By Senator James Inhofe in Human Events.com

For the first time in history, a fatally flawed global-warming cap-and-trade bill passed out of the United States Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. Democrats, led by Chairman Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), approved the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 (S 2191) by a vote of 11 to eight December 5. While the outcome of the vote in committee was never in question—since Democrats hold the majority—it did provide Republicans the opportunity to expose many of the serious flaws of this bill. The fact is this bill is simply all economic pain for no climate gain: Numerous analyses have placed the costs at trillions of dollars. Even if one accepts the dire claims of man-made global warming, this bill will not have a measurable impact on the climate.

First, this bill will force energy prices even higher. Supporters of this bill are going to be asking the American people to pay even more for energy at the pump and in their homes at a time when energy prices are already on the rise. If this bill passes, electricity prices are estimated to skyrocket 35% to 65% within just seven years, forcing a huge economic hit on American households. Additionally, the poor will be the hit the hardest as they pay about five times more per month, as a percentage of their monthly expenditures, compared to wealthier Americans. The consequences of higher fuel bills for poor Americans can be devastating. High energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons for homelessness, according to a 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children. Further, the Lieberman-Warner bill would mean the loss of millions of American jobs. The respected consulting firm Charles River Associates International testified before the EPW Committee last month that by 2020 this bill will cause a net loss of between 1.5 and 3.4 million jobs.

Meanwhile John Kerry noted in Bali that if China and other emerging economies don’t contribute to reining in greenhouse gases, “it would be very difficult” to get a new global climate deal through the U.S. Senate, even under a Democratic president. Read more here.

By Charles Devenport, Jr., Greensboro News-Record

“The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing.” — Gregg Easterbrook in Newsweek, Nov. 23, 1992.

Global warming skeptics look on in wonder and amazement at the daily barrage of environmental doom and gloom featured in these pages and elsewhere. How is it possible that so many people — journalists, scientists and politicians alike — could be so gullible? History and sociology may prove instructive.

In 1691, a phenomenon sociologists call a “collective delusion” swept the enclave of Salem Village, Mass. As a consequence of social paranoia, hundreds of people were accused of practicing witchcraft, and perhaps two dozen lost their lives. Of course, we enlightened moderns would never succumb to superstition and mass hysteria.

Or would we? According to sociologists Robert Bartholomew and Erich Goode, collective delusions have taken place with surprising frequency, and the phenomenon’s long and shameful history includes several episodes from the recent past. A relic of the Dark Ages it is not. In fact, global warming could be described as a collective delusion, a modern equivalent to the Salem witch hunt.

Oregon Public Television ran a show that showed a map of the states and whether the State Climatologist was (1) a Skeptic, (2) a Non-skeptic, (3) Both/Neither/Won’t Say (Huh?), (4) Did not reply, or (5) The office is vacant.

But a subsequent discussion in the listserver of the Association of American State Climatologists revealed that few had been contacted and their views were simply “gleaned” from what the producers “thought” their views were. They noted that “many replied that their position was more nuanced--that they believe the Earth is warming as a result of both natural variability and human contributions.” “That was what they meant by ‘both’,” said Delaware State Climatologist Dr. David Legates. “I’m not sure what the ‘neither’ position could have been or why both were grouped with ‘won’t say’. A subsequent discussion in the listserver of the Association of American State Climatologists revealed that few State Climatologists were actually contacted.

“The truth of the matter,” said Legates, “is that most ‘skeptics’ believe the Earth is warming as a result of both natural variability and human contributions. As one listed as a ‘skeptic’ by Oregon Public Broadcasting and not contacted for my opinion, I would argue that I should be listed in the ‘Both/Neither/Won’t Say’ category--but by them, the correct response would have been ‘No Reply’ since they never received one from me.” Another very prominent critic of catastrophic manmade global warming, Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, is listed as a ‘Both/Neither/Won’t Say,’ and only six were listed as ‘Skeptic.’ “I believe it is journalistic carelessness at best,” said Russell J. Qualls, Idaho State Climatologist, “and intentional deception somewhere on the other end of the spectrum.” Qualls was listed as a “Non-Skeptic” on OPB’s map. See falsified map here.