The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 7 (including environmentalism and energy)

[movielib]

Here you go. A blueprint for federal global warming and green energy laws?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index..._of_green.html

State lowballed cost of green tax breaks
By Harry Esteve, The Oregonian
October 31, 2009, 7:32PM

State officials deliberately underestimated the cost of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's plan to lure green energy companies to Oregon with big taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told, an investigation by The Oregonian shows.

Records also show that the program, a favorite of Kulongoski's known as the Business Energy Tax Credit, has given millions of dollars to failed companies while voters are being asked to raise income taxes because the state budget doesn't have enough to pay for schools and other programs.

The incentives are now under intense scrutiny at the Oregon Department of Energy, which is scrambling to curb their skyrocketing costs.

Energy officials were worried about the impact on the state budget in 2006, when Kulongoski and his staff proposed a dramatic boost in tax breaks to woo wind and solar companies to Oregon -- upping the subsidies from a high of $3.5 million per project to as much as $20 million.

According to documents obtained under Oregon's public records law, agency officials estimated in a Nov. 16, 2006, spreadsheet that expanding the tax credits would cost taxpayers an additional $13 million in 2007-09. But after a series of scratch-outs and scribbled notes, a new spreadsheet pared the cost to $1.8 million. And when energy officials handed their final estimate to the Legislature in February 2007, they pegged the added cost at just $1.2 million for the first two years and $4.1 million for 2009-11.

The higher estimates were never shown to lawmakers. Current and former energy staffers acknowledged a clear attempt to minimize the cost of the subsidies.

"I remember that discussion. Everyone was saying, yes, this is going to be a huge (budget) hit," recalled Charles Stephens, a former analyst for the Energy Department who left in 2006. "The governor's office was saying, 'No, we need a smaller number.'"

Dave Barker, an analyst who is still with the agency, told The Oregonian that the initial cost estimates started high but got lower after he was told by his superiors to plug in smaller figures.

"What I would hear pretty consistently was, 'We want to keep it conservative,'" Barker said.

The official estimates turned out to be absurdly low. In 2007-09, the business tax credit cost the state $68 million, of which about $40 million can be attributed to the bigger subsidies. The latest estimate for 2009-11 puts the tab for subsidies at $167 million in lost revenue, which is projected to grow to $243 million for 2011-13 -- about what Oregon spends now from its general fund on the entire state police budget.

The land rush is not surprising. Oregon's tax incentives are now among the nation's richest for wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy projects. In 2007 alone, the state granted $33 million in tax credits to Klondike Wind Power for three projects in Wasco County.

No other state program has been allowed to grow at such a pace. The runaway cost increases result in part from loose regulations that allow nearly every business that seeks the lucrative tax credit to get one. Since 1979, when the tax credits were voted into law, the state has approved 97 percent of the applications for subsidies.

Governor denies pressure

The program has become the centerpiece of Kulongoski's legacy-making effort to turn Oregon into a center for environmentally friendly industry.

Kulongoski staff members deny that the governor or anyone on his staff directed the Energy Department to lowball the costs and said the huge disparity between early cost projections and actual expenses was simply a bad guess. They say no one understood how popular the tax credit would become.

"I'm not aware of anybody having those kinds of conversations with the Energy Department," said Kulongoski spokeswoman Anna Richter Taylor. The governor didn't, she said, and his aides "wouldn't set him up that way."

Richter Taylor said Kulongoski considers the subsidies to be "wildly successful" in bringing new, clean companies to Oregon. He does, however, agree that rules should be tightened on who qualifies for the tax breaks.

Mike Grainey, who was Energy Department director before being ousted by Kulongoski last spring, denied efforts to downplay the potential costs of the higher subsidies.

"The number of projects that came in after those changes were made were far beyond our expectations," he said.

Grainey said he doesn't remember what his expectations were for luring new business.

Records show that his department came up with the $1.2 million in additional costs by figuring that only one large renewable energy project would take advantage of the tax breaks in the first two years.

Cost worried legislators

Rep. Phil Barnhart of Eugene, who was chairman of the House Revenue Committee in 2007, said he and his fellow Democrats were skeptical about handing out more tax breaks to businesses when other needs were going unmet. But they wanted to encourage what he calls the "green revolution" and Kulongoski's goal of providing jobs while boosting the state's energy independence.

------------------------------------------
[Sidebar:]

Politics and energy policy

Swirling events last spring, cataloged in state e-mails and public records, led Gov. Ted Kulongoski to oust Oregon Department of Energy Director Mike Grainey:

March 13: Grainey sends memo to Sen. Ginny Burdick outlining his proposal for major cuts to the Business Energy Tax Credit: "I believe these sets of measures will have a significant revenue reduction impact while maintaining the overall effectiveness of the tax credit program."

April 15: Grainey sends e-mail to Portland lobbyist Len Bergstein notifying him of the decision to reduce by more than half the $90 million in state tax breaks Bergstein's client, Oregon Windfarms, had sought for an eastern Oregon wind energy project.

May 5: Oregon Windfarms principal Glenn Ikemoto sends angry response to Grainey, saying the company would never have built the project if it thought it wouldn't get the entire subsidy. "This is simply unfair," Ikemoto writes.

May 7: Jane Bacchieri, who works for Kulongoski on energy-related projects paid by federal stimulus money, writes an e-mail to Grainey's chief deputy, Diana Enright, asking for more "flexibility" in how the money is spent. Kulongoski wants to spend federal stimulus dollars on his pet project, a large bank of solar panels along Interstate 205. Energy staff members balk, saying the project does not meet federal guidelines.

May 12: Kulongoski's deputy chief of staff, Brian Shipley, writes a sharply worded e-mail to Grainey's staff questioning why they nearly missed the deadline to apply for federal stimulus funds. Grainey writes back, blaming the hang-up on "confusion with this process."

May 13: Grainey writes to Ikemoto and says the department will start a formal process to "reconsider" the request for more tax breaks for Oregon Windfarms. Later, the company agreed to a compromise of $40 million in subsidies.

May 15: Kulongoski announces Grainey's transfer from the Energy Department to a new position in economic development. "It has been a lot of fun," Grainey writes Kulongoski.

June 26: Legislature passes House Bill 2472, which trims state subsidies for large wind farms from $10 million to $3.5 million. The bill contains some of Grainey's recommendations for cutting the tax breaks.

Aug. 7: Kulongoski vetoes HB2472 but orders new energy director Mark Long to tighten rules that determine who gets the tax breaks.

An economist with the Legislative Revenue Office didn't trust the low estimates from the Energy Department and raised them to $1.9 million in 2007-09 and $12.6 million for 2009-11. The numbers were still small enough that the bill sailed through. [End of sidebar]
----------------------------------------------------

"This was not a difficult bill," Barnhart said. "It should have been a bit more difficult. Since then, I've learned it's not so straightforward."

Underestimating the cost of the subsidies was just the start. Records obtained by The Oregonian point to a program that hands out tax credits with little accountability. Some examples:

• A wind energy project received four separate $10 million tax credits even though it will generate less electricity than projects getting one-tenth the $40 million subsidy.

• A Clatskanie ethanol plant got $12 million in tax subsidies plus a $20 million state energy loan, then promptly went bankrupt and stopped operating. The plant, Cascade Grains, claims it's still owed $10 million in tax credits, and it may sue to try to get them.

• A Boardman tire recycling plant got $3.4 million even though, after more than two years, it has yet to recycle tires. Investors are suing founders of Reklaim Technologies, now known as McKinstry-Reklaim, alleging they were misled about the project's solvency.

• Thirty-five companies that had applied for smaller tax breaks under the old rules were granted the higher subsidies -- essentially giving them windfalls that cost taxpayers $2.1 million.

Sen. Ginny Burdick, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, tried to put the brakes on what she viewed as an out-of-control subsidy program. Her bill to trim tax breaks for big wind farms was approved by the Senate and the House this year but vetoed by Kulongoski, a fellow Democrat.

"What I saw was a hemorrhage of money at a time when we really could not afford it," said Burdick, D-Portland. "The subsidy is far richer than it needs to be."

The case of Oregon Windfarms helps illustrate her point. The corporation, based in Piedmont, Calif., planned to build wind turbines in eastern Oregon. But instead of applying for a single tax credit, worth $10 million, the firm broke the project into nine smaller ones and demanded nine credits, worth $90 million.

Before the company got approval for any state tax credits, it broke ground on the project and began erecting turbines. Grainey, the former state energy director, balked at the multiple applications but eventually approved four credits worth $40 million -- less than half the $90 million the company originally sought.

Company officials expressed their outrage in a May 6 e-mail. "This would be a financial disaster," wrote Glenn Ikemoto, a principal of Oregon Windfarms. Yet, last month, according to Energy Department records, the company signed an agreement for the $40 million subsidy.

"The prospect of a protracted, costly fight was not attractive," said Len Bergstein, a prominent Portland lobbyist who represents Oregon Windfarms.

The project is on the books to generate 64.5 megawatts of power. Three years ago, a 100-megawatt wind project in Sherman County received a $3.5 million subsidy.

Department in disarray

This past spring, it was clear that the governor's office was frustrated with the way the Energy Department was managed. Kulongoski's staff haggled with Grainey over his handling of an employee the governor's office wanted fired. Tensions arose over Kulongoski's desire to use federal stimulus money to build a string of solar panels along Interstate 205, a project energy staffers argued didn't qualify under federal guidelines.

