With all the problems facing this republic today, climate change remains at the top of the list; at least, it is tops with this current administration. Reports have indicated that Hussein Soetoro, in an independent, solo move, plans to "ratify" the Paris climate change agreement without the two-thirds vote required by the Senate. Naturally, the Republican Party asserts the "agreement" requires Senate ratification to become part of this republic's law. However, the track record of any chamber of Congress to stop any unilateral, unconstitutional, unlawful action on the part of this executive and this administration remains zero.
The Paris "agreement" on climate change/global warming has been brewing for some time in controversy considering the scientific data used to justify governments acting on man-made climate change/global warming is flawed, manipulated, falsified, inaccurate in accounting for all variables and cannot satisfy the scientific method scientists rely on to confirm hypotheses. Yet, fifty-seven percent of Americans claim they would be willing to pay extra to combat climate change if the cost were only one dollar per month. However, as the cost of combating climate change increases, the support for paying to combat climate change decreases among Americans.
The Washington Times reports:
Most Americans are willing to pay a little more each month to fight global warming — but only a tiny bit, according to a new poll. Still, environmental policy experts hail that as a hopeful sign.
Seventy-one percent want the federal government to do something about global warming, including 6 percent who think the government should act even though they are not sure that climate change is happening, according to a poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. [emphasis mine]
And those polled said they'd be willing to foot a little of that cost in higher electric bills.
If the cost of fighting climate change is only an additional $1 a month, 57 percent of Americans said they would support that. But as that fee goes up, support for it plummets. At $10 a month, 39 percent were in favor and 61 percent opposed. At $20 a month, the public is more than 2-to-1 against it. And only 1-in-5 would support $50 a month.
"I feel we need to make small sacrifices — and money is a small sacrifice — to make life better for future generations," said Sarah Griffin, a 63-year-old retired teacher in central Pennsylvania. "Surely I have enough money to spend on something that's worthwhile."
Greg Davis, a 27-year-old post-graduate student in Columbus, Ohio, agreed: "It's far more important to protect the environment than to save money. I think that's true for businesses as well as individuals."
Have we as Americans become so limp-brained that the majority would fork over money to the federal government to "combat man-made climate change," an unproven theory mired in false data, unreliable computer models the IPCC has admitted is flawed, and manipulated hyperbole? The poll conducted indicated among Americans "77 percent said climate change is happening, 13 percent weren't sure, and only 10 percent said it wasn't happening." However, as we all know, polls can be manipulated to produce the results the particular surveyor would like to see.
In this particular AP-NORC poll, funded by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, 1,096 adults were selected "using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points."
One has to wonder if these individuals are sincere in stating their willingness to fork over more money to the federal government. According to the poll, they are as long as it doesn't cost more than one dollar per month. There is not one individual who does not avoid paying more money to government; otherwise, these individuals would not take every tax deduction they could. And, lest we all forget, any money paid by Americans thinking it will be "earmarked" for climate change need look no further than the Social Security program to see how that is working out. Moreover, it falls into the same category as the money "earmarked" for a border fence along the US/Mexico border promised during the amnesty provided under the Reagan administration.
From the looks of this poll, as the money doled out to combat climate change goes up, the less the American public is inclined to support it. Does this mean that those who support climate change are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is? Evidently so. But, if they are so sure of the "climate change science," wouldn't it be more important to save the environment than save money, as one individual contended? And, if money is such a "small sacrifice" to save the environment, why does the support for it go down as the money needed to "combat" climate change goes up? This goes to show the hypocrisy of those who accept the climate change farce. Otherwise, these dolts would have no issue with $50 per month or any other cost levied to fight a falsehood.
Climate change caused by human population has yet to be irrefutably proven using the scientific method. In fact, because climate change period, much less climate change caused by the human population, cannot satisfy the scientific method, one could say climate change is a bogus issue designed to swindle the world's population in wealthy Western nations to redistribute the money to poorer nations or third world countries to enrich corrupt governments or line the pockets of those in power. People would be better off purchasing "magic beans" from a traveling salesman.
These individuals polled forget the gases identified as causing climate change, aka greenhouse gases, comprise less than one percent of Earth's atmosphere and include Carbon Dioxide – a gas all plants need to survive. Moreover, these same individuals forget Hussein Soetoro's admission in 2014 that his own "climate agenda" will not curb greenhouse gas emissions. Nor do these individuals comprehend that Hussein Soetoro in his current position emitted enough carbon dioxide attending the 2014 UN Climate Summit for 22 people.
No one should forget Switzerland having to open a military air strip to accommodate attendees arriving in private jets and helicopters to participate in climate talks in 2015. In fact, one could surmise that those most concerned about the farce of climate change/global warming use far more resources and emit far more "greenhouse gases." Another hypocrite in this area is Hollyweird star Leonardo DiCaprio. If these individuals were so concerned about this farce, would they not work to consume less energy and resources, decrease their own "greenhouse gas emissions," and limit their reliance on coal power personally? Logically, the answer would be yes; however, we are not talking about logic, but hypocrisy. And, we are not talking about combating "climate change," but, redistributing wealth on a global basis.
It's difficult to project the percentage of Americans who actually buy the climate change farce, much less to project how many would willingly give up their hard earned money to government for an unproven event. But, considering the amount of brainwashing being conducted on the American public by government and the weak-will of many Americans, one can see many of the sheeple forking over money that could be used to feed their families on a farce such as climate change. For those willing to do so, why wait until the government forces you to pay the extra? Why not begin sending it in now or take less tax deductions to provide the government with money to combat the farce the government has brainwashed you into believing exists?
Therein lies the rub. Those supporting the farce of climate change are more than willing to combat it as long as it doesn't really cost anything or cost much. Once it is realized the cost would need to increase, these sheeple are not so supportive of battling climate change after all. Naturally, the poll only identified monetary costs. But, as we know, the cost of battling the farce of climate change is more than money. It will cost reliable energy sources, jobs, convenience, and changes in current lifestyle. All in the name of redistribution of wealth – nothing more. How many will support the farce when their job is lost, their electricity rationed, their convenience disrupted or their lifestyle changed? Only one in five would support climate change if the cost were levied at $50 per month.
All in all, those who support climate change only support the idea and not the monetary means the government might levy to combat it. Yet, these sheeple are willing to saddle the rest of the population of this republic to an unproven scientific farce until it costs too much, then they are unwilling to support it. What these individuals fail to realize is that once monetary or other costs are levied against the public to prop up this farce, the cost will continue to rise. And, as history has shown, once the government gets their hooks into anything that can control the population, it will never be rolled back despite the lack of support for it. It will be another set of God-given individual rights that will be trampled upon and another means to control the population. But, that money and those sacrifices will curb and help eliminate climate change. Anyone believing that last line should contact me about buying my Arizona ocean- front property.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.