First of all, as I alluded to above, they both believe in man-made global warming. For example, during the 2008 president debates Obama said, “I think that the climate change issue is the most serious environmental issue that we face.” And in between the time he was elected president in November 2008 and the time he was sworn into office in January 2009, he voiced his belief that man-made global warming was taking a serious toll on the earth:

Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating global climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coast lines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

When Romney gave a speech in New Hampshire this past summer, he made clear his belief in man-made global warming as well:

I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.

While we know empirically that Obama’s belief in global warming translated into a pursuit of cap-and-trade policies, green jobs, electric cars (that catch on fire), and what is quickly becoming an energy disaster for our country, it’s important to note that Romney also wants to act on his global warming convictions. As he said in New Hampshire: “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emission of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”

For his part, Romney continually states his opposition to cap-and-trade policies, the kind of policies Obama pursues to punish us for owning SUVs or to tax us to infinity over emissions. Yet in 2005, when Romney was Gov. of Massachusetts, he boasted about the stringent emissions limits he’d put in place: “[Massachusetts is] the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.”

Speaking of power plants, this brings us to some serious common ground between Obama and Romney: neither of whom has a kind word to say about coal. During the 2008 presidential campaign, while speaking on the type of energy policy he would pursue as president, Obama said that once his policies were place, “if someone wants to build a coal powered plant they  can, it’s just that it’ll bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

In a similar vein, Romney, after less than a year as Gov. of Massachusetts, stood with environmental activists outside of a coal powered plant in his state and said: “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people.”

…Holiday Ideas for Green Grinches & Climate Change Believers!

CCB – that’s Climate Change Belief – is a religion. It has a God (Gore) and prophets/saints (DiCaprio, Sting), but where are the holidays? Christmas and Chanukah offer great reasons to eat, drink and get crazy. But ALpostles, convinced that all human activity damages Gaia, are such a gloomy  bunch.

So enviro-doomsayers, pull up an old cable spool next to the artificial, non-denominational log, grab a bowl of recycled waste-punch and get in the spirit with these fun holiday ideas.

Here’s a Grinchy carol you can sing (but not too loudly — that produces too much CO2.).

I’M DREAMING OF A GREEN, GENERIC HOLIDAY SEASON

(Sung to the tune of White Christmas)

I’m dreaming of a green, generic holiday season

the kind this planet used to know

where there are no damn people

or non-secular church steeples

or Humvee tire-tracks in the snow

I’m dreaming of a green, generic holiday season

with every hemp-pulp, soy-ink card I write

may our days be somber and few

‘til there’s no more GHGs, and no more you

Green Holiday Cards

Have you noticed the new trend in holiday cards? In lieu of a Nativity or Menorah, there’s a goofy abstract. On the back, it tells how the card was made of recycled condoms, Big Gulp lids and pureed medical waste, then printed with soy ink. It claims that profits are going to the sender’s pet charity – usually something green. How sweet. And utterly meaningless.

Want to be a Planet Savior this year? Recycle and re-address last year’s card.

The Burning MANnenbaum (for CCDs – Climate Change Deniers)

To Deep Greens, having a whorishly decorated tree-corpse rotting in your living room is SICK. Who cares what they think? Blend old with new traditions, and have a BURNING MANNENBAUM.

Sure it will take a little extra doing, but isn’t that what the holidays are all about?

Grab the chain saw, hop in the Kenworth, and drive out to where the old-growth pines loom large. Pick your victim and slice it down. When you’re done, treat yourself to a couple cold ones, and be sure to leave the empties on the stump as a warning to the rest of ‘em.

Once you get the tree home, raise it up with a block and tackle. If this is a tad daunting, google “Industrial riggers;” they’ll take it from there. Have them bring a cherry picker so you can get up high enough to carve arms and legs on it. At dusk, douse it with your accelerant of choice and brighten the neighborhood with holiday cheer.

Estimates claim one Burning Mannenbaum leaves a 27,000 ton carbon footprint. Let the Deep Greenies have their “Composting Dude.” Your Burning Mannenbaum will be seen from satellites and remembered by neighbors for years.

Your efforts will light up the kids’ faces (and your zip code), save a tree from winding up as pulp for DiCaprio’s inevitable biography, and might just be your introduction to some fine civil servants from the fire department and law enforcement.

Have some punch and cookies on hand for the merrymakers this majestic sight will surely draw!

The environment has become the hottest political issue of our time. And when anything is politicized, falsehood flourishes. The volume of lies, disinformation, propaganda, hypocrisy and exaggeration far exceeds the quantity of material pollutants – and is more hazardous.

Green has become the convenient, safe, lucrative cause for politicians, corporate weasels, celebrity eco-frauds, power-hungry government agencies and fast-buck swindlers hustling everything from gas-to-water engine conversion plans to carbon offset credits.

There’s a combination gold-rush/Armageddon’s a-comin’ zeitgeist that’s very troubling. It’s like watching the panicked crowd flee from Godzilla. Their mindless fear is more dangerous than the monster.

Statistics of doom are conjured and accepted without vetting. Idiotic “solutions” are clutched in desperation. Most terrifying of all, leaders are anointed and followed — without scrutiny.

There’s more mass hysteria in the air than particulate matter. And that hysteria is stoked by people with ulterior motives – money and power.

Green rhetoric has morphed into dogma. Totalitarian semantics force an agenda on those less educated or wary. One who disagrees is labeled a denier – a pejorative term that invalidates an opinion since only “truth” can be denied.

With Bolshevik fervor they scream for the heads of non-believers. Jobs are lost, professional credentials are revoked, jail time will be served. Non-compliance is not tolerated. Mere tolerance is not tolerated. One must embrace the new creed.

It’s time to step back, set up the bullshit filter (make sure it’s on full screen), and carefully evaluate the message. And even more carefully, examine the messengers.

Over the next several weeks, BigGovernment.com will serialize portions of YOU’VE BEEN GORED.

This video: The Climate Is Not A-Changin’

will give you a taste of what’s to come. It is an anthem for people who’ve had a belly full of Al Gore, elitist hypocrisy and  radical environmentalism.

Enjoy. And stay tuned.

Plouffe’s answer: “Well, let’s step back for a minute. We have to win this race, you know, we–if we don’t win the clean energy race in terms of technology, innovation, and jobs, and cede it to other countries, we’re not going to have the century–we need this. It’d be like us ceding the automotive industry race or the Internet and computer race.” [emphasis mine]

What pure balderdash!  I am sure that Henry Ford would not be happy to hear that the White House was taking credit for his successes – like inventing the assembly line. The success of the American automotive industry and Internet was not because the government subsidizing Henry Ford or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs; it was because private investors saw the value of their ideas.

David Gregory’s question goes to the heart of our economic train wreck. Where in the Constitution does it state that Congress should be playing the role of venture capitalist and funding one business over another? What authorizes the government to fund one particular business – whether it’s Solyndra or Exxon – with everyone else’s money?

Ethanol producers receive billions in government subsidies. What does it accomplish? It increases the price the farmers pay to feed their livestock, devours huge quantities of the corn supply (more than 40%), and increases the price of corn for American families and families around the world. How crazy is that – a government subsidy that drives up the cost of food?

Then there is Solyndra, the bankrupt company President Obama gave a $535 million federal loan to because the company had the political acumen to attach the buzz words “green energy” to its loan application. Now we hear of other green energy companies going belly up that received these federal loans.

All these economic meltdowns lead to one fundamental question: What is the role of the federal government in private enterprise? It is past time to stop the Washington politicians “subsidizing” their corporate friends with taxpayers’ money, which means that we shouldn’t be subsidizing “green companies,” “ethanol conglomerates,” or, for that matter, “oil companies.”

I don’t say this as someone who sees “big oil” as the big boogeyman. In fact, I am a strong supporter of oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. But we’ve proven we can’t “subsidize” our way to lower gas prices. If we want to be energy independent and turn our economy around we should:

1)      Eliminate the federal corporate tax and the tax on capital for ALL businesses. Let’s get rid of the subsidies and loopholes and cut taxes on everyone.

2)      Remove the ban on drilling and drill responsibly on the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and elsewhere.

3)      Allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built from Canada to the United States.

4)      Ensure cap & trade is never passed.

5)      Bring accountability and oversight to the Environmental Protection Agency by requiring Congress to vote and approve any EPA rules that have an annual economic impact of more than $100 million.

6)      Get the federal government out of the loan and subsidy program and allow private investors to fund new energy solutions.

I challenge George Allen and Tim Kaine to join me by taking a stand to eliminate ALL energy subsidies – green subsidies, ethanol subsidies, and oil subsidies.  Let’s get Obama-nomics out of the way and let the private market go to work for everyone by having a tax code that treats all businesses equally instead of subsidizing the Washington politicians’ “chosen few.”

Mission Point Capital Partners, “a private investment firm established by Mark Schwartz, former President and Chief Executive Officer of Soros Fund Management and former Chairman of Goldman Sachs (Asia); Jesse M. Fink, co-founder and former Chief Operating Officer of priceline.com; and Mark J. Cirilli, former Chief Investment Officer of Marshall Street Management,” explains:

The Smart Grid is a collection of energy control and monitoring devices, software, networking and communications infrastructure that are installed in homes, businesses, and throughout the electricity distribution grid. This collective system provides a “nervous system” for the grid and for customers that provides the ability to monitor and control energy consumption comprehensively in real time. Think of it as the Internet for Energy… Smart meters and other smart grid technologies… are designed with this ability, and they can provide the infrastructure that will support the implementation of responsible climate change policy. [emphasis added]

Smart thermostats, smart meters and the smart grid will provide the utility with information and the ability to monitor energy consumption throughout the country. These devices will enable them to regulate your use of electricity and turn it on and off at their discretion.  According to SmartGrid.gov, “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with about $4.5 billion to modernize the electric power grid and to implement Title XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which focused on the Smart Grid.”  This site shows the government’s progress  in implementing smart grid technology through the country.  The money put into this is staggering! The Solyndra scandal is only the tip of the iceberg of this Administration’s green radicalism.

Implementing “responsible climate change policy” will come at a tremendous cost to the energy consumer and benefit those involved in producing and installing these devices as well as those involved in the carbon emissions permit exchange market.

During his presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama said that under his plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates “will necessarily skyrocket.”  As utility companies across the country continue to comply with the strong arm demands of the EPA to provide a greater percentage of energy to its customers using renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind, we will see a substantial increase in our electricity bills.

When his cap and trade bill stalled in the Senate,  John Kerry (D-MA) issued a statement, “Today we went from ‘wake-up call’ to ‘last call’ on the urgency of Senate action on comprehensive energy and climate legislation.  The Obama Administration has again reminded Washington that if Congress won’t legislate, the EPA will regulate.”   That is exactly what they are doing.

The video below explains what allowing a smart meter to be installed in your home means to you, the energy consumer.

In the document they make reference to the Earth Charter, which is purported to be “an ethical framework for a more just, sustainable and peaceful world”.

They understand that their “green” initiative has not progressed as quickly as they had hoped it would.  Cap and trade schemes that involve redistribution of wealth from developed countries to developing countries based on a market price on carbon dioxide emissions have not generated sufficient revenue.  A new or additional economic or market solution should be implemented, because humankind has transgressed against nature.  Humans have been treating nature as a commodity.  The “loss of biodiversity,  desertification, climate change and the disruption of a number of natural cycles are among the costs of our disregard for nature and the integrity of its ecosystems and life-supporting processes.  As recent scientific work suggests, a number of planetary boundaries are being transgressed and others risk being so in a business-as-usual world”,  according to the U.N. Secretary General’s report to the U.N. on Harmony with Nature.

Their proposal is to create a new world organization, naming it  the World Environmental Organisation (WEO) which will have a global legitimacy and mandate to have jurisdiction over what are considered the “common goods”, defined as “fresh water, healthy soil and clean air, but also the oceans, the atmosphere and diversity of life” since it would be difficult to implement or trade on these “common goods” that are not privately owned or traded on markets.

This document states “Our proposed WEO should be mandated with a trusteeship function over global public goals and common goods”.  Much like a legal guardian is appointed in the case of a person who is unable to represent him/ herself, such as an infant, insane or senile person, they are proposing such a legal guardian to represent and give “legal voice for the otherwise voiceless environment”.

For the WEO to have global legitimacy it will have to be widely democratic, representative and participatory by all members of the United Nations.

They intend to focus on the participation of the estimated 1.9 billion youths of the world, and their access to various forms of media, to implement these goals for the management and equitable distribution of these “common goods”.  The education of our children is being advanced by the International Baccalaureate Programmes, with the stated goal of creating good global citizens, as explained in a previous article Is the International Baccalaureate Programme Co-opting Your Child?

To fund this fair and equitable distribution of wealth they are proposing a “Global Commons Trust Fund” that would impose a tax or levy on any person or entity that uses a “global common”.   Finally, to raise additional revenue they also propose a global tax on financial transactions.  Below is a video of Richard Trumka speaking to the European Socialist Party last year about his support of a “Robin Hood” tax.

The United Nations is intent on utilizing social, environmental and economic justice to exact taxes or levies on the water we drink, the air that we breathe, and the rivers, lakes, streams, seas and oceans in which we fish or upon which we navigate.  In the context of this current draft from the United Nations, it might be interesting to re-read a previous article on Executive Order 13547.  This is all fitting together quite too neatly.

We must impress upon our representatives, elected or appointed, to withdraw from the United Nations immediately.  American’s must wake up to this imminent threat to our freedom and security, in fact to our very existence.  If we go down, the world will soon follow.  I fear this is the true intent of the Rio + 20 Conference.

The road to Rio is America’s road to ruin!

When that silver-haired Republican candidate weighs in on the ‘climate’ debate I want to stick around until the end of the video. I love that line, “Good heavens, Miss Nakamoto, you’re beautiful!”

Wait, that’s not Magnus Pyke?

Seriously. Mr. Huntsman, beyond the pose: what would you do? “Science!” is a talking point. More of a pose, really, of being the thoughtful man while its success depends on no more than Pavlovian nodding and clucking in response. Anything else ultimately arrives at the question Hunstman’s pose begs:

What. Would. You. Do.?

What’s your point? You’re down with the kidz on campus and your media base can rest easy because you’re not, you know, ‘crazy’ as you say? Or you’re going somewhere with this? Is it cap-and-trade? Kyoto? Kyoto II? Carbon (dioxide…meaning ‘energy’) taxes?

What? And after you answer that, well, without using the word “science(!)”, please then state why?

Here’s the problem for today’s stylish poseur: Nothing ever proposed would, according to anyone or any computer model on which the entire argument is premised, detectably impact temperature or climate.

The schemes are all pain, no gain. According to all. Is that not the kind of consensus you can get behind? There is no disagreement about this, and it is surely too-little discussed. These models also belie a fallback notion that well, every little bit helps. It’s doing ’something’. Not according to them.

I debated a UN IPCC lead author, a computer modeler,  in June and he readily admitted it — he had little choice, really, the event was being videotaped. He even volunteered that what is required is total and complete elimination of human greenhouse gas emissions.

I wonder if politicians know what that means. Anyway, I’m told by the conference organizers that he does not agree to release the video, but possibly you could look into this. It seems quite relevant.

Another idea is that you’re remaining silent as to what lies behind the sneering hauteur because you actually share Rick Perry’s policy stance, but don’t want to admit it? Could it be that you really do protest too much?

The problem with the silence is that the public deserve to hear your vision, even at risk of alienating that media base. Got your pose. Check. How about what you would do? John McCain, whose campaign manager you swooped up, was clear about his intentions, being lead co-sponsor of the cap-and-trade legislation for years. Until he backed out and got vague when he began his campaign for the White House.

2008 deprived the public of a debate. And this led to the ugly House cram-down of cap-n-trade, abandoned by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

So, now, you tweet and reply in debate against “comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said”. Yes. That’s the response the self-selecting universe who says such things were hoping for.

For what it’s worth, I’m partial to this post-ClimateGate ‘open letter’ from a former luminary in the climate movement now exiled as a ‘heretic’ for putting the agenda and gravy train at risk:

No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.”  Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda.  There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.

Ouch. Ah, but who is the head of Georgia Tech’s School of Atmospheric Sciences compared to the IPCC’s “chief climate scientist”, who turns out to be a railway engineer? I bet she doesn’t even read the New York Times.

Because you see, these scientists who never tire of saying no one ought dare opine about their field who is not a ‘climate scientist’ (broadly defined, on a case-by-case basis ultimately determined by whether you give the desired answer), they have no problem spending most of their time playing policy expert, demanding laws. Climactically meaningless ones (begging another question — whether this can really be about the climate). And as Dr. Curry notes these demanders of policies are activists with science degrees.

Adopting any of these futile, all-pain no gain schemes claiming to be ‘responsible’ by ‘doing something’, despite that the basis for your action, climate models, all claim otherwise would not only be reckless. It would be, well, anti-scientific. Again, ouch.

Finally, if that whole climatically meaningless thing doesn’t bother you, can you then tell us who is your model for policies to follow? As candidate, Obama had the courtesy to acknowledge he wanted to impose an EU-style cap-and-trade scheme that would cause “electricity rates [to] necessarily skyrocket”, “bankrupt[ing]” anyone who tried to build a coal-fired power plant, and that “this would also raise billions of dollars.” To no climatic effect, recall.

And he told us eight times to look at his model, Spain. He no longer gives those speeches. Politics abhors a vacuum. Would you please step up? What policies do you seek?

Running for the presidency is not a Thomas Dolby video, let alone governing. We’re now bearing the costs of buying empty phrases, leaving more than a few unpleasant details to be revealed too late. Mr. Huntsman, please move beyond the “Science!” pose and tell us: On ‘climate’, what would you do?