More links

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar: India gets it

India has taken a bold decision to reject the “Climate Doom” projection made by the IPCC (Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change), the UN Body of scientists on Earth’s climate and climate change. The Indian politicians led by the astute and pragmatic Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have made the right decision to prioritize economic development and poverty eradication over some nebulous climate change action plans.
The climate of India and by extension that of the rest of the world has changed in recent years, but not necessarily for worse, as claimed by the IPCC and its ardent supporters. In a recent paper published in the U.K.-based Journal Energy & Environment (May 2008), I have carefully analyzed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated. They also lack supporting evidence.

South African professor Will Alexander on "The collapsing argument"

“The atmospheric greenhouse effect lies at the heart of climate change science. Its very existence is now being challenged. I would have preferred to discuss my views with my professional colleagues in the climatological and environmental sciences. But they will have none of it.

Where does all this nonsense come from? The public believes it because they have faith in scientists. The whole scientist community, by its silence, must bear responsibility for the incredible damage that these unsubstantiated claims will cause to the prosperity of our country.” (More here).

Op-Ed Columnist - Can This Planet Be Saved? - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

True, Ms. Pelosi’s remark was a happy reminder that environmental policy is no longer in the hands of crazy people. Remember, less than two years ago Senator James Inhofe — a conspiracy theorist who insists that global warming is a “gigantic hoax” perpetrated by the scientific community — was the chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

Beyond that, Ms. Pelosi’s response shows that she understands the deeper issues behind the current energy debate.
...
Martin Weitzman, a Harvard economist who has been driving much of the recent high-level debate, offers some sobering numbers. Surveying a wide range of climate models, he argues that, over all, they suggest about a 5 percent chance that world temperatures will eventually rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius (that is, world temperatures will rise by 18 degrees Fahrenheit). As Mr. Weitzman points out, that’s enough to “effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it.” It’s sheer irresponsibility not to do whatever we can to eliminate that threat.

"everything about this story screams 'bollocks' to me"

"Scientists have devised a cheap and simple method of turning water into rocket fuel using solar power in a development that could generate a new source of green energy for the home and workplace. The researchers used electricity from solar panels to split water into oxygen and hydrogen – the constituents of rocket fuel – with a technology that scientists believe could be a way of storing solar energy as a chemical fuel that can be used to power pollution-free electricity generators known as hydrogen fuel cells."

Australia: Liberal lunacy V (Whiteboard edition) at Larvatus Prodeo

The party meeting started with the words “climate change is real” being written on the whiteboard. But even this statement could not produce agreement. Backbencher Dennis Jensen said he could not sign up to that statement and it was then removed and replaced by “we give the planet the benefit of the doubt and support action on climate change”.

Taxpayers foot bill for global warming hysteria

Politicians have become fixated on feel-good solutions to a trend that has been created by exaggerated claims. Let's remember that even if all countries complied with their Kyoto protocol commitments, the forecasted increase in global temperatures would only be delayed by five years, 100 years from now. Do we want our legacy to be billions of dollars wasted on faddish pursuits that did virtually nothing for global temperatures a century from now? Or, do we want to make decisions based on actual science to achieve a cleaner environment in our lifetimes? Although the global warming train may have left the station in B.C. it should be derailed before it does any real damage.