Given recent Cap-and-Trade Bill leaks, it appears neither care very much about living standards when compared to their love of being liked by Beltway Global Warming Religious elites
Last week we documented the exposure of the faux global warming consensus and the collapse of the affluent society fetish post $4/gallon gasoline.
Yet, in the middle of a Great Recession with the fall of the American Dollar driving gasoline and heating oil prices back towards $3/gallon, we hear rumors that some of the Evan Bayh-led Blue Dawg Democrats that have courageously kept the Pelosi assault on American prosperity energy tax bill out of Harry Reid's hands, together with Lindsey Graham and other moderate (read: enamored of receiving invites to Georgetown liberals' cocktail parties) republicans, may be ready to compromise and pass this wicked legislation:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has turned his back on the latest science, economics, the Republican Party, and American national security, by announcing his new partnership with Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) to find "the winning formula" to pass global warming cap-and-trade legislation.
Graham is now touting his view that man-made global warming fears are real and can be "solved" by passing Congressional cap-and-trade legislation. Graham teamed up with Sen. Kerry to write an October 11 New York Times op-ed explaining that the GOP and Democrats should "work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world."
We guess that the real crisis in Middle America losing jobs by the millions isn't "cool" enough for Senators seeking co-starring roles on Sunday Shows.
The real climate change catastrophe is what they and their "international community" liberals want to do as a response to the now proven false global warming crisis:
We have "less than 50 days" to save the planet, declared Gordon Brown last week, in yet another desperate bid to save the successor to the Kyoto treaty, which is due to be agreed in Copenhagen in six weeks' time. But no one has put the reality of the situation more succinctly than Prof Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC's claim that its reports represent a "consensus" of the views of "the world's top climate scientists".
In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote: "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age."
Such is the truly extraordinary position in which we find ourselves.
Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the 20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most expensive economic suicide note ever written.
How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in on what begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race?
It appears that Brits asked to pay more taxes based on the fraudulent theory are now balking, and I suspect that any Democrat (whether yellow or blue) or Republican (whether named Lindsey or not) that were to assault poor and middle class living standards with an energy tax bill, would find that the real catastrophe for them would be losing their cush jobs in Washington, D.C.
[update at 4:13 pm EST]
Okay Mike, who put out the political hit on Lindsey. This is not what I expected of you.
This is what is in the NYTimes article, BUT everyone is ignoring it.
"Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing."
Great and fair question and am glad you asked, as it shows the need for me to be more comprehensive and will, therefore update the column forthwith!
Yes, I read that, but that assumes Obama is not already using the EPA’s vague language and sup ct and bush admin gift of carbon as pollutant (which they didn’t even need given the vague language of the statute) or that he would be deterred from using same if the Congress passed some law so weak on the issue from the libs perspective and thus, exonerating of Graha.
I am not so convinced.
Moreover, it does not justify Graham’s mindless acquiescence or dare we fear actual belief in the fauz science that is used as a front for the socialists turned greenies to attack capitalism.
The correct position is to have the courage to attack the PC climate police, esp now that it doesn’t take any courage given the debunking of the science and the turn in the public’s indulgence of this fetish.
Lastly, I would PREFER that ObamaDems own a carbon tax bill that takes effect NOW, as so great would be the immediate suffering and the resulting HUE and CRY, that we could win a filibuster proof majority that even Lindseys couldn’t stop.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.