What Bush has taught me about Climate Change, Budgets and TADs.

Last month Secretary Paulson and President Bush went before the American people and said (I’m paraphrasing) “OMG, the world is about to end. Drastic action is needed. There is no time to look at alternatives. There is no time to build consensus among experts. My small cadre of experts tell me the world is about to end, therefore we must ignore all the other experts who say otherwise and pass the brash and expensive bailout package NOW NOW NOW or the world will end”.

And by and large, the fools in the GOP, both elected leaders and grassroots, fell for it.

By that logic, we should pass a massive Carbon Tax. We should not question whether or not carbon is causing climate change. We should not have debate. We should not study the effects of this Carbon Tax to see if it will make the problem better, or hurt our economy in such a way that we’ll be unable to mitigate the effects of rising sea levels. We need not listen to the climatologists who say that Carbon is not responsible, or that the issue of Climate Change is not the impending doom that other experts say it is. If we don’t act NOW NOW NOW the world will end as we know it. Therefore Senator Obama, when you take office in January, the GOP will be solidly behind whatever hair-brained scheme of carbon-taxation your administration proposes. The consequences of inaction are too grave. Senator Isakson & McCain will support you. You might have to make your case to Senator Martin though.

While I’m thinking about it, Governor Perdue, you should pass a massive tax hike. Georgia faces at catastrophic budget shortfall of almost 1.6 Billion dollars. Tapping our reserves will weaken our AAA bond rating. All you have to tell the Georgia GOP is that the consequences of losing our AAA bond-rating are so dire, that it would be the end of life as we know it. Georgia Republicans will be happy to support your massive tax hikes. You don’t need to worry about finding so-called experts to make your case. Just sound really scared at the prospect, and have your budget director sound really confident that his tax-hikes will work. Lt. Governor Cagle and Speaker Richardson will fall right it line.

Finally, to the Commissars on the Gwinnett County Soviet. The ignorant masses here on Peach Pundit don’t seem to be too willing to pass the Constitutional Amendments on the ballot allowing for TADs and IDDs. You need to quickly tell your subjects that failure to approve those amendments will mean that their property values will fall. In fact, the reason their property values are so low right now is the fact that those amendments haven’t already passed. The people who elected you are too stupid to understand the concept of causation vs correlation. They will believe that lie if Comrade Bannister repeats is enough times. If the voters of Gwinnett County don’t approve TADs and IDDs then there will be nothing stopping 10 billion Mexicans from taking up residence in Gwinnett. All the street signs will be re-printed in Spanish, and all the phone menus will say “Press 1 for Spanish and press two for English”. The terrified bigots in Gwinnett will gladly pass whatever emergency measures you need.

We no longer need rational debate in this country. We no longer need to consider alternative proposals. As long as our elected leaders scream the sky is falling, the GOP will fall right in line.

See you all in the labor camps. Obama Macht Frei


  1. Wavy says:

    Why are conservatives still hard up on deflecting global warming guilt away from ourselves? Especially, when the scientific community is at an overwhelming consensus on the issue? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

    I’m behind the crux of your argument, that big scary overreaction is leading to the passing of the bailout and other moronic legislation. But is it any different than the way we were lead into the Iraq War? This administration relies on fear rather than reason to garner support for their agenda. McCain is versed in this fear mongering as his current campaign attempts to demonize Obama.

    I don’t think Obama is the greatest of candidates, but if you are looking for rational decision making over by-the-gut decision making, it seems like he would be the candidate this article would side with.

    Seriously, McCain says in his book that
    “I make them (decisions) quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can,” Mr. McCain wrote, with his top adviser Mark Salter, in his 2002 book, “Worth the Fighting For.” “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”

    Exactly the opposite of what you want in your leader, your lead decision maker. Can a conservative please address this without turning it into a “well Obama does this” counter-question that doesn’t even answer my question? Because I don’t think they can.

  2. Game Fan says:

    re: carbon tax-
    looks like that beast is getting fed by these morons already.

    Another provision that has alarmed the good folks over at the Capital Reseach Center is a clause authorizing a “carbon audit of the tax code.” CRC’s Green Alert warns:

    ” This appears to be an attempt by global warming fanatics to lay the foundation for an economy-killing carbon tax just like the “cap-and-tax” system that is now destroying European industry. ”

  3. Rick Day says:

    In the last week, I’ve seen a $60k loss in my portfolio.

    I want to personally thank everyone who has apologized supported the current administration with money and votes in 2000 and 2004.

    This is what happens when lower class, uneducated people (like you) try to make decisions that are designed to help the educated working ‘rich’ (like us).

    Do us all a favor. Sit this one out and let the ‘barely better’ democrats get things on even keel. Maybe by then you will have douched out the elite status quo, and have replaced your boots on the ground with Ron Paulistas (which is happening at this very moment). You know, the Liberty ™ People?

  4. Doug Deal says:


    Anyone who tries to use the “everyone else is doing” argument is trying to scam you. Try going to the Surface Stations site and see if you trust “science” based on the methodology shown there. Go to Climate Audit and see what happens when you tear apart the invalid assumptions and poor statistical methods.

    Then go look for the temperature data from satellites, like from UAH and see how flat temperatures have been while CO2 continues to go through the roof. Keep in mind the very poor methods of the ground temperature stations and head to the Hadley Center or NASA’s GISS site and see how much out of whack the ground temperatures are. (NASA, a SPACE agency, uses ground based temperatures which it then “adjusts” for accuracy instead of trusting its own satellites).

    Then, look at Space Weather and read about the sun remaining in an unprecedented inactive spell (since the space age).

    Anyone who thinks there is anything settled about the politics“science” behind global warming is dangerously misinformed.

  5. Wavy says:


    Respectfully, there is science on the other side of the issue, but the overwhelming consensus is that humans do contribute heavily to global warming. For every 1 article of opposition there are 99 that concur. So my argument to you, is that I understand that contrarian science exists, but I would be more prone to side with the overwhelming majority in the scientific community.

    And the condescending nature of your tone, that there is still a scientific debate about this is other than a short list of naysayers is misrepresenting the truth and the decades of research dedicated to seeking it. The debate now is how much is it contributing, not IS it contributing.

    I was hoping that initial statement would not detract from the main point of my commentary on rash decision making.

  6. leantothemiddle says:

    I guess I am confused. They want a McCain sign even though he voted for the passage. Why is McCain any less a traitor?
    After all Martin thinks the vote for the bailout is bad only because it did not include an amendment to the bankruptcy code, and did not interfere enough with the salaries of the corporations.
    It would appear that the people who think the so called bailout is the end of capitalism
    have no one to vote for other than a libertarian.

  7. Doug Deal says:


    Man changes the environment, there is no shock there. You, however, are confusing that fact with the claim that man is catastrophically changing the environment with his current levels of release of CO2, specifically by heating it up. It is in fact completely beyond reason to come to such a conclusion.

    You want to put at risk man’s prosperity and freedom on a hunch backed by poorly written computer models that have yet been able to predict 10 years into the future, much less 100.

    Cold kills, not heat. A warmer climate would likely benefit biological life on this planet, but a colder one would be catastrophic. What do you think will happen with an average growing season is shrunk by 2 weeks on either side, cutting it by a whole month?

    Despite the irrational alarmists, the Earth’s environment is not fragile. If it was, the whole thing would have come to an end billions of years ago. That is the problem with using computer models to run “experiments” there is so much that looks apparent in the projections that flies in the face of common sense. Anything that last in nature does so because of negative feedbacks, not positive.

    By clinging to your faith in catastrophic global warming as the current evidence disproves such a theory, you are subscribing to the very “rash decision making” you are supposedly coming out against.

    The correct course of action is to wait and see. It could very well be that problems for man might be over the horizon, but that horizon, even at a worst case, would be centuries away. With the very poor data collection methods and failures of the climate models, it is anything but prudent to take action now.

  8. Wavy says:


    Re-read everything I’ve said and then list exactly what I said that’s wrong or misguided. You are using a strawman argument against me.

    I do not support carbon tax, nor did I ever say I did.

    It’s amusing that you warned of the politicization of this issue.

    You did a good job of distracting from the main point of the article and of my initial response to it.

  9. Bill Simon says:


    For nearly 2000 years, it was thought by MANY scientists that the Earth was the center of our universe (“our universe” means whatever those scientists considered to be our universe)…and then…along came ONE GUY who disagreed with the Al Gores and Joe Bidens of the previous 2000 years: His name was Copernicus….and he theorized that it was actually the Sun that was the center of our universe.

    Care to continue relying on crap from “the majority of scientists”?

  10. Doug Deal says:


    Re-read everything I’ve said and then list exactly what I said that’s wrong or misguided. You are using a strawman argument against me.


    but the overwhelming consensus is that humans do contribute heavily to global warming

    For every 1 article of opposition there are 99 that concur

    So my argument to you, is that I understand that contrarian science exists

    And the condescending nature of your tone, that there is still a scientific debate about this is other than a short list of naysayers is misrepresenting the truth and the decades of research dedicated to seeking it.

    Do you care to restate the highlighted text?

  11. Wavy says:


    Oh aren’t you just a picture of smugness.

    Way to stay the course with your argument.

    First you scold me for supporting a carbon tax (even though I do not), and when caught you are now pointing to the statement that an overwhelming majority of scientists attribute global warming to human activity…. which is evidenced by http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

    You conservatives are slick operators, but I’m not dumb enough to fall for your tricks. If only you could win an argument without completely misrepresenting it.

  12. Wavy says:


    I’m sorry but you are an idiot. Science is much more advance now then it was back then.

    That’s not the reason I can confidently call you an idiot, however. Your argument is that every scientific claim should therefore be thrown out because a majority of scientists support it.

    So there goes, let’s see: gravity, cellular composition, disease, reproduction…. I’m missing about a million more, care to call bullsh*t on any of those Bill?

    Your logic is flawed, but that’s nothing new for conservatives.

  13. Bill Simon says:


    My only point was that a large group of people have been wrong in the past…AND, it’s a possibility a large group is wrong now.

    If you think “Group Think” is always right, then YOU are an idiot…and I’d hate to see the company you work for.

Comments are closed.