Garyt wrote: When that became untenable the next step was to claim it was not CO2 driven.
many conservatives accept the science
head in the sand about things like global warming and depletion of fossil fuels and leaving the mess for future generations
Originally blogged here:
"It will no doubt astound many readers to learn that there are more than 26,500 American environmental groups. They collected total revenues of more than $81 billion from 2000 to 2012, according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.
“Cracking Big Green” examined the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of non-profit organizations. Driessen and Arnold discovered that, among the 2012 incomes of better-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club took in $97,757,678 and its Foundation took in $47,163,599. The Environmental Defense Fund listed $111,915,138 in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,701,707 and the National Audubon Society took in $96,206,883. These four groups accounted for more than $353 million in one year.
That pays for a lot of lobbying at the state and federal level. It pays for a lot of propaganda that the Earth needs saving because of global warming or climate change. Now add in Greenpeace USA at $32,791,149, the Greenpeace Fund at $12,878,777; the National Wildlife Federation at $84,725,518; the National Parks Conservation Association at $25,782,975; and The Wilderness Society at $24,862,909. Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection took in $19,150,215. That’s a lot of money to protect something that cannot be “protected”, but small in comparison to other Green organizations.
If you wonder why you have been hearing and reading endless doomsday scenarios about the warming of the Earth, the rise of the seas, and the disappearance of species and forests, for decades, the reason is that a huge propaganda machine is financed at levels that are mind boggling."
rather than flush freedom and prosperity down the drain in the name of cleaning up a make believe mess?
hanks to the very elected officials who achieved their Congressional offices as a result of the organizational and financial contributions of Charles and David Koch, the brothers’ massive business interests—along with the interests of just about every business in the nation—are poised to take a major hit at the hands of those they placed in positions of power.
Indeed, so concerned are the Kochs with the damage already done and the catastrophe we—and they—may now be facing, they are scurrying to gain some measure of control over their Frankenstein monsters.
Last week, Koch Industries sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) making it clear that, while they continue to object to Obamacare, they do not support the linking of Obamacare to the passage of a continuing resolution that would re-open the government.
Now, NBC is reporting—
“But privately, Koch officials have expressed concern to lawmakers that the prospect of a government default over the Obamacare issue would be a “disaster” for the economy, according to one GOP consultant who recently discussed the matter with Koch officials and asked for anonymity.”
If the circumstances were not so tragic the irony would be delicious.
Despite the Koch Brothers being among the key drivers of The Tea Party (some would say that they have, in fact, co-opted the Tea Party) a Pew Poll out last week reveals that 69 percent of those who identify with the Tea Party believe that the United States can blow by the debt ceiling deadline without major economic problems.If you are looking for those who buy and sell politicians, look no further than the Koch Brothers, the founders and bankroll behind the Tea Party.
Taking advantage of the Citizens United ruling, the billionaires Charles and David Koch and other wealthy individuals have provided financial backing for the movement that forced a now week-old government shutdown, according to The New York Times. Some House Republicans, Sanders said, have gone along with their party’s right-wing Tea Party wing to fend off well-funded primary challenges.
“We are living in a society where a handful of people with incredible sums of money like the Koch brothers and others, are undermining what this democracy is supposed to be about,” Sanders said. “Right now, as we speak, in the House of Representatives there are people who are being threatened that if they vote for a clean CR [continuing resolution to reopen the government] that huge sums of money will be spent against them in the next election,” Sanders said.
At issue in the new case is a limit on how much donors may give to all candidates and political organizations during a two-year federal election cycle. The cap now is $123,200. That includes a separate $48,600 limit on contributions to individual candidates during 2013 and 2014. A separate $2,600 limit on how much one individual may give to any specific candidate for Congress in any election is not directly at stake in this case.
Byron Angel wrote:GaryT - I'm really sorry you feel that way. I'm 66 years of age and have uncomfortably watched over the past five decades the transformation of my status from a citizen to a subject of my government. My belief is that when those political leaders you now see as great benefactors and caretakers of mankind finally emerge from behind the fog of propaganda and disinformation they have so industriously cast, you will discover to your dismay that they have been pursuing a very different agenda indeed than that which you have been led to believe.
Dave Saxton wrote:Analysist have greatly over estimated the overall cost of fracking because they are comparing it to traditional practices. Fracking is so much more efficient. A fracked well produces at a typicaly daily rate 1400:1 compared to traditional methods. Even at $55 a barrel a fracked well can pay for its self in less than a week instead of a period of years.
Dave Saxton wrote:Moreover, because of directional drilling the same location can be made productive at relatively high production levels for years, although a specific fracked well gives up the goods relatively quickly and has compartively short life span. This means after the initial investment in supporting exploration, and production, infrastructure, additional drilling is relatively inexpensive, as well as being enviromentally friendly. The common wisdom that fracking requires $90/ barrel oil prices to be viable is not correct.
Dave Saxton wrote:Additionally, fracked oil requires less infrastucture, and less expensive infrastructure, to bring about the refined product to market. Old refineries can handle it while meeting enviromental goals and expensive new infrastructure is not needed as much.
Dave Saxton wrote:A great thing about the new technology is that it can be shut down and started up at will in response to the markets.
It's revolutionary, and it changes the geopolitical/economics dynamics completely.
I'm afraid freedom has very much to do with it. All the proposed solutions are essentially statist in nature. Statism and freedom are very much at odds with each other. What would be tragic is the ascent of tyrany and no viable energy solutions resulting. That is the most likely result if its Gov driven instead of private sector driven. I would like to see a viable set of solutions to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but that will need to come from the free market to happen.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests