The farce of cap-and-tax revealed
From Sen. James Inhofe:
What does it mean? The truth about the cap-and-trade farce revealed:
During a hearing today in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.
“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”
Send this to the GOP cap-and-tax 8 and the Democrat cap-and-tax fence-sitters.
***
More from The Foundry.
Will Sen. Robert Byrd stand by his opposition to Waxman-Markey — or will he trade his vote for more payoffs?
***
More farce revealed at the G8 summit: You go first. No, you…
Developing nations led by China and India refused Wednesday to back lofty but long-term targets proposed by the Group of 8 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, balking at reluctance by leaders of the world’s biggest economies to move more quickly on their own.
Inability to bridge the gap between rising carbon-emitting countries such as China and the longtime polluters within the G-8 underscores the steep challenges involved in attempting to strike a comprehensive bargain to contain global warming.
The impasse comes down to the politically sensitive issue of who goes first.
President Obama and his counterparts in the G-8, who are holding two days of meetings in the central Italian mountain town of L’Aquila, offered broad agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The statement pledged to slash global emissions by 50%, led by reductions of 80% by the G-8 countries.
They also prepared to offer new financial incentives for developing nations to join the effort.
But the G-8 stopped well short of pledging to take aggressive action that could curb emissions more quickly — at the cost of higher energy prices and a feared worsening of the global economy.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Bloodthirsty Liberal » Crap and Betrayed [UPDATED]
- I Have 25 Stents – And I Don’t Want The Public Option | The Substratum
- Vodkapundit » Zero-Sum Game
- Obama Carbon CAP and TAX – Carbon Capture – Obama Abortion – Justice Ginsburg – Eugenics – Glenn Beck – Birth Certificate – ObamaCare – Israel – Is Obama a State Sponsor of Terror? – The BOPAC Re
- Obama Carbon CAP and TAX – Carbon Capture – Obama Abortion – Justice Ginsburg – Eugenics – Glenn Beck – Birth Certificate – ObamaCare – Israel – Is Obama a State Sponsor of Terror? – The BOPAC Re
- Global Warming: the new non-smoking section « GOP Counter Culture
- Obama Recession Stimulation Working; Destruction of Enconomy is on schecule; Caution, Socalists at Work « VotingFemale Speaks!
- Obama and the Economy (cartoon) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Don’t let Congress turn 2009 into 1984 – Stop the Global Warming Massive Energy Tax – Jackson Confirms EPA Chart Showing No Effect on Climate Without China, India « Jim Blazsik
- Detailed Review of Cap&Trade Consequences by MUT’s Money Expert « Temple of Mut
- Plumb Bob Blog » Read It and Weep
- silent E speaks » Blog Archive » Crap and Tax…. The Lie
- Jeremiah Films
- Cap and Trade delayed in the senate until after the August recess! Also the farce of Crap and Tax revealed | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Obama’s Job Approval Continues to Tank; Only 51% Approve, 48% Disapprove (Rasmussen) « DONE (Democrats Over Nominating Elitists)
- The Obama Limbo! How Low Can It Go… BHO’s Approval Rating Has Dropped Another 3 Points to -8 « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- No New Porkulus … For Now. | The Great Illuminator
- Everything we’ve said about cap-and-tax is true « Right Minded Online
- Crap And Tax Bill Would Fund ACORN? « Nice Deb
- My Picks « The Augur’s Well
- Tax Dollars Down the Dumper for Turtles: $3.4 Million of Stimulus Money Slotted for Building 1 Turtle Tunnel « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- 2009 OBAMA-CAR MODELS: to replace your “clunkers” (funny images) « FactReal
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: cap and trade
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Stop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeySister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itNewsBusters.org
» ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's JobWeekly Standard
» McAuliffe, and Rudy, and Ford, Oh My!
Under cap n tax will the flame at the Tomb of the unknown soldier be replaced by a solar-powered LED ?
Read the post. The list is from a 97 page analysis by Alan Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency, and coleagues in the agency…trying to sound like scientists.
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!?! Real people with IQ’s actually greater than their ages laugh at your relativistic nonsense. Facts are stubborn things, whether they fit your schema or not.
Respond to the data presented please, or give it a rest.
lgm reminds me of a man who’s woman is cheating on him and he has every indication right in front of him, even catches her but refuses to accept it. How do you reason with someone like that? I don’t think you can, you leave them to their own devices and they will either wake up and smell the coffee or not.
I think the phrase your shooting for is
” Are you going to believe me ? Or, your lying eyes ?
Energy Independence is another sad joke on us.
Bingo!
swede said (#85):
The guy is an economist, not a climate scientist. There are people working at NASA who are not rocket scientists. The report was shelved because it was based on data that have not been peer reviewed.
Of course, you would know this if you’ve been reading the threads. They seem to have no effect on you. To summarize for those without long term memory: those 30,000 “scientists” who “signed” the petition against GW, they don’t have professional affiliations. All major scientific societies (none of them government funded) endorse GW. Links have been provided repeatedly.
So, does believing in global warming make you feel important?
How ’bout the tooth fairy?
Oh, sorry…didn’t mean to rag on your kind.
lgm, Hmmm. Why would a 35 year EPA senior environmental economist know anything about the environment?
Human caused climate change has become dogma, like evolution. Don’t confuse climate reality deniers with facts, their minds are made up.
I agree with Mr. Carlin based on the data presented. His sources are cited in the report. No one has refuted this data. If it’s inaccurate, enlighten us.
Mr. Carlin now takes permanent residence under the liberal bus. It’s the price to pay for speaking truth during the tenure of the holy(sh!t) one.
lgm, on the other hand, has swallowed the extrement of the holy(sh!t) one and cannot reason with a clear mind. His is a waste of grey matter.
jangar, I know. lgm, like most libs is a relativist, and his logical falicies are entertaining. You can’t convince someone not interested in facts of the truth, but it’s kinda fun driving their fractured logic to its ultimate absurdity. Guess I need to get out more.
swede said:
Which facts am I not interested in? Find a credible climate scientist who isn’t Richard Linzen who seriously disputes GW. It shouldn’t be an economist, or a soft money “researcher” at a second string university or corporate lab.
I watched the O’Reilly factor tonight and it seems Mr. O’Reilly is a believer in whole global warming/climate change hoax. So much for looking out for the folks as he says.
It doesn’t take a scientist to know that for the past few years winters have been colder in N. America and summers have been cooler as well.
lgm, Carlin did not make up the data above. He cites in his analysis research data from EPA, NOAA, NASA and numerous universities and scholars. Your ad hominem argument tries to discredit the protagonist without dealing with his argument.
I’ve studied meteorology and geology enough to find the case he presents compelling to at least question the conventional “wisdom” that human generated CO2 is a substantial cause of global warming.
Deal with the facts rather than the personalities. Take any of the points listed above and enlighten us as to why it is invalid? Just one.
Since your criteria for a “credible climate scientist” is one who does not dispute your dogma, what would be the point?
Amazing, lgm.
A long comment, yet not a single truthful or accurate statement.
Oh, LGM, m’poor, unread lad you’re at least a coupla years behind the times:
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
(DailyTech.com)
It doesn’t matter what bill the chart is “about.” Or are you preposterously claiming that “this year’s bill” would magically reduce…silly, silly me….curb atmospheric CO2 concentrations in any meaningful way regardless of ROW action?
No, he said that he didn’t agree with it. That might mean that he didn’t agree with the disclosure of it.
Either she’s agreeing with what the “chart said” or she’s forced to state that she doesn’t agree with EPA generated charts. There’s no other option. THAT was the point being made.
Why aren’t you smart enough to figure stuff like this out on your own?
Did you even look at the chart? Count the curves on it. Are all the curves unilateral? Doesn’t the chart show more than what you just claimed?
Remember, lgm. Look at pictures BEFORE you decide what they depict. Then, think BEFORE you comment.
It sure is. US Cap and Trade action would be part of India’s and China’s action of increasing CO2 emissions more than the US would without Cap and Trade.
No, unlike you, Inhofe didn’t get ANY fact wrong. Unlike you, MM accurately presents information.
The only game of telephone here is being played between your brain and finger tips.
I still say it’s a shame LGM wasn’t around for the “Global Cooling” Panic of the 1970s. Not that there weren’t enough “The world’s coming to end!!” suckers back then, but he would have really enjoyed the joyful dread of that particular fad!
The guy has been an environmental analyst for EPA since 1974 and has a degree in physics from California Institute of Technology.
You wish all your little AGWers out there had such credentials.
lgm, answer this question.
Do you admit that the Mann Hockey Stick has been debunked?
He wouldn’t have cared. It’s no fun unless you can blame America and/or capitalism.
But sadly, I think lgm would also take pleasure in blaming civilization of any type.
On July 10th, 2009 at 4:01 am, purplepeep said:
“I still say it’s a shame LGM wasn’t around for the “Global Cooling” Panic of the 1970s….he would have really enjoyed the joyful dread of that particular fad!”
Oh, not a problem, Corkie. Even then according to the “We’re all gonna freeze” faithful, it was man’s fault. And America has always been the evil empire to the left – even then it was the cause of not just the earth turning into an iceball, but of just about everything wrong, real and imagined, that happened in the world.
America-hating liberals are not a recent phenom. Though I’ve never understood their hatred – maybe they feel guilty about their privileged upbringing. You just don’t find too many blue collar, hard-working stiffs who despise America the way the libs raised in privilege do.
You’d think lgm would learn; the second he/she posts, it gets lambasted from all sides!
lgm, remember the definition of insanity?
The hard core ones all seem to have one thing in common…they either hate Christianity and use it as a tool to move their agenda forward, or they use a false form of Christianity to move their agenda forward. Either way, God and his people are in their crosshairs.
lgm has bigger issues than those he posts about on here. I could never understand what motivates a person to “hang out” with people he doesn’t like. Seems to me, if he’d just get a baseball bat and hit himself with it, we’d all be better of and it would save everyone a whole bunch of time.
OT but I’m compelled to post it.
(from fox news)
Barack is on TV right now speaking at the G-8. This man is an idiot! My blood is boiling listening to this doofus try to “sell” the world on this “climate change” scam. As if human beings can affect the climate in ANY way that would make ANY difference! This historic, first-ever black (OK, half/black) President of the U.S. will go down in history as the man who turned the most powerful, successful, free country in the world into a third-world disaster. He is on the fast track for that. So, will the African-American citizens of this once great country be proud of his legacy? And now he says he wants to get the healthcare bill pushed through before the August recess. Everything is hurry-up-before- you-know-what-hit-you. That is the only way they can succeed. Hit us hard with multiple agendas and push them through before anyone knows what they actually will do to this country. A bill of the magnitude of HealthCareReform with its far-reaching consequences simply MUST NOT be pushed through as if it is an emergency.
We must find a way to end the nightmare of this administration before our Country is sold down the river to their radical agenda. People (yes even liberals) are just starting to “get it”, but will it be too late?
Oh, and the President blamed the previous administration, yet again, for the recession that he, Teh One, inherited. Yes he did. Apparently he hasn’t gotten the word yet that the recession are belong to him now.
2 ways -
Stay in constant contact with our elected officials.
2010 ballot box.
You can count on it. And the millions who were sucked in last time will not be suckered again. I think 2010 will see an historic turnover in Congress.
Delay, delay, delay. That is what we have to make happen. Delay all these radical bills until they have been out there for full public scrutiny. The people of this country have that right!! Passing these massive, sweeping bills in the dead of night, under false pretenses, is the epitomy of “Taxation without representation”. Massive protests that will get the attention of the media is the only way to wake this country up! These traitors are pushing everything through faster than the people can keep up with. That is their plan. We have to find a way to delay the health scare bill, the crap and attack bill, and the “open the borders” bill.
Please, please, please do NOT forget the hate crimes bill. It is getting scant attention, but will have a deadly effect on free speech and religous liberties.
I got hit with a piece of sky on the way to work today.
He’d swing and miss – just like when he comments on here.
WOW – even Hansen sees cap-and-tax for what it is!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/07/09/nasas-hansen-obamas-cap-trade-bill-less-worthless
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Not looking good for DUH ONE!!!
Sonofdy – he’s tanking in Ohio, below 50%..tick..tock…tick…tock
BTW – isn’t it ironic how some “trolls” on this site seem to always present themselves as more learned on most things dealing with the natural and social sciences (while never citing any original or objective data to support their authority) than the actual commenters here who professionals in those fields – even to the point of telling a celebrated writer, journalist, blogger and commentator like MM how to write?!
Right now, ol’ Byrd has got his eye on that two-holer in the back of Jed’s place over in the holler over yonder.
Oops! “…who [are] professionals in those fields – even to the point of telling a celebrated
writerauthoress, journalist, blogger and commentator like MM how to write?!”Submit first/edit later -
Now there’s a hockey stick graph that actually supports the data. The One’s job dissaproval rating.
I hope Michelle will have a new thread on this issue. I have heard about it only briefly. But it sounds very dangerous. Sounds like anything that someone “feels” is offensive, could be open to charges of hate speech. This cannot stand. Our basic constitutional rights are being challenged today like never before and we have to fight. Freedom of speech, right to peaceful assembly, gun ownership, secret ballot, etc. etc. This administration, and the fascists before it, have been trying to strip us of our rights and shred the Constitution and we have to protect it at all costs. Our freedom and liberty depend on that document and it has to survive!
DBNinNY – Something comes to mind after reading your post. I remember, in the early 70s, maybe late 60s when I was just a kid and all about earth and saving it (and yes at that time, until I learned, I was a liberal). At one of the events I attended I saw some ghastly pictures regarding a hunting sport which I knew of first hand and the pictures they showed as truth, I knew were lies. Early photoshop I guess. That was when I began to question the people behind this movement and I became more and more disenchanted with them because of their dishonesty. I think that can be said for some of the trolls who blog here. If you have to lie, then something is very wrong.
Truer words were never spoken.
Corkie:
lgm: In fetal position, sucking thumb, trying to think of a snappy comeback.
I absolutely love lgm’s defense of AGW. Instead of proving it exists, he’s trying to get us to prove it doesn’t.
Here’s my challenge. Can lgm provide any evidence that it actually does exist?
Let’s take this one a few steps further (my highly abridged version):
USA passes and enacts the cap and trade bill. China, India, and others do not.
1. High cost of cap and trade restrictions force the few remaining manufacturers to close or move where labor market is affordable.
2. This is further exacerbated because those who lose jobs can no longer afford to buy products/keep homes/feed themselves and their families. Disposable income hits an all-time low.
3. Congress passes extensions to unemployment, expands welfare, pays mortgages; taking further control of the populace.
4. With more spending, the debt collapses the economy. No one will buy our treasury notes as we keep printing money in an effort to keep up.
5. With the world’s biggest consumers in the tank, no one is purchasing any products other than essentials (foodstuffs). China and India’s short-term gains are wiped out and no longer get orders, resulting in shut downs.
6. Cash and credit will fall to the wayside as farmers will not accept anything other than what they need. With the access of food limited, global panic ensues.
7. Rep. Barney Frank, who barely avoids a lynch mob, introduces another bill for “affordable housing”.
8. Violence begins as one-on-one, then steps up as nation-states start to grab what they need from those who have it.
9. World falls into chaos hoping for some logic to take over. Countries and government fail, allowing tyrants and warlords to achieve power.
10. Despite all the wide variations in the CO2 levels, the overall temperature of the world still tracks with solar activity.
Just sayin’…
I’m thinking that would be NO. Because there isn’t any.
Add another to that list…
11. Heavily armed population (who carefully stashed and hid their guns and ammunition for just such contingency) rise up to take back their country, arrest all the liberal traitors in DC and throw them in jail. They then begin the long, difficult road back to sanity and prosperity by restoring the Constitution.
Perhaps it won’t come to any of these things, if we can take back our country in time before that Worst Case Scenario!
Of course, by 2016 there will be two major factions in the USA from which two leaders will emerge:
The God-fearing American party led by AZ Neanderthal.
The Can’t We Get Along/Climate Changing party led by lgm.
In their first debate, AZN challenges lgm to a duel/fist fight/tiddly-winks contest. Lgm responds by wetting himself and running away, crying like a little girl.
Order is restored and the process of rebuilding our country begins.
How’s that for a happy ending?
John Deaux said (#130):
Every credible scientific society and every single credible climate scientist save one believes GW. That stuff about hockey pucks or sticks or whatever hasn’t convinced anyone who actually knows their stuff. That’s my case.
What’s yours?
First, define credible. Is it credible because you believe it or is it credible because they have a financial stake in the outcome? To be credible scientifically, you have to perform your tests with at least a double-blind format. Everyone of your pro-GW types know where there money is coming from.
Just like a lawyer, they will say anything to advance the cause of the person paying the bill. And they are all ethical, right? (Sorry, Chap…didn’t mean to lump you in with all the rest of your profession).
their, their, their…
Damn. Need more coffee and self-editing.
Sorry, Mrs. Garrett!
Um…That is your case? Really? A bit short on details, don’t you think? Try again, and next time, try not to sound so stupid.
By the way, I heard on the Limbaugh show this a.m. “the crap and tax bill is environmental extremism on steroids”. Good one.
cabrerski said (#136):
The most important scientific societies in each discipline. Why don’t you list the scientific or professional groups opposed to GW so we can compare credibility?
Scientific societies do not receive are mainly supported by membership dues, conference registration fees, journal subscriptions, etc. The anti GW groups are industry funded. Phillip Morris “scientists” to this day rebut the smoking/cancer link.
This is true for certain medical studies. You can’t “double blind” temperature data (a guy who doesn’t know whether he has a thermometer of a placebo?).
Okay, I’d like to pose a question about one part of this. I realize the ’societies’ themselves are funded by member dues or some such means, but how do the members derive their incomes? Are they not funded by government grants in some way? Aren’t universities funded by tuitions and government funds?
What would happen to GW research dollars if credible evidence against GW were in fact published? What if more ‘credible’ scientists came out against, based on their interpretaiton of ongoing data?
The tobacco people are a bad example, as they worked directly or nearly directly for the tobacco companies. “Climate Scientists” maintain an air of independence due to their relative diatance from actual government employment. However, thay would surely suffer financially if GW were disporoved. (If there were no crisis, there would be no need for all the spending.)
They are human. Humans will do what is in their best interests. Scientists aren’t above human nature. They need money, too.
SHoward said (#141):
What a great point! It would lead to a bonanza of funding. Climate science has more to gain financially from this uncertainty than from GW as an established fact not in need of more research dollars.
A credible refutation of the GW established view, or even a part of it, would be a huge boost to anyone’s scientific career. It would be like the discovery of reverse transcriptase, which overturned the one way view DNA –> RNA.
Well, that doesn’t include you. You don’t know your stuff.
“or whatever?” How can you NOT know about Mann Hockey Stick?
What? The pro-AGW propaganda is what maintains the uncertainty (btw, it’s good to see you at least admit that there’s uncertainty). If the mountains of evidence against AGW was released, then it would certainly put the nails in the coffin of global warming forever.
Um, membership in a society is no different than an industry organization. Both members rely on that industry for revenue. The societies you cite are no different. Their members rely on the AGW research industry for revenue.
Actually, this is a great idea. And it’s certainly possible. Give the temperature “interpreters” (I should call them “manipulators”) real data and placebo (fake) data and see what they do with it.
I’d bet you millions that all the placebo data would show warming trends, too.
I see your point, and I don’t disagree with it from a purely knowledge or scientific perspective. However, think of the political perspective. No matter who you agree or disagree with, there are AGW supporters (for lack of a better term) and AGW deniers in power. The people at large may not really know what to think at present. If even one well-connected and respected climate scientist came out and said “I was wrong,” you really don’t believe government would seriously reconsider how much it spends on climate research?
Think of it this way: AGW has many skeptics. (Whether or not they are considered qualified.) Such a event as described above would give a tremendous amount of fuel to the AGW deniers, and the people may choose not to spend more money on it, whether it were warranted or not.
At present, the research dollars (and corerect me if I’m wrong) aren’t going so much to “proving” AGW as they are toward what to do about it. Isn’t it still the same scientists?
I am certain climate scientists know this. By definition, they’re not idiots. If scientific uncertainty were introduced, there would almost certainly be less political will to fund research in this matter. At least that’s my take.
On July 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm, lgm said:
Again, these societies are made up of people who know where the money is coming from.
This is precisely what I am talking about. Once someone knows who is driving the gravy train, expect the ingratiation to that person/cause.
It also means that you do not know what conclusions you are expected to arrive at because you know who is funding the research. By double-blind, the researcher is kept from knowing the benefactor and must draw conclusions from all data presented, real and placebo.
This is just good science but bad politics.
Why do you folks even bother to respond to antagonistic people like lgm?He only wants some attention,to make himself feel relevant,and you are feeding his delusion.
blues…
I know, I know…but its like talking with a backwards child. You want to reach out to help them comprehend. But then again, it is like trying to teach a pig to say the rosary.
It makes you look foolish and it only serves to tick off the pig…