If you've ever doubted that President Barack Obama is a toxic mix of ruthless politician and committed ideologue, consider his damn-the-torpedoes, full-speed-ahead commitment to "green" energy and cap and trade.
Why the double-down, especially with the economy limping along? Two possibilities:
(1) Obama is continuing to seize political opportunities.
(2) He's advancing an agenda that has nothing to do with global warming.
Climate change/global warming/man-made global warming has served the Democrats well over the years, but it hasn't been pretty. As Kimberly Stassal of the Wall Street Journal recently put it, "Turn over any green-energy rock, and wiggling underneath will be the usual creepy mix of political favoritism and taxpayer-funded handouts."
Obama has benefited by betting on the right losers. Remember Solyndra? Its executives donated at least $87,000 to the Obama campaign in 2008.
The Democrat Party also has fed at the trough. In 2012, the League of Conservation Voters doled out $14 million to defeat candidates who didn't support action on "climate change." (The LCV's track record is mixed.)
Global warming has been an easy ride for the Democrats, mainly because they've had most scientists in their back pocket. But there's "science" and then there's "science," and it would appear that just about everyone but Obama has figured that out.
Global warming took direct hits in 2009 with "Climategate," and new revelations have emerged almost daily since then.
Just this week, Reuters reported that scientists "are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions."
And then there's Joe Oliver, Canada's minister of natural resources. He recently told a Montreal newspaper, "Scientists have recently told us that our fears (on climate change) are exaggerated."
That fits what the late Stephen Schneider, an IPCC author and professor at Standord University, said in a Discover magazine interview in 1989.
He admitted that scientists "offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have." He added, "Each of us (scientists) has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Global warming, then, is fast becoming toast. So why would Obama resurrect it in his second term?
Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC official, let the cat out of the bag in 2010. "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth."
Former U.S. Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., U.S. undersecretary of state for global issues during the 1992 U.N. Earth Climate Summit, makes a similar point: "We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Maurice Strong, one-time former under-secretary general of the U.N., closes the circle. "We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse."
U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., has introduced H.R. 662. The bill, now before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, would halt U.S. funding of the two U.N. agencies. U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., is one of 26 co-sponsors.
Luetkemeyer: "Unfortunately, the president appears ready to fund these groups, revive harmful policies like cap and trade, and further empower out-of-control federal regulators at a time when we should be doing everything possible to cut wasteful spending, reduce regulatory red tape and promote economic growth."