News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Five reasons voters don't believe the White House about global warming-Washington Post, Ed Rogers

5/8/14, "The Insiders: Five reasons voters don’t believe the White House about global warming," Washington Post, Post Partisan Opinion, Ed Rogers

"The White House released a third iteration of the “U.S. National Climate Assessment,” claiming it is “the most comprehensive scientific assessment ever generated of climate change and its impacts across every region of America and major sectors of the U.S. economy.” The report emphasizes the need for “urgent action to combat the threats from climate change.” Well, here are five reasons voters don’t believe what the White House says on climate change:

1. Overreach. The White House doesn’t just want it both ways, it wants it every way. Increasingly, when there is a topical weather event, be it a warm typhoon in the Pacific or a cold snap in the United States, we hear it is caused by global warming.  But non-events, such as fewer tropical storms becoming hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico or the frustrating, inconvenient truth that there hasn’t been any warming in the past 15 years, are dismissed as meaningless because we are told you must evaluate climate change over the long term. On Tuesday, President Obama even took time to meet with local and national weather reporters as a way of emphasizing the effects of global warming on today’s weather. The left is inconsistent in its selection of what factors and events “prove” that manmade global warming is real.

2. Hypocrisy. Voters notice that the founding father of the global warming movement, Al Gore, has become fabulously wealthy by selling out to Middle Eastern oil and gas interests. Voters notice the mansions, private planes and the super-wealthy lifestyle.  And Gore is not the only global warming hypocrite. I would guess that after he leaves office, President Obama will never again fly on a commercial airline – and he will probably be traveling by Global Expresses, Gulfstreams and the occasional large Falcon, not even on the more modest, smaller private jets. Voters are on to the fact that the global warming crusaders want us to pay more and live with less — but, of course, the rules don’t apply to the politicians who want everybody else to sacrifice. Not to mention, the people who insult and belittle anyone who has a question about the “science” of manmade global warming are often the same people who categorically dismiss the scientific proof of the viability, safety and reliability of nuclear energy. I have a little test for the global warming crusaders: If you’re not for nuclear energy and against ice cream, your commitment to the cause is questionable.

3. The global warming cause fits too nicely with the president’s left-wing political agenda. The prescriptions for dealing with climate change are the same policy objectives the left has promoted for other reasons for at least the past 25 years. That is, 

redistribution of wealth, 
higher taxes, 
anti-growth, 
anti-development regulations, etc. 

Because they don’t have much support from voters, the left has to advance its cause through surreptitious maneuvering rather than forthright advocacy of its specific global warming policies. The left never answers the questions of who pays, how much and for what result.

4. A lack of faith in foreign cooperation. Absent any verifiable, enforceable global warming treaty, any unilateral moves by the United States would be pointless. After all, the left wants us to believe that global warming really is global and that fossil fuels burned in distant lands are every bit as harmful as they are when they are utilized here at home. I would love to see a poll that asks American voters if they think American tax dollars should be spent on global warming remedies in foreign lands. Of course, we all know the vast majority of Americans would say no.  Some say the United States should lead by example, but does anybody believe that if we affirmatively harm our own economy, others will somehow think that is a noble sacrifice and follow suit? The very notion is ridiculous.

5. This administration lacks credibility. For a long time, we have said in America, “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we do X, Y or Z?”  Well, in the Obama era, that adage has morphed into, “If he couldn’t get a Web site right, how are we supposed to believe he knows how to control the climate?” Who really believes that a massive government tax and reordering of the economy in the name of stopping global warming or climate change or whatever will go as planned and the world’s thermostat will adjust to something the Democrats find more acceptable? Answer: Almost nobody. Voters don’t believe what the White House says on this issue in part because it has not been credible on so many other important issues. We’ve heard everything from “you can keep your health-care plan” to there is a “red line” in Syria. Why should anyone believe the White House now?

As I’ve said before, voters aren’t stupid. They know when they are not being leveled with. And all the bluster, intimidation and angry frothing won’t make their doubts go away or make the Obama administration any more believable."

======================

Added: US taxpayers have been legally bound to cure urgent global climate change matters in perpetuity since 1990. George HW Bush enacted the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990diverting 13 federal agencies to addressing climate change matters:

"(b) PURPOSE.--The purpose of this title is to provide for development and coordination of a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change....

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

"As used in this Act, the term--
  1. "Global change" means changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life;
  2. "Global change research" means study, monitoring, assessment, prediction, and information management activities to describe and understand--
    A. the interactive physical, chemical, and biological processes that regulate the total Earth system;
    B. the unique environment that the Earth provides for life;
    C. changes that are occurring in the Earth system; and
    D. the manner in which such system, environment, and changes are influenced by human actions;"...
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) FINDINGS.--The Congress makes the following findings:
  1. Industrial, agricultural, and other human activities, coupled with an expanding world population, are contributing to processes of global change that may significantly alter the Earth habitat within a few human generations.
  2. Such human-induced changes, in conjunction with natural fluctuations, may lead to significant global warming and thus alter world climate patterns and increase global sea levels.
Over the next century, these consequences could adversely affect world agricultural and marine production, coastal habitability, biological diversity, human health, and global economic and social well-being. 
 
  • The release of chlorofluorocarbons and other stratospheric ozone-depleting substances is rapidly reducing the ability of the atmosphere to screen out harmful ultraviolet radiation, which could adversely affect human health and ecological systems.
  • Development of effective policies to abate, mitigate, and cope with global change will rely on greatly improved scientific understanding of global environmental processes and on our ability to distinguish human-induced from natural global change.
  • New developments in interdisciplinary Earth sciences, global observing systems, and computing technology make possible significant advances in the scientific understanding and prediction of these global changes and their effects.
  • Although significant Federal global change research efforts are underway, an effective Federal research program will require efficient interagency coordination, and coordination with the research activities of State, private, and international entities
  •  
  • (b) PURPOSE.--The purpose of this title is to provide for development and coordination of a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change."...
    .

     =========================

    Most people have no way of knowing this or that every president has added costly new climate acts and regulations. In 2014 politicians are just pretending the US hasn't already been given over to the climate scare industry. This way they can keep saying we're greedy and transfer more of our tax dollars to millionaires and billionaires in the $1 billion a day global warming industry. Which they're going to do anyway.

    US politicians have acted as if CO2 poisoning was a fact for decades. Even if it were, it only exists in excess in China but that's not the point. The point is to punish Americans.


    ========================

    In 1992 US President Bush signed and the US Senate unanimously endorsed "the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol:"

    On June 12, 1992 the George H.W. Bush administration signed the UNFCCC in Rio. The U.S. Senate ratified it unanimously shortly thereafter, on October 15, 1992. [10]....

    The vote was unanimous but for the record the Senate was easily in Democrat control in 1992 at the time of the vote. This was G. Bush #1's last year in office.

    "Parties to the Convention agreed to consider climate change in such matters as agriculture, industry, energy, natural resources, and activities involving sea coasts, and thus to attempt to slow the process of global warming. 
     
    The Conference of the Parties (hereafter “COP”), which is the supreme decision-making body of the UNFCCC, meets annually to review progress on the Convention.[12]"


    102nd Congress (1991-1993)
    Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)
    Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)
    Other Parties: 0
    Total Seats: 100"





    .

    No comments:

    Followers

    Blog Archive

    About Me

    My photo
    I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.