AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

I’m Tired of Effing Earth Day

“You got people like this around you?  Country is full of them now!  People walking around all day long, every minute of the day — worried about EVERYTHING!  Worried about the air, worried about the water, worried about the soil.  Worried about insecticides, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens; worried about radon gas; worried about asbestos.  Worried about saving endangered species.

Let me tell you about endangered species, all right?  Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control Nature!  It’s arrogant meddling!  It’s what got us into trouble in the first place!  Doesn’t anybody understand that?  Interfering with Nature!  Over 90 percent . . . over . . . way over 90 percent of all the species that have ever lived — EVER LIVED — on this planet are gone.  Whissshht!  They are extinct!

We didn’t kill them all.

They just . . . disappeared!  That’s what Nature does!  They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day, and I mean regardless of our behavior.  Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here today, will be gone tomorrow!  Let them go . . . gracefully!  Leave Nature alone!  Haven’t we done enough?

We’re so self-important.  So self-important!  Everybody’s going to save something now.  ‘Save the trees; save the bees; save the whales; save those snails.’  And the greatest arrogance of all, “Save the planet.”  WHAT?  Are these fucking people kidding me?  Save the planet?  We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet.  We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?

I’m getting tired of that shit.  Tired of that shit.  Tired!  I’m tired of fucking Earth Day!  I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists; these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths.  People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos.  Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet.  They don’t care about the planet.  Not in the abstract they don’t.  Not in the abstract they don’t.  You know what they’re interested in?  A clean place to live.  Their own habitat.  They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced.  Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet.  Nothing wrong with the planet.  The planet is fine.  The PEOPLE are fucked.  Difference.  Difference!  The planet is fine.  Compared to the people, the planet is doing great.  Been here four and a half billion years.  Did you ever think about the arithmetic?  The planet has been here four and a half billion years.  We’ve been here, what?  A hundred thousand?  Maybe two hundred thousand?  And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years.  Two hundred years versus four and a half billion.  And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat?  That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us.  Been through all kinds of things worse than us.  Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles; hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors; worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages . . . And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?”

April 22, 2012 , 4:28PM Posted by | Communism, Global Warming, Liberalism | Comments Off on I’m Tired of Effing Earth Day

Why Do People Continue to Consider Tim “Global Warming” Pawlenty a Viable 2012 GOP Candidate?

I really can’t figure out how people who write a right-leaning political blog — which I assume means they keep up with politics and right-leaning politicians — continue to support GOP politicians who have exposed themselves as being anything but right-leaning. But here we have it at AoSHQ:

Just noting — he’s got a rap as a RINO but he seems okay to me.

I will note again I do not believe the Republican nominee will be any of the people that the media always talks about, Palin, Huck, Romney, Gingrich. I think it will be a first-timer with less baggage, namely, either Pence, Thune, or Pawlenty.

And there are even a bunch of commenters there who also are okay with Pawlenty. What the hell? At least one of the commenters hasn’t let their valu-rite and bacon intake destroy their memory of Pawlenty’s political ri-TARD-ation:

Every time this putz’s name comes up I am reminded of the fact that he happily jumped on board with the global warming scam, called the skeptics ignorant, and said they should be ignored. One of two things are possible:

a) He believed or still believes that manmade global warming was real and that government must curtail our liberty, our economy, and our standard of living in order to save the world.

b) He tried to coopt an issue from the left and was willing to curtail our liberty, our economy, and our standard of living in order to gain political advantage.

My opinion of him could be encapsulated by a good Mel Gibson rant. He is either a statist or a statist enabler and has no business being anywhere near the White House.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at July 16, 2010 02:39 PM

Here you go Vic, from an opinion piece, WSJ, 2.23.08:

In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. “It looks like we should have listened to President Carter,” he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. “He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don’t think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it’s not real.”

Any Republican who says we should have listened to Jimmy Carter about anything should be considered a non-starter.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at July 16, 2010 02:48 PM

Seriously, if people who claim to be highly informed regarding politics are forgetting something blatantly statist like this from Tim Pawlenty, how do we expect people who are not at all informed to pay attention and to vote accordingly?

If this is an example of how informed is the electorate, I’m not very confident about 2010 and 2012 at all…

I have saved links and research in folders on my computer for the past 4-5 years. I keep them for reference to refresh my memory of issues and politicians, especially when debating people on the issues or certain policitians. Here are a few of the links I have kept on Tim Pawlenty. To read that people think he “seems okay” when we have known about his statist pro-global warming and big government record since 2008 is immensely disheartening:

WallStreet Journal: Pawlenty’s Record

“The era of small government is over . . . government has to be more proactive, more aggressive.”
— Tim Pawlenty, 2006.

So here we are in JULY of 2010 and what is the #1 issue? Small government. Yet people who claim to be informed about politics and about small government are actually saying that a guy “seems okay” who said “the era of small government is over”? Are you kidding me?

Following the tax hike, the governor pushed through a state-wide smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Aggressive, Nanny-state government seems to be big with Republican governors these days — although policies such as smoking bans do little to stem the costly tide of state-run health care.

In 2006, liberal Democrats (there is no other kind here) proposed a universal health-care behemoth to cover all residents. Mr. Pawlenty responded with a more limited proposal to expand the state’s child health-care program, Minnesota Care, to cover all children. More recently, the governor’s Health Care Transformation Task Force recommended imposing a mandate — à la Massachusetts — on residents to buy health insurance. [ … ]

Nevertheless, Mr. Pawlenty has presided over back-to-back biennial budget increases of 12.4% and 9.8% respectively. Last year the governor’s proposed budget survived essentially intact but still spent the state’s $2 billion surplus, with half the general fund increase going to education. Minnesota, with five million people, now has a biennial budget of nearly $35 billion.

Mr. Pawlenty’s proactive government stance extends to support for mass transit and sport stadium subsidies, as well as for hiking the state’s minimum wage, which is now $6.15 an hour for large employers (the federal minimum wage is $5.85). But it is education and the environment where Mr. Pawlenty hopes to establish his progressive bona fides.

He calls for accountability in education, but does little to buck the most powerful lobby in state politics, Education Minnesota. Indeed, Mr. Pawlenty has courted the unions, telling the Minnesota Business Partnership that “I can’t have the Republican governor talk about changing the school system without having the support and help of the teachers’ union and my friends on the other side of the aisle. It just won’t work.”

On the environment, Mr. Pawlenty imposed some of the most aggressive renewable energy mandates in the country. Other states will be requiring, in coming years, that energy producers get 20% of their electricity from “renewable” sources such as wind, solar or animal manure. In Mr. Pawlenty’s Minnesota, the state’s largest utility will be required to generate 30% of its power from renewable sources by 2020.

Mr. Pawlenty is using his influence through the National Governor’s Association to export his ideas across state lines. The NGA meets in Washington, D.C. next week. Look for Mr. Pawlenty to be on hand and stumping for renewable mandates.

In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. “It looks like we should have listened to President Carter,” he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. “He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don’t think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it’s not real.”

At times it seems that Mr. Pawlenty’s first political instinct is to placate liberal critics, …

Oh yeah, this sounds like just the guy we need to stop this rampant Marxism. NOT. He “can’t have the Republican Governor talk about changing the school system without” befriending the unions? Wrong. Take a look at the job that Governor Chris Christie is doing in New Jersey.

The following is from a liberal, pro-global warming fraud website, but they lay out Pawlenty’s obvious politically-motivated flip flopping on the issue:

Pawlenty completes climate science flip flop, after flip flopping on support for bipartisan climate action

Over the course of the last three years, Pawlenty has gone from an outspoken proponent of clean energy to a Glenn Beck pandering climate change denier:

Dec. 2006: Pawlenty lays out an ambitious clean energy program for Minnesotans to reduce their use of fossil fuels 15 percent by 2015. Cutting greenhouse gases, Pawlenty said, would “be good for the environment, good for rural economies, good for national security and good for consumers.” He also calls for a regional cap and trade program.

May 2007: Pawlenty signs the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, requiring the state to reduce its emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent in 2050. At the signing ceremony, Pawlenty said Minnesota was “kicking-starting the future” by “tackling greenhouse gas emissions.”

Oct. 2007: Pawlenty declares that the climate change issue is “one of the most important of our time.” He also brushes off “some flak” from right-wingers who doubt climate change science.

Sept. 2008: During the election, Pawlenty backs away from his own cap and trade program, says such a system would “wreck the economy.” He then tells hate radio personality Glenn Beck (a climate change denier) that human activity only contributes “half a percent” to climate change.

Nov. 2009: Pawlenty backs away from acknowledging that any human activity is the cause of climate change.

Oh yeah, that sounds like someone I can trust. NOT.

Pawlenty, Steger make bond to slow changes to climate

One of the biggest issues, global climate change, is what motivated the pair to join forces — warning of what they say will be grave consequences if individuals, businesses and governments don’t act to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

“It is an important issue — I think one of the most important of our time,” Pawlenty told the 400 researchers, resource managers and educators gathered in Duluth this week.

Steger praised Pawlenty for having “the guts to take on bold initiatives” to reduce greenhouse gases and for his leadership on that issue in his capacity as chair of the National Governors Association. [ … ]

Pawlenty, who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state 80 percent by the year 2050, expressed disappointment that more steps aren’t being taken on the national level, and he challenged individuals, communities, and states to show the way.

“Maybe we can lead them [the federal government] or even shame them into action,” Pawlenty said. “It’ll become de facto national policy.”

Oh yeah, that’s the kind of GOP Presidential nominee we need. Another statist who wants to shame us into action with bullsh!t ‘science’.

But hey, he “seems okay”.

Oy.

Oh geez, first Ace of Spades HQ and now we have a bunch of ignoramuses at HotAir singing the praises of Tim Pawlenty. Geez, from the comments on this post at HotAir, I have to believe that HotAir commenters are either complete political ignoramuses to not know about Pawlenty’s big government background or are liberals themselves like Tim Pawlenty. One would think that people who read and comment on a political blog would be, you know, politically informed. Apparently not. Oy…

July 17, 2010 , 6:03PM Posted by | Global Warming, Tim Pawlenty | 2 Comments

What “Pristine” Planet?

The earth-worshiping Left likes to think of the earth as some “pristine” utopia were it not for we evil humans destroying it. The fact is that the earth is a violently unstable entity. There is nothing remotely “pristine” about it. This comment below was left in response to radical Lefty James Cameron’s nonsensical justification for his America-hating, U.S. military-hating, pro-AGW cult-worshiping flick Avatar.

VIEIRA: Yeah there’s a love story and also there’s a message about, you know, greed and when people want a lot of things, imperialism. All of that.

CAMERON: And how that tends to destroy the environment and so on. And here they are doing the same thing on another pristine planet that we’ve done here on earth. So it’s a way, sort of looking back at ourselves from this other world and seeing what we’re doing here.

Hmmm, let’s see, we have a pristine planet in this flick, eh? So, Cameron, tell me, when a large volcano decides to blow its top and spew plumes of toxic gases and megatons of dirt and grit into the air on this make-believe planet, is it still pristine? How about when there is a great undersea earthquake and the resulting tsunami wipes out hundreds of thousands of acres of ‘pristine’ forests and meadows and critters? Shall I even bother to mention asteroids, lightning strikes, hurricanes, meteors, floods, droughts, etc.?

Yep, and tornadoes and earthquakes and snowstorms and sub-zero temperatures and…

Some ‘pristine’ planet.

December 17, 2009 , 11:52PM Posted by | Global Warming, Hollywood, Liberalism | Comments Off on What “Pristine” Planet?

“Trust Me, I’m a Scientist!”

So, when are we going to get some commercials akin to the Dr Pepper “Trust me, I’m a Doctor” commercials for the AGW-hoaxers? “Trust me, I’m a Scientist”. The first one could be Dr Venkman from Ghostbusters. The second one could be Dr Emmett Brown from Back to the Future. The third one could be Dr Jekyll. Any other famous fake scientists anyone can think of?

December 1, 2009 , 12:59AM Posted by | Communism, Fascism, Global Warming, Liberalism, Socialism | Comments Off on “Trust Me, I’m a Scientist!”

Global Warmmongers Fail The White Swan Hypothesis

There was an absolutely excellent caller on Rush Limbaugh today, who took the time to explain how the Athropogenic Global Warming hoaxers are not participating in science at all. She took the time to explain the White Swan Hypothesis to Rush and his audience. Very enlightening. We need more and more people speaking out about this and exposing these hoaxers.

RUSH: To the phones. Knoxville, Tennessee, another geologist. Betsy, you’re on the EIB Network. Hello.

[ … ]

CALLER: I’m a geologist.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: A great day for geologists on your show.

RUSH: Add to it.

CALLER: Yes. I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about scientific method and how it works, and how it is that in science, hypotheses are formulated based on data, advanced and tested, and nothing is ever proven in science. Things are ruled out. Science operates by ruling possibilities out. And that which has not been ruled out by experiment remains possible. This is something that these guys have never bothered to do. They have never bothered to formulate any hypothesis at all and test it with a view toward ruling it out. And that’s what they need to do, and that is one of the basic reasons why what they’re trying to do is not scientific.

RUSH: Pure politics. In other words, what you’re saying is we know that warming and cooling cycles happen.

CALLER: That’s correct.

RUSH: We have to first find out which are natural, and then, by finding that out, then we might be able to find out if we’re contributing to it in addition to whatever is natural, right?

CALLER: Well, we might be able to find out whether we’re not contributing to it.

RUSH: Yeah, either way.

CALLER: Well, it’s not the same thing. My favorite example of what it is I’m driving at was advanced by the historian and philosopher of science Karl Popper some number of years ago, and he formulated a thought experiment which he described as the white swan hypothesis. And what you do is you look around and you see a lot of white swans everywhere, and you come up with a notion that all swans are white. Now, how do you go about testing this hypothesis? You don’t go around counting white swans. Because no matter how many white swans you count, there may be somewhere lurking a black swan that you didn’t encounter. And so what you have to do is mount a search for the single black swan and try to disprove your hypothesis based upon evidence.

RUSH: And so these guys are not doing that at all.

CALLER: No! No. They’ve come up with the idea that CO2 causes global warming and you can read the press releases and you can read the news stories, and they go around counting, “Well, look, CO2 predicts this, and CO2 predicts that, and CO2 predict this other over there, and so it must be true.” And so what they’re doing is mounting a search for white swans. They’re not trying to rule their own hypothesis out. And that’s the only way science ever advances.

RUSH: Well, at this point, I think these e-mails indicate they know their hypotheses are already ruled out because they’re making things up.

CALLER: Exactly. Absolutely. And I have been saying that for some time ever since the data began to come in and we began to see that the last decade has shown cooling. Every hypothesis they have ever advanced has been ruled out by that finding.

RUSH: Right. And of course the sun has nothing to do with it. They also do not factor the sun at all. And they don’t factor —

CALLER: No.

RUSH: — they don’t factor precipitation.

CALLER: No. And there are glacial cycles and Milankovitch cycles, there are lots of other possibilities, none of which they have ever attempted to address and try to rule out, which is what they have to do in order for it to be called science.

RUSH: Well, here we have another scientist, in the opinion of Robert Gibbs and the White House, you’re nothing more than a Macaca.

CALLER: (laughing) Well, we have words for him, too.

RUSH: (laughing) So how about that consensus of science? Am I right when I say there can be no science if all you have is a consensus of scientists?

CALLER: Well, actually I have to take a little bit of issue with you over that.

RUSH: No! No, no!

CALLER: It’s true, science is not about consensus, and we don’t take a vote to figure out what is correct.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: Our natural world —

RUSH: I’m right, then. We have to go to a break.

CALLER: However, what we do have in many different areas of science is a consensus of scientists that is based upon elimination of all known competing hypotheses. For example, the theory of relativity. Now, we don’t regard it as proven but we know that there is no longer a serious competitor which has not been ruled out by evidence. So to the extent that we can have a consequences in science. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s not open to challenge and it doesn’t mean that it’s final, but there are agreements among scientists which, for example, another example is the theory of global plate tectonics. Now, you won’t find a great deal of serious disagreement amongst reputable geologists that that is the mechanism by which we see continents form and seabed disappearance and so forth. But that’s not because we regard that hypothesis as proven. We have ruled out the competition.

RUSH: Got it.

CALLER: Somebody may yet come forward someday.

RUSH: This has been enlightening. I can’t tell you how glad I am you called, Betsy. I’m out of time. I wish I had a couple more segments, but I don’t. Snerdley, see if she will give us her phone number so that we may consult her in the future should we have need to.

END TRANSCRIPT

November 30, 2009 , 10:56PM Posted by | Communism, Fascism, Global Warming, Liberalism, Rush Limbaugh, Socialism | 1 Comment