Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby GHung » Mon 23 May 2016, 16:07:36

Are GOP members of Congress using their official capacity to tell States and NGOs to STFU? Is this a gross violation of the separation of powers?

https://science.house.gov/news/press-re ... e-green-20

Committee Scrutinizes Motive of “Green 20”
May 18, 2016
Press Release

Washington, D.C. – Today, 13 Science, Space, and Technology Committee Republicans sent letters to 17 state attorneys general and eight environmental activist organizations. The letters request documents related to the groups’ coordinated efforts to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists and scholars of their First Amendment rights and their ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.

Americans are entitled to express their views on matters of science and public policy even if certain groups disagree.

“On March 29, 2016, you and other state attorneys general – the self-proclaimed ‘Green 20’ – announced that you were cooperating on an unprecedented effort against those who have questioned the causes, magnitude, or best ways to address climate change,” the letter states. “The Committee is concerned that these efforts to silence speech are based on political theater rather than legal or scientific arguments, and that they run counter to an attorney general’s duty to serve ‘as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens’ and to ‘assert, protect, and defend the rights of the people.’”

Former Vice President Al Gore spoke at the March 29 press conference and addressed the need to prosecute fossil fuel energy companies for engaging in fraud. Gore and the Green 20’s efforts are part of a larger strategy to achieve the president’s sweeping, job-killing climate change agenda.

Reports show 14 green-tech firms that Gore invested in benefited from over $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks as part of the administration’s push to fund U.S. renewable energy industry with taxpayer funds.

In testimony before the Committee, scientists projected the cost of the administration’s carbon dioxide regulations at $39 billion to American consumers and businesses annually. However, senior administration officials themselves have admitted that these regulations will have a negligible effect on global temperatures.

Since the March 29 press conference, members of the Green 20 have rapidly expanded their legal actions against those who question the administration’s climate change agenda. These legal actions include subpoenas for documents, communications and research that would capture the work of more than 100 academic institutions, scientists and nonprofit organizations.

The Committee has a responsibility to protect the First Amendment prerogatives of academic institutions, scientists and nonprofit organizations and will continue to do so.

The letter(s) to the attorneys general can be found HERE: https://science.house.gov/news/letters/ ... ists-first

The letter(s) to environmental organizations can be found HERE: https://science.house.gov/news/letters/ ... ts-deprive

114th Congress
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 23 May 2016, 16:22:21

GHung - Interesting but I doubt efforts on either side of the fence will make much difference. IMHO it's all 99% "theater" meant to distract from the obvious: as long as the vast majority of the DIRECT producers of GHG (the fossil fuel consumers) get what they DEMAND that the politicians provide them (affordable energy) all the rest is just white noise.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 23 May 2016, 16:25:32

So the language is a little dense. Sounds like the house committee is engaged in intimidation or accusing green learners of intimidation.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby GHung » Mon 23 May 2016, 16:50:44

ROCKMAN wrote:GHung - Interesting but I doubt efforts on either side of the fence will make much difference. IMHO it's all 99% "theater" meant to distract from the obvious: as long as the vast majority of the DIRECT producers of GHG (the fossil fuel consumers) get what they DEMAND that the politicians provide them (affordable energy) all the rest is just white noise.


Maybe white noise, Rock, but that a committee of the US Legislative branch is interfering in what seems clearly to be the realm of the Judicial system seems like more than 'white noise'. If individuals or corporations feel their free speech rights are being challenged, they need to take it up in the courts. These GOP committee members should stay the hell out of it, IMO.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 24 May 2016, 08:45:33

Ghung - "White noise" in the sense that it will have very little or no impact as we go down the climate change/PO path. IOW what both sides of the debate are saying/doing is F*CKING MEANINLESS as far as leading to any real change. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby Hawkcreek » Wed 25 May 2016, 13:06:17

ROCKMAN wrote:Ghung - "White noise" in the sense that it will have very little or no impact as we go down the climate change/PO path. IOW what both sides of the debate are saying/doing is F*CKING MEANINLESS as far as leading to any real change. LOL.


True dat. But a damned shame.
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
Hawkcreek
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 25 May 2016, 14:44:19

Hawk - As someone said long ago: the US public is very poor when it comes to being proactive but damn good at overreacting when TSHTF.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby Hawkcreek » Wed 25 May 2016, 22:49:34

Yeah Rock, it will be interesting to see how TSHTF if a southern city has a few weeks of the 120 plus degree days like India has had. Especially if it overloads the grid, and no one has any AC.
And I don't think that is too many years away.
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
Hawkcreek
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby Hawkcreek » Wed 25 May 2016, 23:40:24

Come to think of it --- from my years in Louisiana and Houston, I can take about 105 degrees for a while, but it it gets much higher than that, I would be in the front of the migration wave headed north. That would probably work better than flooding for causing folks to move up here in Washington near me.
Yikes, I had better buy more ammo.
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
Hawkcreek
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby careinke » Thu 26 May 2016, 01:19:05

Hawkcreek wrote:Come to think of it --- from my years in Louisiana and Houston, I can take about 105 degrees for a while, but it it gets much higher than that, I would be in the front of the migration wave headed north. That would probably work better than flooding for causing folks to move up here in Washington near me.
Yikes, I had better buy more ammo.


I figure if it gets that hot up here, I'll be soaking in our cove.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4668
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby Ibon » Thu 26 May 2016, 06:58:23

Hawkcreek wrote:Come to think of it --- from my years in Louisiana and Houston, I can take about 105 degrees for a while, but it it gets much higher than that, I would be in the front of the migration wave headed north. That would probably work better than flooding for causing folks to move up here in Washington near me.
Yikes, I had better buy more ammo.



That will be a trail of hot and steamy tears
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby ennui2 » Thu 26 May 2016, 07:05:12

ROCKMAN wrote:Ghung - "White noise" in the sense that it will have very little or no impact as we go down the climate change/PO path. IOW what both sides of the debate are saying/doing is F*CKING MEANINLESS as far as leading to any real change. LOL.


Says someone whose livelihood depends on the status quo.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby Ibon » Thu 26 May 2016, 07:07:00

ROCKMAN wrote:GHung - Interesting but I doubt efforts on either side of the fence will make much difference. IMHO it's all 99% "theater" meant to distract from the obvious: as long as the vast majority of the DIRECT producers of GHG (the fossil fuel consumers) get what they DEMAND that the politicians provide them (affordable energy) all the rest is just white noise.


We have some pretty well informed posters on this site who would benefit immensely from taking a moment to better understand this. Ideology is irrelevant and the political polarity pure theater. The only revolution that will meaningfully change the status quo is when the physical and energy infrastructure becomes undermined from geology, climate and environmental constraints. The rest is indeed just pure mind numbing theater.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby Ibon » Thu 26 May 2016, 07:10:15

ennui2 wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:Ghung - "White noise" in the sense that it will have very little or no impact as we go down the climate change/PO path. IOW what both sides of the debate are saying/doing is F*CKING MEANINLESS as far as leading to any real change. LOL.


Says someone whose livelihood depends on the status quo.


Whose doesn't? Mount Totumas Cloud Forest depends on the status quo just about as much as Rockman's profession. Fancy that!
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 26 May 2016, 07:11:50

Hawk - And thus the explanation as to why the state govt spent so much of the Texas tax payer money to support wind power here. This morning the temp (adjusted for humidity) was 88F at 0500. It's that "wet heat", ya know. LOL The Rockman's personal mark for the first official day of summer is when the absolute temp doesn't go below 80F overnight. We're just a degree or two from there. I have no problem remembering childhood nights in New Orleans laying in an un-air conditioned bedroom at 2 AM with sweat running down my face. I didn't live with air conditioning until I was 21 years old.

Working hot is one thing but trying to sleep hot has a much stronger impact on one's metal state.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby Hawkcreek » Thu 26 May 2016, 12:51:22

Yep, the good old days. I remember when we got an attic fan. I moved my bed in front of the window and had a "cool" breeze across me all night long. Thought I had gone to heaven. Still remember the mildew smell of the sheets, which didn't go fully away until October.
Here in eastern Washington I can always sleep cool and dry at night, even when it hits 100 degrees during the day. No AC really needed, in my opinion.
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
Hawkcreek
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: Committee Scrutinizes Motive of Green 20

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 26 May 2016, 14:08:53

Hawk - I know exactly what you mean. We put a big window fan in our shotgun double that pushed air out the kitchen and pulled it in through the window over my bed. Even at 65 yo I still prefer a breeze over AC...as long as it isn't too hot. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS


Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests

cron