Exactly what the founder of the TV weather station said.

Although, I didn't see Sessions mention that his biggest donor is Southern Co. (one of the largest
coal-burning utilities in the US).

#2 is Drummond... which is pretty slimey... 100% of their employees are former government employees, so half of the 'do what we want' thing is a guaranteed job if they lose their seat...

#6 is Vulcan Materials...

I'm not a global warming nut, but I've worked in the power industry, and its not a foreign concept to me. We can do a lot of things in a cleaner way, and often cheaper, we just let politics get in the way. Ever seen a 'coal ash pond'? Coal is only cheap because we don't make the utility deal with the byproducts and waste, they just build a pond and throw the crap in there, presumably in perpetuity, because they close a plant and leave it behind for the residents & taxpayers to deal with - billions to pump it out into trains and haul it away.

We have nuclear brain-damage here... we've never had a serious accident, but we've had plenty of problems with other technologies... but we shut all our nukes down for the most part. None were even close to the same poor designs of Chernobyl o or Fukashima. France is almost 100% nuclear, never had a problem. They even recycle their waste into more fuel for the reactor.

I've had solar on my house for a year, went for $400 a month in local utility cost to around $35 (all taxes) and a variable $70-$120 solar lease payment.

We have lots of hydro power we don't use out of fear that we'll kill the fish, so instead we buy hydro power from Canada (which has either figured out a way to not kill fish, or they kill the fish and we don't see it).

We can do things another way, in many cases we choose not to.

All prediction models are political, and therefore worthless.
Prediction of future stability is no more helpful than prediction of warming. Only the correlations in the paleo-records are worth studying.

Thomas Jefferson noted (I think) that the one thing missing from the Constitution (as then proposed) was a clause prohibiting votes on bills until they had been under consideration for a year. Plenty of time to the emotion of an idea to die down and for legislators to become educated Might be a terrific idea for an Article V convention.

This is what a Senator should be doing.

When you get to be a Senator, the country has a right to expect you to research things, as he has done.

Not sure I understand your reaction. He may or may not actually be a scientist, and his arguments may or may not be rock solid. This is unclear from the article. However, the arguments of the climate evangelists is fallacious, and he is just pointing this out.
Anything more lengthy than these sound bites will lose the lemmings' attention, and we need the lemmings' attention!

This had to be preGore, and preSharpton...the available hot air now could change your results.

Kidding aside...great comment and information!

I always love it when a member of Congress does their homework and then educates the rest of the chamber. Seriously. I think it would be a good idea for all bills to include an explanation session (pun intended) just like this when discussing ANY bill. Maybe then we'd get fewer knee-jerk bills based on emotional reaction and more actual THINKING.

I guess we can hope.

An Objectivist should be dealing in facts, which is what Sessions is trying to point out. Anthropogenic climate change effects are only a small part of much greater environmental mechanisms at work.

I was part of a "weather war" study some years ago, where we were calculating how to cause weather effects that could alter the environment in our favor during conflict. The distinguished panel of climatologists and nuclear weapons experts had use of the best modeling capabilities at hand (the ones used to establish the "nuclear winter" scenario). We quickly learned that humans couldn't produce enough climate-altering materials (by several orders of magnitude) to have even a minimal effect in temporary climate alteration, let alone long term effects.

Just this weekend on Fox news was the man that started the TV weather channel. He has been in the weather forecasting business for 30 years. He says that global warming/cooling/climate change is a scam and gave examples of false information being used to scare people. One current one was that the recent storm that hit the northeast was being talked about as the the largest on record for that area. He then showed that was untrue by giving historic data. He also committed on Gore's 90 trillion dollar plan to rebuild the worlds cities to eliminate cars. I believe the word asinine was used.

I didn't give you that 0. I'll tell you when I do anything in the negative. Well, bye.

What a bunch of nonsense. He probably has armchair science to show me Taco Bell isn't bad for me, loving gods are with my grandparents watching over me, and everything else in life I wish were true. I can't imagine being an objectivist with some line this representing me.

More referring to his use of charts to educate his brainwashed audience as in Perot's first campaign.

All I get are the comments...where is the article?

I was like huh? Then you piqued my curiosity.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/laura-...

I read nothing about him being a third party distraction, though, which was what Perot became.

H Ross Perot, Part 2