I'm so tired of the Globe's hot air. Might want to breathe now and cover your nose.
"Climate change takes back seat on campaign trail; Jobs, economy main focus for Obama, Romney" by Bobby Caina Calvan | Globe Staff, August 01, 2012
WASHINGTON — It’s been a summer of discontent, with much of the country broiling under a heat wave like few before. Out West, parched wildlands burn. In the Midwest, farmers are sweating out another year of drought and wilted crops.
The fire coverage has pretty much faded from the news pages.
Consumers are feeling it, too, as they fume over rising food prices and muse about what’s behind the scorching temperatures. Many scientists and environmentalists, and some politicians, are sure of what’s at least partly to blame: climate change.
I'm sorry, but after hiding the decline and taking into account my own observations.... pffffffffffft!
But global warming is hardly causing a stir in presidential politics, as both President Obama and Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, fixate on jobs and the economy.
“Given the potential impact on the US economy and national security, it’s rather startling how little attention the issue has received thus far,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House official who dealt extensively with climate change.
Actually, no it is not: No Energy For Campaign
Just another diversion. Look at the Globe throwing this one at you now.
“Already this summer we’re having widespread drought. We’ve had record heat early in the summer. We’re having impacts on food prices,” Bledsoe said. “This is a harbinger of the impacts that climate scientists have been warning about for years.”
Nothing worse than people who were wrong hollering they were right.
Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California who heads the Committee on Environment and Public Works, is convening a panel Wednesday to talk about the latest science on global warming, a move meant to stoke discussion on the topic not only in Congress but perhaps on the campaign trail.
I'm TIRED of the AGENDA-PU$HING, 'kay? Everyone knows this is all a $cheme to get carbon taxes to fund the one-world government.
The reticence about climate change on the presidential stump is partly based on political calculations, according to analysts, who say both campaigns carry baggage on the issue and would rather avoid a topic that could offend important blocs of voters.
It's why I have no energy for the campaign on this issue.
Romney’s detractors are likely to paint him as a flip-flopper, since he has backed away from earlier comments acknowledging climate change and the human role in it.
Heretic! You must worship upon the altar of received wisdom even if it's a crock of shit!
Of course, the agenda-pu$hing newspaper would never lie to you, dear 'murkn (blog editor rolls eyes towards the heavens).
Related:
"When Governor Mitt Romney signed the state’s universal health insurance law in 2006, he held a gala ceremony at Faneuil Hall, complete with a fife-and-drum corps dressed in tricorn hats and breeches."
I'll bet he regrets that now.
Obama, meanwhile, may have to tone down anticoal rhetoric for risk of alienating important blocs of voters, particularly in such industrial states as Ohio and Pennsylvania, where coal continues to power industries.
A poll released by Yale in April showed a large majority of Americans hold global warming at least partly to blame for the extreme weather, including unseasonably warm temperatures this past winter, droughts in Texas and Oklahoma, and last year’s record summer temperatures — which are being rivaled in some regions by extended streaks of scorching weather this summer.
Well, you are not reading the blog comments of one.
But it’s still a challenging topic to talk about, according to Michael Greenstone, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an adviser to the Obama administration during its first year. “The country has had a hard time accepting the science of climate change, and I think that makes it challenging to talk about politically.”
He makes it sound like the collapsing skyscrapers of 9/11!!
Yes, it IS A CHALLENGING SUBJECT to talk about with people because MUST DUMB-BRAIN 'murkns raised on the shit-slop prop media do NOT UNDERSTAND the IMMUTABLE LAWS of PHYSICAL SCIENCE preclude those towers free-falling into their own footprints due to jet fuel.
Do I know what demolished those iconic structures? I have my thoughts, theories, and ideas; however, I DO KNOW that it is NOT what the GOVERNMENT'S VERSION of EVENTS would have you believe. I know it is PAINFUL to REFLECT on the FALSITY of "climate change," 9/11, and the Holohoax™, but that is often the case with the TRUTH!
That’s not to say that Obama and Romney have kept completely quiet on the issue.
I wish they would.
At a Monday night fund-raiser in New York, Obama spoke about reducing dependency on foreign oil, which he said could remove “some carbon out of the atmosphere at the same time, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs all across the country.”
How much carbon is all this campaign gallivanting around putting up there?
“By advocating for the growth of renewable energy, President Obama has continually called for action that will address the sources of climate change,” said Michael Czin, an Obama campaign spokesman.
This from a guy whose top contributor is BP.
Related: NStar Passes Wind On To Customers
Tide Has Turned in Maine
Solar $hortout$
Mitt had his own Solyndra.
How come the price is always more and the money always ends up in the hands of some corporation?
Btw, those jobs also left for China.
The Romney forces say the president could face tough challenges in coal-burning states, particularly in Ohio, where analysts believe the contest may be decided by just a sliver of voters.
“His position is to destroy the coal industry. The effects won’t be just on the coal industry, but on the entire manufacturing industry. He doesn’t want to talk about it, but that’s his policy,” Oren Cass, domestic policy director for the Romney campaign, said about Obama.
“We certainly want a science-based discussion; but science is one input to the policy. Regardless of what science tells you about global warming, it doesn’t tell you that cap-and-trade is the solution.”
In the end, environmental and energy policies point back to the economy and the livelihoods of voters, whether it’s about natural gas, coal, or global warming, said John Russo, a professor of labor studies at Youngstown State University in Ohio.
“Who wants to talk about it? I don’t know if anybody wants to make a big deal about it,” said Russo, who faults both candidates for not having a “substantive discussion about energy, foreign policy, environmental policy, and economic policy.”
Thus far, much of the debate has been dominated by controversies over the Keystone pipeline, which Republicans hail as a jobs producer and Democrats call a potential environmental hazard and boon to big oil; and Solyndra, the failed solar energy company that the Romney campaign says epitomizes the failed energy policies of the Obama administration.
See: When Water is Thicker Than Oil
Obama's Ro$e-Colored $ungla$$e$
Taxpayers got blinded.
The ideological divides add to the challenges of addressing climate change, said Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who now serves as director of the Energy and Enterprise Initiative recently launched by George Mason University.
“It’s an important issue, and it’s an incredible danger we face,” said Inglis, who was one of the few Republicans in Congress to acknowledge global warming. “I would wish it were a major topic in the campaign. But unfortunately, the Great Recession has us focused on the immediate need of this month’s mortgage, or this month’s paycheck.”
It's the Grand Depression, but that is just finger-pulling, 'er, pointing.
--more--"
Yeah, about that heat:
"Small farmers struggle as drought kills crops" by Dinesh Ramde | Associated Press, August 01, 2012
WEST ALLIS, Wis. — Small fruit and vegetable farmers throughout the Midwest are struggling with unusual heat and a once-in-decades drought.
The agenda-pushing MSM would have you believe droughts never happened until humans started causing global fart mist.
Some have lost crops, while others are paying more to irrigate. Most aren’t growing enough to sell profitably to wholesalers, and sales at farmers markets are down. Those with community supported agriculture programs, or CSAs, are looking for ways to keep members happy, or at least satisfied enough that they’ll sign up again next year.
Chris Covelli said he and his crew have spent every day in the field, often in 100-degree heat, in an effort to deliver the vegetables promised to families who pay $14 to $45 per week. So far, he said, they’ve delivered most of what they promised, although they’ve had to get creative with the addition of drought-hardy items like purslane, which he describes as a vitamin-rich, ‘‘delicious weed’’ that tastes like lettuce.
I guess it's better than a shit steak.
‘‘There’s no secret,’’ said Covelli, who owns Tomato Mountain Farms in Brooklyn, Wis. ‘‘You just do what you have to do. If that means doing more plantings, trying different crops, waking up at 2 a.m. to move the irrigation pipe, we do it. That’s what hard work is.’’
Other farmers have not fared as well....
Yeah, I am tired of the stink-spin from the shit-eating grin media!
--more--"
Related: Drought Depression
It's reading the paper that does it to me.
Where they don't want to steer the conversation:
"UK police close probe into theft of climate science e-mails" by Raphael Satter | Associated Press, July 19, 2012
LONDON — British police have closed their three-year investigation into the theft of hundreds of climate science e-mails published to the Web, saying Wednesday there was no hope of finding any suspects behind the breach.
It was a leak by a conscientious insider. When the media starts off the mythical narrative that way what are we supposed to think?
The theft caught researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit discussing ways to dodge right-to-know requests, keep opponents’ research out of peer-reviewed journals, and destroy data.
And then they come back again and say trust us!
The unguarded and occasionally unprofessional messages dented the reputation of several researchers and provided ammunition to skeptics of mainstream climate science, many of whom seized on the documents to claim that the threat of global warming was being overhyped.
Not just overhyped but a FLAT-OUT LIE!
Several overlapping inquiries have since vindicated the researchers’ science — if not their attitude — but the furor over the scandal dominated debate in the run-up to the crucial 2009 UN climate talks in Copenhagen.
They really think you are dat dum, readers.
Those talks ended in failure, and world leaders are still struggling to agree on a plan to impose caps on the emission of greenhouse gasses blamed for rising temperatures and melting ice caps.
A second leak, published to the Internet in 2011, came a week before similar climate talks in Durban, South Africa.
So they were leaks.
Ever notice agenda-pushing intelligence operation Wikileaks hasn't waded anywhere near this issue?
The local British police force investigating the breach said Wednesday that its officers had been struggling with the complexity of the attack and the three-year-long statute of limitations on Britain’s Computer Misuse Act.
Related: British Government Building Gestapo
That should heat things up.
Detective Chief Superintendent Julian Gregory of the Norfolk Constabulary said in a statement that his officers ‘‘do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law.’’
The University of East Anglia said it was disappointed that no one had been caught but expressed gratitude for police’s help.
--more--"
And the campaign coverage itself?
"Analysis finds Romney plan would cut taxes for wealthy
Mitt Romney’s tax plan would provide large tax cuts to wealthy Americans and increase taxes on middle- and low-income households, according to an analysis by The Brookings Institution.
Wow, whatta surprise!
The report published Wednesday estimated households with incomes over $1 million would receive average tax cuts of $87,117 under Romney’s plan, while those earning $200,000 or less would pay higher taxes.
The cut is more than I have grossed over the last five years!
Brookings analysts concluded that Romney’s plan favors high earners “even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible.”
“For instance,” analysts said, “even when we assume that tax breaks — like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance — are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality, the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.”
The Romney campaign dismissed the report as a liberal study. “President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending,” Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said.
The analysis was conducted by three Brookings economists, including William G. Gale, an economic adviser to President George H. W. Bush, and Adam Looney, who served on Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.
They determined Romney’s tax plan — which includes extending all Bush-era tax cuts, slashing all income tax rates by a fifth, and reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent — would reduce federal revenues by $456 billion in 2015.
Romney has not specified how he would compensate for the sweeping tax cuts. But making up for the lost revenue, Brookings analysts said, “would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits.”
Time for a poll check:
Poll shows president with lead in three key states
President Obama leads Republican challenger Mitt Romney by at least 6 percentage points in three key swing states, according to a new CBS News/New York Times/Quinnipiac University poll.
The president’s lead is 53 percent to 42 percent among likely voters in Pennsylvania, 50-44 in Ohio, and 51-45 in Florida, the survey published Wednesday showed.
I'll bet $10,000 Romney steals Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.
In all three states, the candidates are nearly tied on a question about who would handle the economy better. And in all three, Obama’s approval rating is under 50 percent.
A bad omen for an incumbent president.
But in Florida, Obama outscores Romney by 13 points when the question is whether the candidates care about “the needs and problems of people like you.”
In Ohio, the margin is 17 points in Obama’s favor, and it is 19 points in Pennsylvania.
Obama also outpolled Romney on health care, national security, and likability.
--more--"
I guess Obama is back in business.
Also see: Racist Romney is Prejudiced Against Palestinians
Already down the MSM memory hole.
