Radio
All pain, no gainThe reality behind the mythology of Cap and TradeOctober 8, 2009 by CFACT What is Cap and Trade? To address concerns that global warming threatens our planet, activists and politicians are pushing for a “cap-and-trade” program that would limit and tax carbon dioxide released by power plants, cars, factories and other facilities. It is a very complicated regulatory scheme that penalizes businesses and people who use energy or electricity generated from oil, gasoline, natural gas and coal (fossil fuels). Under cap and trade, Congress would place a limit or “cap” on the amount of carbon dioxide that our nation would be allowed to generate as a whole, and that limit would decrease drastically over time. Utilities, companies and business would be issued permits that grant them a certain “allowance,” or permit, saying how much carbon dioxide they can put into the air each year. If they cannot stay within that limit, they will have to switch to renewable energy from wind or solar, find ways to capture the carbon dioxide (CO2) and store it, or buy more “allowances” from companies that don’t need as much energy. Those who support cap and trade don’t like to call it a tax, especially during a recession. Because taxes are politically unpopular, politicians and activists often refer to cap-and-trade costs as “user fees,” “emission limits,” “permits” and “trading.” But it definitely is a tax on carbon – and it will hurt poor and middle class families and small businesses the most. In fact, when they’re more honest, some politicians actually admit that cap-and-trade really is a hidden tax that will send energy prices skyrocketing: “Cap-and-trade is a tax, and it’s going to be a great big one.” -- Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) “[It’s] the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.” -- Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) “Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under cap and trade. Industry will have to “retrofit its operations. That will cost money, and they will pass that cost on to consumers.” -- President Barack Obama Cap and trade penalizes and taxes everything we heat, cool, drive, make, grow, eat and do – because nothing is possible without energy. Our economy runs on energy, and 85% of the energy America uses is fossil fuels and wood. The price of everything we buy and do will skyrocket. On top of that, cap and trade is incredibly complex. It will be administered by profit-seeking “carbon management” firms, regulated by thousands of government bureaucrats, and paid by every family, driver, business, school district, hospital, airline and farmer. A lucky few will get rich. For everyone else, cap and trade will be all pain – for no gain. The PAIN will be intense and widespread The House of Representative passed a cap-and-trade bill in July. It requires that carbon dioxide emissions be reduced 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. That would send them back to levels last seen in 1908! And that’s before accounting for the far smaller number of people living back then and the old-fashioned manufacturing, transportation and electrification systems of a century ago. Once those factors are taken into account, 2050 carbon dioxide emissions would have to equal what the United States emitted just after the Civil War! Obviously, that means enormous changes in our energy costs, lifestyles and living standards. It means politicians, environmental pressure groups, unelected bureaucrats and judges will get to dictate:
It could also mean people receive personal “carbon allowances” that limit how much CO2 a person can emit annually and track energy use through credit card and other purchases. To call this a Green Nanny State would not be an exaggeration, with energy rationing and constant intrusion in our lives.
Some INCONVENIENT TRUTHS about alternative energy Burning coal does create carbon dioxide. But coal generates 60-98% of the electricity in Ohio, Indiana and 18 other states, to support millions of manufacturing jobs. If we impose cap-and-trade policies, electricity rates will skyrocket – and many jobs will migrate to China, India and other countries. Some say we could easily use more ethanol, wind and solar power, to produce other kinds of energy with less CO2. But relying on ethanol would mean growing corn or switchgrass on farmland the size of Montana, and using vast amounts of water, fertilizer, diesel fuel and natural gas. And when ethanol is burned, it gets less mileage per tank of gasoline, and emits more CO2 per mile than gasoline alone. Wind and solar power would mean covering millions of acres of scenic habitat and farm land with huge turbines and solar panels. Hundreds of millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and “rare earth” minerals would be needed to build them and thousands of miles of new transmission lines to get the expensive renewable electricity to distant cities. One expert calculated that just providing electricity for New York City would require wind turbines covering the entire state of Connecticut! Because the turbines and panels only work 25% of the time, back up natural gas generators would also be needed. Impacts on JOBS and FAMILIES Independent experts and even the Treasury Department say cap and trade would destroy over a million jobs over the coming decades … raise energy costs for the average American family by $1,400 to $3,100 per year … and send overall food and living costs upward by $4,600 annually. Wealthier families can absorb these costs. But cap-and-trade will hit middle class families hard. And “families at the bottom of the economic scale already spend up to half of their incomes on gasoline, heating and cooling,” says Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., a respected pastor who shepherds an inner-city church. They can’t afford any more pain. Families could be forced to pay for skyrocketing energy and food costs from their college, retirement and