More Death of Climate Fad: Pelosi's Panel Sacked

So much for ol' Bug Eye's climate panel. It was dumb while it lasted. LOL! More evidence that this fad and myth will only be a footnote in history.

Republicans will eliminate the House committee created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to highlight the threat of climate change, Representative James Sensenbrenner, the top Republican on the panel, said today.

In one of her first acts as speaker in 2007, Pelosi, a California Democrat, created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to draw attention to climate-change science and showcase how a cap on carbon dioxide needn’t be a threat to economic growth.

Republicans, who won control of the House in the Nov. 2 election, have opposed legislative efforts to regulate carbon emissions as a tax on energy. When the panel convened today, Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said that the hearing “will be the last of the select committee.”

[From Pelosi Climate Panel Dies in Republican Sweep of House - Bloomberg]

So Long, Crap-and-Tax

Looks like the proverbial CO2 poot winds have been taken out of these scam sails. Hallelujah!!!

The air has been taken out of the carbon trading market.

The only national carbon trading market in the U.S. will close its doors next month, due to stalled legislation in Congress and Republican gains in the midterm elections -- a major setback in efforts to regulate so-called greenhouse gases, which environmentalists argue contribute to global warming.

Since 2003, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has operated a voluntary network where companies can pledge to meet annual targets for the emissions of carbon from their factories and businesses. Those below the targets can sell surplus allowances or bank them; those above can purchase credits to offset their emissions -- similar to President Obama's stalled "cap and trade" legislation

But according to an advisory posted to the exchange's website, participants simply didn't want to trade in carbon credits without a legal requirement that they do so. Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of the InternationalExchange and CCX's owner, confirmed to the Financial Times that participants in the CCX's cap-and-trade system wanted to pull out.

[From FoxNews.com - Carbon Trading Grinds to a Halt in U.S.]

Yay Utah! A State With Guts

We may be seeing only the very beginning of the end of this manmade global warming lie. Bring it on! It's way past due. Thanks to all the climate scandal idiots who helped us skeptics out.

Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?

Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.

The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming.

But it does offer a view of state politicians' concerns in Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.

The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".

[From Utah delivers vote of no confidence for 'climate alarmists' | Environment | guardian.co.uk ]

Shocker: White House Memo Questions Global Warming Action

Yes, it was one voice of many (so says the disclaimer). But remember, prominent liberals are on record saying that the economy must be cooled to fight global warming; they got their wish—the economy has cooled; so why all this panic to get something passed? Please go into it for yourself and discover the answer—it’s really quite obvious.

And why is there now a liberal voice among them who dares worry about the economic consequences of these policies? Because the nuts got their wish with the recent economic downturn; they know how low global warming ranks in the minds of average Americans compared to the economy. So, does it make sense to hurt the economy MORE with Draconian legislation aimed against a climate “problem” that doesn’t even exist? Can you guess how that will play out politically? How will it play out in the next election?

This is the reason for that lone voice in the memo. This is the reason that Congress watered down the cap-and-trade bill recently. They’re smart enough to try to avoid a repeat of the 1994 elections; if it can happen to them in 1994 and happen to Republicans in 2004 then it can come around for them again too. No matter what…they realize their control of the federal government is tenuous.

White House Memo Challenges EPA Finding on Global Warming

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal that could lead to regulating the gases blamed for global warming will prove costly for factories, small businesses and other institutions, according to a White House document.

The nine-page memo is a compilation of opinions made by a dozen federal agencies and departments before the EPA determined in April that greenhouse gases pose dangers to public health and welfare.

***

A White House aide and Office of Management and Budget spokesman said the cost critique came from a single federal agency, and the document did not reflect the administration's view. They declined to identify which agency challenged the EPA proposal.

***

Still, Republicans and business groups immediately used the document to bolster their arguments that controlling greenhouse gases would harm the economy.

They also highlighted parts of the document that fault how the EPA arrived at its conclusion that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, since the gases by themselves do not pose any harm.

The memo says the EPA could have been "more balanced" in its analysis by also highlighting regions of the country that would benefit from global warming, such as the state of Alaska, which would have warmer winters. It also says the EPA appeared to stretch the precautionary principle to support regulation despite the "unprecedented uncertainty" in linking emissions of greenhouse gases and the warming that will result to health effects.

"It really appears to me that the decision was based more on political calculation than on scientific ones," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who called the document "a smoking gun" during a hearing Tuesday on the Obama administration's proposed budget for EPA.