To understand all the talk of “climate change” you must understand that everything and everyone involved—except for those of us who debunk the lies—are engaged in a criminal enterprise to transfer billions from industrialized nations to those who have failed to provide a thriving economy, often because they are run by dictators or corrupt governments who skim the money for themselves.
The lies being inflicted on Americans include Obama’s “war on coal” that is shutting down coal-fired plants that affordably and efficiently produce the electricity the nation needs, along with the six-year delay of the Keystone XL pipeline. Add in the thousands of Environmental Protection Agency regulations affecting our manufacturing, business and agricultural sectors and the price we are paying is huge.
At its heart, environmentalism hates capitalism.
CA Republicans proposed two bills aimed to stop a cap-and-trade program for transportation fuels which starts up in January that will increase gasoline prices for motorists across the Golden State.
The Sacramento Bee reported that since 2006 cap-and-trade laws, designed to reduce carbon emissions, have forced companies to purchase permits covering what they put into the air. Up until now producers of transportation fuels have been exempted from buying cap-and-trade allowances. The 2006 law calls for the expanded coverage in January 2015.
Patrick DeHaan a petroleum analyst for price tracker GasBuddy.com, predicts that the new cap-and-trade regulations could produce a 10- to 20-cent-per-gallon increase in fuel prices.
Claiming that the new program will push gas prices upward and burden individual drivers, businesses, schools and farms, Republican lawmakers selected the first day of the 2015-2016 legislative session to announce their bill.
"The stack of new regulations are about this long."If you think President Obama’s unilateral exercise of executive powers granting near-blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants was an abuse of power, get a load of what this administration is doing over at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan regulations are the most expansive and economically disruptive rules in four decades from an agency that is notorious for its reckless disregard for the financial consequences of regulation under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA’s rule aims to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent. That’s an enormous and costly burden on our power generating utilities. According to Energy Ventures Analysis, an energy research firm, the annual costs for residential, commercial and industrial energy customers in America would be about $173 billion higher in 2020 — a 37 percent increase. Average annual household gas and power bills would increase by $680 or 35 percent.
Thanks to @GalileoMovement for sharing this twit pic. As delegates arrived at the Lima Climate Conference (how come they don't host these glam-scams in Detroit or Boston?), they posted photos of their fossil-fuel-sucking modes of transportation.
CO2 is an odorless and invisible gas (pictured above)Monday is the last day to submit comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
The plan to cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 attracted crowds to regional hearings this summer, including Denver. They included supporters as well as those worried about how the proposal, intended to curb global warming, could impact coal mines and coal-fired power plants.
Only in the world of twisted media pornography would anyone compare Michael Mann and his ilk to Louis Pasteur and Jonas Salk, the latter being the scientist who created the polio vaccine. From Boulder Weekly's review of Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change:
According to a new book by veteran environmentalist George Marshall, thousands of abusive emails — including demands that he commit suicide or be “shot, quartered and fed to the pigs, along with your family” — were received by climate scientist Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center, who drew and published the “hockey stick graph” that charts a steep rise in global average temperatures.
McCanarchy at its bestWhile millions of Americans were getting ready to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled stricter standards for ozone, or smog, levels — a rule that has been criticized as possibly the costliest the agency has ever promulgated.
“Yet again we’re seeing the Obama administration release an incredibly expensive regulation on the eve of a major national holiday,” said Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “The administration is clearly hoping to release this at a time when the vast majority of Americans are focused elsewhere, and that alone should tell us something about it.”
The EPA’s proposed standard lowers the acceptable amount of ozone in the air from 75 parts per billion to a range of 65-70 parts per billion. The agency says this new standard is based on more than 1,000 scientific studies published since 2008, and will prevent from 320,000 to 960,000 asthma attacks per year, along with “preventing more than 750 to 4,300 premature deaths; 1,400 to 4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits; and 65,000 to 180,000 missed workdays.”
Hurricane Sandy off the coast of FloridaOn the website of The Nature Conservancy is the kind of matter-of-fact conclusion based on “scientific research” that you can find repeated, echoed, and amplified by numerous groups promoting a government-driven climate change agenda.
Scientific research indicates that climate change will cause hurricanes and tropical storms to become more intense — lasting longer, unleashing stronger winds, and causing more damage to coastal ecosystems and communities.
A major “scientific” study issued in the summer of 2013 by a climate researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) warned of increased activity of killer hurricanes because of global warming/climate change.
As reported by USA Today in July of last year:
One of the biggest debates in the climate change research community in recent years has been the projected impact of global warming on hurricanes. Will it make them stronger? More frequent? Longer lasting?
American MartenWe have all heard dire predictions that global warming will cause species extinction. Such predictions are based on ecological niche models (ENMs) that study where animals live now and assume that they must have the same habitat conditions to survive.
A new study from the University of Oregon, based on fossil evidence shows that these studies fail. The researchers studied the fossil records of five ancient mammalian species that survived North America’s last glacial period. All the models said they should have lived much farther south than the fossil evidence shows.
The paper abstract reads:
Ecological niche models (ENMs) are crucial tools for anticipating range shifts driven by climate change. As hypotheses of future biotic change, they can be difficult to test using independent data. The fossil record is the best way to assess the ability of ENMs to correctly predict range shifts because it provides empirical ranges under novel climate conditions. We tested the performance of ENMs using fossil distributions from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ~21 000 yr ago). We compared hindcast ENM LGM distribution hypotheses for five species of small mammals, drawn from the published literature, to the known LGM fossil record for those species and found a consistent southern prediction bias in the ENMs. This bias urges caution in interpreting future range predictions, and we suggest that the Pleistocene and Holocene fossil record should be used as an additional resource for calibrating niche modeling for conservation planning.
A new briefing paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines the World Health Organisation’s recent report on climate change and finds that its estimates of future mortality from global warming are grossly exaggerated.
The WHO report predicted that climate change would bring about 250,000 extra deaths annually between 2030 and 2050, but relied upon absurd assumptions to reach this conclusion. For example, the report assumes that the people affected by climate change will forgo commonsense steps to protect themselves, including several that are already in the works in some developing countries.
Briefing paper author Dr Indur Goklany said:
Is it surprising that the Environmental Protection Agency continues to tell big fat lies about anything it wants to ban, but is reluctant to show the “science” on which the bans are based?
There is currently a piece of legislation under consideration by Congress, the Secret Science Reform Act, to force the EPA to disclose its scientific and technical information before proposing or finalizing any regulation.
This is what Nicolas Loris of The Heritage Foundation had to say regarding the mercury air and toxics rule that the EPA claims would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. “The two studies that represent the scientific foundation for 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly questionable and the data concealed, even though the studies were paid for by federal taxpayers and thus should be public property.”
Call it the Gruber-ing of America’s energy and environmental policies.
Former White House medical consultant Jonathan Gruber pocketed millions of taxpayer dollars before infamously explaining how ObamaCare was enacted. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he said. “It was really, really critical to getting the bill passed.” At least one key provision was a “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”