Tag Archive: Carbon Tax


From The New TV Comedy Show “The Flipside” Hosted By Michael Loftus

 

 

 

 

Published on Sep 17, 2014

” Comedian Michael Loftus, host of the new TV show “The Flipside” goes on an extended rant about how people who supposedly believe in the upcoming end of the world brought on by global warming primarily seem interested in just making money for themselves.”

 

 

HT/ The People’s Cube

 

 

   These links will allow you to like “The Flipside” on Facebook , visit host Michael Loftus’ website and subscribe to their Youtube channel if so inclined .

Australia’s Global Warming Budget Is About To Get Slashed By 90 Percent

 

 

 

 

” Australia’s conservative coalition is set to cut more than 90 percent of the funding related to global warming from their budget, from $5.75 billion this year to $500 million, over the next four years.

  Environmentalists and leftist politicians in the country protested the move by conservative Liberal Party Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s governing coalition to slash funding for climate programs, arguing such funding for green energy and reducing carbon dioxide emissions were necessary to stop global warming.

  But Abbott’s government shot back, saying that the country needed to reduce the size of government and improve the economy.

” The coalition government acknowledges the role of renewable energy in Australia’s energy mix,” said Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane. “There is over $1 billion in funding for existing renewable projects to be completed over the coming years.” “

 

Read more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama’s Top-And-Bottom Coalition Shows Signs Of Strain

 

 

obama-coalition

 

 

 

” America’s two major political parties are inevitably coalitions, forced by the winner-take-all Electoral College and the need of candidates in single-member congressional districts to amass 50 percent of the vote, or nearly that, to win election.

  In a nation of America’s cultural variety, that means holding together groups that have different priorities and conflicting positions on issues.

  So coalitions don’t last forever, and change composition over time. John Kennedy’s Democratic coalition united white Southerners and northern Catholics. Half a century later, Republican Mitt Romney carried white Southerners and white Catholics by wide margins.

  Barack Obama’s Democratic Party is a top-and-bottom coalition, with affluent gentry liberals and blacks, single women, recent Hispanic immigrants and young voters — all groups of little political heft in Kennedy’s day.

  Now in the sixth year of the Obama presidency, with his job approval stuck below 50 percent, there are signs of strain. And choices made earlier, when Democrats held congressional supermajorities, are starting to prove troublesome.

  One choice was to not bring forward immigration legislation that would provide a path to legalization for immigrants in the country unlawfully. This was a top priority for the Hispanic Caucus, but Obama and Democratic congressional leaders chose not to advance an issue that would cost them the support of some Democrats and require Republican votes.”

 

 

It’s always worth your while to read what Michael Barone has to say . This article is no exception .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time To End The ‘Secret Science’ At The EPA

 

 

 

” Here’s an interesting fact: Scientists hoping to be published in the journal Science are told in advance that they must agree to make available “all data necessary to understand and assess the conclusions of the manuscript.” The stipulation is commonplace in the scientific and academic communities, where research results must be transparent and reproducible to be credible.

  That’s supposed to be the way it is for the federal government, too. Here’s how the policy is described by the Administrative Conference of the United States: Federal officials are expected, to the maximum extent possible, to “identify and make publicly available (on the agency website or some other widely available forum) references to the scientific literature, underlying data, models, and research results that it considered. In so doing, the agency should list all information upon which it relied in reaching its conclusions, as well as any information material to the scientific analysis that it considered but upon which it ultimately did not rely.”

  Unfortunately, “secret science” is the norm at the Environmental Protection Agency, according to witnesses at Tuesday’s hearing of a subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. As the committee’s chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, said, “Transparency and independent verification are basic tenants of science and must inform sound environmental policy. When the EPA does not follow these basic steps, it fails in its obligation to the American people and raises suspicions about whether its regulations can be justified.” “

 

   The notion of transparency in government has amounted to nothing but talk in recent years and nowhere is that more evident than in the regulatory morass that is Obama’s EPA . As the Wall Street Journal notes :

 

” The federal government has no business justifying regulations with secret information. This principle has been supported by two of the president’s own science and technology advisers, John Holdren and Deborah Swackhamer. “The data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions are based should be made available to the committee and should be made public,” said Dr. Holdren in testimony before the committee last year. Executive-branch rules dating to the Clinton administration require that federally funded research data be made publicly available, especially if it is used for regulatory purposes.”

 

   While the rules are plain enough , even for government workers to understand , transparency is difficult if not impossible to come by in the world of the EPA .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet UN Recommends Another $147B Be Spent On Warming

 

 

 

 

” The United Nations estimates it would cost $30 billion a year to end world hunger. That sounds like a lot, but the world spent more than ten times that amount in 2012 on global warming mitigation, according to a recent Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) study.

  And the UN says the world needs to spend even more on global warming mitigation. Much more.

  According to the Reuters analysis of the Summary for Policymakers of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, due to be released this April, the UN is calling on the world to invest an extra $147 billion a year in wind, solar, and nuclear power from 2010 to 2029. If we add that figure to CPI’s measure, the UN wants us to spend approximately $506 billion a year to mitigate global warming.”

 

     Obviously it’s all about the benjamins and little to do with solving problems . If thirty billion would solve a real , known , provable problem like hunger , yet the UN would rather have us spend nearly seventeen times that on an issue who’s legitimacy is questionable then you just know it because someone(s) will get much richer off the climate change spending than could do so by feeding the hungry . 

 

” According to the UN, this amount would end world hunger for nearly 20 years.

  It’s important to ask what sort of return we can expect from these investments. As the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change reports, the human effect on climate “is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.” “

 

   Actually , we know the sort of return we will get for our “investment” … nada , zip , zilch … Some fat-cat cronies of Mr Carbon-Tax , the Almighty AlGore would undoubtably see a handsome return while the average citizen just gets lighter in the wallet .

 

Continued here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama Uses Executive Order In Sweeping Takeover Of Nation’s

Climate Change Policies

 

 

 

” Through the stroke of a pen, President Obama on Friday used his executive powers to elevate and take control of climate change policies in an attempt to streamline sustainability initiatives – and potentially skirt legislative oversight and push a federal agenda on states.

The executive order establishes a task force of state and local officials to advise the administration on how to respond to severe storms, wildfires, droughts and other potential impacts of climate change. The task force includes governors of seven states — all Democrats — and the Republican governor of Guam, a U.S. territory. Fourteen mayors and two other local leaders also will serve on the task force.

All but three of those appointed are Democrats. The task force will look at federal money spent on roads, bridges, flood control and other projects. It ultimately will recommend how structures can be made more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and warming temperatures.”

 

    Note that ALL of his appointees are politicians , and mostly Democratic ones at that , and not a scientist or expert among them . Surely this is the way to come up with accurate , unbiased , effective policy on such a contentious issue as “global warming”, er , climate change .

 

” The task force includes Govs. Jerry Brown of California, Jay Inslee of Washington and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, as well as Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn. The panel also includes several big-city mayors, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Houston Mayor Annise Parker. All three are Democrats.”

 

  Does anyone really suppose that any of these elected officials know a damn thing about the science of “climate change” ?

But then again the science is “settled” isn’t it ? At least in the eyes of the Kool-aid drinkers .