More environmental scare-mongering July 12, 2009

Remember how, after 9/11, liberals attacked former President Bush for “fear mongering” in dealing with radical Islam (which has said, time and again, that it wants to destroy the West and subjugate the world under an Islamic theocracy and shari’a law)…but then they turn around and do the same thing.

Sen. Barbara Boxer warns (as radical environmentalists have for years, having been proven wrong time and again) that the world is going to end if they don’t tax the very air we breathe:

From Yahoo! News:

WASHINGTON — If the Senate doesn’t pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

She says there’s a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation’s children.

Boxer is engaged in her biggest sales job ever. The stakes couldn’t be higher as she faces one of the toughest high-profile acts of her lengthy career: getting Congress to sign off on historic legislation to lower greenhouse-gas emissions.

“For Barbara Boxer , it’s both the opportunity and a challenge of a lifetime,” said Frank O’Donnell , the president of Clean Air Watch .

As the Senate’s top-ranked environmentalist, Boxer heads the influential committee that began hearings on the issue this week. She’s aiming to get her panel to pass a bill by the end of September. For months now, she’s been meeting with senators one on one and hosting a group of about 30 senators for “Tuesday at 12” meetings to develop a strategy to win 60 votes, enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.

With a House of Representatives bill already approved, all eyes are on Boxer, who must overcome plenty of skepticism on Capitol Hill among her fellow Democrats.

That skepticism is justified.  Why?  A few things (courtesy Green Hell Blog):

• There has been no global warming since 1998.  See this graph.
• Levels of sea ice are greater today than they were 30 years ago.

And more at Global Warming Hoax.  Also remember the EPA report that was held back until after the House voted on cap and trade.  It would almost seem as if radical environmentalists are…hiding something.  Doesn’t it?

They are.  They are attempting to create a climate of panic, fear, and urgency in order to have your obedience in turning over control of your life to them and their radical agenda.

DON’T LET THAT HAPPEN.

Contact the Senate.

“Placeholders” in the cap and trade bill July 1, 2009

Two days ago, I reported that a good portion of the cap and trade bill hasn’t even been written, despite it passing the House and being one step closer to the law of the land.

Michelle Malkin reports today about “placeholders” in the bill – citations that note things will be added at a later date.  The thing is, will they be added before the Senate votes on cap and trade?  Why – after Obama’s pledge of transparency and that bills would be online for 5 days prior to a vote – were these things not in the bill when the House voted on it?

When I live-blogged the House debate on cap-and-tax last Friday, I noted the existence of a “placeholder” in the bill. Rep. Joe Barton mentioned it was unprecedented to have such a mechanism (allowing bill-writers to insert language to be determined after the law was approved) in a bill up for final passage. Later, I noted that Barney Frank explained on the floor on Friday that the placeholder in the cap and trade bill apparently will deal with regulations of financial derivatives market associated with reducing carbon emissions. Frank said he was confident a “good system will be in place.”

Well, I looked up the placeholder in Waxman’s late-night, 300-page manager’s amendment.

I’m no great shakes at law, since they clearly are thousands upon thousands of pages, but it really can’t be legal for our government to pass a law that isn’t even written.  I mean they could put pretty much anything in this bill and say it was approved and get away with it.

And a very astute commenter notes:

So I ask these morons in the Senate…. would they sign a loan agreement that had a “placeholder” in it?

Exactly.  Would YOU sign a loan agreement or any sort of contract before reading the thing in full and completely knowing the terms?

I think not.  It could spell financial ruin for you.

But that’s how our government operates.  They can now throw anything into this bill and get it turned into law.

Remember my discussion on language?

Well, this explains how a bribe becomes “sweetener” to help undecided politicians vote in favor of something like cap and trade.

The thing is, this isn’t private money exchanging hands.  It’s taxpayer dollars – YOUR MONEY – that’s bribing people to vote to put you out of work, into poverty, and with skyrocketing costs*

CONTACT THE SENATE.  Tell them your tax dollars are not bribe money.

Selling your home? Not if you don’t satisfy cap and trade.

From Examiner.com, cap and trade provisions that allow government beaureaucrats into your home to make sure it toes the “green” line…before they allow you to sell it.

Yeah.  You read that right.  The house you own, the house you work to pay for, the house that’s your property is subject to strict government regulation and inspection before YOU can do something with it!  You know, like sell it.

Within cap and trade is a provision which mandates a national building code for energy efficiency. This national building code would override all state provisions already in place. By 2012, new buildings are to be 30% more efficient than they are under current regulations. By 2016, new buildings are to be 50% more efficient, and so on. “New buildings” include new homes, thus making new homes more expensive which will only serve to hamper the housing market.

Also, the bill stipulates that state codes match the national codes, or the said state codes will be nullified, and states will lose federal funding and carbon allowances. Remember, in this new world of cap and trade, the federal government has the authority to “allow” businesses within a state or community to conduct operations and emit carbon. Thus, millions of private sector jobs would be politicized under cap and trade. This type of politicization can only be found throughout history in societies governed by tyrants.

Perhaps President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are taking advantage of the foolish anti-business climate prevalent in America today. If one argues on behalf of business, he or she is part of the old, racist, rich, fascist, balding, all white male club. So maybe explaining how cap and trade will kill businesses and jobs is not so advantageous. However, homeowners have also been made the target of further regulations under cap and trade.

In this economy, selling a home may be the last ditch effort of someone trying to keep his or her head above water. Perhaps an individual or a family has to move on short notice but can only do so if the house they own is sold. Or, even more common nowadays, people are downsizing and are attempting to sell their house in order to buy something more in line with personal budget concerns. Whatever the case may be, Americans ought to be able to sell their houses whenever they want, and in whatever condition they want to sell it in, so long as the buyer agrees to the deal. That idea is not good enough for our federal government, instead, through cap and trade they will exact control through federal inspections of your home before you are allowed to sell.

So, new homes will be more expensive, thus limiting who can afford a new home, and further depressing the housing market. Now what of this inspection business? Yes, the cap and trade bill that passed through congress allows for somebody from the government to come into your house and inspect your windows, appliances, A/C, furnace, and anything else that you can think of to make sure your house is on par with the new national building codes. Not only will they inspect your house, but they will then be able to mandate that you, the seller, provide the necessary remedies regardless of cost, within a certain amount of time BEFORE YOU MAY SELL YOUR OWN HOUSE. So unless you bought a house that is seen as suitable through the eyes of the federal government, you can expect to spend plenty of money remaking your house, even if selling your house is a matter of economic survival for you.

Coming to a home near you: the “Shower Nazi”

Is there nothing in your home that Obama doesn’t think he can regulate?  Yesterday, it was your lamps and lightbulbs.

Today, it’s your shower.

The cap and trade bill subsidizes “water efficient” products like the “Shower Manager.”  From the Green Hell Blog:

A “Shower Nazi” may be coming your way courtesy of Waxman-Markey.

Section 217 of the bill provides for a “water efficient product incentive program” that would provide rebates, vouchers, direct installs and other forms of financial assistance for the installation of water-saving products.

During my radio interview last Friday with Bob Jamison (Kern Valley News, KNCQ 102.5 FM / Bakersfield, CA), Jamison, a motel owner, told me that he had been solicited by the seller of the “Shower Manager,” a water-saving device. Curious, I went to the Shower manager web site.

Here’s how the Shower Manager works:

The Shower Manager not only puts time limits on the shower, it also cuts the water flow when the time has expired. Our unique shower timer is a patented two-phase flow controller that permits a full-flow of water for a time period you select, (5, 8 or 11 minutes) and then restricts the water flow by two-thirds when that time limit expires. You set the full-flow Interval that best fits your lifestyle and lock it in using a special magnetic sensor.

Coming soon to public facilities near you.  And, if you rent, most likely your apartment.

Rules for radicals

If you haven’t read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, do.  It’s a blueprint to how the modern-day left works and will take over our lives.

From Politico, how

Chaos and arm-twisting gives Nancy Pelosi a major win

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24364.html#ixzz0JvKHSxIm&C

Those “green” jobs? Not so successful

I’m not a math major.  In fact, I hate math.  I can balance my checkbook and do some basic gemoetry, but other than that I avoid mathematics like the plague.

But even I know that 2.2 > 1.

Apparently, the Obama doesn’t.

From CNSNews, a story from April 2009 that shows for every 1 “green” job supposedly created by stimulus money, 2.2 jobs are lost, and this isn’t speculation.  It’s the actual effect of “green” initiatives in Spain.

(CNSNews.com) – Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama’s economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.

But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain…

Read the whole thing.

Full EPA Report June 30, 2009

The one the Obama EPA didn’t want you – or your Congressional representatives – to read before voting on the cap and trade bill last Friday.

Send it to your state Senators.  Maybe they’ll read it and realize that global warming is a bunch of malarkey.

The number for the Senate Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 or http://www.senate.gov.

New lighting standards

Is there nothing in your house that Obama doesn’t think is his business?

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses,” the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

The president also said he was speeding the delivery of $346 million in economic stimulus money to help improve energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings.

Republicans took issue with Obama’s pitch.

“Conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We have to admit there’s a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need.”

The White House added the event to the president’s schedule at the last minute, just three days after the House narrowly approved the first energy legislation designed to curb global warming following furious lobbying by White House advisers and personal pressure by the president himself.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that in phone calls to reluctant Democrats in endangered districts, Obama “affirmed his commitment to support the policy position that they were taking in helping to explain to their constituents and to the American public the great benefit of this bill.”

The measure’s fate is less certain in the Senate, where Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to block a certain filibuster.

Still, in an interview with a small group of reporters, Obama energy adviser Carol Browner said: “I am confident that comprehensive energy legislation will pass the Senate.” But she repeatedly refused to say exactly when the White House expected the Senate to pass the measure, and she wouldn’t speculate on whether Obama would have legislation sent to his desk by year’s end.

The White House is working to keep energy in the spotlight even as Congress takes a break this week for the July 4 holiday. Obama has spent the past few days pressuring the Senate to follow the House while also seeking to show that the administration is making quick, clear progress on energy reform without legislation.

In February, the president directed the Energy Department to update its energy conservation standards for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, lamps and microwave ovens. Laws on the books already required new efficiency standards for household and commercial appliances. But they have been backlogged in a tangle of missed deadlines, bureaucratic disputes and litigation.

The administration already had released new standards on commercial refrigeration. Lamps were next.

Dissent no longer patriotic

At least to Paul Krugman, who writes in the op-ed pages of The New York Times that anyone who disagrees with global warming and/or opposes cap and trade is guilty of a “form of treason.”

From Newsbusters, via the New York Times:

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

Krugman ignores growing dissent.  Both in the U.S. and globally.  Because nothing will stand in the way of Obama and his media sychophants getting what they want:  massive government control and a third world economy.