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

[X]

Originally Posted by TheBigDave

Here's the names:

Bono Mack

I'm gonna have to see if I can get up any interest around here in defeating her. It's kind of far away, but that's about where the closest Republican is from here so people may be interested.

[movielib]

[classicman2]

Not a one of those Repubs are from energy producing states that export their energy.

[movielib]

Three of these bozos are from one state? What's the matter with New Jersey? Three out of five Republican reps voted for it.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by X

I'm gonna have to see if I can get up any interest around here in defeating her [Mary Bono Mack]. It's kind of far away, but that's about where the closest Republican is from here so people may be interested.

Would Sonny have voted this way?

http://bono.house.gov/Biography/

Bono Mack has established herself as a leader on such issues as clean, alternative energy, protecting the environment...

What's the difference between her and Al Gore?

I see her husband voted against the bill.

[classicman2]

The Smith vote surprised me a little.

[Pharoh]

Originally Posted by classicman2

The Smith vote surprised me a little.

Why? He votes against his party more than any other Representatvie from New Jersey, and his district is getting quite a few "gifts" out of all of this.

[movielib]

Spanish economist has inconvenient truth for "green jobs" agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...403012_pf.html

Tilting at Green Windmills
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.

The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:

Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build -- to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"

Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."

Questioner: "Well, then. [Laughter.]"

Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism because he faulted something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others.

Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http:///d7z9ye. And at http:///ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee's subcommittee on green jobs and the new economy.

What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's and the Republicans' are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant. When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.

For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenue from economic growth.

Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate. The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation -- Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading -- of what the late senator Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."

[X]

Wait until the unions figure out how many of their members' jobs will be going overseas if this gets through the Senate.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by X

Wait until the unions figure out how many of their members' jobs will be going overseas if this gets through the Senate.

This is a good test of who's more important to the Dems: unions or greenies.

[X]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

This is a good test of who's more important to the Dems: unions or greenies.

Democrats are going to get either of their votes no matter what. It seems the unions might be able to mess them up more while they're in office, but then some unions have pretty much been already paid off.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by X

Democrats are going to get either of their votes no matter what. It seems the unions might be able to mess them up more while they're in office, but then some unions have pretty much been already paid off.

Sure. They always get votes from blocs that they don't really do anything for. That's politics. I'm just wondering who they'll listen to more here.

[DJLinus]

Rep. Debbie Halvorson (IL-11) Says She Won't Bow to White House Pressure on Cap & Trade (Votes for Cap & Trade After Obama Call)
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 5:30 PM

This is rich. ... Really rich. Here's Rep. Debbie Halvorson (IL-11) specifically stating she would never ever, ever cave in to pressure from Obama to vote on cap and trade, because, after all, she knows Obama so she can stand up to him...



... In light of that, check out this article:

A presidential phone call helped to win at least one vote: Rep. Debbie Halvorson, D-Ill., a freshman from a suburban and rural district - and former Illinois State Senate colleague of Obama's - who said in an interview Thursday evening that after months of indecision, she now "feels great" about the bill.

"I think it's something that I'm going to support," Halvorson said. "It's taken me a long time. It's a thousand-page bill. It has a lot of amendments. I wanted to read it, take my time." Later, she added: "I had a nice chat with the president this morning."


... That didn't take long.

http://townhall.com/blog/g/f17fbded-...b-b55923058317

Well, to be fair, she said she was more able not to get all googly-eyed by Obama, not that she wouldn't ultimately cave.

[Red Dog]

Great. She changed her mind and didn't read shit. A phone call does it. Classic Washington. I hope she got a good meal at Capital Grille out of it.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by Debbie Halvorson

"I think it's something that I'm going to support," Halvorson said. "It's taken me a long time. It's a thousand-page bill. It has a lot of amendments. I wanted to read it, take my time." Later, she added: "I had a nice chat with the president this morning."

I'm sure she read the 300 page amendment that was added at 3:09 yesterday morning.

[movielib]

Top polar bear expert not wanted because of "the position [he's] taken on global warming."

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3646

CHRISTOPHER BOOKER
Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Saturday, June 27th 2009, 3:18 PM EDT

Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’, reveals Christopher Booker.

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

Dr Taylor is one of the, if not the, greatest experts on polar bears in the world. But he's a heretic.

[movielib]

MSM dented again. CBS writes article about Carbongate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06...y5117890.shtml

June 26, 2009 11:09 PM
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
Posted by Declan McCullagh

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.

"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.

Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin, the report's primary author: "I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."

One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.

"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed... raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues."

The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: "I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life."

"All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers -- you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.

This article is vastly superior to the one in the New York Times a couple of days ago. That article seemingly deliberately closed on the words of the disingenuous memo from the EPA press secretary. This CBS article reports the obvious, something I said when I first posted on this subject. That the words of the press secretary were flatly contradicted by the words from the leaked emails.

It would be nice if CBS actually reported this on TV. Oh well, baby steps.

[classicman2]

Smith does vote against his party some. Many of these votes were concerning veteran's benefits. He just doesn't give lip service. He actually supports the veterans.

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

This is a good test of who's more important to the Dems: unions or greenies.

To this administration there's no question in my mind. It's the greenies.

[grundle]

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...pollution.html

November 20, 2008

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'Carbon Taxes' or 'Cap and Trade' policies will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) to skyrocket.

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry


Defined

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colourless, odourless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration, and absorbed by plants in photosynthesis." - Compact Oxford English Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless odorless atmospheric gas. Source: respiration, combustion. Use: during photosynthesis, in refrigeration, carbonated drinks, fire extinguishers." - Encarta Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless gas that does not support combustion, dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, formed during respiration, combustion, and organic decomposition and used in food refrigeration, carbonated beverages, inert atmospheres, fire extinguishers, and aerosols." - The American Heritage Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas that is produced naturally in breathing, combustion, and decomposition, and commercially for use in dry ice, fire extinguishers, and carbonated beverages." - Wordsmyth Dictionary


Carbon Dioxide

- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible (Source)
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)

Car Exhaust

Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

* Your car's Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)


Smog

Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

* Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)

[movielib]

I am a charter subscriber to the Skeptical Inquirer (originally called The Zetetic) which began in 1976.

SI has been a beacon of light in so many areas - the paranormal, bogus health claims, pseudoscience, antiscience, cryptozoology, creationism. The list could go on. Unfortunately, for the past couple of years they have been losing their credibility and abandoning their skeptical inquiring to uncritically adopt CAGW. This almost caused me not to renew the last time my subscription was ending but I did although I told them what I thought on my renewal card.

Now this subscriber has written an excellent article on the mess SI is making:

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=cont...global-warming

Skeptical Inquirer Abandons Reason, Embraces Global Warming
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Sat, 06/27/2009 - 14:43

For many years the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP) has published the Skeptical Inquirer, a magazine dedicated to rational thought and a scientific view of the world around us. Mostly concerned with debunking pseudoscience and mystical beliefs, its articles mostly concerned UFOs, bigfoot sightings, psychic spoon benders and spirit mediums. Now, unfortunately, it seems they have allied this previously skeptical magazine with one of the biggest scientific scams of our time, anthropogenic global warming.

According to its own mission statement: “The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry promotes science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues. It encourages the critical investigation of controversial or extraordinary claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community, the media, and the public.”

I have been an associate member of CSICOP/CSI for many years and have always felt that its activities were important for the well-being of our society. Recently, however, I have noticed a disturbing trend in the contents of the Skeptical Inquirer magazine that has caused me to reevaluate my support for CSI. There seems to be a concerted effort to label people who do not accept the current climate change dogma—put forth by the IPCC and others as “settled science”—as irrational ideologues. Particularly troubling was a fawning report covering the AAAS conference by Kendrick Frazier (photo at left) in the May/June 2009 issue of SI.

Kendrick Frazier is the longtime editor of the Skeptical Inquire and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He is a former editor of Science News, and has also been an editor at the National Academy of Sciences and Sandia National Laboratories. He is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a member of its Executive Council, and a recipient of its In Praise of Reason Award. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Center for Inquiry.

The report starts out quoting AAAS president James McCarthy(photo at right), who also co-chaired the IPCC Working Group II for the Third IPCC Assessment in 2001. “Now we know it is changing, on a world wide basis,” said McCarthy, “climate is changing literally as we speak.” Since the Earth's climate is always changing that seems like a reasonable statement, but McCarthy was actually referring to global warming. Even so, quoting him could have passed for accurate reporting if the reporter had not later join the argument himself.

While cataloging the litany of climate change alarmist presentations Frazier took a parenthetical pause to insert the following on his own:

“Two data points: Contrary to previous studies, much of Antarctica has warmed in recent decades. Eric Steig of the University of Washington and colleagues reported in the January 22 Nature. And NASA's Goddard Institute has processed the global weather observations for 2008 and found that, despite notable cold blasts in Europe and parts of North America, it was still the ninth warmest on record.”

Steig's team wrote some computer code to stitch together data from infrared satellite measurements and surface temperature readings, resulting in a new model that, to no one's surprise, shows that Antarctica is warming all over. This result is taken as vindication by the global warming crowd, since they had previously been at a loss to explain all the previous reports of a cooling southernmost continent. So far Steig has flatly refused to provide all of the code needed to fully replicate his work in MatLab and RegEM.

Filling the void created by this violation of acceptable scientific protocol are a number of reconstructions of the model as described in the Steig paper. First among these is an analysis by Dr. Leonard Weinstein, former Senior Research Scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center. For a thorough treatment of the fatally flawed metodology used in the Steig paper reference the article titled Antarctic Coup de Grace on the Air Vent blog (Warning! Before diving into that article, it gets very technical and is hard to follow for the uninitiated). Basically, Weinstein reconstructed the model and, using various time spans and parameter settings set about trying to repeat Steig's work.

Skipping over all of the details, it was found that several of the model parameters were set to inappropriate values. By constructing a set of baseline data with known characteristics and feeding that back into the model set to Steig's values an amazing thing happened. If the model was set correctly it should have returned the known result values. Instead it produced an accelerated warming trend everywhere on the continent. To quote the Air Vent post, “If 'robust' means the same answer pops out of a fancy computer algorithm regardless of what the input data is, then I guess Antarctic warming is, indeed, 'robust'.”

As is usual for such things in science, there is now a continuing back and forth “discussion” regarding who is right and who isn't. More troubling is Steig's refusal to release all the computer code used in performing his analysis (shades of Michael Mann). Such behavior is the antithesis of what is expected of a modern scientist and is more in keeping with the antics of Medieval mystics and alchemists.

The point here is that the veracity of Steig's results have been disputed and quoting them as supporting evidence in the SI article amounts to advocacy in favor of the climate change alarmist crowd, not skeptical inquiry. As for the second claim, that 2008 was the ninth warmest on record, it proves nothing. A hot year or a cold year doesn't constitute a trend and such claims only muddy the waters. Nice try Ken, but I'm not buying it. I know that you are an AAAS fellow and all, but you really need to read up on that scientific method thing.

Also troubling is a short guest spot by Stephen H. Schneider, “Climate Change: Skeptics vs. Deniers,” in the May/June 2009 edition. Professor Schneider proudly portrays his past changes of mind as proof of his skeptical credentials but then wanders into logical weeds by stating that “a skeptic questions everything but accepts what the preponderance of evidence is, and a denier falsely claims that until all aspects are resolved we know nothing.” This assumes that 1) there is a non-contradictory “preponderance” of data regarding climate change and 2) those of us who reject the AGW theory as proposed are demanding an unreasonable level of proof of those supporting that theory. Both of these assertions are patiently false.

In the first case, no one who has studied climate change denies that there was a mild average warming trend over during the last century. From there, however, the “evidence” becomes less and less compelling. Many changes in the natural world are being blamed on global warming and are cited as “proof” that the planet is heating up. Many of these phenomena—such as malarial outbreaks, melting ice sheets and sea ice, the number and intensity of severe weather—have been shown to be fully within normal variation. You might wish to consult the writings of Bjørn Lomborg, who wrote a well reasoned article for SI's March/April 2008 edition, regarding the many statistical fallacies that surround the case for global warming. Most of the arguments comprising this preponderance of evidence are simply biased reporting coupled with group think, which exists among scientists at least as strongly as it does among the general public.

Much of the evidence supporting AGW is only loosely tied to climate change and there is a dearth of established causal links to support these claims. Most of this “proof” amounts to anecdotal assertions, the scientific equivalent of hearsay evidence. As such this does not greatly concern me—the media and scientific journals are filled with contradictory reports that reinforce the claim that natural variation can account for much of this “proof.” Such claims quickly devolve into endless chains of example and counter example from both sides of the question. But this isn't where the true source of AGW skepticism lies.

The true source of climate change skepticism is based on how the AGW theory is framed: it relies on the level of atmospheric CO2 as the proximate cause of climate change. This claim is simply unsupportable in terms of established physical science—the amounts of carbon dioxide involved can not be shown to account for the variation in temperature over the past 100+ years for which fairly reliable records are available. Analysis based on the Beer-Lambert law of optical absorbance certainly does not support the claimed rate of change.

Further more, a sizable number of contributing factors (forcings in IPCC climate change speak) are involved that are not well characterized. By the IPCC's own admission, the effects of aerosols and the mechanisms regulating cloud formation are not accounted for in their calculations. Recently there have been reports regarding the effects of particulates in Asia (the brown clouds that threatened the Beijing Olympics), the impact of dust blowing over the tropical Atlantic from Africa on sea surface temperature. The previously unsuspected high portion of airborne particles that are of biological origin, which have the ability to nucleate water vapor at higher temperatures than mineral dust, changes assumptions about cloud formation. The recently discovered role of thaliaceans as a heretofore unknown oceanic carbon pump, capable of sequestering twice as much carbon as algae, forces the “settled science” of the carbon cycle to be reevaluated. Significant alterations to the thermohaline deep ocean returning current brings into question how accurate our understanding of ocean heat transport really is.

The debate regarding how important changes in solar irradiance are continues to rage with new linkage between the UV and soft X-ray portion of the solar spectrum, which can vary far more than the visible and infrared wavelengths, and changes in stratospheric and tropospheric ozone levels, already known to affect atmospheric temperatures. This list of new, ignored or erroneously accounted for factors that impact on climate could go on for pages. It is not a preponderance of evidence supporting AGW that needs consideration, it is the rising tide of contradictory and previously unknown evidence that causes me to not accept the theory as settled science (if there truly ever is such a thing, but that is another argument).

As I have said before in The Resilient Earth and on this blog, climate skeptics are sometimes accused of selectively interpreting scientific data in order to bolster their case against AGW. The term used is “cherry picking.” When a theory makes certain predictions it is totally acceptable, even obligatory, to investigate those predictions. When a theory is based on certain fundamental assumptions regarding underlying science it is perfectly logical to question that theory when its underlying assumptions are shown to be in error. This is not cherry picking, it is how science works. It may discomfort those who complacently believe in the “consensus view” of AGW, but that is of no importance to science.

To borrow an example from Dr. Roy Spencer, if 99 papers have been published which claim the climate system is very sensitive, but only 1 paper has been published that says the climate system is not very sensitive, is there then a 99-in-100 (99%) chance that the climate system is very sensitive? No! As has happened repeatedly in all scientific disciplines, it is often a single research paper that ends up overturning what scientists thought they knew and accepted as “settled science.”

Dr. Schneider's statement, “if you deny a clear preponderance of evidence, you have crossed the line from legitimate skeptic to ideological denier,” is nothing other than the old, discredited “scientific consensus” argument in a different guise. Most people, including most scientists, have gone along with the prevailing public opinions about AGW, a position which requires the reasoning skills of a bovine—its not called herd instinct for nothing. Many great scientists are considered great precisely because they broke with the consensus, they continued to seek answers, they remained skeptical.

The tenor of the whole SI edition is perhaps best summed up by another quote from the AAAS article: “[Gore] was mind-boggling in his sincerity,” said enraptured CSI Fellow Leon Lederman, “what Gore did for me the other night because he was so passionate...was [make me determined] never to go anywhere anymore without global warming as my chief topic.” What reasoned discourse! And from a CSI Fellow! This isn't rational thought, it is hero worship verging on hysteria.

By including such tripe editor Frazier stands revealed as a global warming true believer, not a skeptical scientific observer who demands solid empirical evidence to support hypotheses. The debate is on-going but Skeptical Inquirer is not reporting on it, it has chosen to side with the global warming alarmists.

It seems that when the publishing organization of SI changed its name from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) to the Committee for Scientific Investigation more was lost than a number of words—it seems a good deal of integrity as sacrificed as well. I do not intend to renew my membership with this organization and I urge others to critically review their affiliation with CSI.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and always, always stay skeptical.

[movielib]

Remember the debate that wasn't last week between James Hansen and coal company president Don Blankenship? Remember my surprise that Hansen would agree to debate anyone but, of course, Blankenship is not a scientist and perhaps Hansen saw him as an easy foe.

Well, the author of this following article is testing whether Hansen is serious about a debate and invited Christopher Monckton to serve as Hansen's counterpart. Monckton accepted (of course, as he has been trying to debate Gore or Hansen for years). Monckton is also not a scientist but he is thoroughly informed on climate science and understands it. I am certain Hansen will not accept this.

http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-New-...e-James-Hansen

Kirtland Griffin
Lord Monckton has agreed to debate James Hansen
June 27, 5:28 PM

In an article I released yesterday,"News flash!the great global warming debate with James Hansen is now off", I indicated I would inquire of Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, as to whether he would be interested in filling in for Don Blankenship in a debate on climate change with James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. In my experience with Lord Monckton he has always been willing to assist in the sceptic fight for good old fashioned science. He has also been willing to debate any of the advocates of anthropogenic global warming. Recently he was told he could debate Al Gore head to head in a Congressional committee hearing. It was not until he was getting off the plane that he was told the debate was off. Al Gore apparently wasn't up to the task.

But who is Lord Monckton? Back in the 80's he was a technical policy adviser on a number of topics for Margaret Thatcher. He was intimately involved in the early investigation of CO2 caused global warming and presented at the Royal Society on the subject. The difference between Monckton and many others is that he realized that it couldn't be true. Although I suspect his paycheck didn't depend on AGW alarmism, I believe it would not have affected his conclusion. As he once commented to me in an email "As the temperature continues to fail to rise as the doomsayers suggest it will, fewer and fewer will believe them, and those who have nailed their colours to the mast of this particular ship will go down with it, with few to mourn their passing." So eloquent. So true. He is currently the Chief Policy adviser for the Science & Public Policy Institute and some of his articles can be found here, here and here

About 3 years ago I wrote Lord Monckton concerning a paper he had written. Being early in my climate education, I had several elementary questions. He was very patient with me and I was able to follow the thought progression and math to the conclusions, mostly. Last year I had the occasion to see his presentation at the 2008 International Climate Conference in New York City. A couple of days later at the University of Hartford, in a program advanced by Physics Professor Larry Gould, I had the privilege of seeing a second, different presentation suitable for policymakers. It was just down the road from the Capital and do you think one of our state officials would trot down the road to see an international figure in the climate debate. No sir. Not even one, despite a personal invitation to our Governor.

My point here is that I have seen him in action and he would be a formidable opponent for any of the AGW promoters. He is a big man in heart as well as stature presenting a powerful image. His accent gives a reassuring note to his excellent command of the science he offers. He also shares the Nobel Prize that Al Gore and the IPCC won last year for his part in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report and has the pin to prove it.

Well, I wrote him and 10 hours later I got my answer:

Monckton: "Dear Mr. Griffin - Of course I'd be delighted to debate Jim Hansen. In a democracy, that's how things work - people debate one another in public, so that people get to hear both sides. One of the most disfiguring tactics of the group driving the "global warming" scare is to refuse to debate those who disagree, on the ground that that would give their opponents too much exposure .... So do suggest it to Hansen. He may decide to go ahead with it, and the debate would attract massive publicity precisely because it would be so rare. ... - M of B"

So, Dr. Hansen, you were prepared to debate Mr. Blankenship. Will you accept this challenge from Christopher Monckton? The venue should be large enough to allow those interested to attend. I am sure there is something in the New York area that could accommodate such an event. Say... Yankee Stadium or Madison Square Garden. We can work out the details to your satisfaction.

Edit: Followup email to Dr Hansen:

http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-New-...-Hansen-Accept

Kirtland Griffin
The invitation has been sent but will James Hansen Accept?
June 28, 10:12 PM

After receiving Lord Monckton's enthusiastic agreement to debate Dr. James Hansen the next step was to compose an invitation to Dr. Hansen. It went as follows:

Dear Dr. Hansen,

I found the report of the Coal Mountain group very interesting. I don't particularly feel that removing mountain tops is a desirable thing to do. Can't blame you for getting involved in such a worthy effort.

I was particularly interested in the Blankenship debate on global warming and was disappointed that you could not come to an agreement on the location. It seems unfortunate that Mr. Blankenship would jeopardize the opportunity for such an important debate for something as menial as the venue. I have, however, developed a solution to this problem.

I have contacted Christopher Monckton from Scotland to inquire if if he would be available as a substitute for Mr. Blankenship. He replied, "Of course I'd be delighted to debate Jim Hansen. In a democracy, that's how things work - people debate one another in public, so that people get to hear both sides." The world has been waiting for an open debate on the science of global warming. It is time that the foremost scientist in the world that supports the theory that man is the primary driver of our climate through the emission of greenhouse gases goes head-to-head with one of the theory's most notable critics.

Mr. Blankenship would have done an excellent job, but Christopher Monckton would be an opponent befitting your stature as the icon of the anthropogenic global warming cause. I believe you owe it to your supporters, your country and the world to finally demonstrate that the IPCC 4th Assessment is the authoritative document you say it is in an open scientific forum.

The venue is not important to us. It's the opportunity to finally have the debate. The important thing is to have the broadest exposure so the world can evaluate for themselves. I look forward to your acceptance.

My fervent wish is that Dr. Hansen accepts the invitation for Lord Monckton to replace Don Blankenship. It is my considered opinion that if a public official recommends a huge expenditure of our moneys, then he owes it to us to defend his proposal in public debate with a knowledgeable and respectful opponent when there are serious concerns over the basis for the expenditure. And when I say huge, there is no proposal that is any huge'er than this. The economic consequences of the cap-and-tax/trade solution are potentially dire and should only be taken with great caution and a sceptical view is necessary. Lord Monckton fits that requirement and his Scottish origin is appropriate in a world wide problem, or non-problem. As Monckton is prone to say (something like this), "When faced with a potentially big problem, sometimes the hardest thing to do is to do nothing." and "We've got to get the big ones right." My opinion is we should do nothing whereas Dr. Hansen says otherwise. He should take the time to get this big one right. Please say yes to the challenge, Dr Hansen. It is the right thing to do.

[movielib]

The editorial from Post #50 has been updated and I'm posting it here. I have deleted the old editorial from Post #50 but left the post as a placeholder so references to other posts stay correct.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1697/U...ont-even-exist

Updated: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist

No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed'
Friday, June 26, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Updated: June 28, 2009

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed global warming bill (219-212 vote) is being hailed by many as “historic” or “landmark” or “The Bill of the Century.”

But the passage of this bill does not signify any great “green revolution” or “growing” climate “awareness” on the part of Congress. Instead, the methods and manner that the Pelosi led House achieved final passage, represents nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting, intimidation and special interest handouts. (See: Pay offs: 'Florida Democrat won $50 million pledge of support for proposed hurricane research facility in his district')

The House of Representatives passed a bill it did not read, did not understand. A bill that is based on crumbling scientific claims and a bill that will have no detectable climate impact (assuming climate fear promoters are correct on the science and the bill is fully implemented – both implausible assumptions).

Proponents of the bill made spectacular claims in their efforts to impress the urgency of the bill on their colleagues. To illustrate just how delusional these claims became, imagine if in 1909 the U.S. Congress passed a bill attempting to predict climate, temperature and the energy mix powering our national economy in the year 2000. (not to mention sanctimonious claims about "saving the Earth.") Any such attempt would have been ridiculed, but somehow in 2009, attempting to control the economy and climate of the year 2100 is seen as reasonable by many.

'Climate Astrology': Obama claims bill will leave Earth 4 to 5 degrees cooler!

President Obama made the completely scientifically indefensible claim that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would stop global temperature increases of up to 5 degrees! Obama said on June 25, "A long-term benefit is we're leaving a planet to our children that isn't four or five degrees hotter." (How can the President of the U.S. can be so misinformed and full of such hubris that he somehow believes he can sign a bill that acts as a thermostat for Earth's temperature?

But Obama seems so imbued with his ability to control climate that during the 2008 presidential campaign he prognosticated his presidency would be "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." (For latest scientific data refuting sea level rise fears see here.) President Obama has also claimed he can "block the Sun's rays to end global warming." Sadly, this has truly become the new age of "Climate Astrology." )

Democratic Congressman G.K. Butterfield reported claim that the bill “'will literally save the planet” reveals just how out of touch scientifically, politically and economically many of the bill's supporters have become.

If we actually faced the man-made “climate crisis” proponents claim, we would all be doomed if we had to rely on this bill save us. A May 2009 scientific analysis of the bill revealed its temperature impact to be “scientifically meaningless."

Sorry Congressman Butterfield, far from “saving the planet”, this bill will instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. (See: Analysis: Climate Bill is 'Scientifically Meaningless' – Temp Reduction By 2050 of Only 9/100 of one Degree F )

Environmentalists Oppose

Many environmental groups opposed the bill because it failed to actually reduce emissions. (See: Obama's global warming plan would result in U.S. burning MORE coal in 2020 & Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey...'bill chooses politics over science' )

President Obama attempted to call the bill a job creator and proponents cited a Congressional Budget Office report to downplay the cost to Americans. But these arguments failed to hold up under the close light of scrutiny. A major report from Bloomberg News on June 26, 2009 revealed U.S. oil companies may cope with the climate legislation by "closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports." Bloomberg also reported that "one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020" and this could "add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline." (See: Rebuttal: Obama Tries to Sell Cap-And-Tax as a Jobs Bill & WSJ: Climate bill would be 'biggest tax in American history')

Obama's own words belied his claims. In January 2008, then Senator Obama bluntly said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Even fellow Democrats failed to parrot these mythical claims that the bill is a low cost job creator. Democrat Congressman John Dingell of Michigan was blunt, calling Cap and trade a "great big" tax in April.

Obama advisor Warren Buffett also failed to tow the rhetorical line on the climate bill. Buffet came out strongly opposed to cap and trade, saying it would be “a huge, regressive tax.” In addition, the bill was called "immoral" by civil rights leader Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality because of the "disproportionate and negative impact on poor and working-class families."

Perhaps Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels summed up the cap-and-trade bill the best. Daniels said in May, "A lot of people will get filthy rich doing nothing for the environment." (Many are well on their way these carbon riches, see Climate Depot's exclusive May 2, 2009 report: Al Gore's quest to become world's first 'Carbon Billionaire')

The climate bill now moves to the Senate where it faces a much tougher road ahead. The best news of the climate bill's passage is that the American public, which has wholeheartedly rejected man-made global warming fears, will now be awakened to what their representatives in Washington are up to.

Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted against the bill, realized Americans were not concerned about global warming, saying: “There is no public outcry to pass this legislation. It's an institutional push.”

Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania reported his constituent calls were “running 9-1 against' the climate bill. Speaker Pelosi admitted the Capitol saw voters "jamming the lines"' to protest climate bill and the Capitol phone switchboard "went down" as voters dialed "to voice their opposition to the bill."

American People 'Get it'

Current polling data reveals that the American people “get it” when it comes to man-made global warming fears. Given the wealth of recent polling data showing Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, Congressmen and Senators are simply not hearing any clamor from voters to "act" to "solve" global warming.

In fact, the opposite is true, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called "solutions" in growing numbers. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.

1) Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues – March 2009

2) Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has 'Failed' -- 'The public is just not that concerned' about global warming – May 2009

3) Zobgy Poll: Only 30% of Americans support cap-and-trade -- 57% oppose – April 2009

4) "Gallup Poll: Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated" - March 11, 2009

5) Rasmussen Poll found Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming - 'Lowest finding yet' -- 'reversal from a year ago!'

6) Rasmussen Reports: Congress Pushes Cap and Trade, But Just 24% Know What It Is - May 11, 2009

Now that the bill has cleared the house and heads to the Senate (where they will be preparing their own version of a cap-and-trade bill) the American people will awake to the reality that this purely climate symbolic bill with real economic and lifestyle impacts may actually become law.

An American public that is aware of a “non-solution” global warming bill has the potential to literally shut down Washington with phone calls, emails, faxes and protests. Thus far, global warming bills have been a distant possibility somewhere in the future. With the passage of this bill, it is now game on.

Despite the American people's rejection of warming fears and climate taxes, Congress may persist in pushing them for other non-scientific reasons. Hint, hint. See: Dem. Senator calls cap-and-trade 'the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.'

19th Century Living

Beyond just economics, lifestyles changes will be in order under the new climate regime. As a June 7, 2009 Washington Post editorial stated: “Why does Congress, and not the market, need to dictate these changes?” The Post noted the climate bill “contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to specs on hot tubs; it will reshape America's economy.” Also see: 19th Century Living: Under climate plan 'Americans allowed to emit same carbon volumes as citizens did in 1867')

In May, House speaker Nancy Pelosi declared “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to battle global warming and reduce our carbon footprints.

As MIT scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has noted: "He who controls carbon controls life. It is a bureaucrat's dream to control carbon dioxide." Washington is a field of dreams right now for bureaucrats.

Even Warming Fear Promoters Oppose

In addition, even the two strongest proponents of man-made global warming fears – NASA's James Hansen and UK's James Lovelock -- are now ridiculing the Congressional cap-and-trade approach as “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.” Adding to that, Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader has also voiced opposition to this bill, saying, "I'm really astonished... I mean, it's not going to work. It's too complex. It's too easily manipulated politically."

Former progressive Democrat Presidential candidate and Congressman Dennis Kucinich also opposed the bill, warning: "It might make the problem [of global warming] worse." (Also, there were opposing editorials in unexpected places: See: 'Too big, too fast' Obama' hometown paper - Chicago Tribune - rejects climate bill! 'House members should vote no' & Washington Post: 'We think it's too soon to settle for something that falls so far short of ideal' & Denver Post: Climate bill's 'goals exist in fantasy...Not 'way to go about it' )

Remember, these are the words of scientists and activists who believe in a looming human caused climate “crisis.”

Americans are becoming aware that the debate is not "over" as more than 700 prominent international scientists publicly dissenting, including many who are reversing their views on climate fears and declaring themselves skeptical. Americans are becoming aware that there has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years.

'Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!?'

New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 )

This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. 'There is no warming in the pipeline' )

'Climate change issue is about to fall apart'

Many scientists are now realizing that the UN IPCC and the promoters of man-made climate fear are in a “panic” about the lack of global warming, the growing number of scientific defectors and sinking public support. South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander wrote in March 2009, “'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart...Heads will roll!”

It is no wonder that the environmental movement is urging its troops to no longer use the term “global warming,” as temperatures fail to cooperate. (See: NYT obtains enviro strategy memo: Stop use of term global warming! )

As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal noted in a June 26, 2009 article, the “Democrats are attempting to “quickly jam the climate bill through Congress because global warming tide is shifting.” The article noted that the “Scientific debate roaring back to life” as the “number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”

Key Questions for Voters to ask Senators

As the Senate considers global warming cap-and-trade legislation that will raise energy prices during a massive economic downturn, curious voters will soon be asking their Senators the following basic questions:

1) What impact will this bill have on temperatures? (Answer: "Meaningless")

2) What will the bill cost? (Answer: Trillions)

3) Why are you voting for a bill that will have huge economic impacts and harm the poor and seniors on fixed incomes the most -- but will not have a measurable climate impact?

4) Why are more and more scientists publicly rejecting man-made climate fears and why has the Earth failed to warm as predicted?

The answers to the above questions will likely cause massive angst with many Democrats, particularly in rust belt states.

These questions will have to be answered as all eyes turn to the U.S. Senate. But, never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer non-solutions to problems that don't even exist.

Stay tuned...

Says it all.

[movielib]

James Hansen and his magical mystery NASA/GISS "adjustments" of temperature increased the warming trend from 1880 to 1999 by more than 25%:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/2...ory/#more-8991

NASA GISS: adjustments galore, rewriting U.S. climate history
28 06 2009

Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP Linear Trends: Before and After

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

Many of us have seen gif animations and blink comparators of the older version of Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP data versus the newer version, and here’s yet another one. The presentation is clearer than most.



It is based on the John Daly archived data:
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

and the current Contiguous U.S. surface temperature anomaly data from GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

In their presentations, most people have been concerned with which decade had the highest U.S. surface temperature anomaly: the 1940s or the 1990s. But I couldn’t recall having ever seen a trend comparison, so I snipped off the last 9 years from current data and let EXCEL plot the trends:



Before the post-1999 GISS adjustments to the Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP data, the linear trend for the period of 1880 to 1999 was 0.035 deg C/decade. After the adjustments, the linear trend rose to 0.044 deg C/decade

...

Amazingly, the earlier temperatures went down and the later temperatures went up. I'm sure Hansen would tell you the adjustments were all justified and it's a mere coincidence that the warming trend increased so much. It's all so very convenient for the alarmists.

[movielib]

I don't know if you all remember the already discredited Steig/Mann (of Hockey Stick fame) et al. study that claimed to have discovered that, contrary to decades of data and study which said Antarctica as a whole was cooling, it was really warming.

Now Jeff Id has worked out exactly what percentage of the Steig/Mann figures came from each part of Antarctica.

http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/...eig-paper.html

June 28, 2009
The "final straw" on the Steig paper

Jeff Id has worked out the weights given to the temperature trends of the four geographic regions of Antarctica by Stieg et al. in their paper which was featured on the cover of Nature early this year and created a sensation in alarmist circles and the press.

Remember, by far the largest region of Antarctica is East Antarctica, followed by West Antarctica. The Antarctic Peninsula, the only part of Antarctica where significant recent warming has occurred, is a very small percentage of the total area of the continent.

Yet, as you can see, the Steig paper weights the temperature trend of the tiny peninsula 72% of the total continental trend! In Jeff's words, "There it is, we can now say conclusively that the positive [temperature] trend in the [Steig paper's] Antarctic reconstruction comes primarily from the well known peninsula warming trend." "Antarctic warming -- the final straw."

From the above article, here is a graph of the real Antarctic temperature trend:



And here is a graph of how much the Stieg/Mann study took from each part of Antarctica:


The tiny peninsula is weighted with 72% of the total. The peninsula is 2.68% of Antarctica (approximately 380,000 sq.km. out of 14,200,000 sq. km.)

If we could see a map distorted similarly to how Steig/Mann distorted the temperature trends from the various areas of Antarctica, it would be along the lines of the bottom map in this image which is based on the relative geographic sources of news items in the United States:



Finally, here is the link to Jeff Id's work:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/200...e-final-straw/