A One-Two Punch to the American People

Posted on September 28, 2009. Filed under: Enemies of The State, General Info | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

FOCUS IS NOW ON HEALTH CARE REFORM LEGISLATION- BUT MANY OTHER PERILS ARE IN OUR IMMEDIATE FUTURE:

UN CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and other Government Scientists SPEAK OUT ON GLOBAL WARMING

“Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream.

If you control carbon, you control life.”

– MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer.

Per Senator Inhofe’s website: The Senate climate debate has largely been in standby mode since June, but Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is ready to kick-start the process with the release next week of a draft bill. Sources off Capitol Hill say they expect Boxer to start legislative hearings during the week of Oct. 5, with a tentative markup penciled in for the week of Oct. 12. Of course, much depends on the fate of the Senate health care bill, just how quick U.S. EPA can turn around an economic analysis of Boxer’s legislation and whether the chairwoman wants to satisfy key moderates on her panel, which include Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.). Here is the House version that passed http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show 

 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

At link above you will find the 225 page 2009 Minority Report “..Scientists Debunk Global Warming Crisis”

One scientist, DR. JOHN T. EVERETT, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones. a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, said “It is time for a reality check,” Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing, The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated. For most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution,” he explained. “No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.” The quotes from 700+ scientists go on from there. Proof there is no concensus at all.

Despite tax dollars being spent on a report, in which consensus is Global Warming Science is not based on science at all, but rather a ploy by the UN and governments worldwide to take control, many of your elected officials refuse to back down.

At http://www.petitionproject.org/

   you’ll see that

31,478 American scientists have signed a petition, including 9,029 with PhDs signed a petition. The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

 

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis -Written by Robert Ferguson (July 2008)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html 

Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports. Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F.

The CBO released a report touting the detrimental impact on the nations families over time, and this research is MODEST based on other reports that call it cataclysmic to American families and impotent against it’s portended goals. Although it was widely reported the CBO, as is not unusual, underestimated the cost to Americans. The bill is fraudulent and based on ficticious science perpetrated only to gain tax reciepts for the government, profit for GE and Goldman Sachs, power for the UN.

 

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated way back in a 2003 press release : http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm

One very critical element to our success as policymakers is how we use science. That is especially true for environmental policy, which relies very heavily on science. I have insisted that federal agencies use the best, non-political science to drive decision-making. Strangely, I have been harshly criticized for taking this stance. To the environmental extremists, my insistence on sound science is outrageous. For them, a “pro-environment” philosophy can only mean top-down, command-and-control rules dictated by bureaucrats. Science is irrelevant-instead, for extremists, politics and power are the motivating forces for making public policy.  

Over the past 2 hours, I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists.

What have those scientists concluded? The Kyoto Protocol has no environmental benefits; natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change; satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century; and climate models predicting dramatic temperature increases over the next 100 years are flawed and highly imperfect.

 
Finally I will return to the words of Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University, who compiled the Oregon Petition:

But if the relationship between public policy and science is distorted for political ends, the result is flawed policy that hurts the environment, the economy, and the people we serve.” 

 

Over the past 2 hours, I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists. Finally I will return to the words of Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University, who compiled the Oregon Petition:

What have those scientists concluded? The Kyoto Protocol has no environmental benefits; natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change; satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century; and climate models predicting dramatic temperature increases over the next 100 years are flawed and highly imperfect.

 

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

These are sobering words, which the extremists have chosen to ignore. So what could possibly be the motivation for global warming alarmism? Since I’ve become chairman of the EPW Committee, it’s become pretty clear: fundraising. Environmental extremists rake in million of dollars, not to solve environmental problems, but to fuel their ever-growing fundraising machines, part of which are financed by federal taxpayers.

So what have we learned from the scientists and economists I’ve talked about today?

The claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science.

 
C02 does not cause catastrophic disasters-actually it would be benefitical to our environment and our economy.
 
Kyoto would improse huge costs on Americans, especially the poor.
 
The motives for Kyoto are economic not environmental-that is, proponents favor handicapping the Amverican economy through carbon taxes and more regulations.
 
With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.

And yet, Democrats and those aligning themselves with the environmental justice crowd in Washington insist on getting Cap and Trade legislation passed.  They must be stopped.

 

 

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

5 Responses to “A One-Two Punch to the American People”

RSS Feed for Soldier For Liberty Comments RSS Feed

The energy (cap and trade) bill scares me way more than the healthcare bill. I cannot afford my electric bill as it is during the summer. I don’t know what I will do if they raise it even higher. At I barely meet budget for the gas to work and back and I live too far away to ride my bike back and forth, that part is going to be awful also.

After the bill passes, I also would not be able to sell my home, because of all the energy efficient restrictions they are going to place on mortgage loans.
This bill is going to be very very bad for middle and lower economic class American citizens.

Jackie, I agree that our current energy policies are unsustainable. But don’t you think that means we should try something new? Those efficiency measures are designed to help you do the same things with less electricity & gas to cut your energy bill.

It does use “phony science” for it’s conclusion that man is warming the planet. Sun spot activity, or lack of, is really where the warming affect comes from. We can’t legislate our way out of that.

If you think the energy bill is going to lower your electricity and gas bills, I think you are going to un-pleasantly surprised. I’m not convinced that carbon is the main thing warming the planet. Read my article about that on my blog, and as far as weather, our weather has been changing for centuries. It goes through cycles. They thought we were going to have another ice-age back in the 1970s. I believe in taking care of our planet as much as we can, and because of that I believe they are going to understake something horrific and irreversible to the planet

Codex Alimentarius is another one.


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: