Wilson

For

President

It would at least make the debates interesting for the first time since Lincoln/Douglas.

Even

Think

About It

Frank, why in heaven's name would you want Mr. Wilson to abandon his high office for a lesser one?

learn

there

are

no

automatic

breaks.

Kudos to Jeremy for the Jack Aubrey reference! (But you didn't paraphrase, you quoted exactly! ;-))

Thanks.

Most everyone agrees that there is some degree of warming going on - much less than a degree over the past hundred years - yes. But it is far from settled science that man is the principle or even a significant cause of this trend. The science is much more clear regarding sun activity, showing an amazing correlation between solar activity and earth temperature.

Further, the global warming alarmists like to look at a tiny slice of geologic history and project the upslope of our current mini-cycle forward in an illegitimate way, esp. considering slight changes to computer model inputs make gigantic differences.

I prefer to look at the bigger picture:

Now tell me: which medieval kingdoms were responsible for all the greenhouse gases emanating from their horses’ arses?

I'm 100% pro-life, but this seems a ridiculous overreaction to me. Let's be principled and consistent - for sure - but do we have to insist on absolute purity? That is the route of the ideologue. Conservatism, it seems to be (and Russell Kirk, etc.) is defined by certain core principles in general that in practice may lead to different specific policy positions.

To insist on absolute purity strikes me as gnostic, and self-defeating. No wonder returning to our constitutional foundation as a republic has been such a fruitless adventure; the bulk of "conservatives" are actually statist accomodationists and the rest of us are living out our schismatic tendencies in the political sphere just as much as we do in all things ecclesiastical.

When it comes to murdering babies? Yeah, we do.

Still, I'd like to know what line this NV chairperson was actually drawing? Further, I'd like to know why a relatively inconsequential position, as John points out, requires throwing the whole kit-and-kaboodle on the trash heap? Presently there is no alternative if there is not a viable Constitution Party; the GOP is much more compromised on this and myriad other issues.

Let me know when you decide to actually engage and respond to what I wrote above.

In the meantime, as I've written elsewhere, and as many others have pointed out, if mankind is critically altering the climate there is absolutely no way to halt global warming without drastically reducing man’s output of greenhouse gases. Not just capping growth as Kyoto would have us do, but actually reducing the world’s output to what it was decades ago. And to do that will require not just decimating the American economy, but sentencing most of the world to abject and hopeless poverty. The adverse affects of global warning are highly debatable; what is not debatable is the incredible carnage in terms of human lives and disease and misery such a “solution” would reap around the world. (continued)

But I don’t grant that man plays nearly as large of a role in affecting the world’s climate as you do. Such hubris! As the following charts shows, man is a blip on the screen compared to the natural processes God has endowed this world with – and that still doesn’t even address the tremendous and truly scientifically-proven link between the sun’s activity and the Earth’s temperatures:

NOTE: "Human additions" represent such a small percentage of the total Greenhouse Effect (0.28%) that they are barely visible in this pie chart.