"Forty-eight percent of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in gasoline taxes to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new nationwide survey released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll found just 18% of Americans are willing to pay 50 cents or more in additional taxes per gallon of gas to reduce greenhouse emissions. U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has called for a 50 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax." (NCPPR release.)
-Max Borders
I thought yall didn’t believe in global warming? How you going to ask people if they are willing to address a problem yall go out of your way to deny exists?
Who funds the conservative think tank “National Center for Public Policy Research?”
1. “Believe in”? First, it’s not a question of belief, but of evidence. The evidence just doesn’t comport with the theory. But if there were/is warming I would say that I don’t agree that most warming is anthropogenic, rather than part of natural variability.
2. NCPPR is funded almost wholy by indepedendent donors. But shouldn’t you have looked that up before commenting?
A little critical thinking goes a long way Jerimee.
I think it takes a whole mess of “critical” thinking to deny the evidence of global warming.
Fortunately for the GOP, your unnamed donors seem to willing to pony up the cash to pay for research a la cart.
I don’t need to know what “anthropogenic” means to know whether or not pollution exists. I’m sorry that wealthy folks will have to help us pay to clean it up, but you and the John Locke Foundation will probably ensure that middle income Americans pay far more than those that profit by pollution.
Since you don’t want to pay a penny for a healthy environment, what do you propose to ensure the health and safety of American families? Maybe some corporate welfare will help, eh Max?
If you don’t know what anthropogenic means, don’t know that climate research and activism gets an order of magnitude more money than climate skepticism, and you don’t know that carbon dioxide is exhaled from human bodies (and thus not pollution), then you’ve got a long way to go before weighing in on this issue. Sad that your understanding is so unreflective and uncritical — and that you believe only what others tell you to. You must: otherwise you would have an idea about the terms of this debate, of which are thankfully not a part.
Yeah I figured you’d say that. When you don’t have anything to say it helps to throw in some 50 cent words.
You never answered the question, where does the National Center for Public Policy Research get it’s funding from? In what way is it different from a purely partisan organization? Has it ever published any research that diverged in the slightest from it’s founding prejudices?
Should we get our science from partisan organizations like the National Center for Public Policy Research?
Your dogmatic approach to environmental problems (deny them) isn’t being “critical,” it’s being irresponsible.
Well, I can’t answer all your questions about NCPPR. But I’m sure you can use the Internet to find out, or simply contact them. But what difference does it make? My point was that they polled people about how much tax they would be willing to pay to avert some perceive global warming risks. And why does my holding an opinion different from yours make me irresponsible? You don’t even know the $.50 words that are very common in the context of this discussion.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
Here’s your critical thinking lesson for today. Don’t want to overburden you, though.
Doing your homework for you. From a big shot at the Policy Center:
“Yes, we’re funded almost exclusively by individuals — we have 72,000 of what we consider “active” donors right now. Around 2% comes from foundations and corporations.
I think our average annual contribution from one source — and this includes folks who give multiple times, comes out to around $100 or less.
We don’t have any single donor that even gives 1% of our total contributions.”
“Your dogmatic approach to environmental problems (deny them) isn’t being “critical,” it’s being irresponsible.”
Regardless of the growing evidence of a lack of “scientific consensus”, and regardless of the growing evidence that temperature is the forcing agent for increased CO2, not the other way around, despite the growing evidence of academic and intellectual dishonesty by the True Believers, people like Jerimee are supremely confident in their abject ignorance.
Why are we not surprised?