Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’


Collapse of Global Warming

February 18, 2010

Collapse Continues

IBD: 17 Oct. 2010

Climate Change: The scientific “consensus” that man is warming the planet is cracking, and so is a group that was going to push for cap-and-trade. Some business members no longer feel threatened by the government.

Oil giants ConocoPhillips and BP and heavy equipment maker Caterpillar said Tuesday they’d be leaving the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, described on IBD’s front page as “a coalition of green groups and leading corporations pushing for a cap-and-trade bill to curb emissions of carbon dioxide.”

IBD on Wednesday reported that the three corporations “indicated that their leaving was based on disputes within USCAP over the direction the legislation was taking in Congress,” that it has become “now tilted toward coal-based energy producers.”

We’re not as diplomatic as these companies, so we can provide a more plausible explanation: They see the agenda of the global warming alarmists crumbling and have determined they don’t have as much to fear from government regulation as they once did.

Read the rest of this entry ?


The Greening Of Osama Bin Laden

February 1, 2010

The Greening Of Osama Bin Laden | IBD: 1 Feb. 2010

Global warming fanatics have an unwelcome new ally: Osama Bin Laden. APGlobal warming fanatics have an unwelcome new ally: Osama Bin Laden. AP View Enlarged Image

Al-Qaida: Global warming fanatics have an unwelcome new ally: Osama bin Laden. Unlike enviro-leftists, the terror master recognizes that the green agenda can cripple the U.S. economy.

In the Obama worldview, fighting climate change will “finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.” In the Osama worldview, it will “bring the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.

The president spoke those words to Congress last week during his State of the Union message; the head of al-Qaida was delivering his latest rant for broadcast to his followers.

The president and the Democrats running Congress fail to see the dangers that environmentalist extremism poses to the U.S. But bin Laden has concluded it is a powerful weapon that can destroy us.

The Saudi-born patriarch of Islamist terrorism, from whatever cave he currently calls home, devoted his entire latest audiotape message to global warming. “Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality,” bin Laden declared. “All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.”

Bin Laden even bashed ex-President George W. Bush for opposing the Kyoto Protocol at the behest of big business; he must have gotten hold of the Democratic National Committee’s talking points.

How do we prevent the promised worldwide calamity of temperatures going up and up? “Drastic solutions” are in order according to the reclusive al-Qaida chief, as opposed to “solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change.”

The world must “stop consuming American products,” he advised, and “we should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible.”

That will have “grave ramifications,” bin Laden admitted, “but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America.” Doing so would have the added bonus of hurting U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, he added.

As George Mason University atmospheric physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute agricultural economist Dennis Avery point out in their book, “Unstoppable Global Warming,” Kyoto would create some jobs, “but far more would be lost through the economic stagnation and the higher taxes required to ration energy use.”

As Singer and Avery note, Americans “have been reluctant to commit the United States to the cost of building an entirely new energy system when the old energy system was still working, the alternative fuel systems recommended by environmentalists were expensive and erratic, and the science of global warming was still uncertain.”

Of course, in the wake of last year’s Climategate e-mail scandal, in which hacked communications between climatologists revealed the intentional skewing of scientific evidence regarding warming, plus other tendentious misconduct, the science backing climate change alarmism is more uncertain than ever.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., former chairman of and now ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, argued on the Senate floor in November that “developing countries like China and India will never be masochistic enough to subject their economies to the West’s climate neuroses. Meanwhile, Europe has proved with Kyoto that the only emissions quotas it will accept are those that don’t actually have to be met.”

He added, “the U.S. will not support a global warming treaty that will significantly damage the American economy, cost American jobs, and impose the largest tax increase in American history.”

Inhofe spoke for many when he said that “given the unemployment rate of 10%, and given all of the out of control spending in Washington, the last thing we need is another thousand-page bill that increases costs and ships jobs overseas, all with no impact on climate change.”

Environmentalist extremism has made the leap from a politically-correct fetish of leftist utopians who resent capitalists to an economic weapon highly recommended by America’s international Public Enemy No.1.

Who wants to bet it’s only a matter of time before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad follows bin Laden’s recommendation and echoes the call to use global warming policies to topple the Great Satan from its position as the world’s lone superpower?

A bad treaty, after all, can be nearly as destructive as a nuke.


Cartoon: Polar Bears and Climate Change

December 7, 2009


E-Mails Of Climate Researchers Buttress Case Of Warming Fraud

November 24, 2009

E-Mails Of Climate Researchers Buttress Case Of Warming Fraud

IBD: 24 Nov. 2009

Junk Science: Hacked e-mails from Britain’s Climate Research Unit are only the latest evidence of climate fraud. Just ask NASA’s James Hansen about the faking of climate data or EPA employees about the suppression of climate fact.

For years, noted scientists and other global warming skeptics have been accused of being on the take, their research tainted and funded by grants from Big Oil and other fossil-fuel interests.

Now, it turns out, it’s the warm-mongers who are fudging the numbers and concealing the inconvenient truth.

We don’t know who “Deep Throat” is. But according to an interview in Investigate Magazine’s TGIF edition with Philip Jones, director of the Hadley Climate Research Unit at Britain’s East Anglia University, the incriminating e-mails documenting collusion and fraud among top global warming scientists, including a few from Jones himself, are genuine.

In one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona’s Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research, Jones speaks of the “trick” of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Hide the decline? “Keith” is Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit, also involved in the bogus manipulation of data.

An e-mail from scientist Mick Kelly to Jones also speaks of manipulating data to hide the fact that Earth is actually cooling: “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again, as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent coldish years.”

In another e-mail to Mann from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, copied to Dr. James Hansen of NASA, Trenberth says: “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming. We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.”

Trenberth also says: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.” He goes on to say that “the data is surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”


Hacked E-Mail Is a New Fodder for Climate Dispute

November 24, 2009
Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
“This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud”
By ANDREW C. REVKIN, New York Times

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change. The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years. In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.” Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.
Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center
“Twisting the science to support their political position”
By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. “It is clear that some of the ‘world’s leading climate scientists,’ as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research,” said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. “Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position.”



Cartoon: Al Gore’s Energy Grants

November 5, 2009


Global Warming: Tree Ring Circus

October 9, 2009

Tree Ring Circus

IBD: 9 Oct. 2009

Global Warming: A European Union official is threatening reprisals if the U.S. doesn’t lead on a carbon emissions treaty. It probably doesn’t matter to him that the climate change argument is falling apart.

Karl Falkenberg is just director general for environment at the European Union’s executive body. But the way he’s talking, he sounds more like a mafia don.

“It will be more than an embarrassment” for the U.S. administration, he said Wednesday, if the American contingent arrives at Copenhagen in December for treaty talks and has to admit it’s “not ready” to lead other nations toward a deal.

Exactly what Falkenberg means by “more than an embarrassment” is known only to him. But it smells like some kind of backlash is planned if the U.S. doesn’t yield to EU demands.

If anyone is embarrassed in Copenhagen, though, it should be global warming alarmists. The framework of their claims is cracking.

As it turns out — and this should be no surprise — the data that have been used to create the global warming bogeyman are flawed.

For example, historical temperature patterns extracted from tree rings in Siberia’s Yamal Peninsula look increasingly dubious. They indicate warming, but were taken from a sample of only 12 trees. A larger sample (34 trees) in the same area shows no warming.

The scientists who compiled the record using the smaller sample are rightfully being accused of cherry-picking their data.

But at least they didn’t lose their data, as another group of scientists apparently has done. Researchers at Britain’s University of East Anglia, entrusted with constructing what’s been called the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature, built a record that showed the Earth is warming.

Impossible as it may seem, a good chunk of the raw data that were used to create the “hockey stick” record indicating man is responsible for global warming is suddenly unavailable. It’s either been lost or destroyed.

This is significant. Scientists who want to use the data to either confirm or dispute the global warming findings can’t get them.

Tellingly, when asked for the numbers, one of the scientists said: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Then there’s the latest news on Arctic ice, which is cited as proof of global warming when it melts and ignored when it grows. Seems that it expanded this summer after shrinking for the previous two.

Neither this development nor the dubious tree-ring and hockey-stick data will change closed minds. But global warm-mongers can’t be allowed to dismiss such details as they go about crafting public policy and threatening our leaders.


Consensus Thaws On Global Warming

August 24, 2009

Consensus Thaws On Global Warming

12 Aug 2009 – Investors Business Daily

Ice floats in the Arctic Ocean, which Greenpeace said will be ice-free during summer months by 2030. It admitted later that it made a mistake. AP

Ice floats in the Arctic Ocean, which Greenpeace said will be ice-free during summer months by 2030. It admitted later that it made a mistake. AP View Enlarged Image

Global Warming: What’s the climate change scare really about? Not what the alarmists want the public to think. Just ask the retiring head of Greenpeace. In an unguarded moment, he might spill the secret again.

During an Aug. 5 interview with the BBC, Gerd Leipold, outgoing executive director of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization emotionalizes issues to influence the public. At the time, he was admitting his group had made an error in its July 15 news release that claimed “we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.”

“I don’t think (the Greenland ice sheet) will be melting by 2030,” he said. “That may have been a mistake.”

Or maybe it was one of those examples that Greenpeace embellished to stir fear in the public? If so, it wouldn’t be an isolated case. Others have admitted they’re willing to bend the truth in order to draw attention to the cause.

Twenty years ago, Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine that it’s perfectly fine “to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Al Gore noted the power of propaganda when he once told Grist, a magazine for environmentalists, that “it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

So why all the distortions about global warming? To save the planet, to save us from ourselves? No. To choke economies in developed nations, particularly the U.S.

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth,” Leipold told the BBC’s Stephen Sackur in the same interview in which he acknowledged Greenpeace’s mistake. “The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model.”

This same thinking is found in the minds of so many of the global warming alarmists. They say they can make the trouble go away if they can just force the U.S. and other developed nations to cut their levels of consumption.

When all the pretense about science is stripped away, it becomes clear that the global warming scare is not about the planet, but about establishing egalitarianism across the world. It’s about making everyone more equal by slowing growth in rich nations rather than increasing growth in poor and developing countries.

The mind-set can be found in campaigns such as Climate Justice, which “is not only the right tool for climate stabilization,” says Jin-woo Lee, a policy analyst for the Energy & Climate Policy Institute for Just Transition, but also “the underlying principle for global equity.”

Greenpeace’s Leipold said he believes the world is finally beginning to take global warming seriously. But that seems wildly optimistic. The movement looks to be losing momentum.

Already 20,000 overnight hotel stays that had been reserved for the December United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen have been canceled. Either a lot of people are losing interest — or they’re thinking it will just be too cold.


Global Warming: Ignoring Science

July 27, 2009

Ignoring Science


Climate Change: A new scientific paper says that man has had little or nothing to do with global temperature variations. Maybe the only place it’s really getting hotter is in Al Gore’s head.

Read More: Global Warming

Because he must be getting flustered now, what with his efforts to save the benighted world from global warming continually being exposed as a fraud.

The true believers will not be moved by the peer-reviewed findings of Chris de Freitas, John McLean and Bob Carter, scientists at universities in Australia and New Zealand.

Warming advocates have too much invested in perpetuating the myth. (And are probably having too much fun calling those who don’t agree with them “deniers” and likening skeptics to fascists.)

But these scientists have made an important contribution to the debate that Gore says doesn’t exist.

Their research, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, indicates that nature, not man, has been the dominant force in climate change in the late 20th century.

“The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Nino conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Nina conditions less likely” says co-author de Freitas.

“We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”

These findings are largely being ignored by the mainstream media. They simply don’t fit the worn narrative that man is dangerously warming the Earth through his carbon dioxide emissions and a radical alteration of Western lifestyles mandated by government policy is desperately needed.

They will be ignored, as well, by the Democratic machine that is trying to ram an economy-smothering carbon cap-and-trade regime through Congress.

Despite efforts to keep the global warming scare alive, the growing evidence that humans aren’t heating the planet is piercing the public consciousness and alarmists are becoming marginalized.

Sharp Americans are starting to understand H.L. Mencken’s observation that “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” That pretty much sums up the modern environmentalist movement.


Climate Of Control

July 17, 2009

IBD 14 July 09

Politics: Though the EPA says a cap-and-trade bill will do nothing if the developing world doesn’t cut CO2 emissions, Democrats are intent on passing a global warming law anyway. What is their real goal?

During Senate hearings last week on cap-and-trade legislation, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma produced a chart generated by the Environmental Protection Agency that shows it makes little difference what developed countries do to limit greenhouse gas emissions if undeveloped countries such as China and India don’t do the same.

In response, and to her credit, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged that unilateral limits on carbon dioxide emissions “would not impact CO2 levels.” But Energy Secretary Steven Chu, without elaboration, simply said he didn’t agree with the chart. Which says a lot about how global warm-mongers react these days when confronted by facts.

For the record, the EPA isn’t alone in its finding. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study also concluded that “the different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead.”

Advocates of climate change legislation can talk all they want about the U.S. leading on greenhouse gas emissions cuts. But the reality is neither China nor India will follow developed nations in burdening their economies with such measures.

Both refused at last week’s G-8 meeting to participate in the member nations’ agreement that they will try to keep the global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2050, which would require emissions cuts of about 80%.

China has long resisted being dragged into a deal, and India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said his country “will not accept any emission-reduction target — period. This is a nonnegotiable stand.”

The promises from the G-8 and any legal limits they put on themselves are irrelevant because China and India already account for almost a quarter of the world’s CO2 emissions, a share that will grow as their economies continue to expand.

Yet congressional leaders are unrelenting in their campaign to turn this legislation into law. Why?

Maybe Al Gore gave it away last week when he said in a speech in England that legislation like the Waxman-Markey monstrosity passed by the House last month would be a boost for “global governance.”

The “fight” against global warming, in other words, is not an effort to save the earth but to subject it to elitist masters who want to reshape the world in their image.


Palin Vs. Kerry (And

July 16, 2009

Palin Vs. Kerry (And


Politics: John Kerry, replying to an op-ed Sarah Palin wrote on cap-and-trade, suggests the Alaska governor “check the view from her front porch.” What she sees from there, senator, is energy wealth going to waste.

Related Topics: Global Warming

The political death of Sarah Palin has been greatly exaggerated. In a devastating op-ed in the Washington Post, Alaska’s governor exposes the cap-and-tax fraud that has nothing to do with earth’s temperature and everything to do with government control of the economy.

She also exposes the stealth socialism ambitions of the Democratic left and once again points out the availability of abundant “shovel-ready” resources under America’s soil, off America’s shores and even in America’s rocks.

Judging from the reaction from Sen. Kerry and the political arm of George Soros, one must ask: If Palin is spent as a political force, why is everyone on the left so worried and talking about her?

Kerry took to the ultraliberal Web site Huffington Post to object to Palin’s description of “the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax” as “an enormous threat to our economy.” In Alaska, she wrote, “we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, energy and security.”

Kerry, who opposed the Cape Wind project off breezy Cape Cod because a wind farm capturing energy from ocean breezes might spoil his view, went ballistic. In a thinly veiled reference to Tina Fey’s “Saturday Night Live” skit, he repeated the warm-monger mantra that the “global climate change crisis threatens our economy and national security in profound ways” and that “Gov. Palin need look no further than the view from her front porch in Alaska to see how destructive this crisis can be.”

What Palin sees is a cap-and-tax plan that will result in a “dried-up energy sector” that even the sponsors of the Waxman-Markey bill anticipate, or they wouldn’t have included a provision providing $4.2 billion over eight years for newly unemployed energy workers.

It’s not just the energy sector that will be devastated. Palin notes that “even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan.” We have cited an analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation that found unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

Kerry responded that Palin failed to mention that “jobs in our emerging clean energy economy grew nearly 2 1/2 times faster than overall jobs since 1998.” That’s easy when you start from almost zero. Note that 1998 is also the year the earth started cooling, with not a warmer year since. There’s even been snow in Malibu.

From Palin’s front porch, senator, she can see “the largest private-sector energy project in history” — her “3,000-mile natural gas pipeline (that) will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America.”

From Palin’s front porch you can also see the 2,000-acre part of ANWR’s frozen tundra that contains 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil (such estimates often underestimate actual yields) and that could supply all the oil needs of Kerry’s Massachusetts for 75 years.

And from her front porch, Palin can see the Chukchi Sea northwest of Alaska’s landmass. Awaiting development there, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, are 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 30% of the world’s supply, and 83 billion barrels of oil, 4% of global conventional resources. began e-mailing members Tuesday, asking them to fund a rapid response ad blasting Palin’s op-ed. Soros’ group said Palin was positioning herself as the face of conservative opposition to Obama’s energy policy, telling supporters her op-ed was “a marvel of misinformation and outright lies.”

What really hurts is Palin’s truth. Kerry and say Sarah Palin must be stopped. We say, drill, baby, drill.


The G-8 Economic Suicide Pact

July 10, 2009

FIRST OF ALL – move those measuring devices away from a hot roof and a big blacktop parking lot!

Those “scientists” either don’t get it or they have an agenda.


The G-8 Economic Suicide Pact


Climate Change: Channeling King Canute, G-8 leaders agree to wreck the world’s economy, and ours, by pledging to prevent temperatures from rising more than 4 degrees by 2050. What if the Earth has other plans?

Related Topics: Global Warming

Canute was the legendary king whose sycophantic followers praised his power and wisdom. He was The One of his time. He once stood on the shore and commanded the waves to halt. As the story goes, he was exercising his ego when in fact he was giving his followers a dose of reality — the power of man over nature is finite and inconsequential.

We were reminded of this as members of the G-8 met in Italy on Wednesday to agree in principle to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050. The aim is to hammer out a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. In December, the U.N. is convening a meeting in Copenhagen to forge a binding consensus on reduction targets.

The announced goal, which President Obama has signed on to, is to keep the earth’s average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). That should not be a problem. While the warm-mongers tout 1998 as a record warm year, no year since has been as warm as the earth has, in fact, cooled during an unusually quiet solar cycle.

Last August was the first month in nearly a century in which the sun was completely devoid of sunspots, an indicator of solar activity. While the earth’s temperature charts nicely with the solar cycles over time, it correlates not at all with rising CO2 levels. In fact, the earth has been cooling even as these levels rise, and the earth is no warmer than it was in 1979.

Since Al Gore released his feature-length cartoon “An Inconvenient Truth” in October 2006, the Earth has cooled about 0.74 F, almost the same amount that the U.N.’s climate panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claims was gained in the entire 20th century.

Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute has actually sat down and crunched the numbers to find out what an 80% reduction actually means. An 80% reduction from 1990 levels means that in 2050 we cannot emit more than 1 billion tons of CO2. The last time U.S. emissions were that low, Hayward estimates from historical energy data, was in 1910.

We have pointed out that Kyoto-like accords are recipes for global poverty and that capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of the more modest Waxman-Markey bill by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million.

According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 80% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of Waxman-Markey — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by an insignificant 0.05 C.

EPA climate analyst Alan Carlin, who will not be invited to Copenhagen, recently had his study exposing warming as an over-hyped fraud ignoring actual data suppressed. He was told his conclusions would have “a very negative impact on our office.” The truth hurts.

China and India quite sensibly are refusing to participate in this nonsense. “Without participation from China and India, anything we do here at home would impose burdensome costs on consumers in the form of higher electricity, gas and food prices, all for no climate gain,” says Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe.

It is wise for these guys to meet in Copenhagen in December. That way they won’t be embarrassed as was the British House of Commons when it debated a climate change bill last fall that pledged the U.K. to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 amidst the first October snow since 1922 hit London.

King Canute, call your office.


Green Jackets, Brown Shirts

July 8, 2009


Green Jackets, Brown Shirts


Cap And Trade: Al Gore has likened his crusade against global warming to the world’s struggle against Nazis. He said this while speaking in a country that is organizing a team of environmental storm troopers.

Related Topics: Global Warming

Gore didn’t come right out and call global warming skeptics Nazis while addressing an audience at Oxford University in England. But then, he didn’t have to. By simply violating Godwin’s Law — which essentially says that an argument dies the moment someone makes a comparison to Nazis — in the way he did, Gore labeled anyone who opposes his agenda a fascist.

While the former vice president was delivering his sermon, the British were busy creating a para-police squad that will enforce government-imposed carbon dioxide emissions limits. Take a good look, because the formation of this team could well be a preview of what we’ll get if the Democrats’ climate change bill becomes law.

So far, the cap-and-trade global warming legislation — known as the Waxman-Markey bill — has been passed only in the House. The Senate still has to take it up, and then a conference committee would write a version that both chambers would agree to vote on should the Senate approve legislation that has differences.

Any bill passed will of course have to be signed by President Obama. But the only question there is not whether he’ll sign it but whether he’ll turn the event into a circus bigger than Michael Jackson’s memorial.

*What comes next is the legalized extortion of the American people. Some analysts estimate that this scheme to save us from ourselves could by 2030 cost each American family as much $4,300 a year and destroy 2.5 million jobs. That’s even counting the “green” jobs the bill’s supporters claim it will create.

In return for that sacrifice, people living in our world a century from now will experience a global temperature that is projected to be one-tenth to two-tenths of one degree Celsius cooler than it would have been without the legislation.

While the loss of economic liberty is chilling enough, how much more freedom will be lost if Washington follows London’s lead and establishes a cap-and-trade police force?

The United Kingdom’s Carbon Reduction Commitment, which applies to nonenergy-intensive businesses, goes into effect next year. Ahead of that, the government’s Environment Agency is establishing a squad of 50 auditors that will be charged with catching companies that exceed their CO2 emissions limits.

If news reports from Britain are to be believed, this will not be a collegial staff of ordinary green-eyeshade auditors riding desks. This group will be armed with warrants and have the power to search private grounds, snoop through energy bills, carbon-trading records and receipts from suppliers, and seize evidence.

The auditors will be granted the authority to spy on businesses without their knowledge as well as to show up at a company’s doorstep for what is likely to be an intimidating visit if, the London Times reports, the company’s numbers “do not add up.”

It’s not clear if the auditors — who are to wear green jackets — will be able to charge private businesses that overstep their carbon output allocations with criminal offenses. But no one should be surprised if they do.

This sort of crackpot scheme is yet another case of foolishness that makes it seem like the world has gone mad. It hasn’t. Still, enough pockets of hysteria and second-rate thinking are out there, especially in places of influence, to cause us concern.

When we see benign behavior, such as emitting CO2, become an offense worthy of the attention of a national government, we know we are in a dangerous era. We hope enough rationality remains in the Senate to keep this madness from spreading to the U.S.


California Digging

July 6, 2009


IBD: 2 July 2009

Regulation: Ignoring the first rule of holes, a bankrupt state passing out IOUs welcomes an EPA waiver allowing it to further kill its economy. Too bad the state can’t stop the air pollution imported from a growing China.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday granted California its long-standing request — denied by the Bush administration — for a waiver to allow it to impose even more stringent air pollution rules than currently required by the federal government.

The way is now clear for implementation of a 2002 state law requiring new cars to increase their fuel economy 40% by 2016. At least a dozen other states are champing at the bit to follow California’s lead.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, captain of a ship seriously listing to port, hailed the decision as a “huge step for our emerging green economy that will create thousands of new jobs and bring Californians the cars they want while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” So far the green economy is withering on the vine.

Californians don’t want clown cars any more than the rest of the country. That’s why they’re driving their real cars out of the state. For four straight years California has suffered a net loss of population to other states. Without illegal immigration, California would be shrinking. For the rest, it’s go east, young man.

California faces a $42 billion deficit. It needs nuclear power plants to generate pollution-free power to attract, not repel, industry and jobs. It needs revenues from the exploitation of its offshore oil resources. Redemption will not come from paving the state with solar panels and hoping the sun shines.

As Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation reports, sulfur from China alone in California, Oregon and Washington state alone reaches 10% to 15% of the EPA’s allowable levels. Estimates are that a third of California’s air pollution and a fifth of Oregon’s comes from China. Sensors in the Sierra Nevada Mountains have identified huge Chinese pollution clouds that traverse the Pacific.

“We’re going to see increased particulate pollution from the expansion of China for the foreseeable future,” says Steven Cliff, a research engineer at the University of California, Davis.

“If they started driving cars and using electricity at the rate in the developed world, the amount of pollution they generate will increase many, many times,” adds Tony Van Curen, a UC Davis researcher who works with Cliff.

In a recent issue of the Journal of Environment Economics and Management, a UC Berkeley research team noted that China had in fact become the world’s biggest polluter and that current computer models substantially underestimate future emissions growth in China. The Berkeley researchers say China’s emissions are now growing at an annual rate of 11%.

“When you look at China’s population growth and industrial growth, it’s hard to imagine how air quality could improve in the near future,” said Ruby Leung, a researcher at the Energy Department’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., which collaborates with Chinese government scientists on atmospheric research.

Every seven to 10 days, as the New York Times reports, a new coal-fired plant big enough to serve every household in San Diego comes on line in China, exporting more pollution to California and the Western United States than Schwarzenegger’s draconian proposals could ever hope to eliminate.

As a “developing” nation, China is exempt from the Kyoto agreement under which industrialized countries are trying to reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases. China burns 2,500 tons of coal and 210,000 gallons of crude oil per minute. It has plans for 2,200 additional coal generators by 2030.

For every “cleaner” car put on California highways, many more regular cars will be added to Chinese roads with their drivers going to businesses that are opening, not closing or moving elsewhere. Guess which way the wind will blow all those greenhouse gases and auto pollution.


Science Fiction

June 29, 2009


25 June 09

Climate Change: He’s a NASA scientist, the world’s top climate researcher, we’re told. Of course he’s apolitical, nonpartisan, unbiased. Then why was the man who began the global warming scare arrested as an activist?

Climatologist James Hansen was one of 30 people arrested Tuesday in West Virginia while protesting mountaintop coal removal. Though not the most famous person taken into custody — that would be actress Daryl Hannah — he has some renown as the person primarily responsible for fomenting the global warming scare.

In a statement distributed by the Rainforest Action Network at the protest, Hansen tried to cover himself, saying “I am not a politician; I am a scientist and a citizen.” As much as his claim is true, it’s not an accurate indicator of the role he has carved out for himself.

While Hansen is not new to political activism, he can plausibly claim that his previous involvement in the global warming issue was based on what he’s learned from his research, that he simply feels obligated to warn the public about the dangers he discovered.

But mountaintop coal removal has only a thin connection to the speculation about global warming. Hansen himself admits that it provides “only a small fraction of our energy.”

In fact, mountaintop mining provides only 7% of all coal production. Shutting it down will have almost no effect on greenhouse gas emissions, which Hansen and others believe are heating the planet to unhealthy levels. Hansen’s participation in the protest is clear evidence that he is nothing more than an environmental activist, one who uses his scientific credentials to whip up anxiety.

Earlier this year, Hansen publicly supported civil disobedience because “the democratic process” for tackling global warming “doesn’t quite seem to be working.”

He also thinks fossil fuel company executives should be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature” for spreading misinformation about climate change and has contributed to the presidential campaigns of Democrats Bill Clinton and Al Gore — or maybe it was Sen. John Kerry, since Hansen himself says he can’t recall.

Rather than do the research and let the facts alone speak, Hansen has abandoned objective science and adopted political activism.

He’s free to do that. But he should not be free to continue to collect a taxpayer-funded paycheck while working for NASA. The law forbids federal employees to engage in political activity and says those who do can be fired.

Losing his job would be no crisis for Hansen, though. He could still support himself. He would just have to find more grants like the $250,000 Heinz Award he took in 2001 from a philanthropy run by Sen. Kerry’s wife.

-our comments-

James Hansen NASA “scientist” or environmental wacko?


Washington Sleeps As Oil Prices Stir

June 18, 2009

Washington Sleeps As Oil Prices Stir

IBD: 12 June 09

Energy: Will oil hit $250 a barrel? The Russians think so, as crude prices climb to an eight-month high. Meantime, House Republicans advance a plan to help the administration keep a domestic energy promise.

The cost of July deliveries of crude bounced over $73 Thursday as the American Petroleum Institute reported shrinking U.S. inventories as the dollar weakens against the euro.

Alexei Miller, chairman of the Russian energy giant Gazprom, is repeating his prediction of a year ago that oil may eventually reach the $250 mark. That may be wishful thinking on his part, seeing how the Russian economy and military are dependent on oil revenues.

But one thing is certain — a recovering global economy is going to need ever more energy, and it can’t wait for switch grass. A wobbly U.S. economy overburdened by current and future debt is likely to face ever-rising energy prices.

House Republicans hope to lower those prices and make a change in our listless domestic energy policy with the American Energy Act. The measure provides incentives for increased oil and gas production on public and private lands and authorizes drilling in a tiny portion of the frozen tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Rather than planting trees in a Third World backwater, the plan’s “carbon offsets” involve building 100 new nuclear power plants over the next 20 years.

With 31 announced reactor applications already in the pipeline, this is a doable goal. It will lower domestic energy prices and clean the air more effectively than an administration cap-and-tax plan that would cause electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket.”

Reprocessing of spent fuel rods, already done by France and other countries, makes nuclear power a renewable resource, one that emits no greenhouse gases. The administration gives nuclear energy lip service while stopping a storage depository for these rods in Yucca Mountain, Nev.

The House GOP is actually trying to help President Obama keep a promise. “In the short term,” he said in April, “as we transition to renewable energy we can and should increase our domestic production of oil … We still need more oil, and we still need more gas.” The House GOP wants to help him do just that.

But in a classic case of the doubletalk we’ve all become familiar with, the administration is moving in exactly the opposite direction. Its cap-and-trade plan punishes those who produce and use domestic energy. It has proposed eliminating all tax incentives to produce oil and gas, and has slapped a 13% excise tax on all energy coming from the Gulf of Mexico.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has canceled 77 oil and gas leases that were assigned to Utah. He stopped plans to lease oil shale rights in five Western states estimated to hold between 1 trillion and 2 trillion (with a “t”) barrels of recoverable oil. The Obama administration has decided not to issue leases for gas well drilling on the Roan Plateau in Colorado.

Exploration in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska has been impeded by such developments as the listing of the yellow-billed loon as an endangered species.

Science magazine reports that the U.S. Geological Survey now finds it holds more than anyone thought — 1.6 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas, or 30% of the world’s supply and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, 4% of the global conventional resources.

We are being denied this by a bunch of loons.

“It’s a very nonsensical position we’re in right now,” Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told IBD in an interview. “(We) ask the Saudis to ramp up production of crude oil so that hungry markets in America can be fed, (and) your sister state in Alaska has those resources.”

The really sad part is that in a nation starved for energy and jobs, we continue to keep our heads in the sand and our energy in the ground.



June 12, 2009

The best study we’ve seen on the “Global Warming Myth”:




Is China As Suicidal As We Are?

May 28, 2009


Energy Policy: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi goes to China seeking help in fighting climate change. It’s doubtful the world’s No. 1 polluter will agree to follow us over the economic cliff.

In the summer of 2007, a report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency announced that China had officially become the world’s biggest polluter after its CO2 emissions rose an astounding 9% the year before. Since then, China has shown no signs of slowing down in its commitment to both economic and energy growth.

Between 1980 and 2006, China increased its carbon emissions by 321%. China is adding 100 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity capacity annually. That’s like adding the entire capacity of the United States every three years. The irony is that this powers Chinese factories that export goods to the energy-starving and economically beleaguered U.S.

This isn’t all China exports. As Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation reports, , sulfur from China alone reaches 10% to 15% of the EPA’s allowable levels in California, Oregon and Washington. Estimates are that a third of California’s air pollution and a fifth of Oregon’s come from China. Sensors in the Sierra Nevada Mountains have identified huge Chinese pollution clouds that traverse the Pacific.

Apparently tired of breathing exported Chinese pollution in her San Francisco district, Speaker Pelosi found herself on Tuesday attending the U.S.-China Clean Energy Forum.

She brought along other members of Congress, including Ed Markey, D-Mass., co-author of an economy-killing cap-and-tax bill that just passed a key House committee.

This is the latest effort trying to persuade the Chinese to adopt the U.S. policy of restricting economic growth by accepting draconian caps on carbon emissions with no scientific evidence that it will measurably affect global temperatures. So far the Chinese aren’t buying it.

As Fareed Zakaria notes in his book “The Post-American World”: “The combined carbon dioxide emissions from the 850 new coal-fired plants that China and India are building between now and 2012 are five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords.”

So why are we sacrificing our economic growth to fight their pollution?

China is exempt from Kyoto as a “developing” nation, which is one of the reasons the U.S. Senate once voted 97-0 not to consider it for ratification. China doesn’t mind seeing the U.S. economy handcuffed as it races to make this century a Chinese century. As it is, our states and taxpayers struggle to clean up imported Chinese pollution.

In fairness, China is pursuing other, cleaner forms of energy. It has 11 nuclear power plants on line. Another 22 are under construction. Fu Manchang, the secretary-general of the Chinese Nuclear Society, says: “We have the ability to raise our nuclear power capacity to at least 60 or 70 gigawatts.”

China’s all-of-the-above energy approach to exploiting all its resources is part of its commitment to both economic and energy growth and stands in stark contrast to our none-of-the-above approach to proven energy sources. We are committed to pricing coal and other fossil fuels out of existence with no feasible substitute.

We are reminded of Vice President Joe Biden’s comment in a rope line during the campaign:

“We’re not supporting ‘clean coal.’ Guess what. China’s building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it’s polluting the United States. It’s causing people to die.” He went on to say, “No coal plants in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them, over there. Make them clean.”

They are building them over there and not here. That’s not an energy policy. That’s economic suicide. Clean energy and economic growth are not incompatible.

We should be trying to get China to reduce its pollution. But we should also be expanding our own domestic energy resources, including building at least as many nuclear power plants as China is.

China is unwilling to commit economic suicide. Why are we?


War Over The Climate Heats Up Even As Climate Itself Cools Down

February 19, 2009

War Over The Climate Heats Up Even As Climate Itself Cools Down

By S. FRED SINGER | IBD – 19 Feb. 09

President Obama will be hard put to satisfy his several campaign promises: to restore prosperity and jobs, to conduct a foreign policy backed by a strong economy and to satisfy environmental demands to “save the planet.” His job will be much easier if he listens to independent advice on climate science.

Testing Obama: Scientific and economic realities of Global Warming

Get ready for a three-ring circus. In one corner you find those concerned with the recovery of the economy, in the second corner those concerned about threats to national security and in the third corner global warmers who agonize about catastrophic climate change.

The battle between these three factions will revolve about the use of energy and will play out in the White House and in Congress, but also in the public arena:

• Obama’s economic advisers at Treasury and the Budget Office will try to delay any major climate policies that could adversely impact economic recovery.

• The National Security Council and Defense Department, and to a lesser extent the State Department, will be concerned with maintaining a strong U.S. economy to be able to act forcefully when foreign problems arise.

• The global warmers will be led by energy-climate czarina Carol Browner, EPA chief during the Clinton years, and by science adviser John Holdren, who testified that a billion people might die by 2020 unless greenhouse-gas emissions are sharply reduced.

Using all the powers of the Clean Air Act, the EPA may try to impose severe regulations on carbon dioxide, which they would like to label as a pollutant. If successful, it would bring economic activity to a halt.

The outcome of such internal battles is never certain. In Germany, the minister for industry has just stepped down because he opposed the drastic climate actions demanded by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

On the other hand, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has walked away from the commitments of his Labor Party to institute a “cap and trade” scheme.

As these disputes continue, keep in mind three facts:

1. Nothing can be achieved by way of controlling atmospheric levels of CO2 without the active participation of China, India and other developing nations. It is a global issue, and the U.S. cannot make a significant impact, even if it were to adopt extreme measures. By now, China has become the largest emitter of CO2.

Obama may still seem committed to his campaign promise to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 (or was it 80% — and does it matter?). But remember that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously against anything like the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for a reduction of only 5%. And note that European nations and Japan, which signed up for Kyoto, will not come close to achieving even this modest goal by 2012, when Kyoto expires.

Despite this, politicians are making grand promises for the far future as they approach the crucial Copenhagen 2009 negotiations to define the “son of Kyoto.”

2. Remember also that global warming, whether natural or human-induced, may be good for you. Economists tell us that a modest warming would improve agriculture and forestry and increase GNP. And historical evidence backs their studies.

In any case, the climate has been mildly cooling for the past decade and may continue to cool for another decade or more — even while CO2 levels keep rising — causing much suffering around the world.

3. Finally, be aware that carbon dioxide may not have as much of an impact on temperatures as projected by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While their 2007 Report asserts a better-than-90% certainty that the average temperature increase over the last 50 years is human-caused, they have produced no credible evidence to back this up. None!

On the contrary, an independent assessment of the same published information by the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) reaches exactly the opposite result: Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.

Apparently, the ongoing scientific debate hasn’t yet made much impact on politicians or the public. I would blame the media, which seem to give more play to the catastrophic scenarios advanced by the global warmers.

But even Al Gore no longer claims that there are only one or two climate skeptics. Their number has been growing steadily.

Last year, 100 prominent climate scientists signed a letter to the U.N. secretary general, warning against accepting the IPCC results. So far, 650 climate scientists have expressed their skepticism about anthropogenic global warming. And 31,000 scientists, about one-third of them with Ph.D degrees, have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol.

In the U.S., the “cooler heads” seem to be gaining ground. But nothing is ever sure. So stay tuned.

Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He also served as the founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. His latest book is “Unstoppable Global Warming — Every 1,500 Years” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007). He and other experts discuss major issues facing the Obama administration in IBD’s “Testing Obama” series.


Former astronaut speaks out on global warming

February 16, 2009

Former astronaut speaks out on global warming

By Associated Press | Sunday, February 15, 2009 | |

SANTA FE, N.M. – Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.
“I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect,” said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Schmitt contends that scientists “are being intimidated” if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
“They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming,” Schmitt said.
Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.
Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the “global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.” Williams said Heartland is skeptical about the crisis that people are proclaiming in global warming.
“Not that the planet hasn’t warmed. We know it has or we’d all still be in the Ice Age,” he said. “But it has not reached a crisis proportion and, even among us skeptics, there’s disagreement about how much man has been responsible for that warming.”
Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.
Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth’s crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.
Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has a science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.
In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission.
Schmitt said he’s heartened that the upcoming conference is made up of scientists who haven’t been manipulated by politics.
Of the global warming debate, he said: “It’s one of the few times you’ve seen a sizable portion of *scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it’s coloring their objectivity.”
Information from: The Santa Fe New Mexican,
* Who possibly shouldn’t be called scientists.

“Where was Obama!?”

February 12, 2009

Did anyone from Washington even comment about “Where was Obama!?” D.

Blue Skies For Obama


4 Feb. 09 | IBD

Media: Katrina crashes into New Orleans, FEMA responds feebly and President Bush is blamed for the loss of life and limb. Winter smacks middle America, killing 55, FEMA’s late again, but President Obama gets a pass.

Read More: Military & Defense

Last week’s winter storm, paying no attention to Al Gore’s warnings about global warming, has left a trail of dead and broken bodies and wrecked property from the Plains to the East Coast. Of the 55 deaths, 24 have been in hard-hit Kentucky.

Throughout the region, hundreds of thousands are still without power and some survivors have had to resort to using melted snow for their water supply. A shortage of gasoline and heating oil has made life miserable for many.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear called the ice storm “the biggest natural disaster that this state has ever experienced, at least in modern history.” The Federal Emergency Management Agency, however, apparently didn’t get the memo. Much as they did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, locals are complaining that FEMA has not been swift enough in delivering aid.

Nothing remarkable about that. FEMA, whose performance in the 2005 Katrina disaster wasn’t exactly sterling, is a federal agency that supplements state and local authorities. It’s not an on-site organization and can’t respond instantly. That’s the job of the city, county and state governments.

Sensing that the gloomy stories gushing out of New Orleans were the perfect platform from which to lash into the president, an opportunistic media-political-celebrity pack roundly accused Bush of negligence, incompetence and outright malice.

From rapper Kanye West’s immediate charge that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s blog entry from just over a month ago lamenting that Bush did a “terrible” job of handling of the disaster, smears rained down in a devastating storm of their own.

The bitter criticism achieved its intended effect. Many people believe that Bush’s FEMA response — or more accurately the media’s biased portrayal of it — was the moment he began to lose the public.

Meanwhile, Obama, whose administration on taking office vilified Bush on Katrina, has done no more for the victims of the winter storm. Yet no tirade has been forthcoming from either the media or the loopy orbit of Celebrity Planet.

The double standard is what we’ve come to expect, but it’s not what we should continue to accept.



Child Abuse Cinema

February 12, 2009

Child Abuse Cinema: “Under the Sea 3D” Hits Your Kids Over the Head 3D with Global Warming Fright

By Debbie Schlussel

Earlier today, I attended a special critics screening of “Under the Sea 3D” at an IMAX theater. The movie comes out Friday, and I’ll post my review then. Again, this isn’t a review, but I fotta say this: while the visuals are extremely cool and stunning, the audio felt like child abuse. To hear narrator Jim Carrey say a gazillion times how we are destroying the planet, how global warming is gonna kill the cute, cuddly sea lions living in Australia’s Barrier Reef, etc., etc., etc., was really getting on my nerves. It reminded me of “Arctic Tale,” which pulled the exact same stunt. I was wishing for a mute button . . . in vain. “Shut up, already.”

And movie-makers lie to parents in the trailer, below, not giving them an iota of an inkling that this 40-minute visual feast will be ruined by the pungent stink of non-stop, “You are ruining the planet and will make cute animals–and scary, poisonous sea snakes–die.” Not sure how you can “leave your world behind” and “lose yourself”–as the trailer tells you to do–when this movie won’t let you get away from left-wing environmentalist propaganda.

Hollywood has learned a new trick: Stunning eye-candy visuals, accompanied by hypocritical celeb lecturing.


Al Gore’s Global Warming

January 30, 2009

Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: As a winter storm shutters D.C.-area schools, Al Gore does a show-and-tell on global warming before Congress. The road to Copenhagen is being paved with good intentions.

Read More: Global Warming

“When it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don’t seem to be able to handle things,” a joking President Obama told reporters Wednesday morning. Daughters Malia and Sasha had a snow day as the private school they attend, Sidwell Friends, closed due to a winter ice and snow storm.

Truer words were never spoken. When it comes to weather, the current Democratic majorities in the nation’s capital don’t have a clue. But neither that nor the weather deterred Gore from testifying Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the need to pursue a treaty to lower carbon emissions at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen next December.

The storm has been blamed for at least 23 deaths and a glaze of ice and snow that caused widespread power failures from the Southern Plains to the East Coast. As the roads in D.C. iced and the snow fell, Gore might as well have quoted Groucho’s line: “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?”

Gore would probably blame the storm on global warming too. In his eyes and those of fellow warm-mongers, global warming causes everything — including the global cooling that has been both obvious and documented since 1998. These cyclical trends used to be called weather. Now they’re ominously called “climate change.”

To underscore his point, Gore flipped through more than four dozen new slides showing melting ice caps, Western wildfires, deforestation and oxygen-depleted seas in a hearing room where the lights were dimmed. Dim bulbs or not, some facts were left out of his presentation.

Each year, millions of square miles of sea ice melt and refreeze. The amounts vary from season to season. Despite photos of floating polar bears taken in summer, data reported by the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center show global sea ice levels the same as they were in 1979, when satellite observations began.

The island nation of Tuvalu, poster child for rising sea levels, is still well above water at last report.

Pictures of a collapsing Antarctic ice shelf that’s been warming for decades are common. But the shelf in question constitutes just 2% of the continent, and temperatures show that the entire continent has been cooling for decades, with thickening ice.

Western wildfires are due in large part to the failure to clear dead trees and underbrush that fuel these fires because lumber companies might profit or the habitat of endangered critters might be harmed.

Deforestation has been fueled by the Gore-induced quest for biofuels and the planting of cleared areas with crops like corn to be put in our gas tanks. The Paris-based OECD says the use of fuels such as ethanol made from corn, palm oil and other sources using crops as raw material amounts to “a cure that is worse than the disease they seek to heal.”

Oxygen-depleted seas are caused in part by this increased planting of crops for biofuels such as ethanol to replace petroleum, something Gore supports. This has created dead zones for marine life in places like the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, while driving up food prices around the globe.

Gore insists that climate change brings drought, famine and increasing numbers of ferocious storms. However, total hurricane energy activity, as measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has dropped by two-thirds since the record was set in 2005. Hurricane activity, like all weather, is cyclical.

As environmental guru Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” points out, famine has declined rapidly over the past half-century even as greenhouse gases have risen.

That is, until we started using food to fuel our cars. The World Bank estimates that this policy has driven at least 30 million people worldwide into hunger.

If it keeps snowing, Al, there’s a shovel-ready job waiting for you in D.C.


Global Warming………?

January 9, 2009


Climate Change Myth – Klaus

January 6, 2009
I like this man – Vaclav Klaus – common sense, logical, courageous.  We need his style in America.  Don
EU’s new figurehead believes climate change is a myth
The Czech government is desperate to keep its head of state as far away as possible from the EU presidency
David Charter, Europe Correspondent
The European Union’s new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.
The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.
The Czech president, who caused a diplomatic incident by dining with opponents of the EU’s Lisbon treaty on a recent visit to Ireland, has a largely ceremonial role.
But there are already fears that, after the dynamic EU presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy – including his hyper-active attempts at international diplomacy over the credit crisis and Georgia as well as an historic agreement to cut greenhouse gases – the Czech effort will be mired in infighting and overshadowed by the platform it will give to Mr Klaus and his controversial views.
Czech diplomats in Brussels insist that Mr Klaus is not a big part of their plans and are trying to limit him to one speech to the European Parliament in February and chairing one international summit, either the EU-Canada or EU-Russia meeting.
They are pinning their hopes on a lunch between Mr Klaus and Mr Topolanek on January 5, which they hope will see both parties agree a truce after the President’s unsuccessful attempt to unseat his rival as Prime Minister at a party conference last month.
“What is sure is that there will be at least a little choir of voices coming from Prague that will not be singing the same song,” said Piotr Kaczynski, of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels.
“It will probably not impact the way the Czechs will manage the work of the EU presidency. It will however have some negative impact on the political leverage of the Czech presidency,” he added.
Tensions recently erupted between Mr Klaus and Brussels when a private meeting with senior MEPs descended into a slanging match after they presented him with an EU flag and said that they were not interested in his Eurosceptic views.
Mr Klaus responded: “No one has spoken to me in this style and tone in my six years here. I thought these methods ended for us 18 years ago. I see I was wrong.”
This led to a counter-attack from Mr Sarkozy in the European Parliament. He told MEPs: “The president of the European Parliament should not be treated like this and Europe’s symbols should not be treated like this, whatever people’s political engagement.”
Mr Klaus returned to the row over Christmas in a Czech television interview.I dare say that these people represent the height of anti-Europeanism. They have absolutely no right to wave Europe in front of our face,” he said.
There has been further sniping, not least from the French, that the Czechs do not have the clout or the capability to lead the EU as it faces the key challenge of the financial crisis. Mr Sarkozy has threatened to convene meetings of the 16 member states of the Euro during the Czech presidency because the Czechs do not have the single currency.
Nor does Mr Sarkozy believe Prague has the ability to deal with an increasingly restive Russia, which is threatening an arms race over US plans for missile defence radar in the Czech Republic.
The Czechs are also one of just three EU states not to have passed the controversial Lisbon treaty, which has enraged Mr Sarkozy after his drive to revive the document. Mr Klaus continues to lead Czech opposition to a treaty he likens to Communist centralism.
He is undeniably popular with Czech voters, having been Prime Minister from 1992-97, overseeing the harmonious break-up with Slovakia, and president since 2003. An economist who spent much of his working life at the Czechoslovak State Bank during the Iron Curtain years, he became active in politics as a champion of free market economics after 1989 and is said to keep a photo of Lady Thatcher, who he greatly admires, on his desk.
“The fact that Klaus holds these views makes it difficult to run the presidency,” said Robin Shepherd, senior fellow for Europe at the Chatham House think-tank.
“Klaus is not the head of government…but he is the public face of the Czech Republic.”
Last update – 22:41 03/01/2009
EU presidency: Israel ground op in Gaza ‘defensive not offensive’
By Haaretz Service and Reuters
PRAGUE – European Union president, the Czech Republic, said Saturday an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza was “defensive, not offensive” action.
“At the moment, from the perspective of the last days, we understand this step as a defensive, not offensive, action,” Czech EU presidency spokesman Jiri Potuznik said.
Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg is leading an EU delegation to the region Sunday, and Potuznik said the presidency will wait to see the results of that visit.
Israel sent troops into Gaza on Saturday evening, eight days after launching air strikes on the coastal strip, which came in the wake of a breakdown in a six-month truce with Gaza’s Hamas rulers.
Dozens of rockets have been fired at Israel’s southern communities over the past two weeks, killing four Israelis. The air strikes in Gaza have killed at least 420 Gazans, according to Palestinian reports.
U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday branded the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel an act of terror and outlined his own condition for a cease-fire in Gaza, saying no peace deal would be acceptable without monitoring to halt the flow of smuggled weapons to terrorist groups.