Senate Energy Bill… Give-Aways and Enticements

Posted by courage On August - 2 - 2010

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.

Poison Pill: The New Senate Energy Bill
By Brain Sussman

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.

sun-rise

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.

clip…

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Democrats in Senate Feel Hinky About Cap and Trade

Posted by courage On December - 27 - 2009

earth-moon

h/t to Tom Nelson

From Politico:

Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year.

“I am communicating that in every way I know how,” says Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of at least half a dozen Democrats who’ve told the White House or their own leaders that it’s time to jettison the centerpiece of their party’s plan to curb global warming.

Is that Senator Mary Landrieu, of the infamous, I’ve got my piece of pork and reminded constituents that early reports of the amount were wrong….

“I am not going to be defensive,” she declared. “And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million fix.”

Apparently she believes that prostituting for a higher price makes the endeavor worthwhile or perhaps she believes it then admirable?

Then we have the <cough> blue dog Dem Evan Bayh chiming in:

“We need to deal with the phenomena of global warming, but I think it’s very difficult in the kind of economic circumstances we have right now,” said Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, who called passage of any economy-wide cap and trade “unlikely.”

Really Evan.. we need to deal with the phenomena of global warming? How about dealing with the misappropriation of funds used to finance the scientific data which ever day appears to be a larger scandal?    Before running off to have our electricity “skyrocket,”  why not take at look at how the scientist behind the global warming hysterics have manipulated data, prevented true scientific inquiry and have aligned themselves with corporations such as GE, to fleece the world?  Have no fear Mr. Bayh, Hoosiers like myself have been watching, your destination for 2010 is the unemployment line.  Maybe you should of held a town hall meeting back in the summer,  re-connected with the people who voted you in to office?  Naw that would make to much sense.. something you apparently  lack.

“Climate change in an election year has very poor prospects,” added Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “I’ve told that to the leadership.”

Those Democrats sure are getting jumpy about their re-election prospects in 2010; gee, I wonder why?  Could it be they realize the people back home are none to happy with them?

Asked about cap-and-trade last week, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said: “At this point I’d like to see a complete bill but we have to be realistic.”

Oh Dick.. why start being “realistic” now?  We both know  the polls you cite are based on skewed data…  you only use polls from those that donate to your campaign and then extrapolate the results to the entire state, shitster shyster!

“Any bill dealing with energy and climate change will have to be bipartisan to pass,” said Durbin. “Sen. Kerry assures me that there are other (Republicans) that he may have.”

But even among Republicans who believe global warming is a problem, few — if any — other than Graham support an economy-wide cap and trade system.

Ah Lindsey Graham, for the life of me I couldn’t figure out why you suddenly become vocal champion of the Cap and Trade legislation.  A little journey over to Open Secrets shows an interesting fact, your number 5 top campaign contributor, out of the 20 is (drum roll)…. Energy and Natural Resources.  Maybe that explains it.. maybe not, but I do not understand how you can support legislation based on plain old bad science.

I am glad the Democrats seem to be  backing away from this legislation, even if their justification is the 2010 elections.  The sad thing is that instead of understanding that the current hysterical warming mantra is flawed and then demanding new scientific inquiry be performed… they instead play politics.

I once heard the difference between a politician and statesman.  A politician is only concerned about their next election, while a statesman is concerned about the next generation.

What this vividly displays is these Congresspeople never had courage of conviction, it’s all about power and politics; they are without conscious.

Arrogant Obama Ignores Climate Scam

Posted by courage On December - 5 - 2009

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.

Climate Change Data Dumped… Time to Dump Cap and Trade

Posted by courage On November - 30 - 2009

From the UK Times Online:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data went in to the trash making replication impossible for  honest scientists.  Why is this important?  Without the raw data it is impossible to validate the conclusions the UEA made regarding the climate change.  Furthermore the the publicly released emails point to collusion and intentional deceit on the part of these scientists. What scientist throws away data they have collected for decades and have made their life’s work?  I’ll answer this question.. NONE, unless you have something to hide.

Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Climategate or How Scientist Are in Collusion and Falsified Data

Posted by courage On November - 27 - 2009

The one thing about science I have always appreciated is the concept  of replication.  In fact, this is the backbone of what distinguishes good scientific results and theory from pure guess work.   Replication can take a couple of forms; 1.) involves unrelated scientists studying the same problem and arriving at the same or similar conclusions, or 2.) scientists sharing raw data crunching the numbers and independently reaching similar conclusions as to the meaning of the data.

The data used as the foundation of the United Nations report on global warming has always been suspect in my mind for a number of reasons.  The  data from the studies  are the foundation of the UN recommendations and the basis for the Copenhagen treaty next month, has never been shared with other scientists.  At one point these scientists, the ones who champion the treaty, even stated that the  data was inadvertently destroyed.   We  are not talking about some napkin theory, drawn up over a drunken dinner; the data used was freely passed between a handful of cheerleaders to “replicate” the original hypothesis that carbon dioxide was killing the planet and suddenly was unavailable to scientists who questioned the manipulation of the data and the results.

Read the rest of this entry »