The Goracle Has Spoken!
Climategate: Gore falsifies the record
Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 at 06:54pm
Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.
And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:
Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.
A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.
In fact, thrice denied:
These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.
In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 – just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.
How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?
They’re not listening
Democrats reach deal on health plan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Democratic negotiators said they had reached agreement on Tuesday on a compromise on a scaled-back public insurance plan in a broad healthcare overhaul and would seek cost estimates on the deal.
“We have a broad agreement,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told reporters, refusing to give details on the proposals that will be sent to the Congressional Budget Office.
???????????????????
The government-run plan, along with the issue of abortion, was one of the two biggest hurdles remaining for the overhaul, which is President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
A team of 10 Senate Democrats — five liberals and five moderates — had been working for days on a substitute to the government-run plan included in the Senate bill, which has dismayed some moderates.
Democratic Senate sources said the substitute proposal would create a non-profit plan operated by private insurers but administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises health coverage for federal workers.
The sources said negotiators also sought cost estimates on an expansion of the Medicare health program for the elderly, which is now available at age 65, to Americans as young as 55 who could “buy-in” to the coverage.
“Insurance companies will certainly have more competition,” Reid said of the deal. “The American people will certainly have more choices.”
The other potential hurdle to the healthcare overhaul was abortion, and the Senate on Tuesday rejected an attempt to tighten restrictions on abortion coverage — a vote that could threaten a crucial Democrat’s support for passage of the final bill.
Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s amendment to tighten the bill’s restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortions, identical to a provision approved by the House of Representatives last month, was killed on a 54-45 vote.
Without the abortion language, Nelson had threatened he would not back the final healthcare bill when it came to a vote. If he followed through, Democrats would be one vote short of the 60 they need to pass the measure.
But after his amendment failed, Nelson softened his stance slightly. “It makes it harder to be supportive. We’ll see what happens,” he told reporters.
Spend Mo Money!
Can you believe this clown? Spend our way out of debt? No holds barred? I guess he’s going to start pulling money out of his butt now. My comments in RED.
Dec 8 12:35 PM US/Eastern
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to “spend our way out of this recession” until more Americans are back at work. ***NO SUCH LUCK BO, THE MORE YOU SPEND, THE MORE CAPITALISM DIES***
Without giving a price tag, Obama proposed a package of new spending for highway, bridge and other infrastructure projects, deeper tax breaks for small businesses and tax incentives to encourage people to make their homes more energy efficient.
“We avoided the depression many feared,” Obama said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. But, he added, “Our work is far from done.”
For the third time in a week, Obama sought to focus on job creation, noting that the unemployment rate was still at 10 percent in November, though down slightly from its 10.2 percent peak. He said “a staggering” 7 million Americans have lost jobs since the recession began two years ago. ***AND THAT’S NOT COUNTING THOSE WHO ARE OUT OF FUNDS THAT AREN’T REPORTING****
While his proposal did not include the kind of direct federal public works jobs that were created in the 1930s, he said government could set the stage for more job creation by private businesses.
A major part of his package is new incentives for small businesses, which account for two-thirds of the nation’s work force. He proposed a new tax cut for small businesses that hire in 2010 and an elimination for one year of the capital gains tax on profits from small-business investments. ***BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CRAP CHARGES FOR HEALTH CARE, THE INCREASE TO BUSINESS FOR THE RAISE IN MINIMUM WAGE, THE NEW FULL TIME AT 30 HOUR PROVISION, ETC…MAYBE IT WOULD HELP IF THOSE WERE CUT FIRST***
Obama also proposed an elimination of fees on loans to small businesses, coupled with federal guarantees of those loans through the end of next year. ***AND THEN ANOTHER CRASH OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR BECAUSE THE LENDERS AREN’T MAKING ANYTHING ON THOSE LOANS?***
He called for more government spending on infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and water projects and for new tax breaks for consumers who invest in energy-efficient retrofits in their homes. This could be what some administration officials have called a “Cash for Caulkers” program modeled on the now-expired Cash for Clunkers program of tax rebates for people who turned in old cars for more fuel-efficient models.
The administration also is eyeing ways to get money still not spent in the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last winter into projects more quickly.
Obama did not characterize his new proposals as another stimulus program like that mammoth measure, but Republican critics have called it just that and have said it will increase a federal deficit that is already at a record level.
Obama included sharp criticism for Republicans in his speech, accusing them of opposing economic stimulus efforts and his health care overhaul while supporting tax cuts and spending that have ballooned the deficit. ***EXCUSE ME, WHO HAS SPENT MORE MONEY THAN ALL THE PRESIDENT’S COMBINED?***
He said that soon after taking office, he and congressional Democrats took “a series of difficult steps” to try to stabilize the financial system and pull the economy out of a deep recession.
“And we were forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it to others to solve.”
Obama did not say how much his proposals would cost, although congressional Democrats are eyeing a $70 billion package to help create jobs and to provide aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. Administration aides suggested that the part of the package dealing with roads, bridges and other infrastructure could total about $50 billion.
While acknowledging increasing concerns in Congress and among the public over the nation’s growing debt, Obama said critics present a “false choice” between paying down deficits and investing in job creation and economic growth. ***AIN’T THAT THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK?***
To pay for the new programs, the administration is citing the Treasury Department’s report on Monday that it expects to get back $200 billion in taxpayer-approved bank bailout funds faster than expected.
Obama suggested this windfall would both help the government spend money on job creation while also paying down the nation’s debt, which now totals $12 trillion.
Obama called the bank bailout, under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), “galling.”
“There has rarely been a less loved—or more necessary—emergency program,” Obama said. The program is expected to go out of business at the end of this year unless extended by Congress.
Since the program is costing taxpayers at least $200 billion less than expected, Obama said, “This gives us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought possible and to shift funds that would have gone to help the banks on Wall Street to help create jobs on Main Street.”
But Republicans continued to insist that the leftover and repaid TARP money must be used exclusively for deficit reduction and not for a new jobs program.
“The president’s announcement is further proof that TARP has morphed from an emergency injection of liquidity to thaw frozen credit markets into a $700 billion revolving slush fund to promote the Democrats’ political, social and economic agenda,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.
Obama said he is backing the measures he outlined because they “will generate the greatest number of jobs while generating the greatest value for our economy.”
“These targeted initiatives are right, and they are needed,” he said.
CBS airs perverted ‘Frosty the Snowman’ Ad
This is absolutely disgusting…..what kind of parent would want their children to see this? This an article from onemillionmoms.com CBS has gotten 24,000 emails to date voicing their disgust with this ad. Help them to raise this to 50,000 complaints.
CBS airs perverted ‘Frosty the Snowman’ Ad
CBS airs perverted ‘Frosty the Snowman’
CBS has combined the raunchy television show “How I Met Your Mother” with the children’s holiday classics “Frosty the Snowman” and “Frosty Returns” in an ad on CBS’s website.
The disgusting result was the video “Frosty the Inappropriate Snowman,” in which Neil Patrick Harris’s voice (in character from the sitcom “How I Met Your Mother”) was dubbed over Frosty footage.
Harris’ Frosty said things like, “We’ve got to have a bros’ night at a strip club” because it’s “healthy” and “harmless.” He also discussed his “porn collection” and “the Dominator 8000 – the best bull whip on the market.”
Well-known scenes of the classic Frosty delighting children by coming to life were perverted by the ad which included Frosty saying, “I have been with a lot of women. Blondes. Brunettes. Redheads. Big boobs. Small boobs. Medium boobs. Some boobs that were big but kind of in a bad way.”
WARNING: Don’t let children see this video:
The new, crude snowman also encouraged the white rabbit in the movie to have sexual fantasies: “You should have hit that. Dude, your pants were already off. You had a classroom full of people to cheer you on. And you can’t knock her up because it’s a dream.”
The voiceovers also included lines showing “Frosty’s” willingness to punch anyone – “I’ll punch a baby. I don’t care.” – and his delight in “scoring front row seats to a lethal injection.”
TAKE ACTION
Please send CBS an email letter urging the network to pull this disturbing “Frosty” ad immediately.
Send Your Letter Now!
NOTE: If you see a commercial or program which is offensive, email us the information. Many of you have done this, and it is very helpful.
Obama to accept peace prize as war president
What? Obama ran his presidential campaign to stop the war in Iraq. Now he’s accepting the Nobel Peace Prize as a “war president”? Yep! He also said he’d make government more transparent, but a lot of the health care plan is being discussed behind closed doors and he said he was against the Patriot Act, but now he’s extended it instead of letting it expire. So it’s beginning to appear that whatever Obama says, the opposite is the truth.
Obama to accept peace prize as war president
US President Barack Obama, seen here atthe White House, will accept his Nobel peace prize this week as a war president, and will address the awkward timing of his Afghan troop surge announcement head on, the White House said Monday.AFP – President Barack Obama will accept his Nobel peace prize this week as a war president, and will address the awkward timing of his Afghan troop surge announcement head on, the White House said Monday.
Obama will leave for Oslo on Wednesday and accept the surprise award the next day, on a delicate mission on which he must juggle the status of the prize with his so far limited foreign policy record.(Not to mention he got the nomination just one month after taking office and had done nothing yet and had ran on stopping the war, not expanding it.)
“We’ll address directly the notion, I think, that many have wondered, which is the juxtaposition of the timing for the Nobel Peace Prize and his commitment to add more troops into Afghanistan,” said Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs.
“That’s obviously something that he will address,” Gibbs said. Asked whether Obama would accept the prize as a “war president,” Gibbs replied “Exactly.”
The choice of Obama as Nobel peace laureate, and his Afghan troop decision, has sparked anger among some critics and spurred activists to plan demonstrations in Oslo which have prompted a massive security operation.
Earlier, in Norway, Benjamin Endre Larsen, the head of umbrella organization Fredsinitiativet organising a demonstration, told AFP “the Peace Prize creates obligations.”
“The decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan is sad and cynical and this shows that Obama has not understood his obligations.”
“We think that Obama received the prize prematurely, but now that he has it he has to prove himself worthy,” he added.
The Norwegian government has earmarked 92 million kroner (10.9 million euros, 16 million dollars) to cover security needs during Obama’s visit — more than 10 times the prize money awarded to the Peace Prize laureate.
Yet Another Pelosism – Does This Woman Have a Brain?
From CNS News:
Pelosi Endorses ‘Global’ Tax on Stocks, Bonds, and other Financial Transactions
Monday, December 07, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrive for a press conference after House passage of the health care reform bill at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009. (AP Photo/J. David Ake)(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a “global” tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending.At her weekly press briefing on Thursday, Pelosi said the financial transactions tax (HR4191) currently before Congress would have to be made “global” to keep U.S. investors from taking their business overseas and out of taxable reach.
The House speaker said that a transaction tax could be imposed in conjunction with congressional efforts to divert funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), with funds from both going to fund a second stimulus spending package. (The first stimulus bill, $789-billion, was signed into law by President Barack Obama on Feb. 13, 2009.)
“I believe that the transaction tax still has a great deal of merit,” Pelosi told reporters. “The concern that many of us or others have had is that it will send, it will send transactions overseas.
“Well, let’s see, the fact is, what we are talking about is a global transaction [tax],” she said, “something that we would do in conjunction with other G nations, whether it is G8, G20, whatever the current G number is. Because it is really a source of revenue that has really minimal impact on the transaction, but a tremendous impact on helping us meet our needs.”
(?????????????????????????????????????? WHAT?)
Pelosi said she thought the idea might have currency among a public eager to see Wall Street firms “pitching in” to help the government grow the economy.“I think there would be a market for it among the American people to say that we are all participating in the economic prosperity of our country, and we are all pitching in to continue that prosperity,” said Pelosi.
The tax idea, the brainchild of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, would mean that all major financial centers – Asia, the EU, U.S., and U.K. – would all have to pass a similar transaction tax to avoid disadvantaging one country’s stock exchange. This would ensure that no matter where a person wanted to buy stock, they would have to pay the new tax.
Brown originally proposed the idea on Nov. 7 at a meeting of G20 finance ministers in St. Andrews, Scotland.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)The American version, H.R. 4191, introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), would levy a separate tax on all stock trades, futures contracts, swaps, credit default swaps, and stock options in an effort to tap the trillions of dollars of such transactions.
Seeking to circumvent concerns about further deficit spending on stimulus programs, the bill attempts to raise approximately $150 billion every year.
“The jobless recovery suggests that the Federal Government must continue to prime the economy, but the record deficit is a real obstacle,” the bill reads.
“To restore Main Street America, a small securities tax on Wall Street should be invested in job creation for Main Street,” says the bill. “This transfer tax would be assessed on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, and futures. A quarter percent (0.25 percent) tax on financial instruments could raise approximately $150,000,000,000 a year.”
The transaction tax proposal was met with opposition from some House Democrats, who signed a “Dear Colleague” letter outlining their opposition to the tax and urging other members of Congress to join them.
“A $150 billion tax on financial transactions will fall on millions of hardworking Americans who are saving for their future through their 401k plans, mutual funds, pensions and other savings vehicles,” wrote Reps. Michael McMahon (D-N.Y.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.) in the letter, which is still being circulated on Capitol Hill, a copy of which was obtained by CNSNews.com.
“Supporters of the proposal promote it as a way to make Wall Street pay for economic stimulus, because it would apply only to stocks, futures, forwards and derivatives,” the letter states.
“In reality, it would be a tax on all investment and savings vehicles because mutual funds and money market fund transactions are, by definition, purchases and sales of securities and bonds,” it added.
The three Democrats said that the American version of the proposal would not exempt middle class Americans, as it claims to do, because while the tax would be paid by major stock brokers, those brokers would pass the cost down to everyday investors, pension, and retirement funds.
“Proponents of a transaction tax argue that a small 0.25 percent tax on stocks would be paid for by the highly paid financial traders and would not affect most Americans,” reads the letter. “This is simply not true. A tax on stock transactions would affect every single person who owns and invests in stocks from small business owners to senior citizens.”
“Americans saving for their retirement, to pay for college or ‘a rainy day fund’ to meet future emergencies will be subjected to a tax that will reduce the value of their savings at a time when they are just starting to recover the losses they incurred at the height of the financial crisis,” the letter states.
Pelosi’s office did not return calls for comment on this story.
The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare
Here’s a great article about what will probably be the next battle against Obamacare.
The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare
by Brian Garst
Right now the battle over government-run health care is centered in Washington D.C. Numerous protests have been held at the Capital, including the massive 9.12 Project march, where hundreds of thousands traveled from all over the country to protest excessive spending, bailouts, and big government proposals for reforming healthcare. Another ten thousand showed up in November for a “House Call” protest, arranged on very short notice, specifically targeting healthcare legislation pushed by Democrats. These same activists are also burning up the phones before every major vote. Despite the unprecedented strength of this small government uprising, we must face the very real possibility that, while these protests will no doubt keep participants motivated leading up to the next election, they may not be enough to stop passage of ObamaCare. Depending on the outcome of today’s fight, tomorrow’s could very well be at the state level, and eventually in the courts.
According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, lawmakers in 24 states have at least pledged to introduce legislation modeled after their Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which nullifies an individual mandate to purchase federally approved health insurance. This amounts to a bold reassertion of the 10th Amendment, that long ignored protection of state sovereignty against federal infringement. Thirteen of these states have already filed or pre-filed constitutional amendments to protect the rights of individuals to make their own healthcare decisions.
One of these states is Arizona, where voters will decide the issue by statewide ballot in 2010. When voting on the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, citizens of the Grand Canyon State will have an important opportunity to take the lead in fighting federal overreach. A similar measure was only narrowly defeated — by 8,000 votes out of over 1.8 million cast — in 2008. Given the extreme likelihood that the 2010 electorate as a whole will be in a more anti-Obama mood than the one that swept him into office in 2008, there is reason for optimism that the measure will pass.
So what happens if Arizona, or any other state, passes such an amendment? Unfortunately, that is unlikely to be the end of it. ObamaCare supporters will quickly challenge the amendment in court, lest other states be tempted to follow suit and protect their citizens and healthcare markets from federal control.
The Constitution is fairly clear on this question. The federal government has a limited set of enumerated powers, while everything else is reserved to the states and the people. None of these powers includes the ability to force people to purchase health insurance, or anything else for that matter. Sadly, modern Constitutional jurisprudence is far removed from the document it is purportedly based on. By consistently misinterpreting the commerce and general welfare clauses, the courts have allowed significant extra-constitutional growth of the federal government over the course of the nation’s history.
Despite this state of affairs, there is some hope that even a court system based on the flawed constitutional understanding of modern jurisprudence will balk at the audacity of ObamaCare. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service acknowledged that, “it is a novel issue whether Congress may use [the commerce] clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.” And when this same issue arose in 1993 during the HillaryCare battle, the Congressional Budget Office found the mandate to be “unprecedented,” noting that, “the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” Still, lacking any Supreme Court precedent, a potential legal battle could go either way.
There can only be a legal battle, however, if the states and the people first reassert their sovereignty.
In order to insure that happens, activists should fight not just in Washington D.C., but also in the legislatures of their home states. Don’t just call Nancy Pelosi — who doesn’t care — or some moderate Senator who can be bought off by a few hundred million dollars in pork, but also call your state representative and tell him or her that you want an amendment to protect the rights of citizens to decide what, if any, insurance they want to purchase.
Many lawmakers across the U.S. are already sticking out their necks by standing up against a federal takeover of the healthcare industry. Legislators from 15 states held a press conference on Dec. 4th to unveil a letter, signed by over 100 lawmakers from 45 states, opposing ObamaCare. We must now put pressure on their colleagues to join them. If elected officials in Washington D.C. cannot be counted on to fulfill their duty to pass only those laws within their constitutional authority, then we have no choice but to look elsewhere to recapture our rights.
Reid Says Republican Opposition Like Slavery
From Fox News:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.
The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement — even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery.
Republicans said they were genuinely appalled. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Reid’s remarks were over the top.
“That is extremely offensive,” he told Fox News. “It’s language that should never be used, never be used. … Those days are not here now.”
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., suggested Reid was starting to “crack” under the pressure of the health care reform debate.
“I think it’s beneath the dignity of the majority leader,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said. “I personally am insulted.”
EPA Declares Carbon Dioxide a Poisonous Hazard
Do tell! Well today we have more insanity from the Obama administration. Just before going to Copenhagen he does something to get a feather in his hat. Since they haven’t even started on the Cap & Trade bill yet Obama needed something before the Climate Summit at Copenhagen. So as if we didn’t know CO2 is hazardous to our health. Duh! Just another way to kill any recovery of the economy and small businesses. Who’s side is this man on?
Obama and crew will not wait for the outcome of Copenhagen or the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, predicted for 2010 at the earliest. Obama will declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant this week.
We exhale carbon dioxide. Does that mean that we will have to register with the government as being a polluting entity? Plants grow faster with more co2 and they need less water and can stand higher temperatures. What is amazing is that co2 compared to all other gases in the atmosphere only comprises .054% of the all gasses available. (That’s 45 thousandths of 1%)
The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide dangerous (duh!) and this will probably result in the government requiring businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other “greenhouse gases” to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions. Congress need not be consulted and no law need be enacted.
An EPA “endangerment finding” would allow the federal agency to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions.
EPA action would signal to the United Nations, the Copenhagen globalists and their phalanx of NGOs that Obama is serious about eliminating carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sending western civilization back to the Dark Ages.
Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule by EPA
An “endangerment” finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions — even if Congress doesn’t pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.
Many business groups are opposed to EPA efforts to curb a gas as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide.
China’s factory chimneys pour out smoke in Shanghai, China.Despite a global economic slump, worldwide carbon dioxide pollution jumped 2 percent last year, most of it from China, new figures show. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, File)
An EPA endangerment finding “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement. “The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don’t stifle our economic recovery,” he said, noting that the group supports federal legislation.
EPA action won’t do much to combat climate change, and “is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy,” said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.
EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.
The oil industry has warned that climate legislation could force some U.S. refineries to shut down, because importing gasoline from countries without emission caps could be cheaper than making the gasoline on domestic soil.
The issue of how curbing emissions would affect jobs in developed countries (like India & China which are the worse polluters) is likely to erupt in Copenhagen in the battle over how much rich countries should pony up for cleaner technologies in developing nations.(again like India & China~spreading the wealth)
The vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India, not from rich countries like the U.S. But developing countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what rich countries do first. That puts a geopolitical spotlight on the U.S.
What Do You Believe About Global Warming?
Here is a BBC interview, even the scientists and participants are calling each other names, what an a**h***…but notice which ones. When you’re caught with your britches down, I guess the best claim is memory loss.
Steve Hilton
babybttrfly
Mike