| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
franron
Leader
2529 Posts |
 Posted - July 26 2010 : 11:37:34
|
Dear Mr. Shewey,
Thank you for your email regarding climate change legislation and our environment. As you may know the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), which would address this issue, was recently introduced in the Senate. It is good to hear from you, and I apologize for my delayed response.
I certainly believe we must do everything we can to protect our natural environment, including wildlife, but we must also make sure these policies are actually necessary, effective, and within our constitutional authority. It is important to note that Earth has sustained periods of warming and cooling throughout history, and extreme weather patterns are a natural component of these fluctuations. Though the debate on global warming continues, scientists have yet to reach a consensus on the realities of climate change and, in fact, many reports have claimed global cooling may be a greater concern.
The truth is that the science behind global warming theories has not been confirmed and, in fact, the available data shows otherwise. There is already ample data that casts serious doubt on global warming theories. Considering the theory's far reaching claims and corresponding consequences, the burden of proof is certainly on global warming theorists. I am concerned and deeply disappointed that this debate is being driven by political considerations, and void of any substantial discussion of real science. This is another example of politicians in Washington moving with the political head winds instead of sound science and responsible policies.
Additionally, I would like to point out that climate legislation poses serious economic consequences on Americans. In a recent report, the Administration's own Energy Information Administration (EIA) stated H.R. 2454 would eliminate up to 2.3 million jobs and would cost $1,870 per household.[1]
Please know I will continue to support common sense energy policies that allow us to responsibly produce our vast natural resources without harming the environment. Legislation must be based on sound science rather than political showmanship.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. Although we may disagree on this topic, I hope we can continue our discussion on energy and the environment. Please stay in touch.
Sincerely, A
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator
|
Ron Shewey
"What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not always right." Howard Cossell in defense of Muhamid Ali
"Civil Rights, Don't Leave Home Without 'em." My only Bumper Sticker |
|
|
progressv
Leader
USA
1786 Posts |
Posted - July 26 2010 : 14:09:54
|
What a CROCK of shit !
|
"America---Change it, or lose it".
"The conservative media dreamland, for instance, ensconces its audience in an impregnable bubble -- you eat breakfast with the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, you drive to the office with right-wing radio, you flit between Breitbart and Drudge at work, you come home to Fox News. The ideas bouncing around in this world -- say, ideas about the Obama administration allegedly favoring blacks -- don't seem like propaganda to those inside the bubble. With heavily edited videos of screaming pastors and prejudice-sounding USDA officials, these ideas are cloaked in the veneer of unchallenged fact, leaving the audience to assume its bigoted conclusions are completely self-directed and incontrovertible".
David Sirota, AlterNet
|
 |
|
|
avoter
Activist
296 Posts |
Posted - July 26 2010 : 15:08:45
|
| He probably doubts evolution, too. |
|
|
|
Mrs. Ted Nancy
Activist
USA
401 Posts |
Posted - July 26 2010 : 16:33:36
|
I've written a few e-mails and letters to him. The first response was always written by an intern. Well... I think it was an intern because of repub talking points were always used as facts and the writing was poor.
I sent a reply to one of his intern-written letters. I told him why he was wrong. I also told him that he should stop having interns write correspondence. I got a response to my reply and it was written by him. He was arrogant and condescending. He cited repub talking points disguised as facts.
quote:
It is important to note that Earth has sustained periods of warming and cooling throughout history, and extreme weather patterns are a natural component of these fluctuations.
There has never been 6.5 billion people on the planet before. These warming and cooling periods resulted in drastic changes which wiped out species of animals. I wonder if he thinks that dinosaur fossils were put on earth by satan to fool us. |
|
|
|
franron
Leader
2529 Posts |
Posted - July 28 2010 : 11:09:36
|
Dear Mr. Shewey:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding climate change. As a father of four and a grandfather of twelve, I am extremely concerned that certain measures to address climate change would lower the quality of life and economic well-being of future generations.
When I became the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2003, I decided to closely examine the scientific evidence - I wanted to study whether global warming was real, man-made, and potentially catastrophic, as many were asserting, before passing legislation that would place harsh financial burdens on American families. It was then that I discovered that the science behind global warming was, in fact, not settled. I learned this from many credible scientists who began to contact me about the issue. In 2007, I released my first report detailing over 400 scientists who rejected the so-called "consensus" that global warming was causing a planetary disaster; today, that list stands at well over 700 scientists. Additional research confirmed for me that the catastrophic global warming hypothesis was wrong.
Emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit reveal that several of the world's leading climate scientists may have manipulated data, violated information disclosure laws, and blocked publication of research contrary to their own. Regarded as the "greatest scandal of our generation" by the UK Telegraph, Climategate, as the scandal is called, discloses what scientists over the years had been telling me: the so-called "consensus" is simply wrong. My office released a report, "Minority Report: 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy," detailing the events and implications of Climategate, which is available on my website www.epw.senate.gov.
Because climate science remains unsettled, in addition to other reasons, I oppose cap-and-trade legislation. Last June, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill, titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which would, among other things, establish a national cap-and-trade program. Then in November, climate legislation similar to the House bill was passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. However, supporters of the bill lacked the votes needed to pass it in the Senate. Senators Kerry and Lieberman released another version of cap-and-trade legislation?"with a gas tax thrown in.
The sponsors of these bills, and others who champion cap-and-trade, fail to comprehend what the rest of America understands - this legislation would destroy jobs and tax the energy we use. Various independent analyses of cap-and-trade have shown that it would make electricity, food, and gasoline prices significantly more expensive for consumers across the country, especially in regions dependent on coal for electricity and manufacturing for jobs.
In addition to generating higher prices and unemployment, cap-and-trade would have very little impact on global concentrations of greenhouse gases. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis of the legislation has shown that cap-and-trade would fail to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, something its proponents claim is central to the legislation. China has already passed the United States as the leading carbon dioxide emitter, and India is not far behind. Without equivalent efforts to limit these gases among developing nations, the United States stands to lose thousands of jobs, many of which would go to countries without global warming regulations. In short, unilateral action would result in increased emissions globally, because efficient manufacturing in our country would be exported to less efficient countries without restrictions. I am thus committed to stopping legislation that would impose financial hardships on the American people, while failing to lower global emissions, from becoming law.
Recognizing the lack of support in Congress for cap-and-trade, the Obama Administration is circumventing the legislative branch by developing global warming regulations through the EPA. I do not believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and I am opposed to the regulation of emissions by the EPA. Congress needs to act to stop EPA in its tracks, or else it will proceed to regulate nearly every corner of the American economy.
This past December, I attended the United Nations conference on global warming in Copenhagen, Denmark. Some had speculated that President Obama would sign an international agreement with binding limits on greenhouse gases. From the beginning, I staunchly opposed any agreement that would surrender to any degree the sovereignty of the United States. Moreover, I object to a treaty that would significantly damage the American economy, cost America jobs, and impose the largest tax increase in American history. For this reason, I traveled to Copenhagen to inform world leaders that the United States would not support such an agreement. In 1997, the Senate unanimously voted for the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which stated the following: the United States will not sign any international climate change treaty that would mandate greenhouse gas reductions from the U.S. without also requiring new, specific commitments from developing countries over the same compliance period, and would result in serious economic harm to the United States. That position holds true today. Fortunately, in the end, the UN Conference was a failure, as it was clear that the United States, as well as China, India, and other developing countries, could not reach agreement on fundamental issues, such as the extent to which developing countries would participate in reducing emissions.
Cap-and-trade is the wrong answer to America's energy needs. We need an all-of-the-above energy policy that encourages production of all domestic resources. The Congressional Research Service (CRS), an independent agency that provides research and analysis for Congress, concluded in a recent report that America has the largest recoverable resources on earth. According to CRS, if America opened access to these resources, we could produce 167 billion barrels of oil, which is the equivalent of replacing America's current imports from OPEC for more than 75 years. Furthermore, I believe there are several clean energy solutions that can put this country on a path to increasing our energy security and achieving healthier air. These solutions include more incentives for nuclear energy, natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, and clean coal technology. The promotion and use of these clean technologies is important to help keep America's economy growing with new jobs.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me, and I hope you find this information useful in your evaluation of the climate change debate. I encourage you to take a look at our website, www.epw.senate.gov, to learn more about what my colleagues and I are doing on these issues. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
|
Ron Shewey
"What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not always right." Howard Cossell in defense of Muhamid Ali
"Civil Rights, Don't Leave Home Without 'em." My only Bumper Sticker |
|
|
|
franron
Leader
2529 Posts |
Posted - July 29 2010 : 08:42:33
|
"Moreover, I object to a treaty that would significantly damage the American economy, cost America jobs, and impose the largest tax increase in American history. For this reason, I traveled to Copenhagen to inform world leaders that the United States would not support such an agreement. In 1997, the Senate unanimously voted for the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which stated the following: the United States will not sign any international climate change treaty that would mandate greenhouse gas reductions from the U.S. without also requiring new, specific commitments from developing countries over the same compliance period, and would result in serious economic harm to the United States. That position holds true today. Fortunately, in the end, the UN Conference was a failure, as it was clear that the United States, as well as China, India, and other developing countries, could not reach agreement on fundamental issues, such as the extent to which developing countries would participate in reducing emissions."
This is my interpretation:
Moreover, I object to a treaty that would significantly change the American economy, cost America Carbon based energy jobs, and cut into my campaign contributions from BIG OIL.
|
Ron Shewey
"What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not always right." Howard Cossell in defense of Muhamid Ali
"Civil Rights, Don't Leave Home Without 'em." My only Bumper Sticker |
|
|
|
Mitch™
Leader
USA
1910 Posts |
Posted - July 29 2010 : 09:13:33
|
SOUNDS LIKE INHOFE GOT TO DOCTER TOM.
MITCH
CLICK 4 BIGGER IMAGE |
Mitch™
(Manipulated images to cause havoc) |
|
|
|
Sportly
Leader
USA
3763 Posts |
Posted - July 30 2010 : 16:09:33
|
Inhofe says he "attended the United Nations conference on global warming in Copenhagen, Denmark." Uh, well, he was there.
quote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30769.html
. . .
But it was early morning when he arrived at the Bella Center, and the halls were still half-deserted. He walked quickly, brushing off an aide who suggested that he slow down and take a breath.
“I don’t want to breathe — I want to get something done,” he said.
The senator didn’t have any meetings scheduled in Copenhagen, and he did not see chief U.S. negotiator Todd Stern or the members of the House delegation, who were not scheduled to fly in until later in the afternoon.
But Inhofe’s aides eventually rustled up a group of reporters, and the Oklahoman — wearing black snakeskin cowboy boots — held forth from the top of a flight of stairs in the conference media center.
“We in the United States owe it to the 191 countries to be well-informed and know what the intentions of the United States are. The United States is not going to pass a cap and trade,” he said. “It’s just not going to happen.”
A reporter asked: “If there’s a hoax, then who’s putting on this hoax, and what’s the motive?”
“It started in the United Nations,” Inhofe said, “and the ones in the United States who really grab ahold of this is the Hollywood elite.”
One reporter asked Inhofe if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: “You’re ridiculous.”
Inhofe ignored the jab, fielded a few more questions, then raced to the airport for the nine-hour flight back to Washington.
After Inhofe left, some reporters were still a bit confused about what had happened and who he was.
“His name is Inhofe,” a German journalist told a Japanese reporter, “but I don’t know if it’s one or two f’s.”
|
|
|
|
Sportly
Leader
USA
3763 Posts |
Posted - July 30 2010 : 16:29:27
|
Coburn, sadly, is a convenience liar. When it's convenient, he lies.
He states, ". . . scientists have yet to reach a consensus on the realities of climate change and, in fact, many reports have claimed global cooling may be a greater concern." Scientists have reached a consensus. The claims on global cooling, likely caused by volcanic eruptions, are a diversion from deniers.
He states, "The truth is that the science behind global warming theories has not been confirmed and, in fact, the available data shows otherwise." Thus, the available data shows the science behind global warming has been confirmed. Okay, he got it right this time, but, of course, he didn't mean to. |
Edited by - Sportly on July 30 2010 16:31:04 |
|
|
|
Mitch™
Leader
USA
1910 Posts |
Posted - July 30 2010 : 20:24:02
|
THAT SOUNDS LIKE JIM INHOFE= GOING ON AND ON= BRAGGING ABOUT GOING TO COPENHAGEN= SO HE COOLD LOOK THE ENEMY IN THE EYEBALLS. DID HE SAY ANYTHANG BOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA BEEING THERE TWO??.
MITCH |
Mitch™
(Manipulated images to cause havoc) |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
