Myron Ebell: Statement on Waxman-Markey Energy-Rationing Bill | CEI

Washington, D.C., June 23, 2009—House Democratic leaders plan to bring to the floor this week the Waxman-Markey energy-rationing bill, H. R. 2454. If enacted, Waxman-Markey would be the biggest tax increase in the history of the world and the biggest government intervention in people’s lives since the Second World War, which is the last time that Americans needed ration coupons to buy gasoline, food, and other necessities. The energy price increases required by H. R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, are not a one-time event, but will go up steadily year after year until at least 2050.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) are moving ahead with their stupendous energy-rationing bill despite strong statements from China and India that they will not similarly hamper their economies and impoverish their peoples. Waxman-Markey is all pain and no gain.

Waxman-Markey is a 1,201-page economic suicide note. Those Members of the House who vote for it are voting for long-term economic decline and for turning the United States into a second-rate economy.

Global warming: A good debate | pressconnects.com | Press & Sun-Bulletin

Although both men had charts, graphs, projections and scientific data, the respective presentations were as different as apples and oranges. The differences were not necessarily in terms of content, but mostly in their tone and belief systems. Peters' view, expressed by Guydosh, relies heavily on computer modeling to make his point. Computer modeling is inexact, especially if the inputed data is unreliable or skewed. Despite this uncertainty, there is a pervasive air of superiority in the "facts" showing "what might happen" should these computer models be accurate.

Peters believes that global warming is "unequivocal." Since unequivocal means "absolute and not subject to conditions or exceptions," one has to wonder why. Why is a theory based on computer models unequivocal? Would Peters' forecast for next weekend be unequivocal? How about the forecast for tomorrow? Another ominous word in his presentation is one that Peters borrowed from his self-described mentors, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC, a United Nations dream-team of global warming proponents, says we need to make a "commitment" to significantly reduce our carbon output. Many of us are aware of what that means ...words like "commitment" and "investment" are code words politician-types use for "costs", "taxes" and "governmental control."  [Via Climate Depot]