GLOBAL WARMING A $22 BILLION SCAM...A Newsmax Special Report

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

That's right up there with Mantooths logical fallacy fails... calling names... While you ignore billions being bilked from US taxpayers to fund your deceptions and lies..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Pauses in global temperature anomaly have been taking place several times in the past, but the trend line is upward.

The sea ice extent for both ice caps shows a decreasing trend. More important is sea ice volume.

Skeptics have validated both the mainstream argument and even the consensus in their own studies. I posted details elsewhere.

SO... Solar out put is falling and the earths position, relative to the sun, is growing longer in distance and history has shown a cooling phase happens every time this occurs.. You do realize the earths oceans have about 15 years of heat ballast and that has been used up as the global ocean temps are now falling. Our Solar cycle is now in decline as well. If you can not see we are about to enter a very cold phase in earth cycles i feel woefully sorry for you. You will be unprepared for it and because you will be unprepared, so will millions of people..

I wonder how your feel good society of socialists will feel when it is their people dying from starvation and exposure due to your stupidity?

 

[mamooth]

"Newsmax Special Report"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Obviously, the dickless brigade here breathlessly reads Newsmax every day, and believes it all instantly, without even thinking to ever question their masters.

Billy, skook, Bri, Porker, Elektra and Vig here are the reason Newsmax always runs those ads for "invest in gold" or "cure impotence". It's a site that gathers in the sheep for a good fleecing, counting on the fact that sheep are so freakin' stupid.

Anyways sheep, good luck with the hair restoring cream that's on its way to you now. Maybe this one will work.

 

[bripat9643]

"Newsmax Special Report"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Obviously, the dickless brigade here breathlessly reads Newsmax every day, and believes it all instantly, without even thinking to ever question their masters.

Billy, skook, Bri, Porker, Elektra and Vig here are the reason Newsmax always runs those ads for "invest in gold" or "cure impotence". It's a site that gathers in the sheep for a good fleecing, counting on the fact that sheep are so freakin' stupid.

Anyways sheep, good luck with the hair restoring cream that's on its way to you now. Maybe this one will work.

You have no facts or logic, in other words.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Newsmax Special Report"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Obviously, the dickless brigade here breathlessly reads Newsmax every day, and believes it all instantly, without even thinking to ever question their masters.

Billy, skook, Bri, Porker, Elektra and Vig here are the reason Newsmax always runs those ads for "invest in gold" or "cure impotence". It's a site that gathers in the sheep for a good fleecing, counting on the fact that sheep are so freakin' stupid.

Anyways sheep, good luck with the hair restoring cream that's on its way to you now. Maybe this one will work.

And Man Tooth shows it has ZERO cognitive thinking skills or even an ounce of science to support its failed position.. IT uses Alyinsky tactics in an attempt to smear those who dont buy its bull shit...

 

[orogenicman]

Right. The internet? A scam. Cars? A scam. Hydroelectric plants? Microwave ovens? Scam. And on and on and on and on...

(eyes roll)

Government can't justify $70 trillion in new taxes based on the internet, cars, microwave ovens and hydroelectric plants, numskull.

But then, you can't justify that number, so - your point?

I believe that's the number reported by the IPCC in one of its jokes of a report.

It doesn't really matter because all such estimates are hysterical science fiction.

Only a moron would fail to get the point. The climate change hoax means big bucks to the government and it's servile minions.

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

 

[bripat9643]

Government can't justify $70 trillion in new taxes based on the internet, cars, microwave ovens and hydroelectric plants, numskull.

But then, you can't justify that number, so - your point?

I believe that's the number reported by the IPCC in one of its jokes of a report.

It doesn't really matter because all such estimates are hysterical science fiction.

Only a moron would fail to get the point. The climate change hoax means big bucks to the government and it's servile minions.

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist. Nowadays, a lot of people have wized up. Furthermore, the government doesn't provide "development money" to build coal fired power plants. They are entirely privately financed. So your post is basically a load of horseshit. All you can do is make nasty aspersions about people who know a con when they encounter one.

 

[orogenicman]

But then, you can't justify that number, so - your point?

I believe that's the number reported by the IPCC in one of its jokes of a report.

It doesn't really matter because all such estimates are hysterical science fiction.

Only a moron would fail to get the point. The climate change hoax means big bucks to the government and it's servile minions.

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha! Cough cough! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

O-M-G! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard? Ike was a socialist? Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! Cough cough! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You give stupid people a good name, dude.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe that's the number reported by the IPCC in one of its jokes of a report.

It doesn't really matter because all such estimates are hysterical science fiction.

Only a moron would fail to get the point. The climate change hoax means big bucks to the government and it's servile minions.

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha! Cough cough! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

O-M-G! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard? Ike was a socialist? Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! Cough cough! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You give stupid people a good name, dude.

Yes, Ike was a socialist.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

- President Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954 -

That's pure socialism.

 

[OnePercenter]

Don't you get it.... all this Science stuff is just scams to get money back into the hands of the politicians. Look what oboma did to NASA. At one time gov't grants were truly used correctly, it seems to be 3-4 decades since that was true.

Haven't Republicans been at the forefront of NASA budget reductions?

 

[OnePercenter]

Except February's average high in Vegas was a record at 71 degrees.

 

[Vigilante]

Don't you get it.... all this Science stuff is just scams to get money back into the hands of the politicians. Look what oboma did to NASA. At one time gov't grants were truly used correctly, it seems to be 3-4 decades since that was true.

Haven't Republicans been at the forefront of NASA budget reductions?

Perhaps this is STILL going on (I see no reason that it isn't!) and perhaps Republican's used some SMARTS for a change and REDUCED what the Manchurian muslim is giving away to his BROTHERS!

NASA To Focus On Muslim Outreach - Judicial Watch

 

[orogenicman]

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha! Cough cough! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

O-M-G! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard? Ike was a socialist? Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! Cough cough! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You give stupid people a good name, dude.

Yes, Ike was a socialist.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

- President Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954 -

That's pure socialism.

Right, that's why he was called in front of the McCarthy committee. Oh wait. You're a friggin idiot.

 

[Vigilante]

Except February's average high in Vegas was a record at 71 degrees.

While just 2500 miles away.....

Extreme Weather Watch: February2015 Sets Records for Snow and Cold
OB Rag · 13 days ago
In the Midwest and Northeast, February 2015 ranked as one of the coldest Februaries on record for many major cities. In Syracuse, New …

 

[bripat9643]

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha! Cough cough! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

O-M-G! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard? Ike was a socialist? Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! Cough cough! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You give stupid people a good name, dude.

Yes, Ike was a socialist.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

- President Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954 -

That's pure socialism.

Right, that's why he was called in front of the McCarthy committee. Oh wait. You're a friggin idiot.

I said he was a socialist, not a KGB spy.

What a moron.

 

[Bfgrn]

But then, you can't justify that number, so - your point?

I believe that's the number reported by the IPCC in one of its jokes of a report.

It doesn't really matter because all such estimates are hysterical science fiction.

Only a moron would fail to get the point. The climate change hoax means big bucks to the government and it's servile minions.

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist. Nowadays, a lot of people have wized up. Furthermore, the government doesn't provide "development money" to build coal fired power plants. They are entirely privately financed. So your post is basically a load of horseshit. All you can do is make nasty aspersions about people who know a con when they encounter one.

Coal is the BIGGEST corporate welfare recipient in the country.

The taxpayers of Kentucky LOSE money subsidizing coal.

Report Coal industry costs state government GreenSpot Kentucky.com


In its latest study, MACED determined that coal delivered $527 million to the state in 2006, mostly through coal severance, corporate income, sales and vehicle taxes, plus taxes on 17,903 people employed in mining and 52,429 people in jobs that depend on mining.

The same year, MACED said, the coal industry cost the state $642 million.

This includes $239 million for frequent repairs to about 3,800 miles in the coal-haul road system, where trucks weighing up to 120,000 pounds crush the pavement as they carry coal from mines to tipples, trains, barges and power plants. Companies purchase state decals for the right to run coal trucks overweight, but that revenue offsets very little of the cost of road repairs.

Unknown to most taxpayers, MACED said, the state also gives the coal industry a variety of tax breaks, subsidizes the regulatory agencies that deal with its impact and even pays for pro-coal materials through a "coal education program" aimed at schoolchildren.

The severance taxes and mine permit fees the industry pays Frankfort to cover its costs have not increased in about 30 years. Of top coal-producing states, Kentucky gets the least from severance taxes — 2.9 percent of its tax income, compared with 7.1 percent for neighboring West Virginia.

Generations of Kentucky politicians have felt obliged to keep the coal industry happy, and that is reflected in the state's fiscal policy, said Ron Eller, an Appalachian historian at the University of Kentucky.

"The coal industry's resources are often used to support candidates, especially in Eastern Kentucky, who are favorable to its interests," Eller said. "To refuse to take coal money, or to speak out against coal's interests, often results in the defeat of a candidate."

The coal industry spent more than $1 million on state political donations in recent years and $255,145 to lobby the last two legislative sessions. Several top Kentucky lawmakers either own coal mines, hold white-collar posts at coal companies or do private business with coal.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe that's the number reported by the IPCC in one of its jokes of a report.

It doesn't really matter because all such estimates are hysterical science fiction.

Only a moron would fail to get the point. The climate change hoax means big bucks to the government and it's servile minions.

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist. Nowadays, a lot of people have wized up. Furthermore, the government doesn't provide "development money" to build coal fired power plants. They are entirely privately financed. So your post is basically a load of horseshit. All you can do is make nasty aspersions about people who know a con when they encounter one.

Coal is the BIGGEST corporate welfare recipient in the country.

The taxpayers of Kentucky LOSE money subsidizing coal.

Report Coal industry costs state government GreenSpot Kentucky.com

In its latest study, MACED determined that coal delivered $527 million to the state in 2006, mostly through coal severance, corporate income, sales and vehicle taxes, plus taxes on 17,903 people employed in mining and 52,429 people in jobs that depend on mining.

The same year, MACED said, the coal industry cost the state $642 million.

This includes $239 million for frequent repairs to about 3,800 miles in the coal-haul road system, where trucks weighing up to 120,000 pounds crush the pavement as they carry coal from mines to tipples, trains, barges and power plants. Companies purchase state decals for the right to run coal trucks overweight, but that revenue offsets very little of the cost of road repairs.

Unknown to most taxpayers, MACED said, the state also gives the coal industry a variety of tax breaks, subsidizes the regulatory agencies that deal with its impact and even pays for pro-coal materials through a "coal education program" aimed at schoolchildren.

The severance taxes and mine permit fees the industry pays Frankfort to cover its costs have not increased in about 30 years. Of top coal-producing states, Kentucky gets the least from severance taxes — 2.9 percent of its tax income, compared with 7.1 percent for neighboring West Virginia.

Generations of Kentucky politicians have felt obliged to keep the coal industry happy, and that is reflected in the state's fiscal policy, said Ron Eller, an Appalachian historian at the University of Kentucky.

"The coal industry's resources are often used to support candidates, especially in Eastern Kentucky, who are favorable to its interests," Eller said. "To refuse to take coal money, or to speak out against coal's interests, often results in the defeat of a candidate."

The coal industry spent more than $1 million on state political donations in recent years and $255,145 to lobby the last two legislative sessions. Several top Kentucky lawmakers either own coal mines, hold white-collar posts at coal companies or do private business with coal.

How many times do these claims have to be debunked? I know, I'll be debunking them until the day an ice sheet is about to flatten New York.

The source of your information is an organization called MACED. I looked up their website, and they listed the following as some of their activities:

MACED Overview

Strengthening Key Sectors — Energy

• Energy Efficient Enterprises — Helping enterprises become more energy efficient and avoid the impact of rising energy costs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

• How$martKY — Working with electric cooperatives to fund energy efficiency retrofits for homes and businesses.

• Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance — Advancing state policy that supports investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Influencing Kentucky’s economic policy and advancing an Appalachian transition

Too often, state and federal policies inadequately support needed services and sustainable development, subsidize harmful development or ignore the unique concerns and needs of Central Appalachia. To achieve change at scale, public policy must shift.

• Appalachian Transition Initiative — Advance the regional conversation about the need, potential and path toward a more just, sustainable and prosperous future.

• Kentucky Center for Economic Policy — Conducting research, analysis and education on state fiscal and economic policy issues.

• Research and Policy — Providing information and analysis to help citizens and decision makers understand the challenges, issues and opportunities facing Kentucky and Central Appalachia.​

In short, this organization sounds like your typical leftist propaganda and lobbying operation. It has no credibility.

I could go down the list it's claims and point out the flaws in each one, but I seldom bother. These leftwing operations all lie. You can't believe anything they say.

 

[orogenicman]

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist. Nowadays, a lot of people have wized up. Furthermore, the government doesn't provide "development money" to build coal fired power plants. They are entirely privately financed. So your post is basically a load of horseshit. All you can do is make nasty aspersions about people who know a con when they encounter one.

Coal is the BIGGEST corporate welfare recipient in the country.

The taxpayers of Kentucky LOSE money subsidizing coal.

Report Coal industry costs state government GreenSpot Kentucky.com

In its latest study, MACED determined that coal delivered $527 million to the state in 2006, mostly through coal severance, corporate income, sales and vehicle taxes, plus taxes on 17,903 people employed in mining and 52,429 people in jobs that depend on mining.

The same year, MACED said, the coal industry cost the state $642 million.

This includes $239 million for frequent repairs to about 3,800 miles in the coal-haul road system, where trucks weighing up to 120,000 pounds crush the pavement as they carry coal from mines to tipples, trains, barges and power plants. Companies purchase state decals for the right to run coal trucks overweight, but that revenue offsets very little of the cost of road repairs.

Unknown to most taxpayers, MACED said, the state also gives the coal industry a variety of tax breaks, subsidizes the regulatory agencies that deal with its impact and even pays for pro-coal materials through a "coal education program" aimed at schoolchildren.

The severance taxes and mine permit fees the industry pays Frankfort to cover its costs have not increased in about 30 years. Of top coal-producing states, Kentucky gets the least from severance taxes — 2.9 percent of its tax income, compared with 7.1 percent for neighboring West Virginia.

Generations of Kentucky politicians have felt obliged to keep the coal industry happy, and that is reflected in the state's fiscal policy, said Ron Eller, an Appalachian historian at the University of Kentucky.

"The coal industry's resources are often used to support candidates, especially in Eastern Kentucky, who are favorable to its interests," Eller said. "To refuse to take coal money, or to speak out against coal's interests, often results in the defeat of a candidate."

The coal industry spent more than $1 million on state political donations in recent years and $255,145 to lobby the last two legislative sessions. Several top Kentucky lawmakers either own coal mines, hold white-collar posts at coal companies or do private business with coal.

How many times do these claims have to be debunked? I know, I'll be debunking them until the day an ice sheet is about to flatten New York.

The source of your information is an organization called MACED. I looked up their website, and they listed the following as some of their activities:

MACED Overview

Strengthening Key Sectors — Energy

• Energy Efficient Enterprises — Helping enterprises become more energy efficient and avoid the impact of rising energy costs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

• How$martKY — Working with electric cooperatives to fund energy efficiency retrofits for homes and businesses.

• Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance — Advancing state policy that supports investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Influencing Kentucky’s economic policy and advancing an Appalachian transition

Too often, state and federal policies inadequately support needed services and sustainable development, subsidize harmful development or ignore the unique concerns and needs of Central Appalachia. To achieve change at scale, public policy must shift.

• Appalachian Transition Initiative — Advance the regional conversation about the need, potential and path toward a more just, sustainable and prosperous future.

• Kentucky Center for Economic Policy — Conducting research, analysis and education on state fiscal and economic policy issues.

• Research and Policy — Providing information and analysis to help citizens and decision makers understand the challenges, issues and opportunities facing Kentucky and Central Appalachia.​

In short, this organization sounds like your typical leftist propaganda and lobbying operation. It has no credibility.

I could go down the list it's claims and point out the flaws in each one, but I seldom bother. These leftwing operations all lie. You can't believe anything they say.

So what are saying is that "leftists" support clean energy, energy efficiency, energy independence while "rightwingnuts" support dirty energy, polluting the planet, and dependence on foreign oil. Well, bubba, we knew that already but it is good to see you admit it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist. Nowadays, a lot of people have wized up. Furthermore, the government doesn't provide "development money" to build coal fired power plants. They are entirely privately financed. So your post is basically a load of horseshit. All you can do is make nasty aspersions about people who know a con when they encounter one.

Coal is the BIGGEST corporate welfare recipient in the country.

The taxpayers of Kentucky LOSE money subsidizing coal.

Report Coal industry costs state government GreenSpot Kentucky.com

In its latest study, MACED determined that coal delivered $527 million to the state in 2006, mostly through coal severance, corporate income, sales and vehicle taxes, plus taxes on 17,903 people employed in mining and 52,429 people in jobs that depend on mining.

The same year, MACED said, the coal industry cost the state $642 million.

This includes $239 million for frequent repairs to about 3,800 miles in the coal-haul road system, where trucks weighing up to 120,000 pounds crush the pavement as they carry coal from mines to tipples, trains, barges and power plants. Companies purchase state decals for the right to run coal trucks overweight, but that revenue offsets very little of the cost of road repairs.

Unknown to most taxpayers, MACED said, the state also gives the coal industry a variety of tax breaks, subsidizes the regulatory agencies that deal with its impact and even pays for pro-coal materials through a "coal education program" aimed at schoolchildren.

The severance taxes and mine permit fees the industry pays Frankfort to cover its costs have not increased in about 30 years. Of top coal-producing states, Kentucky gets the least from severance taxes — 2.9 percent of its tax income, compared with 7.1 percent for neighboring West Virginia.

Generations of Kentucky politicians have felt obliged to keep the coal industry happy, and that is reflected in the state's fiscal policy, said Ron Eller, an Appalachian historian at the University of Kentucky.

"The coal industry's resources are often used to support candidates, especially in Eastern Kentucky, who are favorable to its interests," Eller said. "To refuse to take coal money, or to speak out against coal's interests, often results in the defeat of a candidate."

The coal industry spent more than $1 million on state political donations in recent years and $255,145 to lobby the last two legislative sessions. Several top Kentucky lawmakers either own coal mines, hold white-collar posts at coal companies or do private business with coal.

How many times do these claims have to be debunked? I know, I'll be debunking them until the day an ice sheet is about to flatten New York.

The source of your information is an organization called MACED. I looked up their website, and they listed the following as some of their activities:

MACED Overview

Strengthening Key Sectors — Energy

• Energy Efficient Enterprises — Helping enterprises become more energy efficient and avoid the impact of rising energy costs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

• How$martKY — Working with electric cooperatives to fund energy efficiency retrofits for homes and businesses.

• Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance — Advancing state policy that supports investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Influencing Kentucky’s economic policy and advancing an Appalachian transition

Too often, state and federal policies inadequately support needed services and sustainable development, subsidize harmful development or ignore the unique concerns and needs of Central Appalachia. To achieve change at scale, public policy must shift.

• Appalachian Transition Initiative — Advance the regional conversation about the need, potential and path toward a more just, sustainable and prosperous future.

• Kentucky Center for Economic Policy — Conducting research, analysis and education on state fiscal and economic policy issues.

• Research and Policy — Providing information and analysis to help citizens and decision makers understand the challenges, issues and opportunities facing Kentucky and Central Appalachia.​

In short, this organization sounds like your typical leftist propaganda and lobbying operation. It has no credibility.

I could go down the list it's claims and point out the flaws in each one, but I seldom bother. These leftwing operations all lie. You can't believe anything they say.

So what are saying is that "leftists" support clean energy, energy efficiency, energy independence while "rightwingnuts" support dirty energy, polluting the planet, and dependence on foreign oil. Well, bubba, we knew that already but it is good to see you admit it.

You mean the clean energy that is but a whopping 5% level for meeting our energy needs?

For rightwingnuts, that's makes for >>>>>



[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/winninglayout.gif.html'][/URL]

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, I am sure the Koch brothers have convinced you that that is the case.

Have you got any facts or logic to post, or is this type of idiocy all you've got?

No one seemed to have a problem when the government spent billions developing nuclear energy. No one seemed to have any problems expanding the electrical grid all across the country by providing development money to build coal fired plants all across the country. And yet here we are in the 21st century seeing pundants opposed to clean energy, as if they can't give up their addiction to petro-fumes. Which leads me to think these deniers might all by toluene sniffers. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've seen.

In the days when nuclear power was developed, almost everyone was a socialist. Nowadays, a lot of people have wized up. Furthermore, the government doesn't provide "development money" to build coal fired power plants. They are entirely privately financed. So your post is basically a load of horseshit. All you can do is make nasty aspersions about people who know a con when they encounter one.

Coal is the BIGGEST corporate welfare recipient in the country.

The taxpayers of Kentucky LOSE money subsidizing coal.

Report Coal industry costs state government GreenSpot Kentucky.com

In its latest study, MACED determined that coal delivered $527 million to the state in 2006, mostly through coal severance, corporate income, sales and vehicle taxes, plus taxes on 17,903 people employed in mining and 52,429 people in jobs that depend on mining.

The same year, MACED said, the coal industry cost the state $642 million.

This includes $239 million for frequent repairs to about 3,800 miles in the coal-haul road system, where trucks weighing up to 120,000 pounds crush the pavement as they carry coal from mines to tipples, trains, barges and power plants. Companies purchase state decals for the right to run coal trucks overweight, but that revenue offsets very little of the cost of road repairs.

Unknown to most taxpayers, MACED said, the state also gives the coal industry a variety of tax breaks, subsidizes the regulatory agencies that deal with its impact and even pays for pro-coal materials through a "coal education program" aimed at schoolchildren.

The severance taxes and mine permit fees the industry pays Frankfort to cover its costs have not increased in about 30 years. Of top coal-producing states, Kentucky gets the least from severance taxes — 2.9 percent of its tax income, compared with 7.1 percent for neighboring West Virginia.

Generations of Kentucky politicians have felt obliged to keep the coal industry happy, and that is reflected in the state's fiscal policy, said Ron Eller, an Appalachian historian at the University of Kentucky.

"The coal industry's resources are often used to support candidates, especially in Eastern Kentucky, who are favorable to its interests," Eller said. "To refuse to take coal money, or to speak out against coal's interests, often results in the defeat of a candidate."

The coal industry spent more than $1 million on state political donations in recent years and $255,145 to lobby the last two legislative sessions. Several top Kentucky lawmakers either own coal mines, hold white-collar posts at coal companies or do private business with coal.

How many times do these claims have to be debunked? I know, I'll be debunking them until the day an ice sheet is about to flatten New York.

The source of your information is an organization called MACED. I looked up their website, and they listed the following as some of their activities:

MACED Overview

Strengthening Key Sectors — Energy

• Energy Efficient Enterprises — Helping enterprises become more energy efficient and avoid the impact of rising energy costs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

• How$martKY — Working with electric cooperatives to fund energy efficiency retrofits for homes and businesses.

• Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance — Advancing state policy that supports investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Influencing Kentucky’s economic policy and advancing an Appalachian transition

Too often, state and federal policies inadequately support needed services and sustainable development, subsidize harmful development or ignore the unique concerns and needs of Central Appalachia. To achieve change at scale, public policy must shift.

• Appalachian Transition Initiative — Advance the regional conversation about the need, potential and path toward a more just, sustainable and prosperous future.

• Kentucky Center for Economic Policy — Conducting research, analysis and education on state fiscal and economic policy issues.

• Research and Policy — Providing information and analysis to help citizens and decision makers understand the challenges, issues and opportunities facing Kentucky and Central Appalachia.​

In short, this organization sounds like your typical leftist propaganda and lobbying operation. It has no credibility.

I could go down the list it's claims and point out the flaws in each one, but I seldom bother. These leftwing operations all lie. You can't believe anything they say.

"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error.
Thomas Jefferson

'A complete picture'

Maxson said MACED favored the coal industry in several ways while conducting its study.

It did not account for costs related to air and water polluted by mining and coal-fired power plants, or workers sickened or crippled by coal jobs. It credited the industry for the full $224 million in coal severance taxes paid that year (after $18 million in special deductions), although half that money went to coal-producing counties and did not stay in the state's general fund.

Also, because MACED looked at 2006 data, it did not count the hundreds of millions of dollars in coal incentives approved during a special session of the legislature in 2007 at the request of Peabody Energy Corp. Like half of its fellow members in the Kentucky Coal Association, Peabody — which last year reported record cash flows — mines Kentucky coal but is headquartered in another state.

"Our purpose here isn't to beat up on coal," Maxson said. "It's education. We want to lay out a complete picture so our elected leaders can make informed decisions about how we proceed with our energy policy, our economic development policy and our fiscal policy."

Coal counties poorest

For all the wealth that coal produced over the last century, Eastern Kentucky's coal counties remain among the nation's poorest, Maxson said. Destructive mining practices, such as mountaintop removal, sacrifice the region's natural beauty, and with it other possible employers, such as tourism, he said.