 |
EPA’s Jackson and Energy Sec. Chu on the Senate hot seat
Watts Up With That?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
In case you missed the debate on the Senate floor today over the Waxman-Markey bill, here is a video segment of interest.
Jackson agrees that the USA effect on global CO2 would be minimal, Chu does not.
Washington, D.C.-During a hearing today in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.
“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries.
“I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”
Along with Administrator Jackson’s statement, Energy Secretary Chu responded with an unequivocal “no” when asked whether he agrees with the analysis depicted in the EPA chart. “No, I don’t’ agree with that [EPA] chart,” Chu asserted.
“I was somewhat surprised that Secretary Chu disagreed with EPA’s analysis of what would happen if the U.S. acts alone to address climate change, which cap-and-trade supporters claim is a global problem,” Sen. Inhofe said. “EPA’s analysis that global greenhouse gas emission levels can only be stabilized with meaningful, mandatory action by China and India is widely accepted. I extend an invitation to the Secretary to see whether he wants to clarify his remarks.”
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
15 Responses to “EPA’s Jackson and Energy Sec. Chu on the Senate hot seat”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 8th, 2009 at 5:26 am
The idiocy i’ve created is brilliant.
Paul (MN) Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 6:02 am
Indeed, but perhaps you focused too much effort on this one characteristic.
Kenjo Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Yes God you certianly do have a sense of humor! But please do the rest of us a favor and send them to hell now instead of later
July 8th, 2009 at 6:02 am
Man, you would think these idiots could get their story straight!
Climate Change = a lot of hot air = “Change We Need” = lies like a carpet
July 8th, 2009 at 8:41 am
We must not give up on CO2 elimination based one chart. Yes we can. Our planet is at risk of losing all plant and animal life. There is absolute scientific poof of this from Dr al gore. Together we can. never give up. GO GREEN !!! Join us in CA for the great Cap and Change Bill as we rally behind it. This is the greatest humanatarian bill of all time. Save the whales, and polar bears from extension. Sure it may cost a few extra tax pennies, but we must save the planet. I am prepared to field your questions along with the helP of Professor Gibbs as some of you are not yet convinced of the potential benefits here. The children in my glass understand. Why can’t you???
Obama Youth Camp Instructor
CA GIRL
gimmeabreak Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Current CO2 levels are at 385 parts per million. The Long term average on earth is around 1100 ppm. CO2 accounts for 4% of all green house gases (water vapor is the big one). People have increased the CO2 levels in their greenhouses to 1200 ppm and gotten a FOUR FOLD increase in their plant yields (obviously it didnt destroy their plants). Quit filling childrens heads full of globalist propaganda and teach them some real science. The planet you save may be your own. By the way, when the banksters implemented the federal income tax it was only “a few pennies”- 2%.
rudibr Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 9:33 am
God, I hope thats sarcasm.
But in case its not, a few interesting quotes (I will not yet go into the issue of actual science) :
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
–
–> please, PLEASE pay real good attention to what he meant in this quote. and pay real good attention that being the chairmain of newly founded GIM is CONFLICT OF INTEREST. google “conflict of interest” if you dont think its a big deal :
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are…
former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management–
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)
…the SOLUTIONS for…a problem wich is OVER REPRESENTED, in other words, EXAGERETED beyong reality.
–
“In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming.”
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)
–
“Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I’ve been critical of global warming and am persona non grata.”
Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)
–
“Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”
Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)
rudibr Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 9:39 am
And for the record, children will understand and accept mostly anything their tutors teach them.
You are perverting your responsability towards children in your class, and you dont even know it.
You have a real obligation towards their tutelage and you are feeding them with facts YOU didnt research, validated or verified, you just took Al Gore’s word for it.
You took the word of a man who will reap gigantic, uncalculable profits from global warming, hence the advocation from him.
If you feel like researching the issue based on real science, try this as a starting point, and continue on from there:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
USmom Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 10:30 am
God help our children if they are being taught by idiots like you. You obviously believe everything the government and media spoon-feeds you. Go Green–shake those pom poms–go team! The citizens were looking at natural and green products, long before Proctor and Gamble and Johnson Co. jumped on board when they saw the $$$ of selling so-called green products. The citizens were recycling and cleaning up rivers long before corporations decided to jump on the bandwagon in attempt to clean up their tarnished image of big-time polluters–especially when the EPA started levying big-time fines. Cap and Trade does nothing but take the financial burden off these corporations for pollution fines and necessary overhauls of their industrial mechanisms to reduce or eliminate pollution and instead strap the costs to the backs of the citizens. Of course, we are all caretakers of this planet and we should be aware that everything we touch in nature can have detrimental effects. There are plenty of things we can do to alleviate threats to our environment and to the flora and fawna, but lady you are completely off base if you think for one second that Cap and Trade is going to effectuate change and benefit the earth. This bill is all about big money and big profits–this is about crooked corporations and political elites with their fingers in the pie–not the whales and not the polar bears. Do you go around every night spreading fairy dust to sleeping children?
brad Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
You are evil.
connecting dots Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
1.) Polar bear population is growing in leaps and bounds.
2.) Glaciers in Alaska are growing at an unprecedented rate.
3.) CO2 is essential for the life of all plants on this planet; more CO2 equates to higher yields in crops and vegetation, and also higher levels of sequestration of CO2 as it is converted into plant mass.
4.) The mean temperature since 1998 has been steadily decreasing.
5.) The highest temperature on record was actually 1934.
6.) The EU is demanding a 20% reduction in farm land in order to raise prices, there is no food shortage.
7.) Any time something is sold as hard as AGW, you can bet your ass it’s only about the money, it’s always about the money.
You can’t spell, you can’t deliver a cogent point other than bland propaganda and yet you proudly proclaim to be one of Obama’s youth camp brown shirts.
Seriously, you haven’t lost the plot you haven’t got the foggiest idea what it is.
Instead of remaining silent and allowing folks to surmise whether you are a fool, you open your mouth and remove all doubt.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am
My only question is which celebrity are they mysteriously kill off next for the media to hype about while tyrannical legislation is slid under the door out of sight and out of mind? First David Carradine, then Michael Jackson, and Farah Faucet… Am I the only one who finds this current trend disturbing?
July 8th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Sources Added To Free Collaborative Research Database: http://infowardocs.org
July 8th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Lucy Lib
As rudibr said “I hope that’s scarcasm”. But if not then let me point out that over 700 scientists have endorsed the Mahattan Declaration which thoroughly refutes the anthropogenic global warming theory. You can seel the declaration at; http://www.climatescienceinter.....p;Itemid=1
You can also see the lists of endorsers there too. Now where is the list of scientists who support the AGW theory?
July 9th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Very darned interested. One of the two of them are wrong, and it is not the EPA!