Mount Redoubt, Global Warming, and Climate Change Idiots

Share

What do you do when data shows one thing and the popular culture another?  Flopping Aces finally realizes that population control is behind the global warming agenda. There’s more here about the draconian murders cuts that must take place in the UK in order to make the country ‘sustainable’.  Then there is the cutting off of water bottles in the Obama White House, to make things more earth friendly.

Medicore Redoubt Video

Does Obama (god to us pathetic mortals) want to tell volcanoes like Mount Redoubt to stop erupting?

The One (Incompetent) is unleashing the EPA Hounds from Hell to regulate CO2 to be a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  Once Upon A Time, when we had a real President, George W. Bush said NO WAY.  That’s what our economy needs right now is a whole new level of enviromental regulations.  The out of control EPA is also stating that Global Warming is endangering the public’s health and welfare.

“…”By moving forward with the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, EPA is putting in motion a set of decisions that may have far-reaching unintended consequences,” said Bill Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Specifically, once the finding is made, no matter how limited, some environmental groups will sue to make sure it is applied to all aspects of the Clean Air Act.

“This will mean that all infrastructure projects, including those under the president’s stimulus initiative, will be subject to environmental review for greenhouse gases. Since not one of the projects has been subjected to that review, it is possible that the projects under the stimulus initiative will cease. This will be devastating to the economy.”

In December 2007 EPA submitted a written recommendation to the White House urging the Bush administration to allow EPA to state officially that global warming is a threat to human welfare. But senior White House officials refused to open the document and urged Johnson to reconsider, saying such a finding would trigger sweeping regulatory requirements under the 45-year-old Clean Air Act. An EPA analysis had found the move would cost utilities, automakers and others billions of dollars while also bringing benefits to other economic sectors….”

Share