palmer, gary Rep 1%
===
SEE SELECT COMM
===
2021 4*1% life
https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/gary-palmer
021427Supporting Tribal Management of BisonWildlife, Environmental Justice, Public Lands/Forests
2021385Transformative Climate, Jobs, and Justice Investments (2x Score)Climate Change, Air, Clean Energy, Environmental Justice, Transportation, Public Lands/Forests, Water, Other
2021385Transformative Climate, Jobs, and Justice InvestmentsClimate Change, Air, Clean Energy, Drilling, Environmental Justice, Public Lands/Forests, Transportation, Water, Other
2021379Censuring Paul GosarJustice and Democracy
2021272Taking Action on PFAS ContaminationToxics/Public Right to Know
2021260Restoring the Voting Rights ActJustice and Democracy
2021247Pro-Environment Funding PackageOther, Climate Change, Clean Energy, Clean Air, Clean Water, Environmental Justice
2021217Protecting People from PFASToxics/Public Right to Know; Water
2021208Investing in Transportation and Water InfrastructureClimate Change, Transportation, Water, Clean Energy, Environmental Justice
2021206Building Climate-resilient Wastewater InfrastructureWater, Climate Change
2021201Investing in Climate-Smart and Pro-Wildlife InfrastructureTransportation, Climate Change, Wildlife
2021196Removing Confederate Statues from the U.S. CapitolLands/Forests, Justice and Democracy
2021185Repealing Assault on Methane Pollution SafeguardsClimate Change, Dirty Energy
2021169Corporate Climate Risk Disclosure RequirementsClimate Change; Other
2021145Increasing Awareness and Reporting of Hate CrimesOther, Justice and Democracy
2021132Washington, D.C. StatehoodJustice and Democracy
202191Protecting Dreamers and Immigrants Fleeing DisastersJustice and Democracy, Other
202170Protecting the Rights of Workers to OrganizeOther, Justice and Democracy
202162Voting Rights and Democracy ReformsJustice and Democracy
202145Protecting Public Lands and Waters Across the WestPublic Lands/Forests
202117Impeachment for Incitement of InsurrectionJustice and Democracy
202111Certifying Pennsylvania’s Electoral VotesJustice and Democracy
202110Certifying Arizona’s Electoral VotesJustice and Democracy
2020242Phasing Out Harmful Fishing GearOceans, Wildlife
2020203Increasing Funding for Renewable Energy Research & DevelopmentClean Energy, Climate
2020182Protecting the U.S. Postal ServiceJustice and Democracy
2020166Pro-Environment Funding PackageOther, Environmental Justice, Water, Dirty Energy, Drilling, Lands/Forests
2020164Slashing EPA FundingOther, Water, Air, Environmental Justice
2020163Blocking Trump’s Inadequate Soot StandardAir, Environmental Justice
2020156Removing Confederate Statues from the U.S. CapitolOther---p2:{
}:
===
020155Great American Outdoors ActLands/Forests
2020147Protecting the Grand Canyon and Colorado’s public landsPublic Lands/Forests, Dirty Energy
2020142Maintaining Suspension of Nuclear Weapons TestingDirty Energy
2020138Investing in Climate-Ambitious InfrastructureClimate Change, Clean Energy, Transportation, Water, Environmental Justice
2020136Eliminating Lead Service Lines to Protect Public HealthWater, Environmental Justice
2020135Harming Workers by Rolling Back Wage ProtectionsOther
2020122Washington D.C. StatehoodJudiciary, Justice and Democracy
2020109Heroes Act COVID-19 Relief PackageOther
202069Protecting Wilderness Across the WestLands/Forests
202054Emergency and Climate Disaster Aid for Puerto RicoClimate Change
202050Protecting the Rights of Workers to OrganizeOther
202036Great Lakes Restoration InitiativeWater
202013Protecting People from PFAS PollutionToxics/Public Right to Know; Water
202011Closing the PFAS Clean Water LoopholeToxics/Public Right to Know, Water
2019701USMCA Trade DealClimate Change, Other
2019666Attack on Marine Mammal Protections from Harmful Air Gun BlastingWildlife, Oceans, Drilling
2019654Protecting the Right to VoteOther, Justice and Democracy
2019634Shark Finning BanOceans, Wildlife
2019609Protecting Colorado's Public LandsLands/Forests
2019602Protecting the Grand Canyon from Toxic Uranium MiningDirty Energy, Lands/Forests
2019597Protecting Chaco Canyon from Oil and Gas DevelopmentDirty Energy, Drilling, Lands/Forests
2019530Restoring Protections for the Arctic RefugeDirty Energy, Lands/Forests, Drilling
2019525Banning Offshore Drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific OceansDirty Energy, Drilling, Oceans
2019521Stopping Future Drilling in the Eastern Gulf of MexicoDirty Energy, Drilling, Oceans
2019408Pro-Environment Funding BillClimate Change, Lands/Forests, Clean Energy
2019395Preserving the Mercury & Air Toxics StandardsClean Air, Toxics/Public Right to Know
2019390Eliminating EPA's Chemical Hazard Assessment Program, IRISToxics/Public Right to Know, Clean Water, Clean Air
2019385Methane Pollution SafeguardsClimate Change, Dirty Energy, Drilling
2019384Halting Oil Drilling in the Arctic RefugeDrilling, Dirty Energy, Lands/Forests, Wildlife
2019383Blocking the EPA from Reducing Carbon PollutionClimate Change...
===
---
an 6 25
A House Oversight Committee hearing grew tense Thursday when Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) accused several Democratic governors of breaking federal law.
“You're in violation of federal law. Charges for obstruction should be brought against each one of you for doing this, I'll leave that up to the Department of Justice,” Palmer told New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), who quickly pushed back: “That's 100% false.”
Palmer escalated, calling for obstruction charges against the governors. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) pushed back sharply with a point of order to chairman Jim Comer (R-Ky.) : “That was intimidation of the witness ... Raising the prospect of charges against witnesses is a form of intimidation. Is it not?”
READ MORE: ‘Changes Are Coming!’: Trump Appears Stunned to Learn Farms Rely on Undocumented Workers
Palmer then responded, “I strike those words.”
Hochul appeared on Capitol Hill alongside Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) to defend their states’ sanctuary policies before the House Oversight Committee. Republicans on the panel linked those policies to rising crime tied to undocumented immigrants, while Democrats argued the protections are more critical than ever.
One of the most pointed exchanges came between Hochul and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a longtime critic who has hinted at challenging Hochul for governor in 2026.
Stefanik used her full questioning time to go after Hochul, citing violent crimes in New York City that she blamed on the state’s sanctuary stance.
READ MORE: ‘Mouthpiece for the Kremlin’: Rubio Scorched for ‘Russia Day’ Congratulations
"You are not advocating on behalf of these victims. You are shielding illegals. Even in your opening statement, you prioritize putting illegals first," Stefanik said.
"That is not true," Hochul responded. "Rather than going after the viral moment, I suggest you look at the facts."
"No, no, no, I'm standing up for New Yorkers," Stefanik shot back.
Watch the video of the confrontation below, or byclicking this link.
---
rww
GOP Rep. Gary Palmer Says 'We Need To Remind' Trump That 'Congress Has a Role' In Governing the Country
02/10/2025
by
As President Donald Trump and his lackeys are busy unilaterally dismantling large portions of the federal government, many are left wondering why Congressional Republicans have abdicated not only their legislative responsibilities but their constitutional obligations to ensure that our government maintains its robust system of checks and balances.
Judging by the remarks made by Reps. Eric Burlison and Gary Palmer during a recent "Fresh Freedom" podcast, it doesn't appear as if the GOP has plans to demonstrate that this country has three fully-functioning branches of government any time soon.
Asked about how House Republicans are reacting to the Trump administration's blitzkrieg during his first weeks in office, all Burlison could muster was hope that Congress will eventually find "the courage" to meekly fall in line and pass the legislation necessary to legitimize Trump's rampage.
"This is a whirlwind," Burlison. "I don't know that we can keep up with everything that's going on, but it seems like Congress is going to have to be reactive, which is probably good. From the last two years in my experiences, Congress is not real bold so I'm glad to see Trump being bold and maybe it gives us the courage to come in afterwards and pass the policies."
Palmer was noticeably less enthusiastic about the manner in which the Trump administration has been operating, noting that Congress has been caught "in the backdraft of Trump."
"Trump's on the right track, but I think they need to realize that it's not that Congress needs a role, it's that Congress has a role and that the Constitution comes into play in some of these [issues]," Palmer said. "Like this discussion about eliminating the Department of Education. Well, that can't be done by executive order. The Department of Education was created by act of Congress and it will take an act of Congress [to eliminate it]."
Palmer said that he had participated in a meeting with Elon Musk about his Department of Government Efficiency effort, during which he "pointed out that there's some things that they want to do in terms of rolling back regulations that are going be subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, which will require public comment."
Palmer noted that while there are ways to avoid those requirements, the Trump administration cannot simply act unilaterally on a lot of these issues.
"As fast as the president's going, we need to remind him that not only does he need to work with Congress, in some of these he has to work with Congress," Palmer said.
Video URL
Of course, it's easy for GOP representatives like Palmer to insist that there are constitutional limits on Trump's power when the audience is an obscure podcast with 80 views. The real test is whether they are willing to tell that to the administration itself and, in doing so, face the wrath of Trump and his MAGA minions.
So far, their silence speaks volumes.
===
no lnx
FEBRUARY 22, 2021
Conservation Alabama released their scorecards last week for the Alabama congressional delegation’s performance during the second session of the 116th Congress, which ended in early January. All nine members of the Alabama delegation were scored on the League of Conservation Voters’ 2020 National Environmental Scorecard. Congresswoman Terri Sewell, D-Alabama, earned the highest score with a 90.
“As a Representative of constituents who are disproportionately impacted by environmental injustices, like the Superfund Site in North Birmingham or the landfill in Uniontown, I am proud to fight for stronger environmental protections for our communities,” Sewell said. “I am proud to receive the highest score from the League of Conservation Voters in Alabama’s Congressional Delegation. I remain committed to doing everything in my power to ensure we create a better, healthier, and more equitable environment for future generations.”
Tammy Monistere is the Executive Director at Conservation Alabama.
“Her votes in 2020 ushered in full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and eliminated harmful pollutants from entering our waterways,” Monistere said. “We are grateful for her work protecting the people and places of Alabama.”
The average House score for Alabama congress members was 15 percent and the average Senate score was 35 percent.
Senate:
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, received a 0 score from the group.
Sen. Doug Jones, D-Alabama, received a 69.
House of Representatives:
Rep. Bradley Byrne, R-Alabama, received a 0.
Rep. Martha Roby, R-Alabama, got a 5.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, scored a 5.
Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Alabama, also received a score of 5.
Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Alabama, received a 0 for his work.
Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Alabama, also scored a 0.
Congressmen Jerry Carl and Barry Moore, as well as Sen. Tommy Tuberville, were just sworn in last month as the replacements for Byrne, Roby and Jones.
Sewell is now serving in her sixth term representing Alabama’s 7th Congressional District.
LCV has published a National Environmental Scorecard every Congress since 1970. The group claims that the Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from more than 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which members of Congress should be scored. LCV scores votes on environmental justice, public health, public lands and wildlife conservation, democracy, and spending for environmental programs.
===
===
6/16
the growing power of the administrative state is the defining feature of this era. Federal regulations now touch almost every area of American life, and almost all economic activity. Aggressive regulatory bodies like the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) increasingly impose these mandates by seizing what is the exclusive legislative power of Congress.
If Americans care about restraining this lawless assertion of federal regulatory power, the most important bill in Congress right now is H.R. 3880, introduced late last year by Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.). The Stopping the EPA Overreach Act now has 147 co-sponsors. Through clear language and only four pages, the bill would deny the EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide, methane and three other greenhouse gasesThe EPA now treats carbon dioxide — a ubiquitous byproduct of almost all human activity — as a dangerous pollutant controlled under the authority of the 40-year-old Clean Air Act.This regulatory overreach is the root of the energy policy morass in which our country is now mired.
The EPA again and again relies on the "Endangerment Finding" to force President Obama's Climate Action Plan among new mandates, which includes the methane rule and a moratorium of coal development on federal lands. Yet the EPA's expanding climate crusade is bereft of legally meaningful justification. The agency merely asserts that the unequivocal "dictates of science" and the social cost of carbon to legitimize new rules without further explanation. Neither current findings on what is regarded as the official climate science of the U.N. nor the social benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide are mentioned. Our president and his functionaries across the federal government, however, persist in trumpeting the view of more radical climate alarmists who declare that man-made global warming of apocalyptic proportion is upon on right now.When questioned about justification, the EPA typically defaults to a moral imperative to supplant fossil fuels regardless of costs or futility. And zap goes the rule of law.
The Supreme Court has recently rebuked the EPA for several overreaching air quality rules such as the "tailoring," mercury and Clean Power Plan rules.[mass vs epa scotus establ endangerment?!] Yet meaningful judicial restraint remains rare and mild when it occurs. Only Congress can effectively reclaim the broad, lawmaking authority that the EPA has seized over carbon dioxide. Policies of such national consequence must remain the prerogative of our elected representatives, not Washington bureaucrats, and Palmer's bill is on point.
Such a bill is necessary because although Congress has consistently rejected delegating to EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide, the agency now exercises that authority in a host of federal actions. When the massive Waxman-Markey bill to curb greenhouse gases failed Senate passage in 2009, the EPA went ahead and made the Endangerment Finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant endangering human health and welfare — and thus subject to regulatory control under the Clean Air Act. What Congress refused to do, the EPA did on its own.
Seven years later, most people are inured to the EPA's expanding carbonagenda. But it's worth considering theunchecked authority the EPA now wields. In one of its first carbon rule-makings, the agency admitted that the Endangerment Finding would expand its regulatory universe from 14,700 to more than 6.1 million entities. Hospitals, schools, hotels, apartment complexes, office buildings and small business would now be subject to the Clean Air Act's top-down, inflexible dictates. In a later carbon rule known as the Clean Power Plan rule, the EPA arrogates the authority to re-engineer the nation's entire electric system. Under the agency’s centralized plan, cost, safety and reliability would take a back seat to reducing carbon.
It's hard to overstate the consequences of regulatory scope of this magnitude. As a result of the EPA's legal censure of carbon dioxide, major U.S. coal companies have declared bankruptcy, thousands have lost their jobs, the Keystone XL pipeline was nixed, natural gas is under assault,energy assets once valued in the trillions are now stranded and the middle class is shrinking.
Obama and his lieutenants, such as Secretary of State John Kerry, now demonize carbon as "perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction." The truth is that our bodies, blood and bones are built of carbon! Carbon dioxide is a necessary nutrient for plant life, acting as the catalyst for the most essential energy conversion process on planet earth: photosynthesis.
Carbon dioxide is an odorless, invisible, harmless and completely natural gas lacking any characteristic of a pollutant. It doesn't contaminate or defile the air, as actual pollutants do. Ambient levels of carbon dioxide in the air we breathe have zero adverse health effects, in contrast to high levels of genuine pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act like lead and mercury. With good reason, the EPA has not set health-based limits on the ambient concentration of carbon dioxide. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does set some advisory levels for prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide in tightly enclosed spaces, but they are set at more than 10 times the current level to which humans are routinely exposed.
Carbon dioxide is also a key ingredient in our food supply, about 60 percent of which depends upon fossil fuel-based fertilizers. How do our national leaders square their public vilification of carbon dioxide with fundamental scientific and economic realities? Such political propaganda has now educated at least two generations of Americans who think carbon is a killer instead of the stuff of life on the earth.
