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.

Global Warming--Command And Control Or Technological Approach?

Sen. James Inhofe lays out the economic stakes of a planned cap-and-trade scheme that would only exacerbate current economic downturns by crippling the American economy--and offers in its stead a free market, technology approach that would likely prove immensely more successful in its state goal of cleaning the environment while also keeping the economy strong:

The United States Senate will soon begin to debate a global warming cap-and-trade bill that, if passed, would impose severe economic constraints on American families and American workers for no environmental gain. We have had this debate before, starting with the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, then again in 2003, and again in 2005. Each time, these cap-and-trade measures were defeated for two simple reasons: they did not include developing nations; and because of the significant economic impact on the American public. With the American economy facing troubles, now is certainly not the time to try this costly experiment.

What proponents of this bill fail to understand is that the American environmental success story has been built while growing our economy. Over the past three decades, Americans have proven that we can clean up our environment while expanding our population and vibrantly growing our economy. Democrats and their special interest allies have consistently taken the opposite approach and emphasized job-killing regulations and expanding the government’s power. The U.S. can follow a path of onerous government mandates or we can follow a path of developing and encouraging new technologies. A simple history lesson reveals that the technological approach is the only viable path forward as carbon cap-and-trade mandates are proving to be a failure throughout the developed world.
. . .
The Lieberman-Warner command and control path utterly fails in comparison to an approach that embraces and develops new technologies. A technology emphasis is the only politically and economically sustainable path forward. I have long advocated a technology approach that brings in the developing world nations such as China and India. My home state of Oklahoma demonstrates that tomorrow’s energy mix must include more natural gas, wind and geothermal, but it must also include oil, coal, and nuclear energy, which is the world's largest source of emission-free energy. This approach serves multiple purposes – it will reduce air pollution, expand our energy supply, increase trade, and, along with these other goals, reduce greenhouse gases. Developing and expanding domestic energy will translate into energy security and ensure stable sources of supply and well-paying jobs for Americans.

Will the United States Senate choose the economically harmful Lieberman-Warner bill or the new technology path? With five weeks to go until the debate, the question is largely up to you. If you believe, like I do that we must not impose more costly mandates on the American people, I urge you to engage in the debate and contact your Senator and make your voice heard.

New Evidence Threatens MSM's "Cold Equals Weather, Heat Equals Climate" Rhetoric

Via Newsbusters:

One of the truly hysterical aspects of media's obvious discomforture are the press proclamations that seasonal temperatures are not an indicator of climate trends.

Comically, this is exactly what climate realists counter every time press representatives point to a heatwave or a hurricane as proof of anthropogenic global warming.

The impetus for this "weather is not climate" restatement is an EPW blog entry covered here last week.

Earlier "consensus" was that Colorado would suffer the effects of global warming climate change in the form of less snow (more rain due to warmer temperatures) and less precipitation overall (drought).

Now, record or near-record snowfall is simply a function of global warming climate change, because more heat means more moisture and therefore, more snow.

Climate Change Skeptics Get The NY Times Treatment

When it is blazing hot in the summer and the Arctic ice melts, or when Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans in 2005--that is evidence of global warming, a specifically anthropogenic form of climate change.

When it is abnormally cold, with record snows in the Northern Hemisphere? Just "good old-fashioned" weather, not climate change.

And they wonder why skeptics question the not-so-unified "consensus":

The world has seen some extraordinary winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past year: snow in Johannesburg last June and in Baghdad in January, Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer, paralyzing blizzards in China, and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature.

It is no wonder that some scientists, opinion writers, political operatives and other people who challenge warnings about dangerous human-caused global warming have jumped on this as a teachable moment.

“Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way,” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano, the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

So what is happening?

According to a host of climate experts, including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern.

What about the sun?

If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint whether such a new force is at work.

Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air.

“The current downturn is not very unusual,” said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.

“Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over,” he said.

They'd better, or things are gonna really get inconvenient for Al Gore's minions.

"Skeptics’ last stand"?

Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on the last few months or years as evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a harmful distraction.

Discerning a human influence on climate, he said, “involves finding a signal in a noisy background.” He added, “The only way to do this within our noisy climate system is to average over a sufficient number of years that the noise is greatly diminished, thereby revealing the signal. This means that one cannot look at any single year and know whether what one is seeing is the signal or the noise or both the signal and the noise.”

The shifts in the extent and thickness of sea ice in the Arctic (where ice has retreated significantly in recent summers) and Antarctic (where the area of floating sea ice has grown lately) are similarly hard to attribute to particular influences.

Doesn't difficulty in attributing influence mean there is some doubt as to the exact cause--that there may actually be a combination of effects from different sources, not just human-made greenhouse gases?

It seems the only "noise" right now is the sound of panic from global warming alarmists who can't believe that "respondents who are better-informed about global warming 'both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.'"

Some scientists remain undaunted, criticizing the precise same "piecemeal" tactic employed by global warming activists like Al Gore in their attempt to dismiss dissent:

“Climate skeptics typically take a few small pieces of the puzzle to debunk global warming, and ignore the whole picture that the larger science community sees by looking at all the pieces,” said Ignatius G. Rigor, a climate scientist at the Polar Science Center of the University of Washington in Seattle.

It appears the climate change debate--like the climate itself--is going through a "cycle", and right now the skeptics are beginning to chip away at the already crumbling scientific "consensus".

Recent News Indicates Global Cooling Currently Under Way

From the fellows over at the EPW blog, "A sampling of recent articles detailing the inconvenient reality of temperature trends around the planet."

An additional roundup of the global cooling/climate change.

Global Warming Fears Unfounded?

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust.”

EPW Now Has Competing Blogs

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the people running the EPW's (now) minority blog have seen their competition give blogging a try--though it will be hard for the newcomers to repeat the original blog's success, including links from Drudge that shut down the Senate's servers.

The global warming debate in the Senate's EPW Committee just got a little hotter. Or colder. Or saw a change in climate--or whatever the heck global warming is supposed to do to the weather these days.

Inhofe Responds To RFK's "Traitor" Comment

To the video:



In other climate news--
Katrina devastation not unrivaled--in fact, coastal development, not warming oceans, should be our biggest concern.

Global Warming and Solar Radiation--is there a link? (that's sarcasm, folks!)

Al Gore's Live Earth A Dismal Failure

Not much heat generated for NBC

A "foul-mouthed flop" in the UK