Global Warming - YOU are at fault

Here it is folks. In the cheesiest short video ever - you will be amazed at how awful you SHOULD feel because of YOUR part in the global warming fiasco. Straighten up global inhabitants. The 6 billion of us should be ashamed. (sarcasm intended)

Watch this video.

Now, before you get all upset - I DO think we need to take care of our environment. We need to subdue it. Populate it. Care for it. Watch over it. But I do NOT agree that WE are the primary fault for what's happening. And putting all kinds of unreasonable restrictions and progress-limiting requirements on our already floundering economy is only going to exacerbate the problem. I'm just sayin'.

Global Temperature Continues To Decline

I suppose someone might label me as anti-green. But I don't think that's the case by a long shot. I recycle. I pick up trash that other slackers leave lying around in our community. I care about our water & air quality. I really do.

We shouldn't just be good stewards of this earth - we should be GREAT stewards. Where possible, we should conserve energy and teach our children the importance of caring for and taking care of earth.

But I cannot stand the idea that WE are a problem. That HUMAN BEINGS are putting out too much CO2 by just 'existing.' That somehow, if we could rid the earth of more humans, "Mother Earth" would be better off. Ummm - mother earth was created for us... not US for mother earth. There is a misfiring theology present in some well-meaning people that is causing an unnecessary financial burden on all of us... beginning with the poorest.

Here is one of the latest articles from www.WeGetIt.org- enjoy the facts! Particularly, take a look at the chart below. Pretty interesting in light of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

Global temperature continues to decline

Contrary to all the expectations of global warming alarmists and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global average temperature is in significant decline. The graph below, produced by Drs. Roy W. Spencer and John Christy of the University of Alabama using data from the NASA Aqua satellite with near-constant readings at all levels of the atmosphere between latitudes 84S and 84N, shows running averages in the smoothed line from January, 1979, through April, 2009, with a clear downtrend starting around late 2004, with the end point a mere 0.09 degree C (0.16 degree F) above the mean for the whole period.

Warming alarmists will protest that four-and-a-half-years are too short to establish a long-term trend. True enough. But they didn't hesitate to claim a trend in 1988 based on under two years' data, and for that matter, in a climate system as old as Earth's, thirty or even a hundred years aren't statistically representative enough to establish a trend.

Spencer, a former NASA scientist and enthusiastic supporter of the WeGetIt.org campaign, posts monthly updates at www.DrRoySpencer.com, an excellent site for scientific information on global climate change.

Global Lukewarming...

I haven't jumped on a soapbox in quite a while. Now seems like as good of time as any. Check out this video - it's less than 3 minutes and well worth your time.

If you don't see the video - click here!

I am still blown away that TV & Media has not jumped all over this. Why has Al Gore not been pummeled with this news? Why doesn't someone offer to take back his Nobel Peace Prize?

I realize this 'issue' is near and dear to many of your hearts. But once again, these drastic measures that Obama and other well-meaning 'green' proponents are going to affect (hurt) the American people... mainly lower income families. You can You can read more specifics at The Tax Foundation website.  

Here is the article from WeGetIt.org - a summary of the Tax Foundation article.

Let them eat cake

If the U.S. government adopts a cap-and-trade program to reduce CO2 emissions to fight global warming, it'll cost the average U.S. household $1,218 per year--or the whole nation $144.8 billion per year.

That's the conclusion of a new report by the Tax Foundation, which explains that the burden would fall disproportionately on "low-income households, those under age 25 and over 75, residents of southern states, and single parents with dependent children." For those in the bottom fifth of income earners, the hit would equal about 6.2% of their household income; for those in the top fifth, about 1.4%.

That makes cap-and-trade a highly regressive tax.