Back in January, Rep. John Shimkus warned Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee they should "be prepared for a battle" over cap-and-trade legislation. But Shimkus, facing off against what he considers the "largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country," is fighting dirty on behalf of America's polluting industries. 

During a visit to downstate Salem Friday, the Collinsville Republican again tried to dramatize the effect a cap-and-trade bill would have on utility prices by manipulating the findings of a scientific study. WJBD radio was on hand: 

"The premise is carbon dioxide emissions is bad.  We are going to charge people who emit.  People who sell things will pass that cost back onto the consumer.  MIT did an analysis and feels on average it could cost a consumer $3,100 a year," said Shimkus. 

In April, Shimkus used the same fact in an interview with WGIL radio, and it isn't any more true today than it was last month. The number comes from 2007 MIT report (PDF) that examined similar proposals to the one the president supports and concluded that a cap-and-trade bill would raise roughly $366 billion annually. Republicans then took that figure and crudely divided it by the number of households in America, getting approximately $3,100 per family. "It's just wrong," John Reilly, one of the authors of the report, told Politifact. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin." (The actual burden, according to Reilly and his team, is an additional $31 extra each year for singles and $79 for a family, much of which could be rebated.)

But that's not all, in another interview with the Belleville News-Democrat over the weekend, Shimkus said environmentalists have it all wrong -- the world needs more carbon, not less:

Indeed, if anything, Shimkus believes that the world can even use a little more carbon. Back in the days of dinosaurs, when concentrations of carbon-dioxide were far higher than today, "I would only say that flora and fauna were in great abundance during the eras of the dinosaurs," Shimkus said. "You could argue that the planet was healthier because it had more green things all over, not less."

We've heard this fact-less argument from Shimkus before, most notably during congressional hearings. As the National Wildlife Fund pointed out in March, Shimkus is citing the Cambrian period as evidence that limiting our man-made carbon dioxide emissions would actually kill the world's plants. But at that time, there were no land plants. 

Congressional leaders should debate all of the intended and unintended consequences of limiting the nation's carbon output before any law is implemented. But they should do it honestly. Shimkus isn't cooperating.