╌>

How GOP Can Win Global Warming Debate And Expose Democrats' Hypocrisy

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  8 years ago  •  9 comments

How GOP Can Win Global Warming Debate And Expose Democrats' Hypocrisy
Weather Channel founder John Coleman has warned us. He believes that Al Gore soon might come out into the light and announce he's won the climate debate after the presidential election. But no matter who wins the White House, there's a way for the Republicans to truly win the debate and at the same time reveal the Democrats' dishonest and rawly political marriage to their global warming position.

Coleman, a meteorologist for more than six decades and an unfaltering skeptic of the man-made global warming story, told Climate Depot in August that "this election may be a 'tipping point' in the climate debate."


Coleman noted that President Obama has imposed the United Nations' Paris climate agreement on the country without Senate ratification, and then his "Environmental Protection Agency implemented climate rules without a single vote of Congress."

"If the next president does not overturn these regulations, U.S. citizens will suffer the consequences as energy prices soar over the next eight years," Coleman said.


"Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the 'global warming' debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years."

There might be a way to avoid such unpleasantness, though, and push the global warming scare into the pages of the history books where such moments of madness are cataloged.

Economist Scott Sumner suggests that if the GOP "were smart," it would propose a carbon tax as the policy solution to climate change. Writing in the Library of Economics and Liberty blog, Sumner says the tax "should be completely revenue neutral, and should not be viewed as a backdoor way to advance other agendas, such as bigger government and more spending."

Furthermore, the carbon tax would have to be "offset by reductions in our most distortionary taxes." (How about an offset of steeply cut, and flattened, income tax rates?)

So why give Democrats what they ostensibly want in a carbon tax? Well, that's the brilliant part. They won't be getting what they want. They'll actually be forced into a corner where they will unmask themselves.

Sumner, who admits he is "one of the relatively few right-of-center intellectuals that worry about global warming" and therefore supports a carbon tax (clearly not IBD's view), believes his proposal will smoke out the "global warming phonies." He argues "the Democrats might well reject this proposal, as they actually care more about taxes than global warming."

Their rejection, of course, would expose them as hypocrites using the climate scare to consolidate power and control the economy. And it would let Republicans, Sumner adds, constantly remind "voters that they favored the policy that was advocated by global warming experts and the Democrats shot it down because they cared more about imposing ever-higher taxes on the public than they did about actually solving global warming."

Hopefully, in revealing the Democrats and their radical climate allies as con men, the GOP bluff would also have the added benefit of shutting down the alarmists' ever-present ravings, the cultural elitists' tiresome virtue signaling and the scolds' relentless sermonizing. Too bad we have to rely on the Republicans' smarts to get this done. http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-gop-can-win-global-warming-debate-and-expose-democrats-hypocrisy/

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    8 years ago

Democrats simply use climate change as a tool to raise taxes and control other people's economic actions. 

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober    8 years ago

Has anyone ever bothered to mention that "climate change" is nearly all about the Arctic regions ? Not from the liberal side ...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Petey Coober   8 years ago

Ah yes the no polar ice for the polar bears crowd.  

 
 
 
ArkansasHermit
Freshman Silent
link   ArkansasHermit    8 years ago

I have no problem with scientists looking at any and all of the evidence then coming up with testable hypothesis to judge how much mans activity might be affecting our environment.

Hell,  Svante Arrhenius looked around at all the industrial pollution just getting started in the 1800's and put forth the first official cautions.

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15 o C because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO 2 concentration would lead to a 5 o C temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.

 

A tiny item published in <a href="<a href=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5">New Zealand newspapers on August 14, 1912</a>, captured the basics of human-driven global warming." width="368" height="274">

A tiny item published in New Zealand newspapers on August 14, 1912 , captured the basics of human-driven global warming. Credit Fairfax Media, via National Library of New Zealand

And the fossil fuel companies have been warned about the problem since at least the 70's .
 
 
 
The scientists aren't the ones that piss me off.  They're just doing their job.
 
 
 
The ones that piss me off are the ones that make up climate change disasters just so they can use them to scare good people out of their personal money and to steal money from tax payers.
 
 
 
This is how a shyster uses a made up climate change disaster just so they can separate rubes from their money.
 
 
 
 

 

 
WILLIAMSTOWN, Ky. — Just how do you pay for one of the world’s most famous and largest wooden boats?

No one knows just how Noah did it for the original ark, for the Bible isn’t clear on how he was able to construct what must have been an engineering marvel at the time, much less pay for it.

When it comes to the $92 million replica being erected in a Kentucky field about 40 miles south of Cincinnati, organizers paved a somewhat clearer path.

But harking back to Noah and the naysayers at that time, the modern-day ark’s financing plan faced its own criticism and controversies.
 ...... 

That put the ark in line to receive a state sales taxes rebate worth $18.25 million over 10 years.

The project received junk bond rating status, suffered through a back-and-forth with state officials over promised tax incentives, and even required the intervention of a federal judge to let those tax breaks continue.

Answers in Genesis, the group behind the Ark Encounter set to open on July 7 in Grant County, Kentucky, used a series of bond issues and donations to raise more than $90 million of the money necessary to build the 510-foot long attraction.

But the group also landed a series of local and state tax incentives that leveraged Answers in Genesis's foray into the bond market in the first place, experts say.

And the bonds themselves? If anything forces the ark to shut down, they’re only as valuable as the paper they are printed on, bond market experts say.

That’s because they are not guaranteed the way most so-called “church bonds” are, meaning the owners of the bonds absorb any losses and Answers in Genesis holds little risk .

The city of Williamstown, which issued the debt as municipal bonds on behalf of the ministry and the ark project, also did not guarantee them. That leaves the project's investors on their own.

The bonds “are only worth as much as the ark makes at this point and how much they get in revenues through the gate,” said William Sloneker, managing director at Cincinnati Asset Management of Mason, Ohio. “These things may well be worthless if the ark goes belly up.”
 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  ArkansasHermit   8 years ago

The Ark attraction is doing just fine.  It is a positive attraction for the state and the local area.  

 
 

Who is online





Jeremy Retired in NC
Veronica


94 visitors