What is Digg?91 Comments
- oboy, on 01/10/2009, -2/+39It could be sincere, but it still reminds me of the big tobacco execs who support anti-teen smoking legislation. It's going to happen whether they support it or not, so they might as well get some good PR out of it.
- wassamatta, on 01/10/2009, -0/+26Will there be a carbon tax in China? This tax will push even more manufacturing overseas.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -5/+29What are his motives on this, oh wait, they've moved everything offshore now, so it doesn't matter what US policy is
- angryfirelord, on 01/10/2009, -3/+25Is it really wise to be levying carbon taxes in times of an economic crisis? I'd rather be giving tax credits out instead to companies who invest in alternative energy.
- morepowerr, on 01/10/2009, -3/+16Of course they support it. Because they will never have to pay a damn red cent.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+10I think he is supporting it in the same manner a politician would; because he received enough pressure and the benefits outweighed the risk. Also he is positioning himself to have a seat at the bargaining table for what may (or may-not be due to econ conditions) the inevitable long awaited "action" by Congress.
- thebaron2, on 01/10/2009, -0/+10How does that make sense? Exxon and the companies that get oil over here won't be paying the brunt of these taxes.
We're talking about a tax on people who USE the oil, not the people who drill and deliver it. Businesses and consumers will get hit by this, not the oil companies - regardless of whether their facilities are on U.S. land or not. - mikesbaker, on 01/10/2009, -3/+12Of course Exxon Mobil supports a carbon tax. they make gas not burn it. airlines will be totally ***** if this retard ***** ever happens (as in bankruptcy and bailouts). carbon offsets are an idiotic myth perpetuated by the goracle.
- schnikies79, on 01/10/2009, -2/+11We are taxed enough. No more please, for companies or individuals.
- ronygenius, on 01/10/2009, -1/+9oh.... what does the CEO care about the carbon tax hes just going to pass it down to the consumers.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -4/+12I'm sorry but a carbon tax is *****. So you tax the factories etc. for the amount of carbon dioxide they release into the air in the hope that they streamline their process to elevate the tax, but with the ability to pass the cost onto their customers, the factories aren't going to do anything but the bare minimum of the legislation so they can spend as little as possible on actually upgrading their facilities, and instead will just rape the customer because of said "tax" burden....
The ONLY way a carbon tax is going to benefit anyone is if the legislation prohibits the cost of the tax being passed on to customers, which will never ever happen. - Betrayal, on 01/10/2009, -3/+10An Inconvenient Truth Reloaded - Global Cooling
- mcquitty, on 01/10/2009, -0/+7What does it matter? ExxonMobil doesn't pay the taxes. They will be passed back to the consumer and you and I will pay them. They are just collecting the tax (aggregating it, if you will). When EM pays the government, where are they getting the money? From customers.
- gibbwake, on 01/10/2009, -13/+20Thats because theyre in on the scam - the monopolists that own the central banks the carbon tax would be paid to control Exxon Mobile. Stop being suckered - this will deindustrialize the US.
We are in a cooling phase. The mainstream media and foundation funded lefty sites will still have you believe we have global warming when the exact opposite is true. Global Cooling? Unprecedented Ice Storms In Kenya http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-unprece ...
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
To see what the global warming scam is being used to bring about, check these out:
Alex Jones explains the carbon credit scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH9pyL_lrvM
Eugenics Hits Austin In Population Connection Society. Group Seeks Zero Population Growth and Plays Off of Global Warming Fears. http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/210607_eugenic ...
Global Warming or Global Governance http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-814733784 ... - NSResponder, on 01/10/2009, -1/+8Corporations don't pay taxes, they merely collect them. Want to know who will pay those carbon taxes? Take a look in the mirror.
-jcr - localzuk, on 01/10/2009, -4/+9Evidence? And by evidence, I mean something which takes into account overall cycles over many decades, rather than looking at 10 years and pointing madly...
- localzuk, on 01/10/2009, -2/+7No, that is a single spike on a graph that over the last 20 years shows a progressive increase of around 0.15 - 0.2 degrees. Otherwise known as global warming. You using it as a 'global cooling' argument is exactly like I said - finding something small and pointing madly...
- Finalreminder, on 01/10/2009, -3/+7Of course he supports a carbon tax. In effect the customers are subsidising Exxons business taxes.
You dont think he's gone all hippy overnight do you, jeez! - inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+4What? I thought digg opposed higher gas prices.
- shanajk, on 01/10/2009, -8/+12Tax what we burn, not what we earn.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/tax-what-we- ... - woodrow8292, on 01/10/2009, -0/+4Basically he said he supports a tax over the cap and trade. Not like he is advocating for it, he is just saying that a tax is more acceptable than cap and trade. Just throwing his hands in the air and saying " Well your gonna screw us and take our money some how so this is the least painful way"
- thebaron2, on 01/10/2009, -1/+5All customers subsidize business taxes, whether those are Exxon's taxes or some other company's.
Taxes get lumped into costs, and when they increase the business either raises the price of their product or decreases their cost-to-produce, which many times ends up in people losing jobs. Either way, the citizenry takes the brunt of the hit. - pier2, on 01/10/2009, -3/+6"According to Energy Department data, from 2000 to 2006, per capita output of C02 in the U.S. plunged 4.7%. Meanwhile, it increased by 3% in Europe. Yet Europe's energy taxes are five to 10 times what they are in the U.S." Yes, but the US produces 20.1 metric tons/person while Europe is at 8.2 tons. In terms of GDP Europe produces 383 metric tons / $M GDP vs the US at 544. Just looking at the percentage change is a little deceptive. A fat man can lose a much larger percentage of weight than a slim one. So those EU taxes must have been working pretty well.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3Taxes - $1 billion yearly
Businesses Write-Offs - $3 billion yearly
Being able to suggest taxes you will never have to pay - priceless - inactive, on 01/10/2009, -3/+6So what if they do. People shouldn't accept a carbon tax as it's alien to being free. Carbon emissions aren't causing trouble, it's the Globalists/Internationalists that are cutting trees down and building factories on mass to produce disposable crap. Blame Multi-Nationals, not punish the freedom of people!.
The Zionist New World Order must be stopped. There will be no Tikkun Olam of them controlling the Goyim. - cabdirazzaq, on 01/10/2009, -8/+11Taxing the very air you breath, you americans truely are free.
- cabdirazzaq, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3CO2 is component in the air we breath, I stand by my previous comment.
- URnotheonly1, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3What will be evident is that a small group exploited the suns active solar cycle in an attempt to consolidate global power.
- bluesman3535, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3Well, let us all fall in line to what the corporate quasi-government pitches US. What's the tax going to buy, more arms for the Saudi dictatorship? And of course Exxon wants us to cut back on oil usage.
- MindStalker, on 01/10/2009, -1/+4But if it increased in Europe while taxes on it where going up it shows taxes aren't a effective disincentive.
- jhails, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3You can bet that Exxon has the system gamed already. They don't favour anything unless it benefits themselves.
- septicmadman, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3Upgrading their facilities would also cost money, resulting in an increase in expenses past on to the customer by an increase in product cost...
It is naive to think they will cut into to their profit, when they can successfully blame taxes as a reason to increase product cost. - mnocket, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3Where's greenfyre? What are we going to do without his links to debunker sites and complaints that no one ever provides facts and evidence to refute global warming. I'm sure he will be along shortly.
- lornali, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3Better late than never
- localzuk, on 01/10/2009, -1/+3You are missing the point. No-one is denying that the planet has a natural cooling/heating cycle. What the majority of scientists *are* saying is that this time, we have made it a lot worse.
