Climate thuggery: Markey tries fed agency to intimidate cap-and-trade opponent

June 15, 2009

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) tried to use the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to intimidate a utility executive who testified against the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

Immediately after MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company Chairman David Sokol testified against cap-and-trade on June 9, Rep. Markey sent a letter to FERC chairman Jon Wellinghoff asking for an investigation of MidAmerican.

Although Rep. Markey quickly sent up a follow-up letter asking FERC not to focus on solely MidAmerican but on all investor-owned utilities, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee rebuked Markey on June 12:

… Our witnesses… have every right to expect that in
exchange for their honesty with us, they will not be subjected to sanction, retribution and vengeance simply because the facts and opinions they offer do not square with those of the Committee’s members. Exercising the power of the Majority requires a special responsibility to protect witnesses.

… As the hearing was still under way, however, Mr. Sokol and his company became the focus of apparent intimidation when Chairman Markey by letter dated the day of the hearing, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to answer specific questions about investment and transmission-related activities of MidAmerican Energy and its parent, investor Warren Buffett…

… An after-the-fact rationalization, however, does not change the appearance that Chairman Markey’s June 9 letter to FERC was intended to badger and harass a witness whose offense was merely daring to disagree with Mr. Markey on a matter of professional experience and knowledge.

Mr. Sokol, who voluntarily testified at Congress’s request on Tuesday, could assume from his trip to Washington that if you are a good citizen and you agree to testify truthfully before the Congress, you better make sure that your views do not conflict with those of the ruling Majority. Otherwise, you will risk having the Majority abuse its powers by sending a government regulator to harass you and your company.

We have grave concerns about Chairman Markey’s actions and their implications for the future. Not only might they damage the reputation of this Committee as being a place where truth is welcomed and honest debate is cherished; it could well make all witnesses think twice before accepting an invitation to appear before us to tell us something other than exactly what the Majority wants to hear. Honest, fair public policy can only be made if a full range of opinions are presented to Congress, not just what the Majority wants to hear.

Sadly, this is not the first time the nation has seen this sort of troubling behavior from its officials. As you know, within the memories of many of us, agents of the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies were systematically dispatched to cow dissidents and smother protest against government policy. Just this week the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee instructed Democrat health care lobbyists not to meet with Republicans. If a pattern of intimidation and bullying is being created by the Majority party, it is a sad thing. As members of the Minority party, we will do everything possible to stop this emerging pattern.

We implore you to take whatever actions are necessary to make certain that this sorry episode is vacated and never replicated. Rather than trying to explain his way around his specific questions that FERC has not answered yet, Chairman Markey should explicitly rescind his request to have FERC pry into the activities of Mr. Sokol, Mr. Buffett, and MidAmerican. No company in America or its employees should be harassed. We are confident that you agree with us on the basic protection all witnesses before our committee have a right to expect…

Will the real Luca Brazzi please raise his hand?

Markey

Luca


Join the Green Hell E-mail List!

20 Responses to “Climate thuggery: Markey tries fed agency to intimidate cap-and-trade opponent”

  1. adrianvance Says:

    CO2 is captured in what we call “Natrox(tm)” technology using sodium hydroxide irradiated with traces of nuclear waste to ionize CO2 close the surface of the hydroxide to increase attraction and carbonate crystallization.

    Your assumptions are wrong and your conclusions for my process based on them are thus wrong.

    Your fourth paragraph shows your negative bias to my concept. Your fifth paragraph is nuts and demonstrates that you have no clue.

    CO2 can be captured with any hydroxide, but some are better than others. We think sodium hydroxide is ideal because it is cheap, readily available, can be cast and will carry heavy metal, radioactive salts.

    The largest single source of CO2 is dead plant matter from marine algae to trees, grain stover, etc. Man and all his activities produce only 3.6% of all CO2 produced on this planet. The US makes 20% of that so reducing our contribution 50%, per Gore, would cut the net by 0.36%; utterly insignificant.


  2. [...] Ed Markey (D-MA) sent a letter to Federal Energy Regulartory Commission (FERC) asking for an investigation of MidAmerican Energy [...]

  3. anonymousexaminer Says:

    To the moderator:

    Earlier today I posted a response to Adrianvance regarding his allegation of being under attack by the patent office. My post did not survive moderation. I would like to know why. This is my first attempt to participate in this forum and I did not think my post was offensive or any less on topic than the post I was responding to. Can you give me some guidance?

    • adrianvance Says:

      I would like to hear from anonymousexaminer as I feel my problems with the USPTO are more of their culture than a conspiracy.

      I have found that 1/4th of all granted patents are applied for without attorneys and those are 99% perfect where the lawyer written documents are full of spelling, grammar and technical errors with many fatal. It is clear to me the more intelligent, capable, better-trained inventors are not willing to pay $10,000 or more for ten pages of having their ideas garbled by a $10 an hour paralegal when they can do it themselves and not lose in whatever legal actions follow. I have many examples of what I am saying and have come to the conclusion that the USPTO is a full employment agency for patent attorneys. Please contact me at adrianvance@dslextreme.com

      • anonymousexaminer Says:

        To the moderator:

        Once again my attempt to respond to Adrianvance has been thwarted. I cannot engage him directly by e-mail because that might be viewed as interfering with the examiner who is handling his application, even though that is not my intent. My comments were aimed at diffusing hostility and clearing up some misconceptions that have been put forth in this thread. I really do not see what your problem is. If I had said, “Oh yeah, the examiners have gotten their marching orders not to allow anything that conflicts with Al Gore and we should especially beat down anyone who does not hire an attorney”, would that have gotten through? Is this site dedicated to exposing junk science or to promoting it?

      • adrianvance Says:

        Anonymous Examiner: Unless your last name is Barcena or Lorengo you are one of 6,000 people in your job title and likely not within a mile of my application.

        SCAF is the only technology that makes Cap&Tax viable because it creates a carbon economy which should happen because it saves up to 94% of all water used in agriculture, now 70% of all water, and increases Americas capacity for people and business 300% without drilling another well or taking water from another lake or river.

        The culture in the USPTO is kiling me because Examiners are insecure and feel better passing on applications prepared by attorneys when every one is flawed. I can prove it and you can too by reading patents if you have any expertise of any kind; just search your specialty and read every word. You will be amazed.

        Instead of being a well of technology, ideas and intellectual wealth the USPTO has become another bureaucratic toilet.

      • anonymousexaminer Says:

        I give up. I have spent too much time on this. I wanted to explain that you have thoroughly misunderstood the reasons that you got the rejections you did, and what you should do about it. I wanted to point you to the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) to show you that the rejections have a solid basis and you have not been targetted for negative treatment. What you are calling “the culture” of the PTO is really a matter of following the law. Examiners are not insecure about passing on applications that are not prepared by attorneys. Your claims would have been rejected no matter who wrote them. You are not under attack. But the moderator will not let me present the evidence, so you will probably go on believing that you have been treated unfairly. And people like bear865 at 2:18 will go on believing that your application will not be treated on the merits because of its subject matter. I have tried to explain that I must do this anonymously or not at all. It looks like it will be not at all.

      • adrianvance Says:

        Anonymous Examiner:

        BS, how honest is it to reject my entire application “because it appears to have been copied from a foreign patent?” How correct is to strike a claim on an invalid patent. Every Freshman Chem I student knows that gases do not dissolve in aqueous solutions over 80 Celsius degrees. Every biology and ag undergrad will learn that soil is poisoned by calcium hydroxide the end-product of the Seitz patent cited against me. To deny all my claims because I did not use the word “step” when 80% of all granted patents does not have that word and there is no synonym is also disingenuous. You sir are yet another liar from the USPTO and I am sure no moderator got in your way to communicate with me at adrianvance@dslextreme.com where you could send me something from an anonymous address and you have not. Again, you are a liar.

    • adrianvance Says:

      Anonymousexaminer has contacted me directly, and anonymously, making his case that is OK for the USPTO to accuse me of copying my application from a foreign patent as this is OKed in their manuals under the concept that whatever an Examiner thinks is OK. Therefore, he is not a liar, but a bueaurocrat and cannot be helped. His livelihood depends on believing such stuff. Where men kill to stay alive he is to be excused and understood, but America is burning while these people fiddle.

  4. megarobodestructotron Says:

    As to the posting, I have a comment:

    “Our witnesses… have every right to expect that in
    exchange for their honesty with us, they will not be subjected to sanction, retribution and vengeance simply because the **facts** and opinions they offer do not square with those of the Committee’s members. Exercising the power of the Majority requires a special responsibility to protect witnesses.” [emphasis mine]

    Opinions are subject to disagreement, but facts are not. When facts disagree, someone is either mistaken or lying. If Markey felt they were lying, his conduct seems more understandable. In fact, lying to congress is illegal, so verifying the reliability of statements made to congressional committees seems like it might be important.

  5. adrianvance Says:

    bear865: (re: http://SCAF.i8.com)

    drgroovejb did not take the trouble to even read one of the indicated links on the site, preferring instead to assume, incorrectly, the content of my site and mind. The pages on that site are also available as a book at lulu.com under my name as “author” and he may prefer to spend $10 to buy it. But, somehow I have doubt that will happen.

  6. adrianvance Says:

    drgroovejb: How many books can you evaluate by reading the cover. There links that answer every question you have, including the economics, on the right and left sides of the column you read at http://SCAF.i8.com If you have questions or criticisms I will be glad to answer them in correspondence via my address link there provided.

  7. adrianvance Says:

    drgroovejb: How many books can you evaluate by reading the cover. There links that answer every question you have, including the economics, on the right and left sides of the column you read at http://SCAF.i8.com If you have questions or criticisms I will be glad to answer them in correspondence via my address link there provided.

  8. bear865 Says:

    At least the real Lucca Brazi probably knew his left hand from his right hand.

    Adrianvance does not understand. The pie has already been allocated. And it is locked up so that nobody by TheAlGore and his thugs can get any of it.

    I expect his patent will be denied, not on the merits, but because “they” do not want ANY “carbon tech” to work, especially not emission-free coal fired power plants I have seen NPPD’s preliminary drawings on and specifications of.

    Will everyone please understand: WE ARE DEALING WITH FASCISM HERE, AT LEAST AS UGLY, IF NOT MORE SO, THAT THE FASCISM OF IL DUCE.

    Since we are dealing with fascism. We need to study how to fight fascism, and then we must unite (somehow) and DO IT! I fear there is little time left.

    Right now, I would trust any Sicilian Mafia Don to run the Nation, along with his subordinates, far more than the sonsofbitches that are running it now!!!!

    • adrianvance Says:

      How right you are: The USPTO first accused me of “copying your application from a foreign patent” so I replied, “Which one?” Then they tried to us a patent against me that calls for CO2 to be captured by a boiling hot calcium hydroxide solution when it is well known gases do not dissolve in aqueous solutions over 80 Celsius degrees and the product from that patent would poison the soil so it is invalid. My system captures CO2 with a solid alkali. Then they tried to invalidate all my claims because I did not use the word “step.” My search showed 80% of their granted patents do not have the word and there is no synonym for the word “step.” Yes, I am under attack, but have enlisted several Congressmen and I have hope.

      • bear865 Says:

        drgroovejb appears to be typical of people who have bought into the CO2 bullshit hook, line, and sinker. The scientific evidence I can find is tentative, but it appears to be some Solar Cycle out of many we do not yet understand that is driving global warming, IF ANY THERE BE. If so, if indeed there is global warming, and if, as it appears to me, it is the Sun, tell me how we are going to do anything about that. Not that with 20 – 25 years we could not get off carbon fuels at a reasonable pace and in a reasonable manner, but that would require the release of probably existing technologies (e.g., “zero point”) that would very quickly take control of the world away from the hyper rich fascist elites who will do anything they can, including killing most of humanity in the process (genocide) to maintain their power and control. This is what we have here now, and Africa, and especially the people of Africa who are black, are their first targets, sort of a place to allow them to perfect their methods of genocide. BTW, I doubt that drgroovejb, from his initial comments, wishes to rationally discuss ANYTHING!! Good luck to you.

  9. c024al Says:

    Hay adrianvance stop trying to steal Al’s
    part of the pie!

  10. adrianvance Says:

    I have a patent pending on the only technology that makes “Cap & Trade” economically viable by creating a carbon economy. You can read a full disclosure at http://SCAF.i8.com

    • drgroovejb Says:

      Adrianvance,

      I read your website intro.

      I don’t see within your article how you actually sequester or capture CO2. How much do you lose back into the atmosphere during the process that you have devised? Actually what is the process?

      I assume you would retrofit some sort of pipe system on a hypothetical manufacturing plant and then capture all of the smoke (emissions) and then separate CO2 from CO and methane(?) and particulate material and all the myriad of other junk in smoke. I don’t get it. How will this somehow turn to big money?

      Maybe this is all possible but it seems to me that the cost of doing this (using your technology whatever it is) would nullify any benefit. Especially since CO2 doesn’t drive global temperature anyway what is the point?

      We have already developed hybrid seed technology to the point that we can now feed the existing population 600 times over (the reasons why this is true can be debated later). With the exception of saving water (a good idea) Why do we need to infuse CO2 into fertilizer again?

      I guess the question is HOW do we capture and sequester CO2? I envision people with masks on with tubes leading to CO2 sequestration tanks that we carry about with us. Or a second tank on our cars that collects exhaust and a system that separates CO2 from everything else. That ought to increase the price of a new car by about double won’t it?

      Maybe you can tell me (truly) what is the largest single source of CO2 that is spewed into the atmosphere? People exhaling, decaying vegetation, cars, factories ,natural recycling from sea beds, airplanes, cow’s farting? What? There is evidence that “man-made” exhausted CO2 is pretty minimal. Exactly what advantage would there be in decreasing a minimum source?

      If you can prove to me that your company/process can make the money you say it can maybe I will invest. Is Al Gore one of your investors? If not you better call him.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers

%d bloggers like this: