Let’s fact check the “fact checkers.” “runaway global warming”? This is an accepted fact? By who? The so called 97% consensus, that favorite fall back, “the debate is over” pronouncement from on high intended to marginalize anyone daring to challenge the existential CO2 narrative?
Richard Kirk in a 9/19/2015 article in American Thinker about Mark Steyn’s book, “A Disgrace to the Profession.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/steyn_puts_warmists_in_the_dock.html
A DISGRACE TO THE PROFESSION: The World’s Scientists — in their own words — on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science
For those unaware Michael E. Mann is one of those illustrious, mythical “97%.”
According to the fact checkers, “in September 2014, China announced it was moving forward with plans for a massive, nationwide cap-and-trade program intended to help combat climate change.”
What China promised to do was cap their GROWTH in CO2 emissions starting in 2030. And do the “fact checkers” really believe China is going to approve a Cap & Trade regime that will choke off its much needed and heralded economic growth? And what about this inconvenient fact:
According to the “fact checkers,” “Rubio, Walker, and Christie are referring to a classic argument here, that increased regulation will make electricity bills more expensive, depress the economy, and kill jobs. The truth is a little more complicated “
Everything in life can be made “a little more complicated” but President Obama has already spiked this exercise in “nuanced, intellectual, double speak” when he proclaimed that under his plans electricity bills would necessarily sky rocket.” Here’s the man himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
According to the “fact checkers,” “The point is that making lots of energy from coal plants just isn’t as economically feasible as it once was “
True statement but hardly the price differential implied. From Table 1 in the the following article:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
These are the average projected costs of operating a power plant in the U.S. as of 2020 (average of the cost of each type of plant, 3 for coal and 5 for natural gas).
Coal $118.4/MegawattHour
Natural Gas $100.6/MegawattHour
Additionally, natural gas is replacing coal because it is a cleaner fuel from an environmental perspective and has become an order of magnitude more plentiful because of private sector development of the much maligned fracking process. This is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario proclaimed as a positive herein while fracking is being rabidly opposed by the Green movement; no surprise there.
According to the “fact checkers,” “improvements in energy efficiency thanks to the new EPA rules…”
Thanks to the new EPA rules and thanks to the private sectors desperate effort to meet increasingly heinous, draconian regulations that has become the EPA’s modus operandi.
The EPA needs to get off its high horse and become part of the solution, not doing its damnedest to curb “noxious emissions” by choking off American economic growth.
No responsible person on either side of the environmental fence is not concerned or not committed to protecting the environment, but contentious, consistent and perpetual confrontation between private sector industry and unelected, government regulation bureaucrats, subject to no oversight whatsoever, is churlish, childish and unproductive. The EPA should be charged with committing its ostensibly considerable scientific expertise to a synergistic, collaborative alliance with the heavy industry that, unnecessarily impeded, fuels the economic growth that ultimately makes America and its citizens prosper. Environmental protection commensurate with economic growth; what a “novel” concept?
According to the “fact checkers” we now get to the real gist of this screed. “And once they were done misinforming viewers about the climate,…………….”
This article leaves open the question of who’s misinforming who and leaves no doubt about the political leanings of the self appointed “fact checkers.”
Warning to all. Do not accept the CO2 Climate Change existential scenario as having been settled by a so called consensus. Risk doing a bit of independent research and you’ll find that there are many reputable, rational, well educated and dedicated scientists who have yet to be convinced, and why they have some serious doubts based on their own scientific integrity, experience and competence. You’ll find that most of these are reasonable, mature individuals and not the ignorant, flat earthers as portrayed by the Climate Change zealots. And when the Climate Change crowd accuses the skeptics of being in the back pocket of fossil fuel burning, corporate America ask yourselves, based on common sense and a mature, realists perspective on human nature, who’s funding Climate Change research and what exactly is their purpose? Would any organization whose funding depended on dedicated support of a foregone conclusion, i.e., CO2 emissions will end the world as we know it by 2100, risk expressing any doubt whatsoever, or is it more likely that they will make a concerted effort to discredit any attempt to discredit them so they can keep that government largess rolling in? A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Be skeptical! It’s healthy.
