Lockheed Martin, a recent Washington Post article notes, is getting into renewable energy, nuclear fusion, “sustainability” and even fish farming projects, to augment its reduced defense profits. The company plans to forge new ties with Defense Department and other Obama initiatives, based on a shared belief in manmade climate change as a critical security and planetary threat. It is charging ahead where other defense contractors have failed, confident that its expertise, lobbying skills and “socially responsible” commitment to preventing climate chaos will land it plentiful contracts and subsidies.
As with its polar counterparts, 90% of the titanic climate funding iceberg is invisible to most citizens, businessmen and politicians. The Lockheed action is the mere tip of the icy mountaintop.
This week in the U.S. House we passed the Balanced Budget for a Stronger America. The congressional budget is a critical part of the government funding process and marks an opportunity to offer a better vision for America.
Our budget is a plan to get America to a balanced budget and pay off our $18 trillion debt that will otherwise be left to our children and our children’s children. This resolution can guide America on a path to fiscal sanity and greater prosperity, in part by repealing Obamacare and cutting $5.5 trillion in spending. Click here to continue.
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate.
Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad. Click here to continue.
GUEST POST WRITTEN BY Lawrence Kogan Mr. Kogan, managing principal of Kogan Law Group, is chief executive of the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development.
Secretary of State George P. Schultz claimed as well as intimated that if former President Reagan were here today he would take out an “insurance policy” against climate change notwithstanding a lack of available scientific evidence justifying such a conclusion. Such action would consist of several elements, including the provision of federally funded energy research and development incentives, the imposition of a carbon tax, and the consummation of an international climate agreement. Click here to continue.
During the past few weeks, a series of articles in the press have implied that Willie Soon, a well-known global-warming skeptic, had violated ethical standards by failing to disclose information about research funding. Click here to continue.
As is often the case, this week I had to decide between three different story ideas for my column. Al Gore and his suggestion that climate change skeptics be punished certainly had appeal—but many others were addressing that, giving it plenty of coverage. The Obama administration’s federal-lands fracking announcement was also considered—but it made headlines and garnered the ire of Speaker Boehner and therefore didn’t need me to draw attention to the issue. I settled on the under-reported topic that allowed me to tie several stories together as I am fond of doing: Oil and gas exports—one policy change, many benefits (click here). I used Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritizker’s WSJ op-ed as my launching point and tied it throughout Oil and gas exports—one policy change, many benefits.
I am pleased with how Oil and gas exports—one policy change, many benefits penciled out (or keyed out). I hope you are too! Please post, pass on, and/or personally enjoy!
It can be argued over the hood of a pickup or while leaning on the gate waiting for the brand inspector, but the fact is, the world has become a complicated place to navigate from the ranch at the end of 40 miles of dirt road.Click here to continue.
WHO DECIDES? According to the Constitution. we do.
Disclaimer: Please note that Land And Water USA presents all containments herein, only as a means to educate, inform, and generate meaningful discussion. Readers are encouraged to research the information contained herein with other reliable sources, and to direct questions to the subject specific author. Land And Water USA does its best to showcase the whole picture; good, bad and ugly. Therefore it does not control, may or may not agree, and cannot guarantee the relevance, timeliness, or accuracy of any commentary, article, letter or document posted herein. Neither the authors, its affiliates or agents, or any other party involved in the preparation or publication of the works presented is responsible for any errors or omissions in information provided, or any other results obtained from the use of such information. Information should never be construed as professional advice. We believe that when arguments and views are conducted without shrill or unjust gain, and with vigorous pursuit of truth, they bring healthy resolutions.