Results so far:
| No | 43% | 15 votes | Total: 35 votes | |
| Yes | 57% | 20 votes |
First - the global warming crisis is fabricated and not scientifically sound. A scientist hired to monitor global temperature changes went into the job with "global warning" bias in his resume.
Second - The Congress might not want to considering that the primary cause of the "pollution causing global warming" according to the "news hype" is from humans. So unless the Congress want to budget for them to stop all the hot air that is produced by the "wasteful use" of the "people's money" in order to gain more federal control of the people in this country.
Third - What is more important - a green friendly Capitol at the expense of the freedom of every American in this country, or, proper care taking with the resources we have, improve as required and replace with proper when needed.
Fourth - I like the "conspiracy idea" that the socialists, hiding out as liberals are paying for the "crisis" of global warming in order to place more government control over its people so that when they are in full control of the House, Senate and Presidency - free America will no longer be free. Social medicine, social environment, social thinking, and retraining for those that disagree is no more than thought and speech control. (Yes, people are now being punished for their thoughts in this country - personal experience). Crowded jails will not be a problem anymore, because death is not respected of humans anymore, so just kill those who don't agree. The baby that could have "helped" to provide solutions for these "blown out of proportion" scientific findings may have been the one that just died before it had a chance to breath and add its carbon dioxide to this planet. The green tree, the dog and cat and bug, have more protective rights than the humans on this planet. I heard a warning once, when man starts to worship the creation instead of the creator, destruction will soon follow. We are there, my fellow Americans. Believe in God, or don't, a choice that each person makes. A belief in self, or not is a choice. There are ways to help our environment, without causing fear among people, where non is needed. Unless life for humankind is respected this "fear" will just become the destruction of people. Look at some of the science that shows the placement of this planet in the universe we know. Man's nature to destroy is inborn. Man's ability to create - not gonna happen. Use of what we have at hand in this gluttonous society is just ignorant. If the rich environmentalists are that concerned - let them pay for it. - The people's money should be used for the promotion of the individual's ability to make good, moral right choices. This would promote good, right moral homes that in turn make good communities that, in turn, make good states that, in turn, will turn this country back into the God fearing nation that we were founded with. This is not a perfect world - if one does not like their station in life or where they live or how they live - choose to change it, but respect my right not too. Freedom is not making everyone happy, freedom is making the ability to choose to be happy present. As a mother, I would like to let Mr. Gore know that if a child had a fever a mother would take the child to the doctor; God being the Great Physician, does He not have the ability to provide corrective action if His people brought His planet's concerns to Him? Try it, you might find some answers.
Learn more about this author, Janet Taylor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Funding what I choose to call an environmental initiative is really no longer an option but an imperative. As the world has witnessed, nations that choose to look the other way in the current global emergent crisis will only have themselves to blame. We not only owe it to the next generation, we owe it to ourselves.
The cost to achieve this go green initiative may be high, but it pales in the face of the alternatives. Consider some statistic from the work that has been done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). The IPCC is a UN panel charged with assessing on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
The IPCC maintain that observed changes in global climate over the past 50 years have already affected biological and hydrological systems in many parts of the world. According to them, there are also preliminary indications that some social and economic systems have been affected by recent increases in floods and droughts. Projections scenarios suggest further adverse effects of climate change will occur in the coming century for much of the world, and that the greater the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases, the greater the scale of global warming will be.
According to the most recent IPCC report, some of the most substantial effects of climate change could include:
-increased threats to human health, particularly in lower income populations;
-increas ed extinction risk for some vulnerable species; decreased agricultural yield in many tropical and subtropical regions;
- heightened water shortages in many water-scarce areas of the world;
further risk of storm and flooding damage in populations that inhabit small islands and low-lying coastal areas.
Rather than waiting for these events to overwhelm us, the US government needs to take proactive steps to mitigate the fall outs of climate upheaval in a timely fashion to avert the certain aftermath of crisis in the absence of intervention. Earmarking funds now rather than later is the responsible thing to do. As such, I urge congress to support funding to help the capital go green!
Learn more about this author, Torkwase.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

