Global Warming is Dead, But Environmentalists Are Still Trying To Killl Our Economy

Nancy Pelosi was thrilled to learn that “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” will return on June 20th. Olbermann was fired by MSNBC and will now be the star of Al Gore’s Current TV.


The House Committee on Global Warming and the cap and trade national energy tax both died last year. They bit the dust along with the Democratic Congress, but environmental activists have not abandoned their job killing agenda. They have just shifted their focus. The Green Lobby has no hope for any legislative victory in the House of Representatives, so their attention is now focused on the Obama administration.

  • The President needs environmental support for his re-election, but these activists and campaign donors have a steep price. They want 1000 additions to the endangered species list this year alone. They are aggressively promoting this on Current TV’s “Green News” where they are repeating numerous falsehoods from the left wing Center for Biological Diversity.
  • The damage to the job market and the American economy has already been enormous. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost by environmental activism without the introduction of any new species. In recent years we have seen:
  • The listing of the northern spotted owl has killed the entire timber industry in much of the West, especially in northern California and Oregon.
  • The Mexican spotted owl has killed the timber industry in New Mexico and Arizona.
  • The two inch delta smelt fish of the San Joaquin Valley is responsible for killing 27,000 jobs. Prior to the delta smelt crisis, the San Joaquin Valley was the source of 80 percent of our nation’s vegetables. Now many of those vegetable farms are gone. Bankruptcy is rampant throughout the valley. America has been forced to import food from countries that spray pesticides we outlaw.
  • When the Coho salmon was listed farmers in the Klamath Basin of Oregon were forced into bankruptcy because of the prohibitions placed on their water use.
  • The same thing happened in the Methow Valley of Washington. To protect the Methow salmon, farmers and  property owners lost the use of their water. They had to endure egregious stream buffers to protect the salmon.
  • The court case over whether hydroelectric dam operators in Washington and Oregon have done enough to protect the salmon has cost billions of dollars, and it is not over.
  • The gray wolf was listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered, and it has killed agriculture and mining jobs throughout the West.

The endangered species list has already resulted in fewer jobs, bigger government deficits, a greater cost of vegetables and an unsafe food supply. Now they want to immediately add 1000 more species to it.


Who Deserves Credit?: The Death of Global Warming is a Tremendous Triumph

Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” claimed sea levels would rise by 20 feet over the next century. The UN IPCC has revised that to 8 inches, and prominent scientists say no rise will take place. Liberal environmentalists are now castigating Republicans for killing climate change legislation and they are pointing to abolishment of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The left wing is also upset because of the failure of the global climate change treaty and the cap and trade national energy tax.

Republicans have killed the Congressional panel, but it never reported any legislation and primarily served as a publicity vehicles for the environmentalists. GOP conservatives would like to claim credit for global warming’s demise, but this happened during the 111th Congress when Democrats controlled the White House and had super majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill.

Conservatives were staunch opponents of what they called “cap and tax,” but their margin of victory was provided by GOP and Democratic moderates. The slogan became so popular that Democrats deleted references to cap and trade. They started to describe the legislation as a “pollution cap.” Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) deserves credit for delaying the legislation, and the death of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) was the final nail in its coffin.

Few people would have predicted the demise of global warming when Democrats captured Congress in 2006. Over 70% of 2006 voters listed global warming as a serious concern, and over 60% felt that way in 2008. The cap and trade proposal was at the top of the Democratic agenda last year. Two weeks after the November 2008 balloting, President-elect Obama addressed the Global Climate Change Conference:

Few challenges facing America — and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. . . Too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office. My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change.

In January of 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) strongly endorsed the President’s viewpoint and claimed to have the votes for passage. Reid said his top three priorities were the stimulus, health care reform and climate change. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did her part by orchestrating passage of a highly partisan cap and trade bill by a 219 to 212 vote.

The Behind The Scenes Story

One of the last lawmakers to vote was moderate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE). Everyone knew the count was close, and Castle promised the GOP leadership he would not abandon them if his vote was needed. Castle was a candidate to fill Joe Biden’s (D-DE) Senate vacancy, and expected to face state Attorney General Beau Biden who supported the legislation.

When Castle saw cap and trade had a majority he voted for it. He did not realize Biden would pull out of the race, and was not expecting a significant challenge for the GOP nomination.  A year later cap and trade would become a crucial issue in the loss of what was seen as a certain GOP pick-up opportunity.

Scott Brown Changed Everything

Because of the excessive carbon tax, outlook for the House bill was not promising in the Senate. The Majority Leader said 60 votes would be required for passage of the global warming bill, and because of Democratic defections, it could not be done without a handful of Republicans.  He said consideration of the legislation would be delayed until there was a report from a bipartisan working group chaired by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham was expected to eventually join Kerry as an original co-sponsor, after the working group had developed a compromise. Graham was able to delay negotiations for over a year, and by that time the Democratic super majority ended with the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA). After 14 months of negotiations, Graham finally pulled out of the deal, and Kerry was left without any GOP support.

Because of Senator Brown, cloture to cut off debate was no longer possible. While some conservatives were screaming about Graham’s betrayal and liberal “RINO” Republicans, the end result was that not one GOP Senator backed the House passed legislation or Senator Kerry’s compromise.

Furthermore, Democrats lost the votes of Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Evan Bayh (IN), Kent Conrad (ND), Jay Rockefeller (WV) and appointed Sen. Carte Goodwin (D-WV), who filled the late Robert Byrd’s vacancy. Majority Leader Reid was seven votes short of victory, and cap and trade was indefinitely pulled from the calendar. The most effective lobbyist against the climate change legislation was Senator Rockefeller.

He told the Majority Leader that health care reform cost Democrats a Senate seat in Massachusetts, and passage of cap and trade would do the same thing in West Virginia. After a meeting of the Senate Democratic Caucus, the Majority Leader said:

We’re really not at a point where I can determine what I think is the best for the caucus and the country at this stage. We’re still trying to find a Republican or two or three on energy. We haven’t given up on that.

Defeat of the global warming legislation would not have been possible without moderate Senators such as Evan Bayh (D-IN). They opposed the Kerry bill because of its reduction in energy consumption which would impede America’s economic growth.

In a major change from 2006, there was also widespread opposition to global warming in the scientific community. Bayh specifically mentioned this in announcing his opposition. He said the situation was now far different because over 30,000 scientists had signed a petition urging the United States to reject the Kyoto climate change agreement. Their joint letter stated:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

End of an Era: GOP Abolishes House Global Warming Committee

June 26, 2009: On the day the House passed Cap and Trade by a 219 to 212 vote, a triumphant Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) hosted a press conference. Markey is the outgoing chief of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. He is shown with Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (MD), Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (SC) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA). Their victory was short lived because the legislation died in the Senate. Every major economic analysis of the House-passed bill showed job destruction. Some were as high as multi-millions.

The impact of the 2010 election is starting to be felt on Capitol Hill. The last hearing of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was held yesterday. This panel received huge national attention when it was created by the then new Democratic majority in January of 2007, and it was considered a major triumphant for the environmental movement. The GOP Steering Committee has voted to abolish the panel. Continue reading

Prince Charles To Advocate Cap and Trade on Upcoming Trip, Future King's Rhetoric Concerns Conservative Party

At the wheel is the Prince of Wales who is shown with British racing great Stirling Moss, right. The heir to the throne has given many speeches about global warming and the need to reduce oil consumption. His Aston Martin, Jaguar, Range Rover and Audi all run on bio-ethanol fuel. The Prince has been criticized for extensive use of various aircraft available to members of the Royal household, and for the past three years he has been purchasing carbon offsets. The most recent figures are from 2008 when he paid over $60,000 for offsets to compensate for 84 “essential airplane trips."

In an upcoming NBC documentary, the Prince of Wales says his duty is to save the world, and he will advocate a cap and trade system during his U.S. visit. The documentary “Harmony” will air in November and is based on the Prince’s new book of the same title. Continue reading

Major Victory for Conservatives: Senate Puts Global Warming in Deep Freeze

Advocates of the Kerry cap and trade bill say it is necessary to stop sea levels from rising and flooding low-lying coastal areas such as New York City. The graphics used in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" movie predicted a 20 foot increase in sea levels. Gore received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has significantly revised its data and they now say a six inch increase is possible over the next century. Even that claim is seriously disputed.

Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) cap and trade system is going down to defeat in a major victory for conservative Republicans. The legislation was supposed to be on the Senate floor this afternoon, but now a vote on cap and trade is highly doubtful. Continue reading

The New Climate Change Legislation: All Eyes on the Chamber of Commerce

Senate Democrats led by John Kerry (MA) are expected to unveil their new national energy legislation on Monday, April 26th. It will be known as the American Power Act but the details are still secret. The legislation is expected to appeal to conservatives by expanding nuclear power and allowing more off shore drilling.
Its fate could well be determined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which is now involved in negotiations with the Obama administration. The Chamber was in forefront of the opposition to the climate change legislation in the House, but they could now shift sides if the bill is altered significantly.
President Obama said on Friday his administration would shift its focus to climate change after finishing financial regulatory reform. The President said “This is one of these foundational priorities from my perspective that has to be done soon.”
The cap and trade national energy tax passed the House last year on a 219 to 212 vote. The bill would require emissions of greenhouse gases to be reduced by 17 percent by 2020. Speaker Pelosi secured the victory despite the opposition of 44 Democrats.
If enacted cap and trade would be the largest tax increase in American history, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost at close to a trillion dollars. CBO said the average American household could pay an additional $1,600 a year because of cap and trade, while other studies had a higher cost. The House passed the measure despite the fact that only 33 percent of voters believe global warming is mainly caused by human activity.
This was one of the major promises in last year’s presidential campaign. In January of 2008, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) described his proposal:

Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants…natural gas…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was…would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers…So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being omitted.

The good news is that the prospects for stopping cap and trade are excellent, and as of today the Democrats only have 26 solid votes in favor of the House plan. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has signaled the upcoming Democratic strategy change by saying, “I think the term ‘cap-and-trade’ is not in the lexicon anymore.” Even Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has acknowledged that Congress may take years before it passes a global warming cap and trade bill.
The new energy legislation will be somewhat similar to health care. The House passed a health care public option but it was immediately rejected by the Senate. Now the Senate is expected to abandon cap and trade. The editorial in yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor noted:

A successful US cap-and-trade program in the 1990s reduced emissions known to cause acid rain from coal-burning plants. But the program was limited in its scope, and simple. Relatively few plants slowly switched to low-sulfur coal or added scrubbers.
Scaling up this idea for greenhouse-gas emissions – and allowing the trading of permits for green projects around the world – is asking for trouble. Public confidence in curbing global warming could nose-dive if a cap-and-trade plan results in a slew of dubious schemes.
One climate bill reportedly to be introduced in the Senate may dilute a cap-and-trade system by also offering a gasoline tax – a proven way to cut the burning of fossil fuels but one that may be anathema to voters. Before Congress leaps into cap-and-trade, it should take a lesson from voluntary offsets: Buyer beware.

As usual, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh is speaking for many conservatives in questioning the need for any climate change legislation. He recently said, “Computer models can not predict within hours where the wind will take the ash cloud from Iceland. Nevertheless, we are supposed to significantly alter our lives because of what similar computer models say global climate temperatures are going to be in 50 years. All of liberalism is a giant hoax. It’s just a giant lie with a bunch of subset of lies to support the big one.”

The Collapse of Global Warming: Blame Al Gore and the UN IPCC

The Washington Post and The New York Times are now in agreement. After months of prodding they have both published major stories criticizing the claims of the global warming movement. Both newspapers conclude that there will be no global climate change treaty and the U.S. Senate will not pass the cap-and-trade system. In a significant policy shift both papers now admit there has not been any statistically significant warming since 1995.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) won a joint Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore after their 2007 report declared the “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Now according to the Post, “The errors in the U.N. report — a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt — are a serious problem which could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat, instead of the new question of how to stop it.”
In recent months we have also learned:

1. The most important source of data for the UN IPCC report is a fraud. Prominent scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the UK’s East Anglia University falsified their findings and sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors. The Director, Dr. Phil Jones, was forced to resign.

2. It has now been proven that the data used by Dr. Michael Mann, head of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, to build Al Gore’s famous hockey stick graph is wrong. The graph outlined temperature increases over the past 1000 years. It was cited as indisputable evidence the planet has been warming for a century because of carbon emissions, but Mann just hid the decline in temperatures which conflicted with his conclusion.

3. The UN IPCC now admits huge glaciers in the Himalayan mountains will not disappear by 2035.

4. They have retracted their statement that “Up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.”

5. They have retracted their claim that crop yields in Africa will be reduced by 50 percent by 2020.

6. They now admit the Antarctic sea ice increase was under estimated by 50%. This was one of their major claims. They said sea levels would rise dramatically because the sea ice was disappearing.

7. Environmentalists now admit that 55% of the Netherlands is not below sea level.

8. The UN IPCC says sea levels will not rise by 20 feet over the next century because of temperature changes. They have scaled this claim back to 8 inches.

It is believed in the “medieval warming period” of 800 -1300 A.D. temperatures were higher than they are today, and this was well before the introduction of the automobile. It means natural factors are a significant part of climate change.
The person most responsible for fanning this hysteria is Al Gore. The Senate rejected his Kyoto Protocol in 1998 by a 95 to 0 vote, and he then spent the next decade scaring the world about the catastrophic consequences of global warming. Now his arguments have been demolished, but he has succeeded in enriching himself by over $90 million.
Gore’s carelessness with facts and his overblown self-aggrandizement have been well known for decades. The falsehoods in “An Inconvenient Truth” were obvious from the outset but they were rarely challenged by the news media. Now the avalanche of facts rebutting global warming is so strong that even the Post and the Times have published critical front page stories. I am surprised it took them so long.
Long before the global warming nonsense collapsed, the British school system refused his attempt to make his book required reading in schools because it contained so many falsehoods. Giving him a Nobel Prize, followed by the one given to Obama, tarnished the reputation of this award.
Gore has always been amazingly hypocritical. He built a huge mansion with none of the green technology he said was so essential for the rest of us. The other good news is that the UN climate chief has resigned. I can certainly understand the frustration of someone such as Donald Trump. He says Gore should give back the Nobel because “he doesn’t deserve it for promoting an economy-killing carbon tax in the midst of some of the worst snowstorms the US has seen.”