By Roger Aronoff

One of the more important issues raised during the budget battle that nearly shut down the Federal government in April was over power given to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by President Barack Obama to regulate greenhouse gases that they claim can contribute to global warming. This has led to renewed discussion on the validity of concerns about global warming, and the related issue of America’s future energy sources.

We have addressed the issue of global warming many times over the years at Accuracy in Media (AIM). In the mid 1970s, the big concern among so-called environmentalists was that we were heading toward a new Ice Age. The essence of that point of view was carried in a Newsweek article in its April 28, 1975 edition headlined “The Cooling World.” Here was the money quote: “The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

It wasn’t too long, 1988 to be specific, when that “almost unanimous” view shifted, and the problem had become catastrophic global warming. Larry Bell is a space architect and professor at the University of Houston, and author of the new book Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. Bell has worked with NASA on all aspects of mission planning for lunar programs, Mars programs, and orbital programs, including the international space station. He says that “politics is responsible for the global warming hoax, and, in reality, of course the climate warms and cools all the time - Climate changes all the time.”

In an interview earlier this year with AIM, Bell said that “Change is what climate does. It’s measured, typically, in three-decade periods, although it didn’t take three decades from the time of the ‘70s, when The New York Times and other organizations were reporting the next Ice Age coming, until Al Gore had his famous hearings in 1988, which declared not only that global warming was a crisis, but that we caused it.”

Bell argues that the ways the temperature is measured are hardly reliable, but that even if the earth is warming, that might not be so bad. “Do [I] believe in global warming? I say, “Yeah, sure I do. I think it’s great! I think it makes plants grow, and it’s good for the rainforest - lots of carbon dioxide they can breathe! The Earth isn’t frozen! We can grow plants! Trade flourishes! Pyramids get built! Sure, I believe in global warming.”

When asked if he accepts that there is a consensus among scientists that global warming exists and is caused by humans, he said that “everything affects everything, so to say that human activity doesn’t affect climate would be nonsensical. The question is, which activities, and how much? Can you even measure them? Can you separate them from other factors? I don’t think anybody can - I would maintain that nobody can.”

The media were complicit in pushing the global warming hoax, calling skeptics “deniers,” as in “Holocaust deniers.” Newsweek used some form of the term “denier” 20 times in one 2007 cover story on global warming about those who don’t buy into the theory. They argued that people who doubted the Al Gore apocalyptic view of a coming age of massive flooding, unbearable heat, the extinction of polar bears and the melting of ice caps and glaciers, all as a result of mankind’s overuse of carbon-based energy and the carbon dioxide it generates, were somehow the moral equivalents of people who believe that the Nazi genocide of millions of Jews in Europe was exaggerated or did not even occur.

...

“Cap and trade has morphed into a ‘clean energy standard,’ under which 80 percent of electricity in the United States would be generated from clean sources by 2035. Mr. Obama laid out the goal in this year’s State of the Union address and has promoted it at several events since.”

According to Mario Loyola, writing on The Weekly Standard blog, based on “EPA’s own estimates, the number of businesses subject to onerous new requirements would increase from 12,000 to 6.1 million, including millions of restaurants and apartment buildings, most of which would simply have to shut down. EPA estimated the cost to governments and business at more than $100 billion just in the first few years.”

Read much more in this lengthy commentary on the issue.

By Pompeo Communications

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In response to today’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing, Congressman Pompeo released the following statement opposing H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act, or NAT GAS Act.

“The NAT GAS Act is the latest example of a systemic problem in Congress whereby we pick winners and losers in the energy markets, which does nothing to drive down the price at the pump for the American consumer.  Legislation that increases, extends and creates new subsidies for one specific fuel source - spending more taxpayer money - is wrong for Kansas, wrong for consumers, and wrong for the future of our country.

Just over 4 months ago I was the President of a business which sold equipment to independent oil and gas producers.  I know this industry firsthand.  Natural gas, ethanol and other fuels all have shown great promise, and those industries should be able to demonstrate their products’ value on the open market without government interference.  I have been working hard to break down the regulatory barriers that prevent those industries from providing affordable energy for America.

Tackling our nation’s debt, removing regulatory barriers, and creating opportunities to innovate are why I came to Congress.  Burdening our nation with another billion-dollar subsidy program for a specific, successful industry is simply the wrong approach.  I will continue to support legislation to lower regulations and increase access for energy companies in order to address the high cost of energy, which impacts many Kansans and Kansas businesses.  However, I am opposed to all legislation like H.R. 1380, which amounts to nothing more than increased government interference favoring one industry over another.  That is simply not the role of the federal government.”

Click here to hear Congressman Pompeo’s statement during the subcommittee hearing.

By Kate Kaye, ClickZ

Senator Scott Brown’s 2010 election campaign won accolades for harnessing supporter momentum using digital tools. Now, the Republican from Massachusetts is latching onto an opposition group’s anti-Brown message, in part to help fuel his 2012 reelection campaign.

At issue is a television spot paid for by the League of Women Voters which states that Brown voted to eliminate clean air standards that reduce smokestack and tailpipe emissions. The ad features a young girl breathing through an oxygen mask. The LWV campaign launched on April 29.

Now, Brown is hoping to counteract the negative publicity while inspiring his supporters to open their pocketbooks through his “Defend Our Senator” effort.

“Even though my election is not for another year-and-a-half, the political machine is already gearing up against me. In the months to come, the special interest groups will run many more negative and personal attack ads, just like they did during my special election last year,” notes a page on the ScottBrown.com site.

The page features a long missive from Brown, defending his vote for a Senate bill amendment that would have temporarily suspended carbon dioxide or methane related Environmental Protection Agency actions under the Clean Air Act. The amendment didn’t pass. An op-ed by Brown published in the Boston Herald today featured a similar message to the one posted on his site.

Below the letter from Brown and an online fundraising form are social sharing buttons imploring supporters to “Defend with Friends” through Facebook and “Defend with Tweets” on Twitter. Beneath that sits a YouTube video suggesting that “liberal special interests are distorting” Brown’s record.

“Let’s send a message to the mudslingers that their negative attacks won’t work,” states the video’s announcer, as the word “Donate” appears on the screen.

Earlier today, on his Facebook page, Brown thanked “everyone that is spreading on Facebook our latest response video defending my pro jobs vote against more regulations.”

According to an LWV press release, in addition to spending seven-figures on the TV ads, the group is also running a “six-figure” online campaign to “target high traffic in-state websites and social media outlets.” In addition to the ads targeting Brown, the organization is running similar ads opposing Missouri Republican Senator Claire McCaskill for her vote for the EPA amendment.

The Brown effort appears to be aimed at generating donations towards his 2012 reelection campaign from his supporter base, and possibly spurring interest from voters who are offended by the LWV ad. In addition, Brown aims to counteract negative sentiment and hopes for people to back him in their own words on Facebook and Twitter.

To fight rumors during the 2008 election alleging that Barack Obama is a Muslim, his camp promoted a section on his site using search ads. About a month before the election, a search on “Obama Muslim” turned up a sponsored link that read, “Barack Obama is a Christian. Get the facts at his official site.”

Yet, not all campaigns see the value in refuting attacks, especially if they’re worried about increasing awareness of the negative allegations. For instance, around the same time that the Obama campaign was running ads affirming the President’s religion, John McCain’s campaign chose not to use web ads to fight a smear from Obama for America, which linked McCain to the Savings and Loan crisis.

--------

Also another despicable, desperate effort AIMED AT CHILDREN ”IMATTERMARCH‘ was reported by Tom Nelson who extracts this comment from the militant enviro-website:

PALEEZE....we breathe out air with 40,000 ppm CO2. In most workplaces, auditoriums, meeting halls and classrooms, CO2 reaches levels of 1000-2000ppm. In submarines it rises to 6,000-11,000ppm with no ill effects.  Nurseries pump in CO2 at 1000ppm of higher into greenhouses because plants love it. CO2 is NOT POLLUTION. Please make your voices heard against the League of Women Voters and this children’s web site to stop the lies.  Contact: League of Women Voters: Kelly Ceballos, 202-263-1331 at kceballos@lwv.org