No Climate Tax Pledge

Partial transcript:

Hello, I'm Senator Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, and I am proud to be one of the hundreds of lawmakers on all levels of government to sign the Americans for Prosperity "No Climate Tax Pledge." This pledge states clearly that climate change legislation should not be used to fund a dramatic expansion in the size and scope of government. As I add my name to the list, I am also here to call on all those who oppose the largest tax increase in American history to join me in signing the pledge by going online to http://www.noclimatetax.com/.

I have worked tirelessly over the past ten years to expose cap-and-tax for what it really is: the largest tax increase in American history. I began by leading the opposition against Kyoto in 1997 and have successfully led the fight against the cap-and-trade tax in 2003, 2005 and most recently in 2008. Today as American consumers continue to face tough economic times, the last thing Washington should be doing is raising the price of gas at the pumps, energy in our homes, and the cost of food in our grocery stores.

We have a lot to do in the coming months to defeat cap-and-trade again, and hopefully this time, for good.

Not All Republicans Are Clueless About New Media--Taking Aim At Gov. Ritter On Waxman-Markey

**Update--ColoradoPols is impressed:

We have to admit we were also impressed with the speed Sen. Jim Imhofe's office had this video packaged and distributed through a wide viral network--all the way down to our own community talking-point beacons. Clearly they're getting better at this. The problem is that, as the Post's Lynn Bartels correctly points out, what these guys are claiming Ritter said...isn't what he said at all. In fact, reading what Ritter actually said makes what the Republicans claim he said look, well, spun beyond recognition.

Of course Ritter never answered the question, so exactly who is spinning?

---

For many of us outside the Beltway, the perception (and the reality) is that the "insiders" on the Hill don't get new media, blogging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. For every rule, however, there is an exception, and in this instance a very good example of how Republicans can use new media to challenge Democrats on any number of issues, including our own Gov. Bill Ritter on his support for the Waxman-Markey bill--from Lynn Bartels at the Denver Post (apologies for a lack of link earlier):

A Republican activist who heckled Democratic Senate candidate Tom Strickland during his 2002 run helped highlight the questions that made Gov. Bill Ritter squirm at a hearing this week in Washington.

Matt Dempsey, 30, is the communications director for Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Ritter testified before on Tuesday.

In 2002, Dempsey worked for U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard's re-election campaign, often hollering out anti-Strickland slogans through a bullhorn at various political events. Dempsey's arrest just 10 days before the election went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, Dempsey laughed when asked if he had a role in the Ritter hearing.

"Well, a little," he said, adding, "But I don't use a bullhorn anymore."

Now Dempsey has YouTube, a blog linked numerous times by Drudge, and a national audience.

Releasing video and digital press releases to blogs as-it-happens and not waiting for the MSM to garble the story is the best way to move the message on offense, instead of always playing catch-up, and Dempsey has proven that this new model works:

Dempsey also released an exchange between Ritter and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., over the bill, known as Waxman-Markey, after its Democratic sponsors.

Critics say the bill is a tax increase, and in Colorado it would cripple oil shale development and increase costs for farmers.

With that in mind, Inhofe asked of Ritter, "Are you here supporting Waxman-Markey today?"

"I support a national energy policy that's married to a national climate policy that gets at these goals that we have for greenhouse gas reductions," the governor said. "And I believe that if you do that, that there will some vehicle that may not look exactly like Waxman-Markey, particularly after the Senate finishes its work.

"But I very much support climate legislation that is joined with a national energy policy to get us to the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are set for 2050."

Republicans have had success employing "new media," including YouTube, the Senate website and a blog.

The headline over the Denver Post story Wednesday read "Ritter attracts negative energy in D.C. hearing."

"We got our message across," Demsey [sic] said.

The video of the exchange quickly made the rounds on the blogs, including Michelle Malkin:

Sen. Inhofe On Cap And Trade: Meaningless WIthout China And India On Board

Cap-and-Tax Cap-and-Trade dead in the water without support from China and India, who have vowed not to imperil their economies and lower standards of living:

"It’s no surprise that during today’s G8 meeting, China, India and other developing nations refused to accept mandatory emissions controls on their economies," Senator Inhofe said. "Without participation from China and India, anything we do here at home would impose burdensome costs on consumers in the form of higher electricity, gas, and food prices, all for no climate gain. Unless supporters of cap-and-trade legislation can develop a plan to convince China and India to make meaningful emissions reductions on par with the United States, no such bill will pass the U.S. Senate."

EPA Administrator Jackson appeared before the EPW Committee on Tuesday and confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. "I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels," Administrator Jackson said.

Debating The Fairness Doctrine

Or, how liberals (including former President Bill Clinton) can't stand the preferences exercised by the public in the free market of ideas on the radio, and must force their rhetorical nonsense on others in the name of "fairness":

"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...."

The second half of Bill Clinton's quote hits the nail on the head--Rush is entertaining. Disagree or not, Rush has built a brand that has a rather hefty following, and has been rewarded with an enormous audience and a similar amount of compensation. Liberals have tried, and failed, to duplicate conservative talk radio's success. It is clear that there is a market for liberal ideas given that Barack Obama was just elected President. That the moonbats at Air America were unable to capitalize on the resentment of President Bush in a way that lefty bloggers were indicates that there is either a format issue (liberals not as interested in radio) or that the product is simply awful. Either way, the government should have no role in deciding who is and who is not on the radio, nor should it determine the length or availability of response time in the interest of "fairness."

Sen. James Inhofe agrees:

But Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said radio programming should be based on what brings in listeners and advertisers.

"I can't think of anything worse than to have government in a position to dictate the content of information going over public radio," said Inhofe, a Republican. "The whole idea is that it has to be market driven. We have a lot of progressive or liberal radio shows but nobody listens to them and every time one tries to get on, they are not successful."

Local AM talk show hosts have debated the need and also the imminent prospect of a return of the "Fairness Doctrine"--not surprisingly, they disagree, with conservatives blasting the concept on principle, and liberals supporting the idea as a way to promote "balance" on the airwaves.

"Fairness Doctrine"? Why don't they just try it the old-fashioned way--entertaining radio talent with some semblance of coherence that people, even those who disagree, might be inclined to listen to?

For liberals, if you don't like outcome, don't approach the battlefield of ideas differently, simply change the rules of the game.

Global Warming: Policy Change, Not Climate Change, Is the Real Danger

By Julian Dunraven, J. D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

Global warming does indeed seem to be a pervasive problem. Yesterday it plagued me in my morning paper, harangued me from radio and television broadcasts, and even managed to insinuate itself into the conversation of irksome social acquaintances. Although I have become accustomed to bad policy masquerading as good science, and even look forward to reading my Global-Warming-Article-of-the-Day in the paper, yesterday’s news was particularly insufferable.

Todd Hartman of The Rocky Mountain News started it off, trumpeting Dr. Susan Solomon’s new pronouncement that CO2 emissions “will irreversibly change the planet,” for centuries to come no matter what we do. I suppose someone should suggest to Dr. Solomon that, if she has noticed human behavior has little to no impact on climate change, it might be because the whole things is part of the earth’s natural and periodic cycles. However, I was rather hoping her pronouncement might end the climate change squawking; after all, she does not seem to have much hope that there is anything more to be done. Alas, fortune is not so kind.

True believers never lose hope, and so NPR did its best to keep the faith alive by broadcasting proposed solutions. It seems a few members of the scientific community were watching “The Simpsons” and drew a bit too much inspiration from Mr. Burn’s attempt to block the sun by raising a giant metal disk over Springfield. Of course, the earth is a lot bigger than the town of Springfield, and thus there would have to be quite a few of these disks launched into orbit before we could block enough sunlight to begin cooling the earth. The disks would also have to be replaced occasionally as they fell out of orbit. The real sticking point is the cost, which is currently several trillion dollars. It is always unfortunate when mere economics gets in the way of good Simpsons . . . or science rather.

Another absurd proposal NPR and others have deigned to promulgate, involves launching sulfur particles into the atmosphere. This, would be far cheaper than the Mr. Burns plan, and would sufficiently darken the sky to promote global cooling. Unfortunately, it may also severely change weather patterns, increase acid rain, and—oh yes—darken the sky. No one quite knows how many species of animal and plant life would be devastated from a decrease in light sufficient to cool the earth. It might eventually leave the world a barren wasteland, but everyone agrees it would be a cooling barren wasteland.

