Solve Climate News informs the readers that Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla) has introduced the motion to search and destroy the financial flows from the U.S. federal budget to the wallets of AGW parasites and fraudsters.
The idea is that they will look for the "climate change" keyword and ax any line items with this keyword.
I think it's a simple yet good idea except that there should be additional keywords, including "global warming", "IPCC", and maybe even things like "carbon emissions" or "carbon dioxide emissions", if not "green energy" etc.
If those words appear in a description of an item, it's pretty clear that the funding was okayed for ideological reasons by irresponsible politicians in the recent years - and the item wouldn't have been funded if the fashionable reference to the global warming hysteria were absent and if it had to be judged by the merit rather than keywords.
So it should be the default assumption that every penny that seems to be linked to "climate change" should be saved - and if there are some exceptions in which the money is actually going to something useful or even vital, these items should be discussed separately and one by one. If successful, the motion should stop sucking of the U.S. taxpayer's money by fraudulent organizations such as the IPCC, UNFCCC, and others.
However, one must realize that the biggest waste of money occurs indirectly in various "green energy" projects where the direct references to "climate change" could be absent or obfuscated, as well as in various regulations and bans that are not phrased as budget items.
The idea is that they will look for the "climate change" keyword and ax any line items with this keyword.
I think it's a simple yet good idea except that there should be additional keywords, including "global warming", "IPCC", and maybe even things like "carbon emissions" or "carbon dioxide emissions", if not "green energy" etc.
If those words appear in a description of an item, it's pretty clear that the funding was okayed for ideological reasons by irresponsible politicians in the recent years - and the item wouldn't have been funded if the fashionable reference to the global warming hysteria were absent and if it had to be judged by the merit rather than keywords.
So it should be the default assumption that every penny that seems to be linked to "climate change" should be saved - and if there are some exceptions in which the money is actually going to something useful or even vital, these items should be discussed separately and one by one. If successful, the motion should stop sucking of the U.S. taxpayer's money by fraudulent organizations such as the IPCC, UNFCCC, and others.
However, one must realize that the biggest waste of money occurs indirectly in various "green energy" projects where the direct references to "climate change" could be absent or obfuscated, as well as in various regulations and bans that are not phrased as budget items.
House GOP may finally remove U.S. funding for AGW freeloaders
![House GOP may finally remove U.S. funding for AGW freeloaders]()
Reviewed by MCH
on
August 26, 2011
Rating:
No comments: