Skip to comments.Three inconvenient documents for Senate Leader Dick Durbin
Posted on 06/27/2009 8:06:55 AM PDT by SERKIT
The following was sent to Sen Duck Durbin this morning via his webpage-email link:
Dear Senator Durbin:
You were kind enough to send me your views on global warming, climate change, and cap-and-trade.
After the very close vote in the House yesterday on cap-and-trade, several documents were revealed that need to be considered prior to any action on your part in the Senate. It seems that when any of these things are discussed, the argument deteriorates to name-calling, especially the term "flat earther". Well, call me what you will, but the scientific facts simply do not support the Al Gore/Leonardo DiCaprio populist theories based on non-scientific "consensus". The legislation passed in the House does not even address nuclear power, a clean resource that needs to be part of our energy independence.
Three documents came out VERY late in the game on this debate:
1) A 300+ page "manager's amendment" that was added to the bill at 3:09am the day of the House vote. Not only was this a voluminous add-on, it is a scary document. If you support it, and I hope you do not, please let me know how local governments will be able to afford the extra staff to enforce the new and very confusing laws. The bill also radically modifies international trade rules.
2) A suppressed and censored report from our own EPA exposes many problems with the theories and "consensus" of the populist (and now debunked) theory of global warming, and the true (and minimal) affect of human activity on the climate. The suppressed EPA report is linked here:
3) A report from the Chicago-based Heartland Institute summarized the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) that attempts to use scientific and rational arguments to identify exactly what is going on in the climate and the true impact of human activity. The recently released NIPCC report is found here:
The previous letter you sent me contains seemingly factual statements that now appear to be patently false regarding wild temperature increases in the next ten years.
Although these "facts" are wrong, the underlying research found in the suppressed EPA report, and the NIPCC report will help you politically. Why? Because the laws you are about to impose on us, if passed, will do NOTHING to improve the climate or greenhouse gases and will not change the global average temperatures, but, you WILL be able to show "progress" because the falsely increasing temperatures will NOT happen anyway - allowing you to take the credit for keeping the planet cool. It is a perfectly contrived crisis so that radical redistribution of wealth can occur on a global scale.
Now, I realize as a leader in the Senate, you will probably not be able to back off for even one second to look at the facts, and I understand that. But I felt I owed it to myself, my children, and my future grandchildren, that I did not sit idly by while, during the great recession of 2009, with the highest unemployment in my lifetime, I sat silent while this legislation was passed.
This law, and the concept of cap-and-trade, is not going to work, is not needed, and will do more harm to our already crippled economy.
All I ask is that you take an honest look at the three documents above, keep an open mind to the facts, and consider what you are doing to this and future generations.
We need a change in energy policy, but this is not one of them.
Sincerely and respectfully,
We need to take a page out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. It is called using ridicule.
Being called a “flat earther” (as was brought up to the Republicans yesterday in the debates in the House) qualifies, I think, as ridicule.
Now we have a Congress that passes immense, world-changing laws without reading them or having any chance to read even a small percentage of the text.
At the same time, the Constitution with it careful choice of every word and thorough debate, is virtually ignored, and courts read into it what ever THEY think is a good idea.
I think “Chicken Little”, and “Emperor has no clothes” are better ridicule than flat earth. There’s no truth in the flat earth charge; it is utter hyperbole, unadorned. There is a ton of truth in the “sky is falling”, and the “emperor’s gorgeous outfit” and the harrumphing, nodding-knowingly “consensus” we see around the climate-change scam.
Conservatives should be reminding people over and over and over again that the MSM and Democrats have been accusing Republicans, ad nauseum, of having radical agenda, so they should be run out of office.
The results are in and are irrefutable: it is an undeniable fact that the Democrats have the radical agenda, it is in the open in the public domain, and they are doing everything they can to ram that agenda up the wallet bearing rears of the citizens of this country.
Point out this very simple fact, and even the dumbest of the dumb will be able to understand that the MSM and the Democrats have lost every speck of credibility they have had in the realm of public discourse . . . . IMHO
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. If it was, I think we should all just stop exhaling! :lol: CO2 concentrations even today are only 380 ppm (increase of ~100 ppm in the last 100 years). Toxicity doesn’t exist until 30,000-50,000 ppm. So, even at our WORST we have merely increased CO2 by 1/100th of a percent in 100 years, and our cars and manufacturing plants are MUCH cleaner than they were in the first half of that century. Further, CO2 is REQUIRED by humans, plants and animals for mere survival! Despite all of the dirty carbon belching cars, trucks, and manufacturing plants in at least the first 2/3rds of that century and the fact that the last third of that century we made leaps and bounds in getting engines and manufacturing to spew MUCH less pollutants via technology .. well .. Algore’s alarmism just seems rather silly!
“To suddenly label CO2 as a “pollutant” is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.” - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
“Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat ‘starved’ for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind’s activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as ‘food’ and as a by-product.” - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology
“I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land.” - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma
Enviromentalist like populaton control. So in essence they are for mass extiction of humans. Climate change legislation is actual mass starvation legislation. CO2 need for plants
When CO2 levels are high, the funny thing that happens is, vegitation grows. HMMM So in essence if you want to limit CO2 you want to limit life.
My concern is that if CO2 is a pollutant, will BIG BroGovmint be telling families how much CO2 they’re allotted and that they must abort baby #4 or kill grandma because their allotment only has room for four human breathers?
I pray to God that the Senate sends the bill back to committee and DEMANDS that they be given time to read and analyze anything coming from the Screwy DemocRats.
REAGAN ON LIBERALS: If it moves they tax it, if it keeps moving they regulate it, if it stops moving they subsidize it.
These quotes are great. I just sent them via email to Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl.
Mark Udall keeps getting emails from me questioning his IQ, and that of the Congress. I always get back some canned response that doesn’t ever fit what I write to him.
Feast your eyeballs, my friend. There’s more quotes from phD types here:
Only a false god would claim to have the power to control the earth.
I bet I get the same from Reed, and Whitehouse in RI. My HR Patrick Kennedy was in rehab. He should not be allowed to vote on anything. You have to question whether or not the man is sober prior to voting.
And if you REALLY want to be scared to death of the “Earth First” agenda and the hidden intent by San Fran Nan, Nostrilitis Waxman, and Barack Hussein Obongo Obama, then read the quotes at the end of THIS piece:
Here are some interesting questions made by two readers at the WattsUpWithThat website:
Why have temperatures been cooling since 2003?
What proof do you have that CO2 forcing is greater than water vapors?
Prove to scientists that CO2 stays in the lower and upper tropospheres more
than a year?
Why do all the temperature charts over the past ten years record a cyclical
pattern for temperatures?
Why do multidecadal cycles in the oceans correlate extremely well with the
solar cycles and global temperatures?
Is Ocean Heat Content increasing?
Are sea surface temperatures increasing?
Is sea level rising?
Is there any case in the geologic record when a spike in C02 has come before a spike in temperature?
Are we in the midst of a solar minimum that many of our best scientists anticipate being similar to the Dalton Minimum or even the Maunder Minimum?
Can solar minima be seen to have affected climate in the past?
Also some interesting quotes - from the other side of the debate:
* Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: Its terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldnt even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.
* John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
* Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: Were at 6 billion people on the Earth, and thats roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.
* David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
* David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
* Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.
* Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.
* John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!
* Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
* Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?
* Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: A total population of 250300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.
* Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.
The preceding list of quotes is from The Mosquito: Environmentalisms Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.