Posted on 11/12/2007 5:21:11 PM PST by pissant
Perhaps the biggest fraud ever to be perpetrated onto the American people is Global Warming. Al Gore is just the symptom. If not given cover by a group of supposed climate scientists and other left-wing academics, Mr. Gore would be easily seen as the nutcase, phony alarmist that he is. Alas, nearly the entire left of the political spectrum has bought into this hoax, and more than a few conservatives have also succumbed to the hysteria, including Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee.
Fred Thompson, at least since he started campaigning for the GOP nomination, has provided some biting remarks regarding this issue, including pointing out that Mars is experiencing Martian Warming, with nary a human influence (Richard Hoaglands theories not withstanding).
But what did Fred do and say during his time in the Senate, representing the good folks of Tennessee?
Well for starters, Fred had this to say on April 23, 2002 during the Senate debates on the 2002 Energy bill:
"I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached with regard to Title X. A lot of hard work has gone into this agreement. It is my belief that there are still many uncertainties with regard to climate change. However, I also believe that the potential risks of climate change warrant study, research and technological development. This substitute to Title X goes a long way towards achieving those goals. This amendment also recognizes that there are many contributors to climate change beyond CO2, and I appreciate that black soot is included. (snip)
This would seem a fairly harmless statement, if one just skimmed over the Congressional Record. Unfortunately for Mr. Thompson, not everyone skims over it. Title X was part of Tom Daschles
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanwriter2007.blogspot.com ...
The ‘X’ Files
I am going to pull a few of these posts and I’ll get it on my blog.
Thanks!
What the hell is NRTL thinking?
That doesn't sound quite like "the chips fall where they may" to me.
I want to emphasize this too:
>>>(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, to carry out the duties of the Department Office under this subtitle, $4,750,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2011, to remain available through September 30, 2011.<<<
Note the date, 2003. So you hear, ‘Bush Administration’, and it wasn’t.
Bookmark for later reference on Fred Thompson and Global Warming. I won’t be reading this whole thing any time today, that’s for sure. Thanks for posting it.
reference bump!
Thanks very much to both of you for finding that. Part of me wants to compare that version to Daschle’s version, just to get more insight into where the differences lie. Part of me doesn’t want to bother because I don’t like the replacement version Thompson co-sponsored, either.
I do like the R&D part, because as we’ve seen through DARPA R&D on any subject can have unexpected and positive consequences. However, I do not like even conceding that climate change is caused by humans, and I like the idea of binding international treaties on the subject even less (no matter how the treaties are worded).
I still strongly support Thompson, based on any number of issues. But I would like to hear clarification of his plans in this area. Thanks again.
I'm confused... wasn't Bush President in 2003?
Too much punishment--save yourself! LOL.
Part of me doesnt want to bother because I dont like the replacement version Thompson co-sponsored, either.
Yep.
I do like the R&D part, because as weve seen through DARPA R&D on any subject can have unexpected and positive consequences.
I disagree. DARPA did not just do research for research sake. There was some intended purpose, which often did result in some other unintended discovery as a side benefit. A possible side benefit should not justify the investment alone. This is much different than DARPA. Spending money to try to relieve the effects of man made global warming, when the science associated with the "man made" conclusion is questionable, and evidence that global warming is a problem is inconclusive, is a misuse of taxpayer dollars. It is a form of pork for those green energy companies looking for government to fund what the private sector should be doing.
However, I do not like even conceding that climate change is caused by humans, and I like the idea of binding international treaties on the subject even less (no matter how the treaties are worded).
On that, we agree.
I give ellery lots of credit. She is one of a handful of Fredheads that is very serious about her research. And she noted that this author’s contention that it was Dashole’s title X program was wrong. When I looked up the Title X stuff, all I found was 2 versions of Dasholes with no conformed final. So thanks to both of you for getting it right.
Yes but this was put through by Thompson as a co-sponsor to go into affect in 2003.
“A lot of hard work has gone into this agreement”.
I’m sure that is true. I wonder who sat in on it besides the senators.
The framework was created at the Earth Summit. That makes it part of the UN Environment and Development of Agenda 21:
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
Excerpt:
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
Tidbit, Agenda 21 is short script for 2010. All these treaties need to be finished with the ratification by 2010. I’m not clear as to why yet.
I agree. We have collaborated on research on occasion and facts always trump what we want the answers to be. I have a lot of respect for that.
And she noted that this authors contention that it was Dasholes title X program was wrong. When I looked up the Title X stuff, all I found was 2 versions of Dasholes with no conformed final. So thanks to both of you for getting it right.
Yep. Here is a repeat of what the author said. Now we know that he lumped SA 3232 with 2917, incorrectly.
Title X was part of Tom Daschles Senate Amendment 2917, titled Energy Policy Act of 2002. This amendment was approved by voice vote, after getting a roll call vote on cloture, in which Fred voted in favor.
Unfortunately, he was correct about Fred favoring it. :-(
So thanks to both of you for getting it right.
You are most welcome. Truth trumps all.
Not sure if you all saw this thread yet. It is getting a bit confusing; but make sure you at least look over 138 - 173.
Ooops... forgot to ping you to above. :-)
Agreed, thanks and bump to all three of you.
Look over 138 - 173.
I’m doing some news searches and finding almost zilch on this Title X.
I found one article. Media black out? /tinfoil
Wasting time on energy legislation
Kenneth W. Chilton, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Sep 22, 2002. pg. B.04
(snip)
The potential for mischief lurks everywhere. For example, buried in Section 1001 of Title X is a “Sense of Congress on Climate Change.” This “sense” is based in part on the thoroughly discredited “Climate Change Impacts on the United States” report issued by the U.S. Global Change Research Program in October 2000.
The section calls for the United States to “demonstrate international leadership and responsibility “ by: (1) “taking responsible action to ensure significant and meaningful reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases from all sectors” and (2) entering “in international negotiations ... with the objective of securing United States participation in a future binding climate change Treaty.”
The climate change section includes weasel words about the need for the treaty to protect the economic interests of the United States and to recognize shared international responsibility “including developing country participation.” But it also virtually repudiates Senate Resolution 98, which said nearly the same thing regarding U.S. economic interests and developing country participation. In short, the sense of Congress on climate change makes little sense.
Given the plethora of pork and the opaque and dense nature of these bills, Americans would be best served if Congress would remove comprehensive energy policy from its list of things to accomplish this fall.
Make that 138 through 179. Calcowgirl found the only fossil from the MSM on this turkey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.