Climate Security Act, Part Deux

Last week I wrote about the impending disaster that is the Climate Security Act as introduced by Joe Lieberman and John Warner.

Two editorials on the subject were recently written, one in the Chicago Tribune, one in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Both beat the drum for passage of the legislation, though at least the Trib is realistic in it's assessment that it won't pass this year. The Journal-Sentinel chose the title "The consequences are too dire to remain a bystander ", which should give you an idea of the slant of the writing.

Neither of the two papers editorial boards spelled out fully the EPA concerns over the amount of tax hiking the bill contains, or the warnings on GDP consequences. To the Trib's credit, they mentioned the tax hikes, and gave some idea where they should go. The Journal, on the other hand, chose to use cherry picked data to back up their title.

The Journal also points to a new federal report that lists the dire consequences. One of the notable, and to them noble, parts of the report is (as they put it) "Scientists produced the report by analyzing research from more than 1,000 publications, rather than conducting new research."

They evidently don't realize that's one of the reports biggest short comings. More, new research is needed, instead of a report that cherry picks evidence from old information. The problem is, new research would show what's been reported, by dozens of climatologists (and ignored by the environmental movement) over the last few years; the world hasn't gotten warmer in the last six years. That data can't be included in report on the "dire consequences" of global warming, because it shoots to hell the theory that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are turning the earth into an ever hotter oven.

If the Gore/IPCC theories on warming are right, six years of steady temperatures can't happen. Yet, they have, and the government report chose to ignore that fact.

While the Tribune was honest in the fact that the EPA calculated a 1.2 trillion dollar tax increase, they forgot the part about the .9-3.8% drop in GDP over the same period. Anyone who's looked at an economics course, even in passing, knows that raising taxes and dropping productivity is a great recipe for creating a recession. The Journal Sentinel, in parrotting the alarmist mantra, ignores any economic consequences of the legislation. Damn the economy, cure the planet's fever!!

To read the Journal's editorial, you would be convinced that if this legislation doesn't pass in the next 20 minutes, it may well be too late. I doubt it. The Tribune is a little more realistic, knowing it won't pass this year, and even if it does, the majority won't be big enough to override the certain veto.

Next year, as they put it, it has a better chance. That would be assuming that Barack Obama can win the election, and drag enough Democrats along to get 61 seats in the Senate. While McCain supports parts of the bill, I'm not convinced he'd sign it. I'm sure that if he signaled he would, that the fillibuster to keep it from his desk would be nearly historic.