Cap-and-Trade: Tell your Senator "we won't get fooled again"

By Rossputin on Jul 06, 2009
Dr. Alan Carlin, an employee of the EPA since 1971, has made public his “Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act” that an EPA director blocked because it was inconvenient to their pre-determined outcome. Carlin's study casts down upon almost every aspect of global warming alarmism and on the EPA’s “endangerment finding” regarding carbon dioxide.

Since these pages aren't primarily about the hoax of man-made global warming, and since my article on Dr. Carlin's "comments" is fairly lengthy, I'll request that you read more at my blog:
http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/global-warming-won-t-get-fooled-again

Related Posts

TCE
July 12, 2009 - 11:28pm
Although future fuel shortages and price increases are openly predicted by four Federal Government reports, several books, and multiple documents, Congress refuses to acknowledge oil, coal, or natural gas depletion. There is nothing in H.R. 2454 that even hints Congress understands the consequences. It’s as though energy resource depletion doesn’t exist. Congressional failure to acknowledge the reality of depletion creates an interesting irony. Congress wants us to believe the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 will create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition America to a clean energy economy. But this bill is based on a basic assumption we will always have unlimited quantities of cheap coal, oil and natural gas. The stated objectives of this bill are therefore rendered useless by the underlying assumptions. There is nothing in this bill that addresses, or even acknowledges, that oil resource depletion will reduce the production of greenhouse gases between now and 2050. Higher prices and limitations on availability will force a reduction of consumption and a decline of economic activity. By 2020 North American oil and other liquids consumption will have fallen below year 2000 levels. Additional reductions will occur through 2050 and beyond. No consideration has been given to the long term supply of natural gas, or the impact of natural gas price escalation on the consumption of alternative “dirty” fuels. That shows a lack of creative intelligence. America does not have an unlimited supply of cheap natural gas. The cost of fuel oil, propane, and natural gas will become prohibitive. Shifting electric power generation to natural gas will accelerate price escalation. Oil depletion guarantees fuel oil and propane supplies will decline. The result? This bill will force consumers to burn coal for heat by 2050, thereby sharply increasing the pollution of greenhouse gases from coal consumption. In other words, this grand plan will backfire. It will cause far more environmental damage than if we Americans did absolutely nothing. Is this what we want? TCE www.tce.name
Rossputin
July 13, 2009 - 7:54am
TCE, You are simply offering a watered-down version of "peak oil theory" which is belied by the data. People have made the arguments you're making for at least a couple of decades, yet we still have more proven reserves of both oil and gas now than ever, even after our large energy usage. By the time we get anywhere near depletion of oil or gas, we will have developed nuclear energy to a far greater degree and possibly even some other forms of renewable energy in ways which don't require massive government subsidies to compete. The idea that you know what will happen by 2050 is just silly. And the idea that government can predict anything with accuracy is equally silly.
Rossputin
July 6, 2009 - 2:43pm
Sickle, I truly appreciate the discussion, but I'm working on a really big business opportunity right now and I just don't have the time to post lots of stuff. However, let me just offer a couple of things in response to your note: You can read the e-mails between Carlin and the EPA administrator here: http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf And if you can't get Carlin's site, you can read his comments here: http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf Sorry I don't have time for more right now...
Rossputin
July 6, 2009 - 1:31pm
Sickle, While I understand the points you're trying to make, I don't think they're highly relevant in the context of two major facts: 1) The EPA said specifically that they refused to include his comments because they went against the outcome that had already been determined by political appointees (implicitly for political reasons regardless of the science.) It doesn't really matter if the comments were "requested" if the reason they were refused was to silence any dissent. 2) Dr. Carlin's arguments and summaries of the flaws in the EPA's finding and the new data and research since the IPCC report on which the EPA relies are extremely important. It's typical of someone who can't argue against the facts to somehow try to impugn the messenger. The fact that you can only try to denigrate Dr. Carlin's involvement with the issue rather than address even a single point Carlin makes about the science or the EPA's process is telling.