Stop Cap and Tax

[brucefan]

Oppose the Cap and Trade 'Tax' Increase Bill, H.R. 2454

I hope everyone will send a message today!


http://www.votervoice.net...
Possible vote on Friday!
http://www.marketwatch.co...
Who Pays for Cap and Trade?
http://online.wsj.com/art...










Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists
by Ron Paul




Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009

Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''

Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.

The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz – past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world – wrote:

"The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''

Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.

Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global warming'' and "climate change'' advocates – claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.

It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.

Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.

In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.

















.

[Joe Contrarian]

I call it "Tax and Kill"...

Food, gas, electricity...every good and service in the country will skyrocket in price -- EVERY ONE.

This is a jobs killer.

This is an economy killer.

This is the BIGGEST FRAUD and WORST piece of legislation in the history of the United States.

The worst constitutional breach in history!

The most treacherous bill in history!

THAT'S RIGHT -- WORST LEGISLATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH IN HISTORY!!

This has to be stopped.

Republican, Democrat, Independent...I don't care what you are.

Call the Capitol Switchboard and stop this insanity!

202-224-3121

[brucefan]

Select a state below to learn how the Waxman-Markey legislation will affect energy consumers in that state.


http://www.partnershipforenergy.com/...xmanmarkeyPDFS

[brucefan]

Originally Posted by brucefan

Select a state below to learn how the Waxman-Markey legislation will affect energy consumers in that state.


http://www.partnershipforenergy.com/...xmanmarkeyPDFS

http://www.petitiononline.com/msann/petition.html



Call each of them and say you want them to vote AGAINST cap and trade....


Here are the names of the Blue Dog Dem that are on the fence about Cap & Trade:

Rep. Michael Ross (AR) 202-225-3772
Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA) 202-225-4031
Rep. G. Butterfield (NC) 202-225-3101
Rep. Zack Space (OH) 202-225-6265
Rep. Michael Doyle (PA) 202-225-2135
Rep. Bart Gordon (TN) 202-225-4231
Rep. Charles Gonzalez (TX) 202-225-3236
Rep. Gene Green (TX) 202-225-1688
Rep. James Matheson (UT) 202-225-3011
Rep. Rick Boucher (VA) 202-225-3861
Rep. Peter Welch (VT) 202-225-4115
Rep. Jay Inslee (WA) 202-225-6311

[Joe Contrarian]

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1245...60750781.html#

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill.

According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.
Associated Press Henry Waxman

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy.

The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

[brucefan]

G-d Help us all


VIDEO* Pete Schiff on Glenn Beck: Cap and Trade = Gigantic Hidden Tax 6/25

[BCTTWR]

[800Gambler]

The 8 Republicans Who Gave America the Finger!


Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330 Castle (DE) 202-225-4165 Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835 Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361 Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572 McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611 Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761 Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

[Joe Contrarian]

Memorize or write them down:

RINO #1:

Mary Bono Mack, California's 45th DistrictRINO #2:

Mike Castle, Delaware's at-large Rep.
RINO #3:

Mark Kirk, Illinois' 10th District
(this JOKER claims to have read the entire bill...so he REALLY is without excuse! Check out his blog: Mark Kirk's RINO blog)
RINO #4:

Leonard Lance, New Jersey's 7th District
RINO #5:

Frank LoBiondo, New Jersey's 2nd District
RINO #6:

John McHugh, New York's 23rd District
RINO #7:

Dave Reichert, Washington's 8th District
RINO #8:

Chris Smith, New Jersey's 4th District

[KTBKRUSHER]

triple power bill soon

[brucefan]

Treason is the only way to describe what we are seeing

6/27 Glenn Explains Cap & Trade

[BCTTWR]

These mother fuckers are destroying America. Who wants their utility bills to "skyrocket" as the piece of shit says they will? 2010 can't come soon enough.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by KTBKRUSHER

triple power bill soon

Originally Posted by BCTTWR

These mother fuckers are destroying America. Who wants their utility bills to "skyrocket" as the piece of shit says they will? 2010 can't come soon enough.

Buckle up,the US with 5% of the worlds population has been using 25% of the worlds energy/resources to maintain the American lifestyle,it couldn't continue.
Other countries aren't as readily going to supply oil for paper dollars anymore.The politicians can't level with the public,it would create chaos,they're going to try and get us adjusted to a new paradigm gradually.
With higher utility bills people will have to decide which of the 25 top users of electricity in the home to disconnect.
Put a new group in office in 2010,or 2012,whenever,the basic outline will be the same.

[brucefan]

Obama on cap and trade: ‘electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket’


“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” — Barack Obama, January 17, 2008, San Francisco Chronicle

[brucefan]

Nice Job by Rush here

[brucefan]

Originally Posted by brucefan

Nice Job by Rush here

The evidence of the true intentions to tax and then redistribute the wealth is right in the bill

[tank]

Originally Posted by Joe Contrarian

I call it "Tax and Kill"...

Food, gas, electricity...every good and service in the country will skyrocket in price -- EVERY ONE.

This is a jobs killer.

This is an economy killer.

This is the BIGGEST FRAUD and WORST piece of legislation in the history of the United States.

The worst constitutional breach in history!

The most treacherous bill in history!

THAT'S RIGHT -- WORST LEGISLATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH IN HISTORY!!

This has to be stopped.

Republican, Democrat, Independent...I don't care what you are.

Call the Capitol Switchboard and stop this insanity!

202-224-3121

I know first hand how this works.The fuel injector's we make cannot pass 2010 emissions so right now we have no new product to sell and we are dead in the water.Our plant has went from 800 employees to 350[yes the economy is most of it] but their is no doubt that if our injector could pass 2010 emissions 200 of those employees would be called back but with this it is only going to get worse i'm afraid.

[BCTTWR]

[Joe Contrarian]

Originally Posted by tank

I know first hand how this works.The fuel injector's we make cannot pass 2010 emissions so right now we have no new product to sell and we are dead in the water.Our plant has went from 800 employees to 350[yes the economy is most of it] but their is no doubt that if our injector could pass 2010 emissions 200 of those employees would be called back but with this it is only going to get worse i'm afraid.

Well, I pray you don't lose your job. I mean that sincerely, tank -- my heart goes out to you.

Ditto for MILLIONS of honest, hardworking people who's only sin is creating a better life for their families.

These parasitical statists must be stopped!

This (along with socialized medicine) is a CATEGORY 5 DEPRESSION TRIGGER!!!

(As if we're not in one already bleeding millions of jobs a month, thanks to that miracle "stimulus package"!)

All is not lost.

While the Obama ass-licking media is running infomercials on statist health care and ogling over Michelle's gardening and ugly bare arms...

Talk radio is doing it's part blitzing the airways.

I and my fellow bloggers are doing our part reaching tens of thousands across the internet.

Sen. James Inhofe (R) is promising this bill won't get out of the Senate -- where the war will ultimately be won.

Millions of Americans who hear our message will make the lives of those 8 RINOs who committed treason against their own country a living HELL!

We stopped Ted Kennedy-Jose Bush "comprehensive immigration reform."

We can -- WE WILL! -- stop this unconstitutional tyrannical power grab!!

And another thing:

This buffoonish Obama bullshit about "creating green jobs"....has anyone heard this?

Do you folks understand how economically asinine this statement is? It's like me trumpeting "I will create millions of jobs in the horse carriage and slingshot industries" -- while I quietly bankrupt every other business in the transportation industry....air, rail, auto, ocean liners...)

Newsflash:

OBAMA IS A LIAR!!

I don't care if you're a union worker, blue collar, white collar, self-employed conservative, liberal, libertarian, Republican, Democrat....this impacts EVERYONE!

You will no longer be able to get up and go where you want in your own car -- because you won't be able to afford skyrocketing gas prices. And pretty soon, the government will replace the current federal fuel tax with a "per mile tax" because fuel consumption will plummet. This will leave the parasite in DC with a limitless appetite of your freedoms short $$$ in fuel taxes.

You will be wearing snowsuits indoors in the winter and sweating like a pig in the summer -- because Hussein and his statists think the government should control the temperature in your own home. *double *

No more HD movies and sports -- cost too much. * triple*

The lighting in your homes will have a piss-colored glow because the government is mandating we switch over to these toxic mercury-filled temperamental light bulbs nobody wants.

Farmers won't be able to grow food. It'll be too expensive to operate their equipment and hire workers -- unless we're all prepared to start carting in wheelbarrows of cash to pay for a loaf of bread! *quadruple *

Manufacturers (like tank's company) will shut down -- or move overseas.

I could go on and on....but this going to KILL MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF JOBS!

The consequences will be so far reaching yet they are totally unforeseen by the reckless imbeciles who voted for this putrid turd!

And for what?

Because Al Gore wants to be a billionaire? Because Big Green (GE, aka Government Electric) wants to control the economy? Because we're "frying the planet" by pumping plant food into the atmosphere?

(That's right, enviro-wackos -- what the hell do you think carbon dioxide is? Ya know, that 'poison' stuff we use to filter out the chlorine in our taps? The 'poison' gas every human exhales at every breath? Isn't nature wonderful -- even though these godless parasitical statists STINK!)

This isn't about "saving the planet" -- this is the biggest unconstitutional power grab in human history!

You are losing your freedoms!

You are losing your inalienable rights!

After the antichrist chokes off every vibrant industry in the county, millions of you will be standing in lines dependent on him begging for the smallest crumb -- exactly what he wants.

He wants you to FAIL -- or his agenda fails.

He wants you to grovel -- or he loses his power.

This is the nature of every tyrant -- every statist.

This isn't hyperbole.

Obama is so commie even Hugo Chavez is getting nervous.

STOP HIM, AMERICA!

STOP THESE POWER-HUNGRY STATISTS FROM DESTROYING YOUR COUNTRY!
(Or future generations will never forgive you!)


CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD: 202-224-3121

8 GOP TAX AND KILL TURNCOATS:

Mary Bono Mack CA- 45th Palm Springs
202-225-5330 / 760-320-1076

Mike Castle DEL
202-225-4165 / 302-428-1902

Mark Kirk IL-10 North Chicago,
202-225-4835 / 847-940-0202

Leonard Lance NJ 7 Central NJ
202-225-5361 / 908-518-7733

Frank LoBiondo NJ 2 Atlantic City
202-225-6572 / 609-625-5008

John McHugh, NY 23 Watertown,
202-225-4611/315-782-3150

Dave Reichert, WA 8th
202-225-7761/206-275-3438

Chris Smith, NJ -4th Trenton
202-225-3765/609-585-7878

[brucefan]

Meet Alan Carlin: The EPA’s Inconvenient Voice

By Sam Theodosopoulos | June 30, 2009 - 17:26

With the recent narrow passage of the controversial Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill in the House and the ongoing debate over global warming, one should expect balanced coverage of both sides of the issue. However, much of the media has neglected to report on the alleged “hush up” of an EPA research analyst whose report on global warming prompted his supervisor to warn it could have had a “very negative impact on this office.”
At 8:45 a.m. EDT on the June 30 edition of "Fox and Friends," EPA Senior Operations Research Analyst Alan Carlin, told interviewer Steve Doocy that his 98-page study that questioned the science behind global warming and called for the EPA to stop depending on reports from the United Nations, was ignored by his supervisor who refused to forward the report on because Carlin’s “comments do not help the legal policy or case” for the EPA’s position on global warming.

[tank]

Originally Posted by brucefan

Meet Alan Carlin: The EPA’s Inconvenient Voice

By Sam Theodosopoulos | June 30, 2009 - 17:26

With the recent narrow passage of the controversial Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill in the House and the ongoing debate over global warming, one should expect balanced coverage of both sides of the issue. However, much of the media has neglected to report on the alleged “hush up” of an EPA research analyst whose report on global warming prompted his supervisor to warn it could have had a “very negative impact on this office.”
At 8:45 a.m. EDT on the June 30 edition of "Fox and Friends," EPA Senior Operations Research Analyst Alan Carlin, told interviewer Steve Doocy that his 98-page study that questioned the science behind global warming and called for the EPA to stop depending on reports from the United Nations, was ignored by his supervisor who refused to forward the report on because Carlin’s “comments do not help the legal policy or case” for the EPA’s position on global warming.

This is the problem i have with Fox. Carlin is not even a scientist he is an economist but they run him out there like he is some kind of expert.What's next engine advice from a chef??

[brucefan]

Originally Posted by tank

This is the problem i have with Fox. Carlin is not even a scientist he is an economist but they run him out there like he is some kind of expert.What's next engine advice from a chef??

This guy is not qualified ????Or should I believe Barney Frank


This is the home page for Alan Carlin, featuring his applications of environmental economics, transportation economics, and economic development to address public policy issues. The publications are listed in reverse chronological order.



Education

Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
B.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

Employment

Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1971 to present
Economist, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1963-71.

Publications

Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, unpublished report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency but not representing the Agency's views, final version dated March 16, 2009. Designed to be printed double-sided. File size is 4MB.
Why a Different Approach Is Required if Global Climate Change Is to Be Controlled Efficiently or Even at All, Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 32, Issue 2, Spring, 2008, pp. 685-757. Abstract
Risky Gamble, Environmental Forum, Vol. 24, No. 5, September/October, 2007, pp. 42-7. Abstract
Global Climate Change Control: Is There a Better Strategy than Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, No. 6, June, 2007, pp. 1401-97. Abstract
Implementation and Utilization of Geoengineering for Global Climate Change Control, Sustainable Development Law and Policy , Vol. 7, No. 2, Winter, 2007, pp. 56-58. Abstract

The New Challenge to Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Sound Is the Opponents' Empirical Case? Regulation, Fall 2005, pp. 18-23.

Measures of Mortality Risks (with W. Kip Viscusi and John K. Hakes), 1997 Abstract Full Text: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 14, No. 3, May/June, 1997, pp. 213-33. Earlier report to EPA.

Cost Savings from the Use of Market Incentives for Pollution Control (with Robert C. Anderson, Albert M. McGartland, and Jennifer B. Weinberger), 1997, in Richard F. Kosobud and Jennifer M. Zimmerman (editors), Market-Based Approaches to Environmental Policy: Regulatory Innovations to the Fore, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1997, pp. 15-46.

EPA Comments on Proposed NOAA/DOI Regulations on Natural Resource Damage Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October, 1994. Abstract:
Environmentally Responsible Energy Pricing (with W. Kip Viscusi, Wesley A. Magat, and Mark Dreyfus), 1994. Abstract Full text: Energy Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, April, pp. 23-42. An earlier version of the report is available here. The full report on which both are based can be found here.
The United States Experience with Economic Incentives to Control Environmental Pollution, Report No. 230-R-92-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July, 1992. Abstract
Environmental Investments: The Cost of Cleaning Up (with Paul F. Scodari and Don H. Garner), 1991. Full text: Environment, Vol. 34, No. 2, March, pp. 12-45.
Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment, A Summary (with the assistance of the Environmental Law Institute), 1990, Report No. EPA-230-90-084, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., December. Abstract
Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment, Report of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Congress of the United States, 1990, Report No. EPA-230-90-083, November. Republished with previous entry by Island Press, Washington, D.C. and Covelo, CA, 1991. Abstract
“Introduction,” in Thomas D. Crocker (editor), in Economic Perspectives on Acid Rain Control, Butterworth, Stoneham, MA, 1984.
Benefits of Pollution Control, March 1974. Full text: Philip L. White and Diane Roberts (editors), Environmental Quality and Food Supply, Futura Publishing Company, Mt. Kisco, New York, pp. 39-47.
The Grand Canyon Controversy; or, How Reclamation Justifies the Unjustifiable, 1973. Full text: in Alain C. Enthoven and A. Myrick Freeman (editors), Pollution, Resources, and the Environment, W. W. Norton, New York, 1973, pp. 263-270. Absract and order info.
Environmental Problems: Their Causes, Cures and Evoluton Using Southern California Smog as an Example (with George Kocher), Report R-640-CC/RC,The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, May, 1971. Abstract and order info.
Water Resources Development in an Environmentally-Conscious Era, 1971. Full text: Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 4, April, 1971, pp. 221-223. Reprinted in Charles J. Meyers and A. Dan Tarlock (editors), Selected Legal and Economic Aspects of Environmental Protection, Foundation Press, Mineola, New York, 1971, pp. 53-56.
Marginal Cost Pricing of Airport Runway Capacity (with R. E. Park), 1970. Full text: American Economic Review, Vol. LX, No. 3, June, ppl. 310-9. Reprinted in Peter Forsyth, Kenneth Button, and Peter Nijkamp (editors), Air Transport Classics in Transport Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, 2002, pp. 491-5000. Abstract and order info.
A Model of Long Delays at Busy Airports (with R. E. Park), 1970, Journal of Transport Economcis and Policy, Vol. IV, No. 1, January, pp. 37-62. Abstract and order info.
The Efficient Use of Airport Runway Capacity in a Time of Scarcity (with R. E. Park), 1969, Report R‑5807‑PA, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, August. Abstract and order info.
Alternative Development Strategies for Air Transportation in the New York Region, 1970‑1980 (with H. S. Campbell, S. L. Katten, T. F. Kirkwood, D. M. Landi, R. E. Park, L. Rounnau, and A. J. Rolfe), 1969, Report RM‑5815‑PA, The RAND Corporation, August.
An Economic Re-Evaluation of the Proposed Los Angeles Rapid Transit System (with Martin Wohl), 1968, Paper P-3918, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Abstract and order info
The Economics of Transport Development, 1968, in United Nations Development Programme, Fund of the United Nations for the Development of West Irian, A Design for Develop­ment in West Irian, United Nations, New York, pp. 162‑170.
The Grand Canyon Controversy: Lessons for Federal Cost-Benefit Practices, 1968,. Full text: Land Economics, Volume XLIV, No. 2, May, pp. 219‑227. Reprinted in Charles J. Meyers and A. Dan Tarlock (eds.), Water Resource Management, Foundation Press, Mineola, New York, 1971, pp. 459‑468. Earlier version printed in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Central Arizona Project, Hearings before Subcommittee, 90th Congress, 1st Session, May 2‑5, 1967, pp. 507‑514. Also in House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Colorado River Basin Project, Hearings before Subcommittee, 90th Congress, 1st Session, March 13‑17, 1967, pp. 611‑618. Abstract and order info.
Vehicle Safety: Why the Market Did Not Encourage It and How It Might Be Made To Do So, 1968, Report RM‑5634‑DOT, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, April. Abstract.

Indian Transportation: A Sectoral Approach to Developmental Constraints, 1967, The Journal of Development Studies, July, pp. 414‑439. Abstract and order info.

Project versus Program Aid: From the Donor's Viewpoint, 1967, The Economic Journal, March, pp. 48‑58. Reprinted in Stephen Spiegelglas and Charles J. Welsh (ed.), Economic Develop­ment: Challenge and Promise, Prentice‑Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1970, pp. 350‑359. Also in Gustav Ranis (ed.), The United States and the Developing Economies, Revised Edition, W. W. Norton, New York, 1973, pp. 158‑171. Abstract and order info.

The Grand Canyon Controversy--1967: Further Economic Comparisons of Nuclear Alternatives” (with William E. Hoehn), Senate Hearings, op. cit., pp. 489‑497 and House Hearings, pp. 619‑625. Abstract and order info.

Is the Marble Canyon Project Economically Justified? (with William E. Hoehn) 1967, printed in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Lower Colorado River Basin Project, Hearings before Subcommittee, Part II, May 9‑18, pp. 1497‑1512. Abstract and order info.

Mr. Udall's ‘Analysis’: An Unrepentant Rejoinder (with William E. Hoehn), 1966, ibid., pp. 1521‑1535. Abstract
Review of "Aspects of Economic Development and Policy" by B. K. Madon, American Economic Review, September, pp. 900-902.

A Possible U.S. Policy towards Indian Transportation: An Illustration of Improved Sectoral Policies, 1965, Report RM‑4379‑AID, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, June. Abstract and order info.

An Evaluation of U.S. Government Aid to India, June 1964 (partial text through Chapter 2). Abstract.

---

[tank]

Originally Posted by brucefan

This guy is not qualified ????Or should I believe Barney Frank


This is the home page for Alan Carlin, featuring his applications of environmental economics, transportation economics, and economic development to address public policy issues. The publications are listed in reverse chronological order.



Education

Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
B.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

Employment

Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1971 to present
Economist, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1963-71.

Publications

Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, unpublished report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency but not representing the Agency's views, final version dated March 16, 2009. Designed to be printed double-sided. File size is 4MB.
Why a Different Approach Is Required if Global Climate Change Is to Be Controlled Efficiently or Even at All, Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 32, Issue 2, Spring, 2008, pp. 685-757. Abstract
Risky Gamble, Environmental Forum, Vol. 24, No. 5, September/October, 2007, pp. 42-7. Abstract
Global Climate Change Control: Is There a Better Strategy than Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, No. 6, June, 2007, pp. 1401-97. Abstract
Implementation and Utilization of Geoengineering for Global Climate Change Control, Sustainable Development Law and Policy , Vol. 7, No. 2, Winter, 2007, pp. 56-58. Abstract

The New Challenge to Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Sound Is the Opponents' Empirical Case? Regulation, Fall 2005, pp. 18-23.

Measures of Mortality Risks (with W. Kip Viscusi and John K. Hakes), 1997 Abstract Full Text: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 14, No. 3, May/June, 1997, pp. 213-33. Earlier report to EPA.

Cost Savings from the Use of Market Incentives for Pollution Control (with Robert C. Anderson, Albert M. McGartland, and Jennifer B. Weinberger), 1997, in Richard F. Kosobud and Jennifer M. Zimmerman (editors), Market-Based Approaches to Environmental Policy: Regulatory Innovations to the Fore, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1997, pp. 15-46.

EPA Comments on Proposed NOAA/DOI Regulations on Natural Resource Damage Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October, 1994. Abstract:
Environmentally Responsible Energy Pricing (with W. Kip Viscusi, Wesley A. Magat, and Mark Dreyfus), 1994. Abstract Full text: Energy Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, April, pp. 23-42. An earlier version of the report is available here. The full report on which both are based can be found here.
The United States Experience with Economic Incentives to Control Environmental Pollution, Report No. 230-R-92-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July, 1992. Abstract
Environmental Investments: The Cost of Cleaning Up (with Paul F. Scodari and Don H. Garner), 1991. Full text: Environment, Vol. 34, No. 2, March, pp. 12-45.
Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment, A Summary (with the assistance of the Environmental Law Institute), 1990, Report No. EPA-230-90-084, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., December. Abstract
Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment, Report of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Congress of the United States, 1990, Report No. EPA-230-90-083, November. Republished with previous entry by Island Press, Washington, D.C. and Covelo, CA, 1991. Abstract
“Introduction,” in Thomas D. Crocker (editor), in Economic Perspectives on Acid Rain Control, Butterworth, Stoneham, MA, 1984.
Benefits of Pollution Control, March 1974. Full text: Philip L. White and Diane Roberts (editors), Environmental Quality and Food Supply, Futura Publishing Company, Mt. Kisco, New York, pp. 39-47.
The Grand Canyon Controversy; or, How Reclamation Justifies the Unjustifiable, 1973. Full text: in Alain C. Enthoven and A. Myrick Freeman (editors), Pollution, Resources, and the Environment, W. W. Norton, New York, 1973, pp. 263-270. Absract and order info.
Environmental Problems: Their Causes, Cures and Evoluton Using Southern California Smog as an Example (with George Kocher), Report R-640-CC/RC,The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, May, 1971. Abstract and order info.
Water Resources Development in an Environmentally-Conscious Era, 1971. Full text: Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 4, April, 1971, pp. 221-223. Reprinted in Charles J. Meyers and A. Dan Tarlock (editors), Selected Legal and Economic Aspects of Environmental Protection, Foundation Press, Mineola, New York, 1971, pp. 53-56.
Marginal Cost Pricing of Airport Runway Capacity (with R. E. Park), 1970. Full text: American Economic Review, Vol. LX, No. 3, June, ppl. 310-9. Reprinted in Peter Forsyth, Kenneth Button, and Peter Nijkamp (editors), Air Transport Classics in Transport Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, 2002, pp. 491-5000. Abstract and order info.
A Model of Long Delays at Busy Airports (with R. E. Park), 1970, Journal of Transport Economcis and Policy, Vol. IV, No. 1, January, pp. 37-62. Abstract and order info.
The Efficient Use of Airport Runway Capacity in a Time of Scarcity (with R. E. Park), 1969, Report R‑5807‑PA, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, August. Abstract and order info.
Alternative Development Strategies for Air Transportation in the New York Region, 1970‑1980 (with H. S. Campbell, S. L. Katten, T. F. Kirkwood, D. M. Landi, R. E. Park, L. Rounnau, and A. J. Rolfe), 1969, Report RM‑5815‑PA, The RAND Corporation, August.
An Economic Re-Evaluation of the Proposed Los Angeles Rapid Transit System (with Martin Wohl), 1968, Paper P-3918, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Abstract and order info
The Economics of Transport Development, 1968, in United Nations Development Programme, Fund of the United Nations for the Development of West Irian, A Design for Develop*ment in West Irian, United Nations, New York, pp. 162‑170.
The Grand Canyon Controversy: Lessons for Federal Cost-Benefit Practices, 1968,. Full text: Land Economics, Volume XLIV, No. 2, May, pp. 219‑227. Reprinted in Charles J. Meyers and A. Dan Tarlock (eds.), Water Resource Management, Foundation Press, Mineola, New York, 1971, pp. 459‑468. Earlier version printed in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Central Arizona Project, Hearings before Subcommittee, 90th Congress, 1st Session, May 2‑5, 1967, pp. 507‑514. Also in House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Colorado River Basin Project, Hearings before Subcommittee, 90th Congress, 1st Session, March 13‑17, 1967, pp. 611‑618. Abstract and order info.
Vehicle Safety: Why the Market Did Not Encourage It and How It Might Be Made To Do So, 1968, Report RM‑5634‑DOT, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, April. Abstract.

