Climate issues we need to address

We need to fix the climate of fraud, corruption, and policies that kill jobs, hope and people

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Reeling stock markets across the globe hammered savings, pension funds, innovation and growth. US stocks lost over $2 trillion in market value in eight days, before rallying somewhat, while the far smaller Shanghai Composite Index lost $1 trillion in four days of trading, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Battered economies continue to struggle. Investment banks are pulling out of developing countries. An already exploding and imploding Middle East now confronts a nuclear arms race and human exodus.

Complying just with federal regulations already costs American businesses and families $1.9 trillion per year, the Competitive Enterprise Institute calculates. That’s more than all 2014 personal and corporate income tax receipts combined – and Obama bureaucrats issued 3,554 new rules and regulations last year.

EPA’s 2,691-page Clean Power Plan is designed to eliminate coal mining and coal-fired power plants – and minimize natural gas substitutes. The CPP requires that gas use can increase by only 22% above 2012 levels by 2022, and just 5% per year thereafter. On top of that, new natural gas-fueled generating units that replace coal-fired power plants absurdly do not count toward state CO2 reduction mandates.

That means millions of acres of new wind and solar installations that generate expensive, unreliable electricity – and survive only because of subsidies, tariffs, anti-fossil fuel mandates, and exemptions from endangered species, environmental impact and other requirements that block fossil fuel projects.

Anti-energy, anti-growth policies imposed in name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” impact everything we do. For minority, elderly and working class families, they bring soaring electricity costs, rising unemployment, unproductive lives on government assistance, diminished health and welfare, and shorter life spans. They hogtie economies and kill jobs, prolong and worsen economic quagmires, crush aspirations and opportunities, perpetuate poverty, and foster anger, unrest and conflict.

None of these hard realities seems to bother President Obama, though. In fact, he is determined to use the December climate conference in Paris to lock the United States into binding treaty commitments to slash the common folks’ fossil fuel use, CO2 emissions, economic growth and job creation even further.

Anyone who cares about living standards, lifting billions of people out of abject poverty, and reining in the power of unaccountable US, EU and UN bureaucrats needs to pay attention and get involved.

Earth’s climate is doing pretty much what it always has: responding to powerful natural forces, changing, and driving atmospheric patterns and weather events that benefit some, harm others and sometimes wreak devastation. It is not doing what gloom-and-doom computer models and headlines predicted.

We do not need to “fix” or “control” the climate. We couldn’t if we tried. We do need to fix the climate of fraud, corruption and destructive policies that kill jobs, dreams and people. We need to realize that most countries will not commit economic suicide. They may sign a climate treaty – but for reasons that have nothing to do with environmental protection … and only if their obligations are distant and ephemeral.

Mr. Obama has said from the outset that he would use executive decrees to “fundamentally transform” the United States and ensure that electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.” He has kept his word.

He and his friends in the UN, EU, Big Green and Climate Crisis Industry have also made it clear that they intend to use the Paris conference to negotiate the future distribution of the world’s wealth and resources, determine what economic growth and living standards are “ecologically feasible,” and transform the global economic development model: replacing sovereign nations and free enterprise capitalism with global governance and decision-making based on “sustainable development” and “dangerous manmade climate change” mantras. 1992 climate conference organizers even said saving the world requires that they cause “industrialized civilization to collapse.” They intend to keep their promises.

Impoverished people in developing countries reject this agenda. They want sustained development, not sustainable development. They want decent jobs and modern houses, hospitals and living standards.

Thus, under the proposed Paris treaty, only developed countries will be required to slash fossil fuel use. “Poor” nations (including China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Russia) will not be obligated to reduce their carbon-based energy use or carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions by any specific amounts or dates – though some say they “intend to try” to reduce emissions or may present non-binding targets some years from now. Most will dramatically increase their oil, gas and coal use, and CO2/GHG emissions.

The real bribe to induce poor nations to sign a new treaty is a binding commitment that increasingly less developed, less energy-powered, less rich countries will give “poor” nations (or at least their ruling elites) $100 billion per year in climate adaptation, mitigation and reparation payments. That’s to cover damages that developed nations have supposedly inflicted on Earth’s climate. FRCs (Formerly Rich Countries) will also be required to give “poor” nations advanced energy and other technologies, at no cost.

Even more insane, the entire basis for this agenda, this treaty, these commitments and non-commitments, is bald assertions – driven by garbage in/garbage out computer models and deceptive, fraudulent science – that humanity faces “unprecedented” global warming, rising ocean, weather and other calamities.

About the only unprecedented event in the past century is that no category 3-5 hurricane has hit the USA in nearly a decade. Climate alarmists refuse to discuss that. Their other assertions are pure fiction.

Claims that 2014 was the “hottest year on record,” and July 2015 was “the hottest July” since “at least 1880,” are based on city and airport temperatures that are always several degrees higher than those at nearby rural sites. (Satellite data show no warming for 18 years.) The “superheated planet” alarums involve hundredths of a degree: less than the margin of error. They are based mainly on only 1,200 measuring stations for Earth’s entire surface – with few in the coldest regions, and millions of acres of missing data simply extrapolated from urban numbers. The “hottest ever” charade also assumes reliable temperature data exist for the entire USA and planet all the way back to 1880! It defies belief.

(For more examples of climate scare deceit, see Climate Hype Exposed, Heartland’s Top 10 Global Warming Lies, the Aussie temperature scam, the Gore-a-thon analysis, and much more.

Imagine your life without electricity, or only when it’s available, or costing so much you can’t afford it and your now-bankrupt former employer couldn’t afford either. Imagine the EPA and UN controlling the juice that powers everything in your life: transportation, manufacturing, communications, entertainment, life after dark, life in hot and cold weather, the enormous infrastructure and energy demands that feed your smart phone. No wonder Google scientists finally admitted renewable energy is a pipedream.

Too many environmental laws no longer focus on protecting the environment. They have become bureaucratic weapons to protect chosen industries and destroy those connected to carbon-based fuels.

Denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy is immoral – and often lethal. It is an unconscionable crime against humanity to implement policies that pretend to protect the world’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate dangers decades from now – by perpetuating energy deprivation, poverty, malnutrition and disease that kill millions of them tomorrow.

Letting this climate fear mongering continue also means fewer jobs, more welfare, lower living standards, and deteriorating health and welfare – except for ruling elites. But so far too few politicians, candidates, clergy and business leaders have shown the courage to speak out – even as every Democratic would-be successor to Mr. Obama seems hell-bent on going even further than he has on all these policies.

Our next president and congress must focus on job and economic growth, and overall human welfare. They must review and roll back destructive regulations, root out the fraud and corruption, and restore honesty, transparency and real science to our political and regulatory system.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gunga Din
August 30, 2015 3:02 pm

As long as what Willis ( pointed out is true, the “Green Cream” will rise to the top. Not where it’s needed.
(It might be “brown cream” tomorrow but it won’t supply what is really needed. As long as it rises.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 30, 2015 10:30 pm

Scum also rises to the top.

Another Ian
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
August 31, 2015 2:53 am

Think of a vegetarian’s dunny

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  Gunga Din
August 31, 2015 5:39 am

What rises to the top Gunga Din is the power of the Congress.
If Paris results in a treaty it has to be ratified by Congress before it becomes operational.
Do you really think Congress will ratify such destructive document?
Have faith in the American political system. If that fails then the Commos have won. Then the real fun starts.

Reply to  Sceptical Sam
August 31, 2015 6:06 am

My faith in Anerican political system has been severely shaken, especially in the power of congress regarding treaties.
Somehow Iran “deal” is not a treaty, so congress instead of approving it has to disallow it with veto-proof majority, and Obama said that even if that happen he still will be able to implement most of it.
I hope you right, but I fear we are too late

Gunga Din
Reply to  Sceptical Sam
August 31, 2015 3:17 pm

It doesn’t take “Congress”, just the Senate to ratify a treaty. The Senate was originally to represent the State Governments in Congress while the House of Representatives was to give The People their voice in Congress.
The “balance of powers” built into the Constitution has been tipping in favor of the the Executive Branch and the Courts for decades.
Obama’s tipping it further away from The People.
A minority with something to gain seem to like that.

Retired Engineer Jim
August 30, 2015 3:06 pm

Will the Paris meeting result in a treaty, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate (for US approval), or merely an agreement, like the Iranian nuclear deal?

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
August 30, 2015 4:02 pm

A treaty would require a two thirds vote to approve it, so no, it won’t be a real treaty. If they cat get a deal in Paris at all, it will be like the Iranian agreement. And some stooge in Congress will offer a bill, like the Corker bill, that will allow the deal to pass with only 34 Senate votes.

EC Burgener
Reply to  Louis Hunt
August 30, 2015 4:55 pm

As I understand it, the pres can sign a treaty under the constitution without Congress if the USA faces the biggest threat of our time from CO2.
So when BO said “the biggest threat to the USA is climate change”, is this not a gambit to do an end run on Congress?

Reply to  Louis Hunt
August 30, 2015 7:10 pm

The president can sign anything he likes, but it doesn’t become official until it is passed by 2/3rds of the senate.

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
August 30, 2015 8:11 pm

nothing will go through Congress, so “deals” and treaties are out. The only option is the current path, regulatory, of declaring CO2 a “pollutant” with calculable heath impacts and “outlawing” emissions. Of course increased CO2 has net positive health impacts, but science is fungible with the EPA.

Melbourne Resident
August 30, 2015 3:37 pm

I couldn’t have said it better. Well done Mr Driessen. I will be re-posting this in as many places as I can manage. We are tired of being defrauded by those who claim to care for the planet when not caring a fig for their own people. Strong western economies mean strong worldwide trade and a demand for goods and services from the third world. With bankrupt economies everyone will suffer. It is time to throw out the UN and the EU and all other 2 letter acronyms!
Enjoy the day

Reply to  Melbourne Resident
August 30, 2015 10:17 pm

Absolutely Melbourne Resident. Same here for lil ole’ N.Z. Those outfits are ruining their own economies and won’t be happy until the have stuffed ours as well. Co2 a pollutant? The staff of life a pollutant? Without this energy we would still be back in the dark ages.

Reply to  Melbourne Resident
August 30, 2015 11:07 pm

I don’t think the guest post drives home the bleedingly obvious fact that economic collapse, austerity and so on has *already*, i repeat “already”, created the effect of causing the affected population to emit less CO2 and other anthropogenic emissions.

Reply to  MikeFromAu
August 31, 2015 12:58 pm

..just to help the environment I hold my breath 5 times a day for as long as I can. in those few seconds I become a “negative carbon producer”. I wonder if I can get a subsidy….

August 30, 2015 4:14 pm

“Claims that 2014 was the “hottest year on record,” and July 2015 was “the hottest July” since “at least 1880,” are based on city and airport temperatures that are always several degrees higher than those at nearby rural sites. ”
There is little doubt that 2014 was the warmest ever for most areas of North America including US and Canada
The trend of United States annual and seasonal temperature anomalies has been declining for 18 years or since 1998.

August 30, 2015 4:16 pm

my last post should read
There is little doubt that 2014 was NOT the warmest ever for most areas of North America including US and Canada

Retired Engineer Jim
Reply to  herkimer
August 30, 2015 4:35 pm

Whew. Now it make sense. But which “dataset” were you referencing?

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
August 31, 2015 5:57 am

Retired engineer Jim
Go to CLIMATE AT A GLANCE . It is an interactive web page where you enter your desired parameters

August 30, 2015 4:43 pm

Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao were genocidal maniacs. I never thought, that, I would begin to categorize the aforementioned with the name of a US president but as history shows and as any numerate economist cogent business analyst, logical thinker will inform you if you start to allow governments to limit and regulate the means of production, the only outcome its names are – famine and death.
Standing on the White House lawn, his children in the foreground – Obama told the world paraphrasing….. “my kids are worried about man made climate change and pester me to do something about it”. Roll up, the sanctimony of the liberal bleeding hearts fanatics with their well earned reputation for boundless financial illiteracy, that’s a perfect recipe for a political deconstruction – of big state policy shambles to which Obama duly obliged.
Now that, Barrack Hussein has succeeded in taking the wrecking ball to America, he shifts focus onto his legacy, to secure his ever lasting endowment with a eye always on the corporate gravy train speaking circuit and old boys network – he will seek to strap the world to the cross of global warming by attempting to facilitate a binding legislative agreement on CO² emissions limitation.
Obama, always was a whack job Marxist, for two long interminable terms, what a con job he pulled.
At the end and here’s irony, can be a harsh and bitter pill, black hearted at that, indeed, the economic bonanza and the ensuing rebirth which rescued Obama’s presidency from political annihilation and as far as legacy was concerned extricated him from total oblivion………………. the US SHALE GAS/OIL BOOM….

Reply to  Athelstan.
August 30, 2015 4:52 pm

how true …thanks Athelstan

Reply to  Athelstan.
August 30, 2015 5:44 pm

Now, now–Obama is doing exactly what the puppet masters want him to do–look behind the curtain for the real culprits

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Athelstan.
August 30, 2015 10:40 pm

Obama is the real culprit here. I you look behind the curtain you will just see more PC radical progressives. Odd how when a would be tyrant tells you what he is going to do, we ignore it, and ultimately he does just what he said he would do. Assertions that he is just the front guy and look behind the curtain a calculated distractions to protect the tyrant.

August 30, 2015 5:00 pm

There is another issue at stake, too. As Jerry Pournelle pointed out years ago, if we use our natural resources to get into space on a grand scale we can mine the solar system for eons to come. If we try to conserve these resources for the sake of conserving our resources we’ll simply run out, thereby destroying any chance of using the vast wealth awaiting us out there.

Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 30, 2015 5:07 pm

Stop that reason and logic, this is Climatology.
We intend to wail and snivel, kneecapping any who attempt to climb out of this gravity well, while our high priests chant and pray for the asteroid.
Because social justice insists we must all aspire to the lowest common level.
Losing is mutual?

Leonard Lane
Reply to  john robertson
August 30, 2015 10:44 pm

John. Would you accept cryptoclimatology? How about climate séance?

Chip Javert
Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 30, 2015 5:40 pm

Well, you win the prize for unbridled enthusiasm.
Yea, yea, I understand technology tends to get more productive as it matures, but considering the USA spent roughly $100 billion to return 832 pounds of moon rocks, chasing teeny weenie comets around the solar system to get “stuff” might not actually deliver “vast wealth”.
Note: Apollo cost $20 billion in 1960’s dollars, or $110 billion in today’s money (

Gregory Lawn
Reply to  Chip Javert
August 30, 2015 9:37 pm

The Appolo missions resulted in spectacular ecoonomic growth, industry, and improvement of life.GPS, computer technology, better weather forecasting, miniaturization, medical advances, knowledge about the universe and physics; the list is endless. NASA achieved great things until it was hijacked by the likes of Hanson and became a political kludge. What a shame it has lost sight of its mission.

Reply to  Chip Javert
August 30, 2015 10:31 pm

People spent a lot of money on airplanes before it really amounted to much economic activity. The first computers cost a king’s ransom and hardly had any processing power or memory.
And like Mr. Lawn said, the innovations made to make the moon landings possible continue to reap rewards to this day.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Chip Javert
August 31, 2015 9:15 am

Menicholas August 30, 2015 at 10:31 pm
“People spent a lot of money on airplanes before it really amounted to much economic activity. The first computers cost a king’s ransom and hardly had any processing power or memory.
And like Mr. Lawn said, the innovations made to make the moon landings possible continue to reap rewards to this day.”
Wind turbines, and solar power is´t new technology any more. Also, there are physical limitations for how much energy you can possibly get per square meter of a solar panel, or per square meter (vertical) a wind turbine is covering. Energy production is not equivalent to microprocessors and computer memory. There are physical limitations which will hinder exponential growth of energy output per the capital expended in constructing these energy sources.
Also the energy infrastructure will increase in complexity, and you will need a full capacity back up system. You need a full capacity back up system for the cold winter days when the wind isn´t blowing and the sun is weak – when the energy is needed the most and is also most expensive. The increased investments in new energy sources, back-up energy sources, operational complexity and maintenance requirements must lead to increased energy costs. Increased energy costs will cause a general price increase through a mechanism called cost push inflation caused by supply side shock.
The energy cost will increase as a consequence of the forced or subsidized investments in solar and wind power. Personally I can handle a significant increase in energy costs, but I care for those who cant.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Chip Javert
August 31, 2015 11:31 am

Cheaper than war….

Reply to  Chip Javert
August 31, 2015 11:39 am

Moon rocks showed that the lunar crust has a lot of valuable minerals, to include the rare earth elements over which China holds sway on earth, soon to be followed by North Korea.

Reply to  Chip Javert
August 31, 2015 5:30 pm

Science or fiction,
I should have specified what comments I was responding to.
I was responding to the person who suggested that the money spent on the space program was wasted because all we got were a few hundred pounds of moon rocks.
In Lindberg’s day some large amount of money had been spent on airplanes, and all we had to show for it at that time were a bunch of joy rides.

Reply to  Chip Javert
August 31, 2015 5:31 pm

I know this is not precisely true, but you get the idea.
I was not commenting on solar or wind energy at all.

Reply to  Chip Javert
August 31, 2015 9:24 pm

You are correct. It was a mining operation. The thought was that those rocks could deliver something that would vastly outstrip the cost. Fusion energy

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Chip Javert
September 1, 2015 9:07 am

Menicholas August 31, 2015 at 5:30 pm
Sorry, my fault, I did put up a straw man based on a discussion I recently had. It was not related to what you actually wrote.

Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 31, 2015 3:15 am

To conserve means to protect from harm or destruction. If we use up all our resources now we no longer have any. To conserve them means we have them to use into the future. Btw, how do we pay for all this space mining you talk about? Does the govt raise our taxes for it?

Reply to  LouMaytrees
August 31, 2015 5:25 pm

No atoms are ever “used up” on the earth.
And the Earth is big.
We live in a planet which is awash in energy.
Just what resources are you concerned will be used all up?

Reply to  Menicholas
August 31, 2015 5:31 pm

Copper, iron, things like that. There is only so much of it available, and recycling weakens it and requires yet more energy. Rare earth minerals. I can’t give you a list, I’ll leave that to those who have already warned about this. The atoms will still be around, yes. And if you can make a spaceship out of atoms in A.D. 2300 when we’ve pretty much run out of the raw materials, then everything is going to be fine.
(PS: 2300 is just a number I pulled out of my hat.)

Reply to  LouMaytrees
August 31, 2015 5:29 pm

Mining the moon and asteroids won’t happen unless and until it is economical to do so.
This is the opposite of the insane subsidies that so many countries are paying to feed the Green Monster which is devouring their children and elderly.

Reply to  LouMaytrees
September 1, 2015 5:33 am

Copper, iron, things like that. There is only so much of it available, and recycling weakens it and requires yet more energy.
what gets used up is the cheap iron. like oil, the expensive stuff is never in short supply.comment image

Russ Wood
Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 31, 2015 3:26 am

A standard Science Fiction T-shirt read “The meek shall inherit the Earth – the rest of us are going to the stars”.

August 30, 2015 5:09 pm

Two things:
Remove all government money from anything climate or environment related.
Prosecute for fraud the scammers who are constantly adjusting century-old data to the fullest extent of the law. Serious jail time will greatly deter any future charlatans.

Reply to  nigelf
August 30, 2015 9:14 pm

In professional cycling, we have drug junkies, like Armstrong, who is still showing off, as if nothing unusual happened ( and thousands of others). In “professional climate science”, we have similar fixers, who constantly adjust obervations to whatever is needed to save the “cause”, like Mr Mann (and thousands of others). This is what the world is like today, 2015.

Bob K.
August 30, 2015 5:56 pm

So, ‘…July 2015 was “the hottest July” since “at least 1880,” …’ – doesn’t that mean that it was just as hot in 1880 as it was in 2015? The AGW must have been happening already in 1880 too, then…

Reply to  Bob K.
August 31, 2015 1:03 am

That’s logic……they don’t do logic.

Reply to  Bob K.
September 1, 2015 4:04 am

It means there were not good temperature records prior to 1880, not that 1880 was as warm as 2015.

August 30, 2015 6:28 pm

do I believe a Pew poll on CAGW? no. WSJ has most GOP presidential candidates, except for Trump, moving into the Believer camp! readers commenting are mostly sceptics:
30 Aug: WSJ: Amy Harder: Obama’s Arctic Trip Comes as Climate Change Builds as 2016 Issue
Hillary Clinton and other Democrats take on more aggressive stances than president amid changing public opinion; Republican field remains divided
His (Obama’s) visit to the North Pole region, the first ever for a sitting president, coincides with a growing public consensus that the earth is heating up and that humans have something to do with it.
A July report from the Pew Research Center found that 72% of American adults say there is “solid evidence” of global warming. Of those respondents, 46% said the warming trend is “mostly due to human activity,” compared with 22% who blamed it on mostly on “natural patterns.”…
The crowded Republican field remains divided on the issue, although public opinion is prompting some candidates to address it in more substantive ways…
“I think Secretary Clinton has made a decision to prioritize climate change in her campaign,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “You have polling consistently showing Americans want more action on climate change.” …
Nearly two-thirds of Americans, especially young people, support putting stricter pollution limits on power plants to address climate change, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in early August…
“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING b—has got to stop,” Mr. Trump tweeted on Jan. 1, 2014, one of his more recent posts on the subject. “Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.”…

August 30, 2015 7:02 pm

Where I live here in the Baja, Mex I only get CNN news in English. They have been putting on a series on Climate Change. Of course everyone on decrees that it a crisis. There are no dissenting, or opposing views from scientists or people in general. They just did a story on the Marshall Islands and that it will (“possibly”) be submerged by sea level rise soon, because of climate change, and wonder where all the population will have to go to get off the island(s). Couldn’t take it, so I just emailed CNN with some DATA. I’m sure they will alter their story accordingly. /sarc..

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 30, 2015 7:10 pm

I emailed them (CNN) this paper:
and I suggested they contact Nils-Axel Mörner.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 30, 2015 10:47 pm

Thanks for the effort!

Tom Harley
August 30, 2015 7:13 pm

The left, and their media enablers need to have the lies called out at every incident.
It doesn’t seem to matter to them, or their media enablers, that all they have left are the lies, bullying and propaganda to achieve their agenda. They are nothing but Paris-ites and parasites. It never was about the science, just how it could be manipulated.
The left’s ‘environmental’ agenda is helping destroy the environment, one ‘Green’ grant at a time.

August 30, 2015 7:17 pm

We need to have a better understanding of what and how the actual anthropogenic temperature record changes have influenced records used to explain exactly that. Look at the adjustments. What did they do to Nasa and GISS over the last 10 years let alone the 40’s blip……. just an example.
All,,,,,, every single one of the adjustments, IMHO, are all indeed recorded and verifiable as anthropogenic in the end. Humans changed it, no?
Just sayin……..

August 30, 2015 7:36 pm

great article! have tweeted Donald J. Trump asking what a Trump presidency would do to END the green madness and fraud…. and to NZ PM John Key…. NZ really needs to stop following the UN shite.

August 30, 2015 8:27 pm

When does the revolution come? Only with searing pain?

August 30, 2015 9:12 pm

Complying just with federal regulations already costs American businesses and families $1.9 trillion per year, the Competitive Enterprise Institute calculates. That’s more than all 2014 personal and corporate income tax receipts combined

No, it isn’t.
The 2014 Daily Treasury Statement for Sept 30, 2014 lists Federal Tax Deposits in TABLE IV for the year. (page 2 of 2)
Combined personal and corporate income tax receipts for 2014 are $2.5 trillion ($2,491,649 million), of which $345 billion ($345,332 million) are corporate taxes. The rest comes from ordinary working folk taxed beyond the need to with this economy the way it is.
NOT complying with federal banking regulations during the Clinton and Bush Jr. admins cost 10,000,000 Americans their homes, and 45,000,000 their jobs. That pimp, former NY Fed Prez Timothy Geithner, was warned in Sept 2004 by the FBI in open testimony on the Hill–CNN reported it–that there was an “epidemic of mortgage fraud” in the country, 90% were fraudulent, and the SOB did nothing about it. It is the NY Federal Reserve’s job to regulate mortgage banks–because they are not under federal charter–and he didn’t do it. Obamakins not only let him slide, he made him Treas. Sec.
So it’s not all regulations. I want my food regulated, for example.

Reply to  MRW
August 31, 2015 6:22 am

Where did you see anyone argue for all or nothing? Of course we need regulations. It’s just current regulatory regime is completely crazy.
And housing bubble was not cause by not following regulations – it was caused by following them, those that were based on Community Reinvestment Act and arised from repeal of Glass-Steagall Act.

Reply to  Udar
August 31, 2015 11:51 am

Udar, incorrectamundo. The housing bubble was caused by not following regulations (including getting the regulations changed to actuate the fraud). The Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with it. It was “control fraud,” which is a white-collar crime term that means fraud committed by those at the top, those in control. The Clinton admin started it, and Bush Jr’s admin piled on. If you have 1/2 hour, listen to top white-collar criminologist Dr. Bill Black, the guy who put 1,000 bankers and politicians in jail in the early 1990s for the S&L crisis–including the Democratic Speaker of the House–describe exactly how they did it in plain English.
I guarantee you, Udar, this is worth listening to if you like your explanations plain, clear, detailed…and entertaining.
The fix was in long before they repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999.

Reply to  Udar
August 31, 2015 1:39 pm

The housing bubble was caused by not following regulations (including getting the regulations changed to actuate the fraud)
That’s a contradiction. If regulations were changed, and lenders were following new regulations, they were following them, right?
The banking and mortgage industries are some of the most hevily regulated industries in the nation.
I have read what Black had to say about CRA. His argument against CRA as reason for bubble is that most damaging loans were “no income verification” loans, which weren’t counted toward CRA, so CRA has nothing to do with it.
Even though I have not been able to confirm or deny his assertion, what he says is immateriel. Why? Because of this:
Remarks by Governor Laurence H. Meyer
Before the 1998 Community Reinvestment Act Conference of the Consumer Bankers Association, Arlington, Virginia

The Community Reinvestment Act has contributed to this increase in the availability and affordability of credit. At a minimum, CRA has helped spur the development of new tools and techniques to help serve credit needs that in the past banks were either unable or unwilling to serve. At its best, CRA also has stimulated competition for loans and banking services in low- and moderate-income communities, leading many institutions on a continuing search for techniques to help better understand and mitigate consumer lending risks.
As remarks by banking oversight authority shown, CRA has created all the tools required for creation of fradulent no-income verification loans.
I don’t even want to go into details of no-money down mortgages and mortages at more than 100% of house value, which were mandated by CRA.
In any event, most of the fradulent mortrgages were made by following the regulations. Those were bad regulation, to be sure, but they were regulations.

Reply to  Udar
September 1, 2015 12:38 pm

Udar, thanks for your reply. I don’t have the time to go into the detailed explanations Bill Black gave in the interview I linked to, but if you want an understanding of how the housing bubble was actually engineered, I still stand that it is one of the best explanations I’ve heard so far.
Be that as it may, the Community Reinvestment Act represented buyers whether they be the poor the Act was designed to help, or the rich who didn’t need the Act. As Black said in the interview, buyers cannot alter the appraisal amount. Buyers cannot set the Loan-To-Value (LTV) rate. Buyers cannot set the interest rate, or determine the amount of the loan. Only the Lenders can, and Black explains how they did. They used mortgage banks (e.g Ameriquest, Citiwide) which are not regulated under the federal bank charter to create “disastrously bad loans” under the formula Nobel Prize winners Akerlof and Romer described in their 1993 article “Bankruptcy for Profit” as a “sure thing.” The CEO walked away rich from the quantity of loans–they were paid based on the amount of loans created–and left the financial wake to others.
The interview is worth your hearing.

David Walton
August 30, 2015 9:47 pm

Outstanding. Thank you Paul Driessen and Anthony Watts for giving Mr. Driessen a voice in your wonderful forum.

August 30, 2015 10:28 pm

I don’t think Trump will survive the actual primary votes. I think Ted Cruz has the staying power with many of the same Trump issues. But I think he is more articulate about them. The primary’s are a long way off. I just hope Trump doesn’t turn into another Ross Perrow…it will then guarantee a Democrat whether it be Hillary, Bernie, or Joe Biden…etc…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 31, 2015 7:38 am

Ross Perot :
“It’s not about potato chips, it’s about computer chips”.
Had he won, we would be in a much better place at this time.

August 30, 2015 10:33 pm

The comment
“Complying just with federal regulations already costs American businesses and families $1.9 trillion per year, the Competitive Enterprise Institute calculates. That’s more than all 2014 personal and corporate income tax receipts combined..”
Implies that if PAYE and corporate taxpayers refuse to comply both them and the USA would be better off economically. The obvious question is why do they do it?
Barrier to competitve entry maybe. Tax deductability more like!
It is no wonder that the IS caliphate govt model is so appealing and western governments are short of “revenue”. They are so smart that they shoot themselves and their young in the foot.

August 30, 2015 10:46 pm

Well done, thanks! Keep it up.

August 31, 2015 12:29 am

Do you Yanks not realize how fubared you are? Cripes. I agree with Walker, build a big wall at the 49th and keep you nuts out!

Reply to  Justthinkin
September 1, 2015 9:48 am

Have you looked around lately? Ontario and Quebec joined the California Carbon trading scam. BC has their very own Carbon tax formula. Alberta has a tax on Carbon and the Loonies in charge are looking at increasing them along with building thousands of bird choppers and solar panels ang not allowing replacement of coal plants with natural gas ( which won’t happen). At the same time as we have lost 50,000 jobs in the oil patch. I’m thinking maybe we need to join BRICS. The inmates appear to be in charge of the asylum.

August 31, 2015 3:15 am

Paul, what an excellent article! I totally agree with everything you said. Our economies and way of life rely on computers, computers rely on electricity, without reliable electricity we will return to the Middle Ages.

August 31, 2015 4:54 am

Green policies make sense in the US if you plan to rule the rubble.

August 31, 2015 6:14 am

Gregory lawn Ect. Very correct. Also if we had not had WWI and 2 we would still be going around in horse carts probably.

August 31, 2015 8:58 am

“But so far too few politicians, candidates, clergy and business leaders have shown the courage to speak out”
Don’t expect any motivation from the fat-cat millionaires….

August 31, 2015 11:07 am

Human corruption is not going to be “cleaned up”, you get to manage its worst aspects if you’re lucky. Climate itself remains true.
So this is really about politics/policy and the failure of climate itself to apparently matter. For if climate itself mattered and we were only interested in data, we wouldn’t be too worried about the climate changing, it would be almost a non-issue.
It’s the politics that’s corrupt, and dragging science into the sewer.

Village Idiot
August 31, 2015 11:36 am

Now that’s what I call a Rant!!

August 31, 2015 12:39 pm

“We do not need to “fix” or “control” the climate.”
Amen to that. This is what alarmists fail to see – they are so focused on the “change” and weather that they fail to see the norm. One example is from just yesterday – someone on YouTube commented on a video of Bernie Sanders supposedly “smashing” James Inhofe (nevermind he did no such thing – Bernie simply was shouting about sea level rise and such as if that would make his case). Anyway, the comment was to the effect that it’s hard to “fix” the planet. To which I responded “The planet doesn’t need fixing; it’s pretty predictable – spring, summer, fall, and winter.”
This idiocy has got to come to an end soon. There is no reasoning with insane people; they don’t accept the opposing seasons (I’m not kidding – many of them do not know how the seasons work.) I keep hoping that the weather is so stable they are totally lacking in “evidence” for their case.

August 31, 2015 2:27 pm

Number one issue is clearly fraud. It is practiced by temperature control bodies such as HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC with the aim of changing our impression of what the climate is really doing. I will give you an example involving the existence of a ‘pause’/hiatus of warming that I have periodically brought up. It is not the one you think of. There was a complete stoppage of warming in the eighties and nineties that lasted from 1979 to 1997, an 18 year stretch. That is as long as the current well-known ‘hiatus’ has lasted. But you will not find it from official land-based temperature curves set up by the three organizations named above. That is because they are deliberately pushing a false picture of warming upon us. In the place of a hiatus of the eighties and nineties they show a fake “late twentieth century warming” that does not exist. How do I know this? Because fortunately these guys still don’t control the satellites, and there is that hiatus in satellite records for anyone to pull down. I discovered this in 2008 while doing research for my book “What Warming?” I also discovered then that HadCRUT3 was instrumental in the cover-up operation and even put a warning about it into the preface of the book. Nothing happened. Later I connected all three organizations above with the cover-up when it turned out that they had had their data-sets adjusted by the same computer and the computer left its footprints on the output from all three temperature curves. These footprints consist of a set of identical sharp upward spikes that heretofore had passed as noise, which they are not. Two of them sit right on top of their version of the super El Nino of 1998. Despite this dirty work the status of the hiatus in the eighties and nineties is not in doubt,however, thanks to ENSO. Its oscillations created a wave train of five El Nino peaks, with La Nina valleys in between them, right smack in the middle of the hiatus. In such a case the global mean temperature is determined by the midpoint of a line connecting an El Nino peak with its neighboring La Nina valley. I marked all these midpoints for the entire wave train. I ended up with all the dots forming a horizontal straight line, proving absence of warming for 18 years. The hiatus itself, with dots marking the progression of global mean temperature, is shown as figure 15 in the book. The role of HadCRUT3 in the cover-up operation is shown in figure 24 in the book. When a hiatus exists atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps increasing but there is no corresponding warming as predicted by the Arrhenius greenhouse theory. That of course is a wrong prediction, repeated 18 times, and invalidates the Arrhenius greenhouse theory completely. But the IPCC has been using it and they still do not want to let it go. They can be reassured that an alternative greenhouse theory exists that explains it all. It is called MGT (Miskolczi greenhouse theory), the one they summarily rejected in 2007. Numerous alarmist authors feel the same way as the IPCC does and have published more than two dozen scholarly, peer-reviewed articles to prove that there is no hiatus. They have not succeeded. They are looking for a “missing heat” somewhere in the ocean when it actually left for outer space before they even got started. Two of the articles made a splash, One of them was by Karl and the other one by Trenberth. Karl’s argument depends upon a completely re-written global temperature record that should fit in well with the re-written hiatus of the eighties and nineties. Even so, I could find only two experimental points in his entire paper could qualify as observations of warming. MGT, the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, differs from the Arrhenius greenhouse theory in being able to handle more than one greenhouse gas simultaneously absorbing in the IR. The Arrhenius theory can handle only one – carbon dioxide. That makes it incomplete because there are several different greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is why it differs from reality. According to MGT, carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared whose whose optical thickness is 1.87. This value was obtained by analysis of radiosonde measurements. In 2010 Miskolczi showed that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for 61 years straight did not change its optical thickness in the IR. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb IR just as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course continue to absorb but the reduction of water vapor has reduced the total absorptivity enough to prevent any warming. And that explains why there is no warming during a hiatus. We are now dealing with the working out of the consequences of applying the laws of nature to climate, not with inexplicable changes to natural laws as uninformed opinion would argue. Just the mere existence of the hiatus proves that both the greenhouse effect of Hansen as well as AGW simply do not exist. It follows from this that all the money spent and laws invented to fight CARBON DIOXIDE POLLUTION are a complete and total waste. When that truth sinks in there will be plenty of people who were involved instigating this insanity who need to be punished. First step should be to fire them all from government service. Second one, cancel all contracts involved with mitigation. And don’t forget to nullify the laws these people stuck us with. There is more, but I will leave the rest for local options that are sure to come up.

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
September 1, 2015 12:39 pm

PLEASE use paragraph breaks.

August 31, 2015 10:32 pm

The EU has taken action regarding energy based more on economical reasons rather than on climate reasons. The real problem of global warming is not pollution, energy consumption, etc. There are so many factors that influence climate, that those ones are at the bottom of the list. I see it is being ignored the fact that the oceans, second after the sun, have a big influence on the climate. And I would add that, due to the human intervention on the oceans, on the wind and on the land, MAN MAKES CLIMATE, as shown here:

September 2, 2015 10:54 am

• WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO PREPARE FOR FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE [an alternative to climate warming alarmism)

Canadian Climate Guy
September 6, 2015 5:20 am

Reblogged this on Canadian Climate Guy and commented:
Can it be fixed? We can only hope and stay active… the sceptics will one day be proven right.

%d bloggers like this: