“Oh, oh – Impiety and blasphemy to hunt him more!”
Mother Nature has the Global Warming True Believer Cult backed into a corner. All of them were so looking forward to a free ride with Al Gore to the promised land in their Utopiamobile and wake up tied to a bedpost with hockey sticks up their consensual arses.
Even so, carbon dioxide officially became a greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant in 2009 because the EPA simply declared it to be. Attorney Michael B. Gillett informs us that, the “EPA issued an Endangerment Finding that motor vehicle emissions of GHGs cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare through climate change. 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009).” The EPA’s Finding is nothing more than a political statement with no science behind it whatsoever.
We will soon learn in the Coalition for Responsible Regulators v. EPA case (See–e.g., Do you trust the EPA?) if the Supreme Court will allow the EPA to bootstrap legislation authorizing tailpipe emissions under the Clean Air Act to rule over all industrial activity in America. In attempting to do just that the EPA simply began writing its own laws that it then decided it would enforce:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims the power to revise that statutory threshold to “one hundred thousand tons per year or more” for greenhouse gases because, it explains, applying the statutory threshold as written to greenhouse gases [which is 250 tons for the actual pollutants that were the subject of the legislation] would produce “absurd results” that would be “inconsistent with congressional intent” and “severely undermine congressional purpose.” (See, Petition of the American Chemistry Council, et al.)
So, why did the EPA essentially increase by government fiat the statutory threshold for permitting pollution to 100,000 tons for GHGs from 250 tons for the actual pollutants (as the law envisages) so as to avoid “absurd results… inconsistent with congressional purpose,” when it is the EPA that created the absurdity by overstepping congressional intent? “Because,” as Gillett explained, “of the ubiquitous nature of carbon dioxide, the predominant GHG, this would expand… 15,000 permittees today to more than six million permittees, including such small sources as schools, apartment buildings, and churches.”
The EPA simply declared CO2 a pollutant and then increased the statutory threshold by a factor of 400 to make its regulatory task easier (for the time being, settling for putting its proverbial government camel’s nose under every American’s tent). But, where does it all end? Under an oversize picture of Mao? According to an April 2009 article in Pravda, the official newspaper of Stalinism (the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in Russia), America should, “Ban fireworks to save the planet.” Author Gregory Fegel lectures us about, “all of the concern that has been generated by the threat of carbon dioxide-caused Global Warming, and considering that many governments are proclaiming that everyone should do whatever they can to ‘reduce their carbon footprint’, it surprises me that governments and citizens continue to indulge in fireworks displays, which are an enormously wasteful and unnecessary greenhouse-gas-generating activity.”
We know where it all began: Western school teachers actively participated in hiding the truth while pushing superstition and ignorance in the classrooms across America. But, nature won’t cooperate with the weather commies. Still, we face the fantasy of a hot apocalypse.
Anyone with a shred of self-respect who had predicted The End Of Snow would surely now admit that he was wrong. But no. Perhaps the most revealing thing about the snow crisis is that it was held up as evidence, not that the experts were mistaken, but that the public is stupid. Apparently it’s those who ask `Whatever happened to global warming?’, rather than those who predicted `no more traditional British winters’, who need to have their heads checked. Because what they don’t understand – ignoramuses that they are – is that heavy snow is also proof that our planet is getting hotter, and that industrialized society is to blame, just as surely as the absence of snow was proof of the same thing 10 years ago. ~Brendan O’Neill, ‘The icy grip of the politics of fear,’ 4-Jan-2011
No more snow, ever? Just political rhetoric and isn’t to taken seriously except by idiots? Is that what government is all about these days? Is that what Obamacare is all about too — just overpromise and under-deliver on solutions to non-problems and blame the credulous for believing? Fear of global warming is a giant screw up.