The House Passes H.R. 2454, The Economic Destruction Act Of 2009

Today the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The mammoth bill consisted of more than 1500 pages and would be more aptly named the Hamstring the American Economy Act. The bill will now head to the Senate for their take on the issue, where I cannot help but wonder if the Senators will actually read the bill before reading it unlike their counterparts in the House.

President Obama and the Democratic House leadership claimed that this bill was a “jobs” bill. Their claim is based on the premise that the legislation will create green jobs and will help the economy. The dirty little secret is that the cost of the bill to the American taxpayers will be astronomical. Everyone will pay more for their energy consumption. This may not appear to be that big of an issue for the millionaire bureaucrats in Washington or the hypocrite Al Gore, but for those citizens who already struggle to pay their energy bills on a monthly basis, it will be a major problem. Over the next 25 years electricity rates will increase an estimated 90%, gasoline prices will increase an estimated 58%, natural gas rates will increase an estimated 55%, add an additional $28,728 per person in the U.S. to the national debt, and reduce the gross domestic product by $9.4 trillion

As for the jobs that they are claiming that will be created, we only have to look to Spain to foresee the outcomes of the very same policies. In Spain the unemployment rate is at 18% and for every green job created 2.2 jobs are lost. The cost of creating the green jobs is a bargain as well, a mere $774,000 per green job “created”. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at King Juan Carlos University who authored a report on Spain’s green jobs initiatives said, “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices”. Several U.S companies have already stated that it will be cheaper for them to move their entire operations out of the U.S. than to stay and pay the stifling taxes and penalties for doing business in the Obama led United States.

What I find most amazing about this legislation is the unmitigated gall of the President concerning its inevitable outcome. During his campaign, before the he became the media-anointed messiah of all people, the President said that his clean energy proposal would bankrupt the coal industry. This may not seem to be that big of a deal for most of my “green” readers, but the U.S. depends on coal to supply roughly 50% of our energy. Now how will we supply energy without coal? We could use nuclear power; you remember the cheap, reliable energy source that the President favors for Iran. The only problem is that the very same people who are trying to hamper our economy with this legislation are also the same hypocritical bureaucrats that have prevented any new nuclear power plants from being built in the past 30 years.

While the concept of wind and solar energy providing all of our energy needs is a laudable one, the simple fact remains that the technology does not exist today to make these economically viable. Provide funding for research if you want, but do not punish the American people and our economy for the sake of flawed science. As the Senate takes up this legislation, we can only hope that the Senators will put aside their party loyalty and actually vote to protect the American economy and our pocketbooks. I realize that this may be too much to ask for many of the lifelong politicians, but can’t we at least expect them to read the bill before they vote on it? After all, the author of the bill in the House, Henry Waxman, admitted that he had not read the bill and did not know all of the details of the bill. He was content to rely on the scientists that wrote the bill. I suppose the only ones that will be laughing and cheering about this legislation in the years to come will be China, India, and the rest of the world who will reap the economic rewards for the folly of our elected officials.

George W caused Global Warming.

George W. -- the definition of warmonger -- is solely responsible for Global Warming. To prove this, all you must do is look at the Delaware River.

And when I say George W., I of course mean George Washington.

I am sure that everyone will recognize the very famous picture of Washington crossing the Delaware River on Christmas day in 1776. Then again, with today's public education and the lack of focus on things that are actually important, maybe a lot of people reading this have no idea what I am referring to. History doesn't help kids' self-esteem much, so I am guessing that it is no longer in today's curriculum.

To refresh your memory, then General Washington took 2,400 men across the near frozen Delaware River to attack a garrison of British soldiers in New Jersey. This was a turning point in the war because the American troops had just lost New York City and their morale was extremely low. Had Washington not crossed the Delaware to attack the British in the Battle of Trenton, we may all be speaking British right now. Again, with today's education system, most people won't even understand that last joke.

What isn't discussed very often is that the Delaware River doesn't actually freeze to the point that we see in the now famous picture. Did the artist exaggerate to make Washington and the troops look more courageous? Let us examine this little thing that I like to call "history."

While watching the History Channel this past weekend, I caught a great piece about what is commonly called the "mini ice age" or "little ice age." This was a time from about the 16th to 19th century in which the earth suffered through 3 little periods of extreme cooling with each little period separated by slight warming. The exact time period is a matter of debate of course, but this is why the picture of the Delaware crossing looks exaggerated. The river was almost frozen over, which doesn't happen today because the earth has been warming. Again, the time period is a matter of debate. In fact, the Atlantic ice pack began to expand in the 13th century while the global glacial expansion did not begin until the 16th century.

There isn't as much debate about when the mini ice age ended. Most believe it was in the 19th century, around 1850. This would be less than a century after the Delaware crossing. The earth started warming, and somehow did so without the help of SUVs and coal burning power plants.

So, what caused the sudden warming at the end of the mini ice age? To try and answer that, we must first find out what caused the cooling that started the mini ice age. Common theories claim that the heightened volcanic activity combined with lower sunspot activity caused the ice age. The volcanic activity caused solar radiation to be reflected back into space. The low sunspot activity may have meant lower solar radiation also. When both of these reversed (lessened volcanic activity, increased sunspots) in the 19th century, the temperature began to increase.

I said all of that to say this. Much of the debate over Global Warming is being controlled by absolute morons. Anyone who claims that there is a scientific consensus and that the debate is over and the science is settled needs to be examined by a doctor and possibly locked up for the good of everyone else. And why not lock them up? Why can’t I say that they should be put away? They like to have anyone who disagrees with them ridiculed and fired. So, claiming that they should be examined is really just reflecting their arguments back at them. I know it seems childish, and that is exactly the point. They are being childish.

R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University. He published an interesting piece just yesterday. Here are some highlights.

We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled."
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change."
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists. From Read the sunspots, Financial Post, published June 20, 2007.

Professor Patterson then goes on to explain his theory regarding the effects of solar activity on the temperature of the earth. Of course, this scientist and professor will soon be ridiculed for his efforts. So I'm going to go ahead and get it all out of the way now. Let me clear my throat.

"R. Timothy Patterson is not a real scientist. Just because he is the director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University does not mean he knows anything about earth science. Patterson is on the payroll of George W. Bush and Exxon. One lone nutcase like Patterson is trying to argue with millions and billions of real scientists who actually care about the earth. Patterson is a holocaust denier."

I'm certain that Al Gore and people from The Huffington Post have many more childish insults that they can toss at Professor Patterson. And yes, someone in the media has actually said that Global Warming skeptics are like holocaust deniers. If you like, please feel free to leave anything I missed in the comments. Thank you.

The UN and various Global Warming advocates are pushing a recent study and claiming that it settles the argument once and for all. This study claims that the earth's temperature is rising at an alarming rate and it is all our fault. Please note that in all the history of the earth, science has never been wrong when politicians agree with it and decree it to be the truth. Please also note that the sun revolves around a perfectly flat earth. Science has always known everything that there is to know, which explains why we continue to find new cures for diseases and new plant and animal life.

It also explains more of what Professor Patterson said in his article.

In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

This shows that only four years ago, climate scientist acknowledged that there is more to be done before any consensus can be claimed. If you believe that in four short years they have suddenly made all the discoveries they need to make and that nothing more needs to be done, you are a dumbass. I hate to be harsh, but this is absolutely the nicest thing I can think to say about anyone who believes the science regarding the effects of greenhouse gases on the earth's temperature is settled. There is no consensus in the scientific community on the causes of historical changes in earth's temperature, but I am supposed to believe that there is a consensus on the future?

I'm going to be blunt here, Al Gore is either pushing an agenda that he does not believe in, or the man is record-setting stupid. Due to the fact that he is a politician, I cannot even begin to speculate on which of the two choices is correct. There are scientists all over the globe who will tell you that his movie is full of holes. Despite this, people will read what I am writing and accuse me of not thinking for myself.

I am going to repeat that last part to make sure it is clear. I will be accused of not thinking for myself by people who have not yet questioned anything that Al Gore says about Global Warming. Did everyone get that? I will be told that the science of Global Warming is settled by people who tell me that I am blindly following Big Oil propaganda. I am certain that some of you are reading this paragraph and laughing a little inside because you realize the truth behind what I am saying. I am also certain that others of you are reading this, and you are lockstep in line and screaming your blind accusations.

CO2 is being blamed by some for the slight increase in temperature that we have seen over the past century. History has shown that the temperature has risen in the past over 100 times faster in a decade than it has in the past century. Despite this, blaming CO2 is supposedly a consensus. The reality is that CO2 is not a common factor in the history of climate changes. The reality is that CO2 is blamed mostly be people who only look at the current warming trend and have decided to rule out other possibilities regardless of the fact that they are more obvious answer. Not only is this not a consensus, it is not good science. To say that the answer is CO2 simply because you do not have any other answer is horrible science.

But let's be honest. Why don't we just apply the same principles to the mini ice age period that we apply today? I blame George Washington. He won the war, and then he became the President of the United States. He was a warmongering U.S. President; therefore the Global Warming that began and continues today is all his fault. Why should we be logical about this?

We need to get to a point where we can have an actual debate on this issue. Not only are the alarmist wrong in their supposed consensus, they are dangerously wrong. I'll quote the professor's article again.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.
Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

Pelosi Has Seen Global Warming

From Yahoo

BERLIN - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) said Monday she led a congressional delegation to Greenland, where lawmakers saw "firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality," and she hoped the Bush administration would consider a new path on the issue.

The good news is that she didn't tell Global Warming that Israel wanted to have peace talks.

I'm wondering if the Speaker has any ideas on how to fix this?
Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

Maybe she wants Bush to blow up the sun? But then how would we get solar energy? We need solar energy to cut down on greenhouse gases, remember?