Cap and Trade: Washington Politicos New "Green"backs

As Congress this week ponders the new "global warming" and energy bills, some thoughts and points that have long troubled me with this "scam" on the public might be of interest to some of the more aware Americans clued in on Washington's continued psychotic agendas:

Who manufactures the gadgets that are going to measure these "greenhouse gases?" Do they come with a warranty, and who is the government contractor who will be awarded the contracts for all the science based theory technology.

So far, science hasn't been able to predict the weather accurately, so again how accurate are these estimates? And when there is a "normal" cyclical change, is the EPA and the honchos on the Hill going to now take credit for becoming "masters of the universe," in controlling the weather? Harnessing energy, controlling the weather, find a cure for cancer, populating the moon, developing "new forms" of energy - and a meteor hits the planet long before the Hollywood scenario in all its HDR resonance ever occurs.

It appears either these scientists, who still haven't found the cure for the common cold, after all, for now over 2,000 years might be biting off more than they can chew. Or simply the 21st century versions of P.T. Barnum, with Congress even more clueless than the public has already pretty much determined as of late, and may need those shrinks in order to determine if narcissm and self-delusion are symptomatic of holding public office.

While everyone keeps send money for AIDS research in order to find a cure, don't you find it strange that those expensive miracle drugs to treat the symptoms arrived on the scene about three years after the first diagnosis, and a lawsuit then ensued for over 10 long years in order to extend the patent for those pharmaceutical companies (since patents don't run until any dispute over ownership is settled) with two companies now splitting the proceeds on Inferon and the other spinoffs?

The patents expire in 2017, and I hope I live long enough to see whether a "cure" then will suddenly be discovered, or whether they will then bleed the generic market dry while getting grants annually still "working" on a cure, since it is viral and we sure came up with that "swine flu mix" vaccine and had some on hand, conveniently, through the WHO "donations" as soon as that new "strain" was announced. Sort of makes you wonders, since AIDS has now become an industry also all its own with all the Hollywood benefits, by those open borders "blue" liberals, and even the "red" state liberals due to their big industry benefactors of the AIDS outbreak. AIDS became actually the best method of birth control, and stimulus for the latex industry and Dow Chemical ever.

And each "threat level" scare a stimulus for the medical industry. It does seem that the terrorism that occurs to Americans now is at a level unprecedented in this country, and not as with the border issue, the major threats don't at all seem to be from a small Middle Eastern terrorist sect, that we did, after all, even train in their guerilla tactics.

So per the 9/11 report and those "facts," it would appear Giulianni's outrage at the blamelessness of Washington for 9/11 does seem rather ludicrous - although Hillary's claim about America's "insatiable" need for drugs is actually also due to both governmental terrorism (at this point who wouldn't want to zone out for some relief) and also negligence.

But instead we'll give Mexico Black Hawk Helicopters (that will eventually be used to America's overall detriment by the cartels or Mexico), and a choice of all terrain vehicles now over the GM Pathfinders, new Hummers.

Hey, we were all just forcefed digital for the industries profits now forcing Americans to literally have to pay for the airwaves, so it mustn't seem such a leap in now taxing our very breath, and with all those towers and sonar equipment now outdated for "sciences" benefit not even given an "offset" credit.

Obama's Energy Czar: Socializing Paint Colors Throughout The Globe

The liberal lefty loonies have done it again in the U.S., and amazed that the state of our nation has now come to this.

According to Yahoo News and several other news sources, at a recent symposium held in London by 20 pre-eminent Nobel laureates and attended by the Prince of Wales, Barack Obama's new energy czar, Steven Chu, made his contribution to the global warming non-phenomena now sweeping the globe in order to "stimulate" the economies of the science and technology fields:

Mr. Chu recommends that all roofs be painted energy-reflective white.

In the article he further states that making roads and roofs a paler color would have the effect of taking every car off the road for 11 years.

I wonder if he ever worked for DuPont?

As a former Arizona resident, I can unequivocally state that painting roofs white might not be a bad idea given the sweltering summers in that desert climate. However, due to the desert dust storms and monsoons, those roofs would be brown, gray or even black within a few seasons. Not to mention the extra-strength prescription Ray-Bans you would need during the summer in order not to suffer the equivalent of snow blindness.

I wonder if these noted laureates took into consideration that with all those white roofs, would it not increase the heat also that would be reflected back toward the sun, potentially burning out that star well before its time and leaving this planet then in total darkness?

Maybe that topic is for the next global summit.

I wonder what the carbon footprints for those attending the meeting, and whether they flew by prop or British Airways non-stop jumbo jet? With the state of our technology as it is now, you would think twenty scientists could meet via telecom or satellite communications, and spare the rest of the world that excess carbon.

At least the White House and Capitol are in compliance, but it appears socializing exterior roofing is now also not even beyond the reach of these global politicians and world leaders at this point.

An Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming Scientist Banned From Hearings

As if a tanked economy, ongoing foreign engagement, potential war in the not so distant future at our Southwestern borders, and exploding costs of government were not enough, the Washington theatrics and political power moves at the citzens' expense continue.

It was reported in several lesser known news sources that Margaret Thatcher's former science advisor, global warming expert and skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton, was prevented from testifying at the widely publicized hearings conducted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee held recently during which Al Gore ("An Inconvenient Truth") was also slated to testify.

Apparently, House Global Socialists (this time from the Democratic side of the aisle) were concerned that Mr. Gore might be upstaged by Lord Monckton's expertise with the issue.

As an American citizen I can understand, perhaps, disallowing Lord Monckton's testimony as a British and not American citizen.

However, since the subject matter was GLOBAL warming and Mr. Gore, although an enthusiastic activist, is without scientific credentials insofar as the long view on this issue, such a move smacks of a staged hearing and not a fact gathering session.

Certainly there are positives to even the worst case scenario which might occur. Development of new species in the arctic regions, for example.

Isn't it statistically more probable that the earth could be hit by a large asteroid at some point? Then this entire global warming argument won't matter one hoot, nor will Mr. Gore's Nobel Peace Prize or his contributions to this scientific debate be remembered.

Leave it to the global socialists to use the world community and earth's survival or destruction in order to up their profits, the ultimate terrorism weapon. And the one's with the largest carbon footprints by far due to their globe hopping for their various causes.

Working toward world peace and solving world hunger are not big enough bites of the apple. Now it is saving the world and all humanity, animal and plant life from ultimate destruction.

Whether apparently such fears or concerns have any factual basis or are truly warranted or not doesn't seem to be the issue.

It seems only these fortune tellers have the answer to solve that age old question: Just how long will the earth exist and/or be habitable?

At least most accredited scientists will give the most obvious answer: Only God knows.

What the science community knows is the history of climatic progressions, and it would appear we've been on a somewhat warming cycle naturally since the Ice Age. Our class, genus and species most likely would not exist now but for that warming cycle.

After all, environmentalists and their vehement advocacy has, in the past, resulted in more harm than good on more than one occasion.

The current and past serial wildfires in the West and Southwest is one which quickly comes to mind due to what is now occurring in and near Santa Barbara.

Drought conditions with only moderate to non-existent wind factors have leveled literally thousands of acres of forested land due to the density of some of our state and federal forests and parks.

"Saving the trees" end result is we have now lost more mature trees than the lumber mills and their needs for construction and other durable goods did, and also has devastated and made homeless more and more Americans with each passing year. Not to mention hit countless others in increased bank mandated home and property insurance due to the costs to cover all those disaster claims.

Except, unlike the hurricanes of the Gulf and Southeastern states, some of those disasters just might have been prevented with better stewardship rather than misguided claimed "conservation."

And Mr. Gore, after all, as a "global warming" proponent has made quite a hefty sum off his Nobel prize winning book, and his travel costs and expenses for his global speaking engagements.

Yet as an activist has left quite a carbon footprint of his own traversing the globe now publicizing both his book, and his carbon tax solution. A year ago about this time he was in Rome appearing on Italian television and conducting his lectures.

Power plays, again, at the expense of the American people since apparently Lord Monckton has also offered to debate Mr. Gore on this issue, even to his favored audience, internationally, but as of yet Mr. Gore has not responded.

I guess there hasn't been an opening yet in his travel and speaking engagement schedule.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

http://faddaeart.blogspot.com/

Cap-And-Trade: Costs To Average Americans

Barack Obama is holding closed door meetings this week in order to push one of his major initiatives in order to fight "global warming."

The "Cap-and-Trade" legislation he hopes to pass as soon as possible.

The George Marshall Institute studied the proposals as now outlined by House Democrats supporting Mr. Obama's agenda. Below are the taxes which would most likely result if this legislation comes to fruition.

Don't forget, this was one of the two candidates served up to the American people last election that held himself out as one who was concerned with the tax burdens now on the average "Joe the Plumber" Americans:

"The authors find that the constraints posed by the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade approach is equivalent to a constant (in percentage terms) consumption decrease of about 1% each year, continuing to 2050. Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.

Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley and Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon)."

So, again, as with the mortgage and financial crisis, we are not addressing the problems in a positive or meaningful way, simply either throwing money at the problems at the taxpayers expense, or passing the costs of corporate America's freewheeling ways on to the American public and socializing both the debts, and the "fines," in the way of new taxes on the public in general.

CNN and the mainstream media have been also promoting these measures for several weeks.

CNN is owned by General Electric, which would stand to gain enormous profits if such taxes were instituted both indirectly and directly.

These taxes would erase the recent reduction in the income tax rates for Americans making less than $250,000 per year.

It would also hit the average farmer in the Midwest, agricultural and mining communities the hardest. Rural America.

Why not simply give tax incentives and protections for those corporations that invest a portion of their profits in clean energy alternatives instead? Especially those investing in nuclear, wind and solar power.

These measures are so broad that farmers in the Midwest already under outrageous EPA particulate standards, now will also be slammed with fines and fees for greenhouse gases from their equipment in addition during both planting and harvesting time. It hamstrings our entire agricultural industry base in its provisions.

Only liberal Democrat-Globalists would find a way in order to actually tax now the air we breathe.

Maybe Mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton, Pelosi and Napolitano could start setting good examples by retiring Air Force One and cut their personal and business travel now in this high tech age of faxes, computers and satellite communications. Just how many trips are necessary in order to evaluate the Southwestern border issue?

Those steps would reduce the greenhouse gases emitted currently from Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska all combined.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=636