Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

No. The season has passed.



Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

Climate change legislation will gain momentum because Goldman-Sachs is behind the push to open a "carbon credit" market. The only climate that is really going to change, by the way, is the economic climate for the big banksters: green being the color of money.



Bill Bishop,
author and co-editor of The Daily Yonder, said:
There's "momentum" in the climate change bill? I was at a meeting of rural state legislators recently. They weren't generally in favor of climate change legislation, but it was a topic of little discussion. Everybody who spoke at the meeting assured them the bill was dead. Our legislators were much more concerned with animal rights proposals than climate change. There were more harsh words for the Human Society than climate scientists.

The interesting environmental action taking place now is the EPA's use of water law to extend its reach issue by issue. Two recent examples: The EPA has essentially said mountaintop removal mining of coal violates federal water laws and it will be the rare permit that will be issued for this kind of activity in the future. And the EPA has begun an expansive study of hydraulic fracturing in natural gas drilling. The industry is howling in both cases.


Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

“cap and trade” is bad economics.  Any move on climate change  before China and India amounts to unilateral economic disarmament and is a fool’s game since climate change can’t be dealt with without Chinese and Indian cooperation -  which isn’t coming!  So momentum should not start to build given these truths.



Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said:

It's hard to be very hopeful given the state of the environmental movement. Bizarrely, those who are supposedly concerned about our children and grandchildren are whining about budget deficits, and not discussing the likelihood that we will hand them a ruined environment.

This is of course largely attributable to the wealth of people like Wall Street investment bankers Peter Peterson and Robert Rubin who are promoting this line.

However, the environmental groups do have the resources to divert this discussion in a more intelligent direction. Deficits used to boost the economy out of the recession will help, not hurt, our children and grandchildren. Doing nothing about global warming will do them enormous harm. However, realistically there is little hope for serious action on global warming. The environmental movement lacks the competence to make anything happen.


John Feehery
, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

No.  While there may be some momentum for a new energy bill, there is no momentum to do a cap and trade bill.  Gas prices are inevitably going to rise in summer and that will kill anything that can be seen as an energy tax this year.


John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

There is no reason for "climate change" legislation.  The scare about what was formerly termed global warming is, and always has been, fraudulent.  And the evidence about the fraud is piling up.
 
First, there were the scandals emanating from discovery of the e-mails coming out of East Anglia University.  These showed deceit amongst so-called climatologists about their warming claims.
 
Then, claims about melting of Himalayan glaciers were shown to be fraudulent.  Also, claims about a dearth of rain in Africa were likewise shown to be fraudulent.
 
There was an error from the IPCC about how much a the Netherlands is below sea level.
 
So many errors and falsities have emerged that Yvo de Boer, the UN Climate Change chief, has resigned.  
 
Senator James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeDemocrats, environmentalists blast Trump rollback of endangered species protections Bottom Line Overnight Defense: Dems talk Afghanistan, nukes at Detroit debate | Senate panel advances Hyten nomination | Iranian foreign minister hit with sanctions | Senate confirms UN ambassador MORE is considering conducting a criminal investigation to determine if some of these alarmists have broken laws.  A Senate report has already concluded that participants in the scaremongering have "violated fundamental ethical principles government taxpayer-funded research."
 
Let's hear no more of climate change legislation.
 



Richard S. Lindzen,
atmospheric physicist and professor at MIT, said:

It is difficult to see what, other than cupidity, could lead to any gathering momentum.  In point of fact, nothing proposed would have any discernible impact on climate regardless of one's views on climate science.  Rather, the legislation would simply be another mix of payoffs and taxes.  Public concern over climate is sinking.  The science is increasingly acknowledged as being far from certain and even dubious.  Scandals, while being denied, are clearly real.  Claims of certainty are being endorsed by professional societies with no expertise (presumably under pressure from the environmental enthusiasts in the White House) while many actual scientists are acknowledging severe problems.  The situation is quite a mess, and, I suspect that many politicians sense this.  Supporting such legislation gets ever riskier.  Atop all this, the developing world is  more clearly and vocally identifying carbon control with attempts to stifle desperately needed development -- which is to say that the issue is developing a patina of profound immorality.


Michelle D. Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

No, with unemployment still at 9.7 percent, the public will have no taste for legislation that they properly recognize as impeding recovery and discouraging job creation.  A recent Gallup poll showed that the public is increasingly skeptical about global warming.  Nearly half of those surveyed thought the seriousness of global warming is "generally exaggerated." That's an increase from 4 in 10 in 2009, and 3 in 10 in 1997. In 2003, 6 in 10 thought temperature increases were the result of man; now just 5 in 10 do.

It seems the climate-gate scandals, and revelations of missing data and errors in the IPCC have taken a toll on public opinion and will hinder legislators' efforts to pass a climate change bill.

Americans are increasingly recognizing it's not just a fringe that questions whether man is causing global warming.  It's a growing, respectable segment of the scientific community.  For too long, the media and academia have pretended that there were no questions left about global warming, and tarred those who questioned the “consensus” as the equivalent of holocaust deniers.   That's not a healthy way to conduct an important policy debate. 

 The Independent Women's Forum has recently launched a campaign, Balanced Education for Everyone, which focuses on the need for balance when it comes to classroom discussions about global warming.  Too often, schools show students movies like An Inconvenient Truth, which exaggerates the threat of global warming, leaving kids ill-informed and plain scared. Students (like the rest of the public) deserve to hear competing views—not propaganda—about what's going on so they can draw their own conclusions. 



Damon N. Spiegel, entrepreneur and writer, said:

There are so many uncertainties in the political environment right now its hard to say. However, if oil continues its climb into the triple digits this might be enough to stifle an economic recovery, and gather the people together for renewed clean energy efforts. Oil hit $85 today and thus I think there will be a direct correlation between high energy prices and momentum for energy legislation. On the flip side, if oil tumbles, the weather remains cool people will ask "what energy problem?"