Skip to comments.Will a Threat to U.S. Credit Rating Convince Republicans to Care About Global Warming?
Posted on 05/15/2014 9:45:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services (S&P) warned on Thursday that climate change will force down the credit ratings of countries throughout the world. Will this be the straw that breaks the climate change-deniers' backs?
"Climate change is likely to be one of the global mega-trends impacting sovereign creditworthiness, in most cases negatively," S&P notes, adding "Assuming that extreme weather events are on the rise in terms of frequency and destruction, ..
The S&P report closely follows one published by the CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board on Tuesday, which found climate change to be a risk to national security. The study was penned by members of a military research organization, including many former military officials, ... In an introductory note, the Military Advisory Board wrote that they hope the report won't be judged on partisan grounds:
We are dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate. Political posturing and budgetary woes cannot be allowed to inhibit discussion and debate over what so many believe to be a salient national security concern for our nation. Each citizen must ask what he or she can do individually to mitigate climate change, and collectively what his or her local, state, and national leaders are doing to ensure that the world is sustained for future generations... Time and tide wait for no one.
According to the New York Times, U.S. leaders who don't dispute climate change as a man-made phenomena recognized the importance of the report. But it appeared to do nothing to budge climate change deniers. Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma dismissed the report because "there is no one in more pursuit of publicity than a retired military officer," ..
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“Assuming that extreme weather events are on the rise in terms of frequency and destruction, .. “
which there is zero evidence of either greater frequency or greater severity when measured in the longest cycles of weather events
has anyone ever drilled al gore’s head for ice core samples?
If you assume climate change is happening and the cause is man made, then you could conclude that it is a national security risk.
but with all logic, if you start with a faulty assumption, you end up with an invalid conclusion.
Additionally, if you assume the only recouse is to go 100% green energy, then you could conclude that path is a national security risk also.
But the reality is, if you assume the US govt. does nothing about the welfare state, you must conclude a financial disaster will occur which is a national security risk.
I wish S and P and the US military would publish that result which almost a mathematical certainty while the global warming premise is not a certainty.
Well so far, so good:
Hmmm, doesn’t mention water vapor, which has far more effect.
Michael Savage had a great idea last week. He said that once all this climate hysteria settles down and the scam is fully exposed for what it is, that all the instigators who foisted this crap on us should be put in front of People’s Tribunals and when found guilty thrown into special “Climate Prisons”.
Well, if it’s throughout the world — then who cares?
And that includes these assholes at Standard & Poor’s who fancy themselves as scientists and not the worm-like bean counters they really are.
The U.S. Credit Rating is going to now be controlled by Algore’s hoax and scam? Screw Standard and Poor’s. Who needs ‘em. This is fraud and extortion. Somebody at Standard and Poor’s needs to go to jail.
My thinking has it that “Global Warming” is a colossal fraud.
The powers that be are determined to push their agenda upon us no matter what it takes.
I will again state that to free ourselves from the current and coming oppression will take nothing less than a full blown civil war, and perhaps another world war.
Savage had another good one: if the oceans are rising and the coasts will be flooded, ask a lib if they’ll sell their beach-front property to you for cheap.
NOT A CHANCE!
It would be easier to make a credible case, using economic and weather data, that the gassy ideas emanating from the mouths of people with hyphenated last names pose a greater threat to the U.S. credit rating than the gases emanating from U.S. smokestacks, tail-pipes, and cows' butts.
The upshot - I'll know global warming is a serious issue when Obama downgrades his Marine One fleet to 1 helicopter from the current 7 helicopters
It seems like the nation with the most, cheap fuel, and the geography and technology of America, would win over weather changes of any type, cheaper and more plentiful energy solves just about most problems.
This sounds like something you’d read in the bi-monthly journal of a nuthouse.
This is simply a case of S & P trying to curry favor with the Obama Regime (which can cause it GREAT harm). I’m sure that S & P are worried that the Regime has it in for them since they downgraded US government debt from AAA to AA+ several years ago.
Who is it that runs S&P? I think it is some obastard insider thug sympathizer.
If the GOP buys off on this BS, S&P will probably use “gay marriage” and “Common Core” to threaten us next. Sounds like some commie BS to me.
Surely that is Bush's fault. Bush and those damned SUVs.
We are all going to die! In less than 125 years every man, woman and child now living on Earth will be dead!
Womyn and minorities will be hardest hit.
Remember, CO2 emissions from the US have declined every year since the early 1990s.
Also, regarding an increase in “destructive weather”, it’s enlightening to point out that there have been no landfalls by hurricanes of greater than Category-2 strength in something like 10 years now.
This is from the same S&P that issued AAA ratings for asset backed securities that lost most of their value following the credit crisis. We should have the same regard for S&P's future credit ratings as we have for their opinion on global warming.
The same principle applies to business news organizations such as the WSJ, Barrons, Bloomberg and even Forbes. Their editorial staffs have become so politicized and divorced from reality that not a word of their other content can be trusted.
The last time the S&P buffoons threatened this stuff, Barry put his boys on them. He better do it again.
GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS COVERED UP SCEPTIC’S ‘DAMAGING’ REVIEW
Ben Webster Environment Editor
Last updated at 12:01AM, May 16 2014
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was less than helpful to their cause, it was claimed last night.
In an echo of the infamous Climategate scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the worlds top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as harmful.
Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dis- senting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being
A year or two ago I read some climate-guesser’s estimate that global warming would reduce severe weather events. I think the premise was something like reduced temperature gradients (everything being warmer, less variation) there would be less instability in the atmosphere. Of course someone noticed that you can’t scare people into forking over cash and control by telling them weather is going to get milder, so that report was buried and the author suitably chastised.
Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause, claims professor
Professor Lennart Bengtsson claims his study on global warming has been rejected as it might fuel climate scepticism
Says he suspects an intolerance of dissenting views on climate science
Paper suggests that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought
A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.
The alarming intervention, which raises fears of McCarthyist pressure for environmental scientists to conform, came after a reviewer said the research was less than helpful to the climate cause.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.
The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist, he told the Times.
Prof Bengtssons paper suggests that the Earths environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.
“This is from the same S&P that issued AAA ratings for asset backed securities that lost most of their value following the credit crisis. We should have the same regard for S&P’s future credit ratings as we have for their opinion on global warming.”
The brainwashing attempt this time is the use of the word “change”.
This will be programmed from kindergarton age on, as they can’t get enough Extortion-Care theft fast enough.
Article written by...”Danielle Wiener-Bronner”. Hyphens are always the 1st clue.
I think the next time someone starts talking to me about "Climate Change", I should just sock him in the mouth and consider it self defense.
>> Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (S&P) warned on Thursday that climate change will force down the credit ratings of countries throughout the world.
Climate change begets credit change. Ah ha...
“Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (S&P) warned on Thursday that climate change will force down the credit ratings of countries throughout the world. Will this be the straw that breaks the climate change-deniers’ backs?”
So, S&P will use extortion?
NOT A CHANCE!
Another way of saying the same thing - that liberals dont actually believe CO2 is the problem they claim to believe it is - is to point out that China is stamping out coal-fired power plants like cookies. Ask them what they propose to do about that - and youre pretty sure to be able to hear crickets.
Seriously, after the hoaxers lies have been destroyed with science and reality and their own self-incrimination emails, there is nothing to do but laugh and be amused at the relentless pursuit of backdoor international socialism by the useful idiots, and at the prostitution by those "climate scientists" bought off by Big Government grants.
I'd be thrilled to see it judged an actual scientific grounds.