Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict Valid CSS! HR2454 - The Dismantling of Science For Greed And Power

Written: July 5, 2009

HR2454 - The Dismantling of Science for Greed and Power

On Friday, June 26, 2009 our Representatives in the United States House of Representatives voted on HR2454 - The American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as the Cap-And-Trade Bill. On Wednesday, June 24, 2009, I downloaded a copy of the bill. At that time, it was 932 pages. I spent 2 hours attempted to get an updated copy of the bill that included the additional 309 pages at the time of writing this article. I was unable to find an updated copy of the bill. The one that I got from the House of Representatives web site was still the 932 pages as of July 5, 2009.

I watched C-SPAN the entire day (not recommended for most sane individuals). The floor debate for the bill began in the early afternoon, and continued through most of the day. It is obvious to anyone who watched the proceedings, that some of the people who represent us, have contempt for individuals that have a different view of the science regarding man-made global warming than they do. One representative actually said that people (scientists) who do not believe that man is the cause of global warming, are part of the Flat Earth Society. Indeed, during the debate, it was apparent that our House of Representatives is full of individuals that are extremely arrogant and disrespectful of those individuals that know more about fact, than any politician every could. During the debate, one of the Republican members asked for a complete copy of the bill that included the 309 pages that were amended the night before. The speaker indicated that it was not the responsibility of the bench to provide copies of the resolution to the members. Another representative indicated that a copy of the additional pages was on the web site. The whole incident should remind each American citizen how far the ridiculousness of our representatives has gone. When I was growing up, my parents and my friend's parents would have said that someone is blowing smoke out their ass. I would laugh my guts out if it wasn't so sad. Also during the debate, I saw the most amazing thing. Two representatives were actually using their debate time right on the House floor to obtain additional commitments that were not in the bill, and representative Waxman (a co-author of the bill) indicated that the items requested could be included in a vague area of the bill. To most of us thinking citizens, this would represent collusion, conspiracy, and even bribery. At the end of the debate, Rep. John Boehner read parts of the 309 pages that were added to the bill the night before. I would like to thank him for enlightening the American citizens of the absurdity of the pending vote.

It was indeed a dark day for America, and for science. The overall intent of this bill, as stated on the first page of the bill is to:

Create clean energy jobs
Achieve energy independence
Reduce global warming pollution
Transition to a clean energy economy

Let us look at each of the objectives as stated in the bill.

Create Clean Energy Jobs

The debate on whether jobs will be created by the United States Government (We the people), is a mute point. It is obvious that if we pour money into job creation, there are jobs that will be created, as long as we keep pouring money into them. The particular issue is do we the people want to fund the development of new energy sources, or even have the money to do so, at a time when there is no money in the till. As far as I'm concerned, the answer is a resounding no, simply because we do not have the money, and each American citizen will have to pay a considerable price to fund these jobs. That includes all households, not just people making over $250,000.00 a year. We simply cannot afford it. Of course, there is a provision that says that the government (we the people) will provide money to individuals that make less than one and one half times the poverty level to help them pay for it. Please don't believe everything a politician tells you.

Achieve Energy Independence

This statement is completely false. What will actually happen is the exact opposite. We are not going to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that are consumed in this country. We will only reduce the amount of fossil fuels that are extracted and refined in this country. Because politicians mandate that 20% of our energy will come from renewable energy sources by the year 2020, does not even come close to making it so. Even if they do accomplish it, we will still be obtaining 80% of our energy from fossil fuels. Not to mention all of those plastic items that you use every day.

You must also think about the additional plastic that they will have to put in automobiles, to lighten the weight, due to the mandate that has been enacted regarding the gas mileage required by 2016. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there are 250 million registered vehicles in the US as of 2006. The average annual registered vehicle increase based on figures between 2000 and 2006 is 4,171,765. If we use this figure to determine how many years it will take to replace every vehicle that is registered today, it would take 60 years to replace all of the vehicles that are current registered. Even if we use the high figure of 2007, where 7 million cars were purchased, it would still take over 35 years to replace the vehicles that are on the road today. It is quite obvious that those individuals that are financially well endowed will replace their vehicles at a far greater pace than those of us that are financially strapped. The point of the above statements is that there will be vehicles being used, mostly by the poorest of us, for quite some time. It is the poorest of our citizens that will pay the highest prices for years to come.

This bill also penalizes the use of natural gas. There are over 8 million vehicles throughout the world that run on natural gas. The automotive industry has produced numerous vehicles that use compressed natural gas. I wrote a book called 'The 2008-2009 Buyers Guide to Alternative Fueled Vehicles' in which I wrote about each type of alternative fuel. It was my opinion then, and is my opinion now, that offering natural gas vehicles, which could be fueled at any individuals home, would be a great alternative to gasoline based vehicles. But, of course, this bill penalizes the use of natural gas as well. Look out for the massive increase in your heating and cooking bills.

There is no way that we will not be using foreign oil unless we increase our own oil production substantially, not penalize the production of this much needed resource. Oil will be produced for a very long time. Americans should receive the benefits of its production. This bill destroys the production and refinement of a product that has been, and will continue to be, a required product for the foreseeable future. As a final point regarding energy independence, the politicians who put together this bill do not allocate any financing to develop nuclear power plants. The question has to be asked about how serious the authors of this bill are, when they do not allow us to develop the most efficient energy source on the planet. If France can have 80% of their energy produced by nuclear power, why can't we.

Reduce Global Warming Pollution

The whole premise of this section is that global warming is man-made. The whole issue of global warming is an affront to science, as well as all thinking human beings. The assertion that man is the cause of global warming is a complete fraud that stems from some individuals arrogance, and search for greed. The true sadness is that so many people have been lied to and brainwashed into thinking that this absurd notion is true. It is not only a disgrace to science itself; it is the Emperor's New Clothes fable of the 21st century. The first point was addressed during the debate of the bill on Friday. That fact is that we have had global cooling since 2001, not global warming. The second fact is that the data that has been used in regards to the global warming craze, is based on findings of an agency called the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This panel is a political panel, not a scientific panel. Although they gather data from all areas of science, from respected scientists all over the world, their data and conclusions are more political than scientific. Thousands of scientists have rejected the conclusions of their reports, pointing out that in fact the scientific data was manipulated for political reasons. These points were made by Representative John Linder during the debate last Friday. Please go to his web site to view his statements that were made on the House floor. In addition to Representative Linder's statements, I e-mailed Dr. Landsea at NOAA, and asked him if it would be ok to include an excerpt from his resignation letter to the IPCC, which he graciously said yes. Below is the excerpt from that letter, as well as the link to the entire letter:

January 17, 2005

Dr Landsea Resignation Letter to IPCC

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

The link to his entire letter is: Dr. Landsea Resignation Letter to IPCC

I included the above excerpt as one of many acclaimed scientists that indicate that the conclusions drawn by the IPCC studies, do not, in fact, reflect the tremendous amount of scientific study that was done by true scientists. It is the massive amount of marketing and greed that is driving the global warming hysteria. If you want more information regarding the global warming hoax, please read my article Global Warming - Report Facts . For those who insist that we have to do something to curb global warming, maybe they can ponder on this. Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party didn't gas 6 million Jews because they hated them. They did it because they were trying to reduce their carbon foot print, thereby saving the planet for future generations. Oh yea, and confiscating their wealth was pretty cool too.

By the way, since all plant life requires the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, wouldn't eliminating the "pollutant" CO2 from the atmosphere be considered genocide of all plant life on the planet? Just an extreme thought. On a lighter note, I would like to point out that in the 1970's there was great concern about global cooling. Kenneth Watt wrote the following phrase:

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.

Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970).

As you can see, the opinions have varied widely over the years.

Transition to Clean Energy Economy

If the intent of the bill was to, indeed, transition to clean energy, the authors of the bill would have to include nuclear, as well as hydro-electric power. The exclusion of these two economical, and clean power sources, is intentional. The science has already proven how effective both of these type of power sources are, as well as the energy levels that can be obtained, and the economical viability of these power sources. The authors of this bill never had any intention of converting to clean energy. Just because a person desires, or wishes something, does not bring it about. If this bill becomes law, it will not reduce our requirements of either coal or oil. Its sole purpose is to tax each and every citizen of this country by requiring the purchase of emission allowances that will be handed out to companies and organizations that the government determines are worthy. In my opinion, this is the highest form of corruption, manipulation, and control of our energy services. The individuals who pass this bill have no knowledge as to how to make any of these alternative energy sources work, or whether or not they will be able to produce the outcome that they are mandating. It is in fact an immense scam being perpetrated on the entire citizenry of our great country. If they wanted to do it correctly, they should have invested in future energy sources, without penalizing the energy sources that we currently use. The ulterior motives of this bill are greed and power. This bill accomplishes both, which is really what these characters are all about. And please stop with the 'For the Children' business.

Final Analysis Of HR2454

The Earth is not warming - it's cooling (Natural Occurence).
The polar ice is not melting - it's back to normal levels (Natural Occurence).
The Polar Bear population is not dwindling - it's increasing (Fact).
CO2 is not a pollutant - it's necessary for all plant life (Natural Occurence)
HR2454 is not what it says - its lies, taxes, and fraud (Unamerican Legislation).

This bill will not do anything that is stated that it will do. It will burden every American citizen with a vast increase in their energy costs, their food costs, and the costs of every product they will purchase in the future. The additional burden of mandates being put on levels of production of "clean energy" will probably also cause a lack of production of our current energy sources, causing shortages of fuel production, shortage of coal production, and shortages of natural gas production. These shortages will result in major gas lines, frequent blackouts, and probably deaths due to the non-availability of heating fuel for the cooler temperatures that I for one, predict. By the way, the global-warmers will say that all of their efforts reduced the temperatures, and millions of people will believe it. If you read my article that I have a link to above, you will know that the slight cooling and warming of the planet is a natural cycle, that has, and will continue to occur every 40 years. I believe that they are presenting this bill, at this time, because they already know that we are currently in a cooling cycle, and they'll be able to take credit for it. More fraud perpetrated on the American citizens.

I believe that HR2454 represents the largest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public. Bernard Maydoff got 150 years for defrauding citizens out of $50 billion. Shouldn't the representatives who voted for this bill, as well as the other individuals that crammed this down our throats, receive 6,000 years for defrauding the public out of $2 trillion dollars (and much, much, more). I'd vote yes for a bill that would put these turkeys in jail.

Just one more point. The media is as much to blame for our current state of affairs, as the politicians are. And as far as contacting you Senator or Congressman, that's a joke. The "Representatives" that help perpetrate this fraud, don't care how many of us lowly subjects contact them. Their arrogance, not to mention the thickness of their wallets/purses, far exceeds their desire to "represent" their subjects.

As always, I thank you for visiting my web site.

Robert J Taggart, Sr.