her emissions?

I went to the link and saw her picture - wow! Does anyone else think she looks just like Bill Clinton? What a dried-up, shriveled old prune she is! And, she can take her "low-carbon lifestyle" crap and shove it up her ass! I drive a Ford F150 Supercrew with a big V8 engine in it, and I am going to continue to do so!!! And no, it doesn't get the same gas mileage as a "Chevy Volt" - guess what, I DON'T GIVE S SHIT! My F150 is a 4x4 and it has better ground clearance!

I know - I'm voting "No!" on that measure.

Actually in both cases it is Government supported science. Always follow the money. Apparatchiks provide the reasons for their bosses to do what they want.

The dictionary term for the US government under Obama is kakistocracy; rule by the most corrupt and incompetent.

She expects us to obey until she and her gang get around to killing us.

Just for being fascist ordered to do that, me dino is gonna keep my thermostat set on 72FU year round.
Oh, yeah, save for when I'm away, I've been doing that for years and years. Never mind.

Yep, the best president money can bribe has already been prepaid along with that stuff and then some.

Unfortunately, Washington State is looking to follow this insanity, if we pass the "Carbon Tax" that's currently on our ballot.

McCarthy went too far, but he was essentially correct. The pitiful Harry Truman was clueless, and by the time Ike took over, the bureaucracy was well-salted with Reds.

Not to worry. If Hitlery wins, EPA regulations can be bought, along with ambassadorships, national monuments, uranium, drone strikes, and the point spread.

Most people would be amazed to learn that our learned leftists still think McCarthy was wrong in his campaign exposing hard core leftists in the State Department (e.g., Venona Papers, as you point out). I mean, gee, they did a movie about that, and of course McCarthy was wrong. And it's even more populated with them today than in the fifties.

The use of the term "fossil" is convention, but I share your view. There are other terms, like "carbon," which covers the biofuels but some of the fuels we use, like ammonia, have no carbon (no CO2 produced, but more nitric oxides).

I'm sure someone will point to the 3% as flawed, but people often confuse capacity with delivery. Both wind and solar don't deliver more than 30% of capacity simply because the wind is inconsistent, and the sun doesn't shine for 24 hours.

Oh to be an ostrich now that the inmates run the sanitarium.
But that is not so frightening. What's frightening is that a large segment of Americans take self important dunderheads like this, seriously. Not only are we declining economically and morally, but heading at full speed toward an idiocracy.

The sun cycles are fairly well known. They do not account for climate trends beyond those cycles.
The CO2 upward trend does.

We would be far better off investing all the time, money, and effort into developing a path for humanity (at least some of it) off our one and only lifeboat before one of the 10,000 or so near-earth big rocks in orbit takes us out.

I say great, let's live like it's 1899 and explore a new frontier.

+1 And to use as many new technologies that improve the efficiency that the hydrocarbon fuels are used.

I know "fossil fuels" is a convenient way to refer to hydrocarbon fuels but it is a theory of their source, and possibly not factual.

You're right, the bureaucrats choose the easier way (extracting money from ordinary people) instead of addressing the big problems.
But your examples of some of the issues actually have minimal effect on global climate. In fact charcoal would even be a solution, as it is completely carbon neutral. Every atom of carbon which is sent into the atmosphere from charcoal was extracted from the atmosphere during the tree's growth. The big issue is the unmanaged way it is usually done in impoverished parts of the world, trees are not re-planted so large areas become desert.

Well, it sounds like one set of rules for the peasants, and another for the global elite! take this quote from Hillary, as she was going by helicopter to AF One:
“Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses! We need to go back!” Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One. From the book ” Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72)
Does this sound like the elite are going to live like us? How about all those yachts, multi million dollar home, which some own several of, and heat and cool. Ted Turner owned about 28 homes. All the actors have multiple homes, and they aren't going to give them up. Nope, just the common tax paying folk.
This is Agenda 21 coming at you, in the planning for over 15 years. Even the UN says they don't dare if global warming is true, as long as we believe it is and they can control us.
Hillary in her thesis on Alinsky, differed only in her feeling the US could be taken down from "within", and this is it, her route to Marxism. This EOA talking head is just another bought and paid for New England liberal who likes to tell other people how to live, based on fake science. Think Michelle is going to give up her jet set vacations, or Angelina her trips to her multiple homes by jet, including sending a jet out for caviar, they way we would go to McD's?

The important point is not the reason for climate change. The important points are (1) is it really an emergency? In fact, is it harmful to man at all? And (2) if so, what is the best and cheapest way to fix the problem? Give up our high-energy lifestyle, or do something much simpler and easier such as Gregory Benford's boatload of iron filings?

Any pronouncements about GW/CC that do not raise these questions are not to be taken seriously.

No, she wants exactly the same future Al Gore does: one where a small elite, including themselves, get to have nice big warm houses and drive, while the rest of us are forced to live like Amish. This is the point where the law must be resisted by force.