vacation budgets. Hospitals and school districts would have to raise fees and taxes, or cut services. Cities and states would have to cover rising welfare and unemployment costs, as tax revenues dwindle. Tourism-based businesses and economies would get hammered, as fewer people could afford to travel. Clearly, the threat is not from global warming. It is from policies imposed in the name of preventing climate disasters that exist only in computer models, press releases and Hollywood movies. Perhaps worst of all, as bad as these impacts are for people in the United States, they are even worse for poor countries. Two billion people in poor countries still do not have electricity! That means no refrigeration, to keep food and medicines from spoiling. No water purification, to reduce baby-killing intestinal diseases. No modern heating and air conditioning, to reduce hypothermia in winter, heat stroke in summer – and lung disease year-round, because people are constantly breathing pollutants from cooking and heating fires. It means no lights or computers, no modern offices, factories, schools, shops, clinics or hospitals. It means permanent poverty, disease and premature death – because some people care more about far-retched threats to bugs and polar bears, than about real, immediate, life-or-death threats to people, caused by policies that prevent them from getting the energy that will improve, sustain and save their lives. The GAIN will be minimal to nonexistent. Even the intense pain of slashing America’s carbon dioxide emissions by 83% over the next 40 years – all the way back to 1908 levels or earlier – will have virtually no effect on global temperatures and climate. In fact, one climate researcher used the alarmists’ own computer models to calculate that even this pain and sacrifice would result in global temperatures rising just 0.1 degrees F less by 2050 than not cutting US carbon dioxide emissions at all. And that assumes rising CO2 causes global warming. That’s because CO2 emissions from China, India and other countries would quickly dwarf America’s job-killing reductions. China is building a new coal-fired power plant every week and putting millions of new cars on its growing network of highways. So is India. They’re trying to reduce poverty, modernize their nations, improve human health, and ensure that every family, office, school and hospital has electricity. After years of criticizing the United States for not signing the Kyoto global warming treaty, Europe will build 40 new coal-fired power plants by 2015. Germany plans to build 27 coal-fired electrical generating plants by 2020. Italy plans to double its reliance on coal in just five years. So WHO will benefit? The only people who will gain from penalizing energy use and over-regulating our economy are:
Everyone else will pay dearly. MYTHS about green energy and green jobs For all this pain, there won’t even be net benefits from so-called “green energy” alternatives to the oil, natural gas and coal that now power 85% of the US economy. America’s oil and natural gas industry alone supports more than 9 million American jobs and contributed $1 trillion to the economy in 2007, according to a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study. Coal generates one-half of all US electricity. By contrast, wind and solar power together provide less than 1% of US energy – and do so only because of government renewable energy mandates and billions in subsidies and tax breaks. Increasing that to 10 or 20% of US electricity will be difficult, especially considering real-life experiences like these: Spanish taxpayers spent $754,000 in subsidies for each “green” job created by the wind turbine industry (mostly jobs installing towering turbines) – and destroyed 2.2 regular jobs for each green job, primarily because pricey “renewable” electricity forced companies to lay off workers to stay in business. With the aid of a large federal grant, Denver spent $720,000 to install solar panels on its Nature and Science Museum. The panels will reduce electricity bills. But it will take 110 years to save enough on those bills to pay for the panels – and the panels will only last 25 years! Denmark actually generates only 4-18% of its electricity from wind, while its consumers pay the highest electric rates in Europe. It sends half of its taxpayer-subsidized power to Norway, Sweden and Germany. The rest of Denmark’s electricity comes from domestic or imported coal, hydroelectric, gas and nuclear. The SCIENCE does not support climate disaster claims President Obama says “dangerous carbon emissions contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.” But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a vital plant fertilizer. It’s found in the air we exhale, and the beer, soft drinks, champagne and Perrier Water we drink. More than 700 climate experts and 31,000 scientists say carbon dioxide has zero to minimal effect on Earth’s temperature, climate and weather. They back up that conclusion with solid evidence. The Earth’s temperature increased 1 degree F during the last century, when warming and cooling trends are combined. They rose from 1915-1940 (1934 was the century’s warmest year), fell from 1940-1975, rose again from 1975-1998, then stabilized between 1998-2005, and then declined slightly 2005-2008 – as CO2 levels steadily climbed higher and higher. That clearly shows carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Computer models of climate and climate change are not “real world” evidence. They are no more reliable than computer predictions of future Super Bowl winners and scores, and not one of them predicted the recent planetary cooling. Their disaster scenarios are no more valid as a basis for laws, public policies and cap-and-trade schemes, than the special effects in “The Day After Tomorrow” or “Jurassic Park.” The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change insists that human carbon dioxide emissions drive global warming. It