Global Warming - Costs and Disbenefits

Over the years the Global Warming movement has produced various economic studies on climate change, including some alleged cost/benefit analyses, or CBA's.. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

For the most part, these CBA's "weigh the consequences of the projected increases in carbon emissions versus the costs of current policy actions to stabilize CO2 emissions" (see HERE)--or in other words, they compare the projected benefit of decreased CO2 emissions vs the cost of decreasing those emissions, and not surprisingly, they have concluded that the benefits far outweigh the costs, and that action is economically and morally imperative. They suppose that liberal governments must rescue the planet from pending doom.

In spite of claims that the "science is settled", some scientist believe that global warming is actually a benefit rather than a cost (see HERE), thus turning previous CBA's on their head.

Others believe that the CBA's were misleading--shocking, I know. (see HERE)

Nevertheless, even though the chicken little cacophony on  global warming continues unabated today, we can now look back over several decades since the hue and cry went up, to see not only how accurate were the predictions upon which the CBA's were made, but also look at the amount of money spent on climate change compared with the results.

Evidence suggests that the models used to make the catastrophic projections have failed to match reality. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), thereby seriously compromising the CBA's.

This is made all the more apparent by the cost/benefit analysis I performed. (see above). We've spent more than $200 billion on climate change over the last 12 years (see HERE), which is twice as much as spent each year on boarder security, thus indicating priorities.

. And, this is a drop in the bucket compared to were congress not to have stopped Cap and Trade--i.e. the largest project in government history. (see HERE).

This also doesn't factor in private, or "dark" money, which dwarfs skeptic research. (see HERE)

World-wide, "the global climate change industry is worth $1.5 trillion, or $4 billion a day. (see HERE) Worst Deal in History: $1.5 Trillion a Year to Reduce Global Warming by .048 degrees Celsius.

Chaching!

What do we have to show for it? Well, CO2 levels have continued to climb to record levels. (see HERE)

Sea levels are up. (see HERE)

And, global temperatures have recently set records. (see HERE)

So much for the alleged attempts to "heal the planet." (see HERE)

Evidently, for the climate televangelists, it is all about the money. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

And here you thought the Solyndra boondoggle was bad (see HERE and HERE and HERE)

/See also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and  HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

Useful Idiot Test - Hillary and Obama and Benghazi

If you answer a or b or c, then you are a useful idiot. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

See also HERE and  HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

Obama vs Democrat Candidats

Obama recently declared that things are great right now. (see HERE and HERE)

However, you would think just the opposite listening to the Democrat candidates at the first presidential debate. (see HERE)

Some of the direct or implied criticisms of current leadership included: involvement in Iraq and other war, scandals, lack of honesty, increased income and wealth inequality, money corrupting the political process, empowerment of Wall Street, turnstile government, power of the financial sector in politics, leaders co-opted by the  D.C. system, lack of bi-partisanship, wrong reputation overseas, lack of common sense foreign policies, deep economic injustice, increased poverty, poorer are getting poorer, 70% making the same or less, burdensome college debt, series of crises, middle class disappearing, millions of people working longer hours for less pay, wealth accumulating only to top 1%, money pouring into elections to support special interests rather than working people, campaign finance system is corrupt, failure to transform from fossil fuels that cause real climate change, too many people in jail, unemployment among black youth is 51%, Hispanic youth at 36%,  government is taken over by a handful of billionaires, lack of good-paying jobs, lack of investment in science and research, low minimum wage, insufficient sharing of profits with workers, loopholes in tax code that favor the rich, unequal pay for equal work, no paid family leave, divided country--economically, racially and sexual orientation, as well as sexism. And, all this was just in the opening statements.

Surprisingly, this isn't an isolated case. The conflict between Obama and his fellow Democrats began before the debate, and will likely continue thereafter. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) This is no more true than with the Clintons, and vice versa. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Evidently, not a few leading Democrat politicians share Obama's rosy view of current conditions. And, since politicians tend to reflect their constituents, it is likely that the Democrat masses aren't all that pleased with the state of affairs.

Here is SNL's spoof of the debate:

Campaign Finance Hypocrisy

You have to love when the candidate most against big money in politics and huge campaign war chests (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), has banked more donations ($26 million) during the third quarter ($41.5 million total) than all the other 20 or so presidential candidates, save one. (see HERE).

To his credit, though, 88% of Sander's contribution came from donations of $200 or less. (ibid)

See also HERE:

Bernie - Minimum Wage Hypocrisy

One of the primary issues of Bernie's campaign is raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, or as he calls it, a "living wage." (see HERE and HERE).

He has even sponsored a bill to that effect. (see HERE)

However, he currently pays his interns only $12 an hour (see HERE and HERE).,

...which gives this indicting statement some personal meaning:

Perhaps in at least one respect Bernie's interns should feel lucky since many of the interns working at Obama's White House and for Hillary's campaign, are not paid anything. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Apart from begging the question of why skilled pay is demanded for unskilled labor (something only a non-businessman and career politician would think up), this "Do as I say, and not as I do" approach  forgets the reality that, even by his own words, the raise would cost jobs (see HERE), as evinced by, among other things, cities that have already raised the minimum wage to $15 hr. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE). Forbes puts the potential job loss at 6.6 million (see HERE)

which, not surprisingly, works at cross purposes with what Bernie says here:

Not to mention that such drastic rise in minimum wage doesn't raise people out of poverty, and may even hurt the poor the most (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), particularly unskilled laborers. (see HERE)

It also isn't meant to be a living wage for families, in large part because most of the people earning minimum wages aren't sole providers of families. (see HERE and HERE)

Then there is also the problem that the $15 raise may have in creating an incentive for illegal immigration--either by forcing companies to seek out lower paid illegal workers, or by greatly increasing the wage of illegals. (see HERE and HERE), which is ironic since illegal immigration, spurred by liberal policies, has been a force in keeping wages low for unskilled labor. (see HERE)

Hillary and Bernie - Enough of the Damn Emails

During the first Democrat presidential primary debate in 2015, Bernie Sanders was asked about Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Here is his response, and Hillary and the liberal crowd's reaction:

Evidently, the liberals prefer to bury their heads in the sand (see HERE and HERE and HERE) when one of their elite is deeply embroiled in scandals that may far eclipse Watergate. (see HERE and HERE and HERE)

In Hillary's case, we aren't just talking about the illegal private email server which she used for classified State Department business, or even the Benghazi scandal that lead to the email scandal. The former first lady has a long and sordid history of dirty tricks and shady behaviors about which she has repeatedly lied, obfuscated, obstructed, and scorched the whistle blowers. (see HERE and HERE and HERE)

Instead of being the least bit bothered by the scandals, the majority of Democrats are ready to elect Hillary the President of the United States and leader of the free world.

And, Hillary isn't the only liberal elite that has been given a pass. (see HERE)

Illegal Immigration Incentives

There are around 12 million illegals currently trespassing in the U.S. (see HERE), and thy constitute about 25% of the prison population. (see HERE)

In the past, Democrats have opposed trespassing almost as much as Republicans. (see HERE) But not today. Now they are offering incentives for illegals to come and stay. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

However, before you assume that liberals have completely taken leave of their senses, consider that there may be ulterior motives behind the recent bestowal of benefits, rights, and incentives for illegals. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Because Democrats have inadvertently lost voters in their fight against mythical overpopulation, they can only retain power by gaining voters elsewhere. And, while there may be plenty of dead people that may be pressed into service, the risk of fraud detection may be less with illegals, particularly if they are made citizens.

Then again, before you assume that liberals have regained their senses, consider the negative impact of illegal immigration on other key Democrat voters, like union workers and blacks (see: HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--though the unions have recently backtracked a bit (see HERE and HERE) disadvantageously to general workers (see HERE) , as well as how it may compromise other critical electoral issues, both locally and at the state and federal level. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

So, as expected, no matter how you look at it, liberal policies tend to create more problems than they solve.

Setting aside the flood of illegals into the country, here are the stunning numbers for legal immigration. (see HERE)

Hillary vs Carson

When a party chooses to look past a long history of demonstrable lies, scandals, phoniness, dirty politics, and brazen ineptness, and in turn perpetually disparage a man renown for his intellect, honesty, decency, authenticity, and professional accomplishments, it is clear that they care more about power than they do the country and culture.

Stefan Molyneux gives an excellent summary of Carson and the manufactured controversies trumped up by the leftist media and opponents:

 
In Carson's case, this mostly works, while with Hillary, it never works:

Bernie - Everything Free

Bernie, and his fellow Democrat debaters (see HERE) are on to something.

If free college education and healthcare are morally imperative, then so are all the other basic human needs-i.e. food, clothing, shelter, transportation, communication, and recreation,

Better still, by making everything free, people could afford whatever they want, they would no longer have to steal or embezzle or defraud or commit related crimes, and this would wipe out poverty and render everyone economically equal. Gone will be the ravages of income inequality, class distinction, envy, jealousy, or greed.

If you thought all this would be great, just imagine how EVERYTHING FREE would eliminate the need for income or jobs, thereby negating issues of income inequality or unemployment or paid leave or even minimum wage, etc.., rendering these kinds of naive memes irrelevant:

And, if there is no need for income and jobs, there would be no need for education, and all the money spent to provide free education could go to pay for all the other free stuff.

Besides, the liberals have assured us that the costs can be covered by rich people and greedy corporations, if not also the federal government, and that giving away free stuff actually helps the economy.

What could possibly be wrong with this?