Skip to comments.Global Warming Gone AWOL
Posted on 12/20/2013 1:49:48 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
"..........The fundamental nature of environmental thinking, as it has evolved from the efforts of earlier, well-intentioned leaders to reform air and water standards, involves an obsession with regulation and control. A corollary of this controlling mentality is a reflexive opposition to economic growth. Instead of developing our resources and seeing the nation prosper, the modern-day environmental goal is reversion to something resembling the state of nature. It is not only "no growth";it is negative growth, dragging us back to the Stone Age.
But it is not just freeing the Earth of the footprint of man--it is the relationship among men that the environmental left is most interested in. Or to be more precise, what they are seek is the control of the mass of men by a self-appointed elite.
That vision of the future is apparent in countless books, articles, and online posts familiar to anyone who delves into environmentalist literature. Paul Ehrlich popularized the message in books like The Population Bomb in 1968(arguing that population growth would overwhelm the Earth's resources)and The End of Affluence in 1975(with warnings of catastrophic food shortages and destruction resulting from pesticides). From "peak oil"(wrong)to the "death of capitalism"(even more wrong), environmental leaders have sought excuses to block every attempt at industrial and resource development. In the name of climate change and other pretexts, they have managed to slow if not stop countless projects that would have brought job growth and prosperity to millions.
It's not just the Keystone XL pipeline that is at risk. It's all existing coal-fired power plants, for which the EPA is set to issue new guidelines in 2014. In addition, as the Daily Caller reported, the EPA is preparing 134 new regulations, and the EPA is only one of many Obama agencies working to restrict resource development....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
That book was co-authored by John P. Holdren, Barack Obama's [from day one] Science and Technology adviser (he's written continually on this subject over the decades). Holdren advised U.S. graduate students that they cannot expect the United States to be number one in science and technology and that it is actually better for the world when the U.S. is not. Holdren believes in the de-development of the United States.
“U.S. Cant Expect to Be Number One in Science and Technology Forever”
Yes, the USA must be brought down so that Dear Leader can make it into the USSA.
But you don’t understand, the fall in temperature is proof of temperatures raising. Besides, it’s “climate”, not “weather”, and to top it all, you’re not smart enough to understand any of that, not like the scientists that have a consensus. The ones that don’t aren’t smart, either... (DRONE-off)
Bad boy...you should be in bed :P
democrats practically banned light bulbs because of this hoax. try they are phasing them out .try to find a 100 watt bulb
they planned to further enslave us to government using this fake crisis
The solar cycle does correlate with temperature , CO2 does not
What happened here...is that the green movement got consumed somewhere in the 1980s...by the redistribution movement. Toss in all the dimwits who ran off and got climate or global warming studies degrees which are worthless...and the lack of real understanding over solar studies, and you’ve got a perfect storm for redistribution.
That was the end-game. Pure and simple.
Add in the fact that half the folks finishing these climate degree programs really know more of nothing than more of something. They pretend they’ve taken classes and passed tests, but it’s mostly make-up-your-own data seminars. You kinda feel sorry for them in a way. Somewhere by age forty, they will figure out the fakeness of their profession, but are hand-cuffed to it now because of bills, mortgages, and student loans they still owe.
It is an unfortunate circumstance that the far left sees the environment as a way to impose the totalitarian control that they have craved for over a century.
The EPA performs some vital functions. When an unknown environmental calamity causes a huge die-off of some animal, or a neighborhood turns out to have toxic contamination, EPA scientists do the investigation and figure out what is going on. Unfortunately, whenever a leftist becomes president, he appoints some leftist activist to head the EPA. Typically, the head of the EPA knows next to nothing about science, but they know tons about restricting freedom and are not hesitant to subvert the mission of the EPA to that goal.
I doubt many people would want to allow factories to dump their toxic wastes into nearby streams and so forth, but that doesn’t mean people want their freedom eliminated in the name of “the environment.”
Ah, I should have addressed Holdren’s ignorance in my other reply.
The US can and should continue to lead the world in science and technology. When we lead, we provide a strong example to others around the world to conduct research in an ethical manner, respecting the rights and autonomy of human subjects and treating animals as humanely as possible. There is no reason to think that another country who might step up to take the lead would have those sensibilities. China? Why would we expect ethical conduct in science from a country that drives mobile abortuaries around to kill unauthorized babies, and forces women to verify menstruation every month? Europe? They might share some of our sensibilities, but the EU and governments of many countries do not create an environment friendly to research. And so on.
There are strong reasons the US is #1 in research, and the rest of the world tries to emulate us. Why Holdren wants to throw that away is beyond me.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.
3. The earth is a rock.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
“Climate change” is no more than academia welfare.
you believe that without the EPA then the free market, individuals, lawsuits (courts ok i agree with courts and lawsuits but not much more gov) , all of us can't survive or take care of the environment. you are wrong
no the EPA is not needed. people can sue a company if they “pollute” so that is a deterrent . you people assume that business are out to destroy the “environment” , pollute , harm people or that they don't care if they do and only your god , government can save us and the environment from the evil capitalist private companies.
a business wants to produce a good product to get customers , stay in business. polluting a lake will get them sued and ruin the reputation. they work on building their name. you and democrats think only the EPA can keep you safe. no you are wrong . the government is the threat to our freedom and our prosperity and they are crippling businesses along with all the other gov agencies and their dumb regulations are hurting businesses and chasing them away to China
the EPA is getting ready to shut down coal power plants which will kill people
you either trust government or you don't . I don't. you do . I'm a Republican . if you trust government more than you trust the free market(capitalism) then you are a marxist. not YOU but i mean you in general.
Wrong question. It's US they plan to control.
The libertarian ideal of a society where there is no government, no regulations, no laws, etc., is as impossible as the socialist ideal of a society with complete government control of every aspect of life. The reality is somewhere in the middle. Without government regulation and enforcement of certain rules, manufacturers can and do pollute, and get away with it. If you don't believe that, try reading about the pollution in China.
The reality is that the environment in the US did not clean itself and factories did not spontaneously install pollution controls before environmental regulations went into effect. While it's nice to believe that factories that pollute would be sued and so forth if there were no government regulations, the reality is that those factories happily sell their products all over the world to people who don't know and don't care about how much pollution they generate. This idea that lawsuits will keep them in check also begs the question of how anyone can sue without a government providing the legal framework for and enforcement of such action, but that's another issue.
True conservatives recognize that government is absolutely necessary, and that the Constitutional mandate *is* to provide for the general welfare of the people--meaning protecting them from threats such as pollution and unsafe food and drugs. Recognizing that reality is not the same as believing that government is the answer to everything, and that every single problem that arises is an excuse to grow government. Government must be kept in check and tightly restricted to its Constitutional duties.
That is an expansive and erroneous misreading of the Preamble and Article I § 8. You so much as acknowledged it yourself.
The place to deal with pollution is the states. That's right, fifty different concepts of environmental protection.
If nationwide environmental/industrial controls are supported by the vast majority of the people, then legally amend the constitution and don't do it through unelected bureaucrats and nine black-robes.
I have no idea what you think I misread, or what you think I acknowledged misreading. The words are pretty simple to me: to provide for the general welfare. While many misinterpret that to mean "to provide endless handouts", it refers to providing an environment minimizing the threats that are too large for the ordinary citizen to mitigate on an individual level. Those threats include pollution, unsafe food supplies, and invasions by hostile forces.
The states do have individual EPAs that handle matters inside the state. But those state EPAs have no jurisdiction over neighboring states, and pollution does not stop at borders. So the national EPA imposes a uniform set of pollution standards. The problem with the EPA is not in its performing its Constitutional mandate--the problem is that politicians (of the leftist variety) install political hacks to run the EPA, who understand nothing of environmental science but understand a lot about restricting people's liberty in the name of protecting the environment. And those hacks, unfortunately, set the tone for how the organization is run.
If nationwide environmental/industrial controls are supported by the vast majority of the people, then legally amend the constitution and don't do it through unelected bureaucrats and nine black-robes.
We don't need to amend the Constitution. Provision for the general welfare is already there, as is regulation of interstate commerce.
You cannot legitimately read a code of law into a single term taken out of its 18th century context and history.
If a duty to promote the general welfare was a sufficient basis for all federal power, then the enumerated powers of section eight that followed were unnecessary.
The ONLY laws that government at any level should be even involved in passing are
1.laws that prevent the initiation of force as in
.murder is illegal
assault = illegal
trespassing , harassment, stalking,stealing, vandalism, threatening in person, kidnapping etc.
2. that protect individual rights to property(contracts, property rights, house ownership,patents), life , liberty and freedom of speech, no stealing, no breaking contracts, no vandalism etc.
most disputes as in property disputes, contracts etc. can be settled in court by competing private interests. as in lawsuits for “pollution” caused damage to your land values etc., or pollution caused injury etc.
and that means the individual which is small has to have laws that protect the individual and his rights form government also . so that no individual can have his life, liberty nor property taken from him without the due process of law (court trials etc)
so in the federal level the government has an army to prevent the initiation of force by other armies or entities, and the migration of peoples into the country
likewise state police ,courts and that's it
in no way should government at any level be involved in education (awful gov schools) , healthcare (obamacare) ,charities (gov housing projects, welfare), science(global warming hoax) , nor even roads nor anything except what I outlined.
private toll roads in Texas work and no traffic
private schools, home schooling or internet schooling that is private works
capitalism /freedom works
government never works and is corrupt tyranny. As government advances liberty contracts, corruption grows, abuses grow and civilization itself retreats.
this post is really badly written with grammar mistakes etc. but i have very little time as i have to work long hours to give half my income to a tyrannical government that takes money from me at the point of a gun to provide the things you say but they don't what they are is corrupt marxist tyrants and thieves(those in the gov)
industry grew on the North American continent for 200 years without hardly any government , environmental laws ,nor any EPA. there was hardly any government in the USA until the early 1900’s .
The Chinese people's lives are improving , many becoming middle class others rich whereas 30 years ago 99% of them were living in stone age poverty
that's wrong and is marxist propaganda. there was hardly any government until the early 1900’s in the USA . and during that time of the libertarian country the USA grew faster than any other in history in living standards, wealth , health of people etc.. the income tax passed in 1913 or something. they have added laws every year since then (starting at around 1900).
advocates of big government don't know history .it's a fact that the USA had almost no government up until the 1900’s . and every year after that they have incrementally added laws . the big one was the 16th amendment which allowed the government tax using the income tax and only after this could they Fund the huge government
here as you can see from the graph government spending (gov size ) as percentage of GDP was almost non-existant in the early 1900’s and less before then. and most of that was for military anyway which is ok. so you and democrats/liberals keep asking for more government, but the USA not only survived without practically any government ,but grew faster than any country in history without any government and there were no catastrophes as the news media like to make believe
the really big major group of environmental laws didn't get passed until the 1960’s ( and that's how they formed the EPA after that to deal with those laws). so how did we prosper so much without the government and the EPA all those years?
yes I'm for military , border control , and what i outlined in my other post. the constitution has to clearly state that government nor congress cannot pass any laws except those dealing with the initiation of force. if you don't severely restrict government then they will find a way to keep growing it until civilization itself is gone.
as you can see from the graph in the early 1900's non-military government spending was around 1% of GDP. that's all it needs to be. and it was less in previous years.
here you can see government as a % of GDP was almost nonexistent as most of that was military spending. gov was less than 3% from 1790 to 1930 and most of that was military spending. there was no EPA, hardly any goverment but the USA prospered as a libertarian counrty and GDP grew then faster than now even though technology and productivity has grown at an exponential rate.
Search for "newcandescent" light bulbs on the net. They are a way around the prohibition although they are somewhat more expensive.
The problem with believing that "the market" will take care of things like unsafe food, toxic waste, air pollution, unsafe and ineffective drugs, etc., is that we have centuries of history telling us that the market has never fixed those problems before, and they only became worse as technology advanced. History also tells us that once we started to regulate those issues, they improved drastically. All cars poured out clouds of toxic blue smoke when I was a kid in the 1960s; it is so rare to see such a car these days that it draws immediate (negative) attention. You can be fined for driving such a car. There are still toxic sites awaiting clean-up from the decades preceding the EPA, when factories used to bury their toxic wastes in outside pits, and the liquid wastes were dumped into nearby streams. Some drugs sold in the 1800s and even into the 1900s severely disabled and even killed people. In your idealistic libertarian, regulation-free world, how do you deal with a polluting factory? Sue them--with your life savings, against their millions of dollars and slick lawyers? And on what basis will you sue them, since without pollution standards, you will have a hard time making the case that the factory is excessively polluting. Are you going to boycott the factory? To what purpose, since that factory sells worldwide, and won't even notice a loss in revenue when you and your neighbors refuse to buy their products?
China has pollution and food and drug regulations, and agencies that are supposed to enforce them. They don't enforce them. Market mechanisms aren't making anything safer, either. As a result, the food there is *not* safe to eat, it is risky to take any kind of drug, and the pollution levels are astronomical. It looks like Shanghai is a wonderful place to visit right now... or not. I have no doubt that as the economy improves in China, and more people enter the middle class, they will demand that the regulations already in place be enforced. It is just a matter of time.
History probably supports pure libertarianism even less than it does pure socialism. After all, pure socialist societies have managed to survive a few decades before imploding; I do not know of a case where a pure libertarian society has even managed to form. Intellectual conservatism is based in the acknowledgement that we need government, but it can easily grow into a monster unless we remain always vigilant. Our problems now are a direct result of too many people who mistakenly decided to trust the monster.
there was practically no government in America until the 1930’s.
the EPA was created in the 1960’s or 70’s .that's when most of the environmental laws were created
there was never any environmental crisis in the USA as before 1960 the USA grew . we survived and prospered without the EPA nor government. now the gov is starting hurt and cripple and chase businesses away to China
more proof there was never any crisis is that the media has had to invent many many fake crisis like global warming, ozone layer going away, ice age(1970’s scare), etc. all caused by factories and industry. the media and democrats have invented many crisis to fool you people into begging and accepting more gov which is the problem
to beg for a real crisis( big government) because of the media fake crisis is crazy but you all and all democrats are fooled
you , people like you and democrats are the problem because you believe the lies and ask for more gov like the EPA . if there were more people like me then we'd have a chance. now opportunity is fading and our freedoms are . going away thanks to the growth of government. you trust government, you believe the media , you think government can work better than free market capitalism : all false
more costs added upon us
it’s like the Atlas shrugged , book
Okay, I guess you are too young to remember the pre-EPA days. When cars spewed out thick choking blue smoke that gave you a headache to smell it, when factories buried toxic wastes in drums that later on sprang leaks and polluted people's water supplies. When I was very young, in 1964, my family moved from Southern California to Northern California because the pollution in the LA basin was so dense that you could not see anything further than about 50-100 feet away. The first time I ever flew, I saw LA from the air--well, I did not see LA because it was covered with such a thick blanket of smog that buildings were not visible. I flew into LA a couple months ago--what a difference, every building and street was visible, and on the ground, the view was clear to the mountains.
The fact is that there are still toxic sites being cleaned up from pre-EPA days. Clearly, establishment of the EPA and environmental regulations has led to a huge improvement in the environment. No Libertarian has ever described a way that the free market can substitute for the valid functions of government. Nor does history provide any support for the Libertarian view in this area.
BTW, recognizing that the government has legitimate functions and supporting those functions is very different than believing in an omnipotent government that can solve any problem and provide for all people. Government, like most things in life, is not an either/or preposition. Nor is it completely good or completely bad.
you trust government. i don't . you think it is because of the recent laws (within the past few decades) that we are all safe. ridiculous. how did we survive and prosper without your government laws and EPA for 200 years(industrial revolution started about 250-300 years ago)?
what you are saying are the most ridiculous things i have ever heard. you are saying that it is because of a government agency that the environment is ok etc. and that the EPA is needed. you are wrong . i will never agree with you
government is unaccountable. take NASA. there is an idiot that works there Hansen who is a global warming hoax pusher. who knows this? who is holding him accountable for producing something or working? what is the mission of NASA to do global warming research ? no . this proves gov is unaccountable. gov has funded a hoax called global warming for decades. again that proves gov is unaccountable. and why do they invent this hoax. cause there are no real crisis , no pollution crisis etc.. that's a lie. the IRS oppresses conservatives and who has been fired for that. see government is completely unaccountable and you trust government.
you are against the constitution. the EPA is a federal agency . if there was any so called pollution then the states should take care of that. but i am not even for state gov . but you fail on federalism too you are such a statist.
i will never agree with anything you say
you have no idea what you are talking about.
on so many levels you are a statist/socialist etc.
it is because of you and people like you that government is growing at an alarming rate on all levels of government.and government is the problem,government is the only true crisis we have not the fake crisis the news media create in order to get people like to beg for more government . it is because of you that the world will suffer under the tyranny of big brother socialist government that will cause untold suffering, genocide , pain , starvation,poverty etc. as socialism always has.you are propagandist like the news media is. you call yourself exdem. lol no you are democrat and a statist . you trust government and government idiot workers who all are totally unaccountable.
The industrial revolution ( machines ,factories) started about 250 years ago
we survived and prospered, life expectancy rose every decade, health, living standards rose every year since the industrial revolution started. and you and your evil marxist news media lie and rewrite history you make it sound like factories and machines only created pollution and health problem and only your EPA and government have saved us . pure lies, all lies. we didn't have civilization , nor even health nor hygiene , no living standards, . it is the wealth and technology created by the industrial revolution that raised HEALTH and living standards.
before the industrial revolution people lived in the dirt , dirty , no health , no conveniences.
life expectancy was 30 years before the industrial revolution . in 1950 before your EPA and government it rose to 70. that is what factories caused not your lies of pollution
people only lived till 30 years , life was so harsh and conditions so bad and filthy .only the wealth and production of industry (factories) raised living standards so that people lived till 70.it is pure evil to lie , to demonize industry for the sole purpose of growing government which is the greatest evil ever.
Let’s put it this way.
When your only “arguments” for your position consist of claiming that the evidence against your position is nothing but lies and propaganda, and claiming that the advances made because of regulations happened all by themselves, you do not have an intellectual argument.
I’ve seen the same kind of “argument” used to try to promote all kinds of things that cannot possibly work. If you want to advance your position, you have to actually be able to produce evidence that supports it.
Get back to me when you can produce real evidence that countries that do not have regulatory agencies actually have safe and clean food, water, and drug supplies. I want real world examples.
your government including the EPA has only been around for about 50 years.
So in the previous 200 years 1750 to 1950 we in the USA and north America, prospered and actually grew into the most prosperous civilization ever without hardly any government( no EPA)etc. living standards rose during that time for Americans tremendously basically lifting Americans from stone age living standards with all the health problems etc. health standards, living standard rose during all that time for 200 years without practically any government. life expectancy grew from 30 to 70.
this was all due to the “evil” capitalism and the industrial revolution.
all of you don't know history.
even if there was pollution health and living standards grew for Americans during that time with no gov no EPA etc. but there wasn't any pollution . if so then where is it? like where is the BP oil spill damage. I'm here by the
Gulf. surely there was no “pollution” greater than your BP oil spill in the past . and I was here for that BP spill and i can tell you there is nothing left of that. so the media lied saying this BP oil spill would cause decades of environmental damage. similarly they lied about any other previous “pollution”. since there wasn't any real pollution then they had to invent the global warming hoax. you believe the news media i don't .
you don't see that the threat is the government and the media not private businesses as you believe
for the global warming hoax your government banned light bulbs and is pushing us to buy the mercury filled bulbs.maybe the EPA thugs will knock on your door one day to check if you have incandescent bulbs and take you away if you do. this gov takes half our income to do global warming studies and give money to the evil UN.
you people have no idea how gov bureaucrats like Jackson Lee, Lois Lerner etc are not accountable to anyone but that a private business is accountable to his customers, to the bottom line and to reality. Lois Lerner of the IRS oppressed conservatives for 3 years. is she in Jail? no nothing has happened to her. Hansen of NASA has been doing global warming studies etc for decades and is a global warming celebrity. is that the function of NASA to do global warming research? what is the function of NASA. who is watching over these agencies? who even knows what laws and regulations they are supposed to be enforcing? certainly none of the public as most have not even read the constitution. the bureaucratic state is completely unaccountable and bypasses the election process but you are all for more of that and more government as long as the news media SAYS this or that agency is keeping you safe. I work 70 hours per week to give half my income to support these burocrats who don't do anything. i fear the growth of government and laws and regulations which have already chased most of industry to China and other places