Only a few weeks after the dust-up with Oregon Windfarms, Kulongoski forced Grainey out of his 30-year career in the Energy Department. His replacement was Mark Long, who had been director of the state Building Codes Division.

Long's assignment was to tighten control over the agency and put limits on the energy tax credits. The change resulted in considerable turnover, as Long brought in new managers and longtime energy analysts quit, disheartened by what they saw as a radical change in direction.

"Me and the folks I brought in, we get it," Long said in an interview. "We get the (tax credit) needs sideboards."

Long is overseeing an extensive rewrite of rules that would give the department more authority to deny applications. The new rules also will try to rein in the practice of applying for multiple credits, and they may allow the state to retrieve money if the projects don't operate as billed.

Supporters of the tax credits say they have put Oregon on the map for renewable energy, making it one of the top states in the nation for green jobs. Renewable energy companies such as Solaicx and Iberdola employ scores of workers at good wages.

The results can be seen by anyone driving through the Columbia River Gorge into central and eastern Oregon. Once-empty plateaus now bristle with towering turbines, spinning out about 7 percent of the state's electricity production.

Critics of the program note that job gains are small and have made little difference in the state's stubbornly high unemployment rate. The typical wind project, once construction workers leave, hires only a handful of full-time people.

The huge sums of money at stake have changed the way the agency thinks about energy projects, said Christopher Dymond, a senior energy analyst who found new work after the regime change.

"Now, it's not based as much on technical merit," Dymond said. "It's based on politics."

Imagine that multiplied by hundreds. Does anyone truly believe Taxman/Malarkey would cost the average family the "price of a postage stamp a day"? Even such analyses as the Heritage Foundation are being very generous with estimates around $2000-$3000 a year. What are the ripple effects on the economy going to be and what about the lost opportunities from making proved energy producers pay and subsidizing expensive, underperforming "green" technologies? I don't think we can even begin to imagine. But every one of these schemes from Spain to Germany to Denmark to Oregon is proving to be a huge losing proposition while not lowering temperature increases (if there are even any now) one bit or producing net job gains or increasing energy production or "cleaner" energy production.

But this is how this crap is sold, with lies of pie in the sky and beautiful green utopias. It always has been like this and it always will be. You'd think we'd learn.

[arminius]

Never underestimate the herbal incandescence of the American public.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by movielib

If this report is accurate, Al Gore is completely off his nut.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ts_220_fo.html


Gore's insane sea level predictions from his sci-fi movie have been defended by alarmists based on the fact that Gore provided no time period for the disaster. This despite the fact that imminent doom was implied. But if this report is accurate, Gore has ratcheted up the doom and provided the time period. And it's too absurd for words.

And, of course, since the North Pole is on the sea, its melting wouldn't add anything to sea levels. If Gore is talking about Greenland (which isn't melting) even an entire meltdown wouldn't come close to Gore's alleged prediction.

I think Gore, even as math and science impaired as he is, could not have regurgitated this level of idiocy. I hope the Maktoob article can be confirmed or disproved soon.

That is so wild. I don't actually believe Gore is the complete moron he appears to be. I have to conclude that he is either acting the way he does because there is money to be made, or because he has been turned into a type of cult follower.

[nemein]

because he has been turned into a type of cult follower.

Actually I would suggest he's playing more of the role of a cult leader who is starting to buy into his "line".

[movielib]

Originally Posted by nemein

Actually I would suggest he's playing more of the role of a cult leader who is starting to buy into his "line".

Kind of a Jim Jones who wants to force everyone in the world to drink his Kool-Aid.

[movielib]

Would the Times give such a pass to a skeptic who got, say, $500 from Exxon or the Heartland Institute?

http://greenhellblog.com/2009/11/03/...-profiteering/

NY Times excuses Gore’s climate profiteering
November 3, 2009

The New York Times and reporter John Broder get partial credit for spotlighting Al Gore’s climate profiteering on the front-page of today’s paper.

Unfortunately the article offers really lame justifications for Gore’s self-serving alarmism.

Gore only responded to the Times in an e-mail:

Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades.

Or is it that he’s putting his mouth where his money is?

Don’t forget that Al Gore testified before the House last spring that he has no profit motive. As reported by Broder:

But at the hearing in April, he was challenged by Ms. Blackburn, who echoed some of the criticism of Mr. Gore that has swirled in conservative blogs and radio talk shows. She noted that Mr. Gore is a partner at Kleiner Perkins, which has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in firms that could benefit from any legislation that limits carbon dioxide emissions.

“I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it,” Mr. Gore said, adding that he had put “every penny” he has made from his investments into the Alliance for Climate Protection.

“And, Congresswoman,” he added, “if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”

It was apparently “a bridge too far” for Broder to notice that Gore’s House testimony is entirely inconsistent with Gore’s e-mail to the Times.

Readers of this blog will recall that it was this Steve Milloy column in Human Events that prompted Rep. Marsha Blackburn to ask Gore about his profiteering. But rather than saying he was “putting his money where his mouth was,” Gore chose to dissemble, if not outright lie, to Congress.

And let’s not forget about Gore’s feigned ignorance before Congress of his relationship with Goldman Sachs.

Yet Gore stands to make more hundreds of millions if his schemes become law.

[OldDude]

Originally Posted by movielib

Kind of a Jim Jones who wants to force everyone in the world to drink his Kool-Aid.

Well, everyone else. HE doesn't drink his Kool-Aid.
(Oh, and he sells it at immense profit), because you are required to buy the poison Kool Aid)

[movielib]

A leading British uber-alarmist offers laughable excuses (along with the usual lies about the scientific facts) as to why his side is losing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...al-clive-james

Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker - but this may be the reason
George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 November 2009 21.30 GMT

My fiercest opponents on global warming tend to be in their 60s and 70s. This offers a fascinating, if chilling, insight into human psychology

There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.

A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the world has been warming over the last few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months. Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe global warming has natural causes (44%) outnumber those who believe it is the result of human action (41%).

A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year. The Science Museum's Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1,006 people had endorsed it and 6,110 had rejected it. On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the global warming category. Never mind that they've been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?

It certainly doesn't reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don't believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that's raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.

An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs. He didn't say whether he meant fahrenheit or centigrade. But this can't be the whole story. Plenty of intelligent people have also declared themselves sceptics.

One such is the critic Clive James. You could accuse him of purveying trite received wisdom, but not of being dumb. On Radio 4 a few days ago he delivered an essay about the importance of scepticism, during which he maintained that "the number of scientists who voice scepticism [about climate change] has lately been increasing". He presented no evidence to support this statement and, as far as I can tell, none exists. But he used this contention to argue that "either side might well be right, but I think that if you have a division on that scale, you can't call it a consensus. Nobody can meaningfully say that the science is in."

Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other – he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits their views. Their position was perfectly summarised by a supporter of Ian Plimer (author of a marvellous concatenation of gibberish called Heaven and Earth), commenting on a recent article in the Spectator: "Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us." These people aren't sceptics; they're suckers.

Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by humans, or that it's a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?

There are some obvious answers: they won't be around to see the results; they were brought up in a period of technological optimism; they feel entitled, having worked all their lives, to fly or cruise to wherever they wish. But there might also be a less intuitive reason, which shines a light into a fascinating corner of human psychology.

In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with "vital lies" or "the armour of character". We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death. More than 300 studies conducted in 15 countries appear to confirm Becker's thesis. When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it, and increasing their striving for self-esteem.

One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the physical self to greater danger. For example, researchers at Bar-Ilan University in Israel found that people who reported that driving boosted their self-esteem drove faster and took greater risks after they had been exposed to reminders of death.

A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult to repress thoughts of death, and that people might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival. There is already experimental evidence that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption. Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism.

If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death? I haven't been able to find any experiments testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the last two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?

It's exceptionally odd that he would claim the evidence on his side has hardened over the last two years when there has been no other two year period during which it has so crumbled. All I can say is that this reveals much more about Monbiot than his opponents.

[movielib]

No Senate climate bill before Copenhagen. And maybe a lot longer.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29099.html

Climate change on the back burner?
Tags:
by LISA LERER | 11/4/09 5:08 AM EST

Climate change has slipped so far down on the agenda that at least one key committee chairman has suggested it might have to wait until after the 2010 elections.

A number of factors are conspiring against the Senate version of the bill: a Republican boycott on the Environment and Public Works Committee, a new EPA analysis that could take at least five weeks and wide-ranging disagreements among six competing Senate committee leaders who have jurisdiction.

“Some people are talking about not doing it until after the 2010 election,” Commerce Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday.

Rockefeller’s comments came as Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) announced that the Environmental Protection Agency would run another comprehensive study of the final legislation after it is compiled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Rockefeller is one of the leading critics of Boxer’s bill, saying it doesn’t include enough incentives for the coal industry.

David McIntosh, EPA’s associate administrator for congressional relations, told Boxer’s committee Tuesday that such a study would take at least five weeks — which guarantees that nothing will be done before international climate talks this December in Copenhagen.

The additional study was announced in hopes of placating the seven Republicans on the committee, who are boycotting hearings on the legislation until additional economic analysis is completed.

Boxer has pushed to pass legislation out of the EPW Committee before the Copenhagen talks, saying that it would give the international community a strong signal on where the United States is headed on climate policy.

But before the EPA can even begin to examine the bill, the six Senate committees with jurisdiction over pieces of the bill must finish their work on the legislation. So far, only one — the Energy and Natural Resources Committee — has passed a climate bill. At least two other committees have yet to set a date to mark up climate legislation, and several of the committees are chaired by moderate Democrats who are much more hesitant about embracing a cap-and-trade bill.

“Obviously, it’s not an issue we will be readily addressing this year,” said Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, on whom Democrats are counting to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster.

Democratic leaders also seem unwilling to expend much political capital on climate change when they aren’t even sure when health care reform might get done.

“We’re not going to be bound by any timelines” on health care, Reid told reporters after a closed-door lunch meeting with Senate Democrats.

The more time health care takes, say supporters, the further a climate bill most likely gets pushed back.

“Obviously, given where we are today, we have to wait for the [Congressional Budget Office] scoring on the health care bill,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “That’s going to push us back.”

But Rockefeller warned that the difficulty of passing a bill will increase as the elections draw closer.

“It does make it tougher; everyone gets more scared,” he said.

Republicans plan to use cap and trade as a line of attack next year — particularly against vulnerable Democrats from industrial states.

But even with all these obstacles, Kerry, who has become the lead negotiator on climate change, still thinks a deal could be made by Christmas.

“I absolutely believe it’s possible. It’s Nov. 3 today. We’re talking about seven weeks from now.”

[dave-o]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...-religion.html


"Climate change belief given same legal status as religion
An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.


By Stephen Adams and Louise Gray
Published: 3:11PM GMT 03 Nov 2009

Tim Nicholson: Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, told a previous hearing that his views were so strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be environmentally-friendly.

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

The decision regards Tim Nicholson, former head of sustainability at property firm Grainger plc, who claims he was made redundant in July 2008 due to his "philosophical belief about climate change and the environment".

In March, employment judge David Heath gave Mr Nicholson permission to take the firm to tribunal over his treatment.

But Grainger challenged the ruling on the grounds that green views were political and based on science, as opposed to religious or philosophical in nature.

John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was "a scientific view rather than a philosophical one", because "philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof."

That argument has now been dismissed by Mr Justice Burton, who last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan.

The decision allows the tribunal to go ahead, but more importantly sets a precedent for how environmental beliefs are regarded in English law.

Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, told a previous hearing that his views were so strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be environmentally-friendly.

But his beliefs led to frequent clashes with Grainger's other managers, while he said that Rupert Dickinson, the firm's chief executive, treated his concerns with "contempt".

Once Mr Dickinson flew a member of staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry mobile phone after leaving it in London, Mr Nicholson claimed.

Mr Nicholson hailed the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling as "a victory for common sense" but stressed climate change was "not a new religion".

He said: "I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.

"This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief.

"Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence."

His lawyer Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, argued that if the ruling had gone against them, "the end result would be that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination".

Grainger now plans to contest Mr Nicholson's claim of unfair dismissal at tribunal.

Dave Butler, its corporate affairs director, said: "This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.

"We are looking forward to addressing the issues at tribunal level and demonstrating that there was no causal link between Mr Nicholson's beliefs and his redundancy."

The grounds for Mr Nicholson's case stem from changes to employment law made by Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General, in the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.

The regulations effectively broaden the protection to cover not just religious beliefs or those "similar" to religious beliefs, but philosophical beliefs as well."


A confirmation of what we've been saying for a long time...CAGW is a religion, plain and simple...

[movielib]

Gore gets filthy rich at our expense. IBD nails it.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=511204

IBD Editorials
Gore's Profits Of Doom
Posted 11/03/2009 06:37 PM ET

Junk Science: The oracle of climate disaster has a new book out on global warming that should be on the fiction list. He asks us to commit economic suicide while he rakes in millions from his green investments.

'Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis," Al Gore's sequel to his 2006 tome "An Inconvenient Truth," came out Tuesday. Printed on recycled paper using low-VOC (volatile organic compound) ink, it will undoubtedly be a best-seller and on the desk of every attendee at next month's climate change conference in Copenhagen.

In a press release announcing the book, the Oscar- and Nobel Prize-winning former vice president writes: "Now that the need for urgent action is even clearer with the alarming new findings of the last three years, it is time for a comprehensive global plan that actually solves the climate crisis. 'Our Choice' will answer that call."

The book's cover depicts one of the hurricanes Gore still claims are increasing in frequency and intensity. What has happened in the past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence.

For example, a recent study by researchers at Florida State University determined that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.

Ryan Maue, co-author of the report released in November 2008 on "Global Tropical Cyclone Activity," used a measurement called accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) that combines a storm's duration and its wind speed in six-hour intervals. The years 2007 and 2008 had among the lowest ACE measurements since reliable global satellite data were first available three decades ago.

In a New York Times puff piece the same day Gore's book was released, "Gore's Dual Role: Advocate And Investor," it's described just how profitable saving the earth can be. Considering the accuracy of Gore's climate data, his role would be better described as "storyteller and profiteer."

In November 2007, Gore joined the investment firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The following May the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

The group then announced an additional $700 million to be invested the next three years in green-tech startup firms. But there will be no return on these investments if the green technology business, uh, cools down. The hype and interest must be maintained. Climate change skeptics must be denounced as "deniers."

Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million.

A mere nine years later, estimates put his net worth at about $100 million. Gore's spokeswoman wouldn't give a current figure for his net worth, but, according to the Times, "the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Equity Group," a Palo Alto, Calif., firm that directs clients to conservation investments, namely environmentally correct products.

Last year, Gore was the star witness at the hearings on cap-and trade-legislation in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly.

Blackburn noted that Kleiner Perkins at last count had "about $1 billion dollars invested in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation that we are discussing here today."

Gore replied he was only being a good businessman in a capitalist economy, that he was putting his money where his mouth was.

Perhaps, but at the same time he is advocating policies based on junk science that, while he enriches himself, will devastate the American economy, causing huge losses in jobs, economic growth and GDP.

The American consumer and taxpayer are on the wrong end of his green Ponzi scheme. Somewhere, Bernie Madoff is smiling.

[movielib]

Sen Boxer's committee approves the Scary/Toxic bill with no Republicans present.

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...5A42WB20091105

Senate panel approves Democratic climate bill
Thu Nov 5, 2009 11:12am EST
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A key U.S. Senate environment committee approved a Democratic climate change bill on Thursday that would require industry to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

The bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee will now become one of several initiatives in the Senate aimed at attacking global warming. But they are unlikely to produce legislation that would be voted on by the full Senate until next year at the earliest.

With Republicans boycotting the environment panel's measure, saying more analysis of the legislation was needed, 10 Democrats approved the bill and one Democrat, Senator Max Baucus, voted against it.

Senator John Kerry, who co-authored the bill with fellow Democrat Barbara Boxer, is leading an effort with some Republicans and the White House to draft a compromise.

Democrats in Congress, working on a major plank of President Barack Obama's agenda, have been anxious to show at least some progress on enacting a domestic climate change bill before December 7, when an international global warming summit convenes in Copenhagen.

While there were scores of amendments to the bill that environment committee members wanted to debate and vote on before approving it, they were unable to because of the Republican boycott.

Under committee rules, at least two Republicans had to be present to debate and vote on changing the bill.

Boxer delayed work on the legislation for two days, saying she was giving Republicans the opportunity to collect more information from EPA officials and to offer their own amendments.

But Republicans did not take her up on the offer and by Thursday, Boxer had lost patience with the delay.

She opened Thursday's work session reading from a letter from John Rowe, Chief Executive of Exelon, one of the country's largest utilities.

Calling the bill written by Boxer and Kerry "an excellent starting point," Rowe wrote, "We urge you as chairman, as well as your colleagues, to take the steps necessary to order the bill reported by the committee so that climate legislation can be considered by the full Senate."

Baucus' vote against the bill reflected the difficulties ahead in crafting a measure that would attract the 60 votes needed for passage by the Senate.

As an influential moderate Democrat, Baucus laid out changes he would seek, including a weaker carbon-reduction target. Other Midwestern and Southern senators from states heavily reliant on coal will seek their own changes, which could upset liberals now supporting the bill.

Sen Inhofe blasts Sen Boxer.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-ce4fb68c9650

BOXER VIOLATES COMMITTEE RULES, REJECTS CLEAR PATH FORWARD
Advances ‘Failed Climate Policy of the Past'
November 5, 2009

Contact:
Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797
David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov (202)224-5642

BOXER VIOLATES COMMITTEE RULES, REJECTS CLEAR PATH FORWARD

Advances ‘Failed Climate Policy of the Past'

Washington, D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued the following statement in response to Chairman Boxer's violation of committee rules by reporting out S. 1733, the Kerry-Boxer bill:

"I am deeply disappointed by Chairman Boxer's decision to violate the rules and longstanding precedent of the committee. The Republicans offered a clear path forward to a bipartisan markup, but it was summarily rejected by Chairman Boxer. Instead, she decided to ignore the entreaties of all 6 ranking members from Senate committees with some share of jurisdiction over climate change legislation, as well as leading moderates in the Senate. Her action signals the death knell for the Kerry Boxer bill.

"As was written recently, the Kerry-Boxer bill is ‘bad policy' that ‘resembles the failed climate proposals of the past.' It is time for a different approach, one that grows, rather than shrinks our economy, creates, rather than destroys jobs, and strengthens, rather than weakens our energy security. We can do this by encouraging development of all of America's vast energy resources."

Even the rabidly alarmist Grist website sees trouble ahead.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11...mean-peak-box/

In the clearing stands a Boxer ...
What does recent Senate drama on the climate bill mean?
Posted 1:57 AM on 5 Nov 2009
by David Roberts

There’ve been some weird goings-on in Congress around the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill over the past few days. So let’s take a step back and try to get a handle on how the story is unfolding.

In the House, the development of the Waxman-Markey bill was a relatively orderly process. Waxman took control of the Energy committee early in the session and selected Markey, who’d been fleshing out a progressive bill in his special committee, as his wingman. Together they introduced a bill and then worked it past the committee members, making concessions when necessary, mostly behinds closed doors, always tightly in control of the process. The idea was to do the bulk of the negotiating in-committee so that the resulting bill could pass on the floor without undue fuss. In the end that’s just what happened.

Boxer desperately wanted to play the same role in the Senate. It didn’t work out in early 2008 with the Lieberman-Warner bill, but she’s been working overtime to make it work this go-round. One recurring theme of last week’s three-day hearing marathon was Boxer’s refrain that she’s going to work with other senators, that the bill will change, that she’s open to feedback. She practically hung out an Open for Business sign. She clearly wants to run this bill and emulate Waxman’s success.

Just as badly, lots of other people don’t want her to. Baucus made it clear early on that his committee would mark up a bill too, and then other committees jumped in. Inside EPW, James Inhofe desperately wants to give Boxer a black eye. That’s why he and the rest of the committee Republicans boycotted the markup of the bill on Tues. and Wed. and show every sign of carrying on with that boycott. It now looks like EPW is going to pass a bill out of committee without a Republican ever having touched or debated it and without substantial markup of any kind.

That bill will be a dead letter. Already there’s an undercurrent of anxiety in Washington that a bill can never pass as long as it’s associated with an unpopular lady senator who runs one of the body’s most liberal committees. The Senate isn’t like the House. There is no party discipline among Democrats; in fact, Democratic senators are fond of explicitly disclaiming party discipline. It’s a chamber full of large, jostling egos and not a little old-boy sexism. They’re not about to let a combative liberal woman run the show.

So a bill that’s Pure Boxer won’t fly. That’s why you saw, on Wed., the Senate’s perceived centrists—Kerry, Graham, and their new buddy Joe Lieberman—swoop in and and open a “dual track” of negotiations, in consultation with the White House. (Lieberman lives to do this kind of thing.) Graham seemed to rebuke his colleagues on the EPW Committee: “If you can’t participate in solving the problem, then why are you up here?” he asked. But at the same time he, along with fellow moderates Gregg, Snowe, and Collins, signed a letter to EPA chief Lisa Jackson reiterating the Republicans’ essentially preposterous demand for another five-weeks of study of the bill.

An EPA official testified to EPW on Tues. that such a study would be expensive, time-consuming, and utterly unnecessary. There’s no substantive rationale whatsoever for demanding it. Remember, though, this isn’t about substance—it’s the Senate. It’s about perception. And what moderate Republicans are signaling here is: “whoa, slow down the crazy liberal lady!”

Similarly, by stepping in, Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are letting the political establishment know that the Very Serious grown-ups are back in charge. (It’s pretty telling that Kerry feels the need to craft another bill alongside the one with his name on it.) They will go to the White House, close the door, and hash out what kind of bill can really pass.

In short, it seems that Boxer’s high-water mark of influence on the bill has passed, and with a fizzle rather than a bang.

——-

Addendum: I should emphasize: this is all perception. Is Boxer really a crazy liberal? No. Was she jamming a liberal bill through her committee too quickly? No, the bill was relatively modest, similarly to the intensely analyzed House bill, and she was being almost absurdly solicitous of the feedback of the committee’s Republicans. Is Boxer too abrasive to do the delicate work of shepherding a bill through the Senate? Well, there may be something to that. In Congress it’s all about staff, and DC rumor has it that Boxer’s staff director, Bettina Poirier, is a controlling and alienating presence. EPW has been hemorrhaging key staff for a while now, and more than one Senate staffer has a tale of being misled or bypassed entirely by Boxer’s staff during negotiations over the bill. All those stories feed the general sentiment that Boxer just shouldn’t be the one running this. Fair or not, that’s the perception, and perception is reality in the Senate.

The soap opera that could ruin our economy continues...

[movielib]

[movielib]

Excellent slideshow by Richard Lindzen showing why the "climate sensitivity" (i.e. the warming caused by a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere) is only about .5°C.

49 breezy, understandable slides.

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-cont...n-talk-pdf.pdf

[movielib]

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd attacks CAGW skeptics. Marc Morano of Climate Depot answers point by point and devastates Rudd's arguments, er, I mean Rudd's baseless assertions.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3689/A...Depot-Responds

Australian PM warns skeptics 'are too 'dangerous to ignore' and are 'holding the world to ransom' -- Climate Depot Responds

'Yes, we plead guilty to promoting 'inaction' -- 'Skeptics will proudly celebrate the collapse of Copenhagen Treaty'
Friday, November 06, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Climate Depot Editorial

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spewed out a rhetorical barrage on climate skeptics worldwide. See: Australian PM warns skeptics 'are too 'dangerous to ignore' and are 'holding the world to ransom' – November 6, 2009. Also see: here and here for more coverage of Rudd's speech.

Climate Depot has undertaken a point by point rebuttal to Rudd's claims. The full text of Rudd's speech is available here.

Rudd Claim: Skeptics are “powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond.”

Climate Depot Response: Yes, skepticism, the foundation of science, is and always has been strong enough to derail lavishly funded and politically motivated science based on wildly speculative climate model “predictions” and distortions of past climate records. A “scientifically meaningless” domestic carbon trading or international treaties will not impact global climate in any detectable ways, but will have huge human impacts.

Rudd Claim: Skeptics “constitute a powerful global force for inaction.”

Climate Depot Response: On the contrary, skeptics constitute a powerful force for scientific truth and morality based vibrant energy expansion to the developing world's poor. To the extent that we can prevent “scientifically meaningless” climate treaties and regulations from passing, then yes, we plead guilty to promoting “inaction.” As former Thatcher science advisor Lord Christopher Monckton has said: "Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."

Rudd Claim: “Climate skeptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom.”

Climate Depot Response: Reality check Mr. Rudd. Science, economics and reality are holding man-made global warming fear promoters like Rudd to ransom. It must be frustrating Mr. Rudd to have once believed you could hoodwink the people of your nation and the world to believe in climate fears and your purely symbolic “solutions.” Polling data from the U.S., the UK, Canada and your Australia show the public growing more skeptical. (See: Polls: 'More Americans believe in haunted houses than man-made global warming' - 37% vs. 36% ) The only “ransom” involved in this debate is the financial demands placed on countries to redistribute money based on collapsing climate fears. See: Reparations: Africa seeks climate change cash...demands billions in compensation for 'damage caused by global warming' & Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference & 'Controlling climate? More like controlling humans': Beware of 'unprecedented transfer of wealth, power and control to domestic and global governance'

Rudd Claim: Our “children's fate – and our grandchildren's fate – will lie entirely with [skeptics' opposition].

Climate Depot Response: Nice maudlin touch, Mr. Rudd. The fact is children are probably the only ones left that you and your climate fear promoting friends can convince that a climate catastrophe is just around the corner and you and your colleagues are their saviors. You are in luck, Mr. Rudd. Climate Depot takes full responsibility for the fate of your children and grandchildren from any future man-made climate catastrophe. Climate Depot can and will gladly take public responsibility for the children and future grandchildren of our planet for “doing nothing” about climate. So there, problem solved.

Rudd Claim: “The legion of climate change skeptics are active across the world...”

Climate Depot Response: Yes, you are very correct on this point Mr. Rudd. Scientists dissenting from silly and baseless man-made global warming fears are literally standing up around the world – from New Zealand to Canada to Brazil to Mexico to Sweden to South Africa to Japan to Portugal and everywhere in between. See: 2009 U.S. Senate Report: 700 Plus Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Warming Claims and see: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated'

The shock to you Mr. Rudd is that even the mainstream media is not abandoning man-made climate fears. See: Losing Their Religion: 2009 officially declared year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears

Rudd Claim: “The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change skeptics simply do not care.

Climate Depot Response: What clock is “ticking?” The one the UN warned of a ten year tipping point in 1989? See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year 'Climate Tipping Point' Began in 1989

In addition, NASA's James Hansen and former Vice President Al Gore started their comical “tipping point” clocks a few years ago, while Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009! Even more absurd, the UN chief further shortened the "tipping point," warning of 'incalculable' suffering without climate deal in December 2009! The question looms: Would you buy a used car from a salesman using such low-brow tactics, let alone, buy into man-made climate fear claims? Mr. Rudd, you must believe the public to be nothing more than a bunch of rubes if you want them to believe your climate tripe.

Rudd Claim: “The vested interests at work are simply too great.”

Climate Depot Response: What “vested interests?” You are not claiming that skeptics have some sort of funding that is in any way comparable to the tens of billions spent promoting climate fears, are you? See: Gore's path to become the first 'Carbon Billionaire' and see: The Global Warming Science Machine: $79 Billion and Counting

Rudd Claim: Skeptics “are a political attempt to subvert what is now a longstanding scientific consensus...”

Climate Depot Response: “Longstanding scientific consensus?” Surely you jest. Man-made global warming fears did not come in widespread vogue until the late 1980's. In case you missed it, many of today's warmers were promoting global cooling as late as 1970's. See: Climate Depot's Factsheet on 1970s Coming 'Ice Age' Claims: 'Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media' The man-made global warming hypothesis is now failing in the scientific community. See: UK Astrophysicist: 'The notion that CO2 warms world has come to a dead end': They are trying to 'prop up a 'scientific theory' that has run out of so called facts' and see: UN IPCC Scientist Declares 'A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism' and see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!

South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander wrote in March 2009, “'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart...Heads will roll!” UK scientist Dr. David Bellamy once believed man-made climate fears, but has since reversed his views and become a skeptic. “The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science, Bellamy said in November 2008.

The news is so grim for man-made climate fear activists that they are already looking for the next environmental scare to hype! See: AGW RIP? Is It Time for Next Eco-Scare Already? Gore's producer Laure David touts plastic crisis: 'Plastic waste is in some ways more alarming for us humans than global warming' - July 31, 2009 & UK Green Party: 'There exists a more serious crisis than the 'CO2 crisis': the oxygen levels are dropping and the human activity has decreased them by 1/3 or ½'

Rudd Claim: The consensus is supported by “4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world.”

Climate Depot Response: Why not make up higher numbers? Why not just claim 50,000 UN scientists support the “consensus?” What silliness.

Reality Check: 2009 U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists has pushed the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

See: Team of Scientists' Open Letter To U.S. Senators: 'Claim of consensus is fake'

Plus UN scientists speak out – against the climate fear claims! New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!

Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN and its scientific methods.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. - Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

#

Rudd Claim: Skeptic “attempt to twist the agreed science in the direction of a predetermined political agenda to kill climate change action.”

Climate Depot Response: Very interesting choice of words – “agreed science” The “science” of man-made global warming fears is literally the best science politics can manufacture. See New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics! The problem, Mr. Rudd, is that your view of “agreed science” is collapsing in real world data, peer-reviewed studies and a growing number of dissenting scientists. See: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated'

Rudd Claim: “It reminds me of the efforts of the smoking lobby decades ago as they tried for years to politically subvert by so-called scientific means that there was any link between smoking and lung cancer.”

Climate Depot Response: Great analogy Mr. Rudd! Climate Depot agrees, the smoking analogy is very apt. But alas, it is the promoters of man-made climate fears that are mimicking the tobacco lobbyists actions. See: Climate Fear Promoters mimic tobacco industry tactics Excerpt: This [current climate fear promoting] strategy provides a positive “pro-science” public stance that masks the ignominious activity of institutional and professional persecution of numerous scientists whose honest work casts legitimate doubt upon the more alarmist projections of the supposed “consensus.” Like the tobacco industry, this campaign has: “Manufactured uncertainty and fear by stridently proclaiming certainty and consensus based on dubious and uncertain modeled results predicting disastrous consequences of a warmer climate.”

Rudd Claim: “What absolute political cowardice” [on the part of skeptics].

Climate Depot Response: Cowardice? Scientists have literally risked their careers to go against today's politically motivated “consensus.” On the contrary, skeptics are courageous to wage a battle against the “agree science” you take as a matter of faith. See: EPA further muzzles global warming skeptic Dr. Alan Carlin - August 25, 2009 & Other climate fear promoters are using threats and intimidation to silence the climate debate. See: 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' - June 3, 2009

Rudd Claim: “What an absolute failure of logic [by skeptics].”

Climate Depot Response: Logic? Let's review Mr. Rudd. You are lamenting the fact that skeptics are opposed to a “scientifically meaningless” climate “solution” process that could condemn the estimated 1.6 billion people in the developing world to a continued life of nasty brutish and short existence based on collapsing scientific claims. See: India: 'It is morally wrong for us to reduce emissions when 40% of Indians do not have access to electricity' Skeptics promote a vibrant energy policy that promotes development and expands energy around the globe. The only people “pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change” are the UN and the U.S. Congress. Why else would the Kyoto Protocol not even have a measurable impact on global temps (assuming they were correct on the science ) and it was fully enacted?

It is the U.S. Congress and the “scientifically meaningless” Waxman-Markey bill that even Obama's EPA admits will not have a measurable impact on global Co2 levels, let alone any measurable or detectable impact on global temperatures. The man-made climate fear promoters have been “pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change...” since the movement's launch in 1988 by consistently promoting purely symbolic "solutions" to global warming. Mr. Rudd, you claim that carbon trading and UN treaties are some sort of an "insurance" policy against global warming. But a simple question to ask is: Would you purchase fire insurance on your home that had a huge up front premium for virtually no payout if you home burned down? If you answered YES to such an “insurance” policy, then Congress and the UN has a deal for you with their cap-and-trade and climate legislation.

If we did actually face a man-made climate catastrophe and the "solutions" of the UN and Congress were our only hope, we would all be DOOMED!

Rudd Claim: Skeptics “are too dangerous to be ignored”

Climate Depot Response: Fully agree with you Mr. Rudd. Scientific truth, reality based economics are always “dangerous” to climate charlatans peddling their wares of a coming climate catastrophe. It used to be those who stood on street corners warning of the end times were thought of as nutcases, now those same views are held by world leaders. It is sad to see “climate astrology” replace actual science. See: Obama's 'Climate Astrologer': Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows 'what the future will be 100 years from now': 'Shouldn't Chu be touting these scary predictions of the year 2100 on a boardwalk with a full deck of Tarot Cards? Sadly Mr. Rudd, it is you and your fellow climate alarm promoters that are touting faith based science.

Rudd Claim: “The danger skeptics pose is this – by collapsing political momentum towards national and global action on climate change, they collapse global political will to act at all. They are the stick that gets stuck in the wheel, that despite its size may yet bring the train to a complete stop.”

Climate Depot Response: We plead guilty Mr. Rudd! Our goal is simple: To bring the train to a complete stop. You did figure us out correctly on that point.

Rudd Claim: “Skeptics are well resourced and well represented by political conservatives in many, many countries.”

Climate Depot Response: Wrong again, Mr. Rudd. Politically left scientists and environmental activists are now dissenting from climate fears in growing numbers. See: Politically Left Scientists Now Rejecting Climate Fears – Jan. 2009

Rudd Claim: “This brigade of do-nothing climate change skeptics are dangerous because if they succeed, then it is all of us who will suffer.”

Climate Depot Response: Yes, scientific truth, economic reality and political realism are always “dangerous” to politically and ideologically motivated climate fear promoters. As for “suffering” from failure to “act”, please explain how UN treaties and carbon trading “save the planet?” Even the Washington Post understands climate reality. See: Wash. Post's Moment of Clarity: 'Carbon emissions will not be reduced by international bureaucrats sitting in a room and signing a piece of paper' – July 14, 2009

Rudd Claim: “Their aim is not to convince every person on earth of the follies of acting on climate change. Their aim is to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible.”

Climate Depot Response: Actually Mr. Rudd, the more messrs Gore, Kerry, Brown, Obama, and yourself speak, the more the public grows skeptical. So you and your colleagues have been a huge help in helping to spread skepticism and expand opposition to silly and economically destructive global climate treaties.

Rudd Claim: “If Copenhagen does not deliver the outcome we so urgently need, no individual climate change skeptic will be responsible, but each of them will have played their part.”

Climate Depot Response: Goody! Let us hope Copenhagen does not deliver! For the sake of the planet and its inhabitants. Skeptics will proudly celebrate the collapse of Copenhagen and do so knowing our children and grandchildren will be better off. Yes, our children and grandchildren will be much better off without a UN body that uses used-car salesman tactics dictating meaningless climate “action.”

Rudd Claim: “In this debate the climate change skeptics have erected an intellectual house of cards based on one simple premise: that the cost of not acting is nothing.”

Climate Depot Response: Actually, you have your logic reversed Mr. Rudd. The cost of doing “something” as defined by the U.S. Congress and the UN achieves “nothing” in results. It is all economic pain for no climate gain. At best under UN climate treaties, the world accomplishes “nothing” as far as climate goes, but we risk a neo-colonialism of Western nations imposing regulations on impoverished developing nations that can only be called immoral. See: Flashback 2002: U.S. Environmentalist Laments Introduction of Electricity in Africa; Flashback 2002: Jerry Brown says 'it's not viable' for poverty stricken developing world to emulate prosperity of U.S.' Ugandan Activist: 'African life span is lower than it was in U.S. and Europe 100 years ago. But Africans told we shouldn't develop' because wealthy Western nations are 'worried about global warming': Excerpt: 'Telling Africans they can't have electricity and economic development – is immoral'; Flashback 2003: S. African Activist: Poor countries should just say: 'Go to hell' to Wealthy Western Nations: 'If you don't want us to fill in our wetlands, then you bomb your big cities like Washington, a third of Holland and Rotterdam and so on, and restore them to being swamps'; Flashback 2002: UN Earth Summit's Failure Called 'Good Thing' For Poor Nations: Excerpt: The first world became rich without the IMFs and World Banks, and the less of them that are around, the more likely the Third World is to do the same."; It is a moral issue! – 'People cannot cook'...Chad's Global Warming Inspired Ban on Charcoal leads to 'Desperate' Families! - January 16, 2009

Poor Kenyans rebel as UK grocery store's “carbon friendly” policies may stop food exports; India: 'It is morally wrong for us to reduce emissions when 40% of Indians do not have access to electricity'

Report: 'Green, UN, rich nation and African elites impose deadly anti-development colonialism' - June 8, 2009; Greenpeace Leader: There is urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in U.S...'Lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model' - August 20, 2009; Flashback 2002: Average American Lifestyle Called "Total Bull---t" by Environmentalist - Excerpt: 'If anyone in a developing country looks to the U.S. and wants a lifestyle like the average American--it's total bull---t!'; Flashback 2000: Actor Chevy Chase Says 'Socialism Works' -- 'Cuba might prove that'; Black clergymen protest Robert Redford 'link his environmentalism to racism'; Obama Advisor Warren Buffett 'repeats criticism of cap and trade, saying it would be a huge, regressive tax'

Rudd Claim: “Skeptics claim that the cost of not acting is nothing.”

Climate Depot Response: Wrong again. Skeptics claim that RESULT of “acting” is nothing in terms of climate results.

Rudd Claim: “Their skepticism is in fact radical in its riskiness and recklessness. By deliberately undermining and eroding the capacity to achieve both domestic and international action on climate change the skeptics are attempting to force the world to take the single most reckless bet in our long history.”

Climate Depot Response: Mr. Rudd, you repeat yourself ad nauseum. There is no “reckless” bet. The way forward is already happening. Improving technologies, expanding energy and growing economies in the developing world will improve the global environment more than any UN treaty or domestic carbon trading ever conceivably could.

Rudd Claim: “Skeptics are doing so in the total absence of any genuine body of evidence.”

Climate Depot Response: Oh please Mr. Rudd. Here is but a sampling of the latest scientific studies and real world data that are challenging your politically motivated science views. See: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated'

Rudd Claim: “The logic of these skeptics belongs in a casino, not a science lab, and not in the ranks of any responsible government...their prescription for inaction has all the legitimacy of a roulette wheel.”

Climate Depot Response: The casino analogy is apt. People are being told that we must enact a new UN climate treaty or face certain doom. The problem is the casino is run by the UN and it is loaded with corruption. (See: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 )The UN casino pit bosses are offering a sucker bet. Put all your money on a “climate treaty” or “carbon trading” and you will be allowed to live. Don't do it and you will face bodily harm and loss of property. It's an offer you can't refuse. See: La Cosa Climate: Commerce Sec. Warns: Americans Need 'To Pay' Or Face Mother Nature's Wrath -- Pay up or face 'floods, droughts and rising sea levels': An offer you can't refuse -- Pay up or world faces a 'catastrophe'

Congressional Weather-Makers: 'Climate Astrologer' Boxer warns of 'droughts, floods, fires, loss of species' -- if Senate fails to pass climate bill

What UN casino is not telling patrons is that the “climate treaty” bet is nothing more than pure symbolism that could harm the poorest of residents. People are wising up, gambling with the UN is not a winning bet.

Rudd Claim: “You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition – on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science...You've got to know when to fold 'em – and for the skeptics, that time has come.

Climate Depot Response: Aha, yes, the time to fold has arrived. Here is a sampling of the current reality you want to deny Mr. Rudd: See: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated' and 'Dramatic acceleration of developments against the claims of a so-called 'consensus.'

UN Fears (More) Global Cooling Commeth! IPCC Scientist Warns UN: We may be about to enter 'one or even 2 decades during which temps cool'

'Sun Sleeps': Danish Scientist declares 'global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning...enjoy global warming while it lasts'

Prominent Russian Scientist: 'We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming' : 'Warming had a natural origin...CO2 is 'not guilty'

As always, Morano supplies links galore for everything he says at the link. Rudd just spews hot air.

[movielib]

Global warming extinction fears are overblown.

Duh!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6905082.ece

November 6, 2009
Experts say that fears surrounding climate change are overblown
Hannah Devlin

Alarming predictions that climate change will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species may be exaggerated, according to Oxford scientists.

They say that many biodiversity forecasts have not taken into account the complexities of the landscape and frequently underestimate the ability of plants and animals to adapt to changes in their environment.

“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,” said Professor Kathy Willis, a long-term ecologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the article.

Professor Willis warned that alarmist reports were leading to ill-founded biodiversity policies in government and some major conservation groups. She said that climate change has become a “buzz word” that is taking priority while, in practice, changes in human use of land have a greater impact on the survival of species. “I’m certainly not a climate change denier, far from it, but we have to have sound policies for managing our ecosystems,” she said.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature backed the article, saying that climate change is “far from the number-one threat” to the survival of most species. “There are so many other immediate threats that, by the time climate change really kicks in, many species will not exist any more,” said Jean Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN species program, which is responsible for compiling the international Redlist of endangered species.

He listed hunting, overfishing, and destruction of habitat by humans as more critical for the majority of species.

However, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds disagreed, saying that climate change was the single biggest threat to biodiversity on the planet. “There’s an absolutely undeniable affect that’s happening now,” said John Clare, an RSPB spokesman. “There have been huge declines in British sea birds.”

The article, published today in the journal Science, reviews recent research on climate change and biodiversity, arguing that many simulations are not sufficiently detailed to give accurate predictions.

In particular, the landscape is often described at very low resolution, not taking into account finer variations in vegetation and altitude that are vital predictors for biodiversity.

In one analysis of the likelihood of survival of alpine plant species in the Swiss Alps, the landscape was depicted with a 16km by 16km (10 miles by 10 miles) grid scale. This model predicted that all suitable habitats for alpine plants would have disappeared by the end of the century. When the simulation was repeated with a 25m by 25m (82ft by 82ft) scale, the model predicted that areas of suitable habitat would remain for all plant species.

The article suggests that migration to new regions and changes in living patterns of species would take place but that actual extinction would be rare.

Other studies comparing predictions of extinction rates with actual extinction rates have come to similar conclusions. According to a high-profile paper published in the journal Nature in 2004, up to 35 per cent of bird species would be extinct by 2050 due to changes in climate. To be on track to meet this figure, Professor Keith Bennett, head of geography at Queen’s University Belfast, calculated that about 36 species would have to have become extinct each year between 2004 and 2008. In reality, three species of bird became extinct.

He said that many species are far more versatile than some prediction models give them credit for. “If it gets a couple of degrees warmer than they’re comfortable with, they don’t just die, they move,” he said.

While I think the article overstates other "threats" it's good to see some ecologists talking some global warming sense. That's been quite rare.

Also, it's interesting to see warming threats of "hundreds" of species going extinct over presumably a fairly long period being called "overblown" since many alarmists have long been talking about up to hundreds of species a day going extinct.

[movielib]

Lawrence Solomon takes apart Australian Prime Minister Rudd's IPCC numbers claim from Post $590.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...rs-racket.aspx

Lawrence Solomon: Numbers racket
Posted: November 06, 2009, 8:50 PM by NP Editor

Politicians the world over claim that 4,000 scientists believe in global warming. Depends on who’s counting
By Lawrence Solomon

In a speech yesterday, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd explained why he is so certain that the science is settled on climate change. It stems from the number 4,000 — a number that the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to publicize its last major report.

“This is the conclusion of 4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world,” asserted Mr. Rudd, in making his case that the planet is in peril.

Unfortunately for Mr. Rudd, he has made a blunder in citing this number. As he can confirm by contacting the secretariat of the IPCC, the thousands of scientists upon whom he rests his case never endorsed the IPCC’s report. Rather, the secretariat will advise him — as the Secretariat advised me when I inquired in 2007 — that the great majority of those scientists were merely reviewers. Worse for Mr. Rudd, those scientists had reviewed only a fraction of the report. Worst of all, far from endorsing the IPCC’s conclusions, many of the reviewers turned thumbs down on the IPCC sections that they read and only a handful actually endorsed the IPCC’s claims that man-made global warming represents a threat to the planet.

The upshot? Australia has turned its economy inside out largely on the basis of imagined endorsements.

How could Rudd have made this mistake? He was tricked by the PR machine at the IPCC. Look at the accompanying illustration from a public relations flyer that the IPCC distributed and you can see how easy it is for an unsuspecting person to be tricked. The work of “2,500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries” had culminated in one report, the flyer states. The not unreasonable implication that almost everyone drew was that those 3,750-plus experts and authors stood behind the IPCC’s views of impending doom.


[The IPCC's shamelessly misleading publicity claim from 2007]

The rest is history. A tricked press reported those figures, often rounding the 3,750-plus people to 4,000. And then the public and the politicians such as Rudd were tricked, too.

How many of those 3,750-plus people from 130-plus countries can the IPCC claim as true backers of its conclusions? An Australian analyst named John McLean scrutinized the lists that the IPCC used to arrive at its figures and found them to be riddled with duplications, such as the 383 authors who also acted as reviewers for the same sections in which their work appeared, and the authors and reviewers who were listed twice or thrice. Remove the duplications and the total number of authors plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890.

The reviewers, as might be expected, made suggestions. In about 25% of the cases, the editors rejected the suggestions – another indication that the verdict on the IPCC’s report was far from unanimous.

Most importantly, the great majority of the reviewers commented on chapters that dealt with historical or technical issues — matters that didn’t support the IPCC’s conclusions on man-made climate change. The exception was Chapter 9 — Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. An endorsement here would clearly be a bona fide endorsement of the IPCC’s conclusion.

Chapter 9 had 53 authors and it received comments from 55 individual reviewers. Of the 55 individuals, four commented favourably on the entire chapter and three on a portion of the chapter. (To give you the flavour of these endorsements, reviewer David Sexton stated that “section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand” and reviewer Fons Baede’s endorsement was “Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative.”)

The 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers represent a total of 60 people, leading McLean to conclude: “There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim” made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. Sixty scientists among the 130-plus countries that the IPCC cites amounts to one scientist for every two countries.

Prime Minister Rudd needs to do his sums, just as John McLean and others have. There is no scientific consensus on climate change. There is no basis to undertake the radical economic changes that he and other western leaders propose. There is, on the other hand, a good reason for the public in Australia to balk at his radical plans — they are no longer taken in by the IPCC’s public relations department.

Unfortunately, Rudd's confusion has only been fueled by fawning media reports on the IPCC, not to mention a half share of one of the most undeserved Nobel Peace Prizes in history.

[movielib]

Developing nations threaten walkout.

http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/poor...n-walkout.html

Poor Countries Threaten to Walkout of Copenhagen Climate Change Summit

BARCELONA, Spain, Nov. 6 (UPI) — Poor countries Friday threatened to walk out of next month’s Copenhagen climate change summit if developed countries do not pledge greater emissions cuts.

The Group of 77, an organization representing 130 developing nations, made the threat as the final round of preliminary negotiations ended in Barcelona, Spain, The Guardian reported. Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, who heads the G77, said the United States and Europe must also provide more aid to help poor countries update technology to cut emissions.

“Little progress was made on the key issues of emission targets and finance that would allow developing countries to limit their emissions and adapt to climate change,” said Yvo de Boer, who was directing the talks for the United Nations. “Without these two pieces of the puzzle in place we will not have a deal. Leadership at the highest level is now required to unlock the pieces.”

This is a threat? If we don't commit economic suicide they'll walk out? Great, thanks!

[movielib]

Sea level rise exaggerated by Aussie alarmists.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225795202916

Science is in on climate change sea-level rise: 1.7mm
Drew Warne-Smith and James Madden
From: The Australian
November 07, 2009

SEA levels on Australia's eastern seaboard are rising at less than a third of the rate that the NSW government is predicting as it overhauls the state's planning laws and bans thousands of landowners from developing coastal sites.

The Rees government this week warned that coastal waters would rise 40cm on 1990 levels by 2050, with potentially disastrous effects.

Even yesterday Kevin Rudd warned in a speech to the Lowy Institute that 700,000 homes and businesses, valued at up to $150 billion, were at risk from the surging tide.

However, if current sea-level rises continue, it would not be until about 2200 - another 191 years - before the east coast experienced the kind of increases that have been flagged.

According to the most recent report by the Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Centre, issued in June, there has been an average yearly increase of 1.9mm in the combined net rate of relative sea level at Port Kembla, south of Sydney, since the station was installed in 1991.

This is consistent with historical analysis showing that, throughout the 20th century, there was a modest rise in global sea levels of about 20cm, or 1.7mm per year on average.

By comparison, the NSW government's projections - based on global modelling by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as CSIRO regional analysis - equate to a future rise of about 6.6mm a year. Such a projection has caused widespread concern for landowners and developers, derision from "climate sceptics" within the scientific community and even some head-scratching from Wollongong locals such as Kevin Court, 80.

"I have swum at this beach every day for the past 50 years, and nothing much changes here," Mr Court said yesterday as he emerged from the surf at Wollongong's North Beach, just a short paddle from the Port Kembla gauging station.

"All this talk about rising sea levels - most of us old-timers haven't seen any change and we've been coming down here for decades.

"A few years ago part of the bank at the back of the beach was eroded. But you look at it now, and all the grass has grown back over it. The water hasn't washed back there for years.

"And that's nature. It's up and down, it comes and goes in cycles - nothing dramatic."

The complex task of tracking sea levels is being performed by the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project, which is co-ordinated by the National Tidal Centre.

Body: The project operates 16 gauging stations around the country, with the eastern seaboard monitored by stations at Port Kembla, as well as Rosslyn Bay and Cape Ferguson, in Queensland.

Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said he was "baffled" as to why states and local councils would develop policy based primarily on global averages and not the records of local tidal gauges.

In the past year, the Port Kembla gauge has recorded a sea-level rise of just 0.1mm

"When you design a house in Sydney, do you entrust the architect and builder to do the heating and air-conditioning based on global average temperature? Of course not," Professor Carter said.

He added that even if seas were rising as much as 3.3mm a year - the CSIRO's current global estimate - they would remain within the bounds of natural and normal variation. "There have been lots of times in our history when sea levels rose as much or more than now," Professor Carter said. "There is nothing unusual in the current situation."

Meteorologist Bill Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre, is another to express concern about the way future sea-level rises have been modelled. Mr Kininmonth believes only a thin layer of the ocean is actually warming - about 200m - making it unlikely the oceans are expanding to any great degree.

He said there was little compelling evidence that the polar caps were melting and causing sea levels to rise.

Computer models also tended to underestimate the way evaporation regulated temperature, thereby exaggerating future temperature predictions, Mr Kininmonth added. "There's little reason to think the little bit of extra heat generated by greenhouse gases will make a dramatic difference," he said.

However, the consensus view of the scientific community remains that sea-levels are rising at an accelerated rate because of human activity that has warmed Earth.

The CSIRO's John Church, considered one of the world's leading authorities on sea-level rise, told The Weekend Australian yesterday he remained convinced waters along the eastern seaboard were rising in line with global averages. He noted that the BOM's gauge results for Port Kembla as published here did not include the effect of barometric pressure, which, if included, would lift the sea-level increase to 3.1mm, not much less than agreed global estimates.

The Australian continent was also rising slightly - about 0.3-0.4mm a year around Sydney - which had partially offset increases in sea levels, he said. And an analysis of records from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour - not incorporated in the National Tidal Centre report - also revealed that, after 1950, periods of extreme sea-level rises occurred three times as frequently as in the first half of that century.

"There is a clear acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise," Dr Church said. "In the last 20 years, it's almost twice the global average for the 20th century."

Dr Church said the NSW coast was likely to experience sea-level rises greater than global estimates due to changes in the wind stress patterns in the Pacific Ocean, which will strengthen the East Australian Current. And if polar ice caps were indeed melting at a significant rate - which is not yet established - Australia could witness even bigger swells still.

Dr Church challenged Mr Kininmonth's assertion that only a thin surface layer of the ocean was warming, saying recent studies provided evidence of deep ocean warming although it couldn't be quantified as yet.

A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water said NSW had selected the upper end of the IPCC modelling predictions because both emissions and measured global sea-level rise were now at or above the upper IPCC estimates.

Icecap shows the "clear acceleration" of sea level rise:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...vel_rise_17mm/

Icecap Note:
Sea levels globally have slowed in recent decades (Holgate 2007) despite what the ‘leading expert’ Church says:





[Links to larger versions of the graphs at Icecap link]

See sea level rise slow even more after 2006 according to the University of Colorado. To these clowns in the institutions and governments reality is not data but the models.

Posted on 11/07 at 08:31 AM

It's slight but there's a clear deceleration of sea level rise in the graphs. But things are always "worse than was thought" and bad things are always "accelerating" in AlarmistCloudCuckooModelLand.

[movielib]

There has always been a huge difference between those who make fortunes by providing products people want and buy of their own free will and those who make fortunes by getting laws passed to their advantage and competitors' disadvantage and which force people to subsidize them. Which is Al Gore?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34284

Al Gore: Climate Pirate
by Steven Milloy
11/06/2009

I almost fell off my chair a couple of mornings ago when I spotted a front-page story in the New York Times about Al Gore’s profiteering from the stimulus package and impending climate legislation. But I quickly regained my balance after figuring out what the article was really all about.

Perhaps it is news to Times’ readers that Al Gore has made a bundle off climate alarmism -- enough to put $35 million in a private equity fund that invests in a variety of green (i.e., government-dependent and taxpayer-subsidized) technology projects. But many of us clued in to Al Gore’s exploding fortune almost two years ago when Fast Money magazine first estimated Al Gore’s net worth at over $100 million -- up from about $2 million when he left the White House in 2001.

Is it sour grapes or worse, un-American, to begrudge Al Gore’s success -- after all, isn’t he a shining example of the entrepreneurial spirit and the free enterprise system?


But the Al Gore story may not be one rooted in the ideal of a hard-worker selling for a reasonable profit a product that adds value to peoples’ lives. Gore is an eminently well-connected, long-time Washington, DC apparatchik who exploited the political career he inherited from his father to scare ordinary citizens and legislators into passing laws that profit him. Al Gore is no Horatio Alger: more a P.T. Barnum.

Insight into the rise of Al Gore’s riches-to-more-riches story begins with the conceit of his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance” -- a book “catalyzed,” in Gore’s words by his son being hit by a car while walking out of a Baltimore Orioles baseball game in 1989.

Although the driver of the car was not speeding and was not cited by the police at the scene of the accident, he was later charged with speeding and failing to exercise proper precaution upon seeing a child in the road. A jury subsequently acquitted the driver, leaving the responsibility for the tragedy with Al Gore for failing to hold his young son’s hand while crossing the street. But the outstanding issue remains, why did Gore, a power Democrat Senator, allow the groundless prosecution of an innocent man proceed in Baltimore City, a powerful Democratic stronghold?

Al Gore’s green crusade of fear has since left no child unexploited -- at least until a British court ruled in October 2007 that Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer about the movies multiple errors which amounted to virtually 100 percent of its scientific content. When the BBC interviewed Al Gore about the decision, Gore admitted to presenting false facts because, as he explained, including uncertainty in the movie would only fuel critics.

Al Gore, apparently, will say and do anything to advance himself.

When asked by the New York Times about his profit motives, Gore only answered in an e-mail that said he was simply putting his money where his mouth is. Perhaps, but it is probably more accurate to say that he is putting his mouth where his money is ─ although he is loathe to acknowledge this fact and the Times seemingly quick to excuse him.

With incredible chutzpah, Al Gore testified before the House last spring that he has no profit motive connected with his global warming activism.

At an House hearing in April Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tn) asked him about his partnernership in the mega-green venture capital firm of Kleiner Perkins which has invested more than $1 billion in dozens of companies that stand to benefit from the cap-and-trade bills now in Congress. Responding, Gore brazenly asserted that he was donating every penny he made to his nonprofit (which lobbies for climate legislation), adding “And, Congresswoman, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”

It was apparently “a bridge too far” for the New York Times reporter to notice that Gore’s House testimony is entirely inconsistent with Gore’s e-mail to the Times.

At the same House hearing, Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise asked Al Gore about Gore’s business interests with Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street powerhouse that also stands to reap windfall profits from climate legislation.

But Gore made facial gestures that seemed to imply he had never even heard of Goldman Sachs and then said that he had no business relationship with the firm. But forgetting about the fact that one of Gore’s investment firm partners is a Goldman Sachs alumnus -- and once you’re from Goldman Sachs, you’re always from Goldman Sachs -- Gore’s Kleiner Perkins single largest investment is in a firm called Terralliance, a firm whose other major investor is Goldman Sachs.

The grand irony here is that during Gore’s exchange with Rep. Scalise, Gore accused the fossil fuel industry of lying for 14 years to Scalise and the American people about global warming. As it turns out, Terralliance, an oil driller, is part of that fossil fuel industry.

It is said that Horatio Alger’s heroes gain wealth and honors and achieve the American Dream by “leading exemplary lives, struggling valiantly against poverty and adversity.” Were there Horatio AlGore stories, in contrast, they would be filled with tales of ruthless exploitation of innocents, lies, hypocrisy and gross profiteering.

[movielib]

I hardly know what to say about this. Here is a slide show of 16 environmental ads Treehugger.com considers the "coolest."

http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/...tis.php?page=1

And the first, which they seem to like the most, is this cute little thing:



The text:

ACT-Responsible organizes the work of advertisers promoting sustainable causes into three categories: Taking care of (1) the planet, (2) yourself, and (3) others. But their own work, provocatively depicting the tragic consequences of our choices on future generations, deserves to lead this slideshow on the coolest environmental advertising.

The poster promoted ACT Reponsible's exhibition last week at Cannes 2009. According to Creative Director Fred Claviere, it was a hard choice to use an image this provocative. But in his own words: "We have to make people react...it was simply too urgent to not use it."

Why does the environmental/CAGW crowd always resort to shocking and scaring? Could it be because they don't have the facts and science on their side?

[wishbone]

^ Image # 11...

[kvrdave]

Regarding the Oregon tax credit thing, I have followed it a bit. But I missed the fact that the pet project was a solar array on I-5. Leave it to a liberal state to do something like that where it is visible to show everyone how much they love the planet, but where it does the least amount of good. If you were going to do something like that, you'd do it on the east side of the state where they actually get sun.

Similarly, there was an article about the subsidies given by Portland and in combination with all the other credits available, you could get 90% back on solar projects as a homeowner. So stupid. It's like giving windmill subsidies in places that don't really get much wind.

[movielib]

Another idiotic ad, this one from Australia about ocean acidification, another ridiculously exaggerated scare that has been dealt with many times in these threads.

Ocean acidification - Hermie the hermit crab from GBRMPA on Vimeo.

The corals and all the other shelled creatures the alarmists are crying about survived for hundreds of millions of years when CO2 content was many times higher. They adapt, for example, the corals change the composition of their shells to adapt to higher or lower pH in the ocean (which becomes only slightly more acidic with more CO2 but remains comfortably alkaline). This is yet another baseless scare.

[movielib]

Is there a sink problem? Are the CO2 sinks running out of room to store "excess" CO2? Apparently not.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ant-over-time/

November 10, 2009
Airborne Fraction of Human CO2 Emissions Constant over Time

A couple of months back, there was a discussion taking place over at Joe Romm’s ClimateProgress blog concerning a report that the earth’s ability to take-up atmospheric carbon dioxide was declining. A declining CO2 sink, of course, meant that things climatological were going to be even worse than expected, because a growing proportion of anthropogenic CO2 emissions were going to remain in the atmosphere, thus pushing the rise of CO2 concentrations and the degree of climate change higher.

At the time, an alert reader pointed out to Joe Romm that there was in fact, no indication from data and observations that a larger percentage of human CO2 emissions were ending up in the atmosphere. In fact, the data showed that the fraction of CO2 emitted into the atmospheric by human activities has remained constant for the past 40 years.

This fact runs directly counter to the idea that the earth’s natural CO2 sinks are weakening—instead it indicates that natural sinks have been expanding as anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased. After all, in order to keep the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions constant over time, increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be countered by an increasing CO2 sink.

Joe Romm was a bit dismissive (to say the least) of this line of argument.

Here was one such exchange (Comment 13 of this thread):

Comment 13. Chip Knappenberger says:
March 30, 2009 at 5:15pm

Mr. Romm,

I am not sure how you justify this statement:

“At the same time that CO2 emissions are soaring, CO2 sinks are saturating.”

Take your numbers for the rate of CO2 increase each year and divide them by the numbers for the annual global CO2 emissions each year (available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ ftp/ ndp030/ global.1751_2005.ems) and see what you get.

Hint: the ppm/emissions ratio shows no trend at all which means that there is no decline in the CO2 sink—otherwise, this ratio would be increasing.

-Chip Knappenberger

[JR: It is Dr. Romm, Chip, and, hint, it is what the scientific literature says. Try reading it, some time. Start with the Global Carbon Project.]

Just in case JR (Dr. Romm) really is interested in what the latest scientific literature on the topic says, there is a new paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that directly examines this issue. The paper is by Wolfgang Knorr a senior researcher in the Department of Earth Sciences at the U. K’s University of Bristol, and is aptly titled with the question “Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?”

Dr. Knorr carefully analyzed the record of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and anthropogenic land-use changes for the past 150 years. Keeping in mind the various sources of potential errors inherent in these data, he developed several different possible solutions to fitting a trend to the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. In all cases, he found no significant trend (at the 95% significance level) in airborne fraction since 1850. (Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years)


Figure 1. The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 (as determined from ice cores, thin dotted lines, and direct measurements, thin black line) has remained constantly proportional to the annual amount of CO2 released by human activities (thick black line). The proportion is about 46% (thick dotted line). (Figure source: Knorr, 2009)

The Abstract of the paper directly addresses Romm’s concerns, but, unfortunately, Knorr finds no support for Romm’s take on the issue:

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

The University of Bristol press release is even more explicit:

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

Further, Knorr noted that we still have a good bit of work to do to completely understand why this is the case, especially if we want to be able to predict the future course of atmospheric CO2 concentrations (a necessity if we want to predict future climate change). Knorr concludes:

Given the importance of the [the anthropogenic CO2 airborne fraction] for the degree of future climate change, the question is how to best predict its future course. One pre-requisite is that we gain a thorough understand of why it has stayed approximately constant in the past, another that we improve our ability to detect if and when it changes. The most urgent need seems to exist for more accurate estimates of land use emissions. Another possible approach is to add more data through the combination of many detailed regional studies such as the ones by Schuster and Watson (2007) and Le Quéré et al. (2007), or using process based models combined with data assimilation approaches (Rayner et al., 2005). If process models are used, however, they need to be carefully constructed in order to answer the question of why the AF has remained constant and not shown more pronounced decadal-scale fluctuations or a stronger secular trend.

In other words, like we have repeated over and over, if the models can’t replicate the past (for the right reasons), they can’t be relied on for producing accurate future projections. And as things now stand, the earth is responding to anthropogenic CO2 emissions in a different (and perhaps better) manner than we thought that it would. Despite what Joe Romm would have you believe.

Reference:

Knorr, W., 2009. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.

So it does not appear that the carbon sinks are getting close to being "filled up." If there is more CO2 added, the sinks absorb more, with the percentage remaining about the same.

[Edit: Paragraph removed. See Posts #602 and #603.]

Anyway, the bottom line is that CO2 will not increase any faster than it has for a long, long time (so much for "exponential" increases) and another fear of the alarmists is shot down.

A press release from the University of Bristol explains more.

http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

Controversial new climate change results
Press release issued 9 November 2009

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

Especially note the bolded paragraph. The University stresses that the study is based on actual observations and data rather than models. Of course, CAGW alarmists don't put much stock in the real world as opposed to their virtual PlayStation world. To them, when reality and their models disagree, we are supposed to ignore reality. Most people don't buy that baloney and more are catching on.