Watch Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy Testify to Congress: 'The value of this rule is not measured in that way. (Temperature impact) It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what's a necessary action to protect...I'm not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I'm saying is that if we don't take action domestically we will never get started and we'll never...'
From Tom Steyer to Nat Simons, billionaires have hijacked the environmental movement to line their own pockets. Hedge funds and billionaire investors with a line into government contracts, grants and loan guarantees have built relations with these lobby groups to influence government to ensure taxpayer largess flows to the green industries which they are invested in. A new report by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute examines some of the largest contributors to the Sierra Club and their self-interested dealing that gives new definition to the meaning of “going green.”
'Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.'
Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.
Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.
Here’s the giveaway passage from the Guardian‘s article:
The vast subsidy derives largely from polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution, and to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.
In other words, the IMF doesn’t mean “subsidies” in the sense that most of us would understand: that is, handouts from the state to favoured institutions. It means “subsidies” in the sense of “vast, almost limitless taxes which the governments should have imposed but haven’t”.