I have no idea how anyone comes to a conclusion like this.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said yesterday he intends to block Democrats from passing a mandatory federal cap on heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions.
“I will be an active part of any leadership effort to prevent it passing in the House,” the outgoing chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee told reporters after speaking at an event hosted by the American Petroleum Institute and the Energy Department.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/05/barton-global-warming/ (thanks Digg.com)
Even if he does not agree with the conclusion, how does Rep. Barton reconcile the fact that SO many scientists have come out saying that Global Warming/Climate Change is real? Unless they were all grossly mis-informed, doesn't this contradict the "pretty weak" statement?
As always, what interests me here is not that he has a different opinion, but how he reached it. I generally believe people to evaluate themselves as honest and seeking to do their best for the most amount of people and/or whatever they are doing is not going to affect anyone else aka no one ever thinks they are going to Hell (generally speaking of course... there are people who have accurate assessments of what they are doing, but they are pretty few and far between). Rep. Barton must have looked at everything and said "this is the right move for the most amount of people". My question is what did he read to come to that conclusion?
