I'm not going to sit here and debate the science of global warming.  One, I'm not scientifically bright enough to do that.  Two, even if I was, I'm not able to debate the point any better than many others have before me.  That's the problem with the Republican tack on the matter: the ones that want to stop cap and trade are trying to prove global warming is not a threat.  That's the wrong way to go.

     Here's the way they SHOULD be doing this (none of this will be news to Townhall readers, but they're not the ones who need convincing):

1) Cap and trade, in terms anyone who has ever run a lemonade stand can understand, will destroy businesses.  Levy a tax against a company and they will either raise their prices to cover it, cut employees or go out of business.  Some may pay it out of profits, but let's assume the Democrat point of view that all corporate bigwigs are evil and amoral monsters.  Such people would force the costs to the little guy.  This means either prices will go up for most products or people will be put out of work.

2) The production of both gasoline and electricity are among the ecologically dirtiest in the grand scheme.  This means that the industries will be hit particularly hard by cap and trade are the ones that produce gasoline and electricity.  Referring to #1, this will either drive up the price of gas and electric for those that survive and drive out of business those that can't.

3) Again,referring to #1, if the costs of gasoline and electricity go up, that means that anything that USES gasoline and electricity in its production and distribution will go up.  Name one business that doesn't.  This, then, logically means that the price on almost every major good and service will go up.  If you question this, Obama himself has already stated in as many words that electricity prices will "skyrocket" if cap and trade goes into effect.

All of the above is pure and utter economic logic.  But the argument the enviro lobby throws back in the face of even this logic is: "But we have to stop global warming!" And this argument will not end: the threat from Al Gore's propaganda-fest has throughly convinced too many of the key people in the debate that America and the world will die a horrible death in the next 30-100 years if global warming is not stopped. (BTW, the consequences listed above of cap and trade will be starting from day one -- not 30-100 years from now.  It'll be a miracle if there even IS a USA left in 30 years to see the damage of global warming if cap and trade is enacted.)

So ignore that argument.  The science on both sides has been mounting for years and neither side will convince the other of the error if its ways.  DO NOT ARGUE GLOBAL WARMING'S EXISTENCE OR THREAT.  Only time will prove that one way or the other. 

The question the opposition must ask is:

WHAT WILL CAP AND TRADE DO TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING?

The answer is -- nearly nothing.  Prove that and cap and trade will die a short, ugly death.

Many smaller businesses will be shut down, but the bigger ones that can weather the storm will pick up the slack, raise their prices and go on with business -- and CO2 production -- as usual or more.  No less -- or hardly any less -- CO2 will be emitted into the atmosphere and thus, the harm to the environment will still be happening.

On top of this, China and other countries will continue spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at many times the rate of US facilities now, which are already among the cleanest in the world.  The enviro lobby will say that China and the other countries will see how wonderfully we're doing with cap and trade and change their tune.  First of all, that's assuming it is a success (see #1,2 and 3 above to check out the rosy picture painted).  And whether or not it is a success will make no difference to China, among the worst of the offenders, since most if not all of their utility producers are owned by the government.  The government will not pay themselves to improve their facilities.

The climatologists referenced by the Heritage Institute's latest paper on cap and trade stated the change in Earth's temperature will be in the hundredths of one degree by 2050 and less than one degree by 2100.

The enviro lobby will then say, "If all these prices are going up, people will consume less gas and electricity." That's actually true -- to a point.  Even when gas was $4 a gallon, people kept paying it.  But that was when unemployment was less than 6%.  It's at 9% now and every indicator says it will get worse even WITHOUT cap and trade.  People losing jobs left and right with cap and trade (#1-2-3) will drive those numbers up even higher.  (I'm not even going to get into what will happen with fewer people working meaning that fewer income taxes can be collected).

If the GOP wants to stop cap and trade, get the PEOPLE to see what cap and trade will do to their country (#1, 2 and 3) and what it won't do (it will hardly slow down global warming).  Faced with both the consequences and the lack of results, even those who love the environment will change sides.

Why have we elected a President who started by not providing even the most basic of credentials and making promises that, by simple logic, could not possibly have been kept in four years (or even eight)?

When did basic economics and common sense get shifted aside for pointless sentiment?

Is trying to cure a theoretical (and regardless of its proponents' opinion, HIGHLY debatable) problem in the coming 50 years worth: a trillion dollars in taxes, the rising of the price of EVERY retail good and the potential collapse of the US economy in a lot less time?

At what point is savaging a person's good name the price to be paid for expressing one's opinion?

Just how can people not recognize the difference between one million, one billion and one trillion, particularly when it denotes how much of their money is being spent?

How can so many members of the media either blithely overlook or savagely attack what appear to be glaring flaws in the way government is being run when their job, historically, has been to ask the questions?

Believe me, I've got more of my own questions and will have more still in the future.  And since a healthy portion of those we used to trust to ask questions aren't asking them... it looks like it's up to us.

Primarily, what will be here are questions that I believe need to be asked.  I'll ask, add a few of my own thoughts and maybe with all of us thinking, we can come up with some good answers.

After all, what we think should matter...right?

Here's a good one...

WHAT DOES EMPATHY HAVE TO DO WITH A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?

It's been very enlightening to find what everyone thinks Barack Obama's first Supreme Court Justice nominee should be, including Obama himself.  I've heard every minority claiming that THEY should be represented -- and hang the qualifications.  It still amazes me how few people realize that giving someone a job specifically because of a particular trait of race, creed, orientation, et cetera, is not the slightest bit better (read: less bigoted) than NOT giving them the job for the same reason.  But this job, in particular, requires even more color-blindness (pun intended) than most.  Don't think so?  I'll explain in a second.

But just as disappointing are Obama's statements surrounding what he wants.  Quotes abound about a wondrous super-judge with "empathy and understanding" and that justice "(is about) how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives." Unfortunately (and even moreso given Obama's claimed Harvard Law Review background) these are precisely the WRONG qualifications for Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's primary job is to determine the Constitutionality (I'm not too sure on how accurate that word is, but you get the idea) of the decisions of the lower courts.  The Constitution is decidedly more cut and dry than a lot of people think -- its meaning has been horribly distorted over the decades, but it's only as hard as you make it.  If a Justice's goal is do their job and not the job of whoever nominated them, the issue of the minorities involved or of "empathy" should play as little role as possible.

Let's use the Carrie Prejean/Perez Hilton train wreck as an example. (Granted, the less I think about this, the less I want to punch someone in the nose for making it news.  However, the best way to educate these days is using real-world examples.  Well, "real world" is getting a fast and loose usage, but I digress.) Everyone who hasn't been in a coma in the last 30 days has heard about this charming little monstrosity, but let's say Prejean wanted to bring a lawsuit against Hilton claiming that her right to freedom of expression was violated and (after everyone stopped laughing) it got to the Supreme Court.  Here's how a model Justice SHOULD look at this case:

Person A (Hilton) asked Person B (Prejean) a question.

Person B's response to that question was inconsistent with Person A's beliefs.

Person A responded to that first by committing an act that cost Person B a promotion.

Person A then repeatedly and maliciously slandered Person B in a public and harmful manner specifically because of Person B's statement.

Has Person A violated Person B's right to freedom of expression?  Are Person A's actions discriminatory and punishable as set down by the lower court?