Unnecessary ‘Warming’ Legislation Will Cost Billions
Congress is full of hot air, as translated into at least half-dozen “climate stabilization” bills that address a non-existent issue but would cost taxpayers billions (yes, billions).
Evidence that “global warming” is a natural, cyclical development, based on studies by numerous scientists, is piled high but unreported in such Bilderberg-controlled media outlets as TheWashington Post, NewYork
Times, Los Angeles Times and the national networks.
The idea that climate warming is man-made has been completely discredited.
Bilderberg first jumped on the “global warming” issue in 1991 at its secret meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany. Bilderberg was motivated by the prospect of immense profits, not saving the world from a heat wave. The controlled media immediately jumped on the issue, and those who had been warning that the human race would be frozen to extinction by the year 2000 on “Earth Days” of the 1970s did an about-face.
So you have been reading and hearing about “global warming” to the exclusion of the facts. This has prompted ignorant voters to share their ignorance with
NASA has corrected its U.S. temperature records, showing that the hottest year on record is no longer 1998 but 1934. Five of the 10 hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940—and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. There were far fewer autos on the roads during those hot years.
Yet the manufactured hysteria persists. Greenpeace calls skeptics “climate criminals.” Grist magazine wants “Nuremberg-style war crimes trials” for nonbelievers.
Robert Kennedy Jr., son of the late attorney general and NewYork senator Robert Kennedy, brands global warming skeptics as “traitors.” (Neither Jr. nor daddy ever wore their country’s uniform.)
When a witness warned a House panel that proposed legislation would raise energy and food prices, cost millions of dollars and severely hurt poor families, the best response Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) could muster was to walk out.
The pending bills “would cost American consumers many billions of dollars year,” Paul Driessen of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, wrote in the Washington Times.
“But they would reduce average global temperatures by a tiny fraction . . . that scientists say the Kyoto Protocol would accomplish by 2050 . . . At what point do symbolic gestures and political grandstanding become actually ‘doing something’ about climate change. At what point do they amount to insanity?”
(Issue #40, October 1, 2007)