Ever since the weather has been hijacked and politicized to the point of no return, the drumbeat from global warming (or climate change, or climate disruption, or whatever name is created this week) hucksters has been shrill and unceasing. As if that weren’t enough, the media has gone all-in on the topic by adopting the language used to denigrate anyone who disagrees with the notion that mankind is causing harmful, irreversible damage to the planet’s weather patterns. A recent story from the Associated Press is a prime example of such tripe.
Australia is on the other side of the climate “debate” and is now undoing a carbon taxation scheme implemented just a short two years ago.
However, as the Associated Press warns, President Obama should try to avoid these pitfalls:
Opponents of the carbon tax implemented in 2012 had the media largely on their side. Electricity prices soared — not mainly because of the tax, but because power companies were spending billions on infrastructure. Most electricity users were compensated for the added cost of the tax, but many of them didn’t know that. And rising gas prices fed the fury — even though the tax didn’t apply to gasoline.
Trending: Cartoon of the Day: Pork-astucture
Australia’s experience illustrates how easy it is to scuttle complicated environmental laws, and serves as a warning to President Barack Obama, whose recent proposal to force a 30 percent cut in power plants’ carbon emissions is drawing anger from both sides of politics. [Emphasis added]
Yes, that’s right. Take the advice of this handy quick guide from the Associated Press on how to pass legislation which furthers the progressive agenda and avoid common mistakes like irritation from constituents. The story is actually written in a way that makes it abundantly clear to the President: Do not allow opposition to impugn your cause and wind up like the neanderthal Australians who used to be awesome but now hate the planet. When you’ve lost Australia on a so-called environmental issue, you’ve lost the issue.
The most inconvenient part of the “climate” debate, for the climate zealots, has to do with actual recorded data not matching the desires of “climate scientists” and faulty computer models. The earth has been continually cooling at least a decade now and the threat of increased hurricane activity gets disproved year after year. Don’t be fooled though, there’s always next season. Just ask the Cleveland Browns.
By all accounts, it seems to be Planet Earth itself which is the biggest climate change denier because it refuses to create actual weather which matches what liberal scientists say it is supposed to be. In essence, carbon taxation schemes are aimed at fighting a problem that only exists in thesis papers, not in real life.
When the actual data refutes the projected data but climate-activists continue to argue based on the projected data, please tell me which side of this non-debate debate is in denial?