The global warming consensus cools
Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"What happened to global warming?" read the headline - on BBC News on Oct. 9, no less. Consider it a cataclysmic event: Mainstream news organizations have begun reporting on scientific research that suggests that global warming may not be caused by man and may not be as dire and imminent as alarmists suggest.
Indeed, as the BBC's climate correspondent Paul Hudson reported, the warmest year recorded globally "was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998." It's true, he continued, "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."
At a London conference later this month, Hudson reported, solar scientist Piers Corbyn will present evidence that solar-charged particles have a big impact on global temperatures.
Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook presented research last year that suggests that the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) caused warmer temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s. With Pacific sea surface temperatures cooling, Easterbrook expects 30 years of global cooling.
EPA analyst Alan Carlin - an MIT-trained economist with a degree in physics - referred to "solar variability" and Easterbrook's work in a document that warned that politics had prompted the Environmental Protection Agency and countries to pay "too little attention to the science of global warming" as partisans ignored the lack of global warming over the past 10 years. At first the EPA buried the paper, then it permitted Carlin to post it on his personal Web site.
Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated nonbelievers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray. Read More
Any conversation about climate change that our elected officials are having should first focus on if the climate is really changing due to human activity and if it is, will this legislation reverse it. Before we spend trillions of dollars we should find out what our return on this investment will be.
Showing posts with label global cooling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global cooling. Show all posts
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Blaming Livestock for Global Warming
The Meat of the Problem
By Ezra Klein
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The debate over climate change has reached a rarefied level of policy abstraction in recent months. Carbon tax or cap-and-trade? Upstream or downstream? Should we auction permits? Head-scratching is, at this point, permitted. But at base, these policies aim to do a simple thing, in a simple way: persuade us to undertake fewer activities that are bad for the atmosphere by making those activities more expensive. Driving an SUV would become pricier. So would heating a giant house with coal and buying electricity from an inefficient power plant. But there's one activity that's not on the list and should be: eating a hamburger.
If it's any consolation, I didn't like writing that sentence any more than you liked reading it. But the evidence is strong. It's not simply that meat is a contributor to global warming; it's that it is a huge contributor. Larger, by a significant margin, than the global transportation sector.
According to a 2006 United Nations report, livestock accounts for 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Some of meat's contribution to climate change is intuitive. It's more energy efficient to grow grain and feed it to people than it is to grow grain and turn it into feed that we give to calves until they become adults that we then slaughter to feed to people. Some of the contribution is gross. "Manure lagoons," for instance, is the oddly evocative name for the acres of animal excrement that sit in the sun steaming nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. And some of it would make Bart Simpson chuckle. Cow gas -- interestingly, it's mainly burps, not farts -- is a real player. Read More
It continues to be frustrating as these so-called journalists do not do any research before they write a story. You see, if he had done some research, he would’ve found that the United States Environmental Protection Agency says that animal agriculture in this country is only responsible for 2.6% of greenhouse gas emissions, which is incredibly less than the transportation sector. It’s these types of stories that the consumer continues to read and begins to believe. If you are waiting for someone to correct this misinformation, why not spend that time posting a comment or writing a letter to the editor on this issue.
By Ezra Klein
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The debate over climate change has reached a rarefied level of policy abstraction in recent months. Carbon tax or cap-and-trade? Upstream or downstream? Should we auction permits? Head-scratching is, at this point, permitted. But at base, these policies aim to do a simple thing, in a simple way: persuade us to undertake fewer activities that are bad for the atmosphere by making those activities more expensive. Driving an SUV would become pricier. So would heating a giant house with coal and buying electricity from an inefficient power plant. But there's one activity that's not on the list and should be: eating a hamburger.
If it's any consolation, I didn't like writing that sentence any more than you liked reading it. But the evidence is strong. It's not simply that meat is a contributor to global warming; it's that it is a huge contributor. Larger, by a significant margin, than the global transportation sector.
According to a 2006 United Nations report, livestock accounts for 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Some of meat's contribution to climate change is intuitive. It's more energy efficient to grow grain and feed it to people than it is to grow grain and turn it into feed that we give to calves until they become adults that we then slaughter to feed to people. Some of the contribution is gross. "Manure lagoons," for instance, is the oddly evocative name for the acres of animal excrement that sit in the sun steaming nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. And some of it would make Bart Simpson chuckle. Cow gas -- interestingly, it's mainly burps, not farts -- is a real player. Read More
It continues to be frustrating as these so-called journalists do not do any research before they write a story. You see, if he had done some research, he would’ve found that the United States Environmental Protection Agency says that animal agriculture in this country is only responsible for 2.6% of greenhouse gas emissions, which is incredibly less than the transportation sector. It’s these types of stories that the consumer continues to read and begins to believe. If you are waiting for someone to correct this misinformation, why not spend that time posting a comment or writing a letter to the editor on this issue.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Anti-Ag Article in WaPo
For the Farm Lobby, Too Much Is Never Enough
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, June 26, 2009
With the possible exception of the ski industry, it's hard to think of any sector of the economy that will be hit harder by global warming than agriculture. A report out last week from scientists at 13 government agencies found that climate change is happening more quickly than we thought and that by the end of the century, many farmers will face scorching summer weather, severe storms, prolonged drought and swarms of new insects.
Given those prospects, you might expect the farm lobby to be in the vanguard of those pushing for enactment of legislation to cap the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere. But that wouldn't be Elmer, would it? True to form, he has demanded another boost in his already lavish government subsidies before he'll even consider doing something about global warming.
Because they are the source of most carbon emissions, factories, power plants and oil refineries would all be covered by the caps and be required to buy the permits, or allowances, as they are called. The one major source that is not covered is the American farm. From the start, everyone agreed that it would be an administrative nightmare to try to measure and regulate the amount of carbon produced on each farm. Given the power of the farm lobby, everyone agreed that it was also a political non-starter.
The next time the world's most selfish lobby comes to Washington demanding drought relief, someone ought to have the good sense to tell them to go pound sand. Read More
Pearlstein is upset because some people were concerned how the climate change bill would affect our ability to produce food and fiber in this country. While it seems like a reasonable thing to me that we should protect our domestic food supply, apparently those that believe food comes from the grocery store can’t make that connection. He wants us to blindly support a bill that attempts to fix an unproven problem with an unproven solution. All the while costing consumers untold billions of dollars. Here’s my suggestion to Mr. Pearlstein. If you don’t’ like American agriculture, don’t support us by buying and using our end product, food and fiber. The next time you are hungry, go eat sand.
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, June 26, 2009
With the possible exception of the ski industry, it's hard to think of any sector of the economy that will be hit harder by global warming than agriculture. A report out last week from scientists at 13 government agencies found that climate change is happening more quickly than we thought and that by the end of the century, many farmers will face scorching summer weather, severe storms, prolonged drought and swarms of new insects.
Given those prospects, you might expect the farm lobby to be in the vanguard of those pushing for enactment of legislation to cap the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere. But that wouldn't be Elmer, would it? True to form, he has demanded another boost in his already lavish government subsidies before he'll even consider doing something about global warming.
Because they are the source of most carbon emissions, factories, power plants and oil refineries would all be covered by the caps and be required to buy the permits, or allowances, as they are called. The one major source that is not covered is the American farm. From the start, everyone agreed that it would be an administrative nightmare to try to measure and regulate the amount of carbon produced on each farm. Given the power of the farm lobby, everyone agreed that it was also a political non-starter.
The next time the world's most selfish lobby comes to Washington demanding drought relief, someone ought to have the good sense to tell them to go pound sand. Read More
Pearlstein is upset because some people were concerned how the climate change bill would affect our ability to produce food and fiber in this country. While it seems like a reasonable thing to me that we should protect our domestic food supply, apparently those that believe food comes from the grocery store can’t make that connection. He wants us to blindly support a bill that attempts to fix an unproven problem with an unproven solution. All the while costing consumers untold billions of dollars. Here’s my suggestion to Mr. Pearlstein. If you don’t’ like American agriculture, don’t support us by buying and using our end product, food and fiber. The next time you are hungry, go eat sand.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Climate Change & Animal Rights
Climate change threatens African farmland -study
Tue Jun 2, 2009 8:00pm EDT
By Jasmin MelvinWASHINGTON
(Reuters) - Climate change could cost the African continent more farmland than the United States uses to plant its eight major field crops combined, according to a study published in the June issue of Environmental Science and Policy.
Farming on up to 1 million square kilometers (247 million acres) of land in Africa could subside by 2050 as climate change makes areas too hot and dry for growing crops, the study said.
The latest U.S. Agriculture Department data puts plantings of the eight major U.S. field crops combined at 246 million acres for the coming year.
Though unsuitable for crops, the land could still sustain livestock, which are more tolerant to heat and drought, researchers from the Nairobi-based International Livestock Research Institute and the United Kingdom's Waen Associates found.
Boosting livestock production could provide the 20 million to 35 million people living in these areas with a means to stay on their land and make an income, researchers said.
"Livestock can provide poor households with a buffer against the risk of climate change and allow them to take advantage of the increasing demand for animal products in Africa," said Philip Thornton, a scientist at the Institute and co-author of the paper. Read More
Personally, I haven’t seen any evidence that suggests man has caused the climate to change. The climate has been changing for millions of years and I highly doubt it’s going to stop changing now. However, for those that have fallen for this hoax, especially the animal rights activists, this should pose a quandary. Assuming climate change is here and only livestock will be able to be raised in parts of Africa, rather than crops, groups like HSUS that are trying to abolish animal agriculture will be eliminating these people’s only means of growing food. But maybe it wouldn’t be much of a quandary after all. Animal rights groups have always put the welfare of animals over humans, so if some people have to die in order to save a few goats then so be it.
Tue Jun 2, 2009 8:00pm EDT
By Jasmin MelvinWASHINGTON
(Reuters) - Climate change could cost the African continent more farmland than the United States uses to plant its eight major field crops combined, according to a study published in the June issue of Environmental Science and Policy.
Farming on up to 1 million square kilometers (247 million acres) of land in Africa could subside by 2050 as climate change makes areas too hot and dry for growing crops, the study said.
The latest U.S. Agriculture Department data puts plantings of the eight major U.S. field crops combined at 246 million acres for the coming year.
Though unsuitable for crops, the land could still sustain livestock, which are more tolerant to heat and drought, researchers from the Nairobi-based International Livestock Research Institute and the United Kingdom's Waen Associates found.
Boosting livestock production could provide the 20 million to 35 million people living in these areas with a means to stay on their land and make an income, researchers said.
"Livestock can provide poor households with a buffer against the risk of climate change and allow them to take advantage of the increasing demand for animal products in Africa," said Philip Thornton, a scientist at the Institute and co-author of the paper. Read More
Personally, I haven’t seen any evidence that suggests man has caused the climate to change. The climate has been changing for millions of years and I highly doubt it’s going to stop changing now. However, for those that have fallen for this hoax, especially the animal rights activists, this should pose a quandary. Assuming climate change is here and only livestock will be able to be raised in parts of Africa, rather than crops, groups like HSUS that are trying to abolish animal agriculture will be eliminating these people’s only means of growing food. But maybe it wouldn’t be much of a quandary after all. Animal rights groups have always put the welfare of animals over humans, so if some people have to die in order to save a few goats then so be it.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Cap & Trade Debated in House
Cap-and-Trade Debate Drags On in House Energy Committee
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
After lawmakers consumed all of Monday afternoon with opening statements, debate over a bill that would cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions finally got underway in a House committee yesterday.
But it has not gotten far.
The Energy and Commerce Committee spent its first eight hours yesterday considering six amendments to the mammoth bill, which would create a "cap-and-trade" system that forces polluters to amass credits equal to their emissions.
That leaves a lot of work to do, if the committee is to meet Chairman Henry A. Waxman's goal of passing the bill out of the committee by the end of the week. Rep. Joe Barton (Tex.), the ranking Republican, said his side could submit as many as 400 amendments.
In general, Democrats have praised the bill as a long-overdue solution to the problem of climate change. Republicans said that it would add both cost and complications to electricity, gasoline and other sources of fossil-fuel energy. One Republican said the bill would lead to a "permanent recession." Read More
There is a good chance that this will cost American consumers millions, if not billions of dollars. There is a good chance that it will stifle American production and cost American jobs. There is a good chance that this plan could severely restrict American agriculture’s ability to feed ourselves. And there is a good chance that climate change isn’t man made and all of this will be for nothing. Congress owes the American public an honest debate about climate change before they spend more of our grandkids’ money on another problem that may or may not exist.
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
After lawmakers consumed all of Monday afternoon with opening statements, debate over a bill that would cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions finally got underway in a House committee yesterday.
But it has not gotten far.
The Energy and Commerce Committee spent its first eight hours yesterday considering six amendments to the mammoth bill, which would create a "cap-and-trade" system that forces polluters to amass credits equal to their emissions.
That leaves a lot of work to do, if the committee is to meet Chairman Henry A. Waxman's goal of passing the bill out of the committee by the end of the week. Rep. Joe Barton (Tex.), the ranking Republican, said his side could submit as many as 400 amendments.
In general, Democrats have praised the bill as a long-overdue solution to the problem of climate change. Republicans said that it would add both cost and complications to electricity, gasoline and other sources of fossil-fuel energy. One Republican said the bill would lead to a "permanent recession." Read More
There is a good chance that this will cost American consumers millions, if not billions of dollars. There is a good chance that it will stifle American production and cost American jobs. There is a good chance that this plan could severely restrict American agriculture’s ability to feed ourselves. And there is a good chance that climate change isn’t man made and all of this will be for nothing. Congress owes the American public an honest debate about climate change before they spend more of our grandkids’ money on another problem that may or may not exist.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Global Warming Facts
Falsifying the Global Warming Hypothesis
By Michael R. Fox Ph.D.
1/6/2009 2:01:57 AM
Consider the working hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It states "man-made CO2 causes global warming". The question now is does this hypothesis work? Is it true? Is it valid? Does it explain the climate observations and the data that are found in the real world?
First we need some crucial evidence. The Earth’s climate has always been warming and cooling. Singer and Avery discuss this in their book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years”. Over the past one million years there have been a nominal 600 periods of warming. We can surmise that there also have been 600 periods of cooling in between them. Why wouldn’t we expect these obviously natural cycles to continue? Obviously these warming periods result from variations in natural forces having little to do with human activities.
Atmospheric CO2 has varied as well during these times. The periods between the many ice ages were “interglacial periods”, when natural warming took place. We are currently in one of those interglacial periods and should expect slight warming. We also know that humans are currently putting about 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. What is not widely known is that there are a nominal 40,000 billion tons of CO2 dissolved in sea water and captured in the biomass. The human contribution is negligible relative to what is available from natural sources.
Read More
Isn’t it the pits when the facts get in the way of the greatest con job man has ever seen, the theory of global warming. Al Gore and his band of fear-mongering scientists are trying so hard to convince everyone that global warming is occurring but then those pesky facts keep rearing their head. The weather on this planet is not static. It never has been, it never will be. In fact, the weather at my house changes on nearly a daily basis. And you should see how much it changes in the matter of just one year. I’m afraid that information like this is an inconvenient truth for the global warming advocates.
By Michael R. Fox Ph.D.
1/6/2009 2:01:57 AM
Consider the working hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It states "man-made CO2 causes global warming". The question now is does this hypothesis work? Is it true? Is it valid? Does it explain the climate observations and the data that are found in the real world?
First we need some crucial evidence. The Earth’s climate has always been warming and cooling. Singer and Avery discuss this in their book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years”. Over the past one million years there have been a nominal 600 periods of warming. We can surmise that there also have been 600 periods of cooling in between them. Why wouldn’t we expect these obviously natural cycles to continue? Obviously these warming periods result from variations in natural forces having little to do with human activities.
Atmospheric CO2 has varied as well during these times. The periods between the many ice ages were “interglacial periods”, when natural warming took place. We are currently in one of those interglacial periods and should expect slight warming. We also know that humans are currently putting about 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. What is not widely known is that there are a nominal 40,000 billion tons of CO2 dissolved in sea water and captured in the biomass. The human contribution is negligible relative to what is available from natural sources.
Read More
Isn’t it the pits when the facts get in the way of the greatest con job man has ever seen, the theory of global warming. Al Gore and his band of fear-mongering scientists are trying so hard to convince everyone that global warming is occurring but then those pesky facts keep rearing their head. The weather on this planet is not static. It never has been, it never will be. In fact, the weather at my house changes on nearly a daily basis. And you should see how much it changes in the matter of just one year. I’m afraid that information like this is an inconvenient truth for the global warming advocates.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Messing With The Bible's Message
'Green Bible' controversial
Published: Dec. 29, 2008 at 4:33 PM
PHOENIX, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. evangelicals say they are divided over a new "Green Bible" which embraces environmentalism and a need to protect the Earth.
The Green Bible, which has been endorsed by secular groups such as the Humane Society and the Sierra Club, shows people that "God is calling us to care for the world around us," said Rusty Pritchard, editor of Creation Care Magazine, a publication for evangelicals.
Other evangelicals are concerned the Green Bible will mislead Christians because it does not interpret Scripture literally, said James Taylor, a founding elder at Living Water Christian Fellowship in Palmetto, Fla.
"These groups don't have a religious focus; they have a desire to spread their environmental message," Taylor said of the essayists who contributed to the Green Bible, which contains a foreword from Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
An estimated 25,000 copies have been sold by HarperOne since the book's release in October, The Arizona Republic reported Monday. Link
Why do you suppose that secular groups such as HSUS and Sierra Club endorse this “green” bible? It’s because it helps further their agenda of a controlling what people eat and how they live. These groups don’t care about people going to church, they are only looking for donations to keep spreading their messages of veganism and environmental doom.
Published: Dec. 29, 2008 at 4:33 PM
PHOENIX, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. evangelicals say they are divided over a new "Green Bible" which embraces environmentalism and a need to protect the Earth.
The Green Bible, which has been endorsed by secular groups such as the Humane Society and the Sierra Club, shows people that "God is calling us to care for the world around us," said Rusty Pritchard, editor of Creation Care Magazine, a publication for evangelicals.
Other evangelicals are concerned the Green Bible will mislead Christians because it does not interpret Scripture literally, said James Taylor, a founding elder at Living Water Christian Fellowship in Palmetto, Fla.
"These groups don't have a religious focus; they have a desire to spread their environmental message," Taylor said of the essayists who contributed to the Green Bible, which contains a foreword from Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
An estimated 25,000 copies have been sold by HarperOne since the book's release in October, The Arizona Republic reported Monday. Link
Why do you suppose that secular groups such as HSUS and Sierra Club endorse this “green” bible? It’s because it helps further their agenda of a controlling what people eat and how they live. These groups don’t care about people going to church, they are only looking for donations to keep spreading their messages of veganism and environmental doom.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Exposing the True Agenda
Exposed: Activists’ Attacks on Meat Production Intensify
Written By: Alan Caruba
In 2006 the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) issued a report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” that was so full of absurd claims, dressed up to look like science, that I made a mental note to revisit the issue.
An ominous new angle to the issue of livestock production came with the FAO report, however, because activists claim worldwide beef production is a major contributor to present and future global warming harms asserted by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As Krystle Russin noted in the September 2008 issue of of Environment & Climate News, “Global warming activists are putting agriculture firmly in their crosshairs, launching new efforts to restrict meat production and consumption.” The article noted, “Global warming activists say keeping livestock at a farm uses too much energy,” and observed, “the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations attributed 18 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions to livestock.”
The FAO complaint ignores an extremely important consideration, however, as the Pacific Research Institute reports: “Worldwide, livestock production provides livelihoods for 1.3 billion people, and particularly in developing countries, livestock are also a source of renewable energy for farming activities, and a source of organic fertilizer.” Read More
It’s always refreshing to see someone look at the blatant, baseless attacks on agriculture with a critical eye. Blaming the American Farmer and Rancher for global warming is absolutely ridiculous. We can barely grow a tree where I live, let alone have to cut down a rain forest in order to raise cattle. Marlo Lewis’ quote was dead on when he said that the global warming campaign is only meant to control people’s lives.
Written By: Alan Caruba
In 2006 the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) issued a report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” that was so full of absurd claims, dressed up to look like science, that I made a mental note to revisit the issue.
An ominous new angle to the issue of livestock production came with the FAO report, however, because activists claim worldwide beef production is a major contributor to present and future global warming harms asserted by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As Krystle Russin noted in the September 2008 issue of of Environment & Climate News, “Global warming activists are putting agriculture firmly in their crosshairs, launching new efforts to restrict meat production and consumption.” The article noted, “Global warming activists say keeping livestock at a farm uses too much energy,” and observed, “the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations attributed 18 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions to livestock.”
The FAO complaint ignores an extremely important consideration, however, as the Pacific Research Institute reports: “Worldwide, livestock production provides livelihoods for 1.3 billion people, and particularly in developing countries, livestock are also a source of renewable energy for farming activities, and a source of organic fertilizer.” Read More
It’s always refreshing to see someone look at the blatant, baseless attacks on agriculture with a critical eye. Blaming the American Farmer and Rancher for global warming is absolutely ridiculous. We can barely grow a tree where I live, let alone have to cut down a rain forest in order to raise cattle. Marlo Lewis’ quote was dead on when he said that the global warming campaign is only meant to control people’s lives.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Warming or Cooling?
Scientists urge caution on global warming
By: Erika Lovley
Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.
While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.
So far, members of Congress have not been keen to publicly back the global cooling theory. But both senators from Oklahoma, Republicans Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, have often expressed doubts about how much of a role man-made emissions play.
“We want the debate to be about science, not fear and hypocrisy. We hope next year’s wave of new politics means a return to science,” said Coburn aide John Hart. “It’s the old kind of politics that doesn’t consider any dissenting opinions.”
“We’re worried that people are too focused on carbon dioxide as the culprit,” D’Aleo said. Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics. We’re environmentalists and conservationists at heart, but we don’t think that carbon is responsible for hurricanes.” Read More
There is a growing body of science that suggests the earth has been cooling for the past decade. The data is showing solar flares and our oceans have more to do with fluctuating temperatures than carbon does. Any cap and trade system that is implemented is only going to be paid by consumers through higher prices for everything. With no hard evidence to prove that carbon is the main culprit for anything, our society needs to proceed with caution before instituting any policies.
By: Erika Lovley
Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.
While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.
So far, members of Congress have not been keen to publicly back the global cooling theory. But both senators from Oklahoma, Republicans Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, have often expressed doubts about how much of a role man-made emissions play.
“We want the debate to be about science, not fear and hypocrisy. We hope next year’s wave of new politics means a return to science,” said Coburn aide John Hart. “It’s the old kind of politics that doesn’t consider any dissenting opinions.”
“We’re worried that people are too focused on carbon dioxide as the culprit,” D’Aleo said. Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics. We’re environmentalists and conservationists at heart, but we don’t think that carbon is responsible for hurricanes.” Read More
There is a growing body of science that suggests the earth has been cooling for the past decade. The data is showing solar flares and our oceans have more to do with fluctuating temperatures than carbon does. Any cap and trade system that is implemented is only going to be paid by consumers through higher prices for everything. With no hard evidence to prove that carbon is the main culprit for anything, our society needs to proceed with caution before instituting any policies.
Friday, November 14, 2008
New Power Plants Denied Permits
Coal plant permit blocked
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency has been blocked from issuing a permit for a proposed Utah coal plant without addressing global warming, jeopardizing the fate of scores of other proposed coal plants that will likely be left to the Obama administration.
An EPA appeals panel ruled Thursday that the agency's regional office didn't adequately support its decision to issue a permit for the Bonanza coal burning power plant in Utah without requiring controls on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.
Michael Gerrard, an attorney not involved in the Bonanza case and author of "Global Climate Change and the Law," said the EPA appeals panel decision "will embolden the lawsuits" challenging construction of new power plants based on their impact on climate. Read More
There is no doubt that all efforts should be made to have the most efficient coal plants that we can. However, this new ruling has shifted the burden to the power companies to prove their limited impact on the climate rather than the benefit to human beings that need electricity to maintain life. As a society, we can’t continue to let our electric infrastructure deteriorate or fall behind demand. The irony of writing this this morning is that we don’t have any electricity right now, most likely related to our recent blizzard. It’s not much fun when the power goes out, but apparently that is the path that the Sierra Club would like us to go down.
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency has been blocked from issuing a permit for a proposed Utah coal plant without addressing global warming, jeopardizing the fate of scores of other proposed coal plants that will likely be left to the Obama administration.
An EPA appeals panel ruled Thursday that the agency's regional office didn't adequately support its decision to issue a permit for the Bonanza coal burning power plant in Utah without requiring controls on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.
Michael Gerrard, an attorney not involved in the Bonanza case and author of "Global Climate Change and the Law," said the EPA appeals panel decision "will embolden the lawsuits" challenging construction of new power plants based on their impact on climate. Read More
There is no doubt that all efforts should be made to have the most efficient coal plants that we can. However, this new ruling has shifted the burden to the power companies to prove their limited impact on the climate rather than the benefit to human beings that need electricity to maintain life. As a society, we can’t continue to let our electric infrastructure deteriorate or fall behind demand. The irony of writing this this morning is that we don’t have any electricity right now, most likely related to our recent blizzard. It’s not much fun when the power goes out, but apparently that is the path that the Sierra Club would like us to go down.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Cattle Methane Production
Less grass, less gas, says cattle researcher
Linda Shepertycki, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008
WINNIPEG -- A University of Manitoba scientist says he's figured out how to cut the amount of greenhouse gas belching from cows by as much as 200 litres a day -- feed them grain instead of grass.
For the past four years, Ermias Kebreab has been analysing cow burps at the National Centre for Livestock and the Environment south of Winnipeg to measure the amount of methane dairy cows produce when they are fed different types of food.
About 98 per cent of the methane from a cow is emitted through its mouth -- "only two per cent comes out the other way," said Mr. Kebreab.
Traditional wisdom holds that grass is less of a contributor to global warming than more energy-intensive crops like grain.
However, Mr. Kebreab's report, published in the Journal of Animal Science, shows that may not be the case.
The grass-fed cows produced 600 to 700 litres of methane per day, compared to about 500 litres a day per grain-fed cow, Mr. Kebreab said. Read More
This is a very interesting study to think about. It throws a wrench into everything the environmentalist crowd has been trying to sell the public about animal agriculture. Not only do grain fed cattle produce less methane than cattle on grass, but when fed a higher concentrate diet, those cattle reach market weights faster. Producing less methane with fewer days on feed makes it appear as though America’s corn fed beef is actually helping the environment. It’s doubtful you will see environmentalists touting this study anytime soon, but this is some great information to have ready to share with the consumer.
Linda Shepertycki, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008
WINNIPEG -- A University of Manitoba scientist says he's figured out how to cut the amount of greenhouse gas belching from cows by as much as 200 litres a day -- feed them grain instead of grass.
For the past four years, Ermias Kebreab has been analysing cow burps at the National Centre for Livestock and the Environment south of Winnipeg to measure the amount of methane dairy cows produce when they are fed different types of food.
About 98 per cent of the methane from a cow is emitted through its mouth -- "only two per cent comes out the other way," said Mr. Kebreab.
Traditional wisdom holds that grass is less of a contributor to global warming than more energy-intensive crops like grain.
However, Mr. Kebreab's report, published in the Journal of Animal Science, shows that may not be the case.
The grass-fed cows produced 600 to 700 litres of methane per day, compared to about 500 litres a day per grain-fed cow, Mr. Kebreab said. Read More
This is a very interesting study to think about. It throws a wrench into everything the environmentalist crowd has been trying to sell the public about animal agriculture. Not only do grain fed cattle produce less methane than cattle on grass, but when fed a higher concentrate diet, those cattle reach market weights faster. Producing less methane with fewer days on feed makes it appear as though America’s corn fed beef is actually helping the environment. It’s doubtful you will see environmentalists touting this study anytime soon, but this is some great information to have ready to share with the consumer.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Don't Blame Livestock
Cows, sheep not gassier
David McKenzie
October 30, 2008
LIVESTOCK producers can rest easy. A recent surge in methane gases in the atmosphere has nothing to do with cows and sheep belching more.
CSIRO researcher Dr Paul Fraser says increased ice-melting in high latitudes in the Arctic and ozone recovery in the atmosphere are the most likely causes.
"The livestock industry is not implicated," he said.
A new study by Dr Fraser and US and UK researchers has found that after eight years of near-zero growth in atmospheric methane concentrations, levels have started rising again.
Dr Fraser said the rapid growth in methane in the atmosphere over the past year was geographically concentrated, ruling out livestock as a source. Read More
Fresh off the heels of the UN study, in which they are urging people to give up meat in order to prevent global warming, US and UK researchers from MIT and Bristol University have shown that livestock are not to blame for the rise in methane in the atmosphere. The importance of the ruminant animal in our food production system is underappreciated by people that don’t understand it’s function. In order to double our agricultural output by the middle of this century, it will be vital for us to use these animals to convert plant material into protein suitable for human consumption.
David McKenzie
October 30, 2008
LIVESTOCK producers can rest easy. A recent surge in methane gases in the atmosphere has nothing to do with cows and sheep belching more.
CSIRO researcher Dr Paul Fraser says increased ice-melting in high latitudes in the Arctic and ozone recovery in the atmosphere are the most likely causes.
"The livestock industry is not implicated," he said.
A new study by Dr Fraser and US and UK researchers has found that after eight years of near-zero growth in atmospheric methane concentrations, levels have started rising again.
Dr Fraser said the rapid growth in methane in the atmosphere over the past year was geographically concentrated, ruling out livestock as a source. Read More
Fresh off the heels of the UN study, in which they are urging people to give up meat in order to prevent global warming, US and UK researchers from MIT and Bristol University have shown that livestock are not to blame for the rise in methane in the atmosphere. The importance of the ruminant animal in our food production system is underappreciated by people that don’t understand it’s function. In order to double our agricultural output by the middle of this century, it will be vital for us to use these animals to convert plant material into protein suitable for human consumption.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Old Farmer's Almanac
Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway
By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer
DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future." Read More
The Old Farmer’s Almanac is predicting an extended cooling period for our climate. Much to the dismay of those that are hoping for global warming, a rapidly growing body of scientists say that there are numerous signs pointing to global cooling.
By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer
DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future." Read More
The Old Farmer’s Almanac is predicting an extended cooling period for our climate. Much to the dismay of those that are hoping for global warming, a rapidly growing body of scientists say that there are numerous signs pointing to global cooling.
Friday, August 29, 2008
A Chilling Effect
Global cooling gains momentum among scientists
Aug 25, 2008 9:40 AM, By Elton Robinson Farm Press Editorial Staff
Two weeks ago, after writing about the possibility that the Earth may actually be entering a cooling phase, I braced myself for a torrent of icy missives from the global warming crowd suggesting that the heat must have fried my noggin.
By the way, it is very difficult to discuss global cooling in the midst of a summer when temperatures are hovering around 100 degrees and crops are wilting. As one friend and colleague from the sweltering Southwest noted after reading the column, “Please send some of that cooling this way.”
However, one response opened my eyes to the growing community of global warming skeptics out there, most of them merited scientists. I thought it might be worth presenting their thoughts — a little equal time if you will. Marc Marona, a global warming skeptic who works for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, sent me these excerpts from a U.S. Senate report.
Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev are so convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they have placed a $10,000 wager with a United Kingdom scientist to prove their certainty. The criteria for the $10,000 bet will be to compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018, according to an April 16, 2007, article in Live Science. Read More
The global warming crowd has claimed that the debate on this subject is over and now we need to do something about it. Meanwhile some scientists, apparently not knowing that the debate was over, continued to research the topic and are finding some very different conclusions. Before the government pours billions into fighting global warming, they should make sure that it is happening.
Aug 25, 2008 9:40 AM, By Elton Robinson Farm Press Editorial Staff
Two weeks ago, after writing about the possibility that the Earth may actually be entering a cooling phase, I braced myself for a torrent of icy missives from the global warming crowd suggesting that the heat must have fried my noggin.
By the way, it is very difficult to discuss global cooling in the midst of a summer when temperatures are hovering around 100 degrees and crops are wilting. As one friend and colleague from the sweltering Southwest noted after reading the column, “Please send some of that cooling this way.”
However, one response opened my eyes to the growing community of global warming skeptics out there, most of them merited scientists. I thought it might be worth presenting their thoughts — a little equal time if you will. Marc Marona, a global warming skeptic who works for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, sent me these excerpts from a U.S. Senate report.
Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev are so convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they have placed a $10,000 wager with a United Kingdom scientist to prove their certainty. The criteria for the $10,000 bet will be to compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018, according to an April 16, 2007, article in Live Science. Read More
The global warming crowd has claimed that the debate on this subject is over and now we need to do something about it. Meanwhile some scientists, apparently not knowing that the debate was over, continued to research the topic and are finding some very different conclusions. Before the government pours billions into fighting global warming, they should make sure that it is happening.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Details get in Way of Global Warming
Are Volcanoes Melting Arctic?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: While the media scream that man-made global warming is making the North Pole ice-free, another possible cause is as old as the Earth itself. They just have to look deeper.
To the delight of Al Gore and the rest of the Gaia groupies, scientists at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado are predicting that the North Pole will be completely free of ice this summer. The apocalyptic headlines already are starting to appear.
"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important," says the center's Mark Serreze. "There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water."
Icebergs breaking away and polar bears supposedly drowning are good theater, but they do not reflect reality. In April, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) published a study, based on last September's data, showing Arctic ice has shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million.
What the WWF didn't mention was that by March of this year the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at its highest level ever recorded. Ice freezes. Ice melts. That's what ice does. Read More
Has anyone else noticed this trend of global warming advocates not sharing all of the details. Details like the fact that this melted ice will freeze back up, like there have been a string of volcanic eruptions under the ice, and 98% of Antarctica has been on a cooling trend. Those dang detail always get in the way, don’t they!
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: While the media scream that man-made global warming is making the North Pole ice-free, another possible cause is as old as the Earth itself. They just have to look deeper.
To the delight of Al Gore and the rest of the Gaia groupies, scientists at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado are predicting that the North Pole will be completely free of ice this summer. The apocalyptic headlines already are starting to appear.
"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important," says the center's Mark Serreze. "There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water."
Icebergs breaking away and polar bears supposedly drowning are good theater, but they do not reflect reality. In April, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) published a study, based on last September's data, showing Arctic ice has shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million.
What the WWF didn't mention was that by March of this year the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at its highest level ever recorded. Ice freezes. Ice melts. That's what ice does. Read More
Has anyone else noticed this trend of global warming advocates not sharing all of the details. Details like the fact that this melted ice will freeze back up, like there have been a string of volcanic eruptions under the ice, and 98% of Antarctica has been on a cooling trend. Those dang detail always get in the way, don’t they!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Cost of fighting Global Warming
A BRIEF REPRIEVE
Posted June 15, 2008
Global warming is scary. I'm not so much worried about rising sea levels, superstorms, or floods and famine as I am about some of our hired help in Washington DC.
Among some circles it's been agreed that there's not enough data in to make an accurate global climate model to determine whether the Earth will be going through a global warming trend or a cooling trend. Some 31,000 plus scientists in this country have signed a petition (The Petition Project) rejecting the contention that greenhouse gases are damaging the planet's climate.
Moreover, some scientists have noted that Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto appear to be going through some warming trends of their own. Such would suggest that our very own star, the Sun, gets top billing for climate changes (unless Al Gore desires to suggest that Man is also affecting the climates of those planets as well). Read More
Luckily, the climate bill in Congress went nowhere this time around. Why should we spend untold billions of dollars to solve a problem that nobody can effectively prove exists. Not only can they not prove global warming exists, but there is a growing body of evidence that points to global cooling.
Posted June 15, 2008
Global warming is scary. I'm not so much worried about rising sea levels, superstorms, or floods and famine as I am about some of our hired help in Washington DC.
Among some circles it's been agreed that there's not enough data in to make an accurate global climate model to determine whether the Earth will be going through a global warming trend or a cooling trend. Some 31,000 plus scientists in this country have signed a petition (The Petition Project) rejecting the contention that greenhouse gases are damaging the planet's climate.
Moreover, some scientists have noted that Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto appear to be going through some warming trends of their own. Such would suggest that our very own star, the Sun, gets top billing for climate changes (unless Al Gore desires to suggest that Man is also affecting the climates of those planets as well). Read More
Luckily, the climate bill in Congress went nowhere this time around. Why should we spend untold billions of dollars to solve a problem that nobody can effectively prove exists. Not only can they not prove global warming exists, but there is a growing body of evidence that points to global cooling.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Global Whining
Global Whining vs. the Truth
By Brian Sussman
"105° tomorrow? We'll be sending you out live," the television producer informed me.
Like most TV Meteorologists, I loathed the heat wave live-remotes. I would much rather work in a controlled environment, complete with air conditioning and a green Chroma-key screen. And during extreme weather events, the studio lent itself to professionalism rather than playing on emotion.
"Let me guess, the bank in Walnut Creek?" I said sarcastically. I had been through this drill many times.
"Perfect location. Plus, a lot of viewers with ratings meters out there."
Walnut Creek is an upscale town 30 miles east of San Francisco. It is sheltered from the cooling influences of the coast and the Bay by a modest mountain range. As a result, in the summer that region can bake. The bank not only referenced the name of the town, but had a thermometer that was several degrees off, thanks to the heat absorbing black asphalt on the adjacent multi-lane street and the pavement of the nearby parking lot. The producer knew 105° would easily read 110°. On air, I always quickly explained the reason for the soaring temperature reading for our audience, but it was not enough. The misleading visual message was absolutely clear: 110° in Walnut Creek-another sign of climate doom! No doubt about it, the climate was under assault. It had to be global warming.
No, it's global whining. Read More
As more and more people sit down and actually study weather records and the concept of global warming, there are more holes punched into the theory. As Congress debates a climate change bill, we must all be aware that there are more negative consequences to the passage of that bill than there are to the supposed climate change itself.
By Brian Sussman
"105° tomorrow? We'll be sending you out live," the television producer informed me.
Like most TV Meteorologists, I loathed the heat wave live-remotes. I would much rather work in a controlled environment, complete with air conditioning and a green Chroma-key screen. And during extreme weather events, the studio lent itself to professionalism rather than playing on emotion.
"Let me guess, the bank in Walnut Creek?" I said sarcastically. I had been through this drill many times.
"Perfect location. Plus, a lot of viewers with ratings meters out there."
Walnut Creek is an upscale town 30 miles east of San Francisco. It is sheltered from the cooling influences of the coast and the Bay by a modest mountain range. As a result, in the summer that region can bake. The bank not only referenced the name of the town, but had a thermometer that was several degrees off, thanks to the heat absorbing black asphalt on the adjacent multi-lane street and the pavement of the nearby parking lot. The producer knew 105° would easily read 110°. On air, I always quickly explained the reason for the soaring temperature reading for our audience, but it was not enough. The misleading visual message was absolutely clear: 110° in Walnut Creek-another sign of climate doom! No doubt about it, the climate was under assault. It had to be global warming.
No, it's global whining. Read More
As more and more people sit down and actually study weather records and the concept of global warming, there are more holes punched into the theory. As Congress debates a climate change bill, we must all be aware that there are more negative consequences to the passage of that bill than there are to the supposed climate change itself.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Debating Climate Change
Heated arguments begin over climate change
As senators began a raucous argument over climate change legislation Monday, even its sponsors admitted their chances of passing the Climate Security Act this year are, at best, a long shot. But both supporters and opponents of the Senate bill were so eager for the fight over the issue that lawmakers voted 74-14 to begin debate on the chamber floor.
President Bush issued a veto threat Monday, warning that the bill to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, S2191, could saddle the U.S. economy with huge costs. And Senate Republican leaders, who hope to play up those same concerns, asked for 30 hours of debate before any amendments can be offered. Read More
The debate that needs to take place is whether there is even a problem to fix. Many scientists say that we are entering an extended period of cooling. As I have said before, there is climate change going on, just as there has been throughout the history of the planet.
As senators began a raucous argument over climate change legislation Monday, even its sponsors admitted their chances of passing the Climate Security Act this year are, at best, a long shot. But both supporters and opponents of the Senate bill were so eager for the fight over the issue that lawmakers voted 74-14 to begin debate on the chamber floor.
President Bush issued a veto threat Monday, warning that the bill to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, S2191, could saddle the U.S. economy with huge costs. And Senate Republican leaders, who hope to play up those same concerns, asked for 30 hours of debate before any amendments can be offered. Read More
The debate that needs to take place is whether there is even a problem to fix. Many scientists say that we are entering an extended period of cooling. As I have said before, there is climate change going on, just as there has been throughout the history of the planet.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
More Climate Change Studies
New US study says greenhouse gases will disrupt severely US water, agriculture, forestry
Posted by David Beard, Boston.com Staff May 27, 2008 08:57 PM
Climate change will cause much less rainfall in the Southwest and more rain in the Southeast in coming decades, according to a study released today with the signatures of three Bush administration Cabinet officials.
See the report at climatescience.gov.
The New York Times report on this leads with the growth of concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causing the projected change in US rain patterns, as well as resultant changes in agriculture and forestry. The swings affect some of the fastest-growing parts of the United States. Read More
It is interesting to see how many reports come out about what our climate will look like in the future and the role of global climate change. Since the beginning of the year, there have been several reports that we are entering a global cooling phase and yet others are still hanging on to their global warming theories. The only thing that we know for certain is that the climate always has and always will be changing.
Posted by David Beard, Boston.com Staff May 27, 2008 08:57 PM
Climate change will cause much less rainfall in the Southwest and more rain in the Southeast in coming decades, according to a study released today with the signatures of three Bush administration Cabinet officials.
See the report at climatescience.gov.
The New York Times report on this leads with the growth of concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causing the projected change in US rain patterns, as well as resultant changes in agriculture and forestry. The swings affect some of the fastest-growing parts of the United States. Read More
It is interesting to see how many reports come out about what our climate will look like in the future and the role of global climate change. Since the beginning of the year, there have been several reports that we are entering a global cooling phase and yet others are still hanging on to their global warming theories. The only thing that we know for certain is that the climate always has and always will be changing.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Global Warming Advocates Cooling Off
Our View: State's fever on global warming may be cooling
Comments 0 Recommend 0
May 22, 2008 12:00:00 AM
The state's costly, grandiose scheme to combat global warming is finding resistance from many of the same folks who approved it two years ago. Meanwhile, legislative opposition also is growing to the plan to create a global warming state think tank financed by a utility users' surcharge.
It appears that paying for saving mankind from a projected 1- or 2-degree increase in temperature over the next century already is proving too costly in today's limited dollars. Read More
More and more people are starting to see the global warming scam for what it really is. The idea of forcing consumers to pay for a $600 million think tank that will talk about theory and multi-decade forecasts is a waste. Man has never been able to control the weather and never will. As I have said many times before, the only thing constant about the weather is that it is always changing. We are merely along for the ride.
Comments 0 Recommend 0
May 22, 2008 12:00:00 AM
The state's costly, grandiose scheme to combat global warming is finding resistance from many of the same folks who approved it two years ago. Meanwhile, legislative opposition also is growing to the plan to create a global warming state think tank financed by a utility users