News Updates:

The news Al Gore should read.

Consensus? What Consensus?

Chill out. Get Informed.

Hot it was not… farewell to coldest August for 17 years

It should have been the height of summer, but was notable only for its low temperatures.

The UK has just endured its coldest August for 17 years, which was marked, say forecasters, by a complete absence of ‘hot days’.

The month also saw the lowest single-day August temperature for 23 years, with it falling to 55f (12.8c) in Edgbaston, Birmingham, last Thursday.

And several ‘notably’ cold nights were recorded last week.

Wet and windy: Holidaymakers walk along a gloomy Sandsend beach  near Whitby, North Yorkshire, over the Bank Holiday

Wet and windy: Holidaymakers walk along a gloomy Sandsend beach near Whitby, North Yorkshire, over the Bank Holiday

An exceptionally cloudy period in the South East of England put something of a dampener on the holiday period as heavy rain fell across large swathes of the country.

Read more

Environmental lobbying group shuts down after climate bill stalls

Climate advocates stung by defeat in the Senate are folding one of their big umbrella lobbying groups.

Clean Energy Works, a coalition of 80 environmental, religious, veteran and labor groups, will phase out its operations this fall as Democratic congressional leaders abandon plans for a sweeping bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

At its peak, the coalition had 200 field organizers in key states and more than 45 staffers based out of a “war room” in downtown Washington. It is led by Paul Tewes, who ran President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign operations in Iowa and other battleground states.

Environmentalists close to the campaign say their donors are still committed to the effort, but decisions on the coalition’s future hinge on whether Democrats hold their House and Senate majorities and what agenda they want to pursue in 2011.

“It’s basically like hitting the pause button and trying to figure out how to redeploy,” said one source affiliated with Clean Energy Works.

Clean Energy Works spokesman David Di Martino said the group’s phaseout was long expected.

“It was originally designed to be a temporary thing,” he told POLITICO. “It makes sense at the end of Congress that there’d be some retooling and some sort of revised kind of approach to what we’ve been working on.”

Volunteers deployed to Clean Energy Works will start returning this fall to their original organizations.

“If you came over from LCV, you’re going back to LCV,” Di Martino said, referring to the League of Conservation Voters. “If you’re a consultant like me, you’ll hopefully go on to other like-minded campaigns.”

Read more:

You wouldn't be here without CO2

'The whole thing turns on a preposterous theory based on maligning a wholly benign rare gas that is in fact essential to existence of life on earth'

It is all very well for us to talk light-heartedly about the silly season and the preposterous claims of its denizens, but meanwhile the enemy within are pushing the western world steadily towards a lunatic economic suicide, while the enormities they commit are conveniently given cover by the prevailing frivolity. The US Presidency, for example, having largely failed to recruit Congress into its war on industry, resorts to undemocratic methods by permitting the out-of-control EPA to wage it unconstrained. The mostly sympathetic media report it as just another thread in the rich tapestry of modern life.

In the UK , the Telegraph has appointed Louise Gray as Queen of the season and almost daily reports of mostly old scares pour out: so this one did not seem all that different. The Carbon Reduction Commitment is, however, a major frontal attack on the core of British industry, involving not only onerous tax increases and draconian fines, but equally importantly it imposes an enormous administrative burden, just at a time when it can do most damage to business and the national economy. Its history is replete with the nastiest characteristics of the genre. Arising from undemocratically evolved EU diktats, it was formulated by the monumentally failed Labour government and has all the hallmarks of the Brownian love of complexity. Then it has been adopted unchanged by the coalition in a covert way. Rather than give fair warning of the pain to come, the Government has treated the whole ghastly affair as a state secret, so that most of the victim companies have no idea of the nightmare that is about to hit them. It has now been exposed in the middle of the silly season, when the victims are supposed to register for fleecing by the end of next month.

One part of the Government is looking to industry to get it out of the current mess, while another part is shackling that industry so that it is even more immersed in a fight for survival.
The incredible fact is that the whole thing turns on a preposterous theory based on maligning a wholly benign rare gas that is in fact essential to the existence of life on earth.

On the basis of the myth the British have, for example, passively allowed Indians to take over their steel industry, close it down and move it to India . This is just part of a massive migration of industry from the western nations to the Asian ones, no doubt to the satisfaction of the UN administration.

Bid Adios to the Anti-Global Warming Movement

Future historians will pinpoint Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's energy legislation, released last Tuesday, as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput! Finito! Done!

This is not just my read of the situation; it is also that of Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate-turned-Democratic-apparatchik. In his latest column for The New York Times, Krugman laments that “all hope for action to limit climate change died” in 2010. Democrats had a brief window of opportunity before the politics of global warming changed forever in November to ram something through Congress. But the Reid bill chose not to do so for the excellent reason that Democrats want to avoid an even bigger beating than the one they already face at the polls.

Not only does the bill avoid all mention of an economy-wide emission cap through a cap-and-tax—oops, cap-and-trade—scheme, it even avoids capping emissions or imposing renewable electricity standards on utility companies, the minimum that enviros had hoped for. Beyond stricter regulations on off-shore drilling, it offers subsidies to both homeowners to encourage them to make their homes more energy efficient and the nation's fleet of trucks to use cleaner burning natural gas. This is not costless, but it is a bargain compared with the “comprehensive” action on energy and climate change that President Barack Obama had been threatening.

Krugman blames this outcome on—you'll never guess this!—greedy energy companies and cowardly Republicans who sold out. But the fault, Dear Paul, lies not in them, but in your own weakling theories.

The truth is that there never has been an environmental issue that has enjoyed greater corporate support. Early in the global warming crusade, a coalition of corporations called United States Climate Action Partnership was formed with the express purpose of lobbying Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It included major utilities (Duke Energy) and gas companies (BP) that stood to gain by hobbling the coal industry through a cap-and-trade scheme. Meanwhile, the Breakthrough Institute, a highly respected liberal outfit whose mission is to rejuvenate the progressive movement in this country, points out that environmental groups spent at least $100 million over the past two years executing what was arguably the best mobilization campaign in history. Despite all of this, notes Breakthrough, there is little evidence to suggest that cap-and-trade would have mustered more than 43 votes in the Senate.

This means that lucre is not the only motivating force in politics. Indeed, lobbyists are effective generally when they represent causes that coincide with the will of constituents, which is far from the case here. Voters are reluctant to accept economic pain to address remote causes with an uncertain upside. Heck, they are dubious even when the cause is not so remote and has a demonstrable upside. Take Social Security and Medicare. It is a mathematical certainty that, without reform, these programs will go bankrupt, jeopardizing the health care and retirement benefits of tens of millions Americans. Even though the cost of action is far smaller compared with the cost of inaction, persuading voters to do something is an uphill battle.

Yet even in the heyday of the consensus on global warming there was never this kind of certainty. The ClimateGate scandal—in which prominent climatologists were caught manipulating data to exaggerate the observed warming—has significantly weakened this consensus. But even if it hadn't, climate change is too complex an issue to ever be established with anything approaching iron-clad certainty. Hence, it was inevitable that it would run into a political dead-end.

This is exactly what the Reid bill represents. Indeed, if Democrats backed-off from their grand designs to cut carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 with sizable majorities in Congress and a “celestial healer” in the White House there is little chance that they will ever be able to accomplish anything better at a later date. And if America—the richest country in the world and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases—won't act, there is a snowball's chance in Mumbai that India or China will.

Of course, authoritarian countries have a little bit more leeway than democracies to push unpalatable remedies. But it is not within the power of even China's autocrats to shove an energy diet down the throat of their people on the theory that the pain from it will be short-lived because it will trigger a search for better and cleaner energy alternatives—the totality of the green pitch for action.

This doesn't mean that there aren't a few more whimpers left in the global warming movement before it finally passes. On the international front, the buzz is that the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change currently in the works will be even more alarmist than the previous one. However, thanks to ClimateGate, it will give greater play to alternative voices. “Going forward, the general perception won't be one of consensus,” notes Cato Institute Senior Fellow Jerry Taylor, an expert on energy issues, “but one of increasing appreciation of disagreement on the issue.”

Domestically, green groups will prod the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions more aggressively. But this will be harder to do when Republicans inevitably make gains in Congress in November. Indeed, they will likely revive a Senate resolution floated by Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, banning the EPA from regulating emissions from stationary sources, which lost by just four votes last month. Global warming warriors are also talking about fighting the battle for emission cuts state-by-state. But they will lose on that front too. California, which embraced such cuts four years ago, is already facing a ballot initiative in November to scrap the law, as it loses business and jobs to other states. Indeed, the same collective action problems that prevent global action on climate change will inevitably bedevil state-level action too.

The global warming warriors will likely have to go through the five stages of grief before accepting that their moment has passed and the movement is dead. Thinkers more sophisticated than Krugman will no doubt point to many proximate causes for its demise beyond evil Republicans such as lack of engagement by President Obama, bad economic timing, filibuster rules, what have you.

The reality is, however, that the crusade was doomed from the start because of its own inherent weaknesses. RIP.

Shikha Dalmia is senior analyst at a Reason Foundation and a biweekly columnist at Forbes. This column originally appeared at Forbes.

Don't Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste

By Thomas Richard

President Obama, speaking in Pittsburgh June 2, vowed to find the votes to pass the dead-on-arrival cap-and-tax bill first introduced by Sens. Kerry and Lieberman. The Gulf Coast oil spill, he said, has shown us the need to "aggressively" seek a clean energy future.

Tying the catastrophic oil spill to possible future climate change falls under the dictum of not letting a good crisis go to waste. Even though oil drilling is one of the safest forms of oil extraction, and that deepwater oil drilling is still relatively new and on a continual learning curve, Obama is determined to rip the country off our oil addiction and put everyone in a wind-powered vehicle.

Reiterating his almost obsessive desire to tax us from cradle to grave, Obama stated, "The only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution." This despite that the cap-and-tax bill is stuck in the Senate and will remain there as long as public opinion is firmly rooted in reality and keeps saying no to further energy increases.

Realizing he has until November 2010 to get this done, when a mass-exodus of Democrats will likely be leaving Congress by choice or design, Obama is ready to pull a rabbit from his magical hat by reinterpreting the constitution and ramming legislation through. He noted that the House of Representatives had already "passed a climate change bill", which sounds eerily familiar for it was his one-note prelude before passing the Healthcare bill into law.

"The next generation will not be held hostage to energy sources from the last century," said Obama. As survey after survey has shown, no one is in the throes of Stockholm syndrome or inclined to pay more for unreliable "clean" energy. The combustion engine brought many in the world out of poverty and ushered in an age of unfathomable invention and non-linear thinking.

The only persons whining about our use of fossil fuel, and doing it loudly and unsparingly, are narrow-minded politicians, Pollyanna-ish green-gooders, and environmental religious groups. Dogma has now replaced science; rhetorical flourishes have now replaced sound judgment.

Sadly, Obama is already saying that the Gulf oil disaster could be the result of "human error -- or corporations taking dangerous shortcuts that compromised safety." If this sounds like the TV show Jeopardy, it's because Obama created a presidential commission to find the answer. Will anyone be surprised if the commission's results are an Obama-styled self-fulfilling prophesy?

Keep in mind that this disaster happened under Obama's watch. The people in charge of the Minerals Management Service (MMS), which oversees offshore oil drilling and royalties, is run by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, an Obama appointee. If Salazar was unable to clean up the MMS's cozy relationship with the oil companies, and do it in a timely fashion since he was appointed, then Salazar should be quickly dispersed.

Blaming the Bush/Cheney administration is getting tiresome and people can see right through the charade. Anyone who has ever worked in any kind of company knows that personnel changes take a month or two, not a year and a half. That's just being lazy and overlooking the obvious problems of your underlings and policies.

Cleaning up the MMS doesn't need an act of Congress. It needed a Secretary of the Interior who knew what he was doing from the get-go. And a president who didn't wait two weeks to actually visit the Gulf Coast. Who has their boot on the neck of Salazar?

"We also have to acknowledge that an America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and grandchildren," said Obama. This amazing statement of hubris, telling the American people what their vision should be, is nothing new. He used the same rationale with healthcare reform and illegal immigration. Now he's prepping us again for climate change taxation.

As Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."


It's the sun, stupid

Read here. Researchers using lake sediment cores determine that severe weather for the northeastern United States has followed a cyclical pattern with a 3,000 year gap between each peak. The latest severe weather period began some 600 years ago with onset of the Little Ice Age. The major forces driving this natural cycle are thought to be solar changes, along with changes in the Atlantic Oscillation (AO).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are not even considered to be an influence on this natural cycle of storminess.

"The authors' data indicate that "the frequency of storm-related floods in the northeastern United States has varied in regular cycles during the past 13,000 years (13 kyr), with a characteristic period of about 3 kyr." There were four major storminess peaks during this period; they occurred approximately 2.6, 5.8, 9.1 and 11.9 kyr ago, with the most recent upswing in storminess beginning "at about 600 yr BP [Before Present], coincident with the beginning of the Little Ice Age.".....authors say that the pattern they observed "is consistent with long-term changes in the average sign of the Arctic Oscillation [AO], suggesting that modulation of this dominant atmospheric mode may account for a significant fraction of Holocene climate variability in North America and Europe.".....authors also report that "during the past ~600 yr, New England storminess appears to have been increasing naturally," and they suggest that "changes in the AO, perhaps modulated by solar forcing, may explain a significant portion of Holocene climate variability in the North Atlantic region." They further state that their explanation is appealing "because it makes a specific prediction that New England storminess should be at its greatest when Europe is cold (characteristic of the low-phase AO)," such as during Little Ice Age conditions"


Hooray! School system pulls global warming book and video from classrooms

By Joe Dejka, World-Herald

Millard Public Schools will stop using a children's book about global warming -- but only until the district can obtain copies with a factual error corrected.

A review committee, convened after parents complained, concluded that author Laurie David's book, "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming," contained "a major factual error" in a graphic about rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.

Mark Feldhausen, associate superintendent for educational services, this week sent a letter to parents who complained, including the wife of U.S. Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, outlining the committee's findings.

"Although the authors have pledged to correct the graph in subsequent editions, the committee recommends that this correction be made to all MPS-owned texts before using it with students in the future," Feldhausen wrote.

Corrected versions will continue to be used in Millard's sixth-grade language arts curriculum, he wrote.

However, the district will cease to use a companion video about global warming, narrated by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, he wrote.

The committee found the video "without merit" and recommended that it not be used.

Robyn Terry, the congressman's wife, had described the video as a "political commercial."

Lee and Robyn Terry released a statement saying they were pleased with the decision and "impressed" by the district’s handling of the case.

"We are pleased with their decision not to use the politically natured global warming video as a classroom instruction tool and that they have set a standard that information-based texts must be factually correct to be put in front of our children," they wrote.

Read the rest here.

Climate Depot's Marc Morano Takes on ABC News' Dan Harris

We've all sort of known the media have been in the tank for the global warming alarmist movement. For evidence, look no further than a March 2008 segment that aired on ABC "World News" attacking leading climate skeptic, University of Virginia environmental scientist Professor Emeritus Fred Singer.

And the same culprit behind that 2008 segment, "World News" weekend anchor Dan Harris, was at it again with a piece that aired on May 23 attempting to link climate change skeptics to white supremacists.

But for balance, Harris included a few brief remarks, all of 10 seconds, from Marc Morano of, a news aggregator website Harris called "aggressive." But the actual interview Harris conducted with Morano was much more extensive and in depth. Throughout the interview, Harris asked Morano questions, but with premises that weren't necessarily true.

During the back-and-forth, Harris asked Morano about the "threat" from people who challenged global warming skeptics, the validity that ClimateGate was a real scandal, the charges from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., that ClimateGate exposed fraud, how someone could be skeptical of global warming with such a broad consensus and what Harris deemed as "interesting," that climate skeptics were susceptible to threats as well. However, 99 percent of that was left out of the segment. What was left out of the ABC News segment? Transcript as follows:

HARRIS: So we'll just get your reaction, I know this is a complaint you've heard before, but of late, climate scientists say they're seeing a big spike in threatening e-mails, and the FBI is looking into it and the scientists say that it's stopping them from doing their work for some are quite scared. What is your - what do you think of this alleged trend?

MORANO: Well, first of all, no one advocates violence. There's always lunatics on any side of any hotly contested debate that will make threats or do threats of physical harm or death threats. No one is advocating that. But, what I will say is these scientists who for decades have been telling people that the debate was over, the science is settled and that we must act now. We must radically alter our lifestyles. We need to make all these changes in order to confront the crisis of global warming.

That's all been now exposed, especially the lie of consensus as a con job. The idea that all scientists agree with a con job, the idea, you know, that this was the best science that we can have was a con job. So right now, the public is very appropriately venting their anger to the very scientists who spend decades refusing to debate, suppressing dissenting opinion, trying to redefine what peer-reviewed literature meant and using the U.N. political process, which called -- demonized skeptics as "flat-earthers." And so, the public is appropriately angry at these scientists. And again, no one's advocating violence but it is refreshing to see these scientists hear from the public, when you go to a used car salesman and you get conned, you get a lemon, you don't go back to the used car dealer all happy and pleasant. You have a lot of anger and that's what these scientists are appropriately feeling and that is why I actually published the e-mails, publicly available e-mails, of these scientists on my Web site, Climate Depot.

HARRIS: Now, on ClimateGate, isn't it true that several of the subsequent investigations exonerated these guys from cooking the books?

MORANO: Right, you're referring to Lord Oxburgh and these other reports? U.N. scientists have like laughed. Richard Tol, a lead author at the U.N. is laughing at this Oxburgh report and other scientists. This was essentially a light piece of paper - a couple of pages long. Didn't interview any of the skeptics. Had a very narrow focus on what they were looking at and these were all warmists. The head of it, Lord Oxburgh, had massive conflict of interests that he never would have gotten away with had it been the other way around and say a skeptic was heading an oil-funded interest. This was a complete laughingstock investigation.

And the bottom line is, we've seen the e-mails, we've heard the top U.N. scientists now turning on each other. I have a whole report of U.N. scientists turning on the U.N. saying it's run its course, it's time to disband it. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chief should resign. So these little committees that get together that are all politically connected, full of global warmist, aren't going to change the fact there's a civil war going on within the U.N. over these ClimateGate e-mails. And the American people realize what ClimateGate was all about. You don't need a committee to read the very words of these scientists.

HARRIS: I recognize you're no longer in the employ of Sen. [James] Inhofe. Let me ask you about his recent report. Some of the scientists we have spoken to say that of all the pushback they have gotten in recent months - the most disturbing thing to them was this report from Sen. Inhofe that named the 17 scientists and tends to raise the specter of criminal investigation or criminal charges. People are calling that "McCarthyite." How do you -- what's your pushback on that?

MORANO: No, I think he's identified, if I'm not mistaken, 17 scientists that warrant further investigation. This is absolutely appropriate. These are scientists, many of them on the government dole, the United Nations money. These scientists who've actively been involved in at least the appearance of or actively involved in rebuking Freedom of Information Act requests - scientists who get public fund s to do research that have a lot of questions to answer. And for them to say, "Oh my gosh, what horror!" No, they're on the public dime in many cases and they're advocating public policy changes and radical changes to our lifestyles down to the toilet paper we use, down to the light bulbs we can use. Down to how much we're going to be paying for gas and home energy, all based on their science which has now -been credible accusations that they have cooked the books. So it's completely appropriate for the government to start looking at them and naming names.

HARRIS: When you attack the consensus, that's where I get a little confused because you can say what you want about the U.N., but you can also add in to their -- you know, NASA, NOAA, the American Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Sciences in pretty much every developed nation on the planet.
How can you construct a consensus this broad on a hoax?

MORANO: First of all, it's not a "broad consensus." What you just said there were political arguments. You're insulting the intelligence of ABC News by using that as proof of a consensus. What you've done is - all those groups you've mentioned - the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Advancement [of Science], the American Chemical Society - they've all had two dozen or so governing board members vote on a statement that is vaguely similar to what the United Nations says about global warming. Science groups don't take direct votes of their member scientists. Most of the members we find out aren't even aware these statements are issued at the time they're issued. But what's happened since is massive blowback. The American Chemical Society was shocked at the number of dissenting scientists upset at their stand. The National Academy of Sciences is having a big blowback. The American Physical Society is having a big blowback of member scientists. When you get away from that political governing board, the American Meteorological Society, it has been documented, has been staffed by former [Vice President Al] Gore staffers in their bureaucracy.

Dan, you're bringing up a political argument and masquerading it as science and that's a disservice to ABC News viewers. Look at the actual scientific conferences. In Norway, in 2008 - I can send you the documentation. There was a scientific conference held only every four years - the Geological Congress. It's called the Olympic event of scientists. Two-thirds of the scientists were estimated to be skeptical, hostile and dismissive of UN IPCC scientists. In Canada, 50,000 earth scientists canvassed - remember the member scientists, not the politically connected [20] board members - 67 percent rejected a consensus on manmade global warming. Scientists are speaking up around the world and the blowback against this call for Nuremberg trials for skeptics by Grist magazine, blowback against Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s saying coal barons who are skeptical need to be put in jail.

I had scientist join the Senate list of 700 dissenting scientists simply because the head of the U.N. compared them to flat-earthers. They say things like we can remain silent no longer. We're not going to be demonized like this. So, the idea of broad consensus is now laughable. Even the ClimateGate scientists don't have a consensus when they're talking about the U.N. and my favorite quote - it was Kevin Trenberth, I believe, who said "We can't do geo-engineering because we don't understand the climate system well enough to know what impact it will have."
That's your consensus, Dan? I think you can do better than that.

HARRIS: One last question. You alluded to this, but I want to give you the chance to flesh it out a little bit. Somebody from Sen. Inhofe's office made this point. I think it's an interesting one. You made it as well - that scientists and others who have skepticism about climate change have been harassed as well.

MORANO: Yes, I have an entire documented report. Let's start from the top. On Climate Progress, Joe Romm's blog, he defended a post saying the future generations will strangle climate skeptics in bed. Talking Points Memo had a piece that said when will climate skeptics be executed, when can we start punishing them now for what they've done? Grist magazine, I mentioned the Nuremberg-style trials. I mentioned threats and intimidation. I had two e-mails that were threatening to me that the Sergeant of Arms in the Senate had to investigate. So, I laugh when I hear these scientists say, ‘Oh these are threatening e-mails.' Skeptics have been getting these for years. Talk to Tim Ball in Canada, the climatologist who's skeptical. He's gotten death threats. There's been reports in, I want to say Europe. I can't remember the guy's name, but I can get it for you. There's been reports about skeptical scientists in Europe having their tires flattened after receiving threats. So threats are on all sides of this. There's no way we can look at this and say, "Oh these poor ClimateGate scientists" or "poor U.N. scientists." The bottom line is they were at ground zero perpetuating a con job of the illusion of a consensus. They deserve the public wrath they're getting. It's refreshing that they're finally getting a hostile reaction. They're not in their little cocoon of the U.N. or the mainstream media like ABC News.

HARRIS: Are there other points that I have not given you a chance to make that you feel like I should - that need to be made?

MORANO: Yeah, other than just public opinion - you know Richard Lindzen had a great quote: "The educated are very vulnerable to manmade climate fears, but ordinary people see right through them." And the bottom line is whether you're talking Australia, Canada, Europe, England, India, South Africa, America - skepticism has grown by leaps and bounds. We now have more Americans believing in haunted houses than manmade global warming. That's scientific progress and that is why these ClimateGate scientists and the U.N. scientists are in a panic. That and their civil war going on. Again, I can send you a report of all the scientists turning against the U.N. Lead authors, former chairmen, former members. We have reports of scientists leaving. It was the best science politics can manufacture and it's been exposed through ClimateGate and now through the civil war going on in the U.N. and it's about time. The American people can breathe a sigh of relief. People around the world can breathe a sigh of relief. This whole manufactured crisis is ending. It's dying and we're watching the last throes of it and we should all be happy about that.

HARRIS: Marc, thank you for doing this. I appreciate it.

MORANO: Thank you, Dan. I appreciate it.

HARRIS: Have a good rest of your weekend.

MORANO: Alright, I'll expect to do a rebuttal to your piece on Sunday night or Monday morning. So look for it. I don't expect the -- I think you did the Fred Singer piece last year, which was atrocious reporting. I believe that was you, right? You did the piece on Fred Singer?

HARRIS: I did the piece on Fred Singer.

MORANO: So I'm not expecting much from you, but we'll have fun.

HARRIS: Well, thank you for having low expectations.

MORANO: I have very low expectations.


The Arctic: Over 1,000+ Years, CO2 Has Zero Impact On Polar Warming & Cooling

The AGW hypothesis states that human CO2 emissions will cause the world to warm, with the the globe's polar areas being especially vulnerable to rapid warming, due to CO2. The evidence from the last 1,000 years plus does not support the hypothesis.

Previously, we examined the data from Antarctica. Now we look at the actual Arctic area data (see chart below) and find that like the Antarctic, the northern polar regions have temperature swings unrelated to the CO2 levels. From peak to valley, Arctic temperatures changed more than 1.6 degrees Celsius while CO2 levels remained fairly stable. (click on image to enlarge)
Arctic 1000 yr Temps CO2_cr
Despite the alarmist claims of polar regions melting due to CO2-induced warming, there is no evidence to support that claim, either historically or currently. In fact, the highest temperatures reached over the last 1,000+ years were during the Medieval Period (about 1,000 years before present) when CO2 levels were close to being their lowest, based on the ice core data.

Temperature data is from the Greenland GISP II ice core, which ends in year 1905. CO2 levels are from the same dataset used in the previous Antarctica graph.

More historical charts here. Other climate history postings here. Modern temperature charts.


Oops. Greenland Was Warmer 80 Years Ago

Near-Surface Greenland Air Temperatures: 1840-2007 is a new paper analysing Greenland temperature data and has come to the conclusion that Greenland was warmer in the 1930's than now!

"Using a set of 12 coastal and 40 inland ice surface air temperature records in combination with climate model output," the authors say they reconstructed "long-term (1840-2007) monthly, seasonal, and annual spatial patterns of temperature variability over a continuous grid covering Greenland and the inland ice sheet," after which they say they compared "the 1919-32 and 1994-2007 warming episodes" and made "a comparison of Greenland ice sheet surface air temperature temporal variability with that of the Northern Hemisphere average."
Based on the results depicted in the figure above, the four researchers determined that "the annual whole ice sheet 1919-32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994-2007 warming," and that "in contrast to the 1920s warming, the 1994-2007 warming has not surpassed the Northern Hemisphere anomaly." Indeed, they note that "an additional 1.0°-1.5°C of annual mean warming would be needed for Greenland to be in phase with the Northern Hemisphere pattern."

What it means
In spite of all the fuss climate alarmists make about Greenland being on the verge of crossing a tipping point and beginning to experience dramatic ice loss, the results of Box et al. demonstrate there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the nature of its 1994-2007 warming episode. In fact, it is much less impressive than the 1919-1932 warming; and it becomes even more "less impressive" when it is realized that the atmosphere's CO2 concentration only rose by about 5 ppm during the earlier period of stronger warming but by fully 25 ppm (five times more) during the later period of weaker warming.

It is interesting to note that the 1930's were the warmest in the US also - I wonder how widespread the 1930's warming actually was or if this is just a co-incidence.

Source via Climate Depot

800,000 signatures submitted for measure to suspend climate bill

Proponents of a state ballot measure to suspend a California climate bill have submitted enough voter signatures to qualify it for November, saying they have nearly twice the number necessary to do so.

One of the chief proponents, Assemblyman Dan Logue, said he believes the submission means the state is one step closer to restoring regulatory sanity.

"It's a great day," said Logue, R-Linda, of the formal submission Monday of his measure, which would suspend the 2006 legislation, AB 32, until state unemployment drops to 5.5 percent for an extended period. "People will have a voice on this issue."

To qualify for the November ballot, as Logue believes it will, county election officials where the campaign submitted signatures will first have to verify the total number, then verify a sample as to whether they're of actual registered state voters.

A spokesman for a group opposing the measure said the submission of signatures only proves money buys access.

"It's the power of $2 million in big oil money to get onto the ballot," said Steve Maviglio of Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, referring to companies like Valero and Tesoro that have underwritten much of the initiative campaign. Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs announced Monday that George Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, would co-chair their campaign.

"He's a well-established superstar and he brings a lot of heft to the campaign," Maviglio said, adding his presence suggests AB32 has far more widespread support among state residents of all political persuasions. "We're convinced we'll have a strong coalition of businesses, environmentalists and health care providers speaking on our behalf."

AB32 would reduce the state's level of carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as a means to stem global warming. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has described the bill as one of his legacy achievements while in office.

The governor vowed Monday to oppose the initiative if it qualifies.

"We will do everything we can in this state to raise money, bring stakeholders together," the governor said.

Schwarzenegger said the state will continue to lead the nation with its strong environmental policy.

"California is 40 percent more energy efficient than the rest of the country," he said. "Now greedy oil companies want to roll back that cut, they want us to depend on just oil."

Logue and many other conservatives, as well as both major GOP candidates for governor, have said the measure stifles the state's economy and will make it harder, if not impossible, to recover from the current downturn.

"We don't want California to go alone while the rest of the country stands by," Logue said, adding discussions over possible carbon emissions legislation in Washington, D.C. have suggested measures far less draconian than AB32.

He said the group opposing his initiative is largely funded by "green jobs" companies, which are subsidized by taxpayers rather than private funding.

"We want green jobs, blue jobs, gray jobs, all kinds of jobs," Logue said.

For the ballot initiative suspending AB 32 to qualify, it needs 433,971 verified voter signatures, or a projected number of 477,369 signatures under a method using sample counts of signatures. Logue said the campaign collected more than 800,000 signatures.

According to the California Secretary of State's press office, both the signature total and registered voter verification must be completed by June 24 to qualify the measure for November.


Al Gore's New House

Al's existing Florida home

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.
The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
Can't wait for someone to tally up the carbon buttprint of this one.

Via Planet Gore

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, April 29th 2010

Al Gore has a modest new home in California, because every eco-cult leader needs a mansion on each coast. Australia’s government dropped emissions trading like a hot rock because the ‘climate crisis’ can wait until after the pesky election, and CNN emulates ancient cultures and is fearful of a vengeful planet.

This week’s round-up is a bit of a monster edition, so the hottie is the world’s sexiest woman. It seemed only fair.

Part One: Al Gore & Friends

Al Gore loves the planet so much he has dedicated his earning potential life to the cause. He’s so in love with the Earth that it’s almost as if he wants to visit all of it, in one week:

April 30, 2010–Philippines
April 29, 2010–Johannesburg, South Africa
April 27, 2010–New York (afternoon)
April 27, 2010–Chicago (morning)
April 26, 2010–Denver
April 24, 2010–Italy
April 22, 2010–Montreal

His New York trip was almost a Gore Effect day, it was cold but the snow held off.

Al won a big payday in court this week, when a fine of $588 was reversed on appeal. The original fine was for unfair use of a photograph his Current TV used without permission. I was intending to be all snarky and critical of Gore for fighting over a few hundred dollars, but what I didn’t know was he needed the cash for his new California home. Al and Tipper dropped $8,875,000 for an ocean-view villa with a swimming pool, spa and fountains. So, that $588 will come in handy when Tipper starts shopping for new drapes.

The Goreacle lashed out at the media, calling articles skeptical of the global warming hoax ‘ridiculous’. Without any sense of irony, Al later blogged and blagged emo-Joe Romm’s ‘important’ new book, which made Romm go ’squeeee’, or something.

It wasn’t all easy riding for the global warming profiteer prophet, The Foundry discovered some awkward math when assessing the real costs of Al’s preferred Repowering America plans:

…to meet Al Gore’s plan, with the cheapest renewable energy source, onshore wind, a family of four’s electricity bill would be almost double than if it were supplied by all coal – up from $189 a month to $340 a month. He assured Americans that we can use wind, solar and geothermal to power America. But the price only increases. Offshore wind: $404 a month. Solar thermal: $504 a month and worst of all, solar panels: $718 a month. That’s only $8,600 per family per year to cover our earth with solar panels.

Oddly, when Al wrote about coal’s dirty secrets, the fact that it only costs half of wind power never came up. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Al’s thoughts on the dirty secrets of his favorite renewable, ethanol.

An ABC commenter pondered the idea of Al Gore being nominated to the Supreme Court, which is frankly both terrifying and hilarious. But mostly hilarious. The Supremes don’t earn enough to attract an A-lister like Al.

Suzuki circa 1970: 'In 40 years I'll be a total failure'

Canada’s perennial hippie and preachy irritant David Suzuki is a scientist, allegedly:

Suzuki believes the broader public still understands the urgent need for action because of the “in your face” impacts of climate change, like extreme weather, wildfires and melting polar ice.

“Canada is the most vulnerable to climate change of any of the industrialized countries,” Suzuki said. [he] won’t predict whether the warming problem will be solved in the next 40 years. He and others once believed the 1990s had to be the turnaround decade. “It’s 20 years later and we’re still fighting the battles,” he said.

“The direction we’re heading is catastrophic. This is not going to be easy. But the important thing is to get started.”

The daft old hippie has devoted his life to a lost cause and the important thing is to get started? Pardon me, but Epic Fail, no?

Part Two: AGW Scaremongers

A US Democrat finally finds an enemy he can fight, climate change is a national security issue. Remember, as the warmists rush to replace oil, only one place on the planet has enough rare earth metals to make all the shiny new batteries that new green technologies need… and it happens to be a Communist giant that owns a large swathe of US debt. What could possibly go wrong?

emo-Joe Romm interviewed Van Jones for Earth Day:

And there’s going to be the opportunity for regular people to get real actual benefits—to get refunds. People are like, “oh, I’m scared of this energy bill because it’s going to make my energy bill go up,” but there’s a way you can actually get a refund on your energy bill and actually wind up with more money in your pocket if you make your home more energy efficient.

Jones, a fired Marxist doesn’t actually say whose pocket the ‘refunds’ will be coming from, but if you have a job in America, it’s probably yours.


After 40 years of Earth Day, we're still surviving

Hundreds of millions of dollars up for grabs by enviro-insiders

Well, I survived Earth Day. But only just. Thanks to all the hot air and greenhouse gases being spewed into the atmosphere, especially from that nasty Icelandic volcano, the global temperature likely went up by at least a couple of degrees.

But here it was simply a lovely spring day, the kind that reminds us we live in one of the cleanest, most pollution-free cities on the planet (except, of course, when the potheads cloud it over during their annual toke-in).

Nevertheless, the relentless drive to make the Lower Mainland ever cleaner and greener continues to consume our province's most creative minds.

The reason? There's a lot of green in it, especially when you consider the hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and subsidies up for grabs by environmental insiders -- and the excuse it gives government to grab those dollars back and more from regular taxpayers through various eco-levies.

The Vancouver office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, for example, has now come up with an innovative, Robin-Hood-style plan to help government seize more cash . . . at least from the wealthy.

The socialist think-tank argues that, since the richest 20 per cent of B.C. income earners are to blame for almost double the greenhouse-gas emissions of those in the lowest income group, the fat cats should pay proportionately more in carbon taxes.

"If climate policies are going to be effective, they need to be fair," noted senior economist Marc Lee. "That means high-income British Columbians should bear the greater burden of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

Now, I have some sympathy for this line of thinking. I mean, if we could permanently ground the David Suzukis, the Al Gores and other high flyers who jet around attending global-warming summits and other major carbon-emitting get-togethers, we could lower the temperature of the planet in no time.

But why stop there? Why not simply stop folks from flying altogether? Well, I suspect that would cool down the global economy so much it would send it into deep freeze . . . or the next ice age.

More seriously, though, I think we should all take a deep breath and look back 40 years to 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, to see what leading environmentalists were saying back then about civilization ending. Well, according to the free-market, Seattle-based Washington Policy Centre, Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes stated: "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation."

Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, predicted the world would be 11 degrees colder in the year 2000: "This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

Well, we are still surviving. And I suspect that, during the next 40 years, we will continue to survive all the gases that the big corporations and the bad volcanoes pump skyward . . . though maybe by then we will find a way of taxing volcanoes.

As for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' tax-the-rich carbon scheme, I think it will likely go the way of the Dodo.

Given the current level of environmental hysteria, though, I wouldn't bet on it.

By Jon Ferry, The Province

Earth Day Video

The world needs more George Carlins, not Al Gores.