October 30, 2015
For the past two decades, I have been on the forefront of Congress soundly rejecting attempts by White House administrations to enact cap-and-trade legislation in the name of global warming.
While media campaigns, and the money behind them, grow to label people like me “skeptics,” the public polling on global warming continues to drop to the least of Americans’ concerns. Now, as President Obama works to finalize his legacy on climate change, it’s clear why the American public still has not bought into the alarmism being used to sell his agenda.
In 2009, the international community was rocked by Climategate, where the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was the leading culprit. It was described by the UK Telegraph as the “worst scientific scandal of our generation,” and rightfully so. Climate scientists were caught red-handed manipulating data so it supported their global warming objectives.
Yet this is the institution that President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency rely upon for climate science and are working hand in hand to establish an international climate agreement later this year. This administration is working to sell off hard-fought American autonomy to a group of international extremists that has, at times, been very candid about what it hopes to achieve through international climate negations, and it has nothing to do with “saving the environment.” Consider this:
French President Jacques Chirac, when discussing the Kyoto Protocol, described it as the “first component of authentic global governance.”
Margo Wallstrom, former EU minister, stated international agreements are about the economy and “leveling the playing field for big business worldwide.”
Most recently, Christina Figueres, the UN’s top climate official, when talking about the Paris climate conference, said, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
These statements are fundamentally un-American. And it’s no wonder the president is using deliberately tricky, legal maneuvering to prevent the U.S. Senate and the voice of the American people from having a say in his reckless and dangerous climate agenda.
He won’t call the end-of-the-year international climate agreement a treaty because he wants to deny the U.S. Senate’s constitutionally delegated “advice and consent” role. On the domestic front, he is attempting to mandate multibillion-dollar carbon controls, the so-called Clean Power Plan, through regulatory fiat, despite the fact that the U.S. Congress consistently rejected such an economically disastrous approach since 1997.
The president uses eloquent words when he talks about tackling this generation’s “greatest challenge,” yet the sincerity of his efforts ends when he steps off the stage. In fact, his EPA failed to even measure how global emissions would be impacted by his core domestic climate policy that was finalized this past August. But expert outside analyses found that it would only reduce global emissions by less than a .1 percent.
The president’s own constitutional law professor at Harvard, when responding to the president’s domestic policy, stated that “burning the Constitution of the United States should not be a part of our energy policy.” A former Sierra Club General Counsel recently lamented that the president’s plan is simply unworkable.
Yet none of this will stop President Obama and his alarmist allies from using the same old arguments to scare the American public. In 2008, Al Gore said the north polar ice cap would be “ice-free” by 2013. Today, the ice cap is still intact. There is also growing discrepancy between climate model predictions and actual observations; climate alarmists simply failed to predict the recent 18-year warming hiatus.
In a brief moment of humility, even the IPCC admitted in a 2013 report that “almost all historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus” and further explained that the source of such a discrepancy could be caused by their limited understanding of how the climate actually works.
The most obvious truth is that global warming science is not settled. Science, by its very nature, is never settled. Thomas Burke, the president’s own acting deputy assistant administrator and science adviser at the EPA, agrees. During a recent U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, he stated that the science on global warming “continues to evolve constantly.”
Let me be clear: This country was founded by many who were skeptical of government gaining too much control over society. Americans should not run from being called “skeptics,” especially within the realm of global warming policies that are predicated more on fear than facts.
It’s the president and his wealthy climate alarmist allies who are asking Americans to sacrifice their autonomy and money while propping up crony global warming capitalists who profit more off of political patrons than actual customers. I think a good starting point is to simply ask, why?