I hate to say “I told you so.”
But, well, I told you so.
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham has signed on to the Democrats’ massive green redistribution scheme masquerading as a planet-saving, national security-enhancing “energy independence” scheme.
Can John McCain and the rest of the Climate Change Republicans be far behind?
First, a quick trip down GOP eco-sellout memory lane:
McCain on offshore drilling: For it before he was against it before he was for it again; Update: McCain’s astounding flip-flop on windfall profits tax, plus a new global warming alarmist ad By Michelle Malkin • June 16, 2008 04:28 PM
Now, the announcement of Graham’s alliance with Big Government Democrats. In the NYTimes, natch:
…we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.
Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.
It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.
This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.
Kerry and Graham go on to argue that we must buy into their plan because the EPA regulatory power grab will be worse. It’s greenmail: Sign on or else the out-of-control bureaucrats (and the unaccountable energy czar Carol Browner, they fail to mention) will make life even more hellish for businesses and taxpayers:
Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action.
But who’s to say the EPA and Browner wouldn’t go further anyway even if the Senate bill passes?! Evidence and dissent haven’t stopped their job-destroying eco-crusade before.
Speaking of which, the Competitive Enterprise Institute continues to blow the whistle on EPA’s shoddy data:
A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science behind U.S. EPA’s proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute — a vocal foe of EPA’s efforts to finalize its “endangerment finding” — petitioned the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable.
At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface temperature averages from weather stations around the world. According to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used when drafting its endangerment proposal.
According to the Web site for East Anglia’s research unit, “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the endangerment finding into question. “EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU’s suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable,” he said. “If EPA doesn’t re-examine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face.”
In a statement filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Michaels called the development a “totally new element” in the endangerment debate. “It violates basic scientific principles and throws even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions endanger human welfare,” he wrote.
And more from Christine Hall:
Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
CEI Petitions EPA to Reopen Global Warming Rulemaking
Washington, D.C., October 6, 2009―In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding.
In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.
In a declaration filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists.
CEI’s petition, filed late Monday with EPA, argues that CRU’s disclosure casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide. EPA stopped accepting public comments in late June but has not yet issued its final decision. As CEI’s petition argues, court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when those facts change the underlying issues.
CEI general counsel Sam Kazman stated, “EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU’s suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable. If EPA doesn’t reexamine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face.”
Among CRU’s funders are the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy – U.S. taxpayers.
Sen. Graham was too busy basking in the glow of bipartisanship to comment.
God save us from bipartisanship.blog comments powered by Disqus
March 13, 2013 09:49 AM by Michelle Malkin
August 2, 2013 09:09 AM by Michelle Malkin
October 25, 2013 10:04 AM by Michelle Malkin
September 3, 2013 12:01 PM by Doug Powers
April 1, 2013 11:42 AM by Doug Powers