“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’”
So one rogue quasi-scientist makes a claim equating the severe weather with climate change and all the left wing lemmings start jumping off the cliff. Trenberth was one of the lead authors on the UN IPCC Reports which failed to incorporate all analysis and data, skewing the reports conclusion to favor their religious-like mantra of global warming.
The House cap and trade bill is a disaster. Many, myself included, hoped this bad legislation which passed the House would wither on the vine, especially after email-gate broke. Anyone paying attention heard Harry Reid make statements that cap and trade in the Senate is dead, I sighed in relief.
But wait, the Senate last week unveiled their version of this draconian legislation, shorter in length but no less harmful to the freedom, liberty and fiscal well-being of the American people.
The latest Senate energy bill, quietly unveiled last week, looks like sweet compromise on radical measures like cap and trade, but buried within is a bitter poison pill that will could be swallowed in a vote that may come this week.
Unlike the 1,200-page House of Representatives energy bill, which passed last year, this scaled-down proposal does not call for an 83-percent reduction in greenhouse gases (or any reduction in greenhouse gases) and contains no mention of a cap-and-trade scheme. Also contrary to the House bill, this one does not provide a family of four earning up to $55,000 with a monthly stipend — deposited directly into their bank accounts — to offset higher energy costs. It also does not supply three years of unemployment benefits at 70 percent of former wages — plus job retraining and relocation — to those whose jobs are shipped overseas, as prescribed in the House bill.
Instead, at a glance (which is the way most in Congress ever seem to examine legislation), this bill appears rather easy to take. Most of its 357 pages are devoted to sections entitled “Oil Spill Response,” “Reducing Oil Consumption,” “Improving Energy Security,” and “Protecting the Environment.” There’s even a portion devoted to further grill BP via subpoena power. With sugar-coating like this, the sixty votes necessary to pass seem possible.
However, beneath the glaze, there’s a clot of overpowering government spending and social engineering.
For example, electric vehicles are pushed via the bill’s “Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2010.” No surprise here, particularly since the government has a 61% stake in General Motors and Chevy’s electro-mobile, the Volt. Besides this Act allowing the feds to spend $25 million on new electric cars for their official fleet, there’s an astounding electric car welfare program. Section 2116 explains that 400,000 such vehicles will be virtually given away at low cost — or perhaps no cost — to people living in “selected communities diverse in population” and “demographics.”
Additionally, pages 264-265 require that any new construction or remodel of an existing structure must include the installation of proper hookups for charging an electric vehicle. So even if you have no intention of owning such a car, adding that extra bedroom will require you to spend additional money to install battery-charging infrastructure in your garage.
Take the time to read the rest of this article at the link above. Consider this, what will happen if the American people choose not to take advantage of these incentives or that the percentage of people is far below what the government expects?
To get up-to-speed on cap and trade see the link above for additional articles.
After a hard-fought victory on health care reform, President Barack Obama’s allies in Congress are setting their sights on climate change — but some on both sides are already crying foul.Environmentalists hope Obama will seize on new political momentum to push forward climate legislation, though some observers question whether he would seek another divisive vote as November congressional elections approach.
Senator John Kerry, who has spearheaded climate legislation, said that White House officials can now “pour their energy and attention” into the issue after Sunday’s down-to-the-wire vote on expanding health care coverage.
“In the wake of health care’s passage, we have a strong case to make that this can be the next breakthrough legislative fight,” the Massachusetts Democrat argued. “Climate legislation is the single best opportunity we have to create jobs, reduce pollution and stop sending billions overseas for foreign oil from countries that would do us harm,” Kerry said.
“If we sell those arguments we’ve got a winning issue on jobs, on security and on public health. This can happen.”
For anyone who has followed the cap and trade debate this should come as no surprise. As previously written on this blog, the supporters of Cap and Trade will attempt to cite job creation as an overwhelming support factor for the passage, the truth is Spain (which has been touted as the a model for the United States law) has lost 2.2 jobs for each new “green” job created. (see here) What piqued my interest was the emphasis on security in Kerry’s statement. And this is why…
Continually throughout the State of the Union (SOTU) address Obama tried to distance himself from Washington; yet he is part of the problem with his insistence to move the country toward complete reliance on government. He sees himself as the parent and us as children. As children we don’t understand, with our limited intellectual capacity the policies he is pushing.
