The rebuttal against Global Warming Alarmists

Besides the one that comes immediately to mind, "Eat shit and die assholes..."

The National Review Online's Planet Gore section highlights laughable statements from Google, who urge the government, led by President-elect Barry Obama and a near-filibuster-proof Congress to combat "Global Warming:"

Rather than more government, how about this?

The private marketplace is better suited than the government to pick energy winners and losers, so government should step back and let the market find the answers to meeting our energy needs in a reliable and affordable manner. Let the market bring technologies online when the economics of the technologies work without handouts and when the technology is truly (and commercially) viable. Repeal subsidies. Avoid mandates. Don’t put a price on a gas that we exhale and that must exist for human, animal, and plant life to continue. Don’t sign on to emission-reduction schemes that will handicap our economy, while doing little, if anything, to control emissions. Tap our nation’s abundant natural resources, and quit letting exploration and recovery efforts get stalled for years in the courts and in the agencies. Build the baseload units, including nuclear-energy plants, that have always met, can still meet — and must exist if we want to meet the bulk of our energy and electricity demand. Be realistic about the current state of, and future prospects for, renewable energies. Recognize that vibrant free markets and a protected environment are not mutually exclusive goals.

Sound like a winner to anyone else?

Has anyone else noticed that it's virtually impossible to reason with a liberal?

A Panacea for Economic Growth

The Democrats just don't get it, do they? According to this article, "Governments across the world are now diving into deficit spending, chosen as a means with which to "stimulate" their national economies. The US is leading the global parade. Only two weeks ago, the deficit estimates for next year were between $US 1.5 TRILLION to an average of $US 2.1 TRILLION. But in an interview last weekend, President-elect Obama said that the government should not worry about deficits over the next two years while spending money to jumpstart the ailing economy."

Yet didn't Barry Obama and his Democratic counterpoints argue that it was Bush's "Tax Cuts for the Rich" and his deficit spending that put us in our current economic predicament?

Most of you probably realize that it's okay for forked-tongued Liberals to speak out of both sides of their mouths, especially when it comes to fighting global warming, giving handouts to poor people, and paying for universal health care.

We've heard from President-Elect, Barry Obama that he's planning on raising taxes on the rich, raising the capital gains tax, lowering carbon emissions, etc. Ultimately, it will be the middle class that suffers, in lost jobs, higher energies, and less wealth, overall.

Why, so we can line the pockets of people like T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore in their trumped up battle against Global Warming, Big Oil, and Big Business.

According to Scott Bensing of Townhall.com, "The reality is simple, lower taxes attract businesses, which generate jobs and money for the local economy. That is how to improve the current economic environment, not back-breaking tax hikes and the anti-business environment promised by Democrats."

Yet, Democrats across the nation are looking to raise taxes in the time of economic downturn.

Haven't we been through this before with Jimmy Carter?

The solution is to cut taxes as well as spending but to cut spending faster than taxes to leave more real economic and financial resources in private and individual hands so that they can repair their balance sheets. On top of that, interest rates must be raised - not lowered - to reward savers for producing more than they now consume.

Democrats just don't get it; that's the gesalt for spurring economic growth. After all, you can't tax your way out of a recession.

Michigan: A Case Study on Disastrous Democratic Policies

I came across this article, courtesy of the National Review's Planet Gore section. Now, if you haven't checked it out, it's a must read regarding the global warming joke, the carbon credit sham, and all things anti-radical environmentalism. Furthermore, it dispels and refutes so much of what is forced down our collective throats by the Left and their environmental benefactors and is almost accepted as the naked truth by a majority of the American populace (see: those who voted for Barack Obama).

This article in particular discusses the disastrous economic policies pushed onto the good citizens of Michigan by their governor, Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, and new member of Obama's economic team.

Need we remind how bad of shape, economically, Michigan is...why? Because the home of the once-proud Big 3 Automakers has now forced "alternative energy" onto its population, all in the name of "global warming." See, it all starts with "reducing carbon emissions," even though a rise in C02 has NEVER been linked to raising temperatures, and despite the fact that even though C02 levels have risen over the past decade, the Earth is actually cooling.

The result has been a Michigan economy that has drowned under Granholm’s watch, with unemployment tripling to a nation-leading 9.3 percent at the same time that Michigan’s debilitating economic fundamentals — high taxes and overgenerous concessions to organized labor — have gone unaddressed. Granholm, however, has missed few opportunities for photo ops touting the companies that have benefiited from her tax handouts or her road-construction spending.

GO figure.

You see, sorry to disappoint you, but global warming is a fucking joke. It's a spurious imitation, a fraud, a feign, a sham, just so Al "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore can make a few bucks on his carbon credit contrivance.

The complete article:

Obama Channels Granholm on Green Stimulus [Henry Payne]

Detroit, Mich. — Now we know why Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is on President-elect Barack Obama’s economic policy team. Judging by Obama’s Saturday economic address, he plans to address the nation’s ills with the same inept policies Granholm has championed for the last six years here in Michigan.

Granholm and Obama have much in common: They are both young Democratic party protégés, both are charismatic personalities, and both are left-wing, Harvard-educated lawyers with little experience running anything prior to assuming office. Like Granholm, Obama appears to have little grasp of market economics, but prefers showy public-works programs and utopian visions of bridging a carbon-addicted America to a new green economy that will employ millions.

The similarities between Obamanomics (as outlined in Saturday’s radio address) and Granholmnomics (as outlined in her January State of the State address) are striking.

Obama:

“(My stimulus plan) will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.”

Granholm:

“I’m proposing a Michigan economic stimulus package — nearly a billion dollars for needed infrastructure and building improvements, creating upwards of 28,000 construction and other jobs over the next two years. A billion dollars in economic stimulus from new construction. But let me talk for a moment about one sector that has blockbuster potential for Michigan: alternative energy . . . . Because of the need to reduce global warming and end our dependence on expensive foreign oil, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries will create millions of good paying jobs. I say we will win these jobs for Michigan and replace the lost manufacturing jobs with a whole new, growing sector.”

The echo is eerie (if Obama were Joe Biden, one might be suspicious of plagiarism).

And likely to get eerier still. How has Granholm gone about creating this new green economy? With mandates and targeted tax breaks — just as Obama will likely propose. Granholm spearheaded a state Renewable Power Standard that mandates 20 percent of Michigan's energy come from wind power by 2020, and she has showered tax breaks on alternative energy companies. Watch for Obama to do both on the national level.

The result has been a Michigan economy that has drowned under Granholm’s watch, with unemployment tripling to a nation-leading 9.3 percent at the same time that Michigan’s debilitating economic fundamentals — high taxes and overgenerous concessions to organized labor — have gone unaddressed. Granholm, however, has missed few opportunities for photo ops touting the companies that have benefiited from her tax handouts or her road-construction spending.

And she has landed a key position in Obama’s transition team, where she and the president-elect apparently agree that Granholmnomics is America’s future.

Thank you Democrats!

In part 2 in a series of "tongue-in-cheek," snarky, smug, sarcastic remarks, I wanted gleefully offer up a hearty thank you to the Democrats. Yesterday, my salaciousness was directed to the corrupt, liberal Mainstream Media, for essentially distorting and filtering the news, as well as verbally fellating one President-Elect Barry Obama.

Today, my sardonic and caustic wit is directed to the Democrats, once a proud party of the working class. This group of out-of-touch politicians are doing everything within their party to destroy the very fabric of this country.

And it seems we're powerless to stop them.

Two examples come to mind.

First is the issue of "climate change." What this amounts to is nothing more than pandering on behalf of the Democrats, in this case to the environmentalists. In this article, courtesy of Townhall.com, President-elect Obama promises global leadership on climate change.

Why?

So much of the "consensus science" utilized by global warming fanacists is faulty AT BEST, doctored at worst. When will these "scientists" (I use that term loosely, as it seems many of a political agenda) realize that instead of getting warmer, the planet is actually cooling, that Arctic ice has been restored to its pre-2002 levels, and CO2 levels were higher (exponentially) than they were prior to the existence of humans (furthermore, CO2 levels on Mars are high as well; where are the humans?).

In the roughly four-minute message, Obama reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system approach to cutting green house gases. He would establish annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them another 80 percent by 2050. Obama also promoted anew his proposal to invest $15 billion each year to support private sector efforts toward clean energy.

At a news conference Tuesday, a coalition called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership _ made up of 32 leading corporations, including electric utilities and oil companies, and environmental groups _ urged Obama to press Congress to approve legislation next year for a mandatory cap-and-trade system to limit the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases. Opponents of such action argue controls on carbon dioxide emissions will increase energy costs.

Under a cap-and-trade program, the government would establish a ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released into the air from burning fossil fuels. A utility or industrial plant would have to purchase emission allowances for every ton of pollution released. Anyone who exceeds the cap must either make pollution reductions or buy additional allowances, while those who cut emissions below the cap would be able to sell allowances. Initially the cap would be relatively high and then be lowered gradually to achieve the targeted pollution reductions.

So guess who suffers? The average American...how do you think these companies will pay for these allowance or penalties, by either laying off workers or RAISING PRICES on their wares.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Second pertains to this autoworker's bailout plan. On top of a $700 billion "crap sandwich" (catchphrase courtesy of Michelle Malkin) taxpayers will soon be on the hook for an additional $25 billion to the struggling "Big 3" automobile manufacturers. Once again, the Democrats are pandering to the special interests: this time it's the unions.

Can someone tell me why we should bail a confederation that refuses to embrace what the marketplace dictates? Furthermore, why should the average American pay for a vehicle that costs thousands of dollars MORE compared to a foreign model yet is does not possess the features NOR quality that the aforementioned foreign car has?

Yet the Left implores us to "buy American!." Listen, we would all LOVE to buy American, but why? All we do is enable these auto manufacturers and unions in their "entitlement quest." Instead, it's time we hold them accountable (same with the idiot who bought a $300,000 home on a $30,000 wage, but that's another story for another time).

Ken Blackwell sums it up perfectly:

The Big 3’s woes are largely self-created. For years now their management has been criticized as ineffective. But two numbers tell the story of the primary cause of their insolvency: 73 and 48. The average hourly cost of an hourly wage worker for the Big 3 cost $73 per hour, while the average cost at Toyota and other foreign automakers with production facilities here on American soil is $48 per hour.

What accounts for this disparity? It’s the massive healthcare and pension costs and other benefits that the workers at the Big 3 get through their union-negotiated contracts. These contracts, primarily secured through the United Auto Workers, have created massive obligations. Consequently, the Big 3 either offer a product that is equal in quality and features to their foreign counterparts, but several thousand dollars more expensive per car, or they offer a product for the same price but with fewer features.

There’s no way to escape the plain truth. The costs unions have written into their contracts with the Big 3 must be passed along to consumers. As this either increases prices or decreases value, the Big 3 lose sales to foreign competitors, and so revenues for the Big 3 have dropped. As revenues drop it becomes even more difficult to pay these union-created obligations, so the situation worsens.