The ‘Global Warming’ that has caused record-breaking blizzards on the East Coast will deliver yet another punch this weekend. According to bloomberg.com, another major winter storm could drop as much as 13 inches of new snow on New York by Saturday evening.
Alarmists have insisted that such heavy snows are the result of global warming or “climate change” (as if the climate were not expected to change naturally). As one commenter put it:
“As the oceans grow warmer, there is more moisture taken into the atmosphere. The resulting weather temperature extremes generate energy causing more violent storms.”
I believe the commenter is referring to the alarmists’ claim that global warming will cause more numerous and more violent hurricanes. If so, that claim has been pretty much debunked. The most likely cause of these bigger snowstorms is the localized increase of ocean temperatures off the West Coast known as “El Nino.” El Nino and the accompanying La Nina are the result of naturally occurring cycles in ocean temperatures over a limited area. For a fascinating article on the topic, read here.
But, for those who believe heavier snowfall is the result of climate change or global warming, I invite you to watch this video.
The New York Times is asserting that global warming may be the cause for the recent snowfall that has smashed previous records in Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia.
The previous record for Washington D.C. was set in the 1860′s winter of 1898-99, which prompts a question. Does the New York Times also believe that the previous record snowfall was caused by global warming?
If not, then their story falls apart, because if global warming did not directly cause heavier precipitation in 1860, then it cannot be said to have directly caused it in 2010. If we look at the history, global warming cannot be the culprit because of the cooler temperatures commonly seen in the historic record for that period of time.
The New York Times attempts to justify it’s position by saying that heavy snowfall and global warming are “compatible.” But heavy snowfall is also compatible with the cooler temperatures extant during the 1860′s, nullifying the Times’ argument.
Simply put, the recent record snowfall in the eastern states is not evidence of global warming.
Here they are, the 8 GOP members who voted in favor of the Cap & Trade Tax. This is the nearest thing I could come up with to a perp walk.
8 GOP Soon-to-be Ex-Representatives
Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti
H/T to Michelle Malkin for posting this.
The liberal Brookings Institute yesterday released an analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. The bill has been presented by the Democrats as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 83% by 2050. It accomplishes the goal via the now-infamous cap-and-trade system, which would negatively affect 85% of the economy. Click to view the presentation.
The study finds that the bill will
- reduce cumulative U.S. emissions by 38% to 49%, about 110 to 140 billion metric tons CO2
- reduce total personal consumption by 0.3% to 0.5%, or about $1 to $2 trillion in discounted present
value from 2010 to 2050 - reduce the level of U.S. GDP by around 2.5% relative to what it otherwise would have been in 2050
- reduce employment levels by 0.5% in the first decade, with large differences across sectors
- create an annual value of emission allowances peaking at around $300 billion by 2030, and a total value
of about $9 trillion from 2012 to 2050
According to the Brookings Institute, the Waxman-Markey bill amounts to a $9 trillion tax which would reduce personal consumption by $2 trillion by 2050, and negatively affect employment. But, in keeping with their ideology, the Institute sees that as a good thing; they recommend the bill be immediately passed.
Which tells you one of two things about Liberals (Progressives, if you prefer). They either 1) don’t know what they’re talking about, but have to appear intelligent to maintain a semblance of credibility, or 2) they do know what they’re talking about, they know that their ideas will bankrupt America and collapse our government, and they can’t wait until that happens.
The Brookings Institute’s analysis seems to reflect the latter. We can at least thank them for their honesty.
(HT to Green Hell Blog)
‘Green’ lightbulbs poison workers – Times Online. “Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs. A surge in foreign demand, set off by a European Union directive making these bulbs compulsory within three years, has also led to the reopening of mercury mines that have ruined the environment.”
Green kills.
Michelle Malkin has good things to say about Jason Chaffetz on her blog. She is referring specifically to Rep. Chaffetz’s Cap and Trade Disclosure Act, for which he is currently seeking co-sponsors.
The Republican Study Committee reports:
Rep. Jason Chaffetz is seeking original cosponsors for the Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act which will require utility companies to disclose and separately itemize the impact of cap-and-trade taxes on each customer’s utility bill. Sound tax policy requires that taxes should be visible to taxpayers and not buried in the cost of items we purchase. With this legislation, every utility customer – residential and business — will be able to identify the cost of cap-and-trade emissions that the utility is passing on to the customer. As regulated entities, utilities pass taxes on to customers, unlike unregulated companies that can also pass taxes on to shareholders and employees. The cap-and-trade tax is potentially the largest tax increase ever imposed. According to the Administration’s own budget document, the cost will be at least $646 billion over an eight-year period. No matter where you stand on the issue of cap and trade, both sides can agree that full disclosure and transparency are good public policy.
Some critics have said that cap and trade can’t be called a tax. Cap and Trade is a way for the government to collect revenue on energy used, while having private companies do the collecting. The effect would be the same as a national sales tax. Even some Liberal Democrats have opposed cap and trade because it is a regressive tax that will hit lower-income, working Americans the hardest.
The American people deserve full-disclosure on bills coming out of their government. Rep. Chaffetz’s bill would shine a light on the effects of the Cap and Trade tax, and expose it’s bottom line effects to American taxpayers.
Contact your representative and ask him or her to co-sponsor the Cap and Trade Disclosure Act.
Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth — but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street “green tech” investors who know how to leverage the political class.
In essence, Obama has found a way to fund his socialist programs, AND get them paid for by the very people who are most likely to be opposed to them, while those who are most likely to be in favor of (and use) them, will pay very little if anything for them. How ironically convenient.
Welcome to the newest form of involuntary servitude – EcoSlavery.
Recent Comments