The Clean Energy Act of 2009 would dramatically increase our nation’s energy output and measurably decrease carbon dioxide emissions, and do so at an overall 10-year cost of no more than $20 billion.
This is the day after Christmas, and I have just finished reading Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography on my new Kindle. So I would like to take some of Franklin’s admonitions to heart. I will not be rude, argumentative and dogmatic. So I will put the best possible face on Senator Webb’s announcement. I will assume that he believes that the world is warming and that the current cold and snow sweeping not just the US and Europe is a mere blip on the march of the globe’s temperature rise. But I would ask him to wonder why this was not predicted by the computer models which tell us that the earth is warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide. Is it not a tenet of science that theory and reality should coincide; and if they do not, the theory is wrong?
Is Senator Webb unaware that the e-mails and computer data that has been revealed from the world’s foremost research body shows not only that the scientists have created s spurious “consensus” but that the data entered into the computer models was manipulated to create the desired conclusions?
Yet the Senator is proposing to provide a solution to a problem which may not exist. His entire proposal is based on a premise that may be faulty. Read the proposed purpose again:
As our country works its way through the ongoing economic crisis, there has been strong debate over the most appropriate ways for the Congress to address both our energy needs and the specter of climate change. We have introduced legislation that we believe would address all three of these challenges. The Clean Energy Act of 2009 would dramatically increase our nation’s energy output and measurably decrease carbon dioxide emissions, and do so at an overall 10-year cost of no more than $20 billion.
I ask Senator Webb to consider that man may not have any measurable impact on climate change; that the computer models that associate climate change and carbon dioxide may either be mistaken, or criminally manipulated for financial gain. I ask Senator Webb to answer a simple question: if carbon dioxide is not the cause of climate change, what would be the effect on his proposal to spend $20 billion dollars that the people of this country desperately need in their own pockets?
Would he still propose to spend the money? The answer will be very instructive.