advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

GLOBAL WARMING ON TRIAL

By
Neal Boortz
@ August 27, 2009 8:35 AM Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBacks (0)

It has been a while since we have had any global warming in the news. But don't worry ... that debate is coming next, right after the Democrats finish with their government healthcare. Once they succeed in taking over 17% of the economy, then it is on to cap-and-trade, increasing taxes, crushing economic prosperity and whatever else they can do keep you suckling on the government teat.

So back to global warming ... the US Chamber of Commerce wants to put the science of global warming on trial. They want the EPA to hold a public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made global warming. This is great! I love it! Businesses know how devastating this Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill will be. So before they let the Democrats get any further, they want to put the science on trial. Prove that this global warming is real and that your bill will do something to change it.

The fact of the matter is that this will never, ever happen. Why is that? Simple. Because the Democrats know that they will lose. They know that they have based their cap-and-tax schemes on a completely fraudulent cause that has nothing to do with the environment. They won't go on trial because it would be so embarrassing to see them try and defend something they can't prove.

Not only that, but the EPA, especially under a Democrat president, would never allow something like this to come to pass. A public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made global warming?? Are you kidding me? But when the EPA denies the request (notice I said "when" not "if), the Chamber plans to fight it out in federal court.

The Chamber of Commerce says that this would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century ... and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect."

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: GLOBAL WARMING ON TRIAL.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/41220

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • Arrogance
    Obama goes all over the world talking about America and our "arrogance". As far as global warming and cap and tax goes he is right. Do you really believe taxing the hell out of the people in this country is going to stop GLOBAL warming???? Seriously???? Until the, say it with me, ENTIRE GLOBE gets behind reversing pollution, turning al gore and his cronies into "green" billionaires is NOT going to help.

    I agree with Neal (as usual), let them prove it if they can. I don't believe for one second though that the democrats would allow any type of trial to be fair. Honesty is not exacly a high priority these days, with either party.
    By Melissa @ 08/28/09 08:36:59 AMreport abuse
  • warmism
    If you still insist the planet is warming because of man's activities you are either blind or evil. This is the coolest August in many decades. This data is quantifiable and verifiable. It's not speculation, not the opinion of some over educated liberals who never go outside. Man made warming is a hoax. OBVIOUSLY! Stand up for your rights folks. Insist on a trial. Make the states do it to. Lets air this particular dirty laundry to the 4 winds. Maybe some folks will learn the definition of science while we're at it.
    By Burley @ 08/28/09 07:42:27 AMreport abuse
  • rerex
    if you have time, watch that video I posted.

    We changed the weather with pollution, enacted cap and trade laws to get rid of it, and it worked. Sulfur Dioxide.

    Carbon is the same thing. We're very, very, very good at putting more carbon in the air now than the planet can process.

    If you have time, I highly recommend the video. It explains it much better than I could.
    By snarkybird @ 08/27/09 10:06:17 PMreport abuse
  • Climate change trial
    Careful what you wish for - you might get someone like Souter as the judge. Then we are really in for it - BOHICA!
    By Woody @ 08/27/09 04:01:37 PMreport abuse
  • re:The Dude
    Uh...nobody hates America quite like the Left, Dude. See how hard Congress and the Whitehouse are fighting to remake the country in Saul Aulinsky's image? Some people simply don't buy the faux science that the 'Warmies' toss out there with no way to back the theories up. I am one of those people. I've spent my entire career outdoors, in addition to all the time I spent outside already. I just don't see it. I can tell you about every summer and every winter since the mid seventies. Droughts, extended cold spells, rain, no rain, snow, I don't see how it's related to man made CO2 levels. It A) hasn't continued to warm up and B) doesn't appear that man caused it as much as Sunspots and normal cycles if it actually did warm up. That tells me we can't control it, so why worry about it? Yeah, be a good steward, conserve, don't litter, all that. But don't punish industry and don't tax us because of something you think, but can't prove! Whew...you Warmies should get out more.
    By Chuck @ 08/27/09 03:58:27 PMreport abuse
  • Snarkybird
    I think you missed my point. The acid rain we saw in the 60's and 70's was a direct result of unregulated disposition of airborne pollutants. It was also a natural occurring phenonema in some European and Asian regions. But despite a large presence of sulfides and nitrites, nature has rebounded. Is it because of the environmental protections...partly. But the virulence of recovery is still beyond what man could affect outside of thermonuclear devestation. Then of course there is Chernobyl. Another nice example of what surprises the Earth has in store.
    By Rex Machina @ 08/27/09 03:51:47 PMreport abuse
  • acid rain
    Can also come from volcanic activity. It goes up, it goes down, around volcanoes erupting! But it's not as bad as it was during the big industrial boom. Now, we are a lot cleaner than we were.

    Common sense, enforce the laws we already have, go clean up a creek if you want to do more. Crap & Tax will NOT accomplish anything.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 08/27/09 03:44:12 PMreport abuse
  • Warmer or not
    During the middle ages there was a thriving British wine growing industry. That ended during the "little ice age." It still hasn't come back, because IT'S STILL NOT WARM ENOUGH. What caused the Medieval Warm Period? Human activity? Before industrialization?
    Back before recorded history came a THREE THOUSAND YEAR stretch of warmer weather than even the Medieval Warm Period. The polar bears survived that period just fine. What caused that?
    Og the caveman must have been a capitalist!
    By Jim Smith @ 08/27/09 02:23:28 PMreport abuse
  • rejoeschmoe
    You said "And further more....
    do you think it's going to make one hill of beans difference when the earth gets slammed by a freakin' asteroid the size of (pick your state)?"

    Well, by that logic, what's the point in doing anything that isn't fulfilling your desires here and now?
    By snarkybird @ 08/27/09 02:10:44 PMreport abuse
  • rerexmachina
    Yeah. everyone knows acid rain was a natural occurrence that would have worked itself out in 15,000 years.

    watch and enjoy:

    http://www.poptech.org/popcasts/popcasts.aspx?lang=&viewcastid=53
    By snarkybird @ 08/27/09 02:02:49 PMreport abuse
  • Um
    "The exponential increase of man made carbon since the industrial revolution has no correlation to the sinusoidal pattern of global temperatures that nearly perfectly correlate with the sinusoidal pattern of the suns intensity."

    Not to offend YOU, but there is sinusoidal pattern to global temperature. I mean, none at ALL. You "it's the sun guys" have to make up your mind. Either solar activity has increased (it hasn't) or it follow the solar cycle (it doesn't). But to simply blind your eyes to the steady rise of the last century or so is just resorting to making stuff up.
    By MikeS @ 08/27/09 01:54:21 PMreport abuse
  • And further more....
    do you think it's going to make one hill of beans difference when the earth gets slammed by a freakin' asteroid the size of (pick your state)?
    By JoeShmoe @ 08/27/09 01:52:02 PMreport abuse
  • Be careful what you ask for
    Push hard enough and Democrats will give ya a trial. After they have enough time to figure out enough ways to rig the game.

    "We don't want this to turn into a circus." Meaning they will have come up with reasonable enough sounding rules that just happen to exclude the most effective voices on our side while allowing all of theirs.

    Since the 'science is settled' and all of the scientific bodies are on one side they will declare anyone opposed 'not a scientist' and thus unfit to offer testimony on the science since they aren't qualified. Exception of course for Al Gore because of his Nobel Prize and all that.
    By John Morris @ 08/27/09 01:39:42 PMreport abuse
  • Commoner
    You make a good point. Problem is, it contradicts your global warming / climate change crisis points. What I'm saying is, you point out that the only way to make any significant change in our atmosphere would take something much more catastrophic than a little bit of CO2. And in that you are quite correct.
    Hell man, we have exploded several atomic bombs in the atmosphere within the past century. That must be what is causing the global cooling were feeling today.

    Yeah. Right.
    By JoeShmoe @ 08/27/09 01:39:24 PMreport abuse
  • Why don't you global
    warmers do some freakin' research for crying out loud. Don't you think that some government paid scientist is going to say whatever they want him to? And then the MSM is gonna promote it instead of refute it only because it's the newest fashionable disaster. Sheesh.
    By JoeShmoe @ 08/27/09 01:32:12 PMreport abuse
  • Global Warming on Trial
    The point "Commoner" completely misses is that the real battle over Cap & Trade will be fought with the EPA. Waxman-Markey will likely lose in the Senate. But the EPA has already ruled that "global warming gasses" present a significant danger to mankind. They are already working on regulations to limit the so-called "global warming gasses". These relulations will likely be equally or more damaging than Wasman-Markey and will be promulgated irregardless of the Cap & Trade Vote in the Senate. It is extremely important to force the EPA to defend their so-called "Science". By the way we are going to set a record for the month for the coolest August in the last 70 years!
    By Gregg @ 08/27/09 01:21:31 PMreport abuse
  • Commoner this is arrogance
    "If you mean that mankind can kill every living thing, being and organism including itself, leaving a vast barren wasteland of rock floating through space, then I would agree with you. The earth will still be here in some form, it's life that won't be."

    It's arrogant to think that humans can have this effect on earth. MAYBE if every nuke were set off. And yeah human life would suffer but after 10,000 or less, life would come back to earth.

    But back to man, we are just not that capable of ruining it for us. Climate zones change and there is nothing we can do about that but move or adapt.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 08/27/09 12:59:44 PMreport abuse
  • wellll I still think it's.................................
    REX MACHINA..........com'on don't hold back.....tell us how you really feel......

    JB....seen the young warrior yet.....if you don't mind.... get him a cold one on ol' butt neckid....

    oh! this global warmin' stuff......it's all bushs' fault.......
    By butt neckid @ 08/27/09 12:55:43 PMreport abuse
  • Global Warming
    Looking at the period between 1939 and 1945, would anyone care to guess how many metric tons of waste were thrown into the air? Any estimates of the millions of gallons of oil products were dumped into the oceans and littoral zones? Any thoughts to the effects of biomagnification where toxins and various heavy metals saturated the various trophic levels? Estimates on the amounts of carbon dioxide emissions and resulting acidifications. The amounts of pollutants dumped into, onto and around the earth during the preparation, prosecution and industrial support of WWII is astronomical. Yet, the earth survives. Commoner, it is not about the "woulda-coulda-mighthave" that mankind has done...look at the empirical examples through history and yet THE EARTH SURVIVES! And actually gets a little cooler in the process.

    I agree that we owe our planet some good stewardship, but stop the chicken little panic about "Global Warming". There is no science to it...only conjecture. Wait 15,000 years and it will be turned on its head again.

    ...the Earth survives and has been for 4 billion+ years. To think that we could adversely affect this planet in our day to day activities is ego beyond belief.
    By Rex Machina @ 08/27/09 12:30:03 PMreport abuse
  • I believe...
    That if we can somehow stop Cap and Trade and Obamacare we may be able to stall out the creation of the New World Order. It is our moral obligation as free men and women to stop these tyrants.
    By Ivan @ 08/27/09 12:27:22 PMreport abuse
  • Mike, Commoner, Dude
    There is no science of global warming. The earth has not warmed since the 30's. The temperature cycles on a long term basis but not because of CO2. Notice that no one can show how CO2 warms the earth. Only the models do that and the models are in error.
    Man made CO2 is such a small portion of the atmosphere that it can do nothing to warm the earth. All the CO2 since the 30's has not raised our temperatures. Try explaining that.
    By don @ 08/27/09 11:49:01 AMreport abuse
  • Global Warming my eye
    I wish someone would make a movie of Michael Crichton's book: State of Fear.
    The book has this same type of trial as its theme and it is a thriller. Of course it would have to be the conservatives in hollywood because Crichton was a global warming skeptic.
    By Jimbo Chaingang @ 08/27/09 11:39:35 AMreport abuse
  • Global warming?!?
    When it's this cool in August! A couple of weeks ago, I was visiting with some friends of mine and I brought up global warming. Now, I typically don't get into political discussions with my friends, but these folks I trust when it comes to this issue. One of my friends is currently a stay at home mom, but she did obtain her Masters of Science in Biology from FSU, where she met her husband, who has a Masters of Science in Chemistry from FSU and a PhD in Oceanography from FSU. My PhD friend is a project manager in an Environmental Science consulting firm, and has been doing environmental science work throughout his MS, PhD, and professional career. This is a time frame of roughly 15 years. Anyway, my statement to them was this: "Guys, I trust you both implicitly. I know you both are smart, and not politically motivated. If you tell me right here and now that without a doubt, either one or both of you believe in man-made global warming or man-made global climate change, I will sign on to the notion and work to promote the idea." My PhD friend looked at me and said, "When I started my career, I approached a 30 year environmental science veteran and asked him basically the same thing. He told me that he, and many of his colleagues were unsure about the science behind global warming. As for me, I question the science behind it too, simply because it is way to complex a system to analyze effectively."
    By Gaines @ 08/27/09 11:10:21 AMreport abuse
  • Good Idea (Re)
    Mike, not to offend you, but you are either not well informed, or don't understand science. The facts behind man-made global warming just don't exist to make it anywhere close to a credible scientific theory. While natural global warming exists and is seen through out history, man made global warming is a scam, a highly endorsed one at that by the "green" movement by such companies as GE and IBM. The exponential increase of man made carbon since the industrial revolution has no correlation to the sinusoidal pattern of global temperatures that nearly perfectly correlate with the sinusoidal pattern of the suns intensity. Not to mention, human produced carbon in the atmosphere is only a fraction of the amount of naturally produced carbon, arguably to an amount statistically insignificant in the macro scale of the entire globe. I would like to know what research you have to refute these points, as I have not be able to find any in my search for proof of man made global warming.
    By Ryan H @ 08/27/09 11:04:58 AMreport abuse
  • GW
    Holy Shiat! So many maroons supporting OwlGore's transnational Screw Over Western Society movement actually having the cojones to post their drivel on his feedback section. Just shows their conceit to believe something as insignificant as man could affect something as large and chaotic as the atmosphere. I guess that's why we're so successful in controlling the weather over the U.S. and Europe. Rain on command and all that.

    Gonna pop some popcorn and watch the fun!
    By Dark Overlord @ 08/27/09 10:47:01 AMreport abuse
  • Who are we punishing exactly?
    I've posted this before...America does more to battle/reverse pollution than most other countries..
    So why do we always get the shaft?
    Why aren't we penalizing those who do pollute?
    Why aren't we asking China to pay fines?
    The former Soviet Union?
    All the nasty little industrious third world countries?

    I challenge all the global warming nuts to go protest over in China..
    I double dog dare you...Go have a sit in or something..
    write a will first....

    We capitulate WAY too much to these foolish agendas..
    By Kevin @ 08/27/09 10:46:30 AMreport abuse
  • Seriously Joyce....you can't believe your comment
    Our environment is not in danger from man. The earth does what she does, don't be so arrogant to think that anything we do has any effect on her.

    If you mean that mankind can kill every living thing, being and organism including itself, leaving a vast barren wasteland of rock floating through space, then I would agree with you. The earth will still be here in some form, it's life that won't be.

    However, you said that the environment is no danger from man? C'mon...if we decided to drop 10,000 nukes on Asia, the environment isn't going to be impacted? Mankind has made it's way to the pinnacle of evolution by manipulating the environment...see opposable thumbs...it's what we do. The environment is in danger from mankind everyday. Only someone with blinders on could believe we have no impact.
    By Commoner @ 08/27/09 10:43:01 AMreport abuse
  • Re:Josh the Troll
    Well at least you admit what you are. I agree with you about Landfills, they are a blight on our landscape, thats why we need to start burning our trash again instead of burying it. We could also use these incinerators to generate electric power
    By booger @ 08/27/09 10:38:03 AMreport abuse
  • To Commoner
    I would love to see a public debate about this issue. The debate is not over, though Al Gore and his ilk desparately want you to believe that.

    It is estimated that the cap and tax bill will reduce warming by 9/100 of one degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century. And that's if the theories that resulted in this idiotic bill are correct. It is also estimated that average household will pay between $4000 and $5000 a year due to increased energy costs (including food, home heating costs, transportation, etc).

    The cost of a monkey trial would pale in comparison to the passage of this bill. Unless you think $4000 to $5000 for increased energy costs after you've paid taxes is ok.
    By That Woman in Kansas @ 08/27/09 10:07:11 AMreport abuse
  • Good Idea
    As the only person on this board who accepts the science of global warming, I welcome this whole-heartedly. The GW crowd has not spent nearly enough time explaining the issue and responding to the garbage points made by the opposition.

    It would be the Scopes Monkey Trial all right, with religion-based denialism screaming from the rooftops. Bring it on.

    I just hope they get someone to argue the case who knows the science. Not some power-grubbing idiot like Algore.
    By MikeS @ 08/27/09 09:53:50 AMreport abuse
  • Commoner
    I don't mind taxpayer money for this trial if it will save us the trillions going to be wasted on this program. Our environment is not in danger from man. The earth does what she does, don't be so arrogant to think that anything we do has any effect on her. As Josh stated we don't need to be wasteful but we also don't need yet another giant government bureaucracy that will only serve to profit Al Gore, Jeffrey Immelt, Pelosi and anyone else already lined up to trade on this.

    You are REALLY being played on this one.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 08/27/09 09:52:18 AMreport abuse
  • Climate Change (HA!)
    I was trolling your Reading Assignments previously and came across this little nugget about Africa wanting our money (all of the “rich nations”).

    In this article, it’s stated that Africa doesn’t contribute much pollution. “Experts say Africa contributes little to the pollution blamed for warming, but is likely to be hit hardest by the droughts, floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels forecast if climate change is not checked.” Now, maybe my mind doesn’t work like most human beings, but my first thought is what will they do with the money? Will they destroy natural environment in Africa to build “refuge” from the climate? If so, this would most likely increase their contribution to pollution, therefore enhancing the problem! Will they move to another country where there are already more civilized places to live? If so, would they not be increasing the pollution in that area, therefore becoming one of the masses that cause even more pollution for those left in Africa?! Will they simply stay and not build, but bring in supplies needed to preserve life (food, clothes, medical supplies)? If so, would that not simply produce more waste within the country? All of this comes packaged in something and after its used, has to be discarded, therefore creating more pollution directly! For the sake of argument, if they do bring in supplies and then ship away the waste, would the effort and products used to bring in and take away such masses simply produce more waste.

    The point is, we are stuck in a vicious cycle of wanting to increase the quality of life for one at the expense of another. This is being played out on both global and local levels and everywhere in between. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for conservation, restoration, reusing, and recycling in order to respect, enhance, and maintain our environment. I do not agree with the use of methods that would inevitably produce more waste in order to reduce the effects of said waste. It’s simply not logical! Everyone of us needs to take this on at an individual level and then take that to a family level and then to the employer levels. Now, I know this is a statement that is so obvious that it hurts, but it’s a statement that needs to be followed by action. That action is a removal of “safety nets.” We all know that if we don’t recycle or reuse, another landfill will be created, because it would be unconscionable of us to allow anyone to live in or near waste! And the circular logic continues because it takes effort and product and waste to create a place to store waste.
    If we knew that no more landfills would be created, we would have to make the hard choice to really examine our need and to cut back.
    By Josh @ 08/27/09 09:34:44 AMreport abuse
  • Hopefully it will pass
    For the future of this country I hope this bill passes. Thankfully it has a great shot to pass now. Thus, we have a solid bill before the Senate that will actually do something for the environment, why would the EPA agree to this public hearing? They have nothing to gain and money from companies in the business of polluting to lose. The public hearing would not prove anything.

    I find it laughable that Boortz wants to put this issue into the hands of the trial lawyers and have a judge make the decision. I thought his disdain for trial attorney's was one of his core values. Maybe this is going to be loser pay? Which brings up a point, what is the cost to have this "monkey" trial? I guess Boortz doesn't mind the taxpayers paying for this one. However, I would love the responses if the judge ruled in favor of the "warmers." I wonder how legit the monkey trial would be then.
    By Commoner @ 08/27/09 09:33:31 AMreport abuse
  • the Chamber will lose
    Won't the powers that be just stack the deck with experts of only one point of view?
    By jarsh @ 08/27/09 09:23:10 AMreport abuse
  • Is it getting warm in here?
    A while back, I was listening to a discussion on this global warming nonsense. On point was the biggest factor in global warming was the Sun. DUH
    By Right Wing Nut @ 08/27/09 09:16:38 AMreport abuse
  • Awesome!
    Finally, someone with brains.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 08/27/09 09:02:48 AMreport abuse
  • Democrats?
    I thought everyone wanted the environment to be safer and cleaner. I guess republicans have to be angry and make a political issue out of everything.

    Why do republicans hate America?
    By The Dude @ 08/27/09 08:44:12 AMreport abuse
  • Check the EPA whistleblower
    The office where the scientist works who wrote the leaked memo admitting the science is not there is being closed down. Can't have any inconvenient truths being found out....
    By SDN @ 08/27/09 08:40:53 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement