Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

July 1, 2009
Let's Do Something -- Anything
By David Harsanyi

Facts. Costs. Consequences.

Who cares?

We're in the middle of pretending to save the planet, baby.

If it's about helping "the environment," suspend reason and salvation is yours. As I'm sure you've heard a lot of smart and compassionate folks tell you lately, doing something -- anything! -- is better than doing nothing.

So the House did something. It passed a "cap and trade" bill that would ration energy, destroy productive jobs, levy the largest tax increase in United States history and, for kicks, penalize foreign trade partners who fail to engage in comparable economic suicide.

Now, assuming there are no speed-reading clairvoyants in the House, no one who voted for the 1,200-page bill -- plus the 300-page amendment dropped the morning of the vote -- possibly could have read it.

And any scum-sucking scoundrel who points out that "doing nothing" already includes spending billions on renewable energies and living under thousands of regulations is, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman shrewdly noted, a traitor to humankind.

Speaking of doing nothing: Though it has the potential to stagnate the economy, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, according to the Environmental Protection Agency itself, would not create any reductions in emissions by 2020. The piddling impact of the bill is documented across the ideological spectrum.

So after the House passed the bill, I, curious about the particulars, sent a query to Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., because hers was one of the votes that put the bill over the top. Markey had been on the fence regarding cap and trade, so surely, she gave the bill a thorough once-over before voting. Not surprisingly, I received no reply.

When I later caught Markey swinging at softballs on television, I realized that she probably had been too busy boning up on her talking points to take the time to slog through 1,500 pages of a radical and generational shift in energy policy.

As terrible as this bill is -- and America's only hope is that a more reasonable Senate will kill it -- Markey and others have mastered the art of passing environmental legislation. Throw in "green jobs" or a "new energy economy" and you are golden. What kind of insensitive monster is going to stand in the way of a windmill?

If you're really in a fighting mood, drop a line about "energy independence" -- and don't we love to hear that one? But do not under any circumstances, as Markey did, stray from your script to offer this remarkably ill-informed myth: "We are now beholden," Markey claimed, "to unstable governments in the Middle East for the majority of our oil."

MORE HERE:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/01/lets_do_something_--_anything_97252.html

282
Atmospheric scientist William R. Kininmonth, who headed Australia's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998 and coordinated the scientific and technical review of the 1997-98 El Niño event for the World Meteorological Organization and its input to the United Nations Task Force on El Niño, rejected man-made climate fears and asserted warming is natural. "How often does it need to be said that CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas whose only detrimental characteristic is to form a very weak acid (carbonic acid) when dissolved in water. On the other hand, CO2 is an essential component of photosynthesis: Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an effective fertiliser of the biosphere as shown by horticulturalists artificially increasing the CO2 content within glasshouses. CO2 is NOT a pollutant," Kininmonth said in a May 30, 2007 article. "There is every reason to believe that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have no significant impact on the climate system. The greatest impact of atmospheric CO2 on the earth's radiation budget was the first 20 ppmv. After this concentration the source of IR radiation to space from the active CO2 radiation bands was in the stratosphere, where temperature does not change as the emanation goes to higher and higher altitudes with increasing concentration," Kininmonth explained. "There is every reason to believe that earth is near an upper temperature limit given its present distribution of land and ocean and the strength of solar irradiance. The earth's surface is heated by way of solar radiation and back IR radiation emanating from clouds, greenhouse gases and aerosols; it is cooled by conduction, evaporation and IR emission. Solar radiation and conduction are essentially constant and the earth's surface temperature will vary according to increasing back IR radiation (radiation forcing from CO2 and water vapour) being offset by surface IR emission and latent heat of evaporation," he added. "AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a fiction and a very dangerous fiction," he concluded. (LINK) On June 1, 2007, Kininmonth wrote, "Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today's climate is getting worse than it has been in the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were during the Little Ice Age? Frost Fairs were common on many rivers of Europe and the London diarist John Evelyn records that in 1683-84 the Thames River froze from late December to early February. Conditions were terrible with men and cattle perishing and the seas locked with ice such that no vessels could stir out or come in. The fowls, fish and exotic plants and greens were universally perishing. Food and fuel were exceptionally dear and coal smoke hung so thickly that one could scarcely see across the street and one could scarcely breathe." (LINK)

LIBERTY AND TYRANNY
BY MARK R. LEVIN
Page 4.
The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocquerville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word liberal is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.

The Founders understood that the greatest threat to liberty is an all-powerful government, where the few dictate to the many.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
283
Economist Des Moore, former deputy secretary of the federal Treasury in Australia and current director of the Institute for Private Enterprise, debunked the UK Stern Report's claims that it is cheaper to act now to confront global warming. "I take a position similar to the Dual Critique of the Stern Review by 14 well-qualified scientists and economists. Their conclusion was that the Review is "flawed to a degree that makes it unsuitable ... for use in setting policy". I also agree with the not dissimilar conclusion on the IPCC's February report by ten qualified economists and scientists, including Australian meteorologist, William Kininmonth, in a February 2007 publication by Canada's Fraser Institute," Moore wrote in a April 29, 2007 report entitled "How Big Can Global Carbon Markets Get?" "Modelling of possible outcomes reflect assumptions that are not necessarily correct about the weightings given to possible influences, or about the simplifications of highly complex human relationships. My analyses of past scientific predictions also suggest to me that, when looking to the future, science faces modelling problems similar to economics and has made as many if not more erroneous predictions," Moore explained. "[The UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers] concluded that it is 90 per cent certain that most of the recent warming is due to increased human activity. However, as two Australian economists have pointed out, 90 per cent certainty is the weakest acceptable level of confidence in a hypothesis test. Moreover, the Summary for Policymakers published by the IPCC on 6 April claims only an 80 per cent chance that warming has caused many of the perceived adverse environmental affects," Moore wrote. "Although there has been an increase in average global temperatures of about 0.6 a degree over the past 100 years, historical evidence suggests that temperature levels have been as high if not higher in periods in the past and that this did not then have adverse effects on societies. Indeed, rather to the contrary: significant economic and other advances seem to have occurred in past warm periods," he concluded. (LINK)

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
...
1983 0.387 0.315 0.181 0.118 0.113 0.126 0.130 0.185 0.158 0.090 0.238 0.083 0.177
...
1984 0.087 0.007 0.053 -0.021 0.072 -0.025 -0.040 0.042 0.034 -0.048 -0.120 -0.296 -0.021
...
1985 0.020 -0.144 -0.025 -0.055 -0.007 -0.058 -0.056 0.017 -0.044 -0.009 -0.101 0.011 -0.038
...
1986 0.114 0.082 0.049 0.036 0.017 0.045 -0.006 -0.005 0.013 0.038 -0.041 0.011 0.029
...
1987 0.116 0.269 0.021 0.069 0.135 0.122 0.256 0.221 0.256 0.173 0.187 0.325 0.179
...
1988 0.348 0.199 0.259 0.241 0.178 0.207 0.163 0.157 0.157 0.125 0.018 0.107 0.180
...
1989 -0.002 0.095 0.081 0.081 0.052 0.068 0.164 0.176 0.135 0.145 0.052 0.191 0.103
...
1990 0.198 0.245 0.466 0.302 0.241 0.234 0.208 0.226 0.165 0.285 0.284 0.196 0.254
...
1991 0.227 0.280 0.177 0.313 0.255 0.286 0.290 0.240 0.181 0.134 0.080 0.079 0.212
...
1992 0.279 0.252 0.204 0.120 0.110 0.104 -0.021 -0.018 -0.090 -0.083 -0.120 -0.003 0.061
...
1993 0.220 0.170 0.212 0.101 0.151 0.132 0.080 0.060 0.014 0.060 -0.033 0.096 0.105
...
1994 0.153 -0.092 0.180 0.175 0.241 0.216 0.153 0.171 0.157 0.236 0.244 0.218 0.171
...
1995 0.357 0.469 0.292 0.231 0.169 0.287 0.301 0.317 0.207 0.245 0.279 0.152 0.275
...
1996 0.064 0.252 0.129 0.094 0.167 0.150 0.184 0.183 0.091 0.082 0.076 0.174 0.137
...
1997 0.151 0.248 0.264 0.195 0.244 0.377 0.372 0.410 0.455 0.494 0.468 0.533 0.351
...
1998 0.489 0.749 0.547 0.641 0.593 0.604 0.671 0.644 0.392 0.418 0.353 0.447 0.546
...
1999 0.368 0.545 0.290 0.312 0.233 0.264 0.271 0.235 0.266 0.226 0.211 0.330 0.296
...
2000 0.206 0.358 0.328 0.450 0.239 0.232 0.256 0.338 0.319 0.192 0.152 0.169 0.270
...
2001 0.324 0.285 0.488 0.430 0.392 0.415 0.454 0.508 0.402 0.378 0.505 0.320 0.409
...
2002 0.600 0.612 0.607 0.445 0.441 0.475 0.477 0.420 0.410 0.359 0.395 0.329 0.464
...
2003 0.527 0.438 0.422 0.414 0.435 0.439 0.453 0.523 0.518 0.565 0.428 0.519 0.473
...
2004 0.505 0.571 0.510 0.495 0.324 0.347 0.371 0.419 0.446 0.477 0.526 0.376 0.447
...
2005 0.463 0.376 0.493 0.536 0.480 0.512 0.532 0.503 0.507 0.513 0.494 0.371 0.482
...
2006 0.296 0.443 0.385 0.357 0.338 0.443 0.434 0.488 0.417 0.481 0.441 0.536 0.422
...
2007 0.632 0.520 0.441 0.472 0.374 0.375 0.406 0.370 0.412 0.367 0.267 0.220 0.405
...
2008 0.030 0.194 0.481 0.278 0.280 0.307 0.414 0.395 0.376 0.440 0.387 0.302 0.324
...
2009 0.384 0.363 0.362 0.398 0.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.381
...

56% Don’t Want To Pay More To Fight Global Warming
Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.

Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats believe it is more important to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy than to keep the cost of energy down. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans and 57% of unaffiliated adults disagree and put the emphasis on keeping the cost of energy down.

As is often the case, there’s a telling division between the views of populist or Mainstream America and the Political Class. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Mainstream Americans say they are not willing to pay higher taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming, compared to only 17% of the Political Class.

For 57% of the Political Class taking steps to stop global warming is more important than job creation, while 71% of Mainstream America believe job creation is more important.

Forty percent (40%) of U.S. voters say global warming is a very serious problem, but voters are narrowly divided over whether it is caused by human activity or long-term planetary trends. In recent surveys, voters have been moving away from the idea that humans are to blame.

Americans have mixed feelings about the historic climate change bill that passed the House on Friday, but 42% say it will hurt the U.S. economy.

The bill is intended to reduce heat-trapping gases that some scientists say cause global warming. Even its supporters say the measure, which includes a so-called “cap and trade” plan,” will have a major impact on the economy.

President Obama is a champion of the bill and is prepared to sign it into law. But while the bill passed narrowly in the House, it faces tougher opposition in the Senate. The legislation has little GOP support because of questions about the science behind it and the potential cost.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/56_don_t_want_to_pay_more_to_fight_global_warming

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
284
Geologist Bob Foster, director of the Lavoisier Group in Australia denounced the UN IPCC reports. "Belief in the mythical stability of past climate has, as its equally-implausible corollary, belief that ‘doing the right thing' about greenhouse gas emissions can ensure a stable future climate," Foster wrote in a May 22, 2005 article. "IPCC's hypothesis of a people-driven climate is said to represent the consensus of 2,500 of the world's top climate scientists; and it has been embraced unquestioningly by Australia's governments, Federal and State. The Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have been abolished; and IPCC ostentatiously promotes the ‘Mann Hockeystick' - a thousand-year temperature graph purporting to show a stable pre-industrial climate (handle), disturbed only now by humans burning fossil fuels (blade)," Foster wrote. "The Kyoto Protocol is but King Canute's first step toward impoverishing the world for no attainable purpose. But an alternative hypothesis offers two natural drivers for our ever-changing climate. Both have an underlying solar/planetary pace-maker, although via very different mechanisms. Humans can't control the Sun and planets - or climate," he added. (LINK)