Read here. Everyone and his mama now knows that Obama promised "skyrocketing" energy prices, and, by Allah God, he actually delivered that result. He carried out his promise while keeping unemployment high and squeezing the wallet of middle America. Now, the GOP's Obama-lite candidate wants to build on Obama's big government economic and energy disasters.
Mitt Romney, the current leading poll contender for the GOP presidential nomination, has written a book calling for 'carbon taxes' to be assessed on fossil fuels. Soooo...Romney's solution to the economy and energy problems is to raise prices of energy even higher for the average American, while continuing Obama's policy to discourage cheap fossil fuels. Brilliant!
Just what this country needs - impoverish more Americans and drive more jobs overseas to countries with lower costs.
Romney is a big government, liberal Massachusetts Republican whose RomneyCare was the genesis of ObamaCare. And now he wants to pay his respects to Obama by doubling down on economic misery and skyrocketing energy prices.
Why would the leading GOP contender, labeled "conservative" by the MSM press, propose such idiocy? Well, the Federal government needs more revenues to pay for the favored spendthrift policies of big government technocrats and politicians. By taxing fossil fuels, the carbon tax would automatically open up the spigots to American wallets on a daily basis. Once this tax is implemented, it would go on forever, with more increases implemented in the future when needed, just like the social security payroll tax.
So there is no misunderstanding by the naive and gullible, the Romney proposed carbon tax is a perpetual scheme to suck-the-money into the Washington D.C. blackhole of out-of-control spending, incompetence and political corruption.
Of course, Romney the slickster won't admit this as being the reason. Instead he states we need a carbon tax to save Americans from "global warming" that's been warming cooling Americans for the last 15 years. Whatever, Mitt...
Okay. Thanks for the information about Romney. It is now clear that he is a Rino. This cannot be tolerated. I will do everything I can to work for someone else.
Posted by: Gerry Pratt | June 06, 2011 at 08:26 AM
It's sad how the gop goes wobbly on agw junk science. The reason is that all pols want to avoid technical or science questions on average. Since the ipcc represents a massive political investment in green, moonbat agenda setting the work is done for the left. They only have to keep carping about alleged "science" being on their side while those who oppose them have to scramble and sell their case through logic and reason, which looking at the world often loses hands down.
Even if agw fraud is defeated the lessons of political concentrations at the university elite levels has been learned. It doesn't look good for the future as more "science" expert opinions can be expected to be used to set statist agendas with the help of the msm. Two other examples in the works? "Eco-sustainability" and "obesity" where massive efforts for governing to ration and control population are underway.
Romney I hope is washed out for this pandering, I was sad the Christie went down this road as well. It's time for a candidate to add junk science culture in a broad sense including agw to their list of talking points. The gop seems way behind the street on this issue.
Posted by: cwon1 | June 06, 2011 at 06:03 AM
The yellow text box clearly states the chart is for the 15-year period ending April 2011. If the 12-month period ending April 2011 is the 15th period, then the first 12-month period would end in April 1997, not 1995.
Go back to the NOAA/NCDC site and pick "the most recent 12-month period" selection, then pick 1997 as the start year. You'll get the exact same 15-year chart as in this post.
Please read the information supplied before commenting. Learning how to count might help also.
Posted by: C3 | June 06, 2011 at 03:13 AM
While I find the climate change crowd's distortion of data and utilization of improperly reviewed studies to be discusting, the NOAA chart presented on this article is either a simple mistake, or an example of the same stuff occuring on the other side!
I went to the referenced site and generated a graph of my own using mean yearly national temperatures and the graph I obtained had a positive trend for 1995-2011 !!!
In order to approximate the graph in the article, I had to use the "year to date" option, meaning that only the January through April mean temperatures of each year were compared. Other graph options at the NOAA site confirm a negative trend when just winter/spring data is compared.
For the data to be meaningful, all the data must be used. You must consider the whole year!
Posted by: Don McClusky | June 05, 2011 at 11:31 AM
There is no way I'll vote for Mitt Romney. I held my nose to vote for McSame in 2008, so I'll sit this one out if the Mitter is the GOP nominee.
And you nailed it, too, regarding the media's treatment of Romney. They love him, because even should their darling Obama be defeated, the nation would be in "good progressive hands" with Mittsy. Conservative Mitt -- oh yeah, that sounds convincing.
So, sitting home is a vote for Obama, but that's what I'll do if Mitt is our candidate. We'd be slightly worse off with Obama, but not worse off enough to get me off my duff and to the polls.
Posted by: Human Person Junior, Jr. | June 05, 2011 at 07:00 AM