News Updates:

The news Al Gore should read.

Consensus? What Consensus?

Chill out. Get Informed.

Climate Bill's Passage Represents 'nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting and intimidation'

By Marc Morano, Climate Depot

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed global warming bill (219-212 vote) will no doubt be hailed by many as “historic” or “landmark” or “The Bill of the Century.”


This 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.


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. 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.


To illustrate just how delusional some of the supporters of the bill have 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.


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: Rebuttal: Obama Tries to Sell Cap-And-Tax as a Jobs Bill ) Even fellow Democrats failed to parrot these mythical claims. Democrat Congressman John Dingell of Michigan was blunt, calling Cap and trade a "great big" tax in April.


Even Obama advisor Warren Buffett 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.”


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 concered 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.


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.


1) Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues – March 2009

2) Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has 'Failed' -- 'The public is just not that concerned' about global warming – May 2009

3) Zobgy Poll: Only 30% of Americans support cap-and-trade -- 57% oppose – April 2009

4) "Gallup Poll: Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated" - March 11, 2009

5) Rasmussen Poll found Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming - 'Lowest finding yet' -- 'reversal from a year ago!'


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 and faxes. 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 calls cap-and-trade 'the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.'


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.


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 cap-and-trade. 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. 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.”


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 non-solutions to problems that don't even exist.


Stay tuned...