Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politicalchat.org discussion boards > Politics and the Environment

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-22-2016, 07:35 AM
Denier Denier is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Heaven
Posts: 120
Climate Refugees, Not Found

Climate Refugees, Not Found

In 2005, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) published a color-coded map under the headline "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010." The primary source for the prediction was a 2005 paper by environmental scientist Norman Myers.

Six years later, this flood of refugees is nowhere to be found, global average temperatures are about where they were when the prediction was made and the U.N. has done a vanishing act of its own, wiping the inconvenient map from its servers.

The map, which can still be found elsewhere on the Web, disappeared from the program's site sometime after April 11, when Gavin Atkins asked on AsianCorrespondent.com: "What happened to the climate refugees?" It's now 2011 and, as Mr. Atkins points out, many of the locales that the map identified as likely sources of climate refugees are "not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world."

View the UNEP's climate-refugee prediction map .The program's spokesman tells us the map vanished because "it's not a UNEP prediction. . . . that graphic did not represent UNEP views and was an oversimplification of UNEP views." He added that the program would like to publish a clarification, now that journalists are "making hay of it," except that the staffers able to do so are "all on holiday for Easter."

The climate-refugee prediction isn't the first global warming-related claim that has turned out to be laughable, and everyone can make mistakes. More troubling is the impulse among some advocates of global warming alarmism to assert in the face of contrary evidence that they never said what they definitely said before the evidence went against them.

These columns have asked for some time how anyone can still manage to take the U.N.-led climate crowd seriously. Maybe the more pertinent question is whether the climateers have ever taken the public's intelligence seriously.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ooglenews_wsj#



Liberal
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-22-2016, 07:41 AM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denier View Post



Liberal


was curious as to why this was posted?

The kid is obviously a punk.... the GOP is the party that houses selfish "me" pricks.

???
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-22-2016, 08:15 AM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,122
Note the skin tone. That's certainly a good part of what denier hates.

Famous conservatives:



__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-12-2016, 04:25 PM
Denier Denier is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Heaven
Posts: 120
Typical strawman arguments and insults from the left.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-12-2016, 05:06 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denier View Post
Typical strawman arguments and insults from the left.
Tactics you'd never use, eh? You're a piece of work.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-14-2016, 08:45 AM
Denier Denier is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Heaven
Posts: 120
Conn Carroll: We can't afford any more successes like Solyndra
By: Conn Carroll | 09/06/11 8:05 PM
Senior Editorial Writer | Follow on Twitter @conncarroll

"There are no guarantees in the business world about success and failure. That is just the way business works," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters last week. He was answering a question about the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturing firm, and what the event meant for President Obama's economic policies. "You cannot measure the success based on one company or the other," Carney finished.

Department of Energy spokesman Damien LaVera disagreed, instead declaring the Obama administration's $535 million loan guarantee to the now-bankrupt Solyndra a victory for the White House. "The project that we supported succeeded," said LaVera. "The facility was producing the product it said it would produce, and consumers were buying the product."

"We have been fighting about the proper size and role of government since the day the Framers gathered in Philadelphia," Obama told University of Michigan graduates last spring. So, is it the proper role of government to act as a venture capitalist? Obama's re-election may well depend on Americans' willingness to swallow the tale that Obama's investment in Solyndra was a "success." It is the perfect case study of Obama's economic vision for the United States.

Taxpayers are not expected to get back any of the $527 million that the Treasury Department gave directly to Solyndra. And not only has Solyndra failed to create the 4,000 jobs that Energy Secretary Steven Chu promised when he gave the company the very first Energy Department stimulus award of its kind, but the 1,100 employees that Solyndra had employed are now jobless as well.

Many individuals invest in solar companies just like Obama, but they tend to be a bit more careful when they do it with their own money. "We've been very selective in this market, waiting for companies to have real revenues," Horizon Technology Finance CEO Rob Pomeroy said. "Then we keep our loan levels low, in a secured position."

The Obama administration took a different approach. Solyndra had been in existence just four years when Chu announced the loan. The company had only been shipping solar panels for one year at that point. Chu even praised his department's loan officers for "accelerating the process" and allowing the "barriers to success" to be removed.

But not everyone was impressed with Chu's haste. The Government Accountability Office audited the Solyndra loan, and nine others in the program, last year, concluding that the Obama administration "treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others."

The Obama administration claims politics played no role in any of the Energy Department grants, but George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire who raised over $50,000 for Obama, was Solyndra's prime financial backer. Investment banker Steve Westly, another Obama bundler, has seen more than a half-billion dollars in energy grants awarded to other firms he has invested in.

In all, the Energy Department has invested 18 billion taxpayer dollars in more than 40 companies. Just last month, it guaranteed a $852 million loan to the Genesis Solar Project, which promises to create 800 temporary construction jobs and 47 permanent operating jobs. That is over $1 million per job.

No capitalist would have invested his own money the same way Obama has spent taxpayer money. But that is the point. Obama believes he must spend your money on solar firms because the free market won't dare. As he told an audience at Cooper Union in 2008, "The American experiment has worked in large part because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle."

Obama's higher principles have added over $4.1 trillion in debt since he took office. We'll see how much longer Americans will tolerate these investments.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...esses-solyndra
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-14-2016, 08:47 AM
Denier Denier is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Heaven
Posts: 120
Obummer's fake social security number.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=275861
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-14-2016, 08:52 AM
Denier Denier is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Heaven
Posts: 120
Twelve million jobs have been lost in the private sector since 2007, causing palpable hardship for families across America. More than $1 trillion in federal stimulus spending failed to spark new job growth, so they will probably have to keep scrimping and saving for months, maybe years, to come. The private sector has lost 12 million jobs since 2007, yet, even as the failure of Obamanomics becomes clearer by the day, Washington politicians keep feathering their own nests and coddling their special interest allies, especially public employee unions.

Look no further than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called House members back from their August recess in order to pass President Obama's $26.1 billion "stimulus" bill that is actually a bailout for members of the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Obama and his fellow Democrats call it a stimulus bill because it saves the jobs of thousands of public school teachers and state and local government bureaucrats. It also keeps campaign contributions from government employees rolling into Democratic coffers.

Pelosi and her henchmen couldn't find time to write a 2011 budget even though Congress is required by law to do so each year. But Pelosi had no qualms about calling members back from recess to keep those tax dollars flowing to members of the NEA, AFT and AFSCME.

Which brings us to this question: When are people in the public sector going to start carrying their share of the burden of the economic downturn? While much of the private sector has laid off workers, frozen pay and cut capital investment, public sector employees have lived high on the tax-fattened hog. Federal employment (excluding the military)at the end of July was 3,017,000, compared with 2,763,000 in July 2007, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's an increase of more than a quarter of a million federal jobs in less than three years. State governments added 12,000 jobs during the same period, while local governments added 29,000. That's nearly 300,000 new paychecks for bureaucrats while 12 million private jobs disappeared.

As The Examiner's Byron York reported Monday, the Heritage Foundation recently found that average federal employee compensation, counting salary and benefits, is $111,015, compared to just $60,078 for the private sector. It's the same at the state and local level. There has been a deluge of news stories across the country about retired state and local employees who pull down six- and even seven-figure salaries, while also getting generous vacations, gold-plated health plans and obscenely high pensions. Obama's solution is to freeze bonuses for his 2,900 senior political appointees for a savings of -- fasten your seat belts! -- $1.9 million, which equals 0.000615 percent of the total government civilian payroll costs this year of $244 billion.

It's past time these people start giving something back. Freezing government salaries would be a good place to start.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...100384849.html
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-14-2016, 08:53 AM
Denier Denier is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Heaven
Posts: 120
The EPA's War on Texas
The agency punishes the state for challenging its anticarbon rules.

The Environmental Protection Agency's carbon regulation putsch continues, but apparently abusing the clean-air laws of the 1970s to achieve goals Congress rejected isn't enough. Late last week, the EPA made an unprecedented move to punish Texas for being the one state with the temerity to challenge its methods.

To wit, the EPA violated every tenet of administrative procedure to strip Texas of its authority to issue the air permits that are necessary for large power and industrial projects. This is the first time in the history of the Clean Air Act that the EPA has abrogated state control, and the decision will create gale-force headwinds for growth in a state that is the U.S. energy capital. Anyone who claims that carbon regulation is no big deal and that the EPA is merely following the law will need to defend this takeover.

Since December 2009, the EPA has issued four major greenhouse gas rule-makings, and 13 states have tried to resist the rush. The Clean Air Act stipulates that pollution control is "the primary responsibility of states and local government," and while the national office sets overall priorities, states have considerable leeway in their "implementation plans." When EPA's instructions change, states typically have three years to revise these plans before sending them to Washington for approval.

This summer, the 13 states requested the full three years for the costly and time-consuming revision process, until the EPA threatened economic retaliation with a de facto construction moratorium. If these states didn't immediately submit new implementation plans to specification, the agency warned, starting in 2011 projects "will be unable to receive a federally approved permit authorizing construction or modification." All states but Texas stood down, even as Texas continued to file lawsuits challenging the carbon power grab.

Two weeks ago, EPA air regulation chief Gina McCarthy sent the Texas environmental department a letter asserting that the agency had "no choice" but to seize control of permitting. She noted "statements in the media" by Texas officials and their "legal challenges to EPA's greenhouse gas rules," but she cited no legal basis.

And no wonder. The best the EPA could offer up as a legal excuse for voiding Texas's permitting authority last Thursday was that EPA had erred in originally approving the state's implementation plan—in 1992, or three Presidents ago.

The error that escaped EPA's notice for 18 years was that the Texas plan did not address "all pollutants newly subject to regulation . . . among them GHGs [greenhouse gases]." In other words, back then Texas hadn't complied with regulations that didn't exist and wouldn't be promulgated for another 18 years.

The takeover was sufficiently egregious that the D.C. circuit court of appeals issued an emergency stay on Thursday suspending the rules pending judicial review. One particular item in need of legal scrutiny is that the permitting takeover is an "interim final rule" that is not open to the normal—and Clean Air Act-mandated—process of public notice and comment. So much for transparency in government.

The EPA claims its takeover is a matter of great urgency, but Texas is being pre-emptively punished for not obeying rules that don't exist today because the EPA hasn't finalized them. "Now, at this early stage, there's no specifics to tell you about the rules in terms of what we're announcing today, other than they will be done and we'll move—take steps moving forward in 2011," Mrs. McCarthy told reporters on a conference call last week about the agency's "performance standards" for oil refineries, power plants, cement manufacturers and other such CO2-heavy facilities.

"It's way too early in the game right now to be talking about what we think the standards are going to look like," she added helpfully. "Today's announcement is just the fact we're going to move to those standards."

This and other permitting uncertainties have brought major projects in the U.S. to a standstill. The Texas takeover in particular is pure political revenge and an effort to intimidate other states from joining the Texan lawsuits. The reason states are supposed to run the clean-air process is that local regulators have the staff, capacity and expertise that Washington lacks. When the carbon rules eventually are issued, that means the takeover will extend the current moratorium even longer in Texas.

The EPA concedes that some 167 current projects will be affected, and many more in the future. Our guess is that all of them will be delayed for years and many will simply die. This is precisely the goal of a politically driven bureaucracy that wants to impose by illegal diktat the anticarbon, anti-fossil fuel agenda that the Obama Administration has been unable to pass by democratic consent.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-14-2016, 08:56 AM
Denier Denier is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Heaven
Posts: 120
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...758745200.html

Meet the Obama EPA, and its new suppressing, paranoid style. It was the president who once ripped the Bush administration for silencing scientific critics, and it was EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson who began her tenure promising the agency would operate like a "fishbowl." But that was before EPA realized how vastly unpopular is its plan to usurp Congress and regulate the economy on its own, based on its bizarre finding that CO2 is a danger to health.

Faced with unhappy members of Congress, dissenting employees, an opposition business community, and a backlash on the science, Mrs. Jackson is no longer a fan of open government. The goal now is to rush the agency regulations through as quickly as possible, squashing threatening dissent and deflecting troublesome questions.

Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and Darrell Issa recently put out a report documenting the EPA's slippery handling of its carbon rule, in which it truncated the process and dismissed contrary views. The Chamber of Commerce has been waiting all year for a response to its request for a hearing into the science underlying the regulation. Not a peep.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.