The ugly side of solar panels

Here.

Alarmists' simple rule

If it's an animal or plant that you "like", a fraction of a degree of global warming will immediately kill it.

If it's an animal or plant that you dislike, a fraction of a degree of global warming will cause its numbers to completely explode.

Latest example here:

Show topics have included a decline in pest control inspections caused by the slumping housing market, advice for controlling stinging insects, and observations about rodents from a columnist of the magazine, Dr. Bobby Corrigan (who noted that global warming may be increasing the rodent population because rats and mice are surviving milder winters).

Also note that when we think we are in a period of global cooling, the above rules are immediately reversed.

The alternate reality of Sir Jonathon Porritt

From this article:

Many people still aren't convinced about climate change. The evidence is mixed, so don't you need to be more honest about man made changes to the environment?

Henry Blackthorpe

Winchester

The evidence on climate change is not "mixed". The overwhelming weight of evidence now points to a rapid acceleration in human-induced changes in the climate, with rapidly worsening consequences for humankind. And every government in the world (including China, India, Saudi Arabia and the benighted Bush Administration in the United States) signed up to that consensus when they accepted the 2007 Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The real dishonesty lies in those vested interests which exploit any residual scientific uncertainty for their own political and commercial purposes.

How can we tackle the idiots who regard denying man-made global warning as a badge of right-wing ideological purity?

Chris Clayton

Waverton, Cheshire

The brigade of "idiots" gets smaller every year, and although they still have a disproportionate effect on the media and public opinion (sewing confusion, reinforcing inertia and so on), they are less and less relevant. Much more problematic are today's politicians who theoretically buy into the scientific consensus about climate change, but whose responses remain pathetically inadequate.

From his Wikipedia page:

Porritt acts as advisor to many bodies on environmental matters, as well as to individuals including Prince Charles and Stuart Rose, the chief executive of Marks & Spencer, advising on that company's forward strategy.

New climate czar will be thinking about shorts

Here.

Don't forget--the very foundation of this hysteria was formed using massaged temperature data, which was in turn collected from places like this.

Is it possible that Jack Nicholson isn't buying into Al Gore's hysteria?

1. From this article:

Also during the [2007 Oscar] show, Jack Nicholson got stares when he stayed seated during the standing ovation for Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth.

"2. I've tried a few Google searches, and I haven't yet found any clearly hysterical global warming quotes from Nicholson. I'm not sure what he meant with this recent quote:

...You have to be ready to change your mind. We were wrong on global warming. We were wrong on dope. The only guy that ever agreed with me on [legalizing] dope was William F. Buckley. And that shocked me so deeply, I couldn't believe it… I like to reduce things down. One of the things you can do to solve energy is solve traffic. We burn so much gasoline sitting at traffic lights! But this is so far removed from the presidency. Let's get away from demographics and a bit more towards a meritocracy.”

3. Nicholson just endorsed Hillary Clinton in this video, which completely fails to mention the alleged global warming crisis that is supposed to "make world war look like heaven".

4. Note that it is possible for a Hollywood personality to have some sense of perspective when it comes to the environment. Although George Carlin has a Hollywood Walk of Fame star, he did say some seriously non-PC things in this video.

Save the planet; burn the universities?

Here.

Google search results

Number of hits I just saw for these Google searches (your mileage may vary):

1. Googling "global warming" crisis -- 581,000 hits

2. Googling "global warming" scam -- 1,060,000 hits

Bus company reverses global warming!

Here.

Let's save the world by paying people to do what they were already doing!

Here.

Excerpt:

He was attracted to the carbon program because it pays him for a farming technique he already practices.

3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade

Here.

"Wind turbines should be built outside every school in Britain"

Here.

It may make similar sense to affix small wind turbines atop the tin-foil hats of Al Gore's "carbon dioxide crisis" believers...

What If Sunspots Remain Stopped?

Here.

Ad to challenge Gore's planet-saving image

Here.

Excerpt:

The spot, which begins airing Tuesday on several cable networks, is also meant to counter a new outreach by the Alliance for Climate Protection, an umbrella organization founded by Mr. Gore last year. The group is planning a massive music festival in July and will spend a reported $10 million on advocacy ads promoting the "climate crisis" and eco-consciousness.

Two comments:

1. Note that Gore's "Live Earth" last summer was a "massive flop".

2. Wasn't Gore's ad blitz supposed to "cost between $100 million and $200 million a year"?

More Garbage on the Eco Front: Plastic Bags…not killing millions.

Here.

Exploring "Governor Moon Beam's" global warming myth

Here.

Global Warming: Clovis Man could have used help.

Here.

"Tech Trends to Ignore"

From this page:

-- Anything Green. In the '70s we were running out of oil. In the '80s we had to save the whales. In the '90s our attention turned to the depleted rain forests. Now it's all about global warming. Is your business doing what it can for the environment? Do you demand that all of your employees drive hybrid vehicles? Have you installed solar panels to conserve energy? No? Then join the rest of us who want nothing more than to ruin the earth with our decadent and destructive business practices. Do we not care about the environment? Yes, but not enough to waste money on this year's fire drill. If you can find a technology that helps the environment and is good for your business then go for it. And please let me know too, as I'm still trying to find it.

Cryptoid Global Warming

Here.

Ten reasons to love global warming

Here.

Global Warming Censored

Here.

Top 10 Global Warming Myths

Here.

"Profoundly stupid"

Somehow I previously missed a quote here:

In his first major speech since taking over, Professor John Beddington said the global rush to grow biofuels was compounding the problem, and cutting down rainforest to produce biofuel crops was "profoundly stupid".

Global warming coverage shows why modern journalism will be extinct long before polar bears

Here.

Democrats tittering and openly laughing?

Here.

The post doesn't say whether Maryland's 8-year-old Democratic science advisor was flown in for this debate.

Note the interesting quote here:

Several Republicans argued that there's no need to rush the proposal.

"It's like we're scurrying to get something done, like something's going to happen to discredit the whole global-warming thing," said Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama.

Climate Charlie

Here.

I think this excerpt is telling:

Camilla, who was once accused by senior royal aide Mark Bolland of being "monumentally lazy", will miss 10 of the 44 engagements on the taxpayer-funded tour so that she can "rest" or prepare for other duties on the 246ft superyacht Leander.

Aides said she would be absent from some jobs because they involved subjects specifically of interest to Charles - such as meeting business leaders or discussing climate change.

If Charles really thinks that "the lives of billion of people" are at stake here, don't you think that Camilla should be "interested" in discussing climate change?

The Contrarian of Prague

See the Wall Street Journal article here.

No net global warming in eight years

See the Patrick J. Michaels article here.

Excerpt:

A CO2 tax will largely be levied on utilities that exceed modest limits on their carbon dioxide effluent, so consumers won't "see" it — except in their electric bills. They'll send in their monthly checks, quite unaware that the new tax revenues are likely to be shoved into a slush fund for solar energy, windmills, biodiesel, ethanol and other green gadgetry boondoggles.

"the issue is not about climate science"

Don't miss this Pielke Sr post.

Anthony Watts interview and slideshow

Here.

All talk and no action?

Here.

The Cap and Trade Cash Cow

Here.

Roy Cordato on The International Conference on Climate Change

Here.

Barking CO2 madness from the EU

See the article and comments here.

Excerpts:

The UN predicts there will be millions of "environmental migrants" by 2020 which may in turn "increase conflicts in transit and destination areas," says the report.
...
It cited estimates that "a business as usual scenario" in dealing with climate change could cost the world economy up to 20 percent of GDP per year...

The Anti-Bali

From this post:

"Garbage in — gospel out." That's how astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon described the process of the United Nations' IPCC using computer models to prop up the global warming hoax at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which concluded this week in New York City.

Good news? Michigan slowest in CO2 growth

Here.

"If I need more electricity I’ll just install more outlets.”

See the post by Michael R. Fox PhD here.

Global Warming Hoax Has Been Good to Al Gore

Here.

Global Warming’s Incomplete Question

Here.

Let's cool it in heat of great debate

Here.

Climate realists have their day in Parliament?

Here.

More on costly buses

Here.

Picking your poison

Here.

Masdar City Builds Positive Energy HQ

Here.

Maryland Governor O'Malley now taking scientific advice from 8-year-olds?

At about the 15-second mark here, a kid at a Maryland alarmist rally suggests that sunspots don't cause climate change, and the crowd cheers.

The same kid also reappears to offer political advice at the end of the video.

I think both O'Malley and the 8-year-old could learn something from sites like this one (from a 15-year-old).

Weather Channel founder John Coleman on the global warming scam

(From November '07)

Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming

Here.

Australia: new NSW Minister for Climate Change takes over

From this article:

Whether it is called energy efficiency or, in clumsy bureaucratese, demand management, Firth's task is to get all of us to slash our electricity use in the home, the office, at school, in shops, hospitals, factories, clubs, pubs, courtrooms and prisons over the next three years. If she fails the political fallout will hit every Labor member as electricity bills soar in the new carbon-constrained economy just around the corner.

Right now the public is with her. But her success or failure is likely to be influenced by the Government's leading climate sceptic, the Treasurer, Michael Costa.

There are a legion of fallen heroes in the NSW climate change battle who have gone before the fresh-faced new minister. Many were passionately committed officials and advisers who were encouraged to join the same fight under the former premier Bob Carr, only to leave the field disillusioned despite some shining achievements.

Insiders have told the Herald of a decade of warfare with the state's two dominant treasurers, both of whom questioned the reality of climate change, promoted a reliance on cheap electricity from coal-fired power and downplayed the effectiveness of cutting electricity use.

A lack of money and, most importantly, a lack of political will to tackle energy efficiency at senior levels left the boldest program to wither. Ambitious targets were quietly forgotten and results suppressed after they became too embarrassing to publish.

Over the same decade greenhouse gas emissions from electricity in NSW rose steadily along with electricity consumption, which increased 2.5 per cent each year.

Ups And Downs Of Sea-Levels

Here.

Bogus Body Counts: Casualties in the Climate War

Don't miss this Climate Resistance post.

EU COMMISSIONER WARNS: HEAVY INDUSTRY MAY BE FORCED OUT OF EUROPE

Here. (Via Greenie Watch)

Thick ice and snow on Minnesota lakes

Here.

Lifestyles of the Rich and Sanctimonious

Here.

A particularly severe case of ecochondria

Here.

Denying Climate Change Science a platform

Here.

Heard the One About the Farmer’s Ethanol?

Here.

Posts on the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Avery, Singer, Armstrong here.

Soon, Hayden, Loehle here.

Green, Watts here.

New England’s Snow Becomes Too Much for Roofs

From this article:

LACONIA, N.H. — It has been a great winter for skiers in central and northern New England, but the heavy snowfall has become a nightmare for municipal budgets and the owners of dozens of buildings whose roofs have collapsed.

More alarmist sites going strangely silent?

Here.

Also relatively or completely quiet these days: RealClimate and the Climate Crisis blog and science pages.

Breath is toxic waste?

Here.

UAH Global temperature data for Feb08: near zero anomaly

Here.

Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression

See the epic post here.

The post contains this link to some interesting quotes by ABC News Reporter Bill Blakemore.

Rush for biofuels threatens starvation on a global scale

Here.

Weather Stations Disappearing Worldwide

Here.

Causes of climate change varied: poll

From this article:

EDMONTON - Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.

The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.

A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."

Advice for Mayor Newsom in the Battle over San Francisco Tidal Energy

Here.

Excerpt:

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's philosophy. In 2006, city officials announced that they wanted to build turbines under the Golden Gate bridge to capture energy from tidal currents. At the time, they expected up to 38 megawatts (enough for approx. 38,000 homes). But now a new study by URS, an engineering firm, is saying that there would actually be just 1 or 2 megawatts produced at a cost of many tens of millions with high yearly maintenance expenses. "Power generated from the tides would cost between 80 cents and $1.40 per kilowatt hour, according to the study." For comparison, the Bay of Fundy has about 300 megawatts of potential.

Mayor Newsom has been recently quoted as saying: "I don't care about the arguments against it. I care about the arguments for it. I am going to find a way to make it happen." Granted, maybe he knows something that the public doesn't know, and if that is the case he should make that information available.

When it's cold, let's stress *natural* variation

See the article here, entitled "Global warming not always to blame for extreme winters".

Goracle trainee lesson 2: Don't debate

Here.

More from Climate Skeptic

Here and here.

Prince Charles describes views of skeptics as 'sheer madness'

More from Prince Charles is here.

Governor's high-flying commute draws flak

Here.

More from Dessler and Revkin

See Andrew Dessler's post here.

Hey Dessler--if it's not too much trouble, could you please post a group picture of those purported 2,500 expert "climatologists" who allegedly believe that global warming is a crisis? Thanks.

Note also the interesting admission from Andy Revkin in the comment section:

As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue).

New paper by John McLean: Consensus? What consensus?

Here.

Gore spins his carbon dioxide hysteria into gold

Here, here, and here.

Piece by Physicist/Mathematician George E. Smith

Here.

BMI’s Gainor: ‘Stewardship’ Doesn’t Mean ‘Lunacy’

Here.

About those Gore Climate-Camp grads

See the Chris Horner post here.

Montana: Recycling popular measure in global warming survey

Here.

Russians evidently NOT guzzling Gore's warming Kool-Aid

From this page:

Global warming worries 34 percent of Swedes, but only 5 percent of Russians.

Beware the politician posing as a scientist

See the Christopher Booker article here.

Helloooooooo....?

The eerie near-silence at RealClimate continues. At the moment, there's been only one post since February 21, and that one took on the timely issue of what happened in the year 536 AD.

From the blog's "About" page:

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.

There has been a stunning amount of climate-related news in recent weeks. Where are these guys?

Middle classes 'more immediate threat than climate change'

Here.

Western biofuel programs merit contempt, Indian scholar says

Here.

Sea Levels to Plunge Long Term, Study of Dino Era Says

From this article:

In fact, the data reveal that the long-term trend in sea levels since the Cretaceous has been downward, said Müller, who led the study appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

When this trend is extrapolated out 80 million years from now, it suggests that even if all of today's ice caps were to melt, sea levels would be 230 feet (70 meters) lower than they are today.

Call to the warming faithful

Here.

Titan TV’s short piece on the Heartland Conference

Here.

Is the stampede to global warming slowing down?

Here.

Check out what Jerry Pournelle's saying

See this post from Jerry Pournelle.

JOHN STOSSEL GETS IT

Here.

Greens Nuked

Here.

More from Tim Ball

Tim Ball writes:

One of the sequences I followed with increasing alarm through my career was the intrusion of computer modelers into climate science. I had worked with mathematicians and statisticians such as Alex Basilevsky on using long term climate records as a basis for math and stats theory. For example, Basilevsky was studying Markov chains that consider probability of future events based on historic data - his concern wasn't weather forecasting, but the implications are there. The complexity of climate offered a great challenge for mathematicians and computer modelers. Andrew Weaver is a mathematician who used ocean /atmosphere modeling for his doctoral thesis and now lists himself as a climatologist. In my first interview with him I realized he actually knew very little about climate even though he was a member of the IPCC. He now edits a climate journal. It reached a point when modelers were the keynote speakers at most conferences and then dominated the conference. They did argue among themselves, but it was more about the size and speed of their computers than about the efficacy of what they were doing. For example, it gave one group, ( I believe it was GISS) an advantage when they got Cray computers.

My first experience with Schlesinger was a conference in Edmonton in 1987 titled "The Impact of Climate Variability and Change on the Canadian Prairies." (Proceeding were published by the Canadian Climate Centre.) The basic issue was government planning based on future climate conditions. For example, in one discussion I recall the Alberta Deputy Minister of Resources (Most senior bureaucrat in a department) asking about forestry. His question was, "Your models tell us that southern Alberta will be a desert in 50 years. How sure are you of that prediction, because we are planning to plant trees and you are telling us they won't survive and we can't move them?" It was the first time I saw the models confronted with the realities of policy. As I recall Schlesinger thought for a while and then said "About 50% sure." To which the Deputy replied, "My Minister wants 98%."

Schlesinger's paper took the same data and put it into five of the major models of that time, including, 1. the GDFL of Weatherald and Manabe, 2. the GISS of Hansen et al, 3. the NCAR of Washington and Meehl, 4. the OSU of Schlesinger and Zhoa and, 5. the UKMO of Wilson and Mitchell.

A major thrust of the debate was because Schlesinger had put the same data into the five models and each produced results that he claimed were meaningful. Somebody pointed out that the results differed considerably from model to model. For example, they differed by 180° in their predictions for large areas. Schlesinger's reply was the models were not accurate for small regions. The person pointed out that the small regions were continental in their dimension. Much laughter at this point. Schlesinger then said the models were not quantitatively correct but they were qualitatively correct. When asked to explain what he meant he said well they all showed global warming with increased CO2. It was quickly pointed out that if you program them to have temperature increase with a CO2 increase (ceteris paribus) then that was an inevitable result of the programming not the reality. The noise volume increased at which point a bizarre incident occurred.

During Schlesinger's presentation, titled, "Model projections of the Equilibrium and Transient Climatic Changes induced by Increased Atmospheric CO2" there were general rumblings in the audience about the nature and assertiveness of the presentation, something that I had come to know as normal for modelers. This erupted in the question period. However, prior to that there were strange noises coming from behind me. I did not want to look around based on my experience at english soccer matches. In the question period voices were raised and frustrations expressed about the inadequacy of the models. Suddenly at the height of the din a shoe flew upon to the platform from behind me. There was shocked silence and a strange voice said, "I didn't have a towel." He then asked permission to go onto the platform. It turned out the strange noises were from the shoe thrower who had a voice box. He explained he had two Ph.Ds one in Atmospheric Physics and proceeded to put a formula on the blackboard. Schlesinger agreed it was the formula for the atmosphere at the basis of his models. The man then eliminated variables one at a time, each time having Schlesinger agree he eliminated them from the final model. The man then said what you have left no longer represents the atmosphere and any results from such as model were meaningless.

It was my first public experience with the concern I have about the boundary and difference between scientific responsibility in the laboratory, which unfortunately too many scientists are not meeting, and the completely different social and economic responsibilities when you push your ideas as viable to the public.

New Yorkers still gulping down Gore's Kool-Aid?

Here.

Goracle trainee lesson 1: "The Big Oil Smear"

Here.

BREAKING: Prominent Scientist Converts To Skeptic, Resigns From NASA in Protest

Here.

Global-Warming Payola?

See the John Tierney post here.

What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? And Just How Sensitive is the Climate Anyway?

Here.

Climate Propaganda Works: 'Global Warming Equals More Snowfall'

Here.

That's our story and we're 'almost' sticking to it

From the UK Met Office here:

A brief look at the graph depicting January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

Hypocrisy exposed: Comparison of Media's Coverage of Warm Winter vs. Cold Winter

Here.

Global Warming - Scam of the Century

Here.

Hot Under the Collar Over Global Warming

From this letter to the Washington Post:

If we continue to debate climate change instead of taking action, I will take no comfort in telling the skeptics "I was right" while standing on some tiny island created by the rising seas.

2008 International Climate Change Conference Impressions

Here.

Smoking Out The Warm-Mongers

See the IBD editorial here.

Scientist Says That Global Warming is not Man-Made

Here.

Tuvalu ready to accept climate change money or gender equality money

Here.

Taking Aim at Chicken Little

Here.

"Just a pawn of Big Fill-in-the-Blank"

Here.

A new logical fallacy?

Here.

Idaho senators balk at approving global warming resolution

Here.

Excerpt:

Senator Shirley McKague, a Meridian Republican, said one big reason she and her colleagues voted against the plan is they aren't convinced humans are actually contributing to climate change.

Senator Mike Burkett, a Boise Democrat, says the resolution wasn't about the science, it was about what the state was going to do about climate change.

Huh?

Update: More is here.

A change in the climate: credit crunch makes the bottom line the top issue

Here.

No Impact Man weighs in

Here.

Frederick Seitz, Physicist Who Led Skeptics of Global Warming, Dies at 96

Here.

Scientists Dissent from Man-Made Global Warming Fears

Here.

NY Climate Conference: Journey to the Center of Warming Sanity

Here.

Eco-Birthdays With a Charitable Twist

Here.

The Media Destruction Machine at Work

Here.

Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review

See the Jennifer Marohasy post here.

Excerpt:

Dr Spencer's talk was perhaps the most important at the conference and his conclusions including:
1. Recent research supports reduced climate sensitivity including that tropical intra-seasonal osciallations show strong negative feedback and observational estimates of feedback are likely bias due to neglect of natural variability, and
2. The accommodation of these results by climate modellers in their cloud parameterization could greatly reduce climate model projections of future warming.

Lindzen vs Rahmstorf: an exchange

Here.

Twelve Months of Cooling Doesn’t Make A Climate Trend

See the post and comments here.

MORE GREEN TAXES SAY MPS

Here.

What's Left About Green?

Here.

Stossel Blasts the 'Socialist Media' for View of Capitalism

Here.

Want to Increase Your Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Use Biofuels!

Here.

Frozen China Uncovers Corrupt Infrastructure

Here.

Does this experiment really prove that "half of us are in it to win it"?

Here.

The Tortured Logic Of Global Warming Zealots: Part I

Here.

Bush Urges Action on Corn Price Rises Fueled by Ethanol

Here.

Maryland: Global Warming Bill Continues To Change

Here.

New Zealanders: Do as we say, not as we do?

1. From this page:

Most New Zealanders seem to think we should come down hard on countries who aren't as committed to climate change action as we are.

2. From this page:

The Government is running risks with New Zealand's international reputation by talking about carbon neutrality when on our present course and speed we will be lucky to reach our Kyoto target by 2050 - 38 years late, the New Zealand Institute says.

Update: See also the post and comments here.

Careful What You Wish For

Here.

Herding Skeptics Through Walmart

Here.

Bush: "The United States is serious about confronting climate change"

Here.

Gored: Why Skeptics Need Al

Here.

Errrrm. doesn’t john travolta do this every day?

Here.

Dealing with ecochondria

Here.

Green Pyjama Jobs: Dutch Student Gets Rich Staying In Bed

Here.

Skeptics gather, alarmists squirm

Here.

Revkin: Do the Media Fail to Give Climate its Due?

Here.

Check out the latest from Al Gore

Here.

Is Global Warming Really A Big Problem?

Here.

Muster the hounds

See the Chris Horner post here.

Wait a minute--isn't cooler supposed to be "better"?

See this article, entitled "Sydney's Coolest Summer in 50 Years Leaves Empty Cafes, Gloom".

Climate Skeptics Show Force in New York

Here.

Helpful advice from the OECD

From this article:

It says that climate change can be contained to less than 2ºC as a global average - but green taxes or carbon trading schemes need to be applied to all energy sources in every country in the world as soon as possible.

Researchers say that it should be possible to contain global warming by pricing carbon at $2 a ton in 2008, around $50 in 2030 and $150 a ton in 2050. Doing it later will cost more.

That is the equivalent of placing a tax of $0.5 cents per litre on petrol in 2010, 12 cents in 2030 and 37 cents in 2050.

I'm not at all convinced that these people know what they're talking about.

Have they even read stuff like this or this?

Nigeria: Bad Fuel Discredits NNPC's Ethanol Project

Here.

Hospital car parking and climate change - a national Health service disgrace

From this post:

Climate change, almost unreported eight years ago when I established Genersys is now a subject that has become for many a marketing opportunity and for others an excuse for bad behaviour, shameful policies and practices.

Heartland Institute @ Times Square: climate conference ended last night

See the roundup here.

Climate change '5pc threat to economy'

Here.

Excerpt:

The Global Integrated Assessment Model (GIAM) shows Australia's economic output would fall 0.6 per cent by 2050 below the level it would be without climate change, and five per cent by 2100.

I have absolutely no faith in the predictive ability of these models.

However, if carbon dioxide is going to result in human extinction this century, I'm surprised that it would only knock 5 percent from Australia's 2100 economic output.

A debate that doesn’t exist

Here.

WWF: Maybe your refrigerator ISN'T killing these smiling-faced baby Mekong dolphins

Here.

Report #3 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City

See the whole thing by Joseph L. Bast here.

Heartland Climate Conference Summary

Please see the William M. Briggs post here.

More Evidence of Global Warming

Here.

Cirque de Solar Power: New York Conference Puts Lie to 'Consensus'

See the entire Chris Horner post here.

Breadlosers

Here.

An alarmist's perspective

Here.

“The Great Green Betrayal”

Here.

The Cloth of Science: an Interview with Roger Pielke, Jr.

Here.

The Day-Two Dispatch from the International Climate Change Conference

See the Ronald Bailey article here.

Via Solar Science. See more on Solar Cycle 24 here.

More from Jennifer Marohasy

A post on breakfast with Vaclav Klaus is here; a post on meeting Marc Morano is here.

The La Nina and Global Cooling

Here.



Was that late '70s to late '90s warming really caused by changes in a trace atmospheric gas?

Would anyone be bummed out if we spent $20 trillion in an attempt to "stop climate change", only to find no measurable change in these blue and red cycles?

If we paid Al Gore $100 million for "carbon credits" and then saw no measurable benefit, would we get a full refund plus interest?

More from Revkin

Here.

California cows start passing gas to the grid

Here.

Heartland conference: day 3 and wrap up

Don't miss the William M. Briggs post here.

Also see the transcript of Glenn Beck's interview with Lord Monckton interview here.

A Mighty Wind?

Here.

To Coin a Phrase

See the Chris Horner post here.

ESRC: Southampton youths debate climate change with experts

Here.

The Independent, Big Oil and me

Here.

The Never-Ending Story

See the "quirky" :^) Andy Revkin post here.

Two points:

1. Revkin writes:

The one thing all the attendees seem to share is a deep dislike for mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases.

How about rephrasing that as:

The one thing all the attendees seem to share is a sound understanding of the vast mismatch between the media's climate hysteria and real-world climate data.

2. Revkin also writes:

One of the unavoidable realities attending global warming — a reality that makes it the perfect problem — is that there is plenty of remaining uncertainty, even as the basics have grown ever firmer (my litany: more CO2 = warmer world = less ice = rising seas and lots of climate shifts).

I wish Revkin would take some time to tell us specifically how those "basics have grown ever firmer" since January '07.

A bio of Revkin is here.

Update: From a related post at Junk Science blog here:

Despite his protestations of "fair and balanced" reporting "making no one happy" check out the way he phrases his descriptions.

Here’s the bottom line for you Andy: really crappy models say there’s a potential problem — the real world says there’s not. If you actually get around to reporting in a fair and balanced manner I’d suggest the story is the gargantuan industry built on virtual world scare stories that is siphoning vast sums out of of society’s coffers.

More from Jim Hansen

Here.

U.S. won't meet ethanol goal due cellulosic shortfall

Here.

Falsifying is Hard To Do! β error and climate change

Here.

Greenshirts again?

Here.

Excerpt:

The fun thing about believing humans are poisoning the whole world is that you are licensed to do anything to stop them...

PROTECT THE PLANET OR HELP THE SICK?

Here.

A related post is here.

GLENN BECK transcript

Scroll down here to see stuff from Klaus, Soon, Carter, and Watts.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus speaks again

Here.

Press Briefing by Dana Perino

From this page:

Q Thank you, Dana. On another question -- two questions. President Klaus of the Czech Republic, and John Stossel, the co-anchor of ABC's 20-20, are among 98 speakers at the International Conference on Climate Change, Global Warming: Truth or Swindle, which is now going on in New York City. And my question: Does the President welcome or deplore this gathering of so many scientists who have signed a petition that global warming probably is natural and not a crisis?

MS. PERINO: I don't think the President has an opinion on the meeting. I haven't talked to him about it. And if people want to gather and express their views, they're obviously very welcome to do so, and New York is as good a place as any.

Q You are saying that he doesn't disagree with these people who are questioning --

MS. PERINO: The President's position on climate change is well-known. He's long said that human beings are contributing in some ways to climate change. And that's why we're taking steps to deal with it, and in fact, tomorrow will make a -- have remarks at the International Renewable Energy Conference, when he talks about that very issue.

Update: A related post at Think Progress is here, entitled "White House Refuses To Disagree With Views Of Global Warming Deniers".

If we actually had control of the Earth's "thermostat", are we absolutely sure that we'd want to turn it *down*?

From Toronto here:

Councillor Doug Holyday said as long as the city allows the homeless to sleep on the streets, people will freeze to death.

"We shouldn't be leaving people out on the streets in cold weather. There's no question about that. Some people don't have the ability to know how cold it is or how cold it is going to get and they sleep out there," he added.

"They sleep out there, and maybe in the summer time they've been able to do that fine, but when the cold weather hits and they don't know when that's coming, you're certainly going to have people dying on your streets if you let them sleep out there."

President of a a start-up green energy company promotes green energy!

Here.

Excerpt:

He calculated his energy usage, from his flights and driving to his share of the U.S. military's energy usage, and came up with 14,000 watts conservatively, and more likely 25,000 watts, per year. And that's for a man who bikes and takes a ferry to work, and lives in a small house in an urban area.

Griffith says he now has a 10 year plan for cutting his carbon usage down to something closer to 2,200 watts per year, requiring him to eat mostly vegetarian, drive to a surfing spot only twice a year, and flying to Australia to visit his family only every three years.

Griffith only touched briefly on why anyone would actually voluntarily limit their own activities for the abstract good of preventing London from going underwater in 100 years, when all of us will surely be dead.

"If you do what you want to do already, the goal will be reached," Griffith said, referring to eating less, spending more time with family, and living closer to friends.

Global Warming 'Hysteria' Is Claimed

Here.

Pawlenty walks the line

I just watched a couple of videos on Will Steger's Global Warming 101 site. Both are from a March 3 "Youth Forum on Global Warming Solutions" event.

1. Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty appears to walk a fine political line, acknowledging the concerns of the CO2 hysterics while emphasizing energy solutions that even skeptics "should" support.

2. Will Steger talks about observed ice melt in the Arctic, which we evidently know: a) is unprecedented b) is caused by human CO2 emissions, and c) will accelerate in a business-as-usual scenario.

US WIND TURBINE BLOWS UP (VIDEO)

Here.

CO2 vs Temperature

Here.

Haiku Pundit weighs in

Here and here.

Scientists gather to challenge Gore, U.N.

Here.

Lessons from the Skeptics’ Conference

Don't miss John Tierney's post here.

Excerpt:

Considering how many false alarms have been raised previously by scientists (the “population crisis,” the “energy crisis,” the “cancer epidemic” from synthetic chemicals), I wouldn’t be surprised if the predictions of global warming turn out to be wrong or greatly exaggerated. Scientists are prone to herd thinking — informational cascades– and this danger is particularly acute when they have to rely on so many people outside their field to assess a topic as large as climate change. So I’m glad to see contrarians raising awkward questions and pointing out weaknesses in predictions made with computer models. As S. Fred Singer, the editor of the skeptics’ report, said at the conference yesterday: “Models are very nice, but they’re not reality and they’re not evidence.”

RE: Global warming and journalistic integrity

Here.

Sceptics right to challenge 'fanaticism' over human effect on climate change

Here.

Ethanol Stocks Plummet

Here and here.

Your iPod charger caused 18 sharks to visit the Catalan coast!

Here.

CNN: Climate Conference Attendees Are Like Flat Earthers

Here.

Warming and Civilization

Here.

Climate Summary

Here.

Famed Hurricane Forecaster William Gray Predicts Global Cooling in 10 Years

Here.

Unintentional comedy from Prince Charles

If you've read some of Prince Charles' apocalyptic climate quotes, you may find some humor in this article.

Two more reports from Anthony Watts

From this post:

...I had a radio interview in the morning that generated so much traffic to my website that it overloaded the server, and I had to defer traffic from it.

Watts also notes what a questioner said:

“There’s good news and bad news. The good news is that you’ve pointed out serious issues with the way temperatures are being measured in the USA. The bad news is that the USA has the best temperature measurement network in the world.”

From his Day 3 post here:

Some valid and interesting ideas have been presented here, and despite all the scoffing by the critics, there wasn’t any group prayer, tobacco booths, or free cans of 10W-40 motor oil. It has been all about science, and science policy.

But those who close their minds and choose to only deal in stereotypes of course won’t ever see that, but instead will just pile on the stereotypical criticism as part of their regular closed mind comfort zone.

Networks Ignore, Newspapers Mock N.Y. Climate Change Conference

Here.

Excerpt:

Revkin concluded his column by coyly noting that “when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so,” implying that only 19 scientists were at the conference. If Revkin had paid closer attention, or simply asked conference organizers about the speakers and attendees, he would have learned that about 100 scientists participated in the conference. Those included experts on meteorology, climatology, geology, and physics, representing at least 30 universities.

Greg Holland: "I'm not going to answer the question because it's a stupid question"

Here.

An Extraordinary Event

Here.

Dine in the candlelit "dark"!

Here.

Weather Channel founder advocates suing Al Gore to expose "the fraud of global warming"

Here.

Update: A related NewsBusters article is here.

Report #2 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City

See the whole thing from Joseph L. Bast here.

IPCC head Pachauri's continued ridiculous alarmism

Check this out:

"...By 2020 there will be a 50 per cent reduction of agriculture in Africa effecting their people's survival", Pachauri said.

Ruining Our Youth & America’s Future

Here.

New reasons to be suspicious of ethanol

Here.

Turn your nose up at eco-snobs

Here.

Sorry, not green enough--just "change your vehicle" again

Here.

Reviewing those friendly peers

Here.

Your lips tell me yes, yes, but…

Here.

Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming

Alarmist Andy Revkin weighs in here.

Analyze this, ye warming believers: Peter Foster

From this page:

If the NIPCC report is flawed, then its critics should try to lay out their objections without emotive references to “denial” or libelous claims of “venality” on the part of skeptics--or to claims that the work was produced by Exxon-Mobil. The Post welcomes all comments on the report, preferably from those who have read it.

Group Says Eating Whales Will Stop Global Warming

Here.

Environmentalism: Luxury Of The Rich

Here.

Michael McCarthy: Proof that we are not taking climate change seriously

Here.

THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM - Dr Vincent Gray

Here.

"If Marx and Lenin were alive today, they'd be environmentalists"

See the IBD editorial here.

Global Temperatures Have Dropped: Did Sunspots Predict It?

Here.

Global Warming Skeptics Insist Humans Not at Fault

See the Washington Post article here.

Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review

See the Jennifer Marohasy post here.

So can we put to rest the drought?

Here.

Ice Landslides at North Pole Conclusively Prove Global Warming

Here.

Excerpt:

One catch: It's on Mars.

NYT: get rid of corn ethanol subsidies

Here.

Update: An excerpt from a related Coyote Blog post:

By the way, these problems with ethanol we are experiencing today were are inevitable as night follows day, yet we still had to blunder into it before we started questioning the economics. The power of political correctness to trump science and logic is amazing.

Global Warming Snake Oil Ain’t Selling

Here.

Heartland conference: day 2

Here.

Pesky Oreskes

Here.

Climate skeptics roast Al Gore on global warming

See the Reuters story here.

Arson in Seattle

Here.

Sizing Up the Body of Evidence for Global Warming

Here.

Which sites give you "reliable" information about global warming?

Here.

John R. Lott, Jr: No Global Warming Crisis

Here.

When Temperatures Fall, Media Remains Silent

Here.

Former Thatcher Adviser Monckton Warns Global Warming Alarmism 'Kills People If You Get the Science Wrong'

Here.

Excerpt:

Monckton told the audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away.

“They’ve got the science wrong and it will gradually penetrate to the general public that they have got the science wrong and once the penny drops – that will be the end of this scare too,” Monckton added. “We’re not far away from it now.”

Lunar eclipse may shed light on climate change

Here.

Save Us, Al Gore!

Here.

"Denial-a-palooza in New York"

A perspective from Treehugger is here.

"Research of Hundreds More Scientists Shows the Natural 1,500-Year Climate Cycle"

Here.

Cramer asks Buffett about ethanol

From this page:

JIM CRAMER (ON TAPE): Asking the icon. Sir, isn't it true that we have an energy policy backing ethanol that is creating so much inflation that perhaps it would be better to stop the emphasis on ethanol, allowing inflation to come down and the Federal Reserve to cut more? Am I wrong that mankind is being crucified upon a cross of ethanol right now, and it's killing the poorer nations and the people in our country who can't afford anymore to eat chicken or beef?

QUICK: Warren, what do you think?

BUFFETT: I wouldn't put it exactly in those terms, but I would say that ethanol is a relatively inefficient way of creating gasoline--gasoline equivalent, and it uses a lot of energy in the process of raising the corn that does it. And, as correctly pointed out, it has a by-product of raising agricultural products elsewhere. In economics you can never do one thing. Anytime anybody tells you they're doing something in economics, then you have to say, `And then what?' And the `and then what' in the case of ethanol is A, if you use it to plant more corn, you're going to use--in terms of fertilizer and everything, you're going to use a lot of energy. And secondly, you're going to raise the prices, on balance, you'll raise the prices of other agricultural products. So there's no question that that--that's a fairly correct statement of the problem.

QUICK: Those are very brave words when you realize we're standing in the "Cornhusker State."

BUFFETT: Yeah.

QUICK: Do you get pushback from that?

BUFFETT: My son was head of the Nebraska Ethanol Commission. He is a farmer. He lives $5 1/2 corn, he loves $12 soy beans, I don't blame him. But I'm not running for anything, fortunately, and, you know, I can call them as I see them.

Heating up the Global Warming Debate, If There Still Is One

Here.

Update on "China's worst snowstorms in 50 years"

Here.

Understanding Visual Exhibits in the Global Warming Debate

Here.

Knut grows up

Here.

Dispatch from Ronald Bailey

Here.

Branson calls for hydrogen fuel filling stations

Here.

Evidence of Gorebal warming skewing?

Here.

Greenpeace cofounder Moore backs nuclear power

Here.

BMI's Gainor: 'Disagreement is Not Allowed in the Media'

Here.

"Liveblogging the Heartland Institute's Global Warming Denier Conference"

See the Daily Kos post here.

Excerpts:

They don’t want you to see it for what it is - a gathering of people who may have some science in their backgrounds but have long since sold their soul to the energy industry...You can also read more from Kevin Grandia at DeSmogBlog, one of the few true greens allowed to register for the event.

According to Anthony Watts, alarmists like Al Gore, James Hansen, and Gavin Schmidt were in fact invited
to attend.

Note this information about the Daily Kos post above:

This is the official Daily Kos account for National Wildlife Federation.

Note that this Daily Kos post is also crossposted on an NWF blog here.

How about all those other environmental issues that are also the most important in the history of mankind?

Here.

Day 1 of the International Climate Change Conference

Here.

Excerpt:

I was surprised to learn that Al Gore had been offered an opportunity to address this conference, and his usual $200,000 speaking fee and expenses were met, but that he declined.

I also know that invitations went out to NASA GISS principal scientists Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt as evidenced by their writeup of the issue on their blog, RealClimate.org

They have also declined, even though it would be easy for them to attend, given that NASA GISS is located just a few blocks away at Columbia University.

Masters of Greenwash: B.C.’s Carbon Tax Is No Answer to Climate Change

From this Socialist Voice post:

Eliminating the pollution threat to humanity and the rest of the earth’s biosystem requires a fundamental shift in how the world’s economy is organized. The profit drive and the belief that the earth’s resources are unlimited must be replaced with a planned economy that both meets human social and cultural needs and strictly respects humanity’s dependence on a healthy biosphere.

giving up “carbon”? Do you even know what that means ?!?!?

Here.

Debate at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer site

Here.

Sustainable slopes? Oh please…

Here.

McCain's world

From here, entitled "I'm Always for Less Regulation":

Q: You and Sen. Joseph Lieberman have long pushed for a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming. Auctioning emission permits, as you bill would do, could raise huge amounts of revenue, similar to a tax. What would you use the money for?

[McCain]:I hear this interesting argument that somehow this would cost more money to our economy. I am absolutely convinced that innovation, technology, and using the entrepreneurship of America will come up with technologies which will save money, be a boon to our economy, and clean up our environment.

From here:

Sen. McCain's biggest regulatory effort is likely to come in the field of climate change. Along with independent Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was then a Democrat, Sen. McCain introduced the earliest version of a cap-and-trade system in 2003, and the pair have refined their ideas since. Under their plan, the government sets emissions goals. Companies that can't meet their targets must buy permits to produce carbon dioxide, either from companies that produce less CO2 than they are permitted, or from the government.

The system may require a large regulatory apparatus. In the latest McCain-Lieberman version, the government would auction off carbon-emission permits. According to Harvard economist Robert Stavins, such sales could raise $50 billion to $100 billion a year.

An Energy Department analysis says Sen. McCain's plan raises energy prices so much that it would reduce economic growth.

"I hear this interesting argument that somehow this would cost more money to our economy," says Sen. McCain. But, "I am absolutely convinced that innovation, technology, and using the entrepreneurship of America will come up with technologies which will save money, be a boon to our economy, and clean up our environment." He's unlikely to get much argument on this from his Democratic opponents; Sens. Obama and Clinton co-sponsored Sen. McCain's legislation.

Heartland conference: day 1

See the William M. Briggs post here.

Something else that is not in the "models"

Here. (Via Greenie Watch)

Global-Warming Skeptics Convene in N.Y.

See John Tierney's post here.

Don't miss the NIPCC report here, entitled "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate".

Australia's second coldest Feb since 1976

Here.

Let's heed the advice of people dressed like frogs

Here.

Methane?

Here.

Feature Article: Masdar Plans World's First Green City

Here.

So global "warming" causes killing frost?

Here.

A related article is here.

Excerpt:

The authors expect freeze damage to worsen as temperatures continue to rise due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Strong La Niña brings historic values for the Southern Oscillation Index

Here.

Fifth-graders ask town to hold 'Arctic Day' to combat global warming

Here.

Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review

Here.

Joseph Bast's Opening Speech at the New York 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Don't miss this one.

Why have we never seen "Alarmists on AGW Seize on Warm Spell?"

Here.

Walking will clear our minds

Here.

Global Ice Levels Not Decreasing

Here.

Don J. Easterbrook on global cooling

Emeritus professor of geology Don J. Easterbrook writes to Marc Morano:

Hi Marc,

Yes, I saw the entry in your report (and well done, I might add). What prompted me to send you some additional material was not your report, but rather Revkin's NY Times article in which he (1) quotes a bunch of CO2 dogmatists as saying the cooling is just a minor blip and we'll be back headed for toast very soon, and (2) although he quotes you, he doesn't quote any scientists who have good data that what we're seeing is not just weather, but rather a fully expected change to a global cooling mode. So I sent you a bunch of data that I thought might be useful in responding to the global cooling deniers, namely:
1. We've been on a predicted cooling trend since 2002 (see attached curve). The average of the four main temperature measuring methods is slightly cooler since 2002 (except for a brief el Nino interuption) and record breaking cooling this winter. The argument that this is too short a time period to be meanful would be valid were it not for the fact that this cooling exactly fits the pattern of timing of warm/cool cycles over the past 400 years and was predicted (see publications I sent earlier).
2. We are entering a solar cycle of much reduced sun spots, very similar to that which accompanied the change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, which virtually all scientists agree was caused by solar variation. Thus, we seem to be headed for cooler temperatures as a result of reduce solar irradiance.
3. Sea surface temperatures in the NE Pacific mirror the atmospheric observations of cooling since 2002.
4. Some glaciers are slowing their rate of retreat in response to the past 6 years of cooling. (They aren't readvancing yet because it takes awhile for a turnaround.

So what is the significance of the present globally icy winter and slight cooling for the past 6 years? By itself, it’s weather and arguably not statistically important. However, when considered in the light of the past 6-year cooling trend, the continuation of that pattern is important because if we are to believe the IPCC’s prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, that will require warming of almost 1° F in the next three years! The IPCC recasts its predictions every year to match actual conditions so they appear to stay ‘on-track.’ However, they made finite predictions some years ago and if IPCC is to remain credible, those predictions need to be accountable. In a nutshell, in 2001, I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus 3-5 years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data. As right now, my prediction seems to be right on target and what we would expect from the past climatic record, but the IPCC prediction is getting farther and farther off the mark. With the apparent solar cooling cycle upon us, we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.

Anyway, I wanted to provide you with real data to substantiate the concept that we have entered a period of real global cooling, not just a cold winter.

Keep up the good work!

Don

Is Kevin Grandia capable of debating the science?

See his Desmogblog post here.

His bio is here.

Gore at TED

From this post:

Passionate and eloquently spoken, Gore seemed almost like the preacher at the pulpit before his congregation.

Nice job debating the science, Steve

See the article by "Science Editor" Steve Connor here.

Another article by a "Steve Connor" is here.

Climate realism in Scotland

Here.

Is Winter 2008 Making Climate Alarmists Question Global Warming?

Here.

A change in the weather?

Here.

NewPage Sweats Out Global Warming Bill

Here.

Budget strains emissions plan

From this article:

California's budget is starting to cramp its environmentally hip style.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to borrow money from special funds to pay for implementing the state's ambitious plan to roll back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The administration wants to borrow the money from various funds filled by driver's license and vehicle registration fees, as well as tap into recycling deposits, to help pay for 212 positions at a dozen state agencies.

I'd like to see a cost/benefit analysis here--what is the cost of filling these 212 positions, and what is the measurable "benefit" in terms of expected degrees of global temperature decrease.

Does global warming make air travel unethical?

Here.

Note that "a reader" in that post evidently believes alleged "experts" who claim that carbon dioxide is currently "contributing to" 150,000 deaths per year.

The Religion of Global Warming

Here.

"Global Warming Caused Space Shuttle Columbia to Fall Apart"

Here.

"My research indicates that the Arctic is older than 29 years"

Here.

Branson: "Globe" includes India

Here.

All New Homes in the UK Will Be Carbon-Neutral by 2016 (?)

See the December '06 post here.

I would guess that "proposing" something like this is much easier than "accomplishing" something like this.

Congratulations to Anthony Watts!

Here.

Buildings collapsing under record-breaking New Hampshire snow

See the links in the second paragraph here.

Solar Roadways

Here.

Do they teach math at this school?

Here.

Global Warming Today: Energy Saving Day Fails. Snortworthingly!

Here.

More national coverage for Watts' surface station survey

Here.

Get Smart Cars, wise guys

Here.

A related article is here.

Wiping Out the Human Population of Earth Lovelock: This is the Real Thing Dammit

Here.

HIT THE ICE

Here.

Heartland Institute @ Times Square: climate conference begins tonight

Here.

Global Warming:Chilling Perspective

Here.

Cool news about global warming

Here.

Barbara Gentry's claims

From this article:

As it turns out, state curriculum makes no declarations about naming and teaching climate change's exact causes. "You'll notice we don't say anywhere that humans are warming up the atmosphere," said Barbara Gentry, secondary science teacher specialist for the Jordan School District. "Students are merely asked to investigate or research the effects of global changes on earth systems."
It's assumed, then, that students examine evidence and data for themselves and reach their own conclusions. At the same time, there's no requirement that science teachers give equal time to scientists who interpret the data differently. Presenting "both sides" of the debate would be appropriate, Gentry said, but not altogether necessary.
"It's very difficult to find materials on the other side of the debate that are science-based," Gentry said. "That comment's going to get me into trouble, but it's true.
"Yes, a good teacher would present all the different ways in which we know why the climate changes. At the same time, current data shows that our climate has never changed this fast before."

I think Barbara should spend some serious time here.

"Droughts" as an excuse for bureaucracy

Here. (Via Greenie Watch)

God to Gore:

Here.

Cooling to the warming myth

Here.

Nice opening sentence

Paul Loeb writes:

If we ignore global warming much longer, we'll face a world of perpetual disaster, so there's no larger question for presidential candidates than who is more likely to tackle it successfully.

The amazing success of Mayor Blastos' global "warming" fight

Information about his fight is here; now they're "buried alive" by "record snowfall".

The "three mighty engines" powering global warming hysteria

See the February '07 article here.

Penn prof still hot to tackle Al Gore on global warming

Here.

The carbon cops are coming

Here.

Waxman's concern about the costs of future nonsensical carbon regulation

Here.

Your nightlight will cause this Croatian ice cube to melt this spring!

Here.

I think they should put this ice junk up on Kilimanjaro and see how fast it melts.

Denis Rancourt weighs in

Interview here; article here; some background information here.

Just Say NO!

From this post:

In a 3 - 0 vote last night, the board ruled that the showing of Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" to the students will not be allowed unless an opposing view is also presented.

Why we must ration the future

Here.

"Let's tax bads - not goods"

Here.

Climate Change Skeptics Get The NY Times Treatment

Here.

A related post is here.

Armstrong featured on the Dennis Prager Show

Here.

Problems with "An Inconvenient Truth"

Here.

Hansen and “False Local Adjustments”

Here.

The horrible conditions in California

Here.