Posts tagged as:

Cap & Trade

The Hottest Hoax in the World

Written By: Ninad D. Sheth

The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its deceit, unmatched in scope—and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the Richter scale. Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever.

The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely sacrificed.

The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!

Please Read More Here…

Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?

UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim

Written By: Jonathan Leake

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

This is the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. Two weeks ago, after reports in The Sunday Times, it was forced to retract a warning that climate change was likely to melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That warning was also based on claims in a WWF report.

Please Read More Here…

{ 0 comments }

In an unprecedented move today, Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, lead by Senator Barbara Boxer, approved the climate change bill without any Republican support. Normal procedure requires that at least two Senators of the minority party approve the bill in order to move it out of committee.

Fox News reports the following:

In a rare move, Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Thursday approved a sweeping climate change bill without any Republicans present.

Republicans had boycotted the committee’s work on the bill, insisting on a cost analysis of the proposal by the EPA.

The bill would require cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the next decade from 2005 levels. But Republicans warned the bill would leave consumers with higher energy bills.

“This would be the largest tax increase in the history of America,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the seven committee Republicans, told Fox News. “I can only conclude that they don’t want the public to know how much money this thing is going to cost.”

Inhofe, who said the committee typically needs two minority members present to advance a bill to the floor, called the vote Thursday “unprecedented.”

One Democrat, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., voted against the bill. Ten Democrats voted for it.

“We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the committee, said in a written statement.

She defended the decision not to seek an EPA analysis, calling such a study “duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

But it still appears unlikely that the Senate will approve the legislation this year. Inhofe said the legislation is “dead.”

A bipartisan group of senators is trying to craft a compromise bill in hopes of attracting broader support.

Please read the original article here:
Senate Panel Approves Climate Change Bill Despite GOP Boycott

Contact Your U.S. Senators

{ 0 comments }

{ 0 comments }



{ 0 comments }

JewishWorldReview.com published an article written by Obama supporter Ruth Marcus entitled “Change We Can’t Believe In?”. In it she expresses concern about “the dangerously wide gap between Obama’s idealistic campaign-trail promises and the gritty realities of governing”.

Candidate Barack Obama offered a lofty vision of how his White House would operate. When the details of health reform were being hammered out, he vowed, “We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”

The campaign even aired an ad singling out Billy Tauzin, the drug industry’s chief lobbyist. “The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies,” Obama said in the ad. “And you know what? The chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through, went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year. Imagine that.”

Now, it turns out, the Obama White House has cut a backroom — actually, Roosevelt Room — deal with Tauzin: Drugmakers would ante up $80 billion in savings in return for a promise that Medicare wouldn’t be allowed to negotiate drug prices.

“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Tauzin told the New York Times.

Imagine that………

In reality, Obama’s campaign did not always live up to Obama’s rhetoric: He summoned voters to “a politics that calls on our better angels” but stooped to scare tactics when political need required them. As I wrote last October, “Better angels, it seems, do not make the best campaign strategists.” Or, I’d add, the best White House advisers………..

Clear positions yield to political realities… The campaign climate-change plan to auction off all emissions permits morphs, without a presidential peep, into a House-passed measure that would hand out 85 percent of the permits as political candy to mollify lawmakers in districts that would be hit hard by strict emissions limits………..

It is easy to proclaim the need “to restore our Constitution and the rule of law,” harder to resist a continuation of Bush policies on issues such as the invocation of the “state secrets” privilege and the use of presidential signing statements.

It is easy to talk about a new era of engagement with Iran and North Korea, harder to figure out what to do when those regimes — murdering protesting citizens or conducting provocative missile launches — prove intransigent.

But the greatest peril for Obama, I think, lies in the question of whether he can produce the new, post-partisan, surmounting-special-interests politics that he envisioned during the campaign. In a month of raucous town hall meetings and stalled legislation, that hardly seems likely. The secret deal with Tauzin can only deepen the skepticism.

Which leads to the core question facing the still-young administration: What happens when people start to wonder whether they can really believe in this change?

It is difficult for me to imagine Mr. Obama proclaiming the need “to restore our Constitution and the rule of law,”  The campaign seems like it was eons ago.  So much has happened since then to make mockery of those words and demote them from their lofty pedestal of cliched but idealistic promises to the gutter of shameless demagoguery.  Honest liberals such as the author who bought into the eloquently idealistic rhetoric of the campaign, must soon awaken to the betrayal.

Please read this article in its entirety at
Change We Can’t Believe In?

You can track H.R.2454 American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009 here: H.R.2454 American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009

{ 0 comments }


Contact Your U.S. Representative

Contact Your U.S. Senators

{ 0 comments }


{ 11 comments }

{ 0 comments }