Both Sides of Congress to Introduce Legislation Blocking Enforcement of New EPA Climate Regulations

Despite Congress not being able to pass any environmental legislation over the past two years and public opinion being heavily against it, the EPA is attempting to accomplish through regulation what the Democrats couldn’t accomplish thru legislation. Last Sunday, the new EPA rules have started to go into effect, and some in Congress intend to stop them in their tracks:

Dozens of Republicans used the opening day of the new Congress on Wednesday to introduce legislation that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.


Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, sponsored the bill. The measure’s 46 co-sponsors are all Republicans except for Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.)….

The bill would amend the Clean Air Act to declare that greenhouse gases are not subject to the law, according to a brief description in the Congressional Record.

Boren, probably, won’t be the last to sign onto the bill, either. Heath Shuler will likely support it, and I fully expect many of the Democrats from Appalachia to join in, as well, because coal is such a huge part of their districts’ economies.

The House isn’t the only part of Congress that is looking into this. Democratic Senator Jay Rockafeller of West Virginia, a coal heavy state, is looking to re-introduce a similar bill in the Senate:

Firing the first salvo in what is expected to be a top energy issue in the new Congress, Sen. John Rockefeller said Wednesday that he’s raring to go in his controversial bid to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate regulations for two years.
The West Virginia Democrat told POLITICO that he’ll soon introduce the same piece of legislation he tried unsuccessfully to get a vote on throughout 2010. Rockefeller said he’d wanted to drop the bill at the start of the 112th Congress but was stymied by plans to spend the day debating changes to the Senate rules.

Rockefeller has been threatening this, for a while. He tried to pass a this in the last Congress, but, of course, it failed. However, times are different, now.

Since the House is heavily Republican, it should pass there rather easily. The Senate may be a bit harder, but it shouldn’t be a problem there, either. The Democrats do have a slim majority, but many of them are up for re-election in 2012, many of those are from red-states. So, they are vulnerable Democrats and will likely follow along with barring the EPA from enforcing the very unpopular regulations, in order to not to be labeled as an extremist by the voters in their respective districts.

The real question will be President Obama. Will he veto it, if it passes Congress? He has been receiving a lot of grief from the left for extending the higher-end Bush tax cuts. So, he may feel the need to veto it, so not to further alienate himself with his base. On the other hand, he doesn’t want to alienate the majority of the American people that don’t want it. He may huff and puff about it, but I think that he will sign it, in the end. He needs the middle more than he needs his base, at this point.

WV Senator Rockefeller (D) Planning to Throw Monkey Wrench in Obama's Climate Change Policies

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia is continuing his crusade against any possible climate change regulations that the Obama Administration might try to implement over the next two years:

Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is pressing forward on his drive to vote this month on his plan to delay Obama administration climate regulations for two years, threatening to go directly to the Senate floor and force a vote to include it in a catch-all spending bill.

Rockefeller has told Senate leadership “that he will insist on a vote” on his measure to block the Environmental Protection Agency global warming rules set to take effect next month.

“If left with no other option, Senator Rockefeller will seek to suspend the rules on the Omnibus Appropriations bill to bring up his legislation,” his office said in a statement. Such a maneuver would require 67 votes, which he is unlikely to get.
A POLITICO analysis shows at least 56 senators would likely support Rockefeller’s amendment.

Rockefeller has been trying for months to get Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to schedule a vote on his amendment. The West Virginia Democrat has said he would hold Reid to a promise he gave Rockefeller to hold a vote this year.

"The time has come for us to make a decision on the energy future of our country," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement. "While there are still ongoing discussions about how Congress should proceed, I want to make it clear that I intend to get a vote this year on my EPA-suspension legislation. I know there is bipartisan support for this legislation, and if necessary, I will seek to suspend the rules and bring this up for a vote. This is too important for us to delay any further."

But holding a vote on the two-year delay could be an embarrassing symbolic rebuke to the Obama administration. Rockefeller’s plan has no realistic shot of becoming law even if it passes the Senate, given the lack of desire by House Democratic leaders to take it up and a White House veto threat.

Maybe he won't have that much of a shot in this House, but the next house, when the Republicans will be the majority, he’ll have a much better shot to pass any such bans on new climate regulations or taxes.

He tried to get into the omnibus bill, last night, but of course, the omnibus bill died last night. So, he will have to try and add it to future legislation like the DREAM, DADT, or START bills, before the end of this Congress, but I think that it would be better for him to wait until next month, when the GOP will play a much bigger role in what is passed.

When he does bring it back up, he needs to be sure not just focus on the EPA like he has been. As Michelle Malkin reports, Janet Napolitano making "environmental justice" a big priority at the Department of Homeland Security. What does global warming have to do with national security? Who knows.

He is doing this to curry favor with the voters in his state of West Virginia, which is heavily reliant on coal mining for their economy. Any sort of legislation that might be passed limiting or putting taxes on carbon emissions would kill the economy for the whole state and would, in turn, kill any chances at his re-election. I know that he isn’t up for re-election until 2014, but passing any such enviromental bill, now, would have such a devestating effect on the economy that the it would still be feeling the effects four years from now.

H/T to Ed Morrissey

Is Obama Extending an Olive Branch to Conservatives? Far-left EPA Official Resigns

Many wondered how Obama would respond to the Red Tsunami. Would he move to the center like Clinton did back in 1994-5 or arrogantly ignore the will of the people and proceed with his far-left agenda? His condescending tone and what he said during the press conference Wednesday seemed to indicate the later. However, the sudden departure of one of the most liberally-aggressive officials at the EPA, right after he was crushed at the polls, seems to indicate the former.

One of the Obama administration’s most aggressive officials on global warming regulations is stepping down from her post at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lisa Heinzerling, the head of EPA’s policy office, will return to her position as a Georgetown University law professor at the end of the year, said EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan.

Within EPA, Heinzerling is one of the more dogmatic proponents of regulating greenhouse gases to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act.

There are two camps within the agency on climate, said an environmental advocate who spoke on background. The Heinzerling camp, with the mind-set that, “we have the law on our side; let’s go get them.” In the other camp are Administrator Lisa Jackson and EPA air chief Gina McCarthy, who are trying to maintain the support of the White House and Congress………

“I think she’s probably the farthest left and most committed of anyone on the team, with the exception of Carol Browner,” on climate change, said an industry attorney familiar with the agency, referring to the former agency administrator and President Barack Obama’s energy and climate adviser.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air had some interesting insights to this new developmentL

The question will be whether Heinzerling left on her own steam or got pushed out the door. Even if it was her own decision, it may have come after losing the fight to run roughshod over Congress and impose the equivalent of carbon taxes through regulation. A Republican House appears poised to strip the EPA of funding if it exceeds what the GOP considers its Congressional mandate, which means an end to regulatory innovation for the next two years, at least.

There isn’t much point in sticking around for Heinzerling under those conditions. If she got pushed, then it sends a stronger signal that the White House may have decided to forgo a constitutional battle with Congress over regulatory expansion as a substitute for legislation. This shows the importance of winning the House in the midterms. The Senate won’t be able to add spending rejected by the House because Republicans will have a substantial majority to block it in conference reports. Anything defunded by the House will stay defunded, and despite some of the tough talk from the Obama administration before the midterms on pursuing regulatory solutions, the White House has apparently reached the obvious conclusion.

We will know more when Obama appoints Heinzerling’s successor. If the next appointee is an advocate of aggressive regulatory expansion, then Heinzerling’s departure won’t have been an olive branch at all.

Administration Says Climate Change Bill Is Top Priority Over the Summer: Good Luck With That

Bill Burton, Obama's deputy press secretary, made the claim, while on a liberal talk show today, that passing climate change bill this summer in a priority for the Obama Administration:

Passing an energy bill will be President Barack Obama's top legislative priority this summer, White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said Wednesday.

The president's main focus will shift to working toward a comprehensive energy bill once the Congress finishes up work on Wall Street reform, a process that is expected to conclude this month.

I would say that just in terms of timing, obviously, financial regulatory reform, that goes first, Burton said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press radio show when asked if energy would be the top legislative priority for the White House.

After we get through that, yes, Burton added.

Obama underscored the need for energy legislation Tuesday night during his Oval Office address, saying he's open to all approaches that would help transition the U.S. toward using renewable, clean energy sources.

This would seem to indicate that Obama would like to resurrect the cap-n-tax debate. The liberal Democratic leadership will definitely be tempted to push it this year, but the toxicity of the issue for those up for election will lead many Democrats in oil, gas, and coal states to balk at the mention of a tax that will cripple their state/districts' economies right before their constituents will decide their employment status for the next 2 or 6 years:

Does that mean cap-and-trade is dead?  It’s been pronounced dead on several occasions during the year, only to have Democratic leadership pledge to push forward this year.  They don’t have much choice; if the bill doesn’t get passed in this session of Congress, it will have to be reintroduced from scratch in the House next year.  As it is, the House will have to have at least one more vote on it to get it to Obama’s desk, probably in a conference committee, if the Senate passes its version. Next year, Democrats won’t have the votes to pass it, and in the House may not have control of the agenda to even get it to a vote.

That’s the conundrum, however.  Any Democrat in a competitive district foolish enough to vote for cap-and-trade in the final few months before the general election can assume that his legislative career will come to an end.  Many Democrats won’t be returning anyway, but they might believe a chance exists to avoid the tsunami coming in November if they can demonstrate some independence from Nancy Pelosi with a couple of late votes — and cap-and-trade would be an excellent target for strategic voting on their part.

While many believe that it won't happen this year, the same lawmakers believe that it might be possible next year:

Some Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns that voting on the climate plan could create a political backlash in the November elections.

“There’s not a great call for it in the Democratic caucus,” said West Virginia Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, who has argued against taking up the bill. Feinstein said last week she believed climate legislation could be passed next year.

I believe that while Congress' jobs hang in the balance, there won't be anything more than a whisper about cap-and-trade. Although, if (I can't stress IF enough) Democrats retain their heavy advantage over the Republicans after November, then, we will see it brought up next year. However, the far more likely scenario is that Republicans will have heavy gains this year and possibly gain control of at least the House. This will make it basically impossible for cap-and-tax to go anywhere near a floor vote. As long as everything goes as it looks like it will now, we shouldn't have to worry about a carbon tax. Congress passing more safety regulations regarding off-shore drilling platforms seems far more likely and perhaps needed.

Feinstein: Sorry, Champ! Climate Bill Won't Stop the Oil From Leaking

The morning after Obama used the Oval Office Address that was supposed to be about how he planned to fix the Gulf Oil Spill Crisis to push Congress to pass the Climate Change Bill instead, liberal California Senator Diane Feinstein had interesting remarks regarding Obama's mention of the climate bill during his supposed Gulf Oil Spill speech:

The BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is unlikely to create enough momentum to pass a comprehensive climate bill sought by President Barack Obama, say leading Senate Democrats.

Many Democrats don’t want to vote in this election year on whether to cap the greenhouse-gas emissions linked to climate change, saying they prefer to work in the coming months on legislation directly responding to the spill.

“The climate bill isn’t going to stop the oil leak,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. “The first thing you have to do is stop the oil leak.”

Amazing! Even a Democrat has gun-ho about climate change as she is sees the absurdity of Obama bringing that up during that speech last night.

Overall, the speech was horrible as even MSNBC's Olbermann and Mathews couldn't believe how bad it was and how it was void of anything that resembled details on exactly how he was going to get done all that he has promised to do for the past two months.

Obama's "disaster of a disaster speech" was nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt at using this crisis to his advantage. He was looking to elicit sympathy and support for his green, anti-oil agenda from the American people, in order to allow Congress the ability to ram the climate bill through with minimal backlash in November from the electorate. Mission not accomplished, Mr. President. You only succeeded in making some your most staunch supporters start to question your leadership abilities.

Obama: Panel of Experts Said We Should Stop Drilling Off-Shore/Same Expert Panel: Um...No, We Didn't

Another member of the Obama Administration has being caught being less the 100% truthful in the execution of his duties in order to further advance his true liberal agenda. This time it was the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. In a report that he gave to Obama recommending that a halt to off-shore drilling, it has been discovered that he neglected to mention that the panel of experts that he claimed supported this ban didn't exactly think that a ban would do any good. In fact, they thought that it would be a horrible idea:

In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.

The oil rig explosion occurred while the well was being shut down - a move that is much more dangerous than continuing ongoing drilling, they said.

They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.

They also said the best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation's coastal waters.

So, not only will adversely affect our economy and domestic oil supply now and probably in the future, which will make us even more dependent on foreign oil, but it'll, also, be more dangerous and possibly cause more oil spills, if we stop drilling all of a sudden.

It's hard to imagine that Salazar could have misinterpreted what the experts meant. He outright twisted their words and left out vital parts of their report in order to make it say what he wants it to say to further his liberal agenda:

The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.

Salazar's report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations.

"None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report," oil expert Ken Arnold told Fox News. "What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation."

This is a gross violation of the public trust. I have to wonder if Obama knew of Salazar's deception or that he neglected to not double-checking the validity of what Salazar said. I think that it was the latter because why wouldn't he trust someone in his Cabinet? He should be able to trust them, but this shows how far some liberals will go to enact their agenda to the detriment of the entire country. How can we trust the information that comes from the President, if the people around him are not trustworthy?

Democrats in SEC Overstep Their Authority Forcing Companies to Post Global Warming Risks

They are at it, again. This time it is the Democrats of the SEC that are trying to over reach in the name of global warming:

A politically divided Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Wednesday to make clear when companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change.

The commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided to require that companies disclose in their public filings the impact of climate change on their businesses — from new regulations or legislation they may face domestically or abroad to potential changes in economic trends or physical risks to a company.

Chairman Mary L. Schapiro and the two Democrats on the commission supported the new requirements, while the two Republicans vehemently opposed them.

“I can only conclude that the purpose of this release is to place the imprimatur of the commission on the agenda of the social and environmental policy lobby, an agenda that falls outside of our expertise and beyond our fundamental mission of investor protection,” Republican commissioner Kathleen L. Casey said.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air analyzes this new development perfectly in his post:

Clearly, Casey correctly diagnoses the Democrats’ intentions on this point.  They want to highlight the potential damage that some corporations do through carbon emissions, while highlighting the benefits from others who play along on AGW.  Putting this in the jurisdiction of the SEC is a two-fer for the Obama administration — they can claim regulatory gains on both AGW and Wall Street.

But this may hold the potential for enormous backfire.  With the cap-and-trade legislation still on the docket, all of these corporations will have to forecast for higher energy prices, more restrictive manufacturing and service standards, and the costs of retrofitting.  The Obama administration and Democrats in Congress have consistently and drastically underestimated the impact of their bills on the private sector.  Now, by forcing companies to analyze the impact of their environmental agendas on their bottom lines, the American public can get a much clearer and much less optimistic take on cap-and-trade and carbon-tax regulations.  Because those reports will be part of the public record, analysts can compile a daunting picture of the burdens the Democratic agenda will create on private business and economic growth.

This effort still should have been killed as a ridiculous overreach on regulation.  Now that the SEC has forced the matter, their Democratic allies will shortly have reason to regret it.

The SEC is supposed to regulate and police Wall Street not carbon emissions. That is the job of Congress to pass bills like that. All this does is set up the corporations that use carbon-based energy to be demonized by the left and will attempt to shame them into turn to less efficient means of energy production, which will in turn raise energy prices, anyway. The Democrats are trying to sneak cap-and-trade through the back door. It should not go unnoticed by the American people.

So Much For A Free Press: UN Security Told to Silence Film Maker From Asking "Inconvenient Questions"

The global warming advocates are getting very testy, when it comes to getting questioned about the Climategate fiasco:

Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.

He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.

After giving the reporter "no comment" as his only response to the scandal, Schneider proceeded to throw a fit and get Mr. McAleer thrown out:

During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.

However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room. McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.

“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”

“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted  but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”

Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference.

McAleer says he has made an official complaint tabout the incident.

“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”

“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”

Apparently, this isn't the first time that the global warming gurus have tried to silence him. The Goracle did the same

His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube.

Obama's Energy Secretary Wants to Be Your Daddy, Calls Americans "Unruly Teenagers"

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy has, apparently, went from not knowing that his position is a part of the Obama administration or that oil was a part of his Energy Secretary domain to condescendingly describing Americans as teenagers:

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”

So, not only are we "unruly" teenagers not following our parents' (government) rules, but we aren't smart enough to understand the climate change debate and decide for ourselves whether it's bogus or not.

Here's Chu's spokesman extra-lame explanation for Chu's comment. Apparently, he is trying to do a Jedi mind trick on everyone. "You did not hear what you just heard.":

An update: Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: “Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing.”

I didn't call Mr. Leistikow's explanation extra-lame or compare him to a Jedi. You believe me. Right?

As Ed Morrissey points out:

With that humbling experience in mind (the Energy Department and White House's own inadequacies at energy conservation), one might think that Chu and the Obama administration would approach energy policy with a little more humility.  Nope!  Instead, Chu talks about American citizens as if they cannot be trusted to make their own choices and the need to parent us rather than govern us with our consent.  Most of us have already had parents and don’t see the need to have our elected officials take their place.

This is the main problem with progressive liberals and the Nanny State that they want to implement here in the US. They want to be our parents. Most Americans are going to be so eager to have "Big Brother" act more and more like our parents.

Stabenow (D): Rise of Hurricanes Are Reality of Climate Change; Halfway Through Hurricane Season: 0 Named Storms

Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow out of Michigan gives us another example of proof of what Obama warned us about: politicians saying what they need to "scare the heck" out of the American people to get their agenda passed::

"Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's massive tax increase on Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."

However, we are now about the halfway point of the hurricane season, and we haven't heard a peep out of the Atlantic. There have been no named storms, only a couple tropical depressions. This time last year we were on number five, and four named storms the year before that this time last year. What increase is she talking about?

Looking at the number of tornadoes this year, I don't see any dramatic increase there, either.

Boxer Uses Politics of Fear to Justify "Cap and Trade" Energy Tax

Barbara Boxer echoed the Goracle when she scared people with horror stories of a world with out "cap-and-trade":

If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

She says there's a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children.

Boxer is engaged in her biggest sales job ever. The stakes couldn't be higher as she faces one of the toughest high-profile acts of her lengthy career: getting Congress to sign off on historic legislation to lower greenhouse-gas emissions.

"For Barbara Boxer , it's both the opportunity and a challenge of a lifetime," said Frank O'Donnell , the president of Clean Air Watch .

Why must they always tell stories of an upcoming apocalypse? Answer: they are trying to get people not to think about it too much and just accept what ever hogwash the Goracle is selling.

There is, also, a huge downside. There will be a huge tax for all carbon-based fuels. This will make prices for gas, electricity, and all products made or transported using these fuels will skyrocket as well.

She is going to have to do a sales of a lifetime if she expects to convince the American people that we need this because based of almost all polls they aren't. A recent poll by Rasmussen showed that 53% don't want any taxes raised at all to prevent "climate change" and 21% said taxes would be ok only if it was than $100 per year increase. "Cap and Tax" will be much more than $100 per year. So, it is going to be a huge hill that she's going to have to climb to get it thru Congress without public backlash.

Even Senile Former KKK Kleagles Posing As US Senators Can't See Any Benefit From "Cap and Tax" Bill

West Virginia Democratic Senator Bobby Byrd has formally came out against the bill that would enact a huge tax on carbon emissions:

He is not yet back to work in the Senate chamber, but U.S. Den. Robert Byrd is opposing "cap and trade" legislation pushed by the Obama administration.

The 91-year-old Byrd, Dave., was released from an unidentified Washington, D.C. hospital last week after a month-long stay for a Stagg infection. He expects to return to the chamber before the Senate begins debate on "cap and trade" - which is tentatively set for this fall, according to Byrd's office.

"I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement. "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginias. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coal fields of West Virginia."

This is not totally surprising. After all, West Virginia is heavily reliant on coal for their economy. If this bill is passed, it could devastate the state's economy. It could even very well throw the economy in such a tailspin that it'll cause a deep depression.

Sen. Byrd is doing the right thing in this instance for West Virginians. It would be a disaster for their economy in these already sluggish times.

The Goracle Has Spoken: Those Who Don't Believe Global Warming Is Fact Are Equal to Nazis

The Goracle has once again demonizes those who dare to challenge his prophecies of the impending global warming apocalypse:

Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis.

The former US Vice President said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change.

He also accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid difficult decisions.

Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.”

This is just another attempt by liberals to call or imply conservatives or Repuplicans are Nazis. Former CNN host DL Hughley compared the Republican National Convention to Nazi Germany. That obviously went over the line, and to CNN's credit, they quickly, although quietly, canned him for it.

Bush was repeatedly compared to Hitler by liberal commentaters and protesters.

While most of the Democratic leaders shy away from directly calling Republicans Nazis, they definately tend to compare themselves with the Allies fighting in World War II without explicitly calling their opposition Nazis. Their implications are obvious.

N. Dakota: June Snow Fall Further Complicates Global Warming Theory

Global warming is seeming more and more ridiculous with every passing day:

Bismarck, N.D. (AP) Snow has fallen in Dickinson in June, the first time in nearly 60 years the city has seen snow past May.

Captain Planet Pelosi to Commitee Chairmen: Push Climate Change Bill Or Else

House Speaker Pelosi is determined to save the planet no matter if we want it or not:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday issued an ultimatum to her committee chairmen: move climate change legislation by June 19 or risk losing jurisdiction over the bill.

By imposing the deadline, Pelosi (D-Calif.) is asserting her authority over Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), among others, in an effort to unhinge her signature issue, which has been mired in intra-party politics.

The bill was approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee before the Memorial Day recess and was initially intended for a subsequent floor vote. But Rangel and Peterson objected, and Peterson even threatened to take down the bill if his committee didn’t have a chance to mark it up or have provisions in it significantly altered.

With the low poll numbers that climate change gets, Pelosi must be realizing that it is now or never for a passing of such a bill. The number of people that believe in man-made global warming continues to decline. When asked about issues that mean the most to them, voters consistently rank climate change dead last. Most people just don't care about it. If she hesitates any longer, there may be no way to get people to buy into passing climate change legislation anymore.

"Going Green" Means Big Green For Goracle

This is a follow-up of a previous story about Al Gore. The Gateway Pundit and Pro Patria brought the following stat about how "going green" means big green for the Goracle. He has gone from $1-2 Million in 2000 to $100 Million in almost eight years.

Many people, including myself, have questioned his motives in supporting his claims. Rep. Marsha Blackburn took the Goracle to task on this issue:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) challenged Al Gore's motives for supporting climate change legislation on Friday including his links to a firm that will make millions from cap and trade legislation.

Despite the crumbling case for global warming the Obama Administration plans on moving ahead with expensive cap and trade legislation that Obama admits will cause energy costs to skyrocket. The initiative will cost American families $700 to $1,400 dollars each year.

Human Events had 10 specific questions that they believe the Goracle should answer about how he financially benefits from "going green".

The Goracle Compares Global Warming Skeptics to Bernie Madoff, Has He Looked in a Mirror Lately?

The Goracle had some strong words of rebuke for those who would dare to challenge the prophecy of the Goracle of Global Warming:

Former VP Al Gore compared scientists who question global warming with indicted stock swindler Bernie Madoff Friday, arguing that they are all guilty of perpetuating a fraud.

During testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the VP turned environmental advocate got into a brief verbal tussle with global warming skeptic Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) who questioned Gore’s statistics about carbon emissions.

“It is important to look at sources of science you rely on,” Gore told Barton. “With all due respect, I believe you have relied on people you have trusted who have given you bad information. I don’t blame the investors who trusted Bernie Madoff but he gave them bad information.”

Many believe that Al Gore could be the "Bernie Madoff" of the Global Warming racket. They say that he's misleading people in order to sell books and get speaking engagements. Some wonder if he believes what he preaches. He talks about everyone minimizing their carbon footprint, but he travels the world in private jets, and uses an obsessive amount of electricity according to reports. On Earth Hour, his lights were on while the other environmentalists preached turning ALL electricity off for the entire hour.

There is a lot of money to be made converting this country into a green economy. As I said earlier today, the shorter the timetable the more costly the conversion will be.

They are banking on people's fear of armageddon. They preach doom and gloom, and tell stories of the earth turning into an oven in order to scare people. Out of fear, they will then accept the high costs in order to save themselves from literally baking in the sun.

I'm not saying that he is intentionally misleading the public for his own personal gain, but there is evidence that suggests just that. I definitely have my doubts and suspicions.

Goracle Declares Unity Essential When Combatting Global Warming

The Goracle went to Washington to plead with Congress to unify in the effort to combat global "warming":

WASHINGTON – Former Vice President Al Gore, the leading American voice on climate change, urged lawmakers Friday to overcome partisan differences and take action to reduce greenhouse gases, but Democrats and Republicans sparred even more vigorously over the cost of dealing with global warming.

Gore, who won a Nobel prize for his work on climate change, told a congressional hearing that "the dire and growing threat" of a warmer earth requires the parties to unite to deal with the environmental threat. He endorsed a House Democratic bill that would limit carbon dioxide and other pollution linked to warming.

He went on to give a head-scratching response to the criticism of the high cost of the transition off of fossil fuels:

"I think the cost of energy will come down when we make this transition to renewable energy," said Gore, who predicted economic costs would be much greater if global warming is not reined in by a shift from the use of fossil fuels.

Prices might go down eventually, but as I have said before, to make such a drastic change quickly the immediate costs would be enormous. In the middle of a recession is not the time to put added costs that are not unhesitatingly imperitive at this time.

Pot Calls Kettle Black: Waxman Scolds Gingrich For Using Cap-&-Trade "Scare Tactics"

On Friday, Newt said that the climate bill is trying to push through will "punish the American people" by creating higher energy costs and threatening jobs.

"This bill is an energy tax," Gingrich said. "An energy tax punishes senior citizens, it punishes rural Americans, if you use electricity it punishes you. This bill will increase your cost of living and may kill your job."

Henry Waxman chastises Newt Gingrich for trying to "scare" people into rejecting the massive cap and trade tax.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that is writing the bill, shot back that Gingrich was resorting to "the old scare tactics" designed to undermine any congressional effort to address the problem.

"When American people hear the statements (Gingrich) have made today, they get scared, which I think is exactly what is intended," a visibly angry Waxman told Gingrich, a potential presidential contender in 2012 and a leading voice of the GOP.

Henry Waxman needs to practice what he preaches. When Waxman talks about minimizing the release of greenhouse gases, he, along with the Goracle, constantly warning that if we don't pass this bill quickly, we "irreversible" harm will come to the world. Gore has implied before that the global "warming" will "bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change."

No, scare tactics there. Chicken Little was subtle compared to the Goracle.

While Waxman is a bit more subtle with his predictions, the underlying meaning is the same.

"The EPA announcement confirms what science has told us - global warming pollution poses a grave threat to the nation's public health and welfare.

"Grave threat"? He is trying to scare people into accepting the huge new energy taxes so that he can force companies to drastically change and emit less gases.

However, drastic, immediate change is always very costly. It can be two to three times more expensive than if they took a little more time to gradually change. In this economic climate, the massive extra costs it would take to comply would devastate most businesses.

Global warming isn't even a proven fact. Even though, they pretend that it is. Many scientists doubt or don't believe that climate change exists. Recent evidence shows that global cooling not warming is happening. Should we be mortgaging our future for a unproven theory?

Updated: Watching this video update, I noticed how obvious it is that Waxman is scared to let Gingrich talk. He won't let Newt get in a word in edgewise. Why?

House Dems Refuse Disenting Voice to Challenge Goracle, Lord Mockton: Dems Are Cowards

As the Goracle is set to speak to the House about "climate change", the Democrats in the House will not allow heretics to commit blasphemy in front of the prophet of global warming:

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

Lord Monckton's response was so sweet and so true:

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

Why are the global warming disciples so afraid to have honest debate about the validity of their beliefs? Are they afraid that they will be proven wrong? If they knew with 100% certainty that they were correct, they wouldn't be so afraid to have other experts to challenge them. If they engage critics in a honest debate, maybe they can turn the critic into a believer. Perhaps, subconsciously they know that they might be wrong.

True scientists always test their theories. Finding out that they're wrong is just as exciting to a true scientist as it is to prove their theory correct.

Monckton contimues his criticism of the House Democrats:

“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained.