No.
The $26m was to inform folks of the difference in GHG emissions when natural gas was burned as opposed to when coal was burned.
Switching off coal is good.
Switching off all fossil fuels will be far more difficult.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12...
Oh yes. It is OK when the liberal toss out money left and right. But for a sensible person to promote the truth in any way, that is a disgrace! Ha! Ha!
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
So Linlyons backs up Goebbels when he states, "The $26m was to inform folks of the difference in GHG emissions when natural gas was burned as opposed to when coal was burned."
Goebbels clearly says the same thing when he states, "It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,"
The only thing missing in Linlyons' statement is the clicking of the heels. ACHTUNG! Herr Linlyons!
In direct answer to your question: No doubt about it!
Times change, the bible states it is ok to sell your daughter as a slave (Exodus 21:7) and not that long ago slavery was acceptable by many Christians in the U.S. Would it be hypocritical for a Christian to stand up today and denounce slavery as evil or should they stop calling themselves Christians?
Life is all about choices, today when I have a choice between coal and gas, I choose gas, when I have a choice between wind and gas, I choose wind and I fully expect there will be better choices then wind in the future. [1]
Bill Nye [2] did have a debate with Marc Morano [3,4] But when one side screeches "these are scientific facts" when those "facts are not supported by the science, what is the point of having a debate about science? It is just like the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate. those who take their dogma over science will not change their mind, nor will those who accept science over dogma change their mind. (The debate was pure comedy though and I recommend every one to watch it)
Just like sagebrush keeps repeating the same lies over and over again, including the "quote" he attributes to his buddy Joseph Goebbels is a lie. [6] here are some more quotes by sagebrush to show his ideology is more like a Nazi then that of a civilized Christian.
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA",
"Sustainability is a codeword for communism",
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch",
"Justice and equality are codewords for communism",
"God has his hand on the thermostat".
Bill Nye the so called science guy backed out of a full fledged climate change debate with Morano on CNN. He was replaced with Brune from the Sierra Club. Brune accused Morano of being funded by big oil ( http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/01/23/update-full-transcript-available-watch-now-a-really-short-climate-debate-on-cnns-piers-morgan-climate-depots-morano-vs-sierra-club-warmist-michael-brune/ ) AFTER Brune and the Sierra Club took $26 million from Big Oil.
So how much credibility does a green AGW cultist have when he accuses an ideological opponent of doing the very same thing the AGW cultist did before hand?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/06/warmists-display-cowardice-and-hypocrisy-in-avoiding-global-warming-debate/
