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.
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 climate bill have become, 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. 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' )
Warren Buffet "a huge, regressive tax."
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 '"real 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."
More at Climate Depot
