Change We Can Really Believe In

You may have missed it, but the House of Representatives late Friday night, under cover of darkness, dutifully but narrowly passed Pres. Obama's climate change bill. The 7-vote margin of victory out of 431 votes cast hardly qualifies as a mandate for the man who is rapidly trying to remake America  before anyone figures it out. 

Pres. Obama ran on a platform of "change you can believe in," and a tall pole in his tent was remediating "global warming" through social and legislative engineering. In this the President is facing one significant problem. He appears to be coming late to the climate change party. For the environmental theory accepted as Gospel truth by the left is (finally) getting called into question more and more each day, according to Kim Strassel's June 29 column in the Wall Street Journal. Examples:

• Just two months ago the Polish Academy of Sciences published a paper calling into question the idea that human beings are responsible for the perceived warming of the earth.
• A poll out shows that only 11% of those in the Czech Republic--including longtime skeptic Pres. Vaclav Klaus--believe in the theory of global warming.
• In France Pres. Nicholas Sarkozy has tabbed scientist Claude Allegre, an early global warming drum beater, as the new minister of industry, even though  Dr. Allegre has since jumped off the climate change bandwagon.
• Last year New Zealand elected a new government. One of its first moves? Suspending the week-old cap-and-tax scam jammed through by the previous government. This is the same cap-and-tax scam the Democrats are trying to jam through Congress.
• Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected last year like Mr. Obama, on a platform that included doing something about man-made warming, has had to shelve his cap-and-tax scheme due to mounting skepticism in his legislature. 
• Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe now counts 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N.'s 2007 climate change Magna Carta. That's the document that legislators the world over are using as their imprimatur to justify taxing their citizens in the name of junk science. Sen. Inhofe's 700 scientists are 13 times the number of scientists who signed on to the U.N.'s document.
• The first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, Joanne Simpson, retired last year and exhaled slowly that she would now be free to speak as a disbeliever in the global warming debate. (For a great look at how scientific academia, which should be dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and truth, are patrolled by closed-minded bigots who brook no dissent, rent a copy of Ben Stein's 2008 documentary Expelled.)
• "The Worst Scientific Scandal in History." That's what Dr. Kiminori Itoh of Japan, who once helped author a climate change document for the U.N.,  now calls the theory of man-made global warming.
• Norwegian Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever calls global warming, not science, but "a new religion." 
• A group of 54 esteemed scientists is now calling for the American Physical Society to recant its declaration that the the science of global warming is settled once and for all. Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to print the physicists' letter. (Ben Stein--are you listening?)
• Empirical evidence, not theory, shows that the Earth's temperatures have held steady over the last 8 years, despite increases in carbon dioxide.
• Heaven and Earth, by Australian geologist Ian Plimer debunks the junk science that purportedly provides the evidentiary underpinnings of man-made warming. 

More and more, the world is waking up to this scam called global warming. But while Europe and Asia are providing new thought leadership on this issue, Democrats in the U.S. continue to rely on the pop science of the last decade for justification to de-capitalize the U.S. economy. 

This is not unlike Pres. Obama finding solutions for our economic problems by turning back to the failed Democrat theories of the 1930s and the Depression.

Follow these links and see for yourself. Don't miss an opportunity to share these facts with others and try to turn this junk science steamroller around. For once we should be taking our cues from Europe and the rest of the awakening scientific world. 

Now that would be change we could really believe in!

Just thought you might like to know.