Decades Of Environmental Fraud Being Exposed

Maybe it is taking economic disaster, massive unemployment, bottomless governmental debt, despair, hopelessness, bitter partisan politics, and rioting in the streets, (to name a few of the symptoms of the illnesses afflicting the world) to wake us up to the fact that modern "environmentalism" may actually be the PROCESS by which this illness spreads.  The illness is a deadly CANCER on society.  This deadly cancer is the idea of ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The idea that ONE group of men (people), an "elite" group for sure, can and SHOULD control ALL others.  Call it socialism, welfare state, nanny state, communism, or fascism......it is EVIL and has caused more deaths and suffering than any movement in human history.

If they can't do it through climate control, they will do it through health control, or water control, or through the creation of massive debt and perpetually higher taxation (slavery).  Who are "they"?  We know the names well by now, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, etc. and now the principal flag-carrier, Obama.  We must fight this trend with everything we can.  Destroying the myth of man-caused global warming/climate change is a good beginning.  The following article summarizes some of the issues well.
Peter 

The entire fraudulent environmental house of cards is crashing down.......and that is a very good thing.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9994-peter-gleicks-actions-exposes-end-justifies-means-mentality-poses-problem-for-un-agenda-21?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangedispatch%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+news%29

Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21

www.climatechangedispatch.com

 

 

Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21

Written by Dr. Tim Ball, guest post | February 25 2012

Peter Gleick - (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

Peter Gleick obtained documents falsely from the Heartland Institute (HI) and used them to vilify that organization. HI was a major target for promoters of human caused climate change because they dared to hold international conferences presenting the other side of the climate debate. This was actively surpressed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) members, as leaked emails showed. (Disclosure; I was privileged to be a keynote speaker at the first conference in New York and commented in my opening remarks, I’ve waited thirty years for this day.)

Gleick’s activities apparently manifest a groupthink mentality of several faculty at Stanford University. The late faculty member and grandfather of IPCC, Stephen Schneider, delineated it in Discover magazine in 1989.

“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. (Precisely the problem,; this is not science, but politics and it is NOT good.  Peter)  This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

The penultimate sentence is wrong frightening and not justified by the last sentence as Schneider apparently thought. Scientific ethicist Gleick agreed with Schneider as he wrote, “He taught me and many others he mentored to understand and honor the science, but he also taught us the importance of speaking up in defense of the integrity of science and the public interest. “

Gleick is fully compromised, but will likely continue because of his claims about water. It’s the environmental vehicle replacing climate for achieving government control, nationally and internationally.

Stanford University was the academic centre for issues that framed the Club of Rome (COR). Pivotal publications included Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, but predictions were set out primarily in Limits to Growth using simplistic computer models. They extended the Malthusian idea that population would outgrow food supply and applied it to all resources with amplification by capitalism and fossil fuel driven economies. Almost all the predictions were disastrously wrong.

Others involved were PhD Stanford graduate John Holdren, co-author with Ehrlich, and now Obama’s Science Czar. Gleick’s water research is referenced throughout their works.

Water was central to the COR concerns, probably with Gleick’s influence. Their agenda was incorporated into United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) specifically as Agenda 21. At the 1977 United Nations ‘Water Conference’ they set up the International Drinking Water Decade as 1981 – 1990. People involved with this project were associated with the COR and the plans for One World government. Central was socialist Barbara Ward, former Cabinet Minister in the UK government. In an article titled “Only One World: An Awakening” Stephen Berry quotes Ms. Ward, “We may be on the way to a new moral reality.” This view pervades all the policies emanating from the UN, the COR and the environmental movement of the last 40 years.

The objective is one world government with almost total control.

Environment became a vehicle for social control of individual countries and suppression of capitalism and technology. Strong used the UNEP with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Neil Hrab wrote: “What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda.” Now that warming has failed as the political vehicle water is rapidly advancing as a replacement.

Mark Dubrulle: 40-year member of the COR was asked in 2008, “Is water an issue within this consultation process and the general program of the Club of Rome?” He replied, “Resources include water by definition. We have within the Club very distinguished members who already years ago draw our attention on the problem of water. We intend to play an active role in the debate on water resources, water supply and water consumption, with a very critical attitude towards the current policies. Ian Johnson, the new Secretary General of the international Club of Rome, clearly stated that water is one of the big challenges, perhaps even more important than oil.”

The 74 Club book explains they believe “democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required”. They determined that “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity." They explain, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

Schneider’s dilemma is non-existent; the truth is the only option. Gleick’s unethical actions indicate he believes it’s an option and the end justifies the means. We are on notice, so diligence about all water resources claims is required.

Regarding truth and science you might also like to look here: 

http://thefellowshipofscientifictruth.blogspot.com/

Environmental Falsehoods Are Costly And Common

The ClimateGate leaking of Emails and computer climate programs revealing the corruption, deceit and lies by "climate scientists"promoting the myth of man-caused global warming is just the tip of the iceberg where the "environmental movement" is concerned. This disease costs everyone dearly and will take a long, long time to cure. Maybe ClimateGate will be a beginning of much needed change into how science is conducted and viewed by the public. Thank goodness for the internet!
Peter

 

 

 

 

Enemies Of The State: Those Who Question Man-Caused Global Warming

Those who question or doubt the ongoing efforts to silence critics of one of the greatest hoaxes of all time, the idea of man-caused global warming, need to read the following article. What I call the "myth" of man-caused global warming relates specifically to the burning of "fossil fuels" and the expulsion of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the primary cause of global warming or "climate change".

This issue has become so politically heated (excuse the pun) that all sense of reason, common sense and scientific integrity have been lost. Those in governmental power see nothing but dollar signs, a way to tax energy usage (read "Cap and Trade") to increase their revenue and gain additional control over the "masses". This is glaringly clear. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of the subject knows that limiting carbon dioxide emissions by taxing them, or by other means, is going to have little if any effect on global warming or climate change. It is beyond the absurd to think we can change something as enormous as the global climate. However, those now in power do not care, not about the environment, not about the economy, people's jobs, or their well-being. All they see is increased power and control for themselves.

Is this political and not scientific? You bet. And those now in control in the U.S. go by the names of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Lieberman, et al. Keep in mind that their spiritual leader is the less than amoral Al Gore. This story is not over and it just gets more sordid by the day with revelations such as that described in the following article.
Peter

Writing for PJM Helped Make Me Enemy of the State Number #38

As a scientist who dares to "think different" and "question authority" on global warming, I'm in good company.

July 7, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler (Source)

The National Academy of Sciences, in its official journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has just published a list of scientists whom it claims should not be believed on the subject of global warming. I am number 38 on the list. The list of 496 is in descending order of scientific credentials.

Professor Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the Royal Society, is number 3 on the list. Dyson is a friend of mine and is one of the creators of relativistic quantum field theory; most physicists think he should have shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Richard Feynman. MIT professor Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist who is also a member of the National Academy, is number 4. Princeton physics professor William Happer, once again a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is number 6.

I’m in good company.

The list is actually available only online. The published article, which links to the list, argues that the skeptical scientists — the article calls us “climate deniers,” trying to equate us with Holocaust deniers — have published less in climate “science” than believers in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

True.

But if the entire field of climate “science” is suspect, if the leaders of the field of climate “science” are suspected of faking their results and are accused of arranging for their critics’ papers to be rejected by “peer-reviewed” journals, then lack of publication in climate “science” is an argument for taking us more seriously than the leaders of the climate “science.”

Freeman Dyson, for example, was not trained as a physicist but as a mathematician. His contribution to quantum field theory was applying his mathematical skills to showing that Feynman’s work was mathematically rigorous and mathematically equivalent to another formulation due to Julian Schwinger (who shared the Nobel with Feynman). Freeman has spent the fifty years after this work switching from field to field, always making important contributions to these fields, and making them precisely because he has looked at the evidence from a different point of view.

Dick Lindzen actually is an insider in real climate science, but he is an insider who can’t be bought, an insider who follows the evidence rather than the grant money.

Will Happer is mainly an experimental atomic physicist, but a physicist who has a decades-old reputation for investigating extraordinary claims in all areas of physics. Will was one of the experimentalists who exposed the cold fusion scam a number of years ago.

As for myself, I’m a cosmologist, with a special interest in the anthropic principle, as my National Academy of Sciences security police dossier correctly notes. Twenty odd years ago, I co-authored a book, published by Oxford University Press, on the anthropic principle. As my co-author and I pointed out, the essence of the anthropic principle is eliminating human bias from the interpretation of observations, and we focused mainly on eliminating such bias from cosmology.

But human bias is human bias. I myself have looked at some of the raw data from surface stations that measure the Earth’s temperature. The raw data are from selected sites in the USA, in New Zealand, in Australia, and in Sweden. I selected these sites because I’m reasonably sure they will not have bias due to changing human habitation, or human wars, or human politics. These sites show no warming in the twentieth century. So I have to conclude that we don’t even know if there was any warming on Earth in the twentieth century.

Notice that I am not saying that there has been no warming, just that the available raw data that I’ve personally been able to check do not show it. Until all the raw temperature data are placed online, so the data can be checked by anybody, a rational person has to suspend belief in global warming, to say nothing of AGW.

The official government adjusted data for these sites do show a warming trend. All the warming is in the “corrections.” Sorry, I don’t buy it. Especially from “scientists” who are known to “correct’ their raw data to “hide the decline.”

There have been calls to silence the 496 scientists on the list. Besides “climate deniers,’ we have been called “traitors.” We all know the penalty for treason.

So far, no federal agents have come to pick me up. But nowhere in Mein Kampf does Adolf Hitler call for the extermination of the Jews. Hitler does repeatedly refer to the Jews as “tuberculosis bacilli.” What does one want to do with tuberculosis bacilli?

I’m an enemy of the state. It’s an honor.

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday.

Some Thoughts On Cap And Trade

This comes from a veterinarian, who knows bull$hit when he sees or smells it, and that is what the Obama Administration's "cap and trade" legislation is. This veterinarian is simply pointing out the obvious. This follows the absurdity of the EPA labelling carbon dioxide as a "pollutant". We had better wake up to what the liberal, leftist Democrats, led by Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are trying to put over on us!
Peter

Cap and Trade
What is this and what does it mean for veterinary medicine?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi What is she doing and why?
Commentaries on Cap and Trade It is fair to say that veterinarians are not experts on matters of the environment, chemistry, physics, and climatology. On the other hand, to enter veterinary school one must at least pass or survive a prerequisite amount of college courses pertaining to the basic sciences, such as chemistry, biology, physics, animal science, toxicology, etc. While in veterinary school, we certainly learn about the interactions and effects of chemicals and physical forces upon living systems, be it animal or human. It comes as no surprise to most customers that as veterinarians we become quite experienced in dealing with matters pertaining to elimination, be it of the urinary tract or digestive tract. To get to the point, be it feces, excrement, bowel movements, or "bullshit", we learn to recognize it and call it what it is. For simplicity and time efficiency, I outline my thoughts on this subject. 1. Cap and Trade is based upon the assumption that CO2 emissions cause "global warming" in a significant manner. 2. There is no definitive proof of this concept. It is controversial. 3. Nancy Pelosi refused to hear testimony or introduce a 95 page report from a senior EPA scientist refuting the claims that CO2 Emissions are causing global warming. For starters, the global temperature is not rising. Other groups of scientists are being ignored as well. 4. The effects of the Cap and Trade legislation will drastically tax and increase the cost of production of electricity in the United States, especially in Texas, since coal is the primary source of electricity generation. Some estimates suggest a rapid doubling upon the prices of electricity. 5. Large polluting countries like China and India will likely continue to ignore such measures, continuing to be price competitive, and take more and more jobs from America. Is there anything else that's not made in China or serviced in India? That's why we owe China so much debt. This debt makes the value of the American money worth less and less. 6. If the cost of electricity for this animal clinic goes from $12,000 a year to $24,000, I will have to pass on such costs to customers. Other businesses will in turn pass on their costs, drastically raising the cost of veterinary medicine. 7. If our nation's leaders wish to burn less coal for electricity generation, they should make it possible to build more nuclear power plants or petroleum or natural gas powered plants, not tax the prices of our electricity. 8. I am all for preserving resources and taking care of the environment, but taking draconian measures that automatically punish users of electricity, small and large, based upon highly debated science is inappropriate. 9. When legislation doesn't seem to make sense, always "follow the money trail". I will provide some other links to help in this matter.

(source)

Is Argentina The Model For Where Obama Is Leading America?

I'm not an economic historian, but the following abbreviated history of Argentina rings true to me. Is this the pattern that Obama is following? Is this where America is headed? It doesn't look good. These are interesting and I fear, dangerous times.
Peter

Don't Cry For Me, America (source)

In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain's maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world's industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world's second-most powerful economy.

It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.

In 1916, a new president was elected. Hipólito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of "fundamental change" with an appeal to the middle class.

Among Irigoyen's changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country's operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.

With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government's payouts soon became overly generous. Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers' contributions. Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States' Social Security and Medicare programs.

The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Perón. Perón had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation's rich.

This targeted group "swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated."

Under Perón, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.

High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Perón had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric and "contempt for economic realities" lived on. Argentina's federal government continued to spend far beyond its means.

Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by "industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy..."

The Argentinian government's practice of printing money to pay off its public debts had crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic. Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.

And by 1994, Argentina's public pensions -- the equivalent of Social Security -- had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn't enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises. These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.

A government-controlled "privatization" effort to rescue seniors' pensions was attempted. But, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina's defaulted government bonds.

By 2002, "...government fiscal irresponsibility... induced a national economic crisis as severe as America's Great Depression."

* * *
In 1902 Argentina was one of the world's richest countries. Little more than a hundred years later, it is poverty-stricken, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought.

We've seen this movie before. The Democrats' populist plans can't possibly work, because government bankrupts everything it touches. History teaches us that ObamaCare and unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters.

Today's Democrats are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery. And they will be long gone when it all implodes. They will be as cold and dead as Juan Perón when the piper must ultimately be paid.


References: A tear for Argentina's pension funds; Inflation in Argentina; The United States of Argentina. Linked by: Dan Riehl. Thanks!

The Hypocrisy Of Our Politicians Is NAUSEATING

This article prompted the following responses from readers. Read it all and let us know what you think. You know I think it's just another example of political drum-beating, making a mountain out of a mole-hill. There seems to be no level too low for our new Speaker of the House. These letter-writers say it better than I.
Peter

Some excerpts from the article:
"Global warming is "one of humanity's greatest challenges," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared on Wednesday. She said House Democrats are "working diligently" on legislation to address global warming challenges, and they expect to unveil their proposals by July 4, which she called "Energy Independence Day."

She said the House will lead by example: "It is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint," she said, applauding Sen. Barbara Boxer for getting key offices to switch to energy efficient lighting and introducing legislation that will promote energy efficiency in federal buildings.

"We will adopt innovative solutions, such as purchasing 100 percent renewable electric power, ensuring wood for our furniture is sustainably harvested, and conducting a comprehensive review of our recycling initiative," Pelosi said.

"The days of rejecting the science of global warming are over, as are the days of standing idly by." Pelosi concluded with a reference to the Old Testament: "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us." Some critics have accused liberal Democrats of putting global warming on a par with religion, just as Pelosi did on Wednesday. "

Some of the response:

Letters to the Editor
May 10, 2007By CNSNews.com Readers
July 4th Has Nothing to Do with Energy Independence
“July 4 Energy Independence Day, my foot! This is the first step in July 4 not being recognized as a national holiday to celebrate the independence of our great country. I can see it now. My great grandchildren will not celebrate July 4 as Independence Day of our country but of energy. That is disgusting. Enough is enough.” (“Democrats Declare July 4 'Energy Independence Day,'” April 26)
Kay C.Denton, TX

“Are they going to outlaw all the carbon-producing fireworks? Maybe they’ll put former Vice President Al Gore in charge of this? Maybe he can shut off the electricity in his energy-wasting Tennessee home.”
Mike C.Albany, NY

“The total hypocrisy and arrogant condescending attitude of this speaker of the house and her fellow co-conspirators is breathtaking! We have Hollywood celebrities, senators and former senators making claims without any scientific credentials, and their comments are taken as the gospel! God and Christianity are completely rejected throughout Congress and our government, and she invokes the Old Testament.

These weasels will stoop to any level to bring forth their agenda. To mock and shame our Independence Day from an abusive government in 1776 is insulting with such a media stunt. This is one American who gave, who served and who will be flying his flag in distress.”
Michael M.Pinellas Park, FL

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Unveils Her Agenda

Here we have it straight from the horse's mouth, I mean House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. All of us scientific skeptics who doubt the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming might just as well give in, shut up, and pay up; because Nancy Pelosi says so.

She uses all the proper emotional catch phrases, "our beautiful planet", "carbon footprint", "the science of global warming", "sustainable harvest", and "future generations". She even brings God into play, in a smart move to get religious people to join the ranks of the true believer environmentalists. Am I the only one trying to stifle my gag reflex while reading this? The next thing you know Sheryl Crowe will be telling Congress about her ideas for saving the environment.

There are so many absurdities in this kind of logic I barely know where to begin. First, there is absolutely no scientific "consensus" that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming and catastrophic climate change. To state that the debate is over is simply a big LIE. Ignorance can sometimes be excused, but lying cannot.

Have any of these saviors of our "beautiful planet" considered the ramifications of not burning coal to generate electricity? We can reduce demand a little bit, maybe, even without Al Gore cutting his usage, but what are we going to use to generate all the electricity we can not do without? Burn more natural gas? Where is that going to come from? There's not enough, and oh, I forgot, that releases CO2 also. Maybe hydro-electric power......how long does it take to build a few hundred dams, and where are they going to be? Solar power, and wind power? Where, at what cost, and how much can they reasonable contribute. Not near enough. Then there is nuclear energy. Some say it takes TEN YEARS to build one plant. How long can we hold our breaths?

Oh, of course we must reduce our "dependence on foreign oil". I've been hearing that for 40 years, and all that happens is that we become more and more dependent. It is like saying we "must" improve education, and provide health care for all, and reduce crime. Yes, yes......of course Ms. Pelosi, we agree with you. This is just more political hot air. All it is going to mean is a higher cost of electricity, fuel, food, and nearly every other commodity you can think of. We're still going to need foreign oil, but we're not going to have the money to pay for it. That's the real global danger in what these people are proposing. Any comments? Let's hear it folks.
Peter



Democrats Declare July 4 'Energy Independence Day'

By Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor April 26, 2007(CNSNews.com) -

"Global warming is "one of humanity's greatest challenges," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared on Wednesday. She said House Democrats are "working diligently" on legislation to address global warming challenges, and they expect to unveil their proposals by July 4, which she called "Energy Independence Day."

Speaking at a League of Conservation Voters' dinner in Washington Wednesday evening, Pelosi said future generations "must be first and foremost in our minds as we consider the conclusions of the scientific community: the planet is warming, human activity is responsible, and the effects are already evident around us."

She said the House will lead by example: "It is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint," she said, applauding Sen. Barbara Boxer for getting key offices to switch to energy efficient lighting and introducing legislation that will promote energy efficiency in federal buildings."Just last week, I was proud to join other House leaders in announcing a 'Green the Capitol Initiative,' which will result in us operating the House in a carbon neutral manner at the earliest possible date, but certainly by the end of the 110th Congress," Pelosi said."We will adopt innovative solutions, such as purchasing 100 percent renewable electric power, ensuring wood for our furniture is sustainably harvested, and conducting a comprehensive review of our recycling initiative," Pelosi said.

She said Democrats want to convert the Capitol Power Plant to a combined heat and power system and improve the House office building ventilation system. She did not give a cost estimate."It is so exciting to stand before you as Speaker of the House and know that because of all our hard work together, we have elected a Congress that takes real action on behalf of our beautiful planet," Pelosi said. "The days of rejecting the science of global warming are over, as are the days of standing idly by."

Pelosi concluded with a reference to the Old Testament: "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us."

Some critics have accused liberal Democrats of putting global warming on a par with religion, just as Pelosi did on Wednesday. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs a new House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said last week that climate change is a national security issue.

At the inaugural hearing of the panel he chairs, Markey urged forceful action to "curb our dangerous dependence on imported oil and reduce our emissions of global warming pollution." But Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the select committee, has urged a "common-sense" approach to "big questions" about mankind's contribution to recent climate fluctuations."I believe we should continue to foster a healthy economic climate, and at the same time, make responsible decisions and seek innovations to lessen our impact on the global climate," Sensenbrenner said in news release last month."

'Let's Be Responsible' may not grab headlines like 'The Sky is Falling,' but it has the virtue of being correct. It also recognizes that there are two climates this panel, and Congress, have to be concerned with. One is environmental, and the other is economic."

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading skeptic of the nation that human activity is impacting the climate, has called global warming the most "media-hyped environmental issue of all time."Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.