While talking about health care he said…
And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress, our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.
What he and all Democrats fail to address when speaking of this illusionary savings is the numbers crunched by the CBO do not include payments to doctors who take Medicare and Medicaid. Originally the payment to doctors was included in the House bill, once the CBO estimated a cost over 1.4 trillion it was taken out to make the bill “fiscally” palatable.
Obama goes on to say…
Still, this is a complex issue. And the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering, “What’s in it for me?”
Not explaining it more clearly.. are you kidding? Obama has given over 20 speeches on health care since he took office, the more the people did understand the bill, the more they did NOT like what they saw. Its not a lack of information, Mr. President… its because the American people DO NOT like what they see as their future. We are not asking, “what’s in in for me,” we want to know how we can afford the bill and what rationing will take place if passed?
I am tired of the lies being presented by elected officials regarding climate change. If anything, they are unsure what causes climate change and the push toward legislation to micromanage every aspect of our lives through unsubstantiated science is appalling. Yet the President can’t help himself…
I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.
Overwhelming scientific evidence.. you mean the pseudo-data which is being exposed to be nothing more than a power grab?
Never before has a President taken such a backhand swipe at the Supreme Court during a SOTU address..
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.
This is an outright lie, they did not overturn a “century of law,” they overturned one small aspect of campaign contributions. As for foreign entities bankrolling campaigns, I have some questions Mr. President…
What about the dollars for your campaign that flowed in from the mideast? Ahhh, but that just an inconvenient truth, isn’t it?
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected, but all other discretionary government programs will.
Over the last year we, as a nation, have increased spending by an average of 20% across all agencies and departments, some agencies like the EPA have seen a 35% increase. Washington, and that includes YOU Mr. President have spent like there is no tomorrow. You champion a spending freeze, yet put it off for another year? If you are being honest about cutting the deficit, you would demand a freeze NOW, not a year from now.
This is only a small sampling of where reality and fallacy can not co-exist. I am still waiting for a President who places the American people before the progressive Democrat agenda. The American people want the truth not illusion.. We are waiting…
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Scientific data which exposes the environmental justice hoax continues to be published and lame main stream media is still ignoring this gigantic deception. All the global warming hysterics can stop the mantra of the “science is settled.” The science is NOT settled and claims that there are universal agreement by world scientists is a lie.
Lord Monckton is a former science policy adviser to Prime Minister Margret Thatcher and played a key role in a legal challenge heard in the High Court of Justice regarding Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” The focus in the court case were statistics and claims from the movie which offered little to none scientific validity.
The court case arose from concern that the movie was being shown as indisputable science to school age children across Great Britain and did not carry opposing scientific data which directly contradicts numerous aspects of the movie.
Listening to the Greenpeace activist you get the feeling that the entire global warming movement could be equated to some pseudo-religion with everything resting on “faith” and the doctrine of special interest groups.
What did the High Court of Justice find in the United Kingdom?
Apparently the President does not believe the brakes should be applied and what could eventually be the catalysis that drives the economy in to an abyss, Cap and Trade, needs to move forward. Make no mistake the Hopenhagan conference, set to start next week, is the green pseudoscience which the House based their ” American Clean Energy and Security Act HR 2454.” First Obama wasn’t going, then he was going at the start of the conference, and now he will be there at the end.
Instead, the White House announced Friday that Obama was doubling down on his commitment to the summit’s goals and moving his visit later in the month, hoping it will secure a “meaningful” agreement.
“Doubling down” in his pursuit to ruin this economy. Is this the same President who states a respect for the merits of science?
The truth is promoting science isn’t just about providing resources; it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. Insuring the facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.
It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say- even when it’s inconvenient- especially when it’s inconvenient. The highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. (emphasis mine)
The inconvenient truth is the science is NOT absolute. Period.. and until there is an independent investigation of the “scientists and their research” which fuel this “science,” the United States should NOT enter in to or even given the appearance of condoning speculative science, at best.
Apparently the President who claims to cherish science, doesn’t understand the most elementary aspects of the discipline.