Two years ago a Time magazine's cover warned us about global warming: "Be Worried . . . Be Very Worried." We should be even more worried about the supposed global warming legislation the U.S. Senate debated last week, then rejected without a vote. It would have replaced markets with government controls over the economy and Americans' personal lives. So different would be a Boxer-Lieberman-Warner America, and so likely it is that the same legislation will be back in Congress next year, that it is worth thinking through what it would do and how it would affect us.

First, though, does the world's climate change from time to time? Of course it does. Sometimes it warms, and sometimes it cools. Is it rapidly warming now, threatening our way of life? No. It is neither warming nor cooling. The average of four recent climate temperature studies show that over the past 10 years, the planet has warmed only 0.047 degree Celsius, less than 1/20th of a degree. Recent studies suggest there will be no significant warming until after 2020.

Across the nation, gas prices have shot over $4 per gallon, and there appears to be no ceiling in sight. The economic shock continues to appear across the broad spectrum, raising retail prices on any goods coming to market, while wages cannot keep pace. As the buying power of Americans continues to erode, will Congress finally act to broaden supplies?

The average price of regular gas crept up to $4 a gallon for the first time over the weekend, passing the once-unthinkable milestone just in time for the peak summer travel season.

Prices at the pump are expected to keep climbing, especially after last week’s furious surge in oil prices, which neared $140 a barrel in a record-shattering rally Friday.

Nothing stimulates Cassandra like a "sky is falling" report. The Brookings Institute report on metropolitan "carbon footprints" has found Lexington the foulest polluter in the land, pouring out greenhouse gases at a volume sure to burn up the globe.

It sure has heated up the small fowl on the Herald-Leader editorial board. Like plentiful corn, the report has fueled a wing-flapping, feather-flying frenzy of sprawl-bashing, mass-transit celebrating and a new round of attacks on your home, your freedom and your pocketbook.

What the Brookings report alleges is unimportant in the current context. What it and others like it support and promote is the subject and poses a far greater threat to the future of our children and grandchildren than possibly warmer winters.

Last week Democrats tried to kill the economy in the name of solving a problem that doesn't exist. Republicans should hang this bill around their necks in every district where an incumbent voted for the woefully misnamed and deservedly DOA Climate Security Act, technically S.3036.

Asking Americans to pony up even more at the pump with already record gasoline prices creeping higher almost daily seems offensive enough.  But compelling such burden under the guise of moral imperative to curb global warming at a time when the planet is actually cooling rings downright obscene.

And that’s why last week’s cavalcade of Senators opposing the Act -- which would have directed the EPA to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases -- entirely on economic grounds was so confounding.

With the failure of the Lieberman-Warner global-warming bill in the Senate last Friday, I am reminded of the long and grand tradition the scientific community has had in promoting “bad science.” (It is mere coincidence that the acronym for this term is “BS.”)

While the failure of the carbon cap-and-trade legislation was largely a result of economic concerns over what it would cost the country, its proponents will no doubt return next year with claims that no price is too great to save us from planetary destruction.

But I believe that the huge cost of “doing something” substantial about global warming will inevitably cause us to reexamine the science. Just how certain are we that recent warming really has been caused by SUVs spewing carbon dioxide and cows belching methane? After all, the greater the cost of the advertised fixes, the more certain we must be that the scientific consensus really is more than just a political statement.

What a world!! Global warming alarmists bring us to the brink of world food shortage and economic collapse—using words and computer models, not higher temperatures. As a result, more wildlife species are threatened by palm oil plantations growing biodiesel than by climate change. Heavy sea ice just trapped a big Russian ice-breaker for seven days in the Arctic’s Northwest Passage, which the alarmists told us last year would soon be open sailing. The sunspots and a Pacific Ocean cooling phase are forecasting the earth will cool further over the next two decades. In the past, both have accurate in their in their predictions.

The blue collar world sees no warming, but they surely see economic ruin staring them in the face.  Finally, the workers of the world are crying, “Enough of this man-made warming hype without warming!”