has never seriously investigated the possibility that climate change might be natural – which was clearly the case when the sun, shifts in ocean currents, and other natural forces caused the Ice Ages, interglacial periods, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, Little Ice Age, Dust Bowl, and droughts that decimated Anasazi, Chinese, Inca and Mayan civilizations. The BOTTOM LINE There is no scientific basis for imposing cap-and-trade schemes. They would inflict massive pain for no gain on American businesses and families, and create an intrusive Green Nanny State that destroys jobs, reduces personal freedoms, and hobbles economic opportunities and civil rights. FOR FURTHER READING Articles and Booklets Joseph D’Aleo, Newsweek’s “Begley flunks calculus, science and politics,” Energy Tribune, September 15, 2009. Newsweek knew it was proponents of man-made global warming fears who enjoyed a monumental funding advantage over skeptics ($50 billion for alarmists versus $19 million for skeptics). But the magazine ignored the facts, and wrote a biased, deceptive screed. Read D’Aleo’s article here. Paul Driessen, “The immorality of Waxman-Markey: Intense pain, no environmental gain,” Investor’s Business Daily, June 16, 2009. If the pending Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill becomes law, utility bills will soar, farm than if America does nothing. Read the article here. Fiona Kobusingye, “Africa’s real climate crisis: It’s not global warming. It’s a science, priorities, honesty and morality crisis,” townhall.com, July 29, 2009. Preventable diseases kill 6.5 million Africans every year. Over 750 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa still do not have electricity. Africans need to stop listening to global warming witch doctors, who tell them to keep living “indigenous,” impoverished lives. Read the article here. Joanne Nova, The Skeptic’s Handbook: Strategies and tools for cutting through the red herrings and avoiding the traps about global warming (2009). If carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of global warming, then carbon sequestration, cap-and-trade, emissions trading and other actions that tax and punish hydrocarbon use are a waste of time and money. This concise booklet analyzes the best available evidence, to show why there is no need to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Read the booklet here. Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, “CFACT comments on Environmental Protection Agency‘s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on Regulating Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act: Docket ID EPA –HQ-OAR-2009-0171-001” (June 22, 2009). These comments explain how regulating CO2 as a pollutant will affect prices, jobs, access to energy, American competitiveness, personal freedoms and civil rights. Access the comments and read a related CFACT article here. Books Christopher Horner, Red Hot Lies: How global warming alarmists use threats, fraud and deception to keep you misinformed (2008). The global warming lobby is using every tactic at its disposal to scare people out of their wits, and out of their money and liberties. This thoroughly researched book exposes and responds to the myths and deceptions behind claims that we face a climate change disaster. Amazon.com link to book. Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: The report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (2009). In this 880-page analysis, 35 climate scientists challenge the so-called “consensus” of scientific opinion behind concerns that global warming is man-made and would have harmful effects on humans, wildlife, plants and our planet. NIPCC link to book. Richard S. Keen, Skywatch West: The complete weather guide (2004). Written by a meteorologist and college professor, this book provides a lively, informative, beautifully illustrated guide to climate, climate change, weather, and wild weather events and records – with a focus on the western United States. A companion book (Skywatch East) focuses on the Eastern US. Amazon.com link to book Nigel Lawson, An Appeal to Reason: A cool look at global warming (2007). This concise (105-page) book succinctly examines the science, economics, politics and ethics of global warming. It suggests what a rational response to global warming should look like, and explains why the “conventional wisdom” about climate change has become a dangerous quasi-religion. Amazon.com link to book S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years (2007). This highly readable text reviews Earth’s long history of warming and cooling – the result of complex natural forces that we are only beginning to understand. The authors persuasively demonstrate that it is those forces, not greenhouse gases, that will also determine future climate changes. Amazon.com Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud – and those who are too fearful to do so (2008). Al Gore says we should rely on the expertise of great scientists. As the author talked to those experts, he discovered that there were dozens, even hundreds, of serious climate scientists who strongly disagree with the claim that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Amazon.com link Roy W. Spencer, Climate Confusion: How global warming hysteria leads to bad science, pandering politicians and misguided policies that hurt the poor (2008). A distinguished researcher and climatologist, Dr. Spencer explains in simple terms how Earth’s climate really works, why human influences on global warming are more myth than science, and how climate disaster claims have corrupted both Washington politics and the scientific and academic communities. Amazon.com link to book
Comments
 1Read More
All pain, no gainMillions of jobs at risk U.S. climate con-jobWildlife keeping up with climate changeNY Times targets renewable energyCO2 is insufficient to explain warmingGore: U.S. climate bill to bring global governanceRed Rock Wilderness BillCreating the Great American Potato FamineBiotech could save world wheat cropsGlobal warming bait-and-switch |
Get updates by email
 CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace shipsIn daring land and sea raids, activists tag Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior with “Propaganda Warrior” banner; Arctic Sunrise hit with “Ship of Lies” banner earlier in the day... The rainforest issue: Myths and factsCFACT briefing paper compares two very differing views about people and nature in the tropics... All pain, no gainThe reality behind the mythology of Cap and Trade... The clear-cutting facts about the rainforestAre we really losing one football field every minute?... Melting the facts about Greenland's ice sheetViking history, ice core samples, and observations of solar cycle cast doubt on human responsibility for climate change... Addressing the root causes of illegal immigrationFocusing on property rights and economic opportunity back home could help solve growing border issue...  CFACT arrives in CopenhagenCFACT's delegation arived in Copenhagen, Denmark to educate delegates and media from around the world that the climate change treaty is All Pain No Gain.... Are organic foods really better?Facts challenge organic's benefits over modern agriculture... Climate Depot is impacting Obama's climate initiativeColumnist notes that President Obama must speak out or there will be an increase in climate change skepticism....  CFACT's Marc Morano recognized for outstanding journalismMorano received The Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award for his exposé of the ClimateGate scandal....  Environmentalists attack nickel mineA proposed nickel and copper mine in Michigan’s economically hard-hit Upper Peninsula will never see the light of day if a coalition of environmental groups get their way....  Utah protests federal land controlLost jobs and tax revenues have made withstanding the current recession all the more difficult....  India sets up independent global warming panelPrediction: The Indian science panel will hasten the end for the IPCC’s once-dominant view of man-made climate change....  Disclosing the real risks of climate changeSEC says companies must disclose risks due to climate change. Seize the opportunity....  A chill hits wind powerHow likely is it that wind turbines can add to Oregon’s generating capacity in the midst of the winter electricity demand surge, and offset the hydroelectric generating restrictions? Not very....  CFACT continues their mission in CancúnCFACT students deliver laptops and hope to la Ciudad de la Alegria....  mcharrisHeaven Help us AL GORE to be awarded Doctorate { from An independent review for the IPCC? } ComdenomCongrats and thanks to Marc Morano, we certainly need more like you and another big thanks to AIM for their moral and ethical perspective with the good sense to uphold and encourage these values...one great defense against propaganda.... { from CFACT's Marc Morano recognized for outstanding journalism } ComdenomWell I guess it's up to us to counter that petition, I can't believe the stunts Greenpeace gets away with.... { from Environmentalists attack nickel mine } thankevanneEven if you ignor the fact that production does not match need the fact is that wind generators produce only about one fourth of their rated max output because of the come and go nature of wind so the generator has to be 4 times as large (or 4 times as many generators) to produce the desired output. Imagine building a coal or NG or Nuclear plant and then running it at 1/4 of its capacity - its nonesense - nobody would build one with that kind of restriction - it's economically incompetant, it's inefficient, it's a waste of resources used to build it, and yet that is what we do when we build a wind farm or a solar farm. The 4x capital cost &maintanence (exorbitanly high for wind and solar)make them unfeasable. And then of course you have the unreliability of the production from them. The fact is they would not work at all without the leveling capability of the conventional power plants. Just ask anyone who is off grid with wind or solar - they have to use batteries for storage to do their leveling! { from A chill hits wind power } nypd204Um, how about the blood tests that showed high white blood cell counts, a precursor to leukemia, and chromosome damage in Love Canal residents. In fact, 33 percent of the residents had undergone chromosomal damage, while in a normal population, this should be at 1 percent...There was also dioxin (polychlorinated dibenzodioxins) in the water, a very hazardous substance. Dioxin pollution is usually measured in parts per trillion at Love Canal, water samples showed dioxin levels of 53 parts per billion...residents exhibited a "disturbingly high rate of miscarriages...stricken by nervous disorders and cancers to the discovery of toxic materials in the milk of nursing mothers." In one case, two out of four children in a single Love Canal family had birth defects one girl was born deaf with a cleft palate, an extra row of teeth, and slight retardation, and a boy was born with an eye defect. A survey conducted by the Love Canal Homeowners Association found that 56% of the children born from 1974-1978 had a birth defect. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces. According to Dr. Whelan, she declared that people were not falling ill due to exposure to chemical waste, but from stress caused by the media. Who knew that stress causes birth defects. rgonz71"Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science" rgonz71"You're not an 'activist' if you're being paid by Exxon. You're just a thug on the payroll." BobDevineI have no problem with anyone using wind power but they should do so at their own convenience not with government subsidies. The same goes for solar power. You like it you buy it the operative word being "you".... { from A chill hits wind power }  ibykusNot Bad. They should take things from a slightly higher standpoint and expose this swindle as part of the policy of empire.... { from Laughs for Greenpeace "Climate Caper" turning into international roar }  mcharrishttp://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_3_AGW-Climate-Change.html { from Taxpayer Robbery Gate }  mcharrishttp://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_3_AGW-Climate-Change.html  cindym03CFACT is mainly funded by private citizens. A smaller proportion of CFACT’s funding comes from corporations in various industries, as well as foundations. Its financial backers have included The Exxon Mobil Corporation (although Exxon no longer donates to CFACT),[6] The Chevron Corporation,[7] The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund,[7] The U.S. Council on Energy Awareness,[8] The Carthage Foundation, and The Sarah Scaife Foundation.[9] { from Monckton names names on Climategate } mkwrk2Is any possible link between the Rosenfeld Effect (a "flat" per capita energy consumption)http://www.mercurynews.com/green-energy/ci_14059885?nclick_check=1 and this topic, in California especially? RationalKeithIsn't Paul Watson of the Sea Shepard the same confrontational person who was one of the founders of Greenpeace, the organization that Patrick Moore dumped because their whole focus is negative, anti-life? ExxonShareholderSmoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science MichaelGOPCFACT receives no funds from Exxon. CFACT and its allies are winning the climate debate with sound science, despite being outspent by far.... { from Monckton names names on Climategate }  MichaelGOPCFACT'S Bills are paid by average people who care about free markets, sound science and open minds. { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }  MichaelGOPCFACT receives no funding from Exxon. Time to think up fresh propaganda. Or maybe actually engage in the science & policy debate and stop looking for a reason not to? Sorry, left wingers, you're losing the debate on every level.... { from Knute suit }  HarmenWell the first one on this site is denying global warming. { from Is global warming from man? } ClaudeebGood to see the neo eco-fascists getting a little hot under the collar. { from Monckton names names on Climategate } mistamillionsWell cfact get 10 out of 10 for that greenpeace stunt, It winds me up that greeenpeace are perpetuating the global warming myth... peeps need to open there eyes and get wise. { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } ExxonShareholdershill [shil] Show IPA Slang –noun KenshinAwesome work CFact!  Curative_ProcessTHE REAL FACE OF COPENHAGEN is an Aussie Farmer named PETER SPENCER. { from Climate skeptics gain steam } Michael_H_AndersonI can post mainstream media links too if you like. Try these on - a little more recent than yours: Michael_H_AndersonLook whopays, let's be reasonable: you are here to disrupt this website. That's pathetic. You could try getting a life, you know. You're not going to change anyone's mind here, your information is outdated and no longer relevant, which makes your entire presence here irrelevant and frankly I'm embarrassed for you and I'm sure I'm not alone. Michael_H_Anderson'Scientific data doesn't go bad after a few years'? That's brilliant. What part of this did you miss, fool? whopaysyourbills1984Regarding the former links I sent regarding the overwhelming evidence that there is scientific consensus around climate change, scientific data doesn't go bad after a few years. Michael_H_AndersonI just wrote the admins here suggesting IP blacklisting this site is being systematically spammed, with the obvious intention of quashing genuine debate and wasting the time of genuinely interested users. Free speech is one thing spambots attacking a site another.... Michael_H_AndersonNice job reading those sites I mentioned, you useless braindead spamming halfwit sophomoric loser pathetic troll. Last time I bother addressing you - hell, you're probably just a spambot anyway. Much rather deal with actual human beings.... ExxonShareholderFellow Cimate Change Skeptics! Michael_H_AndersonI just checked those links...December 2004 for crying out loud! You IDIOT, are you living in a CAVE? Have your handlers not notified you of the huge global crisis assaulting the entire edifice of AGW theory? How cruel of them, and how pathetic of you to let them use you that way! Dumbass!!!... Michael_H_AndersonI just wanted to state that nobody here except you gives a damn, whopaysyourbills1984.... { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } Michael_H_AndersonOnly complete nitwits get their science news from Greenpeace or mainstream media. Try these links, and READ them, don't use juvenile tactics like logical fallacies and misdirection to "support" your outdated True Believer viewpoint: whopaysyourbills1984For my fans out there I'd like to offer a few more links, these are for those who think there isn't a scientific consensus that global warming is real and that man contributes to global warming. Of course, it's hard to find scientific consensus that cigarettes cause cancer.  Michael_H_Andersonwhopaysyourbills1984's brain-dead spam is paid for by the taxpayers of whatever country he's from, since he's almost certainly on welfare.... Michael_H_AndersonI wonder who pays YOUR bills, whopaysyourbills1984. Living in Canada, I am grateful every day for oil companies as they have kept me and my family and friends and millions of others from freezing to death to say nothing of the other life-saving tecnologies the wealth oil produces have made possible. Maybe you live on a tropical island in a grass hut with solar-powered computer and Net connection, and have never used internal-combustion transport in your life. Unfortunately for the other 6.5 billion of us, we don't always have that luxury. { from Knute suit } Michael_H_AndersonI don't know if it's true, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the time of day, and don't care at least it isn't funded by liemongers like Greenpeace, the WWF, or the IPCC, you stupid troll.... { from Is global warming from man? } Michael_H_AndersonIf anyone is curious to know what I might mean by socially undeveloped, how about these pointers: Michael_H_AndersonYou're not an activist if you're whopaysyourbills1984, either - you're a puppet. Worse: a parrot of a puppet.... Michael_H_AndersonGreenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore writes: Michael_H_AndersonThis is an excellent essay. As a former Green NGO information officer and nature educator, I have been particularity interested in the extinction issue. In spite of the high-flown claims of environmental groups seeking power, funding and career relevance, it is impossible to know not only the rate of extinctions, but the number of species on earth.  DesertManwhopaysyourbills1984 wrote: "Why is Lord Monckton being interviewed on the subject of climate change? He's not a scientist. "  Michael_H_Andersonwhopaysyourbills1984 - you're missing the point. The POINT is that nobody in their right wits cares what a lobotomized cretin like you thinks about anything.... { from National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and science } DaveJGreat to see Greenpeace suffer and great to see so many comedy posts by "whopaysyourbills1984" Keep them coming old chap! philwynkA correction: it was 489 scientists surveyed, not 97. Ninety-seven was the percentage of those who agree that the earth warmed in the 20th century.... philwynkHard leftists generally assign individuals to counter sites like this one. Yours seems to have been inflicted with a fellow who calls himself "whopaysyourbills1984." sylvainrActivists told you that polar bear population is shrinking and you think it is sound science ? { from Knute suit } ExxonShareholderCraig, Curative_Processps People who know the truth and want the truth to be outted should not be called 'skeptics', they should be called GLOBAL WARMING REALISTS or CLIMATE TRUTHERS or CLIMATE REALISTS. { from Climate skeptics gain steam } Curative_ProcessWhat the mainstream propaganda media failed to tell you was the truth of the FALL OUT of events that started with LORD MONCKTONS Radio Interview with Alan Jones of 2GB, exposing the Treason of The Copenhagen Treaty. And what followed was the biggest People Power Ground Swell in virtual history as 11 Liberal MPs QUIT their portfolio's on the bench under Goldman Sachs Turnbull in disgust, as MANY THOUSANDS of Australians lobbied ALL of the Liberal MPs and National MPs to FIRE Malcolm Goldman Sachs Turnbull (at that time the leader of the Liberals who as a former CEO of Goldman Sachs in Australia, multi-millionaire and best buddies with PM Kevin Rude, who was bizarrely wanting to follow Kevin Rude up the ETS path). And for Tony Abbott to take over as the leader. { from Climate skeptics gain steam } Curative_ProcessWhilst Greenpeace are expanding their carbon foot print at COP15 ... whopaysyourbills1984Who should you believe regarding global warming, 97% of atmospheric scientists or Lord Monckton? robins111Is it just me, or does whopaysyourbills1984, troll here, as much as at SDA? whopaysyourbills1984Here's a small sampling of scientists and institutions who disagree with Lord Monckton on climate change. Since we're not scientists, how trusting some of these organizations? { from Monckton names names on Climategate } whopaysyourbills1984Chris, next time you guys are interviewing Lord Christopher Monckton, could you ask him if he still supports Internment Camps for those with AIDS? He seems like a really progressive thinker. Also, could you ask him if there is anyone else who he would like to start rounding up? { from Monckton names names on Climategate } PopsWell, whopaysyourbills1984 seems to have fallen out of the wrong side of his/her/its cot. Greenpiss have been doing this sort of thing for years, much to his/her/its delight no doubt, but I just bet he/she/it nearly swallowed his/her/its dummy (pacifier) when he/she/it saw this. whopaysyourbills1984Chris, next time you guys are interviewing Lord Christopher Monckton, could you ask him if he still supports Internment Camps for those with AIDS? He seems like a really progressive thinker. Also, could you ask him if there is anyone else who he would like to start rounding up? whopaysyourbills1984Craig, I has a suggestion. While you're fighting on behalf of Shell Oil, why don't you head down to Nigeria where can really crack some skulls: whopaysyourbills1984Your journalism is misleading crap. Curative_ProcessBRILLIANT! whopaysyourbills1984"Alaska’s climate is warming. While there have been warming and cooling trends before, climatologists tell us that the current rate of warming is unprecedented within the time of human civilization...." Curative_Process@whopays .. you do know it Exxon donates to both Democrats and Republican, they back both horses. But don't be fooled, they are 100% behind the Global Warming Scam as they will benefit in kickbacks and subsidies, a little fact your country's leader (Obaahma) has not told you about. So the front needs to be kept up for the the propogated dialectic for numbnuts like you 'who believe' to believe in the smoke screen. { from Monckton names names on Climategate } whopaysyourbills1984Donna, your web site is worse than this one. If you're writing your book discussing how there isn't a consensus on climate change, I would suggest that you interview some of the climatologists who disagree with you, and it shouldn't be difficult because 97% of climatologists disagree with you. whopaysyourbills1984This a great piece of 'journalism' considering the fact that two of the people who are interviewed, Craig Rucker 'College Graduate' Christina Wilson work for CFACT. I can see how it would be tiring to interview Lord Christopher Monckton over and over again considering the fact that he's the only one in Copenhagen who agrees with you. I should set up a website and interview myself to impress people and get some Exxon money. You're not excluded from the global warming debate if you've received over 585k from Exxon, however don't call yourself an activist for pulling these stunts, you're a corporate thug on the payroll.... Donna_LaframboiseInteresting to see Greenpeace get a taste of its own medicine. I disagree strongly, though, with Carbonlover's comment (Dec. 16, 8:54 am) that Greenpeace should be banned. To quote Noam Chomsky, "If you don't believe in free speech for those you despise, you don't believe in it all." I have made this point in several pro-green contexts and I'm repeating it loudly here. carbonloverWell done CFACT! Greenpeace should be banned, as should most do-good green zealots. They understand nought about the role of carbon dioxide. Despite what anyone thinks, there is not one single piece of actual observed evidence that links carbon dioxide with global warming or climate change. Such evidence can never be found because it does not exist. JenniferMarohasyCongratulations to Craig Rucker and crew! whopaysyourbills1984You're not an 'activist' if you're being paid by Exxon. You're just a thug on the payroll.... TheViewMaster
{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } whocareswhopaysbillsand other "greeny" websites are not funded by-sierra club, greenpeace, the UN, Al Gore and other activitist. Yea why don't you go out and gut down some more trees for a tree ring count you bafoon.... { from Monckton names names on Climategate } TheViewMaster
{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } whopaysyourbills1984Why is Lord Monckton being interviewed on the subject of climate change? He's not a scientist. Lord Monckton nice job here: whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... { from Knute suit }  whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... { from CFACT's Morano debates UN climate treaty on Britain's Sky News }  whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } whopaysyourbills1984Nice job with the graffiti Craig. Did Exxon pay for the spray cans too, or just your ticket to Copenhagen.... whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker is funded by Exxon. { from Knute suit } whopaysyourbills1984This organization is funded by Exxon: whopaysyourbills1984This website is funded by Exxon. whopaysyourbills1984This article has been brought to you by the Exxon corporation. It's the best junk science money can buy. { from All pain, no gain } whopaysyourbills1984If you're reading this site. I hope Exxon is paying you, because they're certainly paying the authors. { from National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and science } whopaysyourbills1984This website is an example of Exxon funding junk science. Exxon has paid CFACT over 500k so far. { from New York Times carries CFACT's 'Climate Sense' Conference } whopaysyourbills1984CFACT is Exxon propaganda. They should stop trying to hide this: { from CFACT arrives in Copenhagen }  whopaysyourbills1984Congratulations to Exxon for a organizing successful protest rally: { from CFACT Collegians organize protest against appearance by Al Gore } whopaysyourbills1984This website is funded by Exxon. Why doesn't CFACT state this in their about page?... { from Monckton names names on Climategate } whopaysyourbills1984This organization and web page are funded by Exxon. CFACT.org does a good job of hiding this.... { from Is global warming from man? } whopaysyourbills1984I just wanted to state that this website is paid for by Exxon. { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } aimewI am having a hard time with the statement above where it states that only young, growing trees absorb CO2 it is my understanding that all green leaves take in CO2 and release O2 as long as they are alive. It is part of how plants opperate and has nothing to do with age or growth rate. What have I been missing?... sdlawrenceThat was a truly amazing exchange. I heard nothing but climate change mantras flying out of the good professor's mouth. Through all the rhetoric he truly sounded like a third-rate politician activist, and not an academician. It wasn't clear to me that he was a scientist until I heard him addressed as "Professor". { from CFACT's Morano debates UN climate treaty on Britain's Sky News } JohnOSullivanCFACT is providing an essential service to those who wish to read and understand all facets of this often misrepresented and globally important issue. For context, we need to understands that in the 1970’s the world’s scientists were convinced the planet was enduring global cooling. The CIA even wrote a 30-page report on this subject despite the warmists claiming this is all an ‘urban legend.’ { from CFACT arrives in Copenhagen } JohnOSullivanIt’s important that all world leaders take on board what sceptic scientists have to say. The examination of where the allocation of funds by governments to scientific and technological issues tells us most about the true priorities of politicians. { from CFACT sponsors climate science conference: The debate is not over } EuropeanAmericanI was on board with this organization until I came across this article with it's absolutely insane statement: { from Are organic foods really better? } john0sullivanAlarmists who plug the dodgy theory of man made global warming are not applying the scientific method. Scientists all know that the science must stand on its own. { from National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and science } HipnosisTo everyone at CFACT. Good luck with your mission. The service you are providing may very well be one of the most important ever attempted. Trillions of dollars, the prosperity of my country (Canada), the prosperity of the world and the truth are all in jeopardy. Thank you for doing this job.... { from CFACT arrives in Copenhagen } mkwrk2M. Kerjman 's "Of Planetary Change Short Story" http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Of+Planetary+Change+Short+Story-a01074017802 says much of a real way planetary change is going.... { from Is global warming from man? }  MacAaronIt would be interesting to find out who funds NRDC and to find out why they haven't been attacking the number one most-used herbicide in the U.S.: Roundup (Monsanto)...... { from Is government standing in the way of lower food costs? }  MichaelGOPThe Chesapeake has always been a special place for us. We saw (and tasted) a bumper crab harvest not too long ago. What a pleasure when common sense solutions improve life for both man and nature.... { from Science to save the Chesapeake Bay }  ProLibertatePeople do not need to eat eggs. ProLibertateTo megaskeptic- { from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? } ProLibertatePoint One: Not true- considering 95% of the 10 Billion livestock animals consumed a year in America are chicken. Millions of hectares of crop land and ever diminishing reserves of precious water is predominantly used to produce livestock feed. If those croplands were instead used for produce for humans instead of livestock, we could end world hunger. We don’t need the grasslands, in which the wild mustangs and prairie dogs are currently killed as pests, for cattleman lease our public lands for cattle. In America alone, 70% of the corn, 80% of the soy and 90% of the oats are fed to LIVESTOCK! And this is GMO corn and soy! Monsonto doesn't care how safe their product is "That's the FDA's job" to ensure. { from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? } BobDevineSomeone else more than likely asked this before buy why do we never hear of these things through the regular news sources? Some of it is a continuation of what I learned in school in the 1950s. Do they not teach the same basic science we used to get? { from Science to save the Chesapeake Bay } MegaSkepticThis is not a belief. Meat is the only product that humans can consume that can give them vitamin B12. There is NO other natural source for B12. Meat is a requirement of the human diet. If one does not eat meat in some form (eggs, fish, beef)then they WILL NOT get the proper amount of B12 unless they take supplements. If supplements are not taken or not available, an individual WILL be deficient in B12. Fact. { from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? } marklmYour belief that meat consumption is important to maintaining our health is wrong. There is no amino acid, vitamin, or mineral that can’t be obtained from plants, and plants are 100% cholesterol free. The ADA’s position paper on plant based diets states that vegetarian or vegan diets are nutritionally adequate and can help in the prevention of certain diseases.... { from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? } BobArmstrongDennis , Since moving out here next to Pike National Forest above Colorado Springs in 2005 from Manhattan , largely thanks to my sister who is an animal nut , I've experienced the cycle of life and death on a retail level uncomprehended in NYC . When I first came out she had chickens and roosters , a turkey , a pair of pea fowl , and ducks . And horses , and parrots and dogs and cats . Creatures coming up from out of the woods , and occasionally a new dog , reduced the fowl down to 3 ducks . The remaining female and her sons inbred back to about 10 ducks which declined back down to about 5 at which point my sister saw a deal on Craigslist for 10 free ducks from Denver's parks . We're now back down 10 total and haven't had any ducklings survive more than a few days this year . I think these duck tales sufficiently illustrate that I know where you're coming from , and don't need to get into the lives and deaths of various dogs and cats and horses - and a parrot . |
Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.
With Adversaries Like This – You Don’t Need Friends
An independent review for the IPCC?
With adversaries like this – you don’t need friends
CFACT's Marc Morano recognized for outstanding journalism
Morano received The Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award for his exposé of the ClimateGate scandal.
Environmentalists attack nickel mine
A proposed nickel and copper mine in Michigan’s economically hard-hit Upper Peninsula will never see the light of day if a coalition of environmental groups get their way.
Utah protests federal land control
Lost jobs and tax revenues have made withstanding the current recession all the more difficult.
India sets up independent global warming panel
Prediction: The Indian science panel will hasten the end for the IPCC’s once-dominant view of man-made climate change.
Disclosing the real risks of climate change
SEC says companies must disclose risks due to climate change. Seize the opportunity.
A chill hits wind power
How likely is it that wind turbines can add to Oregon’s generating capacity in the midst of the winter electricity demand surge, and offset the hydroelectric generating restrictions? Not very.
A Sage Grouse hang up over barbed wire
CFACT continues their mission in Cancún
CFACT students deliver laptops and hope to la Ciudad de la Alegria.
After Copenhagen: Greens disappointed and directionless
Haiti's Desperate Food Crop Outlook
Haiti's Desperate Food Crop Outlook
EPA set to Impose Strict New Ozone Standard on U.S.
Welcome to Washington.
EPA set to Impose Strict New Ozone Standard on U.S.
Welcome to Washington.
Developing nations new leaders in greenhouse emissions
- CFACT combines the passion of environmentalism with the practical solutions of markets and technologies to help solve many of the world’s most pressing concerns.
CFACT is recognized as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization with the Internal Revenue Service. All donations are tax-deductible.
Learn more about CFACT Follow us!
© CFACT
All articles on this site may be republished without modification and with an attribution of the author and a hotlink to CFACT.org within the body of the article.- Contact Us
Schedule a speaker
Schedule an interview
Media
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets