LOL This Ought To Work Well…… Delusional Nutters Trying To Pressure Conservatives To Abandon Their Base


Funny stuff. 

From HuffPo …….

Ann Wagner’s Climate Change Denials Targeted By Activist Protest

The Sierra Club has joined with Organizing For Action, an Obama-allied nonprofit group, to organize constituents of Rep. Ann Wagner to protest on Wednesday afternoon outside the congresswoman’s Ballwin, Mo., office in an effort to get her to acknowledge the reality of manmade climate change.

The protestors claim the Missouri Republican has ducked questions on climate change science, and point to her participation in Americans For Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax Pledge,” which opposes any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.

“She’s got her head in the sand,” Michael Berg, an organizer for the Missouri chapter of Sierra Club, told HuffPost in an interview Wednesday. “She clearly does not admit that this is a problem and will not do anything to confront it.”

Environmentalists were particularly troubled by an email Wagner sent to a constituent regarding her position on climate change, which was later reprinted in full on a little-known blog.

It’s funny because Wagner sent an entirely reasonable response to the imbecile asking about it.  Worse, this very troubling email was described as “a horror story of complete and utter stupidity.”

Now, I don’t generally link to idiot little blogs like the one HuffPo did, but, in this case, I’ll let it go because the person running the blog is obviously ill prepared to defend his position.  I know this because he gives no explanation as to why the email was “a horror story of complete and utter stupidity.”   In his world it just is because it isn’t what he wanted to read.  Here’s the email response to request that she vote against the Keystone pipeline.  The bold is the blog author’s. 

Dear Citizen Rush,Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding climate change. I appreciate your views on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Like you, I firmly believe in protecting our environment and natural resources for future generations. It is our responsibility to leave this nation in the same or better condition to ensure that future generations can thrive and prosper. The theory of climate change is one of the most hotly debated issues concerning the environment and politics. One issue that needs no debate is that climate is inherently variable and, thus, constantly changing. The field of climate science is in its relative infancy and it appears that some within the public policy world have made dubious assessments of scientific information in order to further their own political agenda.

Our policy response to this dilemma should not be based on inconsistent and unsound science or driven by the fear of a supposed catastrophe. I believe that we can harness the power of American innovation to adapt and mitigate effects so that our path forward does not threaten the economic stability of the nation. All policies that involve climate change must pass three vital tests; they must work environmentally, they must be economically sound, and they must be practical.

Environmental interests groups suggest a number of solutions to stop the increase of greenhouse gas emissions including a “cap-and-trade” system, a carbon tax, and complete Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation of carbon emissions. These supposed solutions fail to pass any of the tests that are essential for effective policy. They fail to deliver promised environmental benefits, as evidenced by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s concession in a 2010 hearing that the cap-and-trade bill “will not ultimately be able to change the amount of carbon dioxide that is accumulating in the atmosphere.” These proposals fail economically as they would drain trillions of dollars from our economy, decreasing economic growth and costing millions of jobs lost to countries with no environmental regulations. These plans also fail the test of practicality as they incur massive costs without guaranteeing any actual benefits.

Additionally, you may be interested to know that the U.S. has actually decreased our annual carbon emissions by 10.7 percent without employing top-down regulations, mandates, or taxes. This achievement puts us more than halfway toward fulfilling our commitment to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020. This development is encouraging, especially when coupled with the fact that there has been no global warming trend in more than 15 years.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Having the benefit of your views and the views of all Missourians allows me to better represent the people of the 2nd Congressional District. In that regard, your input is most helpful.

For additional information on current legislation and my representation of the 2nd Congressional District, I invite you to visit my website at


Ann Wagner
Member of Congress

So, congresswoman Wagner acknowledges that the climate is changing.  For that, she’s a denier.  She believes in protecting the environment.  I suppose that’s the horror story?  That climate science has produced dubious assessments is stating the obvious.  Sea levels aren’t drowning anyone, winter is winter still, we’re not hotting up, hurricanes…. well, bwahahahaha!!!! 

Perhaps the blogger objects to the notion that humans are adaptable?  Or that any solution “must work environmentally, they must be economically sound, and they must be practical.”

I don’t know.  It’s always difficult to tell what the nutters object to these days.  The data?

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to LOL This Ought To Work Well…… Delusional Nutters Trying To Pressure Conservatives To Abandon Their Base

  1. philjourdan says:

    They probably would deny they agree with the first part out of spite (must work environmentally). And they will absolutely deny the latter 2. Government can just print money, so money is no object. And since they can just print money, anything is practical.

  2. DirkH says:

    The principal and terminal fault with climate science and climate models seems to be that they assume the atmosphere to be hydrostatic. It is known that it isn’t yet this simplification allows them to use the barometric equation.

    In other words the models don’t contain vertical mass exchange and assume that the atmosphere as a whole does not expand when warmed and contract when cooled.

    Quite amazing isn’t it?

  3. Pingback: » LOL This Ought To Work Well…… Delusional Nutters Trying To …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s