Posts Tagged ‘Environmental Issues’

« Older Entries |

Al Gore Mocked At Apple Meeting: He’s ‘Become A Laughingstock’

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

Newsbusters


Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
Sat, 02/27/2010 – 13:58 ET

Nobel Laureate Al Gore was mocked Thursday at the Apple shareholders meeting in Cupertino, California.

As the subject of whether or not he should be reelected to the tech giant’s board of directors surfaced, one longtime shareholder stood up saying, “[Gore] has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted.”

According to CNET, the gentleman then wisely said, “If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn’t need to be re-elected” (h/t Gateway Pundit via Glenn Reynolds):

Gore was seated in the first row, along with his six fellow board members, in Apple’s Town Hall auditorium as several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising his high-profile views on climate change.

At the first opportunity for audience participation just several minutes into the proceeding, a longtime and well-known Apple shareholder–some would say gadfly–who introduced himself as Shelton Ehrlich, stood at the microphone and urged against Gore’s re-election to the board. Gore “has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted,” Ehrlich said, referring to Gore’s views on global warming. “If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn’t need to be re-elected.”

Of course, if Gore would have lost his reelection bid, I’m sure he would have asked for a recount!

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

That Audi Commercial!

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Monday, February 15, 2010
Joseph C. Phillips :: Townhall.com Columnist


Joseph C. Phillips :: Townhall.com Columnist



The new Audi TDI ad was one of the more provocative commercials shown during the Super Bowl.

The commercial opens with an unsuspecting grocery shopper asking for a plastic shopping bag rather than paper. He is immediately taken into custody by the “Green Police.” As his head is being slammed into the check-out counter the green officer barks, “You picked the wrong day to mess with the eco-system plastic boy!” The spot ends with a long line of cars stopped at an “Eco-check point.” An officer spots the Audi. “TDI here,” he observes. “Clean diesel.” The officer then nods to the driver, “you’re good to go sir.” The driver smiles and then speeds past the traffic jam. The tag line reads: “Green has never felt so good.”

More fascinating than the commercial is the fact that certain environmental Cassandras claim the commercial speaks for them. David Roberts, for instance, writing in the Huffington Post, argues that “the ad only makes sense if it is aimed at people that acknowledge the moral authority of the green police.” Indeed the driver never challenges the moral authority of the green police. To the contrary, the Audi driver is actually subordinate to that authority. The driver is only able to by-pass the eco check point because his car passes muster. The message of the commercial is that it is possible to be both stylish and eco friendly.

My question to those “that acknowledge the moral authority of the green police”: from where does that authority come? The question is rarely asked by the likes of Roberts because they don’t like the answer.

There are certain universal, objective and immutable truths to which all men are bound. These truths do not come to us through law, statutes or even science, but are instead the gift of divine revelation. It is in order to protect these truths that societies create institutions. The lengths through which our institutions go in conserving and furthering these truths can only be discovered through a process of rational and prudent deliberation. Science is but one of those processes.

We recognize for instance and all of society generally agrees that it is a good thing to arrest, prosecute and fine (or imprison) those that dump poisons into our waters and public lands (not specifically designated for such dumping). The commercial resonates because we tend to blanch at the idea of green police marching fathers from their homes for using incandescent light bulbs (the disposal of which, by the way, does not require that one open windows and don a hazmat suit). The left argues the moral authority for such “eco tactics” stems from the fact that curbing our production of man-made carbon will save the planet. Unfortunately, while the evidence of the dangers of poisons in our landfills is quite clear, the evidence that man-made carbon is causing the earth to warm – er uhm I mean the climate to change – grows less and less persuasive. Continued…

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Let’s talk trash

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

World Net Daily.com

Jane Chastain

Let’s get down and dirty. Now don’t get excited. This column is not the least bit off-color or X-rated. I’m talking about your garbage.

Do you recycle? Do you meticulously separate your cans, bottles and plastic containers from the paper and cardboard?

The world is going green, but when it comes to our garbage, what we have been conditioned to do or feel compelled to do or – worse still – are coerced to do may end up hurting, not helping, the environment.

There is nothing inherently wrong with recycling. It’s been going on since the beginning of time and is as old as, well, garbage itself.

In urban areas, there must be an orderly and sanitary way to dispose of trash. Only in the last 25 years, however, have state and federal regulators gotten involved in the methods used in trash disposal.

Go “green” and let the world know what really needs recycling in 2010 with the magnetic bumper sticker: “Recycle Congress”

Presently, the nation is preoccupied with recycling. Much of it is counterproductive and based on misinformation. Thanks to Daniel K. Benjamin, a professor of economics at Clemson University, and PERC, the Property and Environment Research Center, for a recent study that examined the “Eight Great Myths of Recycling.” They are as follows:

  1. Our garbage will bury us.
  2. Our garbage will poison us.
  3. Packaging is the problem.
  4. We must achieve trash independence.
  5. We squander irreplaceable resources when we don’t recycle.
  6. Recycling always protects the environment.
  7. Recycling saves resources.
  8. Without forced recycling mandates, there wouldn’t be recycling.

There is no garbage crisis: never has been; never will be – especially if the free market is allowed to handle the process. Government has a role to play in regulating where our landfills can be located and making sure that they are safe for the environment. However, when it comes to dictating what we can dispose of and what we must recycle, this is going way too far.

There is great truth to the saying, “One person’s trash is another person’s treasure.” Throughout the world, it is the poor who benefit most from the scavenging process. Likewise, here in the U.S., it is the less affluent, less densely populated areas that benefit most from the business of garbage disposal. According to the Benjamin study, this trade in trash is driven by widely varying disposal costs and inexpensive transportation. The garbage trade raises our wealth as a nation by at least $4 billion. There is no shortage of landfills, and the modern landfill is not dangerous. In fact, it is often more expensive and more costly to the environment to recycle than to send those products to a landfill.

Recycling is a manufacturing process, and it has an environment impact. The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment says it is “usually not clear whether secondary manufacturing produces less pollution per ton of material processed than primary manufacturing processes.”

Let’s look at paper. The Environmental Protection Agency found that there were only five toxic substances found in the virgin paper process, while there are eight in the recycling process. The EPA found there are 12 toxic substances common with both processes but, among the 12, all but one was more prevalent in the recycling process.

To be sure, recycling-based secondary manufacturing generally uses less energy and consumes less raw materials. However, all raw material and energy savings evaporated when PERC compared the true costs of recycling versus other forms of disposal.

In communities where curbside recycling is mandated, it requires more trucks to collect the same amount of waste. This requires more iron and coal mining, more steel and rubber manufacturing and more petroleum, which produces more air pollution. All the associated costs are passed along to consumers and taxpayers. Yes, many states and local communities subsidize their recycling programs and hide the true costs in an attempt to prove these programs are cost-effective.

It is not surprising to discover that all the profitable opportunities for recycling have been provided by the private sector. This type of recycling dwarfs all government recycling programs. Informed, voluntary recycling conserves resources and raises our wealth. However, things like bottle and can deposit laws – which artificially raise the value of these items to 5 or 10 cents, when in actuality they are worth only a penny or less – induces many to engage in a wasteful activity which consumes valuable time and resources that could be put to better use.

Bottom line: Market prices will, in fact, cause companies and individuals to recycle their own and other people’s trash. This, in turn, provides the greater benefit to the environment and all concerned.



Jane Chastain is a Southern California-based broadcaster, author and political commentator. If you would like to comment on this column, go to Jane’s blog.

[I remember in my elementary school years that we had a small garbage can about a third the size of a normal trash can today.  We put food scraps in it (and only food scraps).  A pig farmer would come right to our backdoor and collect the garbage from it to feed his animals.  This was a suburban area outside of Philadelphia.

In the early 1970's I visited a factory that made glass.  In every batch of sand that went into the production process there was a good amount of broken glass shipped in by rail from around the country.

I also remember when the environmentalists told us we had to stop using paper bags and use plastic.  Paper disappears rapidly, plastic lives forever. The companies that make paper need trees so every time they remove trees they plant new ones. My uncle (now deceased) had land full of trees.  The paper companies bought the trees, not the land and they replaced the trees.

I think too often our government acts on emotion and not logic unless there is an ulterior motive that benefits only the government itself.]

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Are Republicans “Due”?: Part III

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

by Thomas Sowell Townhall.com -

If the Republicans think that they are simply “due” to start winning elections, perhaps buoyed by the recent polls showing the public turning against Democrats in general and the Obama administration in particular, then they may neglect to do the things they need to do if they are to turn their hopes into realities.

One of the things that is long overdue is some Republican re-thinking– or perhaps thinking for the first time– about the approach that they have been using, with consistently disastrous results, for trying to get the black vote.

Within living memory, it was considered nothing remarkable when Republicans received 30 or 40 percent of the black vote. Today a Republican presidential candidate is lucky if his share of the black vote is not in single digits.

The black vote was once consistently Republican, from the time of Abraham Lincoln to Herbert Hoover. Even after Franklin D. Roosevelt won over the black vote to the Democrats, it was not considered remarkable when Eisenhower got a higher share of the black vote than any Republican president in recent times has.

It may be years before Republicans can again get a majority of the black vote. But Republicans don’t need to get a majority of the black vote. If they get 20 percent of the black vote, the Democrats are in trouble– and if they get 30 percent, the Democrats have had it in the general election.

In some close Congressional elections, if the Republicans increase their share of the black vote by even modest amounts, that can be the difference between victory and defeat.

There is no point today in Republicans continuing to try to win over the average black voter by acting like imitation Democrats. Those who like what the Democrats are doing are going to vote for real Democrats.

But not all black voters are the same, any more than all white voters are the same. Those black voters that Republicans have any realistic chance of winning over are people who share similar values and concerns. Continued…

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Funds Should be Returned to U.S. Treasury, Says National Center for Public Policy Research

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist -

Washington, DC – In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.

“It’s outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal.  Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science.  Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views.  The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind’s activities are causing global warming.

“It’s no wonder that Obama’s stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs.  Taxpayer dollars aren’t being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation.  The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate.  Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration’s position on the global warming theory.  This misuse of stimulus money illustrates why tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than letting the government decide where to spend taxpayer dollars.  As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds,” said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.

“Mann’s credentials as a climate change alarmist seems to fit the political criteria for stimulus funds sometimes known as ‘Obama money’,” added Deneen Borelli.

Mann is a central and controversial figure in climate change research.  Mann’s so-called “hockey stick” graph depicting temperature changes over a 1000 year period was used as evidence in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 report to demonstrate that carbon dioxide from industrial activity is causing global warming.  Mimicking the shape of a hockey stick, the graph showed a long time period of stable temperatures (the shaft) followed by a rapid rise in temperatures (the blade) during the last hundred years.

Critics of the hockey stick claim Mann manipulated data to eliminate periods of time such as the medieval warming period and the little ice age to eradicate the visual impact of natural global temperature variation.  The emails from Climategate reveal that the inner circle of climate scientists were troubled by the methods Mann used to produce the graph.

“It’s shocking that taxpayer money is being used to support a researcher who seemingly showed little regard to the basic tenes of science – a dispassionate search for the truth,” said Tom Borelli.

The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a conservative, free-market think-tank established in 1982.  It receives less than 1% of its revenue from corporations.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Carbon Debate is not Over! [Al Gore's Climate Change Fraud Based on "Adjusted" UN Climate Data]

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

I’ve summarized below some red flags about Global Warming that you will not find in any politicized “scientific” discussion, especially the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) 2001 Study widely quoted in the press and the basis for Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth.  Environmental extremists no longer refer to “global warming” but increasingly to “climate change” – I suspect because the whole global warming argument does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.  The earth’s climate has always been changing and will continue to do so.  The cause of these changes however has never been proven to be “anthropogenic” – caused by humans.

The 2001 IPCC Study ignored two well-documented scientific climate periods:

  • The Medieval Warm Period when earth’s temperatures were well above todays and when only farm animals were emitting CO2. In 1991 it was included in IPCC’s published reports as accepted scientific fact, but eliminated in their 2001 report without explanation!  The 2001 report demonstrated a hockey stick warming graph since 1900 through today to support their desired global warming crusade.
  • The Little Ice Age from 1400-1800…another well-documented and scientifically accepted fact.  Since 1900, the earth has been warming up – a normal climatic fluctuation that is not caused by man’s industrialization of the planet.  The planet has warmed 1oF over the last century, but most of that occurred prior to 1940, while 82% of anthropogenic CO2 entered the atmosphere after that date.

Despite the documented fact that the earth has actually cooled at a rate of 3.5 oF / century over the last seven years, the IPCC models forecast a 3.9 oF / century warming to 2100.  The recent global cooling is confirmed by satellite data and is not disputed by any credible scientific body – but despite that, the IPCC computer models ignore the recent and long term historical data to conclude the earth is about to undergo an unprecedented warming period!

There are a number of other instances of inconsistencies, data manipulation, and outright fabrications included in the IPCC 2001 Study.  A complete analysis was presented to the US Congress by Lord Monckton, the former Science Advisor to the UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org).  This is the same individual who Al Gore refuses to debate, and the Democratic Energy and Commerce Committee Members refused to allow to testify opposite Gore in March 2009.  What does Lord Monckton know that Al Gore and our Democratic representatives not want the American public to know?

The effects of CO2on the earth’s climate are vastly exaggerated.

  • The concentration of CO2in the atmosphere is 0.035% and it is a very weak greenhouse gas.  Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for 97-98% of the greenhouse gas effect.  (Bet you didn’t know that – since governments can’t control water vapor, it is a fact you’re not likely to read in the press!)  Water vapor (clouds) is principally ruled by the sun, which may be one reason why NASA has recently declared that the sun is most directly responsible for global warming (go figure!).
  • In the Paleozoic Era of prehistoric times, CO2levels were 12 times higher than present.  For those of you who don’t comprehend geologic-speak, you know this era as the Ice Age.  So much for CO2‘s catastrophic warming effect on the earth!
  • Scientific evidence from ice cores in the Antarctic demonstrate over the millennium that increases in CO2concentrations follow temperature increase – not the other way around.

Anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant contributor to the earth’s climate.

  • Combining water vapor and nature’s production of CO2, 99.9% of greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with human activity.   Anthropogenic emissions of CO2account for only 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of CO2. How can altering man’s miniscule 1% contribution to atmospheric CO2levels over the last century have any discernible impact on the global processes of nature that have influenced earth’s climate for millions of years?
  • Termites, farm animals, volcanoes, and dissolved CO2 in the oceans emit much larger amounts of CO2 than mankind.  In well-documented warming periods in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940, which occurred before any possible effect from mankind  - is proof that there is absolutely no correlation between human activity, CO2emissions, and global temperature.

There are a number of other fallacies propagandized by environmental extremists:

  • Melting Glaciers – a number of well-documented glacier records indicate glaciers have been receding since 1750 and accelerated after 1820 (almost 100 years before the Model T).  This is a natural phenomenon not related to human activity.  Glaciers are still much larger than they were in the Medieval Warm Period.
  • Polar Ice Melting – The West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost two-thirds of its ice mass since the last ice age but is now growing at more than 26 billion tons a year.  How do you explain those well-publicized pictures of huge ice chunks breaking off and falling into the ocean?  The natural process as the ice thickens inland, it pushes ice to the perimeter to the lower elevation where it breaks off.  According to British meteorological stations in Antarctica , the continent is getting colder, not warmer.  The Greenland ice mass has thickened by seven feet since it was first measured by laser altimetry in 1980, and continues to grow.
  • Rising Sea Levels – Ocean levels have risen 400 feet over the last 18,000 years, a natural process that will continue without any influence from mankind.  Current documented sea rise is 8-12 inches / century, much less than the mean centennial rise of 4 feet.  The IPCC estimates 17-24  inch rise to 2100, slightly less than the 20 foot rise Al Gore prophesized in his film.
  • Polar Bear Extinction – (related to polar ice) There are four times as many polar bears now than there were in the 1940’s….enough said.
  • Increasing Hurricanes and Typhoons – According to the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index published by Florida State University, the Index is at it’s lowest in 33 years.   While Hurricane Katrina was a major tragedy for New Orleans , the destruction from that Category 3 storm was principally due to the failure of man-made levees.

Why is there so much emphasis on CO2when the human contribution of it is trivial and water vapor is so much more important in greenhouse effect?  The simple answer is that governments can control only people, not nature.  For millions of years, the sun and the clouds have been principally responsible for climate change.  There is no indisputable scientific evidence anything mankind does can influence climate change.  Governments cannot control the sun or the clouds, so they must find a cause that can be blamed on people.  If people have no impact on climate change, there is no justification for all of the scientific grants and studies to validate government intervention.  The environmental extremists will go to any lengths to prove mankind’s relevance on climate change, otherwise they have no seat at government’s trough.

There is no need for government to regulate and tax CO2emissions, and to invade every aspect of American lives.  The environmental extremists have manufactured a climate change crisis, based on fraudulent and manipulated scientific data, that has empowered liberal congressmen with a huge, new source of potential tax revenue they can redistribute to fund their liberal agenda.  It’s not about climate change, it’s about tax revenue.

The US Weather Service cannot accurately predict weather more than about a week in advance…why would we dramatically change our entire economy and our way of life based on climate models forecasting 40, 50, or 100 years in the future?

If this message concerns you and you want to make your concerns known to your congressmen, please click on the link below to express your opinion prior to their votes being cast.    https://www.bipac.net/issue_alert.asp?g=IPAA&issue=climate_change&parent=IPAA

and email John@faulkforcongress.org Congressional Candidate for TX 18 CD (Sheila Jackson Lee is the incumbent)

Appreciation due Parks Paton Hoepfl & Brown for their summary presentation of Lord Monckton’s work and the details around the March 2009 Congressional testimony.   Credit due Utah Valley University for a copy of Keith Rattie’s, CEO of Questar. graduation address dated April 2, 2009.

Tim Murray
Managing Director
Guggenheim Partners, LLC

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

YouTube Preview Image

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Graph of the Day for December 19, 2009

Saturday, December 19th, 2009

American Thinker – Randall Hoven

“What we don’t need are weak regulations like those in Texas, where industry participation in many environmental programs is voluntary. Texas ranks first in the nation in the number of hazardous-waste incinerators and industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and mercury. If that’s what Governor Bush has allowed to happen to his home state, imagine what President Bush would do for Detroit-and the rest of the country.”

The Sierra Club in 2000.
Carbon Monoxide Concentration Trend
Source:  The Environmental Protection Agency.
Hoven’s Index for December 19, 2009
Changes in the national average of the six common pollutants monitored by the EPA, 1980 to 2008:
Carbon Monoxide:  79% decrease.
Ground level Ozone:  25% decrease.
Lead:  92% decrease.
Nitrogen Dioxide:  46% decrease.
Particulate matter:  19% decrease.
Sulfur Dioxide:  71% decrease.
Source: The EPA.
[click on  Source The Environmental Protection Agency. Then page down to map of USA and click on Texas then click on the group of blue dots for Houston.]

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Crystal Ball Primer on Blue Dog Democrats

Friday, December 18th, 2009

IN THE DOGHOUSE

Isaac T. Wood
House Race Editor

How does a group where the majority of members voted in favor of health care reform get in the liberals’ doghouse? Just ask the Blue Dog Democrats. The Blue Dogs are a coalition of 52 fiscally conservative U.S. House members who have made headlines for their ardent negotiations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Although more than half of the Blue Dogs voted for the initial House health care bill, the coalition still provided 24 of the 39 Democratic “no” votes, cementing their place on the liberal naughty list.

The Blue Dogs moniker itself is a play on old Southern Democrats who called themselves “yellow dogs,” since they would even vote for a yellow dog, so long as it was a Democrat. The Blue Dog Coalition, however, stresses ideology and policy over party label. They chose their name to emphasize their view that the moderate and conservative wings of the Democratic Party had been “choked blue” leading up to 1994, when they were founded.

In the media, there has been a lot of confusion and misinformation about these key players on Capitol Hill who have played a central role, and will continue to, in the health care reform debate. To better explain the Blue Dogs we answer five vital questions about them and gaze into our Crystal Ball with an eye towards health care and 2010.

1. Who are the Blue Dogs?

The roster below gives a complete look at exactly who belongs to the Blue Dog coalition. Note the geographic and ideological diversity of the membership, two traits that defy the frequent media simplifications.

Some people will be surprised by who isn’t in this list. There are some Democrats who sit in very conservative districts, and even some conservative Democrats, who do not belong to the Blue Dog caucus. Among the more surprising omissions are Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1), Harry Teague (NM-2), Tom Perriello (VA-5), and Brian Baird (WA-3) who recently announced his retirement.



2. Where are the Blue Dogs from?

While the current roster stills bears the names of Southern representatives like those who started the group, today the title “Blue Dog” belongs to a diverse group of legislators.

Geographically, the current membership defies the Southern stereotype. More than half (28) of all states are represented by at least one Blue Dog in the House. Counting themselves among the Blue Dogs are one representative from Maine, one from Colorado, a New Yorker, and seven Californians! Just 20 of the 52 Blue Dogs are from states that seceded from the Union during the Civil War. The map shows the Blue Dog states and how many Blue Dogs hail from each state.

[The full article, blue above, shows a map]

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Lord Monckton confronting a member of Greenpeace with her ignorance!

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

This is an excellent video.

Lord Monckton addresses a Greenpeace-campaigner on global warming

“Actually I felt a little sorry for this woman, however, she’s probably like 98% of all the people who believe in AGW. ”

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls (Rasmussen)

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

Like Yogi Berra said, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Most voters think health care reform is something the federal government should be addressing, but they don’t like the plan that’s working its way through Congress. In fact, only 41% support it now, marking the lowest extended period of support for the plan yet.

But President Obama and the Democrats who control Congress are pushing ahead on the unpopular health care legislation anyway.

Now the same scenario seems to be playing out with global warming, with congressional Democrats moving ahead on climate change legislation and the president heading to a UN summit in Copenhagen in hopes of producing a treaty that will limit greenhouse gas emissions. Saving the planet is at stake, they argue, even as critics predict that these actions will have a devastating impact on the already wounded U.S. economy.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday declared carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and said it will regulate them accordingly. Administration opponents see this as a move to circumvent Congress where passage of anti-global warming legislation will be difficult. But 53% of Americans say the EPA should not be able to implement greenhouse gas regulations without congressional approval.

Still, it’s not like Republicans are the big gainers from the Democrats’ persistent legislative agenda so far. GOP candidates continue to lead Democrats as they have for over four months in the Generic Congressional Ballot, although that lead is down to just four points now.

Yet a lot of the most vocal opposition to the Democratic initiatives isn’t coming from traditional Republican ranks but from so-called “Tea Party” critics. Therein lies a serious potential problem for the GOP because running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican. In a three-way Generic Ballot test, Democrats attract 36% of the vote and the Tea Party candidate picks up 23%. Republicans finish dead last with 18%.

It will be interesting to see how Republicans in Washington deal with the outside-the-Beltway Tea Party movement, distancing themselves from it, trying to co-opt it or just loudly getting on board. Whatever course they follow, 64% of voters expect politics in Washington to be even more partisan in the nest year, especially with midterm congressional elections looming.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

ClimateGate Professor Calls G-Warming Skeptic ‘A**hole’ on Live TV

Monday, December 7th, 2009

ClimateGate Professor Calls G-Warming Skeptic ‘A**hole’ on Live TV | NewsBusters.org:

YouTube Preview Image

[This video comment reminds me of a training session I attended. One of the classes was taught by an attorney who had been a Federal investigator. He was on the witness stand with the defense attorney attacking him personally, belittling him. When the court took a break he went over to the defense attorney and asked what's up. You and I have been friends for years. Why are you attacking me. The reply was "Jack, I've got nothing else". Its called argumentum ad hominem.]

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

« Older Entries |