“What is becoming increasingly apparent is that this Cap and Trade legislation no longer has much to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  It’s a monstrous collection of payoffs to big business special interests ranging from Goldman Sachs to Duke Energy to General Electric.”  Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute

On July 14 the front page of USA Today claimed that Obama’s attempt to use the Gulf Oil spill to  propel his energy agenda had failed. Has it really?   Senate Harry Reid and Obama met behind closed doors   to develop their plan to deliver comprehensive energy reform to the Senate floor by month’s end, and on  July 22, the Democratic Caucus met behind closed doors to discuss Reid’s latest proposal.   According to Senator Reid his proposal, using Senator Jeff  Bingaman’s renewable electricity standard (RES) legislation – The American Clean Energy and Security Act, will cap carbon from power plants by forcing them to produce a growing percentage of the electricity they produce from government approved renewable energy sources.  The  proposed bill is also said to contain provisions to phrase in other industries in later years and includes “modest” (by democrats’ standards)  tax increases on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel.   Reid’s proposal does not include the words “cap, tax, or greenhouse gases” since these words are now toxic in today’s politically charged environment.  THE NAME MAY  CHANGE BUT THE RESULT IS  STILL THE SAME.

Many Senators were sitting on the fence regarding Reid’s plan – with elections on the horizon and the majority of Americans against more taxation – they had decided it is in their own self-interest not to support Reid’s proposal.  Hitting a wall of opposition to taxing carbon emissions from utility companies, Reid has now unveiled a new narrow limited energy bill that doesn’t contain a cap and tax plan.  He has outlined a 4 point plan to increase the liability cap for damaged incurred from the BP spill and added new oil rig safety regulations;  to change the diesel fleet to natural gas;  plans to legislate the Home Star energy efficiency program;  and invest in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.   Claiming to have 60 votes for this new plan, he is preparing to bring it to the floor for a vote.   Senator Ben Nelson said he fully expects this “scaled back version” to pass.  But, Senator John Kerry  said – “Let me be crystal clear, this legislation he has proposed doesn’t replace climate change legislation.”    He also added that Obama had called him in before the  the Democratic Caucus meeting and promised to step up efforts to find support for a broader plan. 

If renewable energy souces were reliable and cost effective, companies would be adopting the technology on their own to stay   competitive.  But, the truth is – they are not cost effective.   Renewable energy sources are more expensive than traditional fuel, hence the need for government mandates.  They will significantly raise everyone’s energy costs.   Taking the full cost of wind and other renewables into account, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that Reid’s first proposal based on Bingaman’s RES  legislation would have raised electricity prices by 36% for families and 60% for businesses; cut national income by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; cut national income for a family of four by $2,400; reduce employment by more than 1 million jobs and added  more than $10,000 to a family’s share of the national debt by 2035. 

With Obama still desperately trying to find support for a full comprehensive cap and trade bill, you have to ask yourself – why is Reid so willing to downsize his agenda and provide a seemlingly harmless bill that even Republicans can support!   Do I trust Harry Reid?  About as much as I would trust a rattle snake!  Progressives do not give up that easy.   They are up to something that I would wager is not going to be for the good of the country.   Is Reid  posturing for re-election by trying to  make himself look more in touch with the voters,  knowing that  this new proposed bill will not be voted on until after the November elections?  Has he and Obama struck some deal to attach the existing cap and trade legislation to some unrelated bill and pass it in the dead of night as is their custom?    If the democrats hold their majority the Reid plan will be replaced by a full blown cap and trade bill.  If they lose their majority, expect to see a version of the cap and trade bill passed in a lame duck session.   

In May, Todd Stern, Obama’s envoy for climate change admitted that cap and trade legislation is unlikely to pass the Senate this year but he assured the UN delegates from more than 40 countries that the US is ready to move forward on a comprehensive international climate change treaty without Congressional approval.  

“I do believe this nation has been portrayed for too long a time to the people as being energy poor, when it is energy rich.” Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s mission as President was to rein in a government he considered an obstacle to economic opportunity and human liberty. He complained the federal government had over-spent, over-estimated and over-regulated.

Supporting Gore, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid; Perriello voted in 2009 in favor of “Cap & Trade” or better known as “Cap & Tax”, the largest middle class energy tax increase in American History!

It  appears now that the Senate is gearing up to pass a ‘Cap & Trade’ travesty, forcing American Businesses to purchase carbon credits at a price now under negotiations, but orginially estimated to be as much as $100 billion. This price will be passed on to YOU, the consumer, in higher utilitiy bills, gasoline prices, services and everything manufactured or transported to include FOOD. Please visit the American Thinker and read the effects of this outrageous bill will have on you and your family.

Since the BP oil disaster, Obama has refused help from other countries to help clean up and possibly stop the oil flow. The President says he’s trying to take political control of this crisis and that’s seems to be exactly what’s he has done…in his political bureacratic gobbledygook that is. He’s using the oil spill to futher his radical agenda to pass Cap & Trade, just as he’s using the drug trafficing, (by doing nothing) along the borders to pass his immigration bill.  BP has said time and time again they will pay for all clean-up and make full restitution for damages. But in the Obama fashion: ‘never let a crisis go to waste’, they  want to seize the opportunity to take CONTROL. Obama wants the money BP would pay in damages put in escrow. (Control is what Obama’s all about.) Can you imagine all the red tape this administration will put those who lost their jobs and businesses through?  And let’s not forget the blood sucking vampires (AKA – the IRS) that want to make everyone pay taxes on the money they would receive. When all is said and done, those harmed by the oil spill will be lucky to get a dime. This is a good example of that ‘Hope & Change’.  Obama’s hoping he gets the money and you get the change.

The technology already exist to clean the oil spill, so why isn’t it being used?

Under the Obama administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted a policy to curtail surface mining in a six-state region, by reducing the practice of filling valleys with excess waste. In March , the EPA proposed to block a ‘mountaintop’ coal mine in West VA  regardless of the company’s federal permit. West VA is a democrat state so what will happen now with the passing of Robert Byrd? Will another democrat take his seat who is 100% for Obama’s solicalistic agenda or 100% for the people who rely on their mining jobs to support their state and families.

“When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a Cap & Trade System, electricity rates would not necessarily skyrocket.” Barack Obama.

Coal, a fossil fuel, is the largest source of energy for the generation of electricity worldwide. We use coal-generated electricity for numerous things including: heating, cooling, cooking, transportation, farming, and industry. Coal is a versatile fuel, can be used as a solid fuel and can be converted to a gas to replace expensive imported fuels. In terms of supply, the U.S. has over 300 billion tons of recoverable coal. That’s enough to last for 300 years. At this time, coal provides 45.2% of Virginia’s power, 97.8% of West VA’s, 93.1% in Kentucky, 85.8% in Ohio, 94% in Indania and 94.5% in Wyoming.

In the U.S., 23 out of 25 electric power plants generated by coal have lower operating cost than those producing electricity from natural gas. This means lower costs to homeowners and businesses.

In 2008 Obama said, “What I’ve said is that we would put a Cap & Trade System in place that is more – that is aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else’s out there…so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s been emitted.”

While speaking to a voter in Ohio, Joe (foot-in-mouth) Biden said firmly, “we’re not supporting clean coal.”

The West VA’s  Coal Association’s president and others in the coal industry say they’ve received mixed messages about Obama’s coal-fired power because both Obama and Biden have stated they would support finding cleaner ways to burn coal. Let me clear that up for you…… 

Obama has said he wants to bankrupt the coal industry and it has been reported that no new coal mining permits have been issued since he took office. His plans for coal mining would place tens of thousands out of work. In Pennsylvania there are 264 mines, 282 mines in West VA, Kentucky has 417 and Virginia with 118. That’s a lot of jobs! Obama must feel  it’s okay to add a few extra thousand to the unemployment lines as long as his socialistic agenda gets passed.

I’ll be the first to say Obama has a team of writers who know how to manipulate and sugar coat the facts, But the truth is, if you take a cow pattie and sugar coat it, in the end…. it’s still dung.

For even more information on the Cap & Trade Tax system please go here .

With offshore drilling on hold as a result of the oil  spill, Governor McDonnell is backing another federal effort to promote energy production.  McDonnell and governors in nine other states have joined an effort organized by U.S.  Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar to promote, coordinate, and expedite development of offshore wind facilities  along the Outer Continential Shelf.  Virginia will also be home to a regional renewable energy office, although a site has not yet been selected.  McDonnell feels that “this is a tremendous opportunity for us to have – when you get the infrastructure paid – a no cost source of energy. . .I’m 100% behind quickly exploring the possibility of getting a wind farm off the coast of Virginia Beach.”  He later withdrew his support  for the Governor’s Wind Energy Coalition saying he supports “voluntary – not mandatory  renewable energy standards.” 

In 2007, Virginia’s first commercial wind farm was approved for installation with  as many as 20 wind turbines, each 400 foot tall, to be erected atop two Alleghany Mountains in Highland County, near the West Virginia Border.  The State Corporation Commission immediately imposed strict environment safeguards on the site.  Construction of the $80 million project started in 2009, and in  May of this year,  the County Board of Supervisors and the developer were threatened with a lawsuit by a group of concerned citizens and conservationists,  if construction continued. 

June  2010, the Roanoke Valley Cool Cities Coalition board of directors unanimously endorsed a plan to put 15 to 18 wind turbines, standing some 440 feet high, on the ridgeline on Poor Mountain  not far from a Bent Mountain community.

Dominion Resources and BP Wind Energy have also proposed building wind farms in Tazewell and Wise Counties.  Tazewell supervisors have substantially put an end to the proposed turbines by a vote of 3-2 to limit structures taller than 40 foot.  Wise County,  however, approved the farm plans for their area.

While I am not against progress, I am against progress at any cost.  When I think of wind turbines I picture Holland and wind mills.  Like most Americans,  I don’t particularly like cell phone towers but I know they are a necessary evil.  And I don’t think I could survive without wireless.  But wind farms!  After hours of  research,  I would like to share a few of the tidbits I found.                  

The cost to develop and build a wind energy facility  is approximately $1.3 million to $1.7 million per megawatt, compared to gas fired energy generation of $800,000 per mega watt.  On average, due to wide and unpredictable fluctuations of wind,  turbines will only produce on average about 30% of its nameplate power.  It takes over one thousand times the amount of land for wind power to produce roughly the  equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear plant.  It is not reliable or predictable and what’s worse, wind can’t be counted on to provide power on demand.  Most of the windiest sites and available lands are a long way from where electricity is needed, resulting in the need for thousands of miles of huge unsightly transmission towers and cable, at an enormous expense to the consumer.  A study done in 2007 by the U.S. National Academy of Science concluded that under the most optimistic conditions, co2 savings by 2020 will amount to only 1.8%.   And, according to The Heritage Foundation, the average family would pay $300.00 a month for wind powered electricity as opposed to $189.00 from coal.

Sorry, Governor McDonnell but I don’t get the “no cost” source of energy. 

Europe has been in the wind power business for quite a few years.  In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it had serious environmental effects, insufficient production and higher production costs. Denmark has over 6000 turbines that produce electricity equal to 19% of what the country actually used.  Yet, no conventional power plant was ever shut down.  Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must run at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity.  In 2004, Denmark’s glut of wind towers provided on 3.3% of their electricity.  The country is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity and as a result they have the highest electrical consumer costs in Europe. 

The first detailed study of Britain’s onshore wind farms suggests some treasured landscape may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.  Britain has 245 onshore wind farms.  Although wind power is expensive, the industry has boomed because of the renewable obligation subsidy program, under which consumers pay roughly double the normal price for energy from wind.  “Too many developments are underperforming because developers grossly exaggerate the potential.  the subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.”

Cost is not the only factor – lets consider safety.  Germany leads the world in installed wind energy with 18,865 turbines suppling  ONLY 5.7% of the nation’s electricity.  But, even among insurers in Germany, wind power is now considered a risky sector.  They have reported accidents such as fragments of a broken rotor blade striking a road shortly before rush hour traffic, a 230 foot tall wind turbine which folded in half next to a highway; two turbines on fire and firemen unable to put it  out because their ladders weren’t tall enough to reach the burning casings, rotor blades ripping off a 328 foot turbine with fragments landing in a field, etc.  

In a health study at Northern Maine Medical Center, the data which Dr. Nissenbaum characterized as alarming, suggests residents living within 3500 feet of wind turbines are experiencing serious health problems related to shadow flicker and noise emissions.  The World Health Organization has identified children and the elderly as being particularly susceptible. Dr.  Nina Pierpont, a NY Pediatrician says she is convinced that vibration and noise emitted by wind turbines can produce a range of symptoms she calls “Wind Turbine syndrome” (WTS).  She said that there are 12 different health problems associated with WTS ranging from tachycardia (abnormal heart beat) to panic attacks.

Turbulence produced by turbine rotors can have a strong impact on local ground temperatures and moisture content.  Turbulence creates stronger mixing of heat and moisture which causes the land surface to become warmer and drier.  Federal officials have warned of a potential threat to endangered birds from crashing into turbines or the transmission lines or from loss of habitat. Wind farms as far away as 25-30 miles are interfering with Doppler  radar.   Turbines can short out, be struck by lightening, or overheat causing wild fires.

Offshore wind farms are common in Europe.  In the U.S. they have been mainly confined to land but there are 3 installations planned off the coast of New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Delaware.  The Meteorological Institute in Oslo reports that extracting energy from wind changes regional air currents which in turn affect how the nearby ocean circulates, bringing nutrient rich water up from the depths.  Overtime you could see a lot more plankton blooming which is famous for causing toxic red tides and sucking oxygen out of the water.  Studies at the Oslo Institute were done at 98 foot depth.  Deeper farms have been proposed in Europe but they conclude that  maintenance costs skyrocket the further away from shore you go.   

The effect on co2 is negligible. They are expensive to build and maintain. Our  electric bills will double and it’s  a given our taxes will increase.  They cause health problems, can be dangerous to wildlife,  are a definite  blight on the landscape, and  an environmental hazard to our forests and oceans.  They only have a life of twenty plus years.  What happens when  it is no longer economically viable to repair or maintain them?  Has anyone actually thought about the long term effects these massive turbines will have on our environment?   Wouldn’t it be better to invest all this money in clean coal technology? How about just investing  the money in an industry that will actually produce jobs.

Obama has promised to push through a cap and tax bill this year.  With the possibility of the democrats losing their house majority, he is determined to push as much of his liberal agenda as possible before the November elections.  We know that global warming is a hoax so there is really no need to rehash all the agruments.

Although the beginning of this hoax  starts in the 1940’s, for the sake of brevity, lets jump forward to 1972.  Enter Maurice Strong – chosen by the U.N. to direct Earth Summit I in Stockholm.  At this time he was recruiting people for Trudeau’s new Canadian government, managing his own private investment firm and working at the Rockefeller Foundation, which,  by the way, supplied a grant to finance the Stockholm conference.  The first Earth Summit had far more international significance than was ever reported.  Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were financed by the Canadian government to attend the conference in hopes of showing that the Summit had wide appeal.  But, only those NGOs that Maurice Strong approved of received funding to attend.  It was his way of keeping the rift-raft out.  The first Earth Summit institutionalized the environment as a legitimate concern of government, using the NGOs as an instrument through which the governments could push their agenda with the outward appearance of public support.

In 1983, Strong was appointed to the U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development, headed by Geo Harlen Brundland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party.   The file is in pdf format. 

In 1992, Strong organized the second Earth Summit in Rio, using the same tactics that were so successful in 1972.  However, this time, only NGOs accredited by the U.N. were invited and only those NGOs who approved of the U.N. Agenda 21, were funded.  For those not familiar with Agenda 21, it is a program run by the U.N. relating to sustainable development, combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, population, and demographic dynamics, which is all double talk for global control of your life.  To read Agenda 21 go here.  In his opening address at the Rio summit, Strong said that industrialized countries have “developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. . .current lifestyles and consumption of the affluent middle class. . .are not sustainable.  A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”  As a side note, Strong is on the board of directors for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCU), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the World Resources Institute (WRI) all of which have developed and advanced the global agenda since 1971. 

Earth Day 1995,  Al Gore travels to Massachusetts to deliver a speech at the Headquarters of Molten Metal Technology to praise them for development of new technology to recycle metals from waste.  He neglected to mention that Molten Metal was run by Maurice Strong and a group of Gore intimates that included Peter Knight, the firms registered Lobbyist and former  Gore senate aide.  It also slipped his mind that the company  had received $33 million in U.S. Department of Energy research grants or that they had failed to prove that the new technology would even work on a commercial scale.  With his busy schedule its easy to understand how he also  forgot to mention that the government grants were Molton’s only  source of income.  After Gore’s speech, Molton stock rose to $35.00 a share.  Then a miracle happened, the  Department of Energy woke up and balked at additional funding.  By March 1996, the company realized their cash cow had dried up and, by October, seven of its corporate officers, including Maurice Strong, had sold off 15.3 million personal shares of stock at $35.00 a share.   When the stockmarket opened for businesses on the following Monday, stock shares had plunged 49% leaving the rest of the stockholders holding the bag.   

The Chicago Climate Exchange was launched in 2003 with funding from the Joyce Foundation.   CCX was a brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economics professor who worked for both the Chicago Mercantile Association  and the Chicago Board of Trade.  CCX board members are Maurice Strong, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, former head of the UN Environmental Program; Rajenra Pachauri, head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Michael Cutajar, former executive director of the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change, etc.  There seems to be a theme working here.

Enter Stage Left:  Generation Investment Management LLP, founding partner,  Al Gore.  GIM is a London based investment firm founded in 2004, with offices in London and New York.  They are the largest shareholder of CCX. Another  co-founder is Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs  CEO.  Other founding partners include a long list of Goldman Sachs employees such as David Blood, Mark Ferguson, Peter Harris, and, of course, Peter Knight, now GIM President and former Gore fundraiser, advisor, and campaign manager of the  1996 Clinton/Gore campaign.   GIM  has influence not only over CCX  but the Bristish counter-part,  Carbon Neutral Co. (CNC).

The World Rainforest Movement reported in 2005 that the World Bank, large corporations, Washington backed NGOs. and national bureaucracies in southern countries are keen on pushing a similar project – encouraging local communities or national governments to sell rights to their  forests’ carbon to polluting corporations.

In 2006 Gore started his own global warming nonprofit “Alliance for Climate Protection”.  Cathy Zoi, former environmental advisor to Bill Clinton, is CEO.  Gore, of course, serves as Chairman of the Board, along with board members Theodore Roosevelt IV, Carol Browner – former EPA Advisor for Bill Clinton, Brent Scowcroft – George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor, and Lee Thomas – former EPA Director under Ronald Reagan. 

Can we stop this disaster?  If we don’t, heaven help us!  I will leave you with a quote from Maurice Strong speaking at the U.N. in 2007 -   ”Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?  Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” 

This whole thing reeks of corruption!!  This continues to reinforce the fact that Congress needs to be thrown out on their ear. 

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/40154/

Enough of the regulation and control.

Take a look at the article below. It was written by Coleman. In it he explains how the whole global warming hysteria has come to be. It was originally published at: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorn…74742.html

for more information about the writer look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Colema…hercaster)

“The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming.” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling.” The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.

That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.

Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.”

To email John Coleman, click here.

For more info on the global warming scam, check out Coleman’s Corner.

Plus this area enjoys some of the lowest costs for electricity in the country because of the amount of power produced by coal.

Carbon-reduction legislation approved by the House of Representatives in late June and ready for consideration by the Senate could sharply erode the earnings of coal-fired power generating plants and, by extension, the railroads that deliver their fuel.

A Standard & Poor’s report suggested that H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (“ACES”), also known as cap and trade, could cut utility earnings by 20%. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif., top), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of a key subcommittee, co-sponsored the bill.
 
S&P analysts said the House bill could cause the share of power produced from coal to drop to 33% from 50%. The bill aims to cut fossil fuel emissions from power plants and other users 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.

The report said the bill could also cause coal users to switch to natural gas, pushing up its price.

The importance of coal for rail profitability is indicated by the fact that coal accounts for more than 40% of rail traffic and around 20% of revenues.
 
Economists say that a reduction in the earnings of either utilities or railroads could have ripple effects on their customers, including cuts in capital investment that would affect service and capacity.

The vote for the bill will be delayed until later in September, this is a good thing so we will have a little more time to let our senators know about the problems (namely taxes and increased costs) in the bill.

First here are the contact pages for Mark Warner and Jim Webb

Warner

Webb

Here is a very brief overview of the Bill

The supposed purpose of this bill is to limit or reverse global warming.
This bill would say CO2 along with 4 or 5 others gases are going to be classified as green house gases which means they will come under control and regulation of the EPA.

The bill is supposed to limit man-made greenhouse gases by instituting a declining cap on allowable emissions. This would mean that electricity producers, petroleum refiners, and natural gas distributors would have to obtain permits called “Allowances” from the Federal Government for every ton of CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions they produce.

Each year the government will issue fewer allowances, this will FORCE the price of the allowances to go up as the demand for fewer and fewer allowances issued goes up. The cost of the allowance is a TAX.
As with any TAX on business it WILL be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher costs for things like electricity and gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, etc. The total value of the these allowances will be in the BILLIONS of dollars and by 2035 will have a total aggregate value (READ TAX) of $5.7 TRILLION DOLLARS. This will make this bill one of the largest new taxes in history, if not the largest!

Just to give a little background, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is something that every living animal or human expels every time we collectively breathe… don’t sigh to deep or too long you will be contributing to global warming…

The 2 biggest producers of CO2 are:
1. The Oceans they produce about 57% of all CO2 and
2. Normal breathing of all living species, including humans. This accounts for about 38% of all CO2 production. The only way I know to effect #2 is for a lot of people and animals to stop breathing. Sorry I’m being a smart aleck again. But I also guess we could plant more trees or plants.

Al Gore is running all over the world talking about global warming with a doomsday approach. But the impact we can make as far as CO2 production is very, very small.

Over 700 international scientists have said that the science being used warn of the impending doom is flawed or incorrect in its assumptions and consequentially the results. These 700 scientists have said that the cap and trade will have NO IMPACT on the earth’s global warming. Some of these scientists can actually PROVE that the Earth is cooling down and will continue to do so for the next 20 to 30 years.

The Sun has more impact on the earth’s cooling and warming cycles than humans do by way of sunspot activity.

While the Cap and Trade was being written, an EPA scientist wrote a paper saying that any regulation of CO2 would have no impact on Global Warming. That paper was suppressed by high ranking officials in the EPA because “The direction of the debate on Global Warming had been decided”.

What does all this mean for us? Well since you asked……..

BY 2035

(all these figures are from the Heritage Fountain)

All this for something that is based on flawed science and will yield very little to no positive impact on our environment. Hhhhmmmmmmmmm………. Remember don’t sigh be long.

Please write our Senators using the facts, and tell them we cannot stand ANOTHER TAX that will yield no benefit!!!

AUGUST 20th   AMERICAN’S FOR PROSPERITY HOT AIR BALLOON EVENT

Save the Date: August 20th
AFP’s Hot Air Balloon to Stop in Bluefield and Roanoke
Right now in Washington, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are pushing a Cap and Trade scheme that raises taxes on your gasoline, raise taxes on your home heating and cooling and kills jobs by the thousands with government rationing of our energy — all in the name of Al Gore’s Global Warming alarmism.
Register for the Bluefield and Roanoke stop of Americans for Prosperity’s Hot Air Tour
Thursday, August 20th

You can fight back — just like we did with Tea Parties.   Bring your family out to Americans for Prosperity’s Hot Air Tour Thursday, August 20th in Bluefield or Roanoke as we urge Senators Warner and Webb to VOTE NO to the current Cap and Trade Scheme. We’ll have free food and free rides on a giant 70-foot-tall hot Air balloon (weather permitting).
Bluefield, VA
9:00am — Thursday, August 20th
Location: TBD
Click Here to Register
Take Action

Send Senators Warner and Webb a message – tell them to sign the NO Climate Tax Pledge!

Roanoke, VA
5:30pm — Thursday, August 20th
Location: TBD
Go to: http://www.capwiz.com/americansforprosperity and register for the event.

*Free “The Truth is Cool” t-shirts for the first 50 in attendance at each stop.
Please share this event by forwarding this e-mail to family, friends, coworkers, home school group, political group, and other community associations!
Note: Hot air balloon rides are weather and wind permitting.
Do you support our cause? Americans for Prosperity is supported by our over 500,000 members.  Your contribution can help continue the fight to expose the hot air in the global warming debate. Help support the Hot Air Tour by clicking here.