I Resist Climate Alarmism

Add a Comment

Comment by TheEarthisNotFlat on November 17, 2009 at 2:48pm

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann will be on my show Nov 17 at 6 PM ET
The live show info:

You can listen to the show over the phone by calling (347) 324-3826 or through your computer at www.blogtalkradio.com/takebackAmerica

Follow me on Twitter @UnitedWeRemain

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on November 17, 2009 at 12:40am

OBAMA'S EPA POWER GRAB

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/stopepapowergrab

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/100109-epa-overreach-tailoring-themselves-corner

Comment by Dan Duckworth on November 16, 2009 at 10:16am

This daylong special will be entitled Not Evil Just Wrong — Who's Jamming What Down Your Throat. The shows will be available on all 200+ AFR stations and streamed on skyangel at afr.net and rightlyconcerned.com.
At 7:35 am CST on the "Matt Friedeman" show.
At 10:00 am CST on "Today’s Issues."
At 12:00 pm CST, we'll be featured on the "AFA Report."
At 2:00 pm CST on the "Focal Point" show.
At 4:00 pm CST on "Nothing But the Truth."
We wrap up the day at 7:00 pm with a Not Evil Just Wrong Special with Crane Durham and Tim Wildmon. The show will be streamed on skyangel at afr.net, rightlyconcerned.com, afa.net, and ustream.tv.

Comment by Dan Duckworth on November 16, 2009 at 10:15am

Check out afa.net for the upcoming show, November 17th on NotEvilJustWrong!

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on November 15, 2009 at 2:48am

APEC Leaders Scale Back Climate Deal
By JONATHAN WEISMAN

SINGAPORE – World leaders on Sunday dropped their ambitions of reaching a binding international climate change agreement in Copenhagen next month, saying instead they would pursue what they called a political framework for future negotiations, officials here said.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen flew here Saturday night to deliver to the leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum his new proposal for the climate summit scheduled in three weeks.

"Even if we may not hammer out the last dot's of a legally binding instrument, I do believe a political binding agreement with specific commitment to mitigation and finance provides a strong basis for immediate action in the years to come," Mr. Rasmussen told 19 of the 21 leaders of APEC at a hastily convened meeting organized by Mexican President Felipe Calderón and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd Sunday morning.

The decision marked a blow to efforts to find a tough, binding treaty to follow the Kyoto Accords of 1997. The election of U.S. President Barack Obama, a believer in strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions, had raised hopes among environmentalists that Copenhagen would be successful. The landslide election of Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hotoyama brought to power a new government pledging deeper emissions cuts than its predecessor. And Chinese President Hu Jintao proposed in September to adopt what he called "carbon intensity targets," the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere per unit of economic output. Emissions from surging economics like China's would continue to rise but at a slower rate.

But political opposition in the U.S. Congress over Mr. Obama's climate change proposals and continuing resistance among developing countries to binding emission reduction targets slowed consensus ahead of the Copenhagen summit.

The consensus among APEC leaders at a breakfast meeting was that, "From what we have so far, it looks like it's almost impossible" to achieve a legally binding agreement at Copenhagen, said one official, a top adviser to one of the APEC leaders.

Mr. Rasmussen laid out in some detail his goals for the Copenhagen summit. He said leaders should produce a five- to eight-page text with "precise language" committing developed countries to reductions of emissions thought to be warming the planet, with provisions on adapting to warmer temperatures, financing adaptation and combating climate change in poor countries, and technological development and diffusion. It would include pledges of immediate financing for early action.

"We are not aiming to let anyone off the hook," Mr. Rasmussen told the leaders. "We are trying to create a framework that will allow everybody to commit."

"Copenhagen would be the first step to a legally binding agreement," said Michael Froman, White House deputy national security adviser for international economics.

But the leaders did not say when a final summit would be convened to ratify a real treaty.

"There are two choices that we face, given where things are. One was to have a political declaration to say 'We tried. We didn't achieve an agreement and we'll keep on trying.' and the other was to see if we could reach accord as the Danish prime minister laid out," Mr. Froman said.

He continued, "The two steps was meant to reflect the realistic assessment that it was unrealistic to expect a full legally binding international agreement to be reached between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days."

Mr. Froman said there was wide agreement on the proposal, including from Chinese President Hu Jintao. China's reluctance to accept binding emissions reduction targets has been a key impediment to a final deal.

China and the United States are the two largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, thought to warm the planet. Mr. Obama has been willing to accept binding targets has been unsuccessful so far in his attempts to pass legislation through Congress that would lower emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.

—Costas Paris contributed to this report.
Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125824854430448905.html?mod=rss_wha...

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on November 11, 2009 at 3:45am

Big Government Steamroller: Climate Bill rammed through Senate committee
November 10, 6:49 AMLaw Enforcement ExaminerJim Kouri

In spite of the growing opposition by the American people, US Senate Democrats rammed an unprecedented climate bill (S. 1733) through a Senate committee on Thursday. The legislation is suspected of being the next phase of the Obama agenda, according to a position paper by the American Federation of Law Enforcement Officers.

California Senator Barbara Boxer, who chairs the powerful Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, had postponed the bill's vote for several days due to her need to address Republican members' protests. The major disagreement is the cost of the bill and its impact on the US economy.
However, Senator Boxer decided to take advantage of the Fort Hood incident and the continuing health care debate to quietly pass the bill, according to one Washington insider. It also helped her to have the name of the bill changed from "Cap-and-Trade," since that term has caused widespread criticism by a majority of Americans.

"Senator Boxer used the tragic {shootings at Fort Hood] to cloak the partisan passage of a bill certain to hurt a majority of American citizens," said political strategist Mike Baker.

"Boxer wields a lot of power in the Senate and she's known as an abrasive, hard-nosed infighter," he added.

The bill passed through Boxer's committee with an 11-1 vote. The Democrats voted without any of the seven Republican Senators attending the session. The GOP Senators were angry over many aspects of the bill including a provision that would set mandatory limits on heat-trapping gases. Also the bill will increase gasoline prices.

Boxer said during a press conference that the Republican demand for more analysis was "duplicative and waste of taxpayer dollars."

Boxer introduced the bill along with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry last September. Only one of the Democrat Senators voted against the legislation. Senator Max Baucus of Montana voted against the bill claiming that he has serious concerns about the bill. He gave as an example the bill's call for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020.

In order to get the legislation out of committee and onto the Senate floor without the Republicans present will prevent the Democrats from tinkering or fine tuning the bill's provisions.

The Senate's Kerry-Boxer climate bill is similar to the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last June. While the Senate bill stipulates CO2 emissions reduction of 20 by 2020, The House of Representatives' bill mandates for a 17 percent reduction..

The Senate bill has a price cap (hence the term "cap-and-trade") containing a provision to increase efforts to to prevent the price for carbon permits dropping below $11/ton or soaring above $28/ton. Business organization and economists warns that this will limit price volatility, which can make it trickier for companies to make investment decisions. Republicans in the House opposed the arbitrary method in which some industries would get free pollution allowances under the cap-and-trade system.

"This entire legislative disaster will increase the cost for electricity, gasoline, coal, oil, etc.," warns Baker.

"It is also a perfect example of a big-government power grab on top of the planned government takeover of health care, water, farms, and financial institutions. These politicians claim they do what they do on behalf of the American people, but it's the American people who will suffer," said Baker.

An Environmental Protection Agency study released by Senator Boxer claims that while there are differences between the Senate and House bills, they are so small that the economic costs "would be similar" in the case of either bill. It said the cost would add between $80 to $111 a year to households energy bills as a result of higher prices.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the household cost of the bill would be $175 a year per household.

However, some industry-cited studies have put the cost much higher, some claiming possible added costs of as much as $3,000 per year per household.President Barack Obama and administration officials are on the record as backing the Senate bill especially its provision to to slash greenhouse gas emissions and boost investment in renewable energy.

Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, stated in his testimony before Senator Boxer's committee that a cap on carbon emissions will help drive investment decisions toward clean energy technologies.

"A cap on carbon will give the energy industry the long-term direction and the certainty it needs to make appropriate technology and capital investment decisions," Chu said in a press statement.

But opponents of this legislation have deep reservations about both the Senate and House bills. They have said -- and continue to say -- that caps on emissions will amount to a tax on struggling industries and the costs to corporations will be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

Source link: http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m11d10...

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on November 3, 2009 at 5:07am

PETITION AGAINST U.S. "CLIMATE DEBT" TREATY

If our senate ratifies this treaty, kiss our sovernty goodbye - Please sign the Instrument of Repudiation and contact your senators. This happens in less than five weeks.
http://www.webcommentary.com/signrep.php

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on October 21, 2009 at 3:22pm

ONE WORLD GOV'T BEGINNING IN COPENHAGEN?

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=158141

Comment by Lee Prince on October 21, 2009 at 7:01am

We have got to stop Bamster from negotiating a bad treaty and stop the Congress (particularly the Senate) from ratifying it.

Comment by Cheri Vaughan on October 21, 2009 at 1:26am

It's worse than we thought.

I got it- it's all laid out here, w/documentation- URGENT http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cz

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last