I just don’t understand where you guys’ heads at. You need to pay attention with your own party and Ed’s ‘daddy’, GEORGE SCHULTZ! He wants Republicans to lead the way on green liberalism. I been trying to tell you that mostly both parties are in on this shyt. You cannot depend on what they might tell you to the contrary.
A Republican Secretary of State Urges Action on Climate Change – Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/questions-and-answers-with-george-shultz-on-climate-change-and-energy/
Former Reagan official predicts Republican skeptics will be ‘mummed’ by climate change — Monday, July 14, 2014 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002783
Senior GOP statesman George Shultz urged Republicans on Friday to be proactive on climate change, calling it an “obvious risk” to the economy and national security.
The former secretary of State for President Reagan says that rising temperatures could be addressed through an inexpensive “insurance policy,” similar to Reagan’s support for restrictions on gases that degraded the ozone layer in the 1970s and ’80s.
In this case, Shultz supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would begin small and slowly increase. He often points to melting sea ice in the Arctic as a sign of changes to the climate.
“I think the people who say the climate isn’t changing are going to be mummed by reality,” Shultz said in a webinar hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Climate CoLab.
“It’s changing, and there’s all sorts of evidence out there,” he added. “And it isn’t just the science and it isn’t one-off events like a hot summer or something. With the Arctic Ocean being created, that’s a trend line. These huge melts all over the place, that’s a trend. Greenland is becoming green. So the climate is changing, and the most plausible explanation is the CO2 explanation. So I come back to President Ronald Reagan’s approach. Why don’t we take out an insurance policy?”
Shultz, 93, first proposed a carbon tax last year, joining a handful of other conservative economists, analysts and former lawmakers who believe that pricing the gas can benefit their political party, address environmental concerns and end energy subsidies. A condition of their support includes enacting tax cuts on income and businesses.
Can a Republican president push a carbon tax? …
Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who now heads the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, believes there could be more room for the GOP to consider the tax plan after the November elections. Better yet, he predicted that climate action could accelerate if a Republican president is elected in 2016.
“The Great Recession is letting up. Barack Obama is going to be a lame duck after … November. So Obama rejectionism is going to decline,” Inglis said on the webinar. “We’ve got an opportunity at that point to push forward on a very different proposal, different than cap and trade, and give conservatives the opportunity to actually lead on this.”
He added later: “I know this is sort of a strange thing to say, but I wonder if we’d be further along on climate action if Mitt Romney had won” the presidency in 2012. “Perhaps it’s only a Republican who could touch climate change. Because then people will think, ‘OK, he or she’s not overreacting. They’re not going with apocalyptic visions.'” …
“I was just checking to see if you guys would fall for it. 😀 heh!”
What possible motivation would you have for doing that?
Richard
August 9, 2014 5:47 pm
I’m not a republican, primarily because I see them and Democrats as two sides of the same, corroded coin. As a geologist with 28 years experience, I’m trying to figure out what basic earth science course I could take that would convince me I should deny the scientific method and accept what is handed to me by people like this.
Aphan
August 9, 2014 5:49 pm
Ed, neither George Shultz nor Bob Inglis are voting members of congress. Inglis lost his seat in the House because of his idiotic stances on public issues, climate change being one of them. Stupid crosses all party lines, all ages, races, zip codes. I’ve never seen anyone here state that Republicans aren’t just as good at it as anyone else is.
Craig
August 9, 2014 6:13 pm
Is that the best MSNBC can do?… mmmm, yes.
u.k.(us)
August 9, 2014 6:27 pm
John Coleman says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:30 am
..”How are we ever going to get the skeptical message to the masses? ”
=========
You are doing it right now (internet).
I grew up watching your Chicago forecasts as a young weather geek.
This is the new medium.
Don’t give up now !!
David Lloyd George – July 1914
The majority did not want to argue.
Argument never makes headway against conviction,
and conviction takes no part in argument.
Because – it knows.
This, apparently, is not a new problem.
Brock Way
August 9, 2014 7:18 pm
The best thing ever was Ed getting completely clownpwn3d by the “Media Bias” graphic (Zimmerman-Martin) that Ed put on his show and STILL didn’t get, even though it was right in the title of the graphic in 72-point font. Too funny.
Oh I’m just bored, Aphan, this little ice age has me rained in with another huge downpour. Almost completed the house improvements to get it able to withstand the ice age. The operations manager where I work called the other day, they’re offering me a bonus to return by the end of August. Just need about a week, if it would please just quit raining all the time!
So I used to listen to Ed and I remember him talking about his father, George. Talking about living in Minnesota and being 100% for the Bakken & fossil fuels, gun owners and bringing people up out of poverty. He’s done fundraisers for people going through hard times. He was going to run for political office first as a Republican, then as a Democrat, but decided the talking head gig was more lucrative.
So I’m actually looking to vote Republican, because third party voting since ‘Poppy’ Bush feels like stupidest of all. I guess it was just a silly idea for amusement. Keep you guys sharp.
I totally empathize with the rain thing, my poor tomatoes are so confused. But I get tired of the booby traps set by the opposition (not to mention the boobs who set them) so I’m less inclined to be amused by silly ones I guess. 🙂
Olaf Koenders
August 9, 2014 8:47 pm
“America’s still a great country. We’re losing our grip on that.”
Forget about losing “grip” – Ed Schultz has lost the entire plot.
bushbunny
August 10, 2014 12:19 am
Some people love the limelight, and when that fades they bring up something outrageous just to get publicity again. “I’m still here – didn’t yer know?” I remember a friend who was attached to show biz, she was a really pretty woman, and all of a sudden headlines read, ‘(name) daughter nearly falls under train’ Actually the lass just stumbled when she got off the train. But her name was just in the MSM again.
urederra
August 10, 2014 3:37 am
A donkey in a suit is still a donkey. Ugly tie, btw.
Bruce Cobb
August 10, 2014 7:13 am
When he says Earth Science, what he really means is Environmental “Science”. The misdirection is deliberate. It is similar to the Alarmist ploy of stating that manmade warming/climate change is “simple physics”.
Was he paid to appear? Then it is waste of money. Since the internet took of in full steam, people have done their own research if lay persons, and there is a trend throughout the world, that the faith in politicians, the media, and warmsters is lacking trust and credibility. It hasn’t sunk in yet, that whatever you do, one can’t change the climate or weather. All one can do is to try and stem pollution of our air, water resources and land.
Here’s a good political cartoon to spread around.
If you don’t vote a few people with lots of money will speak for you.
Dr. Strangelove
August 10, 2014 10:58 pm
I bet the people who voted YES thought earth science is taught by Al Gore since that’s their only exposure to “science.” And Ed thought Al had a B.S. on earth science. Al has a lot of “B.S.” but not bachelor of science.
…agenda to drive down wages… …poverty created by trickle down economics…
For so-called skeptics, there’s a lot of buying into propaganda going around. I’m not a Republican but I at least don’t mischaracterize their economic policies. But then, I tend not to accept propaganda in general, whatever it’s about.
Putting dissenters into reeducation camps? The far left is rearing it’s ugly head in the United States.
Actually I remember a large survey of geoscientists and engineers that showed a majority of them were skeptical of global warming alarmism. What could they learn in a basic science class?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Looking at this Ed Show segment from MSNBC and a Guardian article (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/07/facts-can-convince-some-conservatives-about-global-warming) referenced at the top of a WUWT post from today (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/09/dont-mention-the-nuclear-option-to-greens/), I’m sensing a common “conservatives need to be educated, why won’t they just learn science?” theme out there in the progressive media. Is there a shadow CAGW strategy group that decides the theme of the moment and then sends it out to all the MSNBCs and Guardians of the world to promote it?
I just don’t understand where you guys’ heads at. You need to pay attention with your own party and Ed’s ‘daddy’, GEORGE SCHULTZ! He wants Republicans to lead the way on green liberalism. I been trying to tell you that mostly both parties are in on this shyt. You cannot depend on what they might tell you to the contrary.
A Republican Secretary of State Urges Action on Climate Change – Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/questions-and-answers-with-george-shultz-on-climate-change-and-energy/
Former Reagan official predicts Republican skeptics will be ‘mummed’ by climate change — Monday, July 14, 2014
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002783
Senior GOP statesman George Shultz urged Republicans on Friday to be proactive on climate change, calling it an “obvious risk” to the economy and national security.
The former secretary of State for President Reagan says that rising temperatures could be addressed through an inexpensive “insurance policy,” similar to Reagan’s support for restrictions on gases that degraded the ozone layer in the 1970s and ’80s.
In this case, Shultz supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would begin small and slowly increase. He often points to melting sea ice in the Arctic as a sign of changes to the climate.
“I think the people who say the climate isn’t changing are going to be mummed by reality,” Shultz said in a webinar hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Climate CoLab.
“It’s changing, and there’s all sorts of evidence out there,” he added. “And it isn’t just the science and it isn’t one-off events like a hot summer or something. With the Arctic Ocean being created, that’s a trend line. These huge melts all over the place, that’s a trend. Greenland is becoming green. So the climate is changing, and the most plausible explanation is the CO2 explanation. So I come back to President Ronald Reagan’s approach. Why don’t we take out an insurance policy?”
Shultz, 93, first proposed a carbon tax last year, joining a handful of other conservative economists, analysts and former lawmakers who believe that pricing the gas can benefit their political party, address environmental concerns and end energy subsidies. A condition of their support includes enacting tax cuts on income and businesses.
Can a Republican president push a carbon tax? …
Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who now heads the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, believes there could be more room for the GOP to consider the tax plan after the November elections. Better yet, he predicted that climate action could accelerate if a Republican president is elected in 2016.
“The Great Recession is letting up. Barack Obama is going to be a lame duck after … November. So Obama rejectionism is going to decline,” Inglis said on the webinar. “We’ve got an opportunity at that point to push forward on a very different proposal, different than cap and trade, and give conservatives the opportunity to actually lead on this.”
He added later: “I know this is sort of a strange thing to say, but I wonder if we’d be further along on climate action if Mitt Romney had won” the presidency in 2012. “Perhaps it’s only a Republican who could touch climate change. Because then people will think, ‘OK, he or she’s not overreacting. They’re not going with apocalyptic visions.'” …
George Shultz is not Ed Schultz’s “Daddy”. You didn’t even notice their last names are spelled differently did you?
A tiger on the tail.
=============
I was just checking to see if you guys would fall for it. 😀 heh!
“I was just checking to see if you guys would fall for it. 😀 heh!”
What possible motivation would you have for doing that?
I’m not a republican, primarily because I see them and Democrats as two sides of the same, corroded coin. As a geologist with 28 years experience, I’m trying to figure out what basic earth science course I could take that would convince me I should deny the scientific method and accept what is handed to me by people like this.
Ed, neither George Shultz nor Bob Inglis are voting members of congress. Inglis lost his seat in the House because of his idiotic stances on public issues, climate change being one of them. Stupid crosses all party lines, all ages, races, zip codes. I’ve never seen anyone here state that Republicans aren’t just as good at it as anyone else is.
Is that the best MSNBC can do?… mmmm, yes.
John Coleman says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:30 am
..”How are we ever going to get the skeptical message to the masses? ”
=========
You are doing it right now (internet).
I grew up watching your Chicago forecasts as a young weather geek.
This is the new medium.
Don’t give up now !!
This, apparently, is not a new problem.
The best thing ever was Ed getting completely clownpwn3d by the “Media Bias” graphic (Zimmerman-Martin) that Ed put on his show and STILL didn’t get, even though it was right in the title of the graphic in 72-point font. Too funny.
Oh I’m just bored, Aphan, this little ice age has me rained in with another huge downpour. Almost completed the house improvements to get it able to withstand the ice age. The operations manager where I work called the other day, they’re offering me a bonus to return by the end of August. Just need about a week, if it would please just quit raining all the time!
So I used to listen to Ed and I remember him talking about his father, George. Talking about living in Minnesota and being 100% for the Bakken & fossil fuels, gun owners and bringing people up out of poverty. He’s done fundraisers for people going through hard times. He was going to run for political office first as a Republican, then as a Democrat, but decided the talking head gig was more lucrative.
So I’m actually looking to vote Republican, because third party voting since ‘Poppy’ Bush feels like stupidest of all. I guess it was just a silly idea for amusement. Keep you guys sharp.
I totally empathize with the rain thing, my poor tomatoes are so confused. But I get tired of the booby traps set by the opposition (not to mention the boobs who set them) so I’m less inclined to be amused by silly ones I guess. 🙂
Forget about losing “grip” – Ed Schultz has lost the entire plot.
Some people love the limelight, and when that fades they bring up something outrageous just to get publicity again. “I’m still here – didn’t yer know?” I remember a friend who was attached to show biz, she was a really pretty woman, and all of a sudden headlines read, ‘(name) daughter nearly falls under train’ Actually the lass just stumbled when she got off the train. But her name was just in the MSM again.
A donkey in a suit is still a donkey. Ugly tie, btw.
When he says Earth Science, what he really means is Environmental “Science”. The misdirection is deliberate. It is similar to the Alarmist ploy of stating that manmade warming/climate change is “simple physics”.
Was he paid to appear? Then it is waste of money. Since the internet took of in full steam, people have done their own research if lay persons, and there is a trend throughout the world, that the faith in politicians, the media, and warmsters is lacking trust and credibility. It hasn’t sunk in yet, that whatever you do, one can’t change the climate or weather. All one can do is to try and stem pollution of our air, water resources and land.
Here’s a good political cartoon to spread around.
If you don’t vote a few people with lots of money will speak for you.
I bet the people who voted YES thought earth science is taught by Al Gore since that’s their only exposure to “science.” And Ed thought Al had a B.S. on earth science. Al has a lot of “B.S.” but not bachelor of science.
…agenda to drive down wages…
…poverty created by trickle down economics…
For so-called skeptics, there’s a lot of buying into propaganda going around. I’m not a Republican but I at least don’t mischaracterize their economic policies. But then, I tend not to accept propaganda in general, whatever it’s about.
For those wondering who this guy is, here is a sample:
http://youtu.be/o49VnVFeziw
It is one of his milder moments.