Weather Channel Founder: Al Gore Should be Sued

John Coleman is the founder of the Weather Channel, and he's clearly not part of the 'scientific consensus' on global warming. He said yesterday that Al Gore should be sued for perpetrating a 'fraud:'



You can read much more of Coleman's work on global warming here.

Pro-Military Group Targets Berkley for Anti-Marine Stance

I wrote a little over a week ago that while the Berkeley City Council had rescinded its loathsome letter to the U.S. Marine Corps, it had failed to change policies it adopted to prevent the Marines from recruiting effectively in the city. The pro-military group Move America Forward is trying to make sure the city council doesn't get away with a cosmetic change, but is actually forced to live and let live, and to give the Marines the same free-speech rights that all other Americans have. They're airing the ad below in Berkeley, Sacramento, and nationwide on CNN and FOX:



In addition to the continued belligerence toward the U.S.M.C. displayed in the ad, the City Council continues to give Code Pink a special parking permit in front of the recruiting center from which to protest, as well as a weekly noise permit for the same purpose.

it's ironic that the liberals on the City Council are going to such great lengths to deny freedom of speech and freedom of association to the Marines, as well as to potential applicants. Guess some people are more deserving of civil liberties than others.

Carbon Offset Fraud?

Read it at the Standard.

Update: Welcome, Don Surber readers (and thanks, Don for the traffic). I cross-post at the Weekly Standard. The post on an upcoming FTC audit of carbon offset schemes is over there.

Smithsonian Scientist: Ethanol Worse for the Environment than Oil

Read it at the Standard.

Dance Class Reading

Regular readers of this blog are aware that on Saturday, I tend to post something eclectic. That's because most Saturdays I take my daughter to dance class, and I bring along National Geographic or Smithsonian to read (thanks, Beth). If I see something interesting, I tend to blog it. If my wife happens to take my daughter to class... well, you lose out.

Anyway, I went to class today and found a few things in the November National Geographic. The first is the item below on global warming.

OK -- it's not about global warming per se, but I couldn't help but thinking about the debate as I read the article.



I couldn't find really detailed data about where the photo was taken (although you can read more about this cave system here). But according to the caption, this cave was above water as recently as 18,000 years ago.

Take a look at that photo. It seems to me that sea level is at least a few dozen feet higher today than it was 18,000 years ago. Was that due to man-made global warming?

Al Gore Wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

Gosh. I hope he doesn't get all arrogant and holier than thou. People might not like him so much if he loses that warm 'everyman' quality.

Want to Make $125,000?

Read it at the Standard.

Mars Experiences Ice Ages, Warming Periods

According to researchers published in the journal Nature, climate change on Mars may illuminate our understanding of climate change here on Earth:

In recent years extensive amounts of ice have been discovered below the surface of Mars. Much of the ice mysteriously survives far from the planet's poles. (Related photo: "'Frozen Sea' Seen on Mars [February 23, 2005].)

Schörghofer suggests that this ice is newer than previously believed.

"Earlier theories have tried to explain this ice with snowfall that would have happened some five million years ago [but struggle] to explain how that ice could have stayed there," Schörghofer said.

"I'm saying it didn't stay. It went away and then came back many, many times..."

Mars, like all planets, experiences small "wobbles" in its axis as it orbits the sun.

Such variations change the amount of sunlight falling on a planet's surface, which can cause major climate shifts, Schörghofer said.

Earth's wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, occur in 20,000- and 100,000-year periods and are thought to impact the waxing and waning of the planet's ice ages.

According to Schörghofer, this means both planets have an ice record that tracks the activity of the sun.

Given that we clearly do not entirely understand the nature of climate change here on our planet, does it hurt to wait 10 or 15 years to see if we develop a better understanding? Given the apparent dramatic effect on Mars of the sun and of Mars's own rotation, it's reasonable to look into whether the same is true of Earth. If it is, it could conceivably go a long way to understanding climate change here on our planet.

Globe Warming Much Faster Than Predicted

I'm stealing this observation from... I can't remember, so sorry.

But if the globe is warming so much more quickly than expected, doesn't it suggest we don't really understand climate change as well as we are being told that we do?

About 40 percent of the floating ice that normally blankets the top of the world during the summer will be gone by 2050, says James Overland, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Earlier studies had predicted it would be nearly a century before that much ice vanished.

"This is a major change," Overland said. "This is actually moving the threshold up."

The finding, to be published Saturday in Geophysical Research Letters, adds to a growing body of evidence that the ecosystem around the North Pole is rapidly transforming, says Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. He goes even further than Overland, predicting the Arctic Ocean will be completely ice-free in summer by 2030.

"If you had asked me a few years ago, I would have said it wouldn't happen until 2070 or 2100," said Serreze, who was not involved in Overland's project.

The article notes that shipping could become much more efficient with the opening of a northwest passage. So Henry Hudson was on the right track; he just needed to wait a few hundred years.

Update: Lest you think I treat this too cavalierly, note the less-reported story: the South Pole ice cap has reached its expanse since measures began in 1979.

Through the Miracle of Global Warming!

The United States and many other nations are dramatically stepping up efforts to chart the sea floor beneath the ice surrounding the North Pole. Why? As the earth warms, the thinning of the ice may allow the extraction of tremendous energy sources:

North of Alaska, the 23 scientists of the Healy are gathering the data legally required to extend national territories across vast reaches of the mineral-rich seafloor usually blocked by Arctic ice. Fathom by fathom, multibeam sonar sensors mounted on the Healy's hull chart a submerged plateau called the Chukchi Cap, in a region that may contain 25% of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas.

North of Alaska, researchers aboard the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Healy are gathering the data legally required to extend national territories across vast reaches of the mineral-rich seafloor usually blocked by Arctic ice.

In an era of climate change, these frozen assets are up for grabs, as melting ice allows detailed mapping and, one day perhaps, drilling.

Rising temperatures thinned the ice pack to a record low this month. If current trends continue, the Arctic could become ice-free in summer months by 2040, polar researchers say.

Those who believe that human activity plays a significant role in global warming will no doubt see a painful irony. They will argue that the emission of greenhouse gases is allowing us to access new sources, exacerbating our problems.

But energy is life. Without access to fuel in sufficient quantities, our lifestyle will change dramatically -- for the worse. And that's not just true of the United States, of course. We depend on hydrocarbon fuels for transport, electricity, and heat. But the rest of the world does as well. And while Americans are wealthy enough to weather the hit from higher energy prices relatively well, that's far less true of the vast majority of the world. And if electricity is not generated, or cars do not move, people die.

That's why the discovery of new energy sources that can be extracted is good news. Whether and how we use it is a separate question. And to the extent that the burning of fossil fuels creates negative externalities -- such as a changing climate -- that policy question must be addressed as well.

Only 45% of Climate Scientists Accept 'Global Warming Consensus'

We are constantly informed that there is a broad consensus among climate scientists that human activity is a leading cause of global warming. The details are sketchy around the edges, but we are warned that humans might be the primary cause and the results might be catastrophic. The Goracle and others tell us that there's not much question among climate scientists, and we must act now to save the planet.

But according to a study about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, only 45 percent of climate change papers submitted to 'every leading scientific journal in the world' accept the consensus:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

I'm not a climate scientist; I don't claim to know 'the truth.' I'll see if I can find the full study when it's published -- it's possible that those 'neutral' papers did not seek to render any verdict on the theory -- positive or negative. But if the study is being accurately portrayed, then 45 percent is an awfully small threshold for 'consensus.' And especially considering the extraordinary lifestyle changes that global warming adherents are asking, it would be irresponsible not to insist on a hight degree of certainty that their theories are accurate.

House Energy Bill Creates Global Warming Lawsuits

I knew that the energy bills under consideration in Congress were bad -- that they created no new energy and restricted production -- but I was not aware that the House bill specifically authorizes Americans 'harmed' by global warming to sue the US government for it.

Better still -- it specifically allows them to recover attorneys' fees -- win or lose.

This plays into the worst impression of old-style liberal Democrat wackos from the 1970s -- environmental extremists in the pocket of the trial lobby.

Read my piece at the Standard.

Caring too Much About the Environment

Can we agree that there are certain steps we should never take to save the Earth -- such as ceasing to wash your hair?

Oscar winner Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair in an effort to do her bit to save the environment and become a green example to her kids.

The actress admits she has installed timers all around her home to restrict energy levels - and one is even on her shower head.

Now she is no longer washing her hair, Blanchett has realised: "I only need to have a two minute shower."

I await the follow-up article, which will track down exactly what Ms. Blanchett will do instead -- shave her head bald, go to a salon every day. We know this is not the end of the story.

Dingell Boosts Carbon Tax; Takes Shot at Ted Kennedy

I've written here on the stance by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell in support of a carbon tax. Simply put, a carbon tax is probably the simplest way to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and gasoline, while improving automobile fuel economy, if those are your goals. Today Dingell pens a piece in the Washington Post in defense of his stance -- and he takes a swipe at both Ted Kennedy and all Republicans in doing so:

Each source of energy faces obstacles. For example, wind and nuclear power present "not in my back yard" challenges, as we're seeing with efforts to install a wind farm off Cape Cod, Mass., while ethanol plants are welcomed with generous subsidies in the Farm Belt. Some raise issues regarding land use. All are more expensive to produce than the energy we currently use...

A carbon tax or fee has been endorsed by President Bush's former chief economic adviser, Greg Mankiw; Nobel Prize-winning conservative economist Gary Becker; the chief executive of the largest U.S. auto-dealer chain, Mike Jackson; and several environmental organizations. From Alan Greenspan to Greenpeace, many recognize its utility.

There may be disagreements as to the proper level or the best use of revenue. The United Mine Workers support a fuel-based fee that would fund carbon sequestration. Others have suggested using the revenue to reduce Social Security taxes. Congress must hash out the details.

History shows that we respond to market forces. Between 1980 and 1981, the fuel economy of the vehicles Americans purchased increased 16 percent. That wasn't because of a technological breakthrough or a regulatory requirement. It was because the price of gas had risen to the point where consumers made fuel economy a priority. Market forces and mechanisms proved far more powerful than mandates.

I don't expect to overcome ideological Republican opposition to all forms of taxation, but if CEOs, economists, environmentalists and citizens speak out, we could effect real change. I don't pretend to speak for my party on this; I'm trying to speak to common sense and experience...

Speaker Pelosi will apparently kick the can down the road on this issue, leaving resolution of the carbon tax vs. fuel economy question to address in a conference committee.

Just to clarify, the link to the Globe piece on Kennedy's hypocritical opposition to a Cape Cod wind farm was not inserted by the Post; that was my doing. Nevertheless, the gratuitous insertion of the reference had to be intended as a shot at Kennedy. It's a clear sign that Dingell takes this pretty seriously, and is willing to break some furniture if that's what it takes to win this fight.

Environmentalists Choose Nuclear Power

It's nothing new that nuclear power is becoming more attractive for the environmental community as the concern people used to have about nuclear waste is replaced by concern about global warming. It has seemed for a few years now that nuclear power was poised for a comeback.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, the environmental community has been increasingly successful in blocking coal-fired power plants -- including so-called clear coal:

Even proposals to build so-called "clean coal" plants have been met with skepticism. This new technology, which primarily involves converting coal into a combustible gas for electricity generation, has been touted as a solution to coal's global-warming problems.

A hearing judge at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is urging commissioners to reject a plan for Northern States Power Co., a unit of Xcel Energy Inc., Minneapolis, to buy about 8% of its electricity from a coal-gasification power plant that was proposed by Excelsior Energy Inc., Minnetonka, Minn. The judge concluded the 600-megawatt Excelsior plant wouldn't be a good deal for consumers.

The judge concluded it would cost an extra $472.3 million, in 2011 dollars, to make the power plant capable of capturing about 30% of its carbon dioxide emissions, and another $635.4 million to build a pipeline to move the greenhouse gas to the nearest deep geologic storage in Alberta, Canada. Thus, $1.1 billion in pollution controls had the potential to inflate the cost of power coming from the plant by $50 a megawatt hour, making electricity from Excelsior twice as costly as power from many older coal-fired plants that simply vent their carbon dioxide. The recommendation will be considered by the commission on Aug. 2.

It seems that the environmental movement is now doing to coal power what it once did to nuclear. And while we may not yet have affirmatively chosen nuclear power, we've still made a choice; the 'veto' of coal makes it the only realistic alternative.

Note: OK, that last paragraph was somewhat contrived. But how else am I going to link Rush?

Dingell Plotting Rebellion on CAFE Standards?

The Politico catches whiff of a John Dingell's plotting with Republicans to torpedo the House leadership proposal on global warming:

Republicans believe that if Dingell were to sign onto their plan as a backup in case the Hill-Terry proposal fails to garner majority support, they could push through the GOP proposal, even over Pelosi's objections.

A Republican insider said that Dingell was "noncommittal" during the meeting with Barton, Hastert and Upton -- not saying "anything one way or the other" about his plans for a floor fight over auto mileage and whether he would support Republicans.

Dingell and Hastert enjoy warm personal ties, according to House insiders, and are in many ways closer than Pelosi and Dingell. Those two have fought a running battle that dates back years, and the CAFE clash is not going to do anything to slow it down.

If Dingell and the GOP team up, it might lead to a proposal that the White House would sign -- as opposed to a measure that would wind up as veto bait. It would also leave a bad taste in the mouth of Congressional Democrats as they head out for the August recess. To be dealt a loss on such an important policy matter, due to an inability to unite the House Democratic conference would be a blow to morale.

Save a Cow; Save the World

The drumbeat grows:

Taking into account all the processes involved, they said, four average sized steaks generated greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 80.25lb of carbon dioxide.
advertisement

This also consumed 169 megajoules of energy.

That means that 2.2lb of beef is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions which have the same effect as the carbon dioxide released by an ordinary car travelling at 50 miles per hour for 155 miles, a journey lasting three hours. The amount of energy consumed would light a 100-watt bulb for 20 days.

You'll get my steak when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Eco-Friendly Hummer Attacked; Earth-Raping Priuses Untouched

The Washington Post carries this story about a man in a nice liberal DC neighborhood who bought a Hummer and was 'shocked' that someone would vandalize it:

On a narrow, leafy street in Northwest Washington, where Prius hybrid cars and Volvos are the norm, one man bought a flashy gray Hummer that was too massive to fit in his garage.

So he parked the seven-foot-tall behemoth on the street in front of his house and smiled politely when his eco-friendly neighbors looked on in disapproval at his "dream car."

It lasted five days on the street before two masked men took a bat to every window, a knife to each 38-inch tire and scratched into the body: "FOR THE ENVIRON."

The owner sounds like a perfectly nice guy, but he can't be very bright if it never occurred to him that 'environmentalists' might vandalize his car. If he doesn't understand that many on the Left are hypocrites who have no respect for private property and societal norms, then he hasn't been paying attention.

The irony of course, is that the Hummer owner is more ecologically-responsible than the Prius owners he lives near. That's both because the Prius battery is an environmentalist's nightmare, and because the Prius lasts only about one-third as long as a Hummer:

The feature that makes the Prius such a draw for the environmentally conscious is really its weak spot: the battery. Like all hybrid batteries, it's of the nickel metal hydride variety. The nickel for the Prius is mined in Sudbury, Ontario, and smelted at a plant nearby. Toyota buys 1,000 tons of nickel from the plant each year.

So far, so green? Maybe not. The landscape around the plant at the city's edge alarms environmentalists. Some eco-activists blame the bleak, lifeless countryside near the facility in part on its 1,250-foot smokestack that belches acid-rain-causing sulphur dioxide...

But there's more. From the Sudbury plant, the smelted nickel is shipped to Europe, where it's refined in Wales. Next, it's sent to China, where it's manufactured in nickel foam. The nickel is then moved to Japan, where Prius batteries are made.

But the long, fossil-fuel-burning journey doesn't end there. After the batteries are placed in the Prius, some of the nickel is round-tripped back to North America while some is shipped to Europe in cars sold outside Japan...

While the Prius digs a deep environmental rut, the Hummer H3 plods on with a much lighter touch. An H3 costs $2.07 per lifetime mile to operate in environmental terms, while the Prius costs $2.87. Figures are courtesy of CNW Marketing, which rates cars on the combined energy needed 'to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage.'

Then there's the expected life span of the Prius: 100,000 miles, or a third of the Hummer's, says CNW. Toyota would have to go through the same 'build, sell, drive and dispose' process three times for three Priuses to provide the same amount of service provided by one H3.

Investor's Business Daily points out the the most environmentally-responsible cars might be the Toyota Yaris or Corolla. But of course, they're not trendy like the Prius.

But that really is what much of modern environmentalism is about: image. It's not really about protecting the Earth. If it were, everyone would be aware of the environmental problems caused by the Prius. It would be a car environmentalists would want to avoid -- rather than embrace. In a world where protecting the environment was the priority, Al Gore would be warning us not to fall for the slick Prius marketing and Henry Waxman would be subpoenaing Toyota execs to question them about false advertising. And of course, there would more than one lonely story in Investor's Business Daily about this.

But then, in a world where protecting the environment was important, environmentalists would be ashamed of massive carbon footprints, rather than buying 'carbon offsets' that probably do more harm than good. And they would be trying to spread the word about the environmental dangers of eating meat, rather than of using fossil fuels.

I guess I might as well wish for a world where 'environmentalists' didn't think vandalism was an appropriate response to... whatever.

No, most of the modern environmental movement is about controlling the lives of others, and portraying man as the raper of the natural world. Like so much liberal claptrap, it's based on group think and avoiding difficult questions. So the same folks that eagerly establish their 'green cred' by buying Priuses tell us how to live our lives, but don't want to tell us how much it will cost to 'stop global warming.' Or even really tell us why we should try. And if you ask questions -- or think it's OK to own a Hummer -- then you'll get insulted for your ignorance and apathy -- or worse.

Want to Stop Global Warming? Go Vegeterian

Saving the world is easy, and only takes 60 seconds -- according to Cameron Diaz:



Well, I'm not sure how easy it is to save the world when -- according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization -- the single largest cause the 'greenhouse effect' is the cultivation of livestock:

It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

So there's your answer for Cameron: stop eating meat. Simple, right?

Was I the last person to run across this? I know I was behind Glenn Beck.

Some Global Warming Perspective

Read it at the Standard.