What senator stood up to more than 90 countries, successfully defending U.S. sovereignty before the Supreme Court? Answer.

Please use the PayPal button above to donate to The US Report.

Subscribe with Kindle

Search the US Report. 

Please visit The US Report bookstore!

Need a speaker for your next event? Contact us.



 The US Report, an indie publisher, features stories about politics, public figures and government. Learn more about The US Report  and the credentials of our contributorsHelp us keep TUSR online; use the PayPal link in the right column.



President Obama has billions of reasons to push global warming agenda

“Corporatism─a system of running a state using the power of organizations such as businesses and labor unions that act, or claim to act, for large numbers of people.” [Encarta]

Photo: The US ReportGlobal warming—formerly global cooling and currently climate change—was rekindled in the body politic by President Barack Obama’s recent speech. He called those who don’t accept carbon as the primary source of warming the “Flat Earth Society.”

Concern for the planet aside, Obama has billions of reasons to push a global warming agenda.

Those reasons are tied to corporatists who currently control U.S. energy policy, research, and investment dollars. Billions of dollars, in fact.

The alt-energy sector was a significant source of funding for Obama’s presidential campaigns.

Generous payback was certain once Democrats won in 2008, and taxpayers funded it.

In his groundbreaking book Throw Them All Out, author Peter Schweizer disclosed ties between Obama and energy interests. No media have included this information in their coverage of our president’s speech.

Schweizer, using U.S. Government data, disclosed that of $20.5 billion in Department of Energy loans as of 9/15/11, “Obama-connected companies” received $16.4 billion taxpayer dollars. Schweizer describes the recipients as “wealthy financial backers of President Obama and the Democratic Party.”

The most frequently viewed website on climate science had this to say:

“Department of Energy loan guarantees to more than 20 bankrupt renewable energy companies, including Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Trust, and Solyndra have cost taxpayers billions. Taxpayers also pay for US military efforts to make biofuel out of algae at exorbitant prices.”

Meanwhile, no one has obstructed the Keystone Pipeline as aggressively as the Obama administration. Among the most vocal critics of the pipeline is billionaire hedge fund chief Tom Steyer, Democrat supporter and founder of Farallon Capital. Farallon, said Fox News, built vast wealth on fossil fuels.

And here’s the hypocrisy Democrats should acknowledge:

“One of Farallon's biggest holdings is in U.S. pipeline company Kinder Morgan, which has plans to expand a major competitor to Keystone -- the TransMountain pipeline. It carries tar sands oil from Edmonton to British Columbia's west coast for export to Asia. If Kinder Morgan gets approval for the expansion, TransMountain would carry 900,000 barrels of tar sands oil every day...That's more than Keystone XL.”

If Obama’s regulatory directives are followed, U.S. consumers across all income quintiles will pay the prices—the cost of everything will rise, from clothing to food to utilities

There is little transparency when it comes to the global warming-government corporatist movement. Even Congress can’t get answers.

The Environmental Protection Agency has ignored requests for data from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Sessions said in a statement:

“For more than seven months, I have been waiting for EPA to respond to a very simple request: provide an EPA chart comparing actual global temperatures with the official predictions that were made a decade ago. But EPA won’t provide this data.”

No one can dispute climate change. The dispute revolves around what causes it, and conflating the term climate change with weather as our president and members of his party often do will not advance reasonable debate.─(Analysis by Kay B. Day/June 27, 2013)

Read more about how the government calculates warming at WattsUpWithThat?.

To meet expenses and to be able to stay online, The US Report needs your support. If you’d like to contribute, please use the PayPal link in the sidebar. Follow us on Twitter: @TheUS Report.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

« ‘Fast and Furious’ style lack of accountability with guns program at U.S. Park Police | Main | Front line agents oppose immigration bill guided by “anti-enforcement” interests »

Reader Comments (2)

CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 25.46 ppmv (an amount equal to 28.4% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; May, 2013, 396.59 ppmv).

The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/

Rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 25.46 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

A simple equation at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a single external forcing, a proxy that is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated temperature anomaly trajectory overlaid on measurements.

June 28, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterDan Pangburn

Visited your site; very interesting discussion and thank you for sharing this:


June 30, 2013 | Registered CommenterKay B. Day, Editor
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.