Late last week, servers at Britain’s Climate Research Unit, a part of the University of East Anglia, were hacked and over 60 megabytes of data dumped onto the internet for public access.

The data paints an ugly picture of scientists operating as political hacks orchestrating smear campaigns against global warming dissidents, deleting files rather than make their data publicly available, and manufacturing data to prove their case when the actual data does nothing of the sort.

The University of East Anglia has confirmed the authenticity of the documents. With that confirmation, we see global warming for what it is — a scam perpetuated by scientists intent on gaining access to money.

Even the Washington Post has felt the need to cover this story. The Australian Herald Sun was one of the first to cover the story. They note:

Read More →

It’s the little things that illustrate the big problems with the common evidence that the Earth is heating up rapidly. Take this picture I took yesterday afternoon, as I hiked on out to Wal-Mart to check on after-Halloween cheap candy*:

I always get a kick out of seeing these little guys running around. You see, when I first set foot in Moreno Valley almost a quarter century ago**, I didn’t see this kind of wildlife running around. We’re at the edge of the desert, and as the town was first being developed, the only things I saw were the big old tumbleweeds rolling down the street on every windy day. Brown, dry, and prickly, they weren’t very friendly to little guys like in that picture above.

Read More →

In the October 2, 2009 Virginia Attorney General’s debate, my opponent and I had the opportunity to ask each other one question regarding our top priorities. His top priority - “global warming,” which of course comes along with a raft of legislative and regulatory burdens and taxes. At the federal level, this legislation is called “cap and trade.”

The (so-called) “Cap and Trade” legislation is meant to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industry, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. A better name for this legislation would be “Ration and Tax.” This is because under this bill, the government would require anyone who uses electricity, who drives a car, or who runs a business to hold a “ration coupon” for his or her emissions, with the number of coupons being reduced every year to force a reduction in emissions, thus producing higher energy taxes for the average citizen. The net effect of this “Ration and Tax” would be economic harm and a loss of jobs for our citizens, and all without having a noticeable positive impact on the global climate. The coal industry, which provides over half of Virginia’s electricity, would be particularly hard hit by this bill.

The economic costs of “Ration and Tax” are well documented. This year’s House bill was estimated by the Heritage Foundation to lose 2.5 million net jobs by 2035. The loss of economic output: $9.4 trillion. The jobs lost in Virginia: 52,700. The report also stated that by 2035, Virginian’s will see their electricity prices rise by $1,031.73 and their gasoline prices rise by $1.31 per gallon solely because of “Ration and Tax”. Peter Orszag, President Obama’s current budget director, forecast the scheme would cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years and $5-$7 trillion through 2050. The fact that the Senate version of this legislation requires an even bigger cut in emissions than the House version means that the negative impact of the Senate legislation is likely to be even greater.

Now, some say that “green jobs” created by “Ration and Tax” are going to offset these losses. However, all of the credible studies show that the NET jobs lost are substantial. A study for the Teamsters and Sierra Club – both allies of those advancing “Cap and Trade” – found: “Wage rates at many wind and solar manufacturing facilities… fall short of income levels needed to support a single adult with one child.” In Spain, the experience has been 2.2 real jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.

Read More →

Since the 1930’s, Louisiana has lost over 2,000 square miles to coastal erosion - an area larger than the state of Delaware. Stabilizing the remaining marshlands requires massive projects, such as plantings, erosion control structures and mass plantings, but more than anything it requires masses of money.

Governor Bobby Jindal thinks he knows who might help foot the bill: you and me, pal, if Cap and Tax gets passed.

It turns out that projects for rebuilding marsh and the delta will score all kinds of points in the Carbon Offset game. If someone wants to build, say, a coal-fired electrical generation plant, they will be required under the Waxman-Markey abomination to purchase Carbon Credits from a “qualified project”.

Scientists working with Louisiana to develop a carbon-credit plan say the river delta is a factor in the greenhouse gas equation. They say the 2,000 square miles of Louisiana marshland lost since 1932 is equivalent to the carbon output of 80 million automobiles driving for one year.

So, you’re looking to keep driving that Suburban? Or using coal-based electricity? We in Louisiana are here to help.

Read More →

The U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change and Climate Change scientists have waaaay too much invested in Anthropogenic Global Warming to walk away from it based on mere data. Data, for example, that demonstrates that despite the dire warnings of steadily increasing temperatures, global temperatures are actually cooling, and have been for 10-12 years.

In other words, the Hockey Stick is broken. (Temporary) Global Cooling is seeing increasing acceptance among some in the Climate Change community, but they remain True Believers in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Read More →

Is health care not going all that well for you, Mr. President? Maybe you ought to push the energy agenda - after all, there’s ‘broad support’ for that:

Most Americans approve of the way President Obama is handling energy issues and support efforts by him and Democrats in Congress to overhaul energy policy — including the controversial cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Even as public support has slipped for Obama’s health-care proposals, support for ambitious changes in energy policy has been steady. Although the issue of health care arouses more intense feelings than energy policy does, those who do feel strongly about energy and climate policy tend to tilt toward the administration’s position and a broad majority of people echo Democratic lawmakers’ views on the benefits of proposed changes.

Read More →

So there’s this Canadian fellow named Steve McIntyre, who works with an organization called Climate Audit. Climate Audit’s interest is not in debunking Global Warming. Rather, they audit the data in an effort to make sure the conclusions derived are unassailable. To that end, Steve contacted the Climactic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, the repository of the data that underlie the “overwhelming scientific consensus” in the Climate Science community. He requested the original raw data behind their temperature trend conclusions, to wit:

You’d expect scientists who are so sure of their conslusions to welcome this type of scrutiny. Instead, Steve got the Heisman Treatment - the big stiffarm - because he’s “not an academic”.

Read More →

Mark Steyn, with a little of the class warfare, particularly as it applies to global warming aristos. Or should that be theocrats? I’m not really an expert in research theology.

One assumes Gar Smith is sincere in his fetishization of bucolic African poverty, with its vibrantly rampant disease and charmingly unspoilt life expectancy in the mid-forties. But when a hereditary prince starts attacking capitalism and pining for the days when a benign sovereign knew what was best for the masses, he gives the real game away. Capitalism is liberating: You’re born a peasant but you don’t have to die one.

You can work hard and get a nice place in the suburbs. If you were a 19th-century Russian peasant and you got to Ellis Island, you’d be living in a tenement on the Lower East Side, but your kids would get an education and move uptown, and your grandkids would be doctors and accountants in Westchester County. And your great-grandchild would be a Harvard-educated environmental activist demanding an end to all this electricity and indoor toilets.

Environmentalism opposes that kind of mobility. It seeks to return us to the age of kings, when the masses are restrained by a privileged elite.

…you know, I think that Al Gore would probably seriously groove to being able to hierophant out with a staff, miter, and long, flowing robes. No, not one made out of hemp: didn’t you hear? Secondhand smoke kills.

Moe Lane

Read More →

In his December 20, 2008 weekly address, President-elect Obama set forth some soaring rhetoric regarding science:

Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it’s about protecting free and open inquiry.  It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.  It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient.  Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.  That will be my goal as President of the United States – and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.

Just words.

Contrary to Obama’s rhetoric his administration has suppressed inconvenient scientific evidence clearly showing that global warming isn’t as bad as the cap and trade advocates have been telling us.

The following video outlines the story:

Declan McCullagh reports that according to recently disclosed emails, the Environmental Protection Agency suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming:

Read More →

Paul Krugman seems to the mastermind behind Democrat economic policies. With that in mind, will Democrats listen to him, rather than repeating nonsense about cap-and-tax creating new jobs?

There will be more wind farms built. There will be people retrofitting power plants to reduce their emissions. There will be people weatherproofing housing and commercial buildings.”

What economists would say is that employment would be just about the same as it would have been otherwise, but it will be a different mix of jobs.

This is a sharp contrast with the sales pitch put forward by its advocates:

This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence, and cut global warming pollution.” said Chairman Waxman.

According to the Heritage Foundation, this legislation will have a net effect of destroying almost 1 million jobs. While it’s not surprising that Paul Krugman is more optimistic about the effect, even he is willing to call out Democrats for this snowjob. The question is whether the mainstream media will continue to let Democrats make such nonsense claims, or whether they’ll tell the truth about the damage this bill will do.

Via Pethokoukis.

The bottom line is that the extent to which the American consumer is going to pay for a national energy tax cannot be overstated—it will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. The weight of the new taxes associated with this bill will break the backs of some families, forcing them out of their homes and into the street. America will lose its competitive edge in our global economy as we regulate ourselves into economic obscurity, allowing countries like China and India to outpace our productivity because this legislation will make it far too expensive to conduct business in America.

From the diaries by Erick

The subject of the environment is a difficult one for conservatives. The Left has owned the discussion for years, always pitching the issue in the direst terms, decade after decade. When we have tried to point out reasonable objections to this extremist rhetoric, such as that there is less than a scientific consensus about climate change, we have been called “deniers” or worse.

This is doubly unfair because there are few things more conservative than conservation. There can be no doubt that being good stewards of our natural resources is necessary for human sustainability and survival. Unfortunately, in the public’s mind the Left has a monopoly on setting wise environmental policy. What we understand, as the Left seems unwilling to acknowledge, is that environmental and economic policies are often very closely associated. There are always tradeoffs for any change in policy.

Right now congressional Democrats, led by Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, are trying to use that conventional wisdom to pass a bill that could be destructive on both fronts. As even some on the left have pointed out, the bill may not actually establish binding caps on emissions, and may in fact actually contribute to worldwide pollution. This kind of up-is-down outcome is no surprise to those of us who understand how government is often less efficient at coming up with solutions than it is generating unintended consequences.

Read More →

Via Tim Blair comes this gem (h/t Skanderbeg):

One of the world’s greatest minds comes up with one of the world’s greatest ideas:

Steven Chu, the Nobel prize-winning physicist appointed by US President Barack Obama as Energy Secretary, wants to paint the world white.

A global initiative to change the colour of roofs, roads and pavements so that they reflect more of the Sun’s light and heat could play a big part in containing global warming, he said yesterday.

It would be interesting to get Chu’s estimate on the percentage of the earth’s surface that is covered by roofs, roads and pavements.

As Erick posted on Twitter, “When all it takes to solve global warming is painting my roof white, global warming isn’t a serious problem.”

I have to echo that statement, with the simple addition that, if Chu is serious in his suggestion, then the people who promote AGW as an issue are, quite simply, fundamentally unserious.

To Blair’s last sentence, I can only add this: Guess what already reflects sunlight better than white paint?

Water, snow, and ice.

I wonder what the ratio is of the water-covered portions of planet Earth to the pavement-and-roof-covered portions of planet Earth. Certainly Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu has a formula to figure that little problem out, doesn’t he?

Hailed as a completely self-sustaining building, the solar house at the Troy Community Center in Troy, Michigan was set to open for tours and community use this Summer. Unfortunately, the systems failed to work over the winter, pipes froze, and water burst through the uninhabited structure causing the floors to collapse. As a result, the building sits unused after the hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on it by government.

This is government waste and folly at it worst, but it is typical of the best government can do. Oh, it’s not the best because anything worked, it’s the best because failure is all one can expect from government when undertaking projects of this nature.

The model house was supposed to be an engineering marvel that would save the planet. But ended up being just a monstrous waste of the taxpayer’s money.

Read More →

At the turn of the 20th century, the experts believed that Physics was a settled science. We were either at a solution, or very close to one. There was simply nothing new to learn in physics, was the consensus. As soon as the loose ends were tied up, our understanding of the universe would be complete.

Then light acted up. Oops. Physics is still reeling from the relativistic and quantum effects discovered since.

Likewise, we’ve been told that climate science is settled. It’s a consensus. Shut up. Man-made effects will be magnified by oceanic currents, and the world is doomed.

Then the ocean acted up. Oops. It turns out that not only was our model of the ocean vastly oversimplified and our predictions on its behavior were wrong, but researchers believe the correct oceanic currents may be more difficult even to reach and study.

It sounds to me like every climactic model has to be rewritten, and if it were an honest science, it’d be reeling for some time. As one commenter at Slashdot put it, “Who would have ever guessed that we would have trouble forming an accurate model of a vast, complex, chaotic system?”

Not Al Gore. He was more interested in generating a good crisis, than in publishing a true representation of science.

A new propaganda video created by an extreme environmental activist is making its way into America’s classrooms and The New York Times loves the whole idea. Enviro obsessive Annie Leonard, Greenpeace member and activist, has created a 20 minute video filled with anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda to encourage kids to eschew “stuff,” calling the presentation “The Story of Stuff.”

Leonard’s propaganda piece is so anti-American she even begins her video by saying that her “friends” say she should describe the United States by using the symbol of a military tank because “it’s true in many countries and increasingly in our own.” And why is a tank “increasingly” the symbol of the USA? Because “more than 50% of our federal tax money is going for our military.” Naturally, this misleading propaganda doesn’t mention that a large portion of that federal military spending ends up going to the weekly pay and health care of our soldiers, something apparently Ms. Leonard is against. She goes on to say that a government’s job is to “take care of us, that’s their job.” Here she is trying to promote dependency and proves that she has no clue what a government is really for — especially in the U.S. system.

Read More →

A lot of money. As in, his net worth has increased fifty-fold, and that’s not a typo. Gateway Pundit revisits some commentary by Pro Patria about Al Gore’s relationship with Big Green (a good name, that):

So just what has Al Gore gained from his Big Green escapades? According to public disclosure information, Gore was worth somewhere between $1 million and $2 million in 2000. Not quite eight years later, Gore is estimated to be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million. While I ordinarily would applaud such financial gains from such a short period of time, I can’t help but to question just how it happened. When you look out at what Al Gore has done, it’s evident that he figured out on a way to capitalize on the creation of Big Green while becoming the official doomsday prophet that has helped to build Big Green into the monetary powerhouse that it has become.

That post is from 2007, and the number it mentions was also reported here and here (neither unsympathetically, which is the reason why they were chosen): Gateway Pundit is bringing it up again because Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) had some pointed questions to Mister Gore on his business relationships. Human Events had ten more, all of which should be asked by his supporters themselves, and none of which will be.  Note that Blackburn did ask some of these questions; also note that Gore evaded them, complete with that patented “the fools denied my greatness!  But I’ll show them!  I’ll show them ALL!” smirk that he reserves for situations like this.  I have to admit; if this is Gore’s revenge scenario for America it’s going well.

Read More →

This week, as the stock market continues its perilous slide towards an unknown abyss; the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin hearings on a national energy tax bill that will cost every American household $3,128 a year for the “right” to emit carbon dioxide.

The discussion draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) has four primary objectives (a renewable energy production mandate; improving energy efficiency; a cap and tax on carbon emissions; and creating “green collar” jobs) with one common thread tying them all together—central government planning.

ACES is nothing more than a veiled attempt to bring more of the private sector underneath big government’s tent while creating a $1.3 trillion slush fund for liberal social agendas under the guise of environmental do-goodism.

Most importantly, for a cap and tax bill to be effective and produce the goals of carbon emission reductions outlined in ACES (83 percent reduction of 2005 levels by 2050); energy is going to have to get expensive—oppressively expensive. Even President Obama admitted cap and tax bill would cause electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket.”

The entire premise behind a cap and tax energy proposal is to punish those who produce, thereby punishing those who consume, which by my quick math amounts to everyone in the United States. Unfortunately, the sadistic nature of radical environmentalism is the disproportionate impact on the poor. While there are some families in this country who can afford to be burdened by a $3,128 energy tax—the vast majority cannot.

Worse, ACES’s provisions to create a new green economy will steal jobs from many low to middle class Americans. In fact, a recent study of Spain’s renewable job program found that the U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 “green” job manufactured and subsidized by the government. Ironically, the Institute of Energy Research notes that “according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Spain’s annual emissions of carbon dioxide have increased by nearly 50 percent since the nation began its aggressive push to subsidize and support ‘green jobs.’”

The questions one should ask when thinking about global warming legislation are: Can I afford a $3,128 tax? Can I afford 60-144 percent increase in gas prices? Can I afford to have my job shipped overseas because my employer can’t afford to stay in business with a 77-128 percent increase in electricity prices? My guess is, the answers to all three are “no”—I know I can’t and neither can my constituents, which is why I’ll be working to defeat this devastating legislation.

While it’s really, really easy to laugh at the fact that the environmentalists’ march on the Capitol Power Plant is being hampered by a heavy snowstorm - to blatantly steal from one of my cobloggers, I’ve just come in from shoveling eight inches of global warming off of my front walkway - it’s…

Hold on. I’m actually still laughing.

OK.

Read More →

Go “green” or go out of business. That is the message Congress wants to send to America’s power plants run by coal — and any and every other power facility for that matter. Congressmen after Congressmen have waddled forth onto TV and into print to wag a green finger at our power grid scolding it for being “too dirty” and not environmentally friendly. These politicians, you see, know better and they must be listened to. After all, they are trying to save the planet!

And to show how the folks walking the marbled halls of the nation’s capitol care about the environment they are canceling the buying of so-called “carbon offsets” and announcing that they are abandoning efforts to further “green” the aging coal powered power plant that keeps the lights on, cools its halls, and heats Congress in the summer.

Yes, while they are attempting to force the lowly, great-unwashed people of the country to “go green,” they themselves are abandoning their own efforts to do so. The folks of the Democrat controlled Congress are nothing short of green hypocrites, see them at their greenpocrisy.

Read More →