A couple of years ago, many of the “big energy” folks admitted that anthropogenic climate change is a real issue.

While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation’s largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable.

The Democratic takeover of Congress makes it more likely that the federal government will attempt to regulate emissions. The companies have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help fashion a national approach that would avert a patchwork of state plans now in the works. They are also working to change some company practices in anticipation of the regulation.

“We have to deal with greenhouse gases,” John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. “From Shell’s point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, ‘Let’s debate the science’?”  (Washington Post 11/24/2006)

The train has left the station. Global warming is for real and it is only a matter of time before a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress takes action.  Legislation has been introduced, public opinion is favorable, and the science is clear. Even Exxon Mobil knew the train was leaving the station and decided to get on board.

“I think that their (Exxon Mobil) position on the science of global warming has definitely changed,” said Dan Lashof, deputy director of climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They found that it was untenable to be in a position of casting doubt on whether global warming is happening and whether pollution is responsible for that.”

–snip–

Cohen (VP Public Affairs, Exxon Mobil) said that with Congress’s sights set on greenhouse gases, the oil giant wants “to be part of those discussions.” (Washington Post, 02/10/2007)

Last week, The U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing on “The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” – a Carbon cap and trade scheme proposed by Democrats.

Indeed, “When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, ‘Let’s debate the science’?”

Our government works best when we have an honest and vigorous debate on issues and solutions.  Lately, Democrats have labeled Republicans as the “Party of No Ideas.”  So, one would think that the Republicans would heed Hofmeister’s call to not argue the science and instead provide a credible alternative to their hated cap and trade scheme.  Umm…nope.

They don’t even have any new arguments against the science.  Instead, they rehashed this bizarre argument / commercial from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (A “think tank” funded with more than $2 million from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2005 - before Exxon Mobil got on the train.).  [NOTE: For more about how these "think tanks" create doubt about the science of climate change read this.]


Yes, this is a real commercial, aired in 2006. It is not satire.  It was not produced by The Onion. CEI tells you not to worry about climate change because Carbon Dioxide gives life.

The “New” 2009 Republican Climate Change meme – Carbon Dioxide is natural and necessary, so it can’t be bad.  Seriously.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) April 19, 2009:

Boehner: The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know when they do what they do you’ve got more carbon dioxide.

Rep Michele Bachman (R-MN) Earth Day - April 22, 2009:

Bachman: Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.

Note: Carbon Dioxide only makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere, not 3%.

Rep Shimkus (R-IL) March 25, 2009:

Shimkus: It’s plant food … So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? … So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.  (While questioning Lord Monckton)

It should also be noted that Lord Monkton backs this up by referencing the Cambrian period.  A time when the Earth had no land plants.

“When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, ‘Let’s debate the science’?”

Well, apparently Boehner, Bachman, and Shimkus know better than 98% of scientists.  Or, perhaps they just can’t admit that they have no alternatives to Cap and Trade, so they have to keep beating the Climate Change denier drum by making stuff up.

Rep Blumenauer (D-OR) Earth Day April 22, 2009 - responds Bachman and House Republicans [Look at that socialist treehugger – he even wears a green bicycle on his lapel]

Dear Republicans.  You are correct.  Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth. But, as a good friend of mine said, “life can’t exist without water, but try living at the bottom of the ocean you stupid twit!”

Excessive Carbon Dioxide is harmful to our environment.  Scientists know it, Big Energy gave up denying it, now it is your turn - swallow your pride, admit you were wrong and become part of an honest discussion about what to do about it.