Indian Transportation: A Sectoral Approach to Developmental Constraints, 1967, The Journal of Development Studies, July, pp. 414‑439. Abstract and order info.

Project versus Program Aid: From the Donor's Viewpoint, 1967, The Economic Journal, March, pp. 48‑58. Reprinted in Stephen Spiegelglas and Charles J. Welsh (ed.), Economic Develop*ment: Challenge and Promise, Prentice‑Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1970, pp. 350‑359. Also in Gustav Ranis (ed.), The United States and the Developing Economies, Revised Edition, W. W. Norton, New York, 1973, pp. 158‑171. Abstract and order info.

The Grand Canyon Controversy--1967: Further Economic Comparisons of Nuclear Alternatives” (with William E. Hoehn), Senate Hearings, op. cit., pp. 489‑497 and House Hearings, pp. 619‑625. Abstract and order info.

Is the Marble Canyon Project Economically Justified? (with William E. Hoehn) 1967, printed in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Lower Colorado River Basin Project, Hearings before Subcommittee, Part II, May 9‑18, pp. 1497‑1512. Abstract and order info.

Mr. Udall's ‘Analysis’: An Unrepentant Rejoinder (with William E. Hoehn), 1966, ibid., pp. 1521‑1535. Abstract
Review of "Aspects of Economic Development and Policy" by B. K. Madon, American Economic Review, September, pp. 900-902.

A Possible U.S. Policy towards Indian Transportation: An Illustration of Improved Sectoral Policies, 1965, Report RM‑4379‑AID, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, June. Abstract and order info.

An Evaluation of U.S. Government Aid to India, June 1964 (partial text through Chapter 2). Abstract.

---

Hell no he is not qualified. He is an analyst at the EPA and if you look at all those reports he is NOT a scientist. Does this mean the janitors there are qualified to be scientist's too just because they work for the EPA????Get real.

[brucefan]

So let me get this straight, you are trying to make the case that this guy, with those credentials, has as much credibility as a janitor to write a damaging report on the scam that this Cap and Tax bill really is.

Is that what your telling me Tank?

I guess dopehead Obama didnt think so since he had the report shitcanned




An Inconvenient Voice: Dr. Alan Carlin

• Posted June 29th, 2009 at 2.56pm in Energy and Environment.

Ever hear of Alan Carlin? Probably not, and that is the way the Obama Administration wants to keep it. Dr. Carlin is an Environmental Protection Agency veteran who recently wrote a damaging report, warning that the science behind climate change was questionable at best, and that we shouldn’t pass laws that will hurt American families and hobble the nation’s economy based on incomplete information.
Despite its promise to put science above politics, the Administration has suppressed Carlin’s report, banned him from writing or speaking about climate change, told him to forget about attending any meetings that addressed his main job function—climate change—and gave him a new assignment: updating a grants database. One supposes that, by dedicating its distinguished scientists to data-entry tasks, Obama’s EPA is able to free up true-believing interns to do its research.
Until recently, Dr. Carlin’s assignment was to research climate change issues for the agency. As part of this responsibility, he prepared a 98-page report earlier this year questioning the need for the agency to regulate CO2. His main argument—buttressed by citation after citation of peer-reviewed science—was that the agency’s earlier argument for regulating was based on incomplete science that ignored much more recent (and contrary) studies.
EPA responded by burying the report. As for Dr. Carlin himself, he was put under a strict gag order by superiors. They forbade him from writing, speaking or e-mailing about global warming to anyone outside his group at EPA. Now that his comment has been leaked (available here), the truth can come out.
We spoke to an embattled Dr. Carlin on the phone today, and, though he does fear losing his job because of his opinion, he has the strength of his beliefs. He told us that in 40 years of working for the government, he can’t remember any other time such pressure has been put on him. But you can hear in his voice that Dr. Carlin, who got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT, is not easily silenced.
“I’ve been involved in public policy since 1966 or 1967,” he said. “There’s never been anything exactly like this. I am now under a gag order.”
As for travel, “it’s been made abundantly clear that I was not to attend anything to do with climate change.” When he did attend a conference in Washington that was open to the public, he was reprimanded by a superior who told Dr. Carlin that he had “shown poor judgment” in daring to ask a question.
He does maintain a good sense of humor. He told us he had just been interviewed on radio and that the reporter had said “we hear you’ve been fired” to which he responded, “I haven’t heard that myself, but your information may be better than mine.”
That Dr. Carlin’s fate should befall any civil servant is frightening. It is doubly frightening when the person is a respected scientist who is simply trying to do his job when it is needed most. At the same time EPA is looking to regulate CO2 as a health hazard, Congress is considering an even more intrusive climate change bill based on many of the same erroneous and out-dated assumptions identified in Carlin’s report.
House leadership ramrodded the Waxman-Markey bill through on Friday, with virtually no meaningful debate allowed. The Heritage Foundation estimates the legislation will inflict massive damage to a U.S. economy already on the ropes. It passed with only a seven vote margin. One wonders if it would have survived, if countervailing voices like Dr. Carlin had been allowed to be heard.
The EPA gag order—made clear in the emails between Dr. Carlin and his superior (available here), also demonstrates that President Obama’s promise to put truth above politics has now been forgotten.
You can read the comment that your government did not want you to see, all 98 pages of it, here. In the executive summary, on page V, he clearly refers to the supposed relationship between carbon dioxide and “greenhouse gases.”

As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data.

If this comment was proven to be suppressed, it could force the EPA to dismiss the entire comment review period and start over.
Dr. Carlin’s problems are far from unique. He is one of many who pay the price of Al Gore’s insistence that “the science is settled” on climate change, that we should no longer debate the issue. The media has happily gone along with this suppression. News reports present the questionable relationship between carbon dioxide and climate change as absolute fact. Skeptics are derided as “deniers” and are treated in the same way Galileo was by the Inquisition for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun. Today in President Obama’s America, a modern-day Galileo has been told to shut up and go away

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/...r-alan-carlin/

[tank]

Bruce do you fall for every Fox news lie???Now go back and read those reports you posted and tell me what Carlin does in everyone of those?After you have used your brain and researched it , get back with me.Here is the written statement from the EPA itself on the matter.He was not even working in the group on this

The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place.
"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

[tank]

Originally Posted by brucefan

So let me get this straight, you are trying to make the case that this guy, with those credentials, has as much credibility as a janitor to write a damaging report on the scam that this Cap and Tax bill really is.

Is that what your telling me Tank?

I guess dopehead Obama didnt think so since he had the report shitcanned



/

Be careful or people will realize who's ghost you are.

[brucefan]

July 1, 2009

The Decline of Thinking

Posted by Butler Shaffer on July 1, 2009 10:10 AM | Post a civil, substantive, and intelligent comment
The political establishment’s response to the global warming doubts raised by EPA researcher, Alan Carlin, is remarkable. The mantra chanted by one EPA official - and dutifully echoed across the media - is that Mr. Carlin “is not a scientist.” This fact, of course, has not kept Al Gore from becoming the patron saint of the environmental religion. (Gore received his PhD in which of the recognized sciences?)
An assertion of this sort is evidence of the anti-intellectualism that has metastasized across academia and spread to other venues of expression. Universities have become so dominated by an insistence upon the inviolability of the “turfs” of various disciplines as to make one unworthy to speak on matters of which he or she has not been certified to utter opinions by fellow academics. There was once a time - many decades ago - when a “liberal arts” education was regarded as a means of introducing people to a wide range of subject areas that would permit them to think and speak intelligently on various matters affecting their lives. Collective thinking - which now permeates college campuses - rejects such an idea, conferring subject matter monopolies according to one’s acknowledged “expertise.”
When my “In Restraint of Trade” book was first published twelve years ago, an academic reviewer from a respected history department spent most of his time acquainting his readers with the fact that I taught in a law school and not a history department. The review ended up being little more than a strident defense of turf, and a condemnation of my efforts to focus attention on matters unfamiliar to historians.
I enjoy watching Jonathan Hoenig every Saturday morning on Fox News’ “Cashin’ In” program on investment analysis. He is a consistent advocate of free-markets, individual liberty, and private property. He recently stated that humans “must think in order to survive,” but that we have recently been “outsourcing” this function to others. Such a practice now prevails on university campuses, and helps to explain why academia is a source of so little original and meaningful thinking. Don’t wonder about what anything means: the “experts” whose jobs are dependent upon advancing the agendas of the political establishment will explain it all to you!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/028742.html

[tank]

Originally Posted by brucefan

July 1, 2009

The Decline of Thinking

Posted by Butler Shaffer on July 1, 2009 10:10 AM | Post a civil, substantive, and intelligent comment
The political establishment’s response to the global warming doubts raised by EPA researcher, Alan Carlin, is remarkable. The mantra chanted by one EPA official - and dutifully echoed across the media - is that Mr. Carlin “is not a scientist.” This fact, of course, has not kept Al Gore from becoming the patron saint of the environmental religion. (Gore received his PhD in which of the recognized sciences?)
An assertion of this sort is evidence of the anti-intellectualism that has metastasized across academia and spread to other venues of expression. Universities have become so dominated by an insistence upon the inviolability of the “turfs” of various disciplines as to make one unworthy to speak on matters of which he or she has not been certified to utter opinions by fellow academics. There was once a time - many decades ago - when a “liberal arts” education was regarded as a means of introducing people to a wide range of subject areas that would permit them to think and speak intelligently on various matters affecting their lives. Collective thinking - which now permeates college campuses - rejects such an idea, conferring subject matter monopolies according to one’s acknowledged “expertise.”
When my “In Restraint of Trade” book was first published twelve years ago, an academic reviewer from a respected history department spent most of his time acquainting his readers with the fact that I taught in a law school and not a history department. The review ended up being little more than a strident defense of turf, and a condemnation of my efforts to focus attention on matters unfamiliar to historians.
I enjoy watching Jonathan Hoenig every Saturday morning on Fox News’ “Cashin’ In” program on investment analysis. He is a consistent advocate of free-markets, individual liberty, and private property. He recently stated that humans “must think in order to survive,” but that we have recently been “outsourcing” this function to others. Such a practice now prevails on university campuses, and helps to explain why academia is a source of so little original and meaningful thinking. Don’t wonder about what anything means: the “experts” whose jobs are dependent upon advancing the agendas of the political establishment will explain it all to you!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/028742.html

Ah the old let's bring Al Gore into this tactic.Works for the sheep everytime.
Funny how the people that eat this up do not realize they are the ones being wrote about.

[brucefan]

This is truly hard to even imagine that this will pass

I sware we must be living in some twilight zone

What the hell is wrong with these people?




Energy and Climate Change Bill Creates Global Warming Police

[Joe Contrarian]

[brucefan]

It's Not Just That Global Warming Is Fake. What Matters Is Why This Fakery Is Being Promoted.
Gary North


July 3, 2009
Global warming is based 100% on junk science. The most vocal promoters are not interested in the details of physical science. They are interested in two things: political control over the general public and the establishment of international socialism.



Junk Science vs. Real Science
For a detailed, footnoted, 12-page article, written by three scientists, two with Ph.D's from CalTech, click here.
This paper was sent to tens of thousands of natural scientists in the United States.
Over 31,000 scientists have put their reputations on the line and signed a politically incorrect petition opposing the 1997 Kyoto agreement or protocol. Here is a photocopy of a signed petition.
Here is a letter from a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. He asks recipients of the petition to sign it.
Back in the 1970's, the bugaboo was the coming ice age, as this Time Magazine article promoted. Not to be outdone, Newsweek got on board. The article warned: "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects." Want more examples? Click here.
It, too, was based on junk science. It, too, had the same solution: government control over the economy. The goal never changes: government management over the economy. The justification has changed. If the voters won't accept control over their lives on the basis of one brand of junk science, maybe they will accept another. As they used to say in the Nixon Administration: "Let's run this up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes."



Socialism's Last Stand
The global warming movement is not about global warming. It is about the creation of an international political control arrangement by which bureaucrats who favor socialism can gain control over the international economy.
This strategy was stated boldly by economist Robert Heilbroner in 1990. Heilbroner, the multi-millionaire socialist and author of the best-selling history of economic thought, The Worldly Philosophers, wrote the manifesto for these bureaucrats. He did this in an article, "Reflections: After Communism," published by The New Yorker (Sept. 10, 1990).
In this article, he made an astounding admission. He said that Ludwig von Mises had been right in 1920 in his article, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth." Mises argued that without private ownership, central planners could not know what any resource is worth to consumers. With no capital market, the planners would be flying blind.
Heilbroner said that for 70 years, academic economists had either ignored this article or dismissed it without answering it. Then Heilbroner wrote these words: "Mises was right."
Heilbroner was one of these people. There is no reference to Mises in The Worldly Philosophers.
This admission was the preliminary section of Heilbroner's manifesto. He was cutting off all hope by socialists that there is a theoretically plausible response to Mises. The free market economy will always outproduce a socialist economy. Get used to it, he said.
Then, in the second section, he called on his socialist peers to get behind the ecology movement. Here, he said, is the best political means for promoting central planning, despite its inefficiency. In the name of ecology, he said, socialists can get a hearing from politicians and voters.
The article is not online. An abstract is. Here is the concluding thought of the abstract.

The direction in which things are headed is some version of capitalism, whatever its title. In Eastern Europe, the new system is referred to as Not Socialism. Socialism may not continue as an important force now that Communism is finished. But another way of looking at socialism is as the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment. From this perspective, the long vista after Communism leads through capitalism into a still unexplored world that roust [must?] be safely attained and settled before it can be named.

Heilbroner did not care that a worldwide government-run economic planning system would not be called called socialism. He just wanted to see the system set up.
Heilbroner's peers got the message. That was what Kyoto was all about.



Conclusion
If you like poverty, inefficiency, and bureaucratic controls over the economy, and therefore control over your choices, the "climate change" movement is ideal.
If you want to subsidize China and India, neither of which will enforce the rules laid down by unelected international bureaucrats, this movement is for you.
If you want to pay more for less energy, there is no better way than to pass the cap and tax bill which the House has passed. It will be sent to the U.S. Senate next week.
The rest of us should oppose it.

I hereby authorize anyone to reprint this article or post it on any website, just so long as the text is not changed.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/5156.cfm

[BCTTWR]

Gore stands to make billions of dollars if his lobbying efforts succeed. He refuses to debate scientists who actually know about climate change. Gore is a fraud.

[MannyLovitto]

Originally Posted by KTBKRUSHER

triple power bill soon

Do you mean "Triple" in the traditional sense of the word - that is, 3x?

Or do you just mean, "a bunch" as in 22.4 being tenfold for 6?

[brucefan]

WASHINGTON — If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3269899

[ZZ CREAM]

We must pay for our sins of the last 8 years.