Government Waste & Waxman’s Obama Care Hearings

Obama Care passes and within hours of the law being signed by the President reports begin to surface from American businesses about the unintended costs. Billions in hidden costs that will mean jobs and kill the economy.

ATT reports that Obama Care will cost the company $1 Billion dollars in the 1st 13 weeks. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/healthcare-law-to-cost-att-1-billion/389937/

The list grows rapidly, the bill will cost Catapillar $100 Million in the 1st quarter,   http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Caterpillar-Health-Care-Overhaul-To-Cost-100M-032510.aspx?menuid=264 , John Deere Company announces $150 Million 1st quarter costs, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-sees-1-billion-write-down-tied-to-health-law-2010-03-26, AK Steel, Valero Energy, Verizon and 3500 other Companies follow suit and announce hundreds of billions in  unintended costs associated with Obama Care. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/03/26/is-health-law-already-hurting-business-maybe-maybe-not/ . Medtronic warns of a possible 1000 layoffs. Verizon warns retires it may have to cut retiree health care benefits.

Stop this! This must be stopped! Stop it now, shouts Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. People can’t be allowed to report about the huge financial burdens this new Health Care plan is creating ….. they must be stopped now …. Stop it! Stop it! Stop it now, shouts the Chairman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Waxman

Chairman Waxman thought and thought and thought and then he knew what he would do …. make these companies appear at a Congressional Hearing and answer his questions …… so he sent out letters …..

What was that reference to the SEC or Security and Exchange Commission? Waxman wrote, “ATT stated in its March 26, 2010 “filing” with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to take a charge of approximately $1 billion in 2010.”

A filing? What does he mean by a filing?

A ”filing” is simply a “report”, in this instance a report mandated by Waxman and Congress itself.

In 2002 the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate overwhelming passed a law called the Sarbanes – Oxley Act, or SOXs as Congress calls it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

What do I mean by “overwhelming passed”, well the law passed in July 2002 by votes of 423 to 3 in the House of Representatives and passed in the Senate 99 – 0. What do they mean when they say “bi-partisan”? Sarbanes-Oxley was bi-partisan.

What does Sarbanes-Oxley mandate?

The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation’s securities marketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Specifically, “Title III consists of eight sections and mandates that senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of corporate financial reports. It defines the interaction of external auditors and corporate audit committees, and specifies the responsibility of corporate officers for the accuracy and validity of corporate financial reports. It enumerates specific limits on the behaviors of corporate officers and describes specific forfeitures of benefits and civil penalties for non-compliance. For example, Section 302 requires that the company’s “principal officers” (typically the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) certify and approve the integrity of their company financial reports quarterly”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Quarterly reports? To be filed with the SEC? When is the end of the 1st quarter of 2010? Today, March 31, 2010? So the reports Waxman writes about were filed all of 6 days early? The reports, as Waxman writes, were filed on March 26, 2010. Shame, shame, shame – the Companies completed filings required by a law passed by Congress. 

Let me see if I get this.

Congressman Waxman votes on and passes Obama Care without reading what he is signing or understanding what the law does. Waxman doesn’t know about the billions in taxes in the “new” health care law? Then why did he vote to pass the law?

Waxman, who has been in Congress since 1975, particpated in passing Sarbanes-Oxley. Wanna bet he didn’t read that law either?

So, Waxman passed the law raising billions in new taxes and he also passed the law that requires American Companies to file reports with the SEC outlining their business expenses and expected profits and to report these things on a quarterly basis under penalty of criminal prosecution.

So a guy who passed the law that requires the reporting and the same guy who passed the law that created the taxes being reported on, calls a hearing …. to what ….. prevent the required reporting.

What a waste of time and money – no wonder we have a 20 trillion dollar national debt! (It isn’t quite $20 trillion yet – but by the time I fininish typing it well could be $20 trillion).

Does anyopne really think this guy is smart enough to solve the Country’s problems or is he one of the group that is creating the problems that is ruining the economy and costing us millions of jobs and home foreclosures.

Sarbanes – Oxley reporting is “apolitical” or without politics. Accountants complete the reports using Government designed and mandated report formats ….. The SEC reads the reports, the IRS reads the reports and investors read the reports – they are not secret reports they are “public reports”.

Can’t Waxman read and understand the reports he created – he helped pass the law and he doesn’t understand the reports it requires.

Congressional Hearings? What a waste of taxpayer money. Waxman will do anything but take responsibility … responsibility for the economy, for the Housing mess, for foreclosures. Having hearings over Sarbanes-Oxley “filings” makes as much sense as having taxpayers report for hearings when they file their taxes and report that they owe money and mail in their checks. The Sarbanes-Oxley reports – report that the Companies will owe more in “health care taxes”, taxes that will really be paid for by the retirees receiving the benefits.

Waxman has been in Congress for 35 years. The bottom fell out of our economy after he and fellow Californian, Nancy Pelosi, took over leadership positions in the Democratic Party

Waxman represents a District in California that includes Hollywood. Prior to coming to serve in Congress he was a State Assemblyman in California.

What Waxman helped do to bankrupt California, he is now trying to do to the whole United States.

Waxman’s theories didn’t work in Califonia, they won’t work in Washington.

The “change” mandated by Obama Care hurts the retirees, not the Companies invloved.

Obama lied – he said you “could keep the coverage you have” and then he taxed the Companies for giving you the coverage you earned.  

We were not suppose to learn about this …. Sarbanes-Oxley had the unintended effect of bringing these changes out into the open

UPDATE: 3500 Companies report $250 billion in hidden costs – how many jobs will this cost us!

April 15, 2010: Waxman Cancels Hearing To Grill Companies On Tax Hit From Overhaul

Arcane accounting rules don’t usually make for Congressional fireworks. But we were really looking forward to a scheduled clash next week between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and a bunch of companies that said the new health law is going to cost them big time.

Alas, the hearing was cancelled. How come? When congressional staffers took a look at the companies’ books, they concluded their financial filings making provision for higher future taxes were legit.

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and Deere & Co. made waves when they informed investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission that they would take big hits because the health law eliminates a tax deduction on federal subsidies that help defray the cost of drug benefits for retirees.

Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar said it would take a $100 miilion charge in the first quarter of this year. AT&T said its charge would amount to $1 billion.

Waxman didn’t buy it, launched an investigation and sent letters to Caterpillar and the other firms demanding an explanation. Now, the accountants say the companies’ charges are by the book.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/04/waxman_cancels_hearing_to_gril.html?ft=1&f=1006

Waxman is such an embrassment – didn’t read the law before he voted on it and then acted like an ass by scheduling the hearings in the first place.

There are competent Liberals out there that the far left could elect to  public office – why does the far left keep electing clowns like this guy.

Obama Care and The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Expel Representative Waxman For Incompetence

Obama Care passes and within hours of the law being signed by the President reports begin to surface from American businesses about the unintended costs. Billions in hidden costs that will mean jobs and kill the economy.

ATT reports that Obama Care will cost the company $1 Billion dollars in the 1st 13 weeks. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/healthcare-law-to-cost-att-1-billion/389937/

The list grows rapidly, the bill will cost Catapillar $100 Million in the 1st quarter,   http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Caterpillar-Health-Care-Overhaul-To-Cost-100M-032510.aspx?menuid=264 , John Deere Company announces $150 Million 1st quarter costs, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-sees-1-billion-write-down-tied-to-health-law-2010-03-26, AK Steel, Valero Energy, Verizon and 3500 other Companies follow suit and announce hundreds of billions in  unintended costs associated with Obama Care. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/03/26/is-health-law-already-hurting-business-maybe-maybe-not/ . Medtronic warns of a possible 1000 layoffs. Verizon warns retires it may have to cut retiree health care benefits.

Stop this! This must be stopped! Stop it now, shouts Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. People can’t be allowed to report about the huge financial burdens this new Health Care plan is creating ….. they must be stopped now …. Stop it! Stop it! Stop it now, shouts the Chairman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Waxman

Chairman Waxman thought and thought and thought and then he knew what he would do …. make these companies appear at a Congressional Hearing and answer his questions …… so he sent out letters …..

What was that reference to the SEC or Security and Exchange Commission? Waxman wrote, “ATT stated in its March 26, 2010 “filing” with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to take a charge of approximately $1 billion in 2010.”

A filing? What does he mean by a filing?

A “filing” is simply a “report”, in this instance a report mandated by Waxman and Congress itself.

In 2002 the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate overwhelming passed a law called the Sarbanes – Oxley Act, or SOXs as Congress calls it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

What do I mean by “overwhelming passed”, well the law passed in July 2002 by votes of 423 to 3 in the House of Representatives and passed in the Senate 99 – 0. What do they mean when they say “bi-partisan”? Sarbanes-Oxley was bi-partisan.

What does Sarbanes-Oxley mandate?

The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation’s securities marketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Specifically, “Title III consists of eight sections and mandates that senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of corporate financial reports. It defines the interaction of external auditors and corporate audit committees, and specifies the responsibility of corporate officers for the accuracy and validity of corporate financial reports. It enumerates specific limits on the behaviors of corporate officers and describes specific forfeitures of benefits and civil penalties for non-compliance. For example, Section 302 requires that the company’s “principal officers” (typically the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) certify and approve the integrity of their company financial reports quarterly”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Quarterly reports? To be filed with the SEC? When is the end of the 1st quarter of 2010? Today, March 31, 2010? So the reports Waxman writes about were filed all of 6 days early? The reports, as Waxman writes, were filed on March 26, 2010. Shame, shame, shame – the Companies completed filings required by a law passed by Congress. 

Let me see if I get this.

Congressman Waxman votes on and passes Obama Care without reading what he is signing or understanding what the law does. Waxman doesn’t know about the billions in taxes in the “new” health care law? Then why did he vote to pass the law?

Waxman, who has been in Congress since 1975, particpated in passing Sarbanes-Oxley. Wanna bet he didn’t read that law either?

So, Waxman passed the law raising billions in new taxes and he also passed the law that requires American Companies to file reports with the SEC outlining their business expenses and expected profits and to report these things on a quarterly basis under penalty of criminal prosecution.

So a guy who passed the law that requires the reporting and the same guy who passed the law that created the taxes being reported on, calls a hearing …. to what ….. prevent the required reporting.

What a waste of time and money – no wonder we have a 20 trillion dollar national debt! (It isn’t quite $20 trillion yet – but by the time I fininish typing it well could be $20 trillion).

Does anyopne really think this guy is smart enough to solve the Country’s problems or is he one of the group that is creating the problems that is ruining the economy and costing us millions of jobs and home foreclosures.

Sarbanes – Oxley reporting is “apolitical” or without politics. Accountants complete the reports using Government designed and mandated report formats ….. The SEC reads the reports, the IRS reads the reports and investors read the reports – they are not secret reports they are “public reports”.

Can’t Waxman read and understand the reports he created – he helped pass the law and he doesn’t understand the reports it requires.

Congressional Hearings? What a waste of taxpayer money. Waxman will do anything but take responsibility … responsibility for the economy, for the Housing mess, for foreclosures. Having hearings over Sarbanes-Oxley “filings” makes as much sense as having taxpayers report for hearings when they file their taxes and report that they owe money and mail in their checks. The Sarbanes-Oxley reports – repot that the Companies will owe more in “health care taxes”, taxes that will really be paid for by retirees/p>

Waxman has been in Congress for 35 years. The bottom fell out of our economy after he and fellow Californian, Nancy Pelosi, took over leadership positions in the Democratic Party

Waxman represents a District in California that includes Hollywood. Prior to coming to serve in Congress he was a State Assemblyman in California.

What Waxman helped do to bankrupt California, he is now trying to do to the whole United States.

Waxman’s theories didn’t work in Califonia, they won’t work in Washington.

The “change” mandated by Obama Care hurts the retirees, not the Companies invloved.

Obama lied – he said you “could keep the coverage you have” and then he taxed the Companies for giving you the coverage you earned.  

We were not suppose to learn about this …. Sarbanes-Oxley had the unintended effect of bringing these changes out into the open.

UPDATE: 3500 Companies report $250 billion in hidden costs – how many jobs will this cost us!

April 15, 2010: Waxman Cancels Hearing To Grill Companies On Tax Hit From Overhaul

Arcane accounting rules don’t usually make for Congressional fireworks. But we were really looking forward to a scheduled clash next week between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and a bunch of companies that said the new health law is going to cost them big time.

Alas, the hearing was cancelled. How come? When congressional staffers took a look at the companies’ books, they concluded their financial filings making provision for higher future taxes were legit.

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and Deere & Co. made waves when they informed investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission that they would take big hits because the health law eliminates a tax deduction on federal subsidies that help defray the cost of drug benefits for retirees.

Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar said it would take a $100 miilion charge in the first quarter of this year. AT&T said its charge would amount to $1 billion.

Waxman didn’t buy it, launched an investigation and sent letters to Caterpillar and the other firms demanding an explanation. Now, the accountants say the companies’ charges are by the book.

Waxman is such an embrassment – didn’t read the law before he voted on it and then acted like an ass by scheduling the hearings in the first place.

There are competent Liberals out their that the far left could elect to  public office – why does the far left keep electing clowns like this guy.

Off Shore Drilling – Same Empty Democratic Promises Were Made 18 Months Ago

Mid Term Elections Muct Be On The Way ….. The following post was made in September 2008 when the Democratspromised to implement “Drill Baby Drill” ….. nothing happned for 18 months and nothing will happen now …. read on …..

Drill Baby Drill – Democrats to Let Offshore Drilling Ban Expire, Conceding Defeat in Battle With GOP

Posted on September 24, 2008 by mcauleysworld | Edit

UPDATE: The activities described below were just a pre-election ploy ….. In fact none of the changes were ever implemented …. prior or post election.

WASHINGTON —  Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

“If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Democrats had clung to the hope of only a partial repeal of the drilling moratorium, but the White House had promised a veto, Obey said.

The House is expected to act on the spending bill Wednesday. The Senate is likely to go along with the House.

“The White House has made it clear they will not accept anything with a drilling moratorium, and Democrats know we cannot afford to shut down the government over this,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “We look forward to working with the next president to hammer out a final resolution of this issue.”

While the House would lift the long-standing drilling moratoriums for both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a drilling ban in waters within 125 miles of Florida’s western coast would remain in force under a law passed by Congress in 2006 that opened some new areas of the east-central Gulf to drilling.

Just last week, the House passed legislation to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling but only 50 or more miles out to sea and only if a state agrees to energy development off its shore. It quickly became clear that measure would not get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.

Republicans called that effort a sham that would have left almost 90 percent of offshore reserves effectively off-limits.

The ban on energy development will be lifted if the Senate goes along with the House action. imminent.

The congressional battle over offshore drilling is far from over. Democrats are expected to press for broader energy legislation, probably next year, that would put limits on any drilling off most of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to fight any resumption of the drilling bans that have been in place since 1981.

John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has promised to make offshore oil drilling a priority if elected president. He has called for developing the oil and gas resources along all of Outer Continental Shelf and for the federal government to share royalties with states who go along with drilling.

Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has said he would support very limited drilling in certain areas — possibly the South Atlantic region — if it is part of a broader energy plan to shift the U.S. away from oil to alternative fuels and more energy efficiency.

The debate over offshore drilling is not expected to subside in the first months of the next presidency — no matter who sits in the White House.

Lifting the drilling ban gives momentum to the underlying bill, which includes the Pentagon budget, $24 billion in aid for flood and hurricane victims and $25 billion in loans for Detroit automakers in addition to keeping the government open past the Oct. 1 start of the 2009 budget year.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426764,00.html?sPage=fnc/politics/senate

Update: Roe vs. Wade – How Obama Care Will Effect Taxpayer Funding Of Abortions

OBAMA CARE AND TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

Confusion has arisen over the question of federal abortion funding in the Senate health care reform bill (H.R. 3590). In particular: As currently written, does the legislation require large scale funding of abortion at federally regulated Community Health Centers (CHCs)?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Understanding why requires some knowledge of current federal law and past judicial history on abortion.

Everyone agrees on these basic facts (if you don’t agree –read the sections for yourself – that is why they are listed): Sec. 10503 of the bill authorizes a new “CHC Fund” to expand funding for the CHC program (which was established by Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act). More unusually, the Senate bill also directly appropriates its own new funds for these services, instead of leaving that task to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill that traditionally funds programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

 For fiscal years 2011 to 2015, the bill appropriates $7 billion for services (to be increased to $11 billion).

 Why does this create a massive problem of federal abortion funding?

Fact #1: A long and consistent series of federal court rulings since Roe v. Wade requires that broad statutory mandates for provision of health services must be construed to include mandated provision of abortions, unless the statute specifies otherwise.

Having decided in 1973 to establish a constitutional right to abortion to serve women’s “health,” the courts decided that legislative references to health services or “medically necessary” services (the term of art used in the Medicaid statute) encompass abortion. In the abortion context, the Supreme Court has said that “health” must be defined very broadly to include “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). In short, if a physician decides that a woman should be able to have an abortion for her “well being,” a government program requiring provision of health services must provide such abortions.

 In the years before the Hyde amendment was first enacted by Congress in 1976, Medicaid was required to pay for about 300,000 abortions a year. No regulatory or administrative leeway was allowed on this point. The Medicaid statute said that grantees must provide “medically necessary” services provided by physicians, and the federal courts held that this category included elective abortions, even though the statute never says the word “abortion.” As one court has observed: “Because abortion fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including‘family planning,’ ‘outpatient services,’ ‘inpatient services,’ and ‘physicians’ services,’Medicaid covered medically necessary abortions between 1973 and 1976.” PlannedParenthood Affiliates of Michigan v. Engler, 73 F.3d 634, 636 (6th Cir. 1996).

Even after the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations act was enacted in 1976, barring funds appropriated in this act from being used for most abortions, a legal battle ensued for years. Not until 1980 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the statutory language of the Hyde amendment trumps the underlying statute’s presumptive mandate for abortion, and is constitutionally valid. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

Some had even argued that the abortion mandate remained in place after the Hyde amendment was enacted – that while the amendment withheld federal funds from certain abortions, the underlying statute still required them to be provided, using state matching funds if necessary. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. 448 U.S. at 309-10. However, the federal courts still insist that the mandate remains in place for any abortion for which funding is not barred by a provision like the Hyde amendment. When the Hyde amendment ceased to prohibit use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest in 1993, federal courts throughout the country ruled that states participating in the program were now required by the underlying Medicaid statute to provide and help pay for rape/incest abortions – even if that meant overriding state constitutions that allow state funding of abortion only in cases of danger to the life of the mother. See Engler, 73 F.3d at 638, and cases cited therein.

Fact #2: In line with this legal precedent, the Community Health Centers program would be required to provide abortions now if not for the Hyde amendment.

The statute establishing the CHC program has the same kind of broad mandate for providing health services that Medicaid does. In some ways it presents an even more clear-cut case.

The statute defines a “health center” in the program as an entity that provides, at a minimum, “required primary health services” to certain low-income populations. 42 USC § 254b (a)(1)(A). “Required primary health services” are defined to include “health services related to family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians” (and by other medical professionals where appropriate), as well as “voluntary family planning services.” 42 USC §254b (b)(1)(A). Thus, to be considered as eligible centers at all, centers in the program must provide the same broad categories of services that triggered the abortion mandate in Medicaid, and some that are even more specific (e.g., gynecology services). This statutory mandate will trump any lesser authority, such as the preferences of the centers themselves or of an HHS Secretary or other executive-branch official. These officials must obey the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the federal courts.

 Fact #3: The new funding appropriated for community health centers by the Senate health care bill is not covered by the Hyde amendment.

This should be clear from the wording of the Hyde amendment itself: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act” may be used for most abortions (referring to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations act).

The Senate bill’s new funds are not appropriated in the Labor/HHS appropriations act, so Hyde does not apply to them.

 A similar situation came to light in 1979, when members of Congress asked why the Indian Health Service (IHS) was continuing to provide abortions despite enactment of the Hyde amendment. The agency replied that it had no choice but to do so: The authorizing legislation for the IHS created a broad mandate for services to conserve the “health” of Indians, and the Interior appropriations bill funding these services contained no abortion limitation like the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS bill. Therefore “we would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions” (Letter from Director of the Indian Health Service to Cong. Henry Hyde, July 30, 1979).

Not until 1988 did Congress finally revise the authorizing legislation for the IHS to require that program to conform to the annual Hyde amendment.

The problem here is exactly parallel. The new billions of dollars appropriated here for services at CHCs simply are not covered by the Hyde amendment or other similar provisions, which only govern the use of funds appropriated by the legislation that they amend.

It follows that these funds are also not restricted by any regulations implementing the Hyde amendment. On this point some have cited thirty-year-old regulations stating that elective abortions are not funded in programs receiving “Federal financial assistance” at the Department of Health and Human Services (42 CFR §§ 50.301 through 50.306). But for their statutory basis the regulations cite only the appropriations bills valid at that time and the previous year, which contained the Hyde amendment (Public Laws 95-205 and 96-86). These laws expired three decades ago; but even a citation to the Hyde amendment in thecurrent Labor/HHS appropriations bill would not help. Hyde governs only funds appropriated in the Act that it amends; and a regulation implementing Hyde can only have that same limited scope. If such a regulation were found to be relevant to the new funds provided by the Senate health care bill, the regulation would almost certainly be challenged as contrary to the statutory mandate to provide abortions in the CHC authorizing legislation (see Fact #1 above). A regulation cannot trump a statute passed by Congress.

Fact #4: The Senate health care bill itself contains no relevant provision to prevent the direct use of federal funds for elective abortions.

The House-passed bill did include language to ensure that “no funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)” may be used to pay formost abortions. And the Nelson/Hatch/Casey amendment offered in the Senate had exactly this same language. But the Senate chose not to take up the House-passed bill, and it chose to table the Nelson amendment, 54 to 45. (The Nelson Amendment is alos referred to as the Senate version of the “House’s Stupak Amendment” – neither amendment was included in the Law signed by President Obama).

 The abortion funding language in the Senate bill relates solely to the use of tax credits and other federal funds to help pay for abortion coverage in qualified health plans. Section 1303 of the bill does reference the abortions ineligible for funding under the Hyde amendment in any given year, and those which are eligible. But this reference to eligible and ineligible abortions is used only to say the following:

If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [i.e., abortions ineligible for federal funds under the Hyde amendment that year], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services…” (Sec. 1303 (b)(2)).

This language is followed by specific references solely to the tax credits and cost-sharing reductions used to subsidize qualified health plans.

The new legislation contains no general ban on using the funds it appropriates for elective abortions and as the funds appropriated under the new law are not subject to the Hyde Amendment the reference to the Hyde Amendment is circuitous and meaningless.

One other section of the Senate bill, establishing a program of school-based clinics for minors, does exclude abortions from the scope of services at those clinics (Sec. 4101 (b)). But all other sections of the bill that appropriate funds, including Section 10503 on CHCs, remain unrestricted in their use of these funds for elective abortions.

Conclusion: In line with longstanding federal jurisprudence, the authorizing legislation for Community Health Centers creates a presumptive mandate for funding abortions without limitation. Currently such funding is prevented only by the fact that funds under the Labor/HHS appropriations act are governed by the Hyde amendment. By appropriating new funds not covered by Hyde, and by failing to include any relevant abortion limitation of its own, the Senate health care bill as presently worded would disburse billions of dollars in federal funding that no one could prevent from being used for elective abortions.

The Constitution empowers a President to take one of two actions when he receives a “Bill” passed by both houses of Congress – sign the “Bill” into law or veto it. The Constitution does not empower the President with a right to “rewrite” or “reinterpret” the statute …… a President’s Executive order cannot overturn prior Supreme Court rulings …. The Court was clear in its decisions, “Hyde” language must be placed within any  statute hoping to limit taxpayer funding of abortions ……… you’d might think a Constitutional Law Professor would know this – well, quite frankly, he knew this all too well. Planned Parenthood and NARAL will both argue this very point to a Federal Court in less than 6 months ……….. and the Federal Courts will set aside the President’s sham Executive Order

Obama Care and Taxpayer Funded Abortions – The Truth Not The Spin – The History Of Roe vs. Wade

America is changing. America is calling on the Politicians to be truthful …. not to lie to the public. Tell us what you think and why we should do what you want us to do ….. don’t lie to us and hide your true intent. If you think your path is the right one – tell us, be truthful and give us your facts and let us, the American people make up our minds. You work for us – you were elected to represent our interests not your own.

Stop lying to us about your true intentions … saying one thing and doing another …… we are much smarter than you give us credit for.

This article is not really about abortion. It is about Polticians who lie to the public. Whether you favor abortion rights and call yourself Pro-Choice or oppose abortion and call yourself Pro-Life – one thing is certain …. and overwhelming … and I mean overwhelming. The number of people who oppose using Federal Funds – taxpayer money – to pay for abortions is unbelievable. What do I mean by overwhelming or unbelievable – 9 out of 10 adults in this Country agree …. Taxpayer Funds should not be used to pay for elective abortions. (87% of those surveyed – a survey sample of 22,000 people – an unprecended sample size).

This is the truth – and the truth is not being presented to argue for or against abortion but as a condemnation of lying Politicians who intentionally mislead the people and lie about their true intentions.

Personally, I may disagree with Henry Waxman, Democrat, California – but I respect him for this – he is Pro Choice and says so … he believes in single payer health care and says so – day in and day out and he believed this bill should provide full Federal or Taxpayer funding for abortion and said so. Waxman won – but not because those who supported Obama Care spoke out honestly as he did. Democracy is about open debate and truth in political discussions ……. I disagree with Waxman and I am Pro-Life, but I respect his right to present his case and I respect his honesty. I don’t believe he would have won this round had the truth been told by all.

I don’t think he will win the next round …… You can lie about what Obama care will deliver before the fact but you won’t be able to lie about what it actually delivers. The proof is always in the pudding.

OBAMA CARE AND TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

Confusion has arisen over the question of federal abortion funding in the Senate health care reform bill (H.R. 3590). In particular: As currently written, does the legislation require large scale funding of abortion at federally regulated Community Health Centers (CHCs)?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Understanding why requires some knowledge of current federal law and past judicial history on abortion.

Everyone agrees on these basic facts (if you don’t agree –read the sections for yourself – that is why they are listed): Sec. 10503 of the bill authorizes a new “CHC Fund” to expand funding for the CHC program (which was established by Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act). More unusually, the Senate bill also directly appropriates its own new funds for these services, instead of leaving that task to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill that traditionally funds programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

 For fiscal years 2011 to 2015, the bill appropriates $7 billion for services (to be increased to $11 billion).

 Why does this create a massive problem of federal abortion funding?

Fact #1: A long and consistent series of federal court rulings since Roe v. Wade requires that broad statutory mandates for the provision of health services must be construed to include mandated provision for abortions, unless the statute specifies otherwise.

Having decided in 1973 to establish a constitutional right to abortion to serve women’s “health,” the courts decided that legislative references to health services or “medically necessary” services (the term of art used in the Medicaid statute) encompass abortion. In the abortion context, the Supreme Court has said that “health” must be defined very broadly to include “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). In short, if a physician decides that a woman should be able to have an abortion for her “well being,” a government program requiring provision of health services must provide such abortions.

 In the years before the Hyde amendment was first enacted by Congress in 1976, Medicaid was required to pay for about 300,000 abortions a year. No regulatory or administrative leeway was allowed on this point. The Medicaid statute said that grantees must provide “medically necessary” services provided by physicians, and the federal courts held that this category included elective abortions, even though the statute never says the word “abortion.” As one court has observed: “Because abortion fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including‘family planning,’ ‘outpatient services,’ ‘inpatient services,’ and ‘physicians’ services,’Medicaid covered medically necessary abortions between 1973 and 1976.” Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan v. Engler, 73 F.3d 634, 636 (6th Cir. 1996).

Even after the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations act was enacted in 1976, barring funds appropriated in this act from being used for most abortions, a legal battle ensued for years. Not until 1980 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the statutory language of the Hyde amendment trumps the underlying statute’s presumptive mandate for abortion, and is constitutionally valid. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

Some had even argued that the abortion mandate remained in place after the Hyde amendment was enacted – that while the amendment withheld federal funds from certain abortions, the underlying statute still required them to be provided, using state matching funds if necessary. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. 448 U.S. at 309-10. However, the federal courts still insist that the mandate remains in place for any abortion for which funding is not barred by a provision like the Hyde amendment. When the Hyde amendment ceased to prohibit use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest in 1993, federal courts throughout the country ruled that states participating in the program were now required by the underlying Medicaid statute to provide and help pay for rape/incest abortions – even if that meant overriding state constitutions that allow state funding of abortion only in cases of danger to the life of the mother. See Engler, 73 F.3d at 638, and cases cited therein.

Fact #2: In line with this legal precedent, the Community Health Centers program would be required to provide abortions now if not for the Hyde amendment.

The statute establishing the CHC program has the same kind of broad mandate for providing health services that Medicaid does. In some ways it presents an even more clear-cut case.

The statute defines a “health center” in the program as an entity that provides, at a minimum, “required primary health services” to certain low-income populations. 42 USC § 254b (a)(1)(A). “Required primary health services” are defined to include “health services related to family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians” (and by other medical professionals where appropriate), as well as “voluntary family planning services.” 42 USC §254b (b)(1)(A). Thus, to be considered as eligible centers at all, centers in the program must provide the same broad categories of services that triggered the abortion mandate in Medicaid, and some that are even more specific (e.g., gynecology services). This statutory mandate will trump any lesser authority, such as the preferences of the centers themselves or of an HHS Secretary or other executive-branch official. These officials must obey the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the federal courts.

 Fact #3: The new funding appropriated for community health centers by the Senate health care bill is not covered by the Hyde amendment.

This should be clear from the wording of the Hyde amendment itself: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act” may be used for most abortions (referring to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations act).

The Senate bill’s new funds are not appropriated in the Labor/HHS appropriations act, so Hyde does not apply to them.

 A similar situation came to light in 1979, when members of Congress asked why the Indian Health Service (IHS) was continuing to provide abortions despite enactment of the Hyde amendment. The agency replied that it had no choice but to do so: The authorizing legislation for the IHS created a broad mandate for services to conserve the “health” of Indians, and the Interior appropriations bill funding these services contained no abortion limitation like the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS bill. Therefore “we would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions” (Letter from Director of the Indian Health Service to Cong. Henry Hyde, July 30, 1979).

Not until 1988 did Congress finally revise the authorizing legislation for the IHS to require that program to conform to the annual Hyde amendment.

The problem here is exactly parallel. The new billions of dollars appropriated here for services at CHCs simply are not covered by the Hyde amendment or other similar provisions, which only govern the use of funds appropriated by the legislation that they amend.

It follows that these funds are also not restricted by any regulations implementing the Hyde amendment. On this point some have cited thirty-year-old regulations stating that elective abortions are not funded in programs receiving “Federal financial assistance” at the Department of Health and Human Services (42 CFR §§ 50.301 through 50.306). But for their statutory basis the regulations cite only the appropriations bills valid at that time and the previous year, which contained the Hyde amendment (Public Laws 95-205 and 96-86). These laws expired three decades ago; but even a citation to the Hyde amendment in thecurrent Labor/HHS appropriations bill would not help. Hyde governs only funds appropriated in the Act that it amends; and a regulation implementing Hyde can only have that same limited scope. If such a regulation were found to be relevant to the new funds provided by the Senate health care bill, the regulation would almost certainly be challenged as contrary to the statutory mandate to provide abortions in the CHC authorizing legislation (see Fact #1 above). A regulation cannot trump a statute passed by Congress.

Fact #4: The Senate health care bill itself contains no relevant provision to prevent the direct use of federal funds for elective abortions.

The House-passed bill did include language to ensure that “no funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)” may be used to pay formost abortions. And the Nelson/Hatch/Casey amendment offered in the Senate had exactly this same language. But the Senate chose not to take up the House-passed bill, and it chose to table the Nelson amendment, 54 to 45. (The Nelson Amendment is also referred to as the Senate version of the “House’s Stupak Amendment” – neither amendment was included in the Law signed by President Obama).

 The abortion funding language in the Senate bill relates solely to the use of tax credits and other federal funds to help pay for abortion coverage in qualified health plans. Section 1303 of the bill does reference the abortions ineligible for funding under the Hyde amendment in any given year, and those which are eligible. But this reference to eligible and ineligible abortions is used only to say the following:

If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [i.e., abortions ineligible for federal funds under the Hyde amendment that year], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services…” (Sec. 1303 (b)(2)).

This language is followed by specific references solely to the tax credits and cost-sharing reductions used to subsidize qualified health plans.

The new legislation contains no general ban on using the funds it appropriates for elective abortions and as the funds appropriated under the new law are not subject to the Hyde Amendment the reference to the Hyde Amendment is circuitous and meaningless.

One other section of the Senate bill, establishing a program of school-based clinics for minors, does exclude abortions from the scope of services at those clinics (Sec. 4101 (b)). But all other sections of the bill that appropriate funds, including Section 10503 on CHCs, remain unrestricted in their use of these funds for elective abortions.

Conclusion: In line with longstanding federal jurisprudence, the authorizing legislation for Community Health Centers creates a presumptive mandate for funding abortions without limitation. Currently such funding is prevented only by the fact that funds under the Labor/HHS appropriations act are governed by the Hyde amendment. By appropriating new funds not covered by Hyde, and by failing to include any relevant abortion limitation of its own, the Senate health care bill as presently worded would disburse billions of dollars in federal funding that no one could prevent from being used for elective abortions.

The Constitution empowers a President to take one of two actions when he receives a “Bill” passed by both houses of Congress – sign the “Bill” into law or veto it. The Constitution does not empower the President with a right to “rewrite” or “reinterpret” the statute …… a President’s Executive order cannot overturn prior Supreme Court rulings …. The Court was clear in its decisions, “Hyde” language must be placed within any  statute hoping to limit taxpayer funding of abortions ……… you might think a Constitutional Law Professor would know this – well, quite frankly, he knew this all too well. Planned Parenthood and NARAL will both argue this very point to a Federal Court in less than 6 months ……….. and the Federal Court’s will set aside the President’s sham Executive Order.

ClimateGate: Debunking Global Warmings 5 Sacred Myths

The Global Warming Myth – Debunking Global Warmings 5 Commandments

The Five Things You Need To Know About The Global Warming Myth

1).  Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is no more a pollutant than say, oxygen or nitrogen. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.  http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle  . Carbon Dioxide is the food which keeps plants alive. Through photosynthesis plants transform CO2 into plant food. Oxygen is produced as a waste product. All living things are dependent on this ”Cycle”. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle2.php 

Carbon Dioxide is called a “green house gas” because it allows visable light to pass through while it absorbs infrared and near infrared rays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  

The human body produces CO2 naturally. The Human Respiration System is the system that controls the exchange of oxygen for CO2 in the Human Body. Everytime you breath out you are exhaling CO2.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a natural atmospheric element. All life on earth is dependent on CO2. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. Compared to past history, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2 “impoverished”.On average, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been since life formed on earth.

2). Even at present levels, Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. Current CO2 levels are only a small fraction of the Earths atmosphere, CO2 represents less than 1/2 of one percent of the atmosphere today.

The CO2 content in the atmosphere is measured in terms of CO2 parts per million (ppm) by volume. At present the globally averaged concentration of CO2 is stated as 387 PPM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  For every million parts (1,000,000,000 parts) in the atmosphere 387 of those parts are CO2. CO2 levels have increased over the past 50 years from 320 PPM to today’s 387 PPM, an increase of 67 PPM.  

The CO2 level today, 387 PPM, can be compared to with a level of  8000 PPM (20X todays levels) 500 million years ago or CO2 levels of 2000 – 3000 PPM (5 to 6 times todays levels) during the Jurasic Period, when the Great Dinosaurs roamed the earth. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

During the ice ages CO2 levels fell to between 200PPM and 280 PPM. During interglacial periods the CO2 Level has been measured at between 280 – 310 PPM. One does not need a calculator to see that current CO2 levels are much nearer to those recorded during the Ice Age and the interglacial periods than that time when Earth’s great green forests were first formed. CO2 is essential for plant life and growth. 

In a longer historical context – Earth’s current CO2 Levels are quite low. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

In fact, in Earth’s entire history there have only been two prior periods where CO2 levels were this low, . http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm ,   ”Today, at 370 PPM our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished”  http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous climate.html . “So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.”

“Without the warming caused by natural levels of CO2 and water vapor in our atmosphere, the average surface temperature of our planet would be well below freezing.” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726

3). Human’s produce a very small percentage of  the CO2 found in the Atmosphere:

Over 95% of the total CO2 emissions into our atmosphere would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees and grasses, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. There are many other sources of CO2 in the Earth’s atmopshere. 

The Earth’s Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide ,  http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 .

If 5% of todays CO2 is produced by human activity (95% would occur if no humans existed on the planet) then a simple calculation will provide us with an absolute figure for Human CO2 production. 387 PPM CO2 x 5% = 19.35 PPM.

How does this compare to the Earth’s total atmosphere?

Well for every 1 Million (1,000,000) parts of atmosphere, there are Seven Hundred Eighty One Thousand (781,000) parts Nitrogen, Two Hundred Ten Thousand (210,000) parts Oxygen, Nine Thousand Parts (9,000) Argon and Three Hundred Eighty Seven Parts (387) CO2. All other gases account for the remaining 500 plus parts. http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/VapgasAt.htm 

Total CO2  in the atmosphere represents . (CO2 is less than half of one tenth of 1 percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill – all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal less than 4 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html .  

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmers field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself,”Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures. 

4). Temperature Impacts CO2 Level   –  CO2 levels do not drive Temperature Change

First, CO2 levels rise and fall with the seasons or time of day. CO2 levels rise in the Autumn and Winter as green plants go dormant or die. The plants cease to “process” CO2 as part of their food chain. In the spring and summer CO2 levels fall as these same plants come back to life and consume CO2 in photosyntesis. Likewise CO2 levels fluctuate in the night and day. http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/animation.php?shortname=anm_co2_levels

Read:  Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

CO2 levels follow changes in temperature, not the other way around.  http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf .

“ There is, overall, a good match between temperature and CO2 and temperature. One important piece of information that can be determined from ice core data is whether changes in temperature follow or proceed changes in CO2.” “Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2″  http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm  

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth ,

First, the total increaase in Global Temperatures over the last 100 years is ……….  7/10s of one degree. That is right, total Global warming over the Century is less than 1 degree.  During that same century the Sun’s measurable intensity or heat has increased.  

“Actual climate history shows no such correlation (that CO2 caused an increase in temperature) and there is no compelling evidence that the recent rise in temperature was caused by CO2.                                                                                           http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Correlation

Numerous papers published in major peer-reviewed scientific journals shows the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php , http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/ , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Sun_Activity , http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they unusual given the Earth’s very recent past.

Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know the 1 degree increase in the last century).

Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming Alarmist taking the stage) that earth’s last ice age (referred to as the “little ice age”) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until approximately 1860.  This “little ice age” was responsible for disasters like the “Irish Potato Famine”. The end of the “little ice age” was not preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were responsible for the “global warming” which followed the end of the “little ice age” and continues to this date. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey

During the Middle Ages (1066 – 1485) a time that saw the Norman’s conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades – all 7 of them, the Early Italian Renaissance – a period of time long before the  ”Industrial Revolution”, mankind contributed very little to Global CO2 levels. The Middle Ages experienced a period of global warming that exceeds the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are now, significantly higher.  http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey , http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html ,

“A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the “warmest ever” nor are the Temperatures producing extreme conditions “never seen before”. The findings of these 240 studies stand in stark contrast to the claims of the alarmists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s. They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age began in about 1300, with the world cooling dramatically. Just before the turn of the century, in 1900, the world began to warm up, but as of today, has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.  The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today’s alleged “unprecedented” temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.   http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the “Little Ice Age” to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By choosing the coldest period in Earth’s history over the last 10,000 years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all of Earth’s prior warming trends.

 Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html , http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts ,  http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514
 

If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had. Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to “respiration” – manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2 levels do not drive temperature.    

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8326 , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing – the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of  ”warming” that occurred in the 1990’s. Even the ultra-green “Discovery Channel” has noted studies which indicate “global warming” is on “hold” and may not reappear for decades. That “Global Temperatures have flatlined since 2001″. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/

The Boston Globe has asked, “Where is the Global Warming?”, before noting, “But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/

UPDATE: 11/05/09

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf              

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
 
One of the basic premises of Global Warming rests on the assumption that CO2 not only “holds” heat in the earth’s atmosphere, but that it, CO2, also prevents the heat from radiating out into space during earths normal cooling process. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a study, which underwent comprehensive peer review prior to publication, which demostrates the flaws or inaccuracies in this theory. Dr. Litzen’s study refutes the theory that CO2 is currently preventing heat radiation, because the study demonstrates that there has been no decrease in heat radiation as had been assumed. http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/News/2009/08/18%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20irrelevant%20in%20climate%20debate%20says%20MIT%20Scientist.htm  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf    
 
ADDITIONAL READINGS ON THE TOPIC:
Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD Harvard University and Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, ; “Don’t Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming.” – http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
And this on Britian’s High Court (Supreme Court of Britian) rulings concerning the inaccuracy of Al Gore’s film, an “Inconvenient Truth”,  ”If the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he, the ruling Judge, would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.” Yes, the Highest Court in England ruled Gore’s movie was political indoctrination and not science.  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

For a very specific review of 35 of the erroreous claims made by Gore in his film see: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Notice: WATTS UP WITH THAT can now be located at Wattsupwiththat.com

For a very humorous, yet alarming, post on how the “scientific consensus” on the issue of Climate Change have been reached, see this post on the creation of “THE HARVARD ENERGY INITIATIVE” and the “inititaves” relationship to climate science (An insiders look at the Harvard Faculty Club?). http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/richard-lindzen-climate-of-fear.html

“On the other hand, the funding of climate science as such has grown nearly by one order of magnitude since 1988. Have you ever seen $1.7 billion, the amount that the climate science swallows annually? Or one point seven billion dollars a year worth of mostly junk science? It’s not just the overall macroscopic number we are familiar with. I also know some of the microscopic mechanisms that generate it.”

Harvard energy initiative

On Monday, we had a faculty lunch meeting at the Faculty Club and one of the topics was the so-called “Harvard energy initiative”. A short story is that a large amount of money was given to something described by these three words – and up to 10 new faculty positions are expected to be created – except that no one knows what “Harvard energy initiative” means and what people should be hired. So one of the rather well-known Earth and Planetary Scientists at Harvard decided to meet with the physics department and to ask for ideas what “Harvard energy initiative” could mean…… The well known Physicis Department Professor stated, “I know what “high energy physics” means – we study physics of high-energy particles to determine the architecture of matter at very short distances” ….. Obviously, our colleague has a different energy in mind. Energy whose main feature is that it is not conserved. Energy that does not commute with momentum because whenever energy has to commute, we lose energy. It’s more about the energy industry except that the initiative will quite obviously be anti-industry because of the very basic philosophical preconceptions of those who are trying to kickstart the project. If you think for a while, you know exactly what will most likely happen. They will probably hire a couple of not-so-intelligent people and promote them to climate scientists and energy initiative professors who will strengthen the “scientific consensus” that the “climate change is real” and the humankind is approaching a catastrophe. They won’t be developing any new energy technologies because this is what either the greedy corporations or MIT are doing. Harvard’s image is different and its energy initiative will be doing something else except that no one knows what it is.  The proposed energy initiative should include the Physics Department, Earth and Planetary Sciences, the Kennedy School of Government, the Harvard Law School, and virtually any other Harvard school you can think of. Great. So what kind of science will you do by combining these people? Note that the university in this story, namely Harvard University, is not such a bad school after all. In fact, it is the most prestigious school in the world. Once you see what mechanisms determine how the new money is spent at Harvard, you may guess how good an investment are the billions of new dollars that are currently flowing to the U.S. climate science every year. Most of this amount is wasted money paid to the people who don’t want to make progress in science. Instead, they have already decided that they already know the most important insights about the world – that it is approaching a climate apocalypse – and by being paid, they do what is really important, namely to increase the political power of the “true believers” who are going to “save the world”. Yes, indeed, I am talking about $1.7 billion worth of religious bigots, and I apologize to the few exceptions for this generalization.””  I reccommend the full post:  http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/richard-lindzen-climate-of-fear.html

Also See: Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/27/lindzen-deconstructing-global-warming/    containing a PDF link to Dr Lindzen’s full report. The report sites the fact that two of the leading “proponents” of Global Warming admit that the “true science” is unsettled, however, that doesn’t matter – “we shouldn’t let that stop us from implementing “other agendas”. Read it for yourself ……. “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us….Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects. These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’”. The actual words from the “Founders” of Climate Change Science …….. I guess they have no shame. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

Dr. Lindzen’s actual presentation on this subject can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=22D4DD5727161348

%d bloggers like this: