I wanted to tie in two bits of news I came across in the last couple days - the first is the shocking impact of Obama's Regulation Regime, which has passed fewer regulations than the Bush administration, however with far more dire results economically. The second is a new crackpot theory about the effects of CO2 on the human body, which I'm sure will be immediately taken into consideration as one more unproven reason that we need to regulate the hell out of CO2 output. Economy-strangling measures, HOOOOO!The Heritage Foundation researched the economic blowback from President Obama's regulations thus far in his reign, which total 10, 215. This number is less than the Bush administration's 10,674 (through year 3), however by their calculations, Obama's regulations have had a much greater impact on the U.S. economy. 106 "major" regulations out of the 10,215 rules passed account for $46.1 billion dollars per year in new costs exacted on Americans and our economy - 5 times the $8.1 billion hit from Bush's administration.  And what do you think the most costly regulatory measure was? Yes, of course, it was legislation about CO2 - the boogeyman that hides under the bed, even though every time someone pulls back the sheets to look at it, there's nothing there. From the report:

"The most expensive regulation of 2011 was imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which issued a total of five major regulations at a cost of more than $4 billion annually. Among the new regulations are three that impose stricter limits on industrial and commercial boilers and incinerators, at a total cost of $2.6 billion annually for compliance and $5.8 billion for one-time implementation costs. The EPA had postponed the new rules pending reconsideration by the agency and court review. However, in a legal challenge by environmental groups, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the agency’s administrative stay in January, making the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (the Boiler MACT) immediately enforceable (although EPA officials have stated that they would not enforce it while the agency modifies the regulation)."

So here's a perfect segway into the other news item that I read this week - that some scientist has concluded that it isn't rampant bad parenting, the proliferation of game consoles and cable television that limit outdoor activity, depression or just simple laziness that's to blame for people getting fatter. No, obviously it's CO2!! The cause of all of life's problems according to the scientific community! (And which receives endless funding for any CO2 related research.)Science Nordic published results from Danish researchers who theorize that CO2 is making us fat, because the MINISCULE levels of increased CO2 in the air makes the blood in our body more acidic, which then stimulates our brain to want to eat. You can read up on the "science" behind it here. They cite as their prime example that they put 6 men in a room and exposed some of them to raised levels of CO2. They don't mention what the ratio of CO2 in the room was compared to atmospheric conditions (obviously) because I would be the head of my firstborn child that it's a heck of a lot higher than the tiny fraction of CO2 that is actually in our environment. The men ate 6% more food than the ones who weren't exposed. I found these end paragraphs from the story to be especially telling of the outlook that all CO2 researchers seem to share, and that's that any facts or outlying causes that don't help their cause and pocketbook should simply be ignored (See CLIMATEGATE). And of course that at the end of the day, it's all about the cash, and sucking on the tit as long as possible.

"Several studies have shown that you can lose weight in the mountains, where there is less oxygen in the air and where you expire more CO2.Obesity statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA seem to indicate that the obesity epidemic is less widespread in mountain states.“But at the present time this does not figure in our studies because we feel it is more important to ascertain whether we can show an effect through controlled trials,” says Hersoug. “If we can show an effect, then we will carry out epidemiological studies with humans – but we can’t get the funding for these without verification of our hypothesis."

Hersoug and his colleagues will soon start conducting trials with rats to see whether they can support the hypothesis – or pull the carpet out from under it. They hope to be able to raise money for further, more comprehensive trials of e.g. the role different types of nutritious diets play together with CO2."

Uh huh.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!