Here we go! The mayor of Denver has a new “plan” to fight “global warming”.

Denver is gearing up to fight global warming, and residents may soon be asked to make personal sacrifices to help save the planet.

The key word in that sentence is “personal sacrifices,” which of course means dollars coming out of YOUR pocket to pay for all of this. I thought that we lived in a FREE country and that we could make decisions on our own, in terms of our lives. I guess not!

The “plan” also calls for taxing “excessive” use of electricity and natural gas among other energy sources. This plan also calls for your insurance premiums to be based on how many miles that you travel.

But the proposal also contains some ideas that may be unpopular, such as penalizing heavy users of electricity and natural gas and basing auto insurance premiums on the number of miles traveled.

So, here we go. There is not even a consensus on “global warming” from the world’s scientists.

“A one-hundred-percent record of ’scientific consensus’ on anthropogenic climate change would be a sensational finding indeed. In fact, such a total result would be even more remarkable than any ‘consensus’ ever achieved in Soviet-style elections,” Peiser noted sarcastically.

The Science Magazine essay analyzed 928 abstracts containing the keyword “climate change,” all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The essay found that not a single one of the studies showed climate change to be naturally occurring.

The essay was written by University of California professor Naomi Oreskes, a member of the University’s Department of History and Science Studies Program.

According to Oreskes, “None of these (928) papers argued that [current climate change is natural].”

“This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with [United Nations] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies,” Oreskes wrote.

“Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect,” she added.

“The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen,” concluded Oreskes.

But Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University and the editor of of CCNet (Cambridge Conference Network) webzine, labeled Oreskes’ essay a “disturbing article.

“Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modeling are highly questionable?” Peiser asked.

“Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine] review. That’s how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!” he added.

According to Peiser, Oreskes’ assertion that there is a 100 percent consensus about the issue is not backed by science.

“Even [former Soviet dictator Joseph] Stalin himself did not take consensus politics to such extremes,” Peiser explained. “In the Soviet Union the official ‘participation rate’ was never higher than 98-99 percent.

“So how did the results published in Science achieve a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based. This makes it difficult to check how Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results,” he added.

Yet, “those” people would lead you to believe that there is. This will just end up costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars per year for all of the new “global warming”, save the planet, government programs. This will hurt our business community as well as us on a personal level. Just like “save the whales”, “stop the nukes”, etc, this whole “global warming” nonsense is just bunk. The democrats have no fresh ideas, so, they need to come up with a new platform. “Global Warming” is it!

I have no problem with doing things for the environment that will save me money in the long run. Such as light bulbs, higher gas mileage, etc. But, for them to start throwing programs down our throats, for something that is not even proven, will be the end. Taxes will be higher, the economy will go into a recession or worse, etc.

I’m sorry, but, I believe that there are several things that HAVE to come first before we go crazy over “global warming”. Such as: making sure we are safe from all of the wackos out there that want to kill us!! If we have no world left, then this whole “global warming” thing won’t matter.

Let’s figure out a way for change without costing us billions upon billions of dollars in tax dollars! Or….would you rather pay for it?!