What senator stood up to more than 90 countries, successfully defending U.S. sovereignty before the Supreme Court? Answer.

Please use the PayPal button above to donate to The US Report.

Subscribe with Kindle

Search the US Report. 

Please visit The US Report bookstore!

Need a speaker for your next event? Contact us.



 The US Report, an indie publisher, features stories about politics, public figures and government. Learn more about The US Report  and the credentials of our contributorsHelp us keep TUSR online; use the PayPal link in the right column.



Inhofe not alone in viewing global warming alarmism as ‘hoax’

You may not know it, but hundreds of experts disagree with that famous consensus about manmade global warming. You probably don’t realize this so-called consensus is already costing you bucks.

In my Florida hometown, for instance, our local utility has imposed regulatory fees simply in anticipation of carbon cap legislation passing. I figure our utility was smart—they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t, so they figure they may as well make some extra bucks if they can. Global warming alarmism has been a great tool for experts in various fields to lock up government research money—billions of US taxpayer dollars.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has questioned that “scientific consensus” repeatedly and now he’s bluntly told a House subcommittee global warming is a “hoax.” He dropped a mini-bombshell before that committee—he’s just finished writing a book titled The Hoax.

Tulsa World gives an account of Inhofe's statements, but the paper apparently buys into the alarmist agenda.

Meanwhile over at Climate Depot, Marc Morano pointed readers to the blog No Frakking Consensus. That blog is written by Donna Laframboise. She has also written a new book, Decoding the Climate Bible: Almost Nothing You’ve Heard About the UN’s Global Warming Report is True.

Laframboise wrote:

 “In 2010, 232 people completed a questionnaire distributed by a committee investigating the IPCC. In December 2010, those answers were released into the public domain. (After the names of the respondents were removed, the answers were compiled in a 3-megabyte, 678-page PDF available here [link on her website] from the InterAcademy Council website.

Each questionnaire begins with the individual declaring what roles s/he has played in the IPPC process. In some cases, questionnaire respondents were interested observers of the IPCC process. In others, their involvement was limited to that of expert reviewer.”


Laframboise said she’ll examine what insiders said in a series of blog posts.As for the document Laframboise examined, Morano says this will be Climategate 2.0. The initial Climategate revolved around many emails revealed from those global warming insiders who weren’t at all happy their secrets had been leaked. Big media ignored it for the most part, having climbed aboard the global warming altar long ago. After all, if you cover the subject for a big publication, you get wined and dined in exotic places.

I grew up in a semi-rural area and my family grew most of what we ate. Fish were caught in local ponds or streams. Rabbits and chickens were kept and eventually ended up on the table. I learned from my grandmother whose thumb was most definitely green that weather will trip you up without notice. Some years the weather was temperate while during others it was positively wacko. My grandmother attributed it to the power and wisdom of God. If we had a brutal winter, we cut more wood and when spring rolled around, we were grateful because the insect crop was lighter. Leftwingers make much of communing with nature. I married it as a child.

Respected meteorologists cannot accurately predict weather beyond a few days. It’s time to have serious hearings and debate among experts about global warming, and those debates should include the hundreds of experts who disagree with the political class experts. An investigation is in order.

If manmade global warming is proved beyond dispute, why are we still rolling billions into research? 

Global warming alarmism has cost consumers around the world—food prices, utility costs and transportation costs are on a continual upward trend.

You may not care about this. You may not even be aware this is happening. Either way, you’re paying a big price for that alleged consensus which is actually a consensus of insiders for whom politics, rather than science, is sacred. When your next utility bill arrives in the mail, look at it carefully. It's likely you're paying fees for a theory hundreds of scientists dispute.

The Daily Caller published a letter from experts who disagree with alarmists and a full list of names is included.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Feb. 10, 2011)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

« First lady does business a favor but consumers may lose | Main | Rubio co-sponsor of Paul’s REINS Act »