Well, after my strongly worded plea to Senators Warner and Webb, I eventually received replies from both.
I did not care for Senator Warner's reply. It was extremely generic and made it sound to me like he had every intention of voting for the Cap-and-Trade bill. He mentioned the seriousness of the so-called global warming program, and said that the science "supports" the need for "dramatic changes", but briefly mentioned that this need must be balanced with economic considerations.
Senator Webb's response was much better in my opinion. He more strongly balanced the rhetoric for environmental concerns with mentions of the many obvious down sides to this legislation. It looks to me like the statement of someone who is seriously considering the issue, and is willing to acknowledge that there will be many, serious side-effects from this plan.
Both may vote either way, but from these letters, I would suspect Senator Webb is more likely to vote against this horrible bill than Senator Warner.
Of course, since the carbon-dioxide-phobics never mention the very reasonable alternative of nuclear power, which proves to me that none of them are interested in anything more than they are interested in harming the American economy. Besides, isn't water vapor a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2? And why won't any of these flat-earthers, excuse me, _hot_-earthers acknowledge that the climate has levelled off and has been getting slightly cooler for the last decade.
Those inconvenient truths...
I've been following the science at sites like Watts Up With That and there's no doubt in my mind that not only is the debate not over, it's changing rapidly and not in the direction the end-of-the-world types are so invested in.
The day the correlation between the global warming issue and political spectrum (left vs. right) isn't almost perfect is the day I'll start considering the science has something conclusive to say.