Regardless of the fact that a majority of those in this country refuse to buy into the continuing propaganda from Democrats and their many minions in the state-controlled media regarding what was once referred to, decades ago, as global cooling, then as global warming, then simply as climate change and then, when nothing else seemed to apply, as climate disruption. But a by any other name it’s still a scam. And now it’s been reported, as we always knew it would, that Barry “Almighty’s” global warming scam would cost America’s poorest families Billions every year. That’s according to a report recently published by the Manhattan Institute.
The study estimates that Barry’s global warming plan would increase the costs of living for the poorest American families an additional $19 Billion per year, equivalent to increasing their taxes by 166 percent. The tax increase would also raise taxes on other poor families by an extra $25 Billion, equal to a 33 percent tax increase. Meanwhile, Living costs for the richest households would only increase by 4 percent. Perhaps here we have a reason why Democrat and wealthy liberals like George ‘Looney’ Clooney, Alec ‘The Moron’ Baldwin and of course Lenny DiCaprio seem to be so very firmly on the side of this insanity.
And oddly enough it’s the very ones who would be getting hit the hardest, if Barry and his Democrat allies are able to succeed with their plan, who insist upon voting for the very ones who agree with Barry that ‘climate change’ is to be the next great apocalypse to be face by man, and only man can do something about it. So these people are doing nothing than to essentially make themselves poorer for no reason. Because all of the money Barry wants to spend will accomplish nothing more than to drive energy costs up while having what will be virtually no impact on the climate. It simply makes no sense to support those who support this insanity.
What Barry wants to do is to implement the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which would effectively tax four-fifths of American carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and be similar in scope to an economy-wide carbon tax. In addition, Barry has also proposed a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax. Neither plan would have a large impact on global warming/climate change. Data modeling created by the EPA and run by the libertarian Cato Institute shows that the Clean Power Plan would only have adverted 0.019° Celsius of warming by the year 2100, an amount so small that it couldn’t be detected. So what’s really behind Barry’s plan?
Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and he is also the man who authored this specific study. He said, “The greatest tragedy of the Democrats’ climate agenda is not how little it will accomplish but rather how costly it will be for those least able to afford it.” The study determined that taxing CO2 emissions or gasoline inherently hurts the poor far more than the rich because the lowest-income U.S. households spend roughly 35 percent of their annual income on energy; while the highest income households spent less than 3 percent of their income on energy. And yet the Democrats portray themselves as being defenders of the poor.
The average American’s electric bill has already gone up 10 percent just since Barry took office in January, 2009, all due to federal regulations. Granted to rich Hollywood types that a pretty trivial amount, but to many Americans it’s significant. The amount spent to meet global carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals could be as high as $16.5 Trillion between now and 2030, when energy efficiency measures are included, according to projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA). To put these numbers in perspective, the U.S. government is just over $19 Trillion in debt and only produced $17.4 Trillion in gross domestic product in 2014.
Wouldn’t it be nice for change that if what this next election resulted in was us electing a president who bases their policy on the hard facts of this issue. Because if that were to actually occur the fact are easily available, all one has to do is want to pay attention to them. As an example, here are but a few crucial, easily verifiable facts about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming that he, and everyone else, needs to know and to better understand. The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable.
- Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere – a trace gas.
- Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%, and easily averages 1% or more near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
- The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%.
- So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Centigrade.
But that’s only the beginning:
- We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today.
- Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those coal burning power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect!
- If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect. Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proven.
- Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now, and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.
- The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous, and now you can see why. They have proven that they can not, and should not, be trusted.
The idea that we should be spending hundreds of Billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts stated above; it’s simply insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that climate change, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like rookies by comparison.