You are looking at things from far too small a viewpoint. ie. looking at 1 year of cooling compared with decades of warming. No scientist would look at that and say 'yes, we are no in a cooling period'. No, scientists would say 'hmm... looks like an anomalous result on our plot. We'll have to collect a few decades more data to find out what's happening.' Until we have that data, we continue to work with the most prevalent theories based on the older data - we do not extrapolate patterns from anomalies!!! - nugx, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2What's the catch?
- cle2105, on 01/10/2009, -1/+3So you support a resulting advantage for monopolistic state-owned competitors and the cartel, OPEC, that they constitute?
- primus101, on 01/11/2009, -0/+2Just another form of government control hidden under the guise of helping the environment
- vikingcoder, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2It's even better than that. Me043 is not pointing to a 10 year trend. What's being put forth as evidence is the difference between two single points.
The cooling of 2007 & 2008 is expected as it is caused by the Southern Oscillation, i.e. La Nina & El Nino. 1997-8 was the strongest El Nino of record. 2008 is the hottest La Nina-influenced year with no El Nino ever recorded. This is why pointing solely to the temperature difference between 1998 and 2008 is not relevant to a discussion of the long-term trend. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7z.h ... http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/currentinfo/t ... http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitori ... - Trent1492, on 01/10/2009, -2/+4American are plants?
- localzuk, on 01/10/2009, -1/+3Where are you getting '150 years' from? The cycle you are talking of is the ice age/non-ice age cycle - each period is roughly 100,000 years long. Not 150!
- kufurex, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2Is that also what his lobbyists support? He can say that all he wants, but what the company's surrogates do matters as well.
- Barackalypse, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2So do you believe the carbon tax is a scam now? Do you really think the head of an oil company would be suggesting something that didn't end up benefiting his company in the end or do you guys only question motivations when they don't agree with your beliefs?
- libertymeister, on 01/10/2009, -1/+3Thankfully gibbwake already posted really good factual information about "global warming" and related misdirection and lies.
For God's sake, think, People! Let's see, yet more taxes collected by governments to go into their general funds (remember that money is fungible) to endorse, prop-up and support the very governments which created "energy policies" which were not only unnecessary, but harmful. Government needs to get out of the lives of everyday people and let us do the right thing, which is what people generally do when left to make choices without influence from any laws or lobbies. - vikingcoder, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2Thank you for showing your gullibility & prideful ignorance by copying & pasting this drivel, without reference, from the "Friends of Science" site.
http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
The FoS organization has received significant funds from the oil industry while claiming no industry support, and the University of Calgary was used as the unwitting mule for those funds. Once the University discovered this through an audit, they returned the unspent funds and formally refused to accept any funds on the organization's behalf again. FoS was also using funds to support election advertising, rather than research or education.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends ... http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/u_calgary_ ...
This does not refute the 10 claims, but it does show FoS's intent to deceive for political gain.
Many of the references are to the skepticalscience.com site, which provides numerous references to primary peer-reviewed journal papers & datasets. Please address the primary sources, rather than the skepticalscience.com site.
1 & 2) The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo ...
Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/08057 ...
Anybody who points to a "70s global cooling scare" cannot discern popular journalism from scientific reporting. Time and Newsweek are not reliable sources of scientific knowledge.
The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
http://skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-sai ...
The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
3) Since the start of the industrial revolution, humanity has put out 1.2 trillion tons of CO2, half of that since the early 1980s. The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased ~40% solely due to our emissions. That increase can be directly linked to humanity through parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. That is because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil - much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html - table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ... http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vo ... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5725/ab ...
The historical climate cycles were initiated by Milankovitch Cycles, ~41,000 year cycles of orbital alignment - i.e. increased solar intensity, that caused the oceans to warm up. The warmer oceans released CO2 into the atmosphere. The increased CO2 increased the heat retention in the atmosphere leading to warmer oceans and more CO2 release.
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.h ...
4) This is a strawman argument. CO2 is the most common active forcing agent. They admit that CO2 is the most common after water vapor. The distinction is that water vapor is a passive forcing agent due to its short atmospheric lifespan that is on the order of 8-9 days. The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of ocean and air temperature that is described by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Any excess water vapor in the atmosphere is precipitated out, e.g. rain, and any lack is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation. There are no such "quick fix" processes for the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynam ...
5) No such assumption is made. The first quantitative scientific research on the heat retention properties of CO2 were carried out in the late 19th century by Svante Arrhenius. This research has been numerously independently repeated & validated. It has been known for over 50 years that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Ar ... http://books.google.com/books?id=07gOAAAAIAAJ& ... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ZhPS...21..893M http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spec ... http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970s when the modern global warming trend began. The sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 3 decades. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect.
http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspot ... http://skepticalscience.com/Determining-the-long-t ...
6) This is nothing more than an unreferenced allegation; i.e. worthless. Its only value is as a denier talking point, rather than an issue of cogent skepticism.
7) Another strawman argument. They admit that Nitrogen could become toxic, i.e. a pollutant, in high enough concentration. CO2 is no different, except it has further effects that just chemical reactivity; specifically, the spectral absorption referenced above. The hilarious part about this talking point is that it was the focus of a TV propaganda ad run by the CEI.
http://cei.org/pages/co2.cfm http://www.wunderground.com/education/cei.asp
An increased CO2 concentration does a relevant chemical reactivity effect though, acidification of the oceans. The oceans are currently net absorbers of CO2 that take in 7 billions tons each year. The absorbed CO2 reacts with the dissolved calcium carbonate reducing the pH of the water. This has a detrimental effect on key marine organisms, such as corals & some plankton.
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Ocean_Acidification.http:/ ... http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081121_ ... http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18860.abstract
8) Yet another strawman argument. "Regional variations may occur." Translation - "No changes will occur, except for those that do." Nihilism does not refute the accumulated scientific knowledge.
http://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warm ...
9) While there is a small percentage of growing glaciers, the overwhelming majority are shrinking. And more importantly, the shrinking trend is increasing (eg - 77% in 2002, 94% in 2003). Pointing to the LIA, which ended in the mid-19th century, does not explain the recent increase in glacier melting.
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html http://www.nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html http://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-gro ...
10) Internal ice thicknesses are increasing as total ice mass is decreasing. This is exactly as expected as increased heat will cause increased evaporation which will result in increased precipitation. i.e. the center gets thicker which the edges melt away.
Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
From February 2003 to January 2008, Greenland lost mass at a rate of 179 Gigatonnes per year. The rate is also increasing over time, suggesting an acceleration of mass loss.
http://skepticalscience.com/Latest-satellite-data- ...
Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarcti ...
A comprehensive study of Antarctica’s ice confirms that the polar cap is shrinking. In 2006 alone, Antarctica lost nearly 200 billion tonnes of ice
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080113/full/news.2 ...
The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole causes cooling in the stratosphere. This increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching east Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century".
While East Antartica is gaining ice due to increased precipitation, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently featured the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years. As well as melting, Antartic glaciers are accelerating further adding to sea level rise.
http://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice ... - inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2Of course he does, he is a ***** billionaire who can afford it. It wont affect his company at all either, since they dont burn the the *****.
Electric companies, airlines, they will be ***** by it.
Carbon tax is a ***** scam, its just another way for the government to take a larger slice of your paycheck. - Renton, on 01/10/2009, -1/+3You think one American politician is controlling thousands of scientists worldwide to fake a scientific consensus about the planet's climate for the sole purpose of setting up a tax program that will tunnel the funds to himself.
Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me. - eatporktoo, on 01/10/2009, -1/+3finally, someone else that gets it!
- tonmil, on 01/10/2009, -1/+3You think the price of lumber is high now? Wait until we have carbon tax or trade and cap.
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is