In the second decade of the 21st century, humanity sits atop two centuries of major advances in physics, biology and chemistry that have applied hydrocarbon compounds for mankind's benefit. Yet the climate doomsayers of our age employ the term "carbon" as if it were a poison threatening the survival of civilization.
In one of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's last majority opinions, he articulated a constitutional limit to regulatory overreach: "When as Agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the economy, we expect Congress to speak clearly if it wished to assign to agencies decisions of such vast economic and political significance." The EPA's expanding regulatory scheme to decarbonize our country, unquestionably, has such vast economic significance. Rep. Palmer's legislation to nullify the EPA's Endangerment Finding provides the "clarity" Scalia said would be needed when unelected bureaucrats usurp the lawmaking power held by Congress alone.
White is the distinguished senior fellow-in-residence and director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. She is the co-author of "Fueling Freedom" (Regnery Publishing, May 2016) along with Steve Moore.
==
Search Results
Web results
H.R.3880 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Stopping EPA ...
https://www.congress.gov › bill › house-bill › 3880
2.
Restrain the imperial EPA | TheHill
https://thehill.com › blogs › pundits-blog › energy-environment › 283931...
1.
:{[PDF]:(style="cursor:auto;margin:0px 3px 0px 0px;float:left"):}:
hearing on the nominations of kathleen hartnett ... - GovInfo
https://www.govinfo.gov › content › pkg › pdf
Nov 8, 2017 - hour after hour on the Senate floor, even when there is no one on the floor to ...... and in June 2016 she promoted the bill H.R. 3880, "The. Stopping the EPA Overreach Act," while describing carbon dioxide as a. "necessary ...... Act now has 147 co-sponsors Through clear language and only four pages, the.
==
===
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060122773/print
One has a deep background in climate and coastal adaptation. One is a good friend of the Koch political network. Two come from coal country.
The Republican roster for the climate change select committeereflects the party's larger variety of stances on climate change, although its most outspoken advocates for aggressive action on emissions were left off.
In short, the GOP is all over the place.
The roster of Republicans for the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, announced yesterday by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), will be led by Rep. Garret Graves.
The Louisiana lawmaker served on his state's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, where he helped craft a massive coastal restoration and levee program after Hurricane Katrina. And he was once a staff director for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts under then-Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
Graves is in some ways the quintessential Republican on climate. He's concerned about the effects of sea-level rise on his district, but he's not hesitant to tout the benefits of natural gas in reducing emissions or the "all of the above" energy agenda.
"I've been working in this area for a while, and Louisiana's in a unique spot just because we have both sea rise facing us and we're one of the top energy producers," he told E&E News last month. "I think it's a unique perspective."
Graves could use his spot on the panel to push climate adaptation measures for sea-level rise, which he said is "the threat that's closest to the door." He's already worked on water infrastructure issues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and was heavily involved in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, a major set of disaster reforms enacted last year.
But other Republicans on the select committee have openly disputed climate science or have deeper ties to the fossil fuel industry and conservative donors who have long opposed action on climate change.
They'll sit across from a group of Democrats, led by Chairwoman Kathy Castor of Florida, who will be tasked with driving home and publicizing the party's message on climate change (:{Greenwire:(style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;border:0px;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, Feb. 7).
Low scores, big dollars
The Republican roster is primarily defined by low ratings from environmental groups and big campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry.
It also represents a mix of energy interests and could help rally around the Republican claim that natural gas and nuclear are the path forward on climate.
Reps. Morgan Griffith of Virginia, Buddy Carter of Georgia, Gary Palmer of Alabama, Carol Miller of West Virginia and Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota round out the GOP roster.
While all the GOP picks are conservative, Griffith and Palmer are members of the House Freedom Caucus, the hard-right group filled with climate deniers and deep doubts about the regulatory role of EPA.
The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, a fierce EPA critic, recommended six members for the panel, but only Griffith made the cut. The Virginia lawmaker said he has not talked with the group about the opening.
An Energy and Commerce Committee member, Griffith has often fought EPA rules that target coal, a large economic driver in his district located in the southwestern part of the state. He has sought funding for the redevelopment of abandoned mines.
"As long as we make it clear they have to follow rules and realistic science, I am fine with it," Griffith said when asked about EPA's role in regulating greenhouse gases.
Griffith does not deny climate change but has raised concerns that other countries are doing less than the U.S. to cut global emissions, a common Republican line echoed across the Energy and Commerce panel. He's an ally of the Koch political network, which helped him oust Democrat Rick Boucher, one of the lead authors of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill.
Asked about allies on the panel, Griffith said he gets "along well" with Palmer and knows Democratic Rep. Don McEachin of Virginia from their days in the state Legislature.
Since his election to Congress in 2010, Griffith has taken more than $700,000 from the fossil fuel industry and electric utilities, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has a 5 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters.
Palmer, who sits on the Science and Transportation and Infrastructure committees, has gone further than many Republicans in questioning not only the cause, but whether climate change is even underway.He has questioned the accuracy of global warming studies and was forced to correct himself in 2017 when he said Arctic ice sheets were expanding rather than, in fact, shrinking.
Palmer has consistently argued that Congress never gave EPA the right to regulate greenhouse gases and believes the courts are wrong in backing that right. Still, he told E&E last year it's "political nonsense" to say the GOP wants to eliminate all regulations, saying it only wants "sensible" ones.
Elected in 2014, Palmer has received$139,000 from energy and natural gas interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has a 1 percent lifetime LCV score.
Carter has a similarly abysmal record in LCV's estimation, coming in with a zero percent lifetime score, but he doesn't take as hard a stance on climate science.
"I acknowledge that climate change is a problem," Carter said during his campaign last year, according to the Savannah Morning News. "I question sometimes how much of it is man-made but I acknowledge that we need to address it and I've always done that."
His district runs the span of Georgia's coast and is near Plant Vogtle, currently the nation's sole nuclear power project.
The two freshmen selected for the panel hail from rural states heavily reliant on the fossil fuel industry.
Armstrong, an attorney who worked for his family oil business and owns a few hundred wells himself in North Dakota, is the sole congressman from a state with huge gas and oil holdings in the Bakken Shale.
He has argued against the United States going it alone on climate policy and prefers that states, not EPA, regulate the environment (:{E&E Daily:(style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;border:0px;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, Jan. 11).
Armstrong was elected to replace Kevin Cramer (R), who is now in the Senate, and his largest source of campaign donations was the oil and gas industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Miller, who won an open-seat race, is certain to tout White House policies that promote and protect domestic coal, one of West Virginia's leading exports. A bison farmer who owns a car dealership, she also has expressed doubts over federal spending on the expanding use of renewable fuels. In a year that saw a large number of women elected to Congress, Miller was the only new female GOP member.
'I'll take that two ways'
While conservative and moderate climate activists praised Graves, there were also some notable omissions from the panel.
Not a single member who was on the Climate Solutions Caucus last Congress made it onto the roster, nor did Reps. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), the two most outspoken House Republicans on climate issues.
*:{
But Rooney suggested it might be a good thing he wasn't selected if the committee ends up being a forum for partisan bickering about established science.Rooney had even asked McCarthy to be on the panel, as had Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the former ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming from 2007 to 2011.}:*
"I'll take that two ways," Rooney told reporters yesterday. "First of all, it shows that they're not where I am yet, and it makes me feel really good about being where I am."
Still, it's "a bit puzzling" that none of the Republicans from the Solutions Caucus made it onto the panel, said Steve Valk, spokesman for Citizens' Climate Lobby.
"Graves appears to be a good pick for ranking member," Valk said in an email. "His district faces many challenges with climate change, and he's expressed the need for action."
Alex Flint, executive director of the Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative carbon tax group, similarly praised the selection of Graves.
"That is a clear signal that the Republican leadership is comfortable with someone who acknowledges climate change leading Republicans on this issue," Flint said in an email.
But even Graves has just a 3 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters and took more than $130,000 from oil and gas political action committees in the last election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
'We're speaking for ourselves now'
The mix of Republican ideologies — and the tension between deniers and nominal believers — is also evident elsewhere on Capitol Hill.
On Wednesday, the Congressional Western Caucus gathered reporters outside the Capitol to rail against climate science and the "Green New Deal." House Natural Resources ranking member Rob Bishop (R-Utah) ate a hamburger, saying that the "Green New Deal" would ban cows, and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) falsely suggested that carbon dioxide is not bad for the planet because plants use it for photosynthesis (:{E&E Daily:(style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;border:0px;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, Feb. 28).
Then, the next morning at the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, the Republican climate evolution some activists have been claiming to see for years was on full display.
Members including Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and full committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) continued to rebut the legality of the Paris climate agreement, but they also called for bipartisan climate action that stresses "innovation," pleas that would have been stunning just a few years ago.
"We're speaking for ourselves now," as opposed to letting Democrats control the message on climate, Walden told reporters.
"There's a lot of stuff we can work together on," he added.
What that atmosphere means for climate legislation and for debates on the select committee is still not clear, but Rooney said he's hoping to turn freshly converted Republicans into carbon tax believers.
Some Republicans might even jump on board with carbon pricing to counter the progressive "Green New Deal," which would rely heavily on government spending on infrastructure, research and development, Rooney said.
"I think the 'Green New Deal' may have gotten people's attention," Rooney said. "It certainly got Walden's."
Asked about carbon pricing yesterday as he ducked back into the House chamber, Walden didn't rule it out.
"I'm not going to get into all those discussions yet," he said.
===
==
And Perdue's not the only leading recipient of Southern's political support to help spread the questionable scientific talking points the utility has paid for: Rep. Gary Palmer, an Alabama Republican who received $18,000 from the company's PAC and employees in the 2014 cycle, last year told WATE that science "says global climate change is more a function of nature and solar activity than it is anything man does."
===
following post first appeared on FactCheck.org.
:{:{:{}:
Rep. Gary Palmer falsely claimed on a radio show that temperature data used to measure global climate change have been “falsified” and manipulated.
Palmer, a Republican from Alabama, cited the so-called Climategate episode of five years ago, in which emails written by climate scientists purportedly showed evidence of data manipulation, and a more recent accusation of climate scientists tampering with data from temperature monitoring stations. The Climategate scandal has been subject to several separate investigations, all of which exonerated all scientists involved from any wrongdoing, and the latest data manipulation charges are a mischaracterization of standard and well-validated methods for adjusting temperature records to eliminate factors that could produce inaccurate readings.
‘Manipulating Data’
Radio host Matt Murphy in Birmingham, Alabama, asked for Palmer’s thoughts on the snowstorms in the Northeast and climate change:
Palmer, Feb. 10:I think it might be a matter of the report that came out last week about the government manipulating data and misleading people a little bit. But two feet of snow ought to get their attention. … It’s not the first time. I mean, I wrote about this a couple of years ago, when it came out that the scientists at East Anglia University in England had done this, and that was the data that the United Nations report was based on. It was a huge scandal, there were emails going around where they were, the scientists were literally talking about how they were going to change the data. We are building an entire agenda on falsified data that will have an enormous impact on the economy.
The “report” to which Palmer referred was actually a series of blog posts, written by climate change denier Paul Homewood, which were then highly publicized in twostories by Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph in London. Both writers focused on the adjustments made to temperature readings at certain monitoring stations around the world, and claimed that those adjustments throw the entire science of global warming into question. This is not at all the case, and those adjustments are a normal and important part of climate science.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for monitoring national and global temperature trends, has addressed these types of adjustments several times before. NOAA addresses the subject in a Q&A on its website:
Q: What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?
Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.
NOAA maintains about 1,500 monitoring stations, and accumulates data from more than a thousand other stations in countries around the world (many national and international organizations share this type of data freely). There are actually fewer monitoring stations today than there used to be; modern stations have better technology and are accessible in real time, unlike some older outposts no longer in use. The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others.
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/gary-palmer-climate-change_n_6673388.html
=
}:}: