Thread: 'Cap and Trade Is Dead'

'Cap and Trade Is Dead'

The recently disclosed emails and documents from University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit compromise the integrity of the United Nations' global warming reports.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."

If any politician might be qualified to offer last rites, it would be Mr. Inhofe. The top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee has spent the past decade in the thick of Washington's climate fight. He's seen the back of three cap-and-trade bills, rode herd on an overweening Environmental Protection Agency, and steadfastly insisted that global researchers were "cooking" the science behind man-made global warming.

This week he's looking prescient. The more than 3,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have found their way to the Internet have blown the lid off the "science" of manmade global warming. CRU is a nerve center for many of those researchers who have authored the United Nations' global warming reports and fueled the political movement to regulate carbon.

Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn't toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer.

This scandal has real implications. Mr. Inhofe notes that international and U.S. efforts to regulate carbon were already on the ropes. The growing fear of Democrats and environmentalists is that the CRU uproar will prove a tipping point, and mark a permanent end to those ambitions.

Internationally, world leaders finally acknowledged that the recession has sapped them of their political power to impose devastating new carbon-restrictions. China and India are clear they won't join the West in an economic suicide pact. Next month's summit in Copenhagen is a bust. Instead of producing legally binding agreements, it will be dogged by queries about the legitimacy of the scientists who wrote the reports that form its basis.

The next opportunity to get international agreement is in Mexico City, 2010—a U.S. election year. Democrats were already publicly acknowledging there will be no domestic climate legislation in 2009 and privately acknowledging their great unease at passing a huge energy tax on Americans headed for a midterm vote.

Add to that the CRU scandal, which pivots the focus to potential fraud. Republicans are launching investigations, and the pressure is building on Democrats to hold hearings, since climate scientists were funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Mr. Inhofe's office this week sent letters to federal agencies and outside scientists warning them not to delete their own CRU-related emails and documents, which may also be subject to Freedom of Information requests.

Polls show a public already losing belief in the theory of man-made global warming, and skeptics are now on the offense. The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell argues this scandal gives added cover to Blue Dogs and other Democrats who were already reluctant to buck the public's will and vote for climate legislation. And with Republicans set to pick up seats, Mr. Ebell adds, "By 2011 there will hopefully be even fewer members who support this. We may be close to having it permanently stymied." Continued U.S. failure to act makes an international agreement to replace Kyoto (which expires in 2012) a harder sell.

There's still the EPA, which is preparing an "endangerment finding" that would allow it to regulate carbon on the grounds it is a danger to public health. It is here the emails might have the most direct effect. The agency has said repeatedly that it based its finding on the U.N. science—which is now at issue. The scandal puts new pressure on the EPA to accede to growing demands to make public the scientific basis of its actions.

Mr. Inhofe goes so far as to suggest that the agency might not now issue the finding. "The president knows how punitive this will be; he's never wanted to do it through [the EPA] because that's all on him." The EPA was already out on a legal limb with its finding, and Mr. Inhofe argues that if it does go ahead, the CRU disclosure guarantees court limbo. "The way the far left used to stop us is to file lawsuits and stall and stall. We'll do the same thing."

Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it's that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They'd be better off acknowledging that the only "consensus" right now is that the world needs to start over on climate "science."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... st_Popular

Cap and Trade is only facing resistance at the national level. The bigger prize for the globalists is here:

http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/al ... sID=166281

Download the PDF file and read.

If you want a summary of the implications for us here in America go to:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/11/ ... en-treaty/

Originally Posted by tiredofapathy

Cap and Trade is only facing resistance at the national level.

Did you read the article? Sounds like it's dead here to me.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by tiredofapathy

Cap and Trade is only facing resistance at the national level.

Did you read the article? Sounds like it's dead here to me.

Yep! I read it. I especially liked the closing remarks.

Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it's that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead.

Do I think that's the end of it? Clearly not.

If Obama and the globalist cabal ignore the will of the people will you in fact act surprised?

It was never anticipated than India or China would join the Copenhagen Treaty. Ratification only requires the consent of the governments party to the agreement, and if you sit idly by while your President bows, dips, or curtsies to every leader he meets you can bet you will be paying World taxes soon enough.

Please pardon my skepticism, but I'm not buying the media snake oil.

update:


Obama switches climate change visit to end of summit
US President Barack Obama
President Obama believes US leadership will be key

US President Barack Obama has changed his plans to attend the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen next week, the White House has announced.

He will arrive later than initially planned, moving his appearance from 9 December to 18 December.

The White House said he believed "that continued US leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference".

The summit aims to draw up a treaty to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The president had changed his plans after talks with other leaders and after seeing "the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations".

The BBC's Paul Adams in Washington says the White House clearly believes President Obama's presence in Copenhagen, right at the end of the summit, could improve the chances of a deal being struck.

Climate fund support

US representatives will attend the Copenhagen summit throughout negotiations, the White House said.


It said the president believed recent progress included the emissions reduction target announced by the US; China and India setting targets for the first time to reduce their carbon intensity and moves by members of the Commonwealth.

The White House said the president had discussed the state of the negotiations with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

He concluded there appeared to be growing support for the suggested $10bn annual fund to help developing countries deal with climate change.

The White House said the US would pay its "fair share".

"There are still outstanding issues that must be negotiated for an agreement to be reached, but this decision (to delay his arrival) reflects the president's commitment to doing all that he can to pursue a positive outcome," the White House said in a statement.

Mr Brown welcomed Mr Obama's move, a spokesman said.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen echoed Mr Brown.

He said: "President Obama's presence is an expression of the growing political momentum towards sealing an ambitious climate deal in Copenhagen.

Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International's political climate coordinator, said in a statement: "After a global outcry, President Obama... has come to his senses and accepted the importance of this potentially historic meeting."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8396591.stm



If you have been sitting on your hands thinking this was a "dead issue", then you might ask yourself if you're really getting the big picture here. I say the orchestra is warming up and the Fat Lady is about to sing.


and there's more...


Climate change protests ahead of Copenhagen summit

Demonstrations have taken place around the UK to urge action on climate change ahead of the Copenhagen summit.

Organisers Stop Climate Chaos want world leaders to reach a tough new deal on cutting emissions.

In London, police originally said about 20,000 people had taken part - but did not contradict claims by the organisers that the actual figure was over 40,000.

Gordon Brown praised the protesters for "propelling" leaders to reach the "first world climate change agreement".

About 7,000 turned out for a demonstration in Glasgow. A protest also took place in Belfast.

Read the rest and watch the video at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8396696.stm




Yep, that nasty ol' Cap and Trade and climate stuff is "dead" alrighty....

I want to puke. What right do these people have to committ OUR money to this crap. I think "we the people" should vote on whether or not we want to give other countries money to pay for their emmissions. WE ARE BROKE. How are we going to pay for others nonesense.

I may be wrong, but I think the Cap and Trade in the US is different than what is being done at the Copenhagen summit. Also, I think the Cap and Trade Inhofe was referring to in the article is the proposed legislation in the US Senate, not what's going on in Copenhagen. I think we're talking about two different things here. With the release of those climate scammer emails, Cap and Trade most likely is dead in the US.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

I may be wrong, but I think the Cap and Trade in the US is different than what is being done at the Copenhagen summit. Also, I think the Cap and Trade Inhofe was referring to in the article is the proposed legislation in the US Senate, not what's going on in Copenhagen. I think we're talking about two different things here. With the release of those climate scammer emails, Cap and Trade most likely is dead in the US.

Pat, you are not wrong at all....the two issues are separate and unique. The problem that we face (and the reason I tied the two together in this thread) is that they are intricately linked by a common goal. Both are intended to redistribute wealth, weaken the world economy, and bring free societies under domination by a ruling class elite bent on absolute world power.

While you may not be familiar with the game of chess, perhaps you have at some time in your life played a simple game of checkers?

The way to win in either game is to out-plan and out-maneuver your opponent. Simply attacking on one front at a time will get you nothing but losses, but as you learn the game you evenually figure out how to squeeze your opponent into a corner and capture his focus there while you move the ultimate conquering pieces into place to secure the win.

Nothing less is going on here, and for that matter in many, many other facets of our complex national and world governments.

Once you start to recognize the commonalities below the surface of these many problems you can begin to grasp and wrestle with defining and defeating the opponents ultimate goal. As a matter of fact, until you realize the objective you will never defeat the opponent on any level.

All that being said, let me assure you that regardless of the opinions of pundits, or even assorted legislators themselves, without swift and decisive action by the public your "government" is going to foist upon you exactly whatever they so desire.

I say Cap and Trade is far from DOA, and even IF you eventually are given the appearance that it has failed, you better be all the more vigilent that it does not get parsed out and implemented piecemeal by amendments to unrelated legislation over time.

People, the game is well afoot, and unless you stop debating and start responding you are absolutely going to get the goverment (and governance) that you deserve.