Tag Archives: Cap and Trade

The Gulf Oil Spill – Too many coincidences…

April 20: Deepwater Horizon explodes. 

84 days later, the leak continues spewing a much debated number of gallons per day into the Gulf of Mexico (estimates range from 800,000 to 3 million gallons/day). 

Speculation on the how’s, the who’s and the why’s behind this “accident” is running rampant in the media and on the internet. Yet for all the media coverage available – getting the facts on Tiger Woods’ extramarital activities or whether or not, Brittney Spears is wearing panties seems easier and the evidence is usually more conclusive. Maybe we need TMZ to cover this story instead of the mainstream media. 

The official story is riddled with inconsistencies and missing details, but what is clear is that there are too many unexplained coincidences. These inconsistencies easily lend themselves to conspiracy theories that become difficult to simply dismiss. 

Leading up to the accident is a list of strange events and coincidences…   

Since the Obama administration took over in Jan. 2009, the Center for American Progress, led by former Clinton Chief of Staff, John Podesta, has played a major role in forming the administration’s energy policies. CAP , of course is the George Soros sponsored “progressive” think tank. In April 2009, a CAP report stated that the America has a moral obligation to spend whatever is necessary to help poorer nations deal with the effects of the “global warming” caused by industrialized nations like the U.S.  They already used the EPA to declare that emissions of six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people”. Since the inauguration the administration has been pursuing Cap & Trade, the Copenhagen Treaty and the rest of the “green agenda” with a passion. At one point the White House even appointed a known progressive revolutionary, Van Jones as their “Green Jobs Czar”. He has since stepped down and returned to a role at CAP.

In Feb. 2009, George Soros invested $900 million in Petrobras, the state controlled oil company of Brazil. Then, as “luck” would have it (for Soros), the Obama administration decided in Aug. 2009 to loan Petrobras $2 billion for a deep water off shore drilling project off the coast of Brazil. The proposed project is in water up to 4 times deeper than the Deepwater Horizon well that exploded in the Gulf. After the well explosion, the administration immediately suspended all new drilling operations and shut down 33 other wells in the Gulf due to safety concerns with deep water drilling. I wonder if Petrobras would benefit from such a decision? 

According to reports and confidential BP internal documents, the well had a variety of problems including bad wiring, a leak in the “blowout preventer” and sealing problems that may have led to the methane eruption. Some of these problems appear to have been known as early as February, two months before the accident. Additionally there were procedural and safety problems with the oil rig that may have also contributed to the explosion. BP is now also reporting undocumented tampering with well sealing equipment. 

In another interesting twist, just one week before the explosion, Halliburton a major player in this saga, acquired Boots & Coots, a small but extremely experienced oil well control company. Their claim to fame was the work they did in Kuwait extinguishing and cleaning up the well fires set by retreating Iraqi troops during the first Gulf War. Was Haliburton worried about problems with the well? 

As for Haliburton themselves, they admitted during the recent Congressional hearings that they had   carried out a cementing operation on the Deepwater Horizon only 20 hours before the rig exploded.

Both workers and BP officials now say gases were leaking through the new cement, prior to the blast. Investigators say the leaks are probably the cause of the accident.  

Coincidentally (considering all the well problems since Feb.), Goldman Sachs decided to sell 44% of its’ BP stock holdings (4,680,822 shares) during the same timeframe. The transaction was worth $266 million and helped them avoid a $96 million loss in the weeks after the explosion. 

Also according to the U.K. Telegraph, BP CEO Tony Hayward sold about 33% of his BP stock in the 30 days prior to the spill. The transaction involved 223,288 shares which sold for $2.066 million. This sale helped Hayward avoid a loss of approximately $625,000. Hayward quickly used his profits to pay off his mansion in Kent. Did Goldman Sachs and Hayward know something about the troubles before the well blew up? 

Then, there is the suspicious behavior of our government. To start with there was the refusal to waive the Jones Act to allow foreign ships to help with the relief efforts. There were also offers from several countries such as the Netherlands, Romania, Norway, Spain, Mexico, Canada, Sweden and Britain made a variety of offers of aid, from skimmer ships to technology. Only Canada, Mexico and Norway’s offers were accepted, the rest were either turned away or remain “under consideration”. 

Additionally, the federal government has blocked and hindered the efforts of Louisiana, and the other Gulf states in taking action to protect their own coastlines. Efforts by Gov. Bobby Jindal to build sand berms to help keep the oil from washing ashore were blocked by the federal government. The Coast Guard also broke up a flotilla of barges set up to create an oil barrier. 

There were also those bizarre Congressional hearings with BP and the bulk $20 billion prepayment for spill damage claims. The money was given to the federal government to administer. Who hands over that much money when they claim they haven’t completed their own internal investigation of the cause? It is worth pointing out that they (BP) like to say that BP stands for Beyond Petroleum and that they are heavily invested in many forms of alternative energy as well as a proponent of carbon credits and trading. They also were a huge contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign. Even after all the bad press and the $20 billion payout is there enough upside in Cap & Trade to make it worth staying in the President’s good graces? Remember carbon trading is an estimated $10 trillion annual business if Cap & Trade passes. 

There are also other controversies such as the oil dispersants being used. The criticisms run from the EPA’s claim that they are too toxic to the fact that the ones being used are new and untested. Kevin Costner claims to have an oil/water separator system that could capture oil from the surface and return clean water to the Gulf. Since the system is untested, the EPA is concerned over environmental impact so they are moving slowly with putting the system into service. Could the environmental impact of removing the oil from the water without chemicals really be worse than doing nothing or using the questionable dispersants?   

Another significant piece to this story is that most deep water wells have redundant (2) “blow out preventers” yet for some reason BP was a given a waiver to operate with only one on the Deepwater Horizon well, even though it is a very deep well. The waiver was granted last year by the U.S. Minerals Management Service. Why? Do campaign contributions buy waivers? Just asking. 

Need more? The FAA declares area over the spill a no-fly zone. Obviously they want to keep unnecessary aircraft out of the area (media helicopters, for sure) but are they hiding something else? There is speculation in the oil and gas industry trade publications that this disaster is far from over and things have the potential to get a lot worse. Some experts believe that BP has tapped into a massive oil field that is covered by a large methane gas bubble capable of creating pressure at the well head of 100,000 psi which is 100 times what the equipment is designed to deal with. This has the potential to create an underwater oil volcano which could wreak havoc on the surrounding area by generating tidal waves and clouds of toxic gas. Is there imminent danger that the government is not telling us about? A cover up? 

Check out this article from Petroleum World, titled “The Well from Hell”: 

http://www.petroleumworld.com/sf10062001.htm 

Over the past several years we have seen the formation of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which is funded by a variety of organizations, many of which have ties to the administration, pushing the “green agenda” of Cap & Trade. We have watched Al Gore (by the way a major investor in CCX) turn climate change into a full fledged industry. We have watched the U.N., the world’s elite and environmental extremists turn “climate change” into a radical movement bent on reshaping the global energy structure and redistribution of wealth. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that as a carbon credits trading operation, CCX will have the potential to make its’ investors very rich (some estimate $10 trillion annually) if Cap & Trade passes. So the question is -Is this about saving the planet or greed? Is the real green agenda more cash for the elite?

Will there soon be a cry from the Progressive Congressional Caucus calling for the nationalization of the oil industry?  In the past, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D) CA., a socialist moonbat, has called for nationalizing the oil companies, as have left leaning commentators such as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. What’s even worse is that many Democrat voters actually believe this might be a good idea. Surely the answer to our problems is the government not greedy businesses like BP, right? Funny though how political donations from the evil corporations are still accepted by our saviors! I guess when you are saving the world no money is too dirty. 

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”  – Rahm Emanuel 

So ask yourself – what’s really going on here? Is the accident in the Gulf a “crisis” of opportunity for the administration to push through Cap & Trade? Is there a dragging of feet to get this thing capped to make the point that fossil fuels are unsafe? Remember according to Carol Browner the administration is in charge and calling all the shots in the Gulf, so no excuses right? It can’t be lost on most rational people that there are many glaring inconsistencies in this story and its’ relevant subplots. What is the real root cause; greed, incompetence, coincidences or conspiracy? My hunch is some of each but regardless this feels like another crossroads. Will this “accident” fuel more fundamental transformation of our country and our way of life? Will it be an excuse to further destroy our economy by becoming the catalyst for Cap & Trade? 

Wake up, America! Ask questions and demand answers! Time is running out…

 Restore the Republic, before it’s too late. 

Warnings from the Founding Fathers: 

“If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” – Samuel Adams  

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” – Daniel Webster  

The Climate Change Scam – Quotes from the Idiot Left

Below are quotes from powerful, rich, religious, famous and fanatical environmentalists intent on keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal and selfish goals. That goal is “Global Governance” by way of the U.N. These elitists believe they know what is best for us and they are willing to lie to us, manipulate the science, the media and our children to achieve their objectives.

Today the Green Movement is the new religion that the world’s elite have created to move their agenda forward. This is being done under the banner of saving the planet, social justice and redistribution of wealth while retaining the power for themselves.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, is the groups of fanatics who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group.

Fasten your seat belts, these quotes range from frightening to ridiculous:

Quote from Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: “Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.”

Quote by Maurice Strong, a primary power behind UN throne: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Quote by Jeffery Sachs, Columbia University, Director of The Earth Institute: “Obama is already setting a new historic course by reorienting the economy from private consumption to public investments…free-market pundits bemoan the evident intention of Obama and team to ‘tell us what kind of car to drive’. Yet that is exactly what they intend to do…and rightly so. Free-market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change.”

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Quote by Louis Proyect, Columbia University: “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Quote by Barack Obama, “All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster”.

Quote by David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat’l Park Services: “We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. 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.”

Quote by Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Quote by Amory Lovins, scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute: “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: ‘Global warming’ will kill most of us, and turn the rest of us into cannibals.”

Quote by Jason Warmis, long-time activist, environmentalist, UN advocate: If we are to stop CO2 growth, then we have to cut present world energy use by 80%, now. Our young people know the fate of the world is in their hands and they will make the sacrifices to make this happen. They will give up their iPods, cell phones, cars, computers, DVD players, video games, and the Internet to achieve an 80% cut, and more if necessary – this is not an issue for themselves, it’s an issue of saving the world for our betters, nature. Our young people will not fail us; they will lead the way as the last crucible of change and hope.

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos.” (Editor: Yes, he meant the year 2000.)

Quote by Harry Reid, Democrat, U.S. Senate majority leader: “Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It’s global warming. It’s ruining our country. It’s ruining our world.”

Quote by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: “Large-scale hog producers are a greater threat to the United States and U.S. democracy than Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.”

Quote by Osama bin Laden, terrorist leader behind 9/11 plot & attacks: “In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”

Quote by Thomas Lovejoy, scientist, Smithsonian Institution: “The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles.”

Quote by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury: “We must support government coercion over enforcing international protocols and speed limits on motorways if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die.”

Quote by Bill Maher, supposedly a comedian: “Failing to warn the citizens of a looming weapon of mass destruction- and that’s what global warming is- in order to protect oil company profits, well, that fits for me the definition of treason.”

Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist on politicians ignoring climate alarmists: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”

Quote by James Hansen, prominent NASA climate scientist: “…chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to [should] be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature; [Hansen] accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Quote by David Roberts, journalist Grist Magazine: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards (global warming skeptics) — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Quote by Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General: “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”

Unbelievable quotes aren’t they? The plan is to do and say anything to further the cause. The real objective is social reengineering not saving the planet. It is time to see this, for what it is. Climate change is a giant money making, power grabbing scam for the elite – and YOU are the victim. If the elite and the U.N. have their way, the America we grew up in will be what becomes extinct! Wake Up! Time is running out. Do your own research, the truth is out there – this is a scam.

Restore the Republic, Reject the Climate Change Scam of the Progressive Left!

 

BBC Report – What happened to Global Warming?

“All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster”. – Barack Obama

Not long ago, the President was busy telling us the debate about climate change was over and it was real. All while leading scientists from around the world tried unsuccessfully to get the U.N. or anyone in the media to listen to their side of the argument – that Climate Change was a cyclical event that has been happening forever. As new evidence continues to surface – will anyone listen before it is too late? We all need to face the ugly truth – Global Warming and the impending global disaster are a scam to create a power grab for the socialist forces that want to “fundamentally transform America”. This does not mean that sound environmental stewardship isn’t something we should strive for. However it does mean that we should not get suckered into sacrificing our national sovereignty, freedom, liberty, capitalism and the American way of life for the false religion of the green movement and their idea of social justice. That is why THEY are in such a rush to pass all this crap! They are afraid you will find out the truth before their plan has been launched. NO MORE CHANGE! It is time to slow down and thoughtfully debate this issue.

It is time to wake up! We need to say NO, to the Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill and any other form of Tax and Cap. This has the same disasterous consequences as Healthcare Reform.

Here is an excerpt from a new article at BBC by Paul Hudson:

For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

 

Pacific ocean (BBC)

But in the last few years it (the Pacific Ocean) has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

Go read the full article and decide for yourself!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Restore the Republic, Reject the Green Agenda of the Progressive Left!

Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. — Mark Twain

Maxine Waters admits liberals are socialists…SHOCKING!

Maxine Waters admits liberals are socialists and they want the government to nationalize the oil companies! Watch this….

DO NOT BE FOOLED …This fight is not just over Health Care, it’s for the American way of life, liberty and freedom. Just say No…. No Nanny State, No Welfare State, No Socialism….. cause that ain’t America.

(Special Thanks to Barbara Davis White for sharing this clip)

The Building Blocks of Socialism… the Democrats legislative agenda

The Building Blocks of Socialism

The American Way of Life Under Siege – Day 210

This blog has 3 goals, they are:

Goal #1 – I want To PISS YOU OFF!!

Goal #2 – I want To MAKE YOU THINK!

Goal #3 – And I want to MOTIVATE YOU to TAKE ACTION by getting involved!

As I been writing for several weeks, our way of life, our freedom, our liberty and the America that we all love is under attack from the Socialist Left. They are led by President Obama, a Harvard educated community organizer who grew up in the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics. As we have discussed previously, he has a plan and he built a team around him to execute it. He is counting on your passive – “that can’t happen in America attitude” to provide a window of opportunity for him to “Fundamentally transform America!”

Remember – his team is mostly the Czars who work inside the Executive Branch of the Government and are only accountable to the President – no congressional, judicial oversight or approval- and sure as hell – no transparency!

I want to focus on the immediate risks. While everyone is in a twist over the health care bill it is just one of the problems. I find myself getting sucked in – wanting to virtually debate the President and call him out on his disingenuous town hall rhetoric. He likes to discuss in general terms the policies of how he claims his administration would interpret and administer the program. All the while deftly avoiding the contents of the bill which would become law. Just think back to tax cuts for 95% of Americans or the veto pen to stop pork barrel spending policies which have or are changing because “the situation changed”. However, we must remain vigilant because the healthcare reform is not the only game changing bill on the table. Keeping up with these guys is like playing 3 card monte with a street hustler.

Remember the administration is following the community organizer’s handbook. The plan is to overwhelm the system. Why is there such a rush to pass all this legislation? Why has there been several major bills overlapping in Congress ever since he took office – Tax & Cap, Healthcare Reform, Bailouts, Card Check, Serve America Act, etc.? Got it yet? That’s right – overwhelm the system because they are betting we can’t organize fast enough to stop everything.

Play Chuck Todd clip starts at 1:25

Think about this – we are less than a year into this administration and a year away from bringing any balance back to Congress. Anything we do beat back they have time to try again. Worse yet anything they pass, even in a watered down version they have their foot in the door. Remember the infamous Rahm Emanuel quote about crisis.

Play Rahm Emanuel Crisis Clip

There are 4 pieces of legislation that are inching closer to a vote each of which pose significant risk by themselves but any combination or worse yet all of them passing is nothing short of a monumental disaster.

So what are the game changers pending before Congress or being proposed as regulatory guidelines by the administration. They are:

Obviously Healthcare Reform is the one that drives the most emotion and has dominated the spotlight. This mostly because it is the one that is most easily personalized.

The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill also known as Cap and Tax or the Climate Change Bill. While not as easy to see all the ways this will directly affected our lives on an individual basis, it is every bit as insidious.

The Employee Free Choice Act – Also known as Card Check. There could not be a more misleading name for a piece of legislation than this one. The bill makes union organizing much easier by eliminating secret ballot union ratification votes. It also creates a much more difficult environment for employers to tell their side of the story once organizing begins as well as changing the negotiating landscape if an organizing effort is successful. More on this later.

Last but not least, an assault on free speech. This will likely occur through a regulatory initiative rather than legislation. This program was formerly known as the Fairness Doctrine. This will be spearheaded by Mark Lloyd, the FCC’s new chief diversity officer. In 2007, he laid out a “battle plan” for liberal activists to target conservative talk radio stations authoring for the Center for American Progress a report called “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio”. In his new role at the FCC, it is almost a certainty that this will become an agenda item at some point. This is especially obvious when you consider how much credit Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and other conservative talk show hosts are being given for the current healthcare reform backlash.

In the interest of the length of this post, I am going to tackle two of these items in this one and the next two tomorrow. Let’s start with the Fairness Doctrine. I want to do this for two reasons; first, you can go a thousand other places to read about Healthcare Reform and second, if a new version of the Fairness Doctrine goes through – where will we get the other side of the news?

So what is the Fairness Doctrine? Introduced in 1949, it required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced. In other words, the Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

In 1985, the Fairness Doctrine was revoked by then FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, a communications attorney who said, that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The left has been howling ever since.

Mark Lloyd, the FCC’s new chief diversity officer’s report found that 90% of political talk radio programming has a conservative orientation. He thinks this is some how unfair. To start with he contends that this impart is due to the consolidation of radio syndicates around the country. He believes that big business backs the conservative or Republican viewpoint. Therefore, they are taking away the local voice that might be more liberal. This proves two things to me. First, he does not understand free market economics because if nobody is listening then nobody would be advertising. Advertising pays the bills so I don’t care what you personally believe – if you own the radio station and nobody is buying ads – you will change the programming. Second, he obviously does not watch the network TV news because it is pretty one sided to the left.

So what is his bottom line – well, in his paper for the Center for American Progress, he concludes that under the current guidelines the public interests are not being served. Lloyd in his paper says that the solution is to restructure the system to change ownership guidelines to reduce the footprint of large broadcast ownership groups. He also recommends shorter license terms and significant penalties based on programming content designed to subsidize smaller operators to keep their stations on the air. Even though his report acknowledges more demand for conservative political talk versus that of liberals he believes there needs to be more “balance”. Can you say state run radio? Make no mistake – free speech is under attack. You don’t need to look any further than the healthcare town halls to understand that if you disagree then you should shut up – or prepare to be ridiculed and attacked.

If you want to read Mr. Lloyd’s report you can find it at:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

 

 

 

Next Up – The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill or (Cap & Tax)

What is cap and trade?

The Cap – It is a system that sets a limit or a cap on emissions generated by fossil fuel use. Companies will be given an emission limit based on either a formula or a historical profile. Over time the limit would be reduced to achieve a target that in theory would reduce the cumulative global output to 80% of 1990 actual output by 2050.

The Trade – Companies that perform below their allocated levels can bank the unused units and sell them to companies that exceed their allocated units.

Theoretically, the system would be adopted worldwide and the total global cap would be designed to reduce global warming. This sounds great right?

So are you ready for the rest of the story?

This is going to essentially be the biggest “disguised tax” in U.S. history. President Obama promised no new taxes for 95% of Americans. This bill is at its’ heart a tax on energy. While defenders say it only taxes dirty, carbon based energy turns out that is about 90% of the energy used in this country. An average American will see their energy bills increase between $1000 & $2000 per year depending on where they live and how their energy is produced.

Play Cap and Trade – It’s an energy tax

This bill will also result in significant job losses as energy companies struggle to become compliant with new government regulations and businesses struggle with the higher price of energy. Some analysts are saying job losses will average 2.5 million per year for up to three years after the program is implemented. This would be on top of the million Americans already unemployed.

Another thing that should worry us all… after a draft of the bill had been made easily accessible to the public for over a month, just hours before the bill was voted on 350 pages of amendments were tacked on containing God knows what! Another bill passed that nobody read completely after the last minute additions – I’m scared, are you?

However, while the government holds U.S. businesses to these ridiculous standards, the Chinese are polluting the hell out of the planet and kicking our ass at manufacturing. Good thing global warming is a myth!

Meanwhile back at home in the U.S., the federal government has piled on the regulations and restrictions that continue to reduce America’s global competitiveness. The Congress and environmental groups have objections to almost every solution to America’s move toward energy independence which translates into a healthier economy.

Here is a list of potential solutions along with the associated objection:

Nuclear power: Cheap and surprisingly safe, despite the safety concerns the industry has had a long record of safe operations in the U.S. There are 439 nuclear power plants operating in 30 countries around the world, 104 in the U.S. This is one of the largest sources of power in Europe. It also has a smaller carbon footprint than other energy sources. Legitimately, nuclear power is the easiest to argue against due to storage, safety and potential target for terrorism.

Coal Powered Electric Generation: The largest source of power in the U.S. coal plants produce the highest level of carbon dioxide of the primary sources. While there is a lot of work on building clean coal technology debate rages over whether it is real and cost effective. Ironically, coal provides the most immediate solution to U.S. energy independence because we have some of the world’s largest reserves. However, if we are not allowed to use it here at home I am sure we will eventually sell our coal reserves off to China and India allowing them to use the cheaper fuel while we pay higher prices at home.

Wind Power: While wind power is one of the cleanest and most environmentally friendly sources for power it still receives continuous attacks from environmental and citizens groups. The primary complaints from environmentalists focus on birds and bats with regard to migratory patterns. While citizen groups often complain about the aesthetics of the turbines themselves. Even Sen. Ted Kennedy, supposedly a supporter of all things green, complained about the Cape Wind Project near his summer home. Of course, wind turbines will also require those nasty transmission lines.

Solar Power: Solar technology has evolved to a point where base load solar power is now technically feasible. California has started exploring the possibility of constructing such plants in the Mohave Desert. While today it remains relatively expensive 4x the cost of coal powered electricity per kilowatt hour there is confidence in the engineering community that costs could be cut by as much as two thirds as the technology continues to be refined. The only known negative environmental impact is construction of the plants and the use of transmission lines to bring the power back to the population centers. The environmentalists have already started their campaigns to protect the desert and all the areas the transmission lines will be built on. Prompting a frustrated California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to say, “They say we want renewable energy but they say they don’t want us to put it anywhere. I don’t know if this is ironic or absurd. But, I mean, if we can’t put solar power plants in the Mohave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put them.”

I think you are starting to get the point. Ironically, the U.S. Senate already voted 95-0 against participation in the Kyoto Treaty or any similar treaty.

Recognizing that there was not support in Congress to vote this type of legislation into law, on April 17th the Administration used its’ regulatory power through the EPA and announced that greenhouse gas emission were a threat to public health because they contribute to climate change. This sets the stage for the EPA to regulate emissions from a wide spectrum of sources including vehicles, power plants, manufacturing facilities, oil refineries and airplanes. Soon we will be chasing environmental standards that are unrealistic and hurt our ability to compete in the world. These standards will raise the cost of power, transportation and products for both citizens and most American businesses. This feeds into the larger cycle of government rules and regulations that reduce the profitability of our economy, put us at a disadvantage in the global market and slows economic recovery.

The only winners in this situation will be the multi-national businesses such as GE which spent an estimated $20 million on lobbying efforts on all things green. In addition to their huge footprint in wind and solar power, GE has announced the launch of a new subsidiary called Greenhouse Gas Services, which will facilitate the trading of carbon tax credits. GE and others are poised to cash in on this “crisis” while the rest of us are left to foot the bill.

In the end Cap & Trade will be just another undisclosed tax and financial burden on the citizens of the U.S. It is an international wealth shifting program that holds the U.S. to the highest standard while holding China arguably the other super power to none.

Ask yourself why as an American, your standard of living should be lowered and your way of life changed to finance this nonsense while the rest of the world is free to continue on their merry way, doing what they want and kicking our butts in the process?

Remember the words of Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner and a coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Write your representatives and tell them we are not interested in Cap & Trade or subsidizing the cost of switching to alternative energy systems on an artificial schedule. Since this bill has already passed the house, we need to focus on our Senators. We must send them a clear message that this bill must not pass. We can be good citizens of the world without destroying our economy. Through American innovation we will continue to move toward cleaner energy and more thoughtful environmental policies but not at the expense of our own economic security. Scare tactics aside, we have time to both “fix” the problems and protect our economy. There is no time to waste; this needs your immediate attention. To learn more about The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill or Cap & Trade check my blog category under Global Warming for several very specific posts.

Unfortunately, Congress is currently littered with a variety of proposed legislation that supports the administration’s social reengineering agenda. We must be vigilant in identifying these bills and fight them. After all, the only thing at stake is the American Dream!

Cap & Trade – It’s an Energy Tax

Remember no new taxes on anyone making less than $250K ? Guess what income tax isn’t the only way to create revenue – Oh no! YES WE CAN! Another moment of truth – you shouldn’t be surprised, this is just the beginning. This has got the potential to be just as bad as the healthcare reform bill. Most estimate this will cost the average American household an additional $1700 a year in utility costs.

 

We need to recognize that we are under attack. While you are protesting healthcare reform don’t forget to tell them to vote against The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill as well.

Two Bills that Kill…(the economy, jobs, and our country)

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.  

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world”.

 – Thomas Jefferson 

We are parked at the edge of a cliff. We have a choice – slip the car into reverse and back away or hit the gas and plunge to the canyon floor. We are at the most dangerous point in our history in the last fifty years. We must stop these bills before we are on a road from which turning back might be impossible. Remember, this is a multi pronged strategy by the democrats. One prong is the proposed legislation, the other is the usurping of unconstitutional power through the Czars, government agencies, nationalizing businesses and financial thuggery by the Federal Reserve to move the agenda forward if legislation fails.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”- Patrick Henry

These bills must be stopped and they must be stopped now. Here is a quick recap of two pending bills before Congress that will kill jobs, drive up taxes, increase the cost of living, feed inflation and redistribute wealth. 

Cap & Tax  (The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill)

This is going to essentially be the biggest “disguised tax” in U.S. history. President Obama promised no new taxes for 95% of Americans. This bill is at its’ heart a tax on energy. While defenders say it only taxes dirty, carbon based energy turns out that is about 90% of the energy used in this country. An average American will see their energy bills increase between $1000 & $2000 per year depending on where they live and how their energy is produced. 

This bill will also result in significant job losses as energy companies struggle to become compliant with new government regulations and businesses struggle with the higher price of energy. Some analysts are saying job losses will average 2.5 million per year for two to three years. 

Another thing that should worry us all… after a draft of the bill had been made easily accessible to the public for over a month, just hours before the bill was voted on 350 pages of amendments were tacked on containing God knows what! Another bill passed that nobody read completely after the last minute additions – I’m scared, are you? 

However, while the government holds U.S. businesses to these ridiculous standards. Meanwhile, the Chinese are polluting the hell out of the planet and kicking our ass at manufacturing. Good thing global warming is a myth! 

Ask yourself why as an American, your standard of living should be lowered and your way of life changed to finance this nonsense while the rest of the world is free to continue on their merry way, doing what they want and kicking our butts in the process?

We need to focus on our Senators and send them a clear message that we do not want this bill to pass. There is no time to waste it needs your immediate attention. To learn more about The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill or Cap & Trade check my blog category under Global Warming for several very specific posts.

Remember these famous words from Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” 

Employees Free Choice Act/ Card Check 

The Employee Free Choice Act, or “card check,” has been introduced in the past three Congresses, but it always failed to win the 60 votes needed to pass controversial legislation in the Senate.

Now there is real trouble on the horizon – his name is Al Franken. Today the Minnesota Supreme Court confirmed the results of the controversial Senate race declaring Al Franken the winner. With his certification complete, the democrats might finally have enough votes to push this bill through as he becomes the 60th member of the democratic Senate caucus.

The proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up (“card check”) or an election by secret ballot. Critics warn that this will lead to employee intimidation to sign cards and will deny individuals the right to a secret ballot. The secret ballot has been the safety valve in the organizing process. Employees could go along with process to allow a vote by signing the organizing petition but had the safety of the secret ballot to protect their individual vote. As a manufacturing manager for 30 years I have had a front row seat to union organizing efforts twice. In both cases, employees were under tremendous peer pressure to sign the petition. However, both times the union was defeated by the secret ballot. It sure seemed like the process worked as it was supposed to each time. The other major criticism is that it will kill jobs because small to medium size employers will not be able to afford unionized shops, in many this will drive them out of business. The business community is geared up to fight the bill.

Supporters say the legislation will improve wages, benefits, and working conditions by helping workers form unions.

“Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process.” – Hillary Clinton

Shouldn’t this apply towards something as important as a union election too? After all the signing the card means that you want to hear more. After both sides present their case you go cast your vote in private.

So why do we need this law? First, it will help the unions get easier victories and build their dwindling membership. Oh, yeah and the labor unions strongly support the democrats. This is as much about politics as it is about employee’s rights.

There is one more aspect to the bill that is equally as troubling as the secret ballot issue. That is the method by which negotiations would be handled under the bill. If the employer and the union did not reach a deal in 120 days, a government arbitration panel could intervene and take over the negotiations.

For many, the government arbitration clause looks to be a deal breaker. As long as that provision is in the bill, said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, “I don’t know how anybody can talk compromise.” He added, “If it wasn’t for the political power of the national unions, this wouldn’t have a chance. But they are powerful.”

Ironically, during the 2008 elections anti card check ads featured the head liberal of his time – former S.D. Sen. George McGovern as their spokesman. Even George could not get behind elimination of the secret ballot to protect the privacy of each employee. We must fight this legislation. With unemployment already tracking at 9.4% nationally, we can not afford more job loss. It’s bad for business, it is un-American and since when are we against a secret ballot? Write your Senator and tell them –just say no!

Unfortunately, Congress is currently littered with a variety of proposed legislation that supports the administration’s social reengineering agenda. We must be vigilant in identifying these bills and fighting them. After all, the only thing at stake is the American Dream!

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government”. – Thomas Jefferson

The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill (Part 4)…… The Potential Impact

In the final installment of this series, I will pull together the factors of this bill that will ultimately impact all Americans if signed into law. A bill like this comes with a price tag that is not inconsequential. 

“The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.” – Louis Proyect, Columbia University 

So here is a list highlighting a number of things that will be impacted. 

The Economy at Large:  

Job Loss: There will be fall out in the form of lost jobs as a result of this bill being passed into law. American companies will be faced with significantly higher energy costs as a result of the cap-and-tax plan and other provisions in the bill. This will put U.S. based manufacturing facilities at a competitive disadvantage with plants in other parts of the world not forced to play on the same field of “environmental stewardship”. 

This could result in millions of American jobs going overseas. The bill also mandates conceptual, unproven technologies for coal-fired plants which could result in plant closings if they are not able to comply with the new federal regulations. This could increase dependence on natural gas causing an increase in prices. 

Proponents of the bill claim the opposite; this will result in millions of new “green” jobs. Reality check – the new industries and jobs will require significant capital investment, research and can not be launched quickly enough to offset the losses. In other words, the ramp up is longer than the ramp down. Considering the current state of our national economy the timing of such an initiative seems potentially disastrous. 

Higher Energy Costs: The proposed regulations in the bill require a new Federal Renewable Energy Standard. The standard starts at a minimum of 6% in 2012 and escalates to 25% by 2025. The Department of Energy will issue utilities “credits” for renewable energy they generate which can be sold, transferred, or exchanged.  If a utility cannot meet the RES it would be required to purchase credits to make up the difference. In effect this becomes a hidden tax and a new source of revenue for the government. To offset these costs the utility companies will pass them on to their customers, ultimately resulting in higher energy prices for everyone. The problem here is that currently renewable energy technology is neither efficient nor cost competitive which is why it is not being implemented in a wide spread manner yet. Forcing the market to adopt this technology before it is ready will cause prices to increase rapidly. This mandate in effect put the Dept. of Energy in charge of the energy market. There are also concerns that a RES would impose a uniform federal standard on States despite varying sources of renewable resources.  Southeastern states would be especially hard hit.  

There are many other requirements that also will drive up energy costs up in this bill. Here are a few examples:

Cap and Tax – This issue requires a blog of its’ own. Please see my April 25th blog titled “Cap and Trade” or “Bait and Switch”  

Carbon capture and sequestration – This is the term used to describe a technology that captures carbon at its source and stores it before it is released into the atmosphere.  Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is designed to be a method of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere.  In general, any CCS system would have the following components: (1) capturing and separating CO2 from other byproducts; (2) compressing and transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration site; and (3) sequestering CO2 in geological reservoirs or in the oceans. This is not only as ridiculous as it sounds but it creates yet another expense that will need to be passed on to the end user. How much do you suppose it will cost to “dispose” of carbon dioxide? We better hope they never apply this logic to methane or nobody will be able to afford hamburger! 

Smart Grid – This is a distribution system that allows information to flow from a customer’s electric meter in two directions: both inside the house to thermostats, appliances and other devices then back to the utility. The bill facilitates the deployment of a Smart Grid, including measures to use it to reduce utility peak loads and promote capabilities in new home appliances.  States and utilities would determine and publish peak demand reduction goals. The goals would specify a reduction to a lower peak demand by 2012.  The bill also directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reform the regional planning process to modernize the electric grid plus provide new transmission lines to carry electricity generated from renewable sources. 

New Transmission Lines – The bill does not adequately address the need for new transmission lines the RES will require. These transmission lines would likely be subject to not-in-my-backyard opposition that impedes permitting. How the states and utilities will work through these issues remains to be seen but it will likely be expensive and challenging. Also additional costs for renewable energy transmitted from far away resources across longer transmission lines to states without such resources could further impact prices. 

Nationalizing the Grid – Under this bill the Federal Power Act is amended to require the FERC to adopt grid planning principles to achieve national policy goals. These goals include energy efficiency, a Smart Grid, and underground transmission technologies. Although better transmission infrastructure is the key to reliability, nationalizing the development of the grid might nationalize costs and raise questions on eminent domain. Again any program that the government is in charge of planning is going to drive up costs not efficiencies. 

Industrial Energy Efficiency – Under this plan the Dept. of Energy would develop industrial energy efficiency certification standards.  It also establishes a financial award program for electric or thermal energy generation facilities, which currently use fossil or nuclear fuel. Theoretically, this would encourage additional types of thermal energy production.  The legislation authorizes “such sums” for these awards. 

Building Energy Efficiency – The bill also contains several “energy efficiency programs” for commercial and residential buildings.  The legislation sets targets for national building codes to make a 30 percent improvement in energy efficiency within three years, and a 50 percent improvement starting with building codes released in 2016 and beyond using 2004 or 2006 codes as a baseline.  The Federal government will provide funding to States to implement these requirements. 

Lighting and Appliance Energy Efficiency – There will be several new federal standards for lighting and household appliances.  The bill would create a new standard for outdoor lighting fixtures effective in 2011, with progressively tougher standards by 2015.  The legislation would place new energy standards on appliances and would even make it a federal offense to sell appliances that do not meet the new requirements. 

International Reserve Allowance Program – Border tax adjustments or border tax assessments, are import fees levied by carbon-capping countries on goods manufactured in non-carbon-capping countries. We used to call these tariffs. The bill establishes a program to set up binding agreements committing all major greenhouse gas emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global GHG emissions.  Since we can not require foreign nations to cap their own emissions, the bill establishes a border adjustment program to require foreign manufacturers and importers to purchase emission allowances to “cover” the carbon emitted in the production of products being sold in the United States. The idea is to provide U.S. manufacturers competitive relief against their foreign counterparts. Any cost to foreign producers will be passed on to U.S. consumers.  Not only will domestic products be more expensive, but so will foreign goods. This will likely have devastating effects on free trade and foreign relationships.  

We, as Americans, have a duty to be good stewards of the planet. We have a responsibility to improve the way we generate energy and manage the earth’s resources. However, living up to these responsibilities does not require us to abandon the principles of government that made our nation strong and powerful. We have a responsibility to future generations of Americans which in addition to a healthy environment includes leaving them a free, sovereign and prosperous nation like the one our parents and grandparents left us. We do not have to choose between the American Dream and a healthy planet – we can have both. We certainly do not need a bunch of politicians and left wing scientists with an agenda manufacturing a crisis to do their own experiment in social re-engineering. 

“I think if we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don’t think it’s possible under capitalism.” – Judi Barri, Earth First

General Electric (NYSE:GE) is the parent company of the major media conglomerate NBC Universal, which owns media outlets NBC, MSNBC and CNBC. At times that has led to the lines between corporate advocacy and journalism being blurred. GE C.E.O. Immelt used his platform at CNBC to make the case for a cap-and-trade program to curb emissions – something Obama has called for and one Congressional committee is debating this week. “There’s going to have to be a price for carbon,” Immelt said. “In some way, shape of form, you’re going to have to create some certainty. You have to make technology your friend in this debate. ….. I think about things like global warming. We’ve been on this for four or five years.” Immelt contended he wasn’t an environmentalist, despite criticism that his networks’ have patterns of promoting the green agenda. Immelt told “Squawk Box” the science surrounding man-caused global warming was “compelling” and that it was only a matter of time before something will be done about carbon emissions. The General Electric CEO said he favored a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon emissions versus a carbon tax. – source: Business and Media Institute 5/20/09

More government intervention is not the answer to improving the environment. Besides, the science does not support the claims the U.N., Al Gore, the media and other fear mongers are making. We do not need to redistribute our wealth as the socialist environmentalists are demanding. We also do not need to make elite multi-national corporations any richer. GE is an example of just such a company. They have used their media empire (NBC, CNBC & MSNBC) to promote fear with heavy handed marketing of the “green” agenda and climate change issues. Meanwhile, they have heavily invested in alternative energy establishing a huge footprint in wind power, solar power as well as smart grids and those high efficiency appliances I mentioned earlier. GE also spent an estimated $20 million on lobbying efforts in support of their “green” business plan. Also just for good measure, GE recently announced the launch of a new subsidiary called Greenhouse Gas Services, which will facilitate the trading of carbon tax credits. There is your answer on why Mr. Immelt prefers carbon credits to carbon taxes! Do you suppose they have a motive that goes beyond their corporate concern for a healthy planet? 

The net result of this unfathomable bill will be higher energy prices, reduced global competitiveness, continued job loss, more government regulation, a stifling of free markets and a reduction of the standard of living for all Americans. This bill has the potential to effectively kill what remains of capitalism in our country. We must block this legislation. We can improve our environmental stewardship without killing our economic system. Write your Congressional and Senatorial representatives and tell them to vote for America by voting against this bill. Our country’s future as a sovereign world leader depends on it. 

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them.”—Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

The Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill (Part3)……The Science?

“All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” – President Barack Obama 
 
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken, famous columnist 

Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” 

These quotes are representative of a host of statements by environmental activists that all but admit, that at a minimum, there is an intentional attempt to use fear and deception as a means to advance their agenda. 

The scientific community is split into two very distinct groups on the subject of global warming/climate change – those who believe it is induced by humans and those who don’t. 

Let’s start with the hypothesis about how excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can create a greenhouse effect that results in global warming. 

The work of scientists (Fourier 1824 and Tyndall 1861) have been cited as the basis for the greenhouse effect theory. However, an analysis of these papers shows neither included the concept of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.  The earth’s atmosphere contains trace gases, some of which absorb heat. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide) are referred to as “greenhouse gases.” 

Below is a link to a scientific paper that destroys the basic premise of the greenhouse effect through the science of thermal dynamics and physics. The basic analysis is a comparison of the mechanics of a greenhouse and the thermal dynamics of earth’s atmosphere. It is clear and concise. It contends that the IPCC has manufactured science that supports a political agenda rather than a scientific premise. 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf 

The United States Department of Energy, confirmed in a 1985 report that the “CO2-greenhouse effect”, the theoretical atmospheric greenhouse effect (projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide) does not compare to the actual warming phenomenon in a glass house. This comprehensive pre-IPCC publication explicitly states that the terms “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” are misnomers. 

Conclusion: 

Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some of the fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary physical conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the understanding that within the troposphere no backradiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse gases. Therefore, it is not at all correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere. 

The thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are determined by its pressure and the mass of its main components. Higher concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere – at least until they reached 2% (a 60-fold increase) and thus became injurious to health – would endanger neither the climate nor mankind. To avoid further misunderstanding, the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases should be avoided in describing the functioning of the atmosphere. A more correct term would be atmosphere effect. 

The operation of this effect is described in “The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” at http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm.)

It is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that mankind can or must protect the climate by attempting to control trace amounts of CO2 in the air. Source – Heinz Thieme  http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm

 Also in all of these articles allude to problems with the computer models being used to predict the impending climate disaster. However, when these models are tested against actual data from satellites and weather balloons the models appear to be wrong. See the following articles for more details: 

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm 

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15727/Global_Warming_Computer_Models_Seriously_Flawed_Studies_Show.html

So here is where we are: 

Current plans and actions to protect the climate lack an adequate basis in the proven results of scientific research. The group of scientists currently offering policy advice has so far failed to demonstrate the alleged mechanisms by which trace gases will damage weather and climate. Moreover, several potentially major influences on climate are being ignored. Enhanced scientific understanding of meteorological processes might suggest substantially different climate protection activities, if in fact these are necessary or feasible. Substantial further research is required by experts in biology, chemistry, thermodynamics and meteorology to improve knowledge of atmospheric dynamics and assess the extent to which human activities affect climate. Source – Heinz Thieme  http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm

In the final installment of this series the discussion will turn to the potential economic impact of this craziness. If allowed to move forward The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill will have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy and it’s citizens. 

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”  

Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

The Waxman – Markey Climate Change Bill (Part 2) … Does “human activity” really induce global warming?

“Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.” – Ross Gelbsan, former journalist

Even though the mainstream media refuses to cover it, there is momentum building in the scientific community to challenge the current hype around global warming and the allegedly negative effects of greenhouse gases. Today’s blog is intended to point you in the direction of this information as I continue to lay the ground work for debate on why this bill is bad for America. 

Let’s start with a documentary produced in the U.K. on the subject: 

(N.Y. Post) March 17th BRITAIN’S Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It has apparently not been broadcast by any U.S. networks, but is available on the Web.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global-warming hysteria is.

These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. The names of some were paraded on some of the global-warming publications that are being promoted in the media – but they state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them. One threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that “all” leading scientists buy the global-warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats – and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were “consulted,” but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

There is no question that the globe is warming – but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there was as much the burning of fossil fuels as today. None of the dire things predicted today happened then.

The documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the Earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.

According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds.

These climate scientists likewise debunk the mathematical models used to hype warming hysteria, showing that they’re contradicted by hard evidence stretching back centuries.

Much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say that the emperor has no clothes. One of the scientists interviewed in the documentary reported getting death threats.

In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede.

No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than they were a century ago. What the climate scientists in the British documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don’t take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe.

“Global warming” is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible.  

For more information on this documentary go to:

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/        It is also available on YouTube.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” – Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth

 Next there is the infamous open letter that another group of scientists wrote to the U.N. on the subject. The letter not only disagrees openly with the reported conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but also challenges the methodology of how it was written. See below:

 Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations


Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.
 

Dear Mr. Secretary-General, 

Re: UN climate conference is taking the World in entirely the wrong direction.

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-lineby ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see reference) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems. 

Yours faithfully,

A complete list of signers available at the bottom of this blog.

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/open-letter-100-scientists-ban-ki-moon-0

 “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.” – Louis Proyect, Columbia University

Here are a few other sites to visit: 

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/02/japanese-scientists-dispute-man-made-warming-hypothesis/ 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086 

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=212 

Again, all of this reading is in preparation for the final 2 parts of this series. Part 3 will deal with the scientific facts in dispute. Part 4 will summarizes my opinion about the potential impact of proposed governmental policies and regulations of greenhouse gas. More to come….

I have included these signatures to make a point which is there is clearly not a consensus opinion or indisputable evidence on this subject as we are often led to believe.

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy