“The Select Committee on Energy and Global Warming, created by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi in 2007 goal was to keep “Global Warming” in the minds of the voters with a very compliant media.
The committee found as many government programs do, unintended consequences in that it actually became a forum highlighting the job-killing effects of Democrat energy policies.
While attempting to create green jobs for a green America, the jobs ended up in China and India. The increase proposed revenue from national energy tax implemented by an unelected bureaucrat, Lisa Jackson, Director of the EPA, was a clear example of partisanship trumping, science and common sense.
The incoming leadership has let it be known that this committee has for the most part met for the last time.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the committee’s top Republican and a vocal climate skeptic, had lobbied GOP leadership to keep the panel alive to probe the Obama administration’s global warming policies, but he’s expected to be offered a lead role in investigating climate science on the Science Committee.
The committee ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate, an opportunity for House Republicans to share a different view on the pressing energy and environment needs that we currently face,” said Sensenbrenner on Wednesday.
Republicans were happy to see the committee scrapped. Committee member Marsha Blackburn (R-TN.) said other committees would carry out oversight and investigations and cutting the panel would be a “good place to start eliminating redundancies.”
Blackburn added that the panel has offered a useful platform for climate skeptics. “I think that we’ve done a good job of proving that global warming is not a decided science.”
The hand wringing and predictable whining of the Democrats was negative but best summarized by the statement by Patrick Kennedy, (D-MA) said the decision is “not just a catastrophe for global warming but it’s a catastrophe for national security.” In addition to his nomination for his Nobel Prize he may place highly as a drama queen.”
Perhaps, Congressman Kennedy, you have never viewed the situation from a reasonable point of view. Had this politically partisan legislation ever passed, it would have been a financial catastrophe for America and ironically made the U.S. less secure. Your logic, though flawed, is understandable.
If there are massive transfer of taxpayer monies to the third world through carbon taxes, those funds will not be available to conduct research and development on weapon systems that will potentially enable the U.S. to engage the enemy with fewer casualties.
With the GOP in the majority, he said, “We have got to make sure to try to educate the Republicans, and to the extent they can’t be educated, to take Congress back.”
Kennedy’s statement is so typical liberal elite. “We have to make sure and try to educate Republicans,” quite a remark coming form the party that refused climate skeptics to testify along side Al Gore at a congressional hearing.
It’s the same group of Democrats so sure in their beliefs that they could not be bothered to sit through the presentations by Christopher Horner; Timothy Bell among others who had been invited to provide data, actual peer reviewed science suggesting that the Democrat position was flawed.
Predictably, not capable of being confused by facts, as an entire group of Democrats got up from their seats and left the congressional chamber. (As seen on C-Span) Representatives? A clear example of taxation without representation, the Democrats embarrassed themselves, congress and the invited experts.
If CO2 induced “global warming” is nothing more than a hoax and a scam why does its inventor Albert Gore refuse to debate this science behind it.
He won’t answer questions about it either. Could it be he has too much invested in his Carbon offset scheme, the Chicago Climate Exchange which failed on November 6, 2010?
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C.
Jim Campbell runs Charging Elephants.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement