7 thoughts on “Global Warming Hoax Update

  1. neocon01 November 4, 2013 / 6:36 am

    Climate scientists SCAMER’S are “baffled”.


  2. Retired Spook November 4, 2013 / 10:09 am

    From the Weekly Roundup post at Wattsupwiththat:

    Number of the Week: $22,195,000,000 US. As required by law, the White House delivered to Congress a report stating in Fiscal Year 2013, which ended on September 30, the US government spent $22,195,000,000 on climate change matters. The main categories are: US Global Change Research Program $2.463 Billion; Clean Energy Technologies $5.783 Billion, International Assistance $797 Million; Natural Resources Adaption $95 Million; Energy Tax Provisions That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases $4.999 Billion; Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions $8.080 Billion. The $8.080 Billion buys a lot of lobbying power for the wind and solar industries.

    These expenditures further support SEPP’s earlier estimates that since 1993, the US has spent over $150 Billion on climate change. The updated figure is over $165 Billion. The climate establishment is well funded, but it still cannot provide an accurate answer to the critical question of how sensitive is the planet to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    In the end, the climate change scam is nothing more than another liberal wealth redistribution scheme.

    • M. Noonan November 4, 2013 / 2:53 pm

      Of course, all liberal policies work out in practice to be just that – to the point where, now, we have no free market, at all. But when I try to argue that we need to attack a rich and corrupt ruling class which has warped the free market in to a crony-capitalist enterprise, fellow conservatives accuse me of attacking the free market.

  3. Dan Pangburn November 4, 2013 / 2:20 pm

    At http://danpangburn.blogspot.com/ see an eye-opening graph and a simple equation that, with only one external forcing, calculates the average global temperature anomaly trend since 1610 and, with 90% accuracy, calculates measured average global temperature anomalies since 1895. See why the LIA and Global Warming both ended. CO2 change had no significant influence.

    • M. Noonan November 5, 2013 / 1:35 am

      I always wondered, as an aside, if that big, yellow, hot thing which comes up each morning has something to do with the temperature. If Uncle Sam will toss me a $1,976,995,789.67 I promise to study the issue.

      • Amazona November 6, 2013 / 12:28 pm

        Mark, every good little mindless Lefty footsoldier knows that proximity to a huge ball of fire cannot possibly have any effect on temperature.

        They all know that although they sit closer to a campfire when it cools off at night, or closer to a fireplace when they want to warm up, this is completely different from being closer to, or farther from, a blazing solar furnace that emits not only radiant heat but electromagnetic energy over millions of miles.

  4. Amazona November 6, 2013 / 12:50 pm

    Let’s take a look at some very basic reforms and what the financial impact would be:

    Eliminate all expenses associated with “global warming” or “climate change”—-$8 Billion
    Eliminate the IRS—-$10 Billion in operating costs plus $250 Billion spent to comply with tax codes.

    These simple reforms would make a difference of approximately $18 Billion in federal expenditures plus $250 Billion spent by citizens.

    These moves do not even address the savings of getting rid of the payments made to people who do not pay any income tax at all.

    There can’t be an Affordable Care Act without the IRS, adding to the savings there.

    Implementation of the Fair Tax would demand reform of Social Security, as now there can be dozens or as many as 100 names on any given SS number, and the savings of reforming SS would have to be immense.

    Strip down federal expenses to comply with the 10th Amendment, cut federal taxation to match the reduction in federal expenditures, and have the states pick up the slack through their own taxation plans. This would have the additional effect of putting plans into more local control, with more local oversight, and except in places like Nevada and Michigan would result in less corruption, translated into less expenditure.

    Move current IRS employees into investigative jobs in Immigration, to reduce the current backlog of applications and to process new registrations under a reasonable immigration reform act. As these people reach retirement age, do not replace them. And if the immigration reform were to eliminate payments to illegals, we would see great savings there.

    Simply working on the first two suggestions, stopping payments for climate change nonsense and getting rid of the IRS, would be a great start, and I think they would energize the nation into finding more areas in which to become fiscally responsible.

Comments are closed.