Fortunately, it is only bureaucrats like those running the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who seem to use middle school science fair projects as the standard for publishable research. The IPCC’s report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists, was widely touted as representing the final and absolute conviction among the scientific community that Global Warming is the result of human produced CO2 emissions. Instead, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has soundly refuted this in its Minority Report, which cites over 650 scientists, all contesting the IPCC’s claims.

One of the more interesting dissenters is Dr. Don Easterbrook, whose study of the climate indicates normal and alternating periods of warming and cooling stretching back for millennia. Not only does Dr. Easterbrook contest the idea that Global Warming is caused by humans, after looking at the sun’s recent activity and the Pacific Ocean’s decadal oscillation, he has staked his reputation on his theory that we are now entering a period of Global Cooling, and the Warming advocates will soon see their arguments collapse.

Whether or not he turns out to be correct will be largely irrelevant for the next four years. President Barack Obama’s cabinet selections clearly indicate the he accepts the idea of human caused Global Warming absolutely, and intends to write policy with that in mind. In his January 2009 Monthly Review, Richard Loomis of World Energy gives a thorough analysis of “President. Obama’s Energy Picks.”

As. Mr. Loomis explains, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees Global Warming as a national security threat and, during her campaign, advocated for strong carbon cutting measures. Steven Chu, as Secretary of Energy, has expressed great distaste for oil, dislikes nuclear power for the waste it generates, and refers to coal as, “my worst nightmare.” Solar, wind, and natural gas power and natural gas fuel seem to be his preferences. Carol Browner, the “Energy Czar,” comes to us from the EPA, where she argued that California should be granted a waiver from the Clean Air Act to allow it to more strictly regulate carbon emissions. Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, pushed a moratorium on new coal plants as the EPA head for New Jersey. Then there is Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior who, while not joining the rest in his hatred of coal, is strongly opposed to expanding oil drilling whether on land or off shore.

From this list, Mr. Loomis is correct to fear some sort of cap and trade mechanism being forced on the U.S. by executive order. And herein lies the real danger of Global Warming. In his January 24th broadcast of “the Big Picture,” Jim Puplava warns that the U.S. will have a difficult time convincing the rest of the world to join in such an initiative during this economic crisis. Europe especially will be disinclined to rely more on natural gas when Putin has consistently demonstrated his willingnes to use the gas supply as political leverage. Thus, the U.S. will be forced to pursue carbon reduction policy alone. The high energy costs of such a policy would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to Europe, China, and our other major trading partners. This is especially worrisome at a time when tax revenues are declining and government spending is increasing, and Mr. Puplava is right to wonder how much more of our debt the world will continue to finance when other nations are beset with their own economic problems.

Then there is peak oil. The recent IEA World Energy Outlook reports a 9.1% annual depletion rate in the world’s oil reserves. All major oil fields are in decline, virtually no new discoveries are being made, and oil demand continues to rise across the world—despite the economic crisis—especially in China, India, and oil producing nations developing their own economies. We are set for an oil supply crisis to hit between 2012-2015. Our own oil reserves are not sufficient to avert this problem, but they can help buy more time for us. However, as developing an oil field takes anywhere from 4-6 years, we would need to start investing today. Instead, low oil prices, and the refusal of the Obama administration to expand drilling while it considers actually raising taxes on oil produces has all but killed capital investment in this vital field.
Natural gas fuel is also a viable stop gap measure while we search for something to more permanently replace oil. However, it is not unlimited, and if we insist on squandering it to supply our electricity, it will not be of much help to us when we face the coming oil supply crisis.

As I have said before, Global Warming is something science is still vigorously debating as it attempts to fully understand the causes of climate change. However, to the Obama administration, the debate is over. In the midst of an economic crisis, it is willing to tax coal and nuclear power into extinction—despite an already overburdened grid. It is willing to put our nation’s entire economy in peril of the worst oil supply crisis ever seen and squander the natural gas resources that could help protect us. And it is willing to do all of this solely on the basis of its faith in human caused Global Warming. Whether climate change is a real problem caused by humans is still up for debate. However, the dangers of policy change based on that premise are very real and imminent.

Sen. Inhofe Asks the People to Help Fight Second TARP Bailout

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

From what I have been reading, I doubt there are many people left in this nation, outside the District of Columbia, who still believe that the TARP bailout was a good idea. Despite this, only a few members of the Senate have shown courage in representing the people against this horrendous and immoral plundering of our country’s wealth. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), along with Senators Barasso (R-Wyo.), Wicker (R-Miss.), DeMint (R-S.C.), Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Enzi (R-Wyo.), have cosponsored legislation that would halt the second installment of the $350 billion bailout.

They face tough opposition, however. Obama, backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid, has demanded that Congress release the money to the incoming administration. Obama has threatened to veto any attempt Congress makes to withhold the money.

The U.S. Senate is due to vote on the issue this afternoon. Many people have told me that they feel helpless to prevent what seems to them to be inevitable. It is not. Sen. Inhofe and his allies are committed to fight it, but Inhofe has asked for the help of the people. All it takes is a few moments to find your senator’s web page, type a quick objection to the bailout, and e-mail the message. The Senate needs our help to stand up against this pressure, but it can be done.

Already, CNN reports that Republican senators, anticipating that Obama will get the money, are asking his administration to promise that he will only use it on the financial industry, and not alter the purpose—for the auto industry for instance—as the Bush administration did. There was a time when such a request would have been silly. The Constitution, after all, prevents a president from altering legislation to his whim—he is charged merely with enforcing it. Yet, today, Congress must beg the president to even follow the laws they pass. As Sen. Inhofe has stated before, and I have echoed, our Republic is in dire straits.

If we are unhappy with this state of affairs, then it is up to us, the people, to correct the government which should be answerable to us. It is our responsibility to defend the Constitution and to make our will known to the spineless and feckless fools currently sitting in Congress that we do not want more money to go to these bailouts. It is not hard, and requires only a few moments, and a few clicks of the mouse. I hope you will all join me in answering Sen. Inhofe’s call to contact our senators, and to send them all but one powerful word: “NO!”

Bush Blasted for Usurping Congress on Auto Bailout: Sen. Inhofe Defends the Republic as a Modern Cicero

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Heeding the overwhelming will of the people-- and perhaps at last developing a bit of good sense-- the U.S. Senate has rejected the idea of a bailout for the Detroit automakers. If we were still following that dusty old parchment called the U.S. Constitution, the matter would have ended there, at least until the next president takes office. As we have been ignoring the Constitution for a while though, the story continues.

President Bush declared that the Senate, far from rejecting the bailout, simply failed to act. On that flimsy pretext, he will use $15 billion of the $700 billion bank bailout to aid Chrysler, GM, and Ford. Although Congress authorized that money only for the financial services industry, there has been no oversight, and the Bush administration has already altered the implementation of the bailout several times without consequence. Thus, despite the fact that such actions completely usurp the Legislative branch and represent a total betrayal of our Constitution, the Bush administration is proceeding without hesitation.

At least one of our senators, though, is refusing to retreat quietly into irrelevancy. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), one of the most staunchly conservative members of the Senate, is fighting back on behalf of our republic and the Constitution. Like a modern day Cicero, he issued a philippic against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Bush administration declaring:

"As the Bush administration changes course once again, it is becoming clear to me that Washington, D.C. might be completely out of control.

"How have we come to a point that Congress--the institution that represents the will of the American people--has handed over so much money and authority to the Treasury Secretary that, if the democratic process fails to achieve a certain desired outcome, the outcome is simply ignored? The stated purpose of $700 billion bank bailout was to rescue us from a catastrophic breakdown of the financial system. Now we're told that the money might be used to bailout the auto companies because legislating their multi-billion dollar gift from the U.S. taxpayer might come with conditions that were too inconvenient for interested parties. I've been a U.S. Senator for some time, and I have never seen anything like this.”

Sen. Inhofe is correct. Congress has been lax in its duties and handed over far too much authority to the executive branch, which is now running roughshod over our republic and tearing the Constitution to shreds, while claiming that it is all justified because we face an emergency situation. Yet, that sort of justification is precisely what our Constitution and its processes were created to guard against in the first place.

It has gone on too long. When we suffered a terrorist attack and faced two wars, Congress handed the President unprecedented powers, both domestically and militarily, which the Supreme Court is still trying to cut back to constitutional levels. Congress sat by while the President made use of torture, suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, spied on our own people without warrants, and otherwise made a mockery of our Bill of Rights—because it was an emergency. When the financial crisis hit, Congress again handed the president such sweeping power over our financial system that the U.S. government overnight gained more control over private industry than is exercised by the socialist government of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Our money printing has ballooned to a level not seen in the world since the French Revolution—increasing the money base almost 80%--over 40% in the last month alone. Now, the President even presumes to ignore express will of the first branch of government entirely—because it is an emergency.

Our republic is in grave danger. Though I may disagree with Sen. Inhofe occasionally on social issues, I cannot deny that he has both integrity and honor. Already, he has had my respect through the financial crisis because of his determined and reasoned opposition to the woefully irresponsible and ill planned bailouts. Now, though perhaps already too late, he is trying to defend the Constitutional process that defines this nation. For that he has my utmost admiration. I only hope he has more success than Cicero himself, and that his colleagues, and we the people, have enough courage and conviction to join and support him in his opposition to this madness which, as he states, “will not only be futile, but will also move this country further from those first principles that have made us the great nation we are today."

More Than 650 Scientists Dissent over UN Global Warming Report

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends,

Whenever any religion seeks to turn dogma into law, society should be wary. Inevitably, when dogma becomes law, liberty, reason, and true scientific inquiry all suffer. It is not hard to find examples. Just look at the disasters which befell the Catholic Church with Copernicus and Galileo. The Catholic Church learned its lesson though. It has since formed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to ensure that the Church is never again on the wrong side of the facts. The academy is more interested in truth than in dogma, and thus does not require its members to be Catholic. As a result, its membership roster includes some of the greatest minds of our time, such as Nobel laureate Dr. Steven Hawking, a man who believes more in mathematics than in the common conception of a creator being.

Contrast this with the nations under the sway of Islam. There, any scientific finding that does not fit with the Muslim dogma is either discarded or, worse, condemned. It is a common complaint among the expatriates of Islamic nations that, in order to conduct decent scientific research, they must first leave their native countries. To these people, the West has been a safe haven. However, when it comes to the issue of global warming, the West has its own problems.

In 2003, Michael Crichton famously criticized environmentalism as shifting from genuine scientific concern into the religious preference of urban atheists. In 2005, he continued his criticism of the zealous absolute faith our people seem to place in the idea of global warming, despite a great deal of uncertainty in the data. Certainly, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) displayed a dogmatic commitment to global warming worthy of any Islamic nation when it issued its recent report on climate change in June of 2008. It claimed to represent a consensus of scientific thought and pronounced that the debate over global warming had ended. They should have said that the debate over global warming would no longer be tolerated.

It seems someone forgot to inform the bureaucrats and politicians who assembled the IPCC report that “consensus” and “compromise” are words from the world of politics which have no place in the world of science. While useful for crafting policy, incontrovertible facts do not compromise no matter how much political pressure they may be under or how many people dislike them. Yet, since the publication of the report, we have learned that it was indeed policy—not proofs—which the UN and IPCC were expressing. Any study which did not confirm or support the conclusion that Global Warming was a real problem caused by human action was systematically excluded from the report. It is fiat science.

Fortunately, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has sought to correct this egregious misrepresentation of scientific fact. The Committee’s Minority Report cites over 650 scientists who dispute the claims made in the IPCC report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists. Among its 231 pages, you will find links to peer reviewed studies which claim that the sun’s increasing activity may be responsible for the warming we have recorded on earth, along with many other theories that did not fit into the agenda of the global warming advocates at the U.N..

The studies cited should make it abundantly clear that the debate over global warming is far from finished. The topic of climate change is still filled with a great deal of uncertainty and deserves far more study before we commit to climate policies which could damage both our liberty and economy without giving any guarantee of helping our environment. In the meantime, we should be wary of what to believe on faith alone. Though waiting on the scientific method may be tedious, history shows us the disastrous consequences of putting our faith in the wrong place. The modern Islamic world gives us a very good picture of what dogmatic science can do to a society. More to the point, though, if we cannot trust our own government to manage even basic fiscal policy responsibly, why should we trust an organization of many governments to issue scientific findings by political decree on something as complex and uncertain as the climate? I should think the current financial crisis would be more than enough reason to keep them away from anything more complex than acknowledging that the sky is, indeed, blue.