Updated: June 30, 2009
The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed global warming bill (219-212 vote) is being hailed by many as “historic” or “landmark” or “The Bill of the Century.”
But the passage of this bill does not signify any great “green revolution” or “growing” climate “awareness” on the part of Congress. Instead, the methods and manner that the Pelosi led House achieved final passage, represents nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting, intimidation and special interest handouts. (See: Pay offs: ‘Florida Democrat won $50 million pledge of support for proposed hurricane research facility in his district’)
The House of Representatives passed a bill it did not read, did not understand. A bill that is based on crumbling scientific claims and a bill that will have no detectable climate impact (assuming climate fear promoters are correct on the science and the bill is fully implemented – both implausible assumptions).
Proponents of the bill made spectacular claims in their efforts to impress the urgency of the bill on their colleagues. To illustrate just how delusional these claims became, imagine if in 1909 the U.S. Congress passed a bill attempting to predict climate, temperature and the energy mix powering our national economy in the year 2000. (not to mention sanctimonious claims about “saving the Earth.”) Any such attempt would have been ridiculed, but somehow in 2009, attempting to control the economy and climate of the year 2100 is seen as reasonable by many.
‘Climate Astrology’: Obama claims bill will leave Earth 4 to 5 degrees cooler!
President Obama made the completely scientifically indefensible claim that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would stop global temperature increases of up to 5 degrees! Obama said on June 25, “A long-term benefit is we’re leaving a planet to our children that isn’t four or five degrees hotter.” (How can the President of the U.S. can be so misinformed and full of such hubris that he somehow believes he can sign a bill that acts as a thermostat for Earth’s temperature?
But Obama seems so imbued with his ability to control climate that during the 2008 presidential campaign he prognosticated his presidency would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” (For latest scientific data refuting sea level rise fears see here.) Perhaps the reason the science appears so “settled” to President Obama may be because his own EPA has surppressed skeptical climate science reports. See: Carbongate: ‘Suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore decline in global temps and other inconvenient truths’
Democratic Congressman G.K. Butterfield reported claim that the bill “’will literally save the planet” reveals just how out of touch scientifically, politically and economically many of the bill’s supporters have become.
If we actually faced the man-made “climate crisis” proponents claim, we would all be doomed if we had to rely on this bill save us. A May 2009 scientific analysis of the bill revealed its temperature impact to be “scientifically meaningless.”
Sorry Congressman Butterfield, far from “saving the planet”, this bill will instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. (See: Analysis: Climate Bill is ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ – Temp Reduction By 2050 of Only 9/100 of one Degree F )
Many environmental groups opposed the bill because it failed to actually reduce emissions. (See: Obama’s global warming plan would result in U.S. burning MORE coal in 2020 & Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey…’bill chooses politics over science’ )
President Obama attempted to call the bill a job creator and proponents cited a Congressional Budget Office report to downplay the cost to Americans. But these arguments failed to hold up under the close light of scrutiny. (See: ‘CBO DID NOT calculate costs of climate bill! — CBO only did accounting for how government plans to collect and redistribute revenues from selling carbon emissions permits’ – June 29, 2009 Also see: CBO Grossly Underestimates Cost of Cap and Trade)
A major report from Bloomberg News on June 26, 2009 revealed U.S. oil companies may cope with the climate legislation by “closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.” Bloomberg also reported that “one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020” and this could “add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline.” (See: Rebuttal: Obama Tries to Sell Cap-And-Tax as a Jobs Bill & WSJ: Climate bill would be ‘biggest tax in American history’)
Obama’s own words belied his claims. In January 2008, then Senator Obama bluntly said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
Even fellow Democrats failed to parrot these mythical claims that the bill is a low cost job creator. Democrat Congressman John Dingell of Michigan was blunt, calling Cap and trade a “great big” tax in April.
Obama advisor Warren Buffett also failed to tow the rhetorical line on the climate bill. Buffet came out strongly opposed to cap and trade, saying it would be “a huge, regressive tax.” In addition, the bill was called “immoral” by civil rights leader Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality because of the “disproportionate and negative impact on poor and working-class families.”
Perhaps Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels summed up the cap-and-trade bill the best. Daniels said in May, “A lot of people will get filthy rich doing nothing for the environment.” (Many are well on their way these carbon riches, see Climate Depot’s exclusive May 2, 2009 report: Al Gore’s quest to become world’s first ‘Carbon Billionaire’)
The climate bill now moves to the Senate where it faces a much tougher road ahead. The best news of the climate bill’s passage is that the American public, which has wholeheartedly rejected man-made global warming fears, will now be awakened to what their representatives in Washington are up to.
Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted against the bill, realized Americans were not concerned about global warming, saying: “There is no public outcry to pass this legislation. It’s an institutional push.”
Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania reported his constituent calls were “running 9-1 against’ the climate bill. Speaker Pelosi admitted the Capitol saw voters “jamming the lines”‘ to protest climate bill and the Capitol phone switchboard “went down” as voters dialed “to voice their opposition to the bill.”
American People ‘Get it’
Current polling data reveals that the American people “get it” when it comes to man-made global warming fears. Given the wealth of recent polling data showing Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, Congressmen and Senators are simply not hearing any clamor from voters to “act” to “solve” global warming.
In fact, the opposite is true, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called “solutions” in growing numbers. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.
Now that the bill has cleared the house and heads to the Senate (where they will be preparing their own version of a cap-and-trade bill) the American people will awake to the reality that this purely climate symbolic bill with real economic and lifestyle impacts may actually become law.
An American public that is aware of a “non-solution” global warming bill has the potential to literally shut down Washington with phone calls, emails, faxes and protests. Thus far, global warming bills have been a distant possibility somewhere in the future. With the passage of this bill, it is now game on.
Despite the American people’s rejection of warming fears and climate taxes, Congress may persist in pushing them for other non-scientific reasons. Hint, hint. See: Dem. Senator Ben Cardin calls cap-and-trade ‘the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.’
19th Century Living
Beyond just economics, lifestyles changes will be in order under the new climate regime. As a June 7, 2009 Washington Post editorial stated: “Why does Congress, and not the market, need to dictate these changes?” The Post noted the climate bill “contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to specs on hot tubs; it will reshape America’s economy.” Also see: 19th Century Living: Under climate plan ‘Americans allowed to emit same carbon volumes as citizens did in 1867’)
In May, House speaker Nancy Pelosi declared “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to battle global warming and reduce our carbon footprints.
As MIT scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has noted: “He who controls carbon controls life. It is a bureaucrat’s dream to control carbon dioxide.” Washington is a field of dreams right now for bureaucrats.
Even Warming Fear Promoters Oppose
In addition, even the two strongest proponents of man-made global warming fears – NASA’s James Hansen and UK’s James Lovelock — are now ridiculing the Congressional cap-and-trade approach as “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.” Adding to that, Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader has also voiced opposition to this bill, saying, “I’m really astonished… I mean, it’s not going to work. It’s too complex. It’s too easily manipulated politically.”
Former progressive Democrat Presidential candidate and Congressman Dennis Kucinich also opposed the bill, warning: “It might make the problem [of global warming] worse.” (Also, there were opposing editorials in unexpected places: See: ‘Too big, too fast’ Obama’ hometown paper – Chicago Tribune – rejects climate bill! ‘House members should vote no’ & Washington Post: ‘We think it’s too soon to settle for something that falls so far short of ideal’ & Denver Post: Climate bill’s ‘goals exist in fantasy…Not ‘way to go about it’ )
Remember, these are the words of scientists and activists who believe in a looming human caused climate “crisis.”
Americans are becoming aware that the debate is not “over” as more than 700 prominent international scientists publicly dissenting, including many who are reversing their views on climate fears and declaring themselves skeptical. Americans are becoming aware that there has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years.
‘Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!?’
New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades’ study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 )
This means that today’s high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor’s Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the “pipeline” have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. ‘There is no warming in the pipeline’ )
‘Climate change issue is about to fall apart’
Many scientists are now realizing that the UN IPCC and the promoters of man-made climate fear are in a “panic” about the lack of global warming, the growing number of scientific defectors and sinking public support. South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander wrote in March 2009, “’The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart…Heads will roll!”
It is no wonder that the environmental movement is urging its troops to no longer use the term “global warming,” as temperatures fail to cooperate. (See: NYT obtains enviro strategy memo: Stop use of term global warming! )
As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal noted in a June 26, 2009 article, the “Democrats are attempting to “quickly jam the climate bill through Congress because global warming tide is shifting.” The article noted that the “Scientific debate roaring back to life” as the “number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”
Key Questions for Voters to ask Senators
As the Senate considers global warming cap-and-trade legislation that will raise energy prices during a massive economic downturn, curious voters will soon be asking their Senators the following basic questions:
1) What impact will this bill have on temperatures? (Answer: “Meaningless”)
2) What will the bill cost? (Answer: Trillions)
3) Why are you voting for a bill that will have huge economic impacts and harm the poor and seniors on fixed incomes the most — but will not have a measurable climate impact?
4) Why are more and more scientists publicly rejecting man-made climate fears and why has the Earth failed to warm as predicted?
The answers to the above questions will likely cause massive angst with many Democrats, particularly in rust belt states.
These questions will have to be answered as all eyes turn to the U.S. Senate. But, never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer (costly) non-solutions to problems that don’t even exist.