NORQUIST: Will pollute your prosperity - Washington Times

Why in the world would anyone want the Democrats in the White House and Congress to attach more boat anchors to the American economy?

The old argument was that global warming forced the government to act before we all died of heat stroke. This argument has waned as temperature data sets show 1998 was the high point of warm years and temperatures have remained relatively stable or fallen since.

Phony environmentalists who want government control over American energy use, the size of our cars and who can build what where told us in the 1970s that "global cooling" caused by energy use forced us to give the government more power. Then "global warming" caused by the same things that caused global cooling 10 years earlier required us to bend to the will of Washington bureaucrats. At some point, this is like a bad game of Jeopardy: Same answer regardless of the question.

Hit & Run > Even the EPA Raps the Biofuels Boondoggle - Reason Magazine

Turning food into fuel is a bad idea for many reasons, but it's minimal effect on the problem of man-made global warming make the biofuels mandates even more idiotic.

Can we afford NOT to throw away trillions of dollars on the greatest scientific fraud in history?

The Senate Finance Committee is holding hearings on cap and trade today. And Baucus starts it off with a nice point. "Action would not be without cost," he admits. "But the costs of inaction would be far greater."

That's really the key insight. No one advocates a cap and trade program or a carbon tax because it seems like fun. No politician pushes these proposals because they're a surefire ticket to reelection. It's simply that if we don't do something, the consequences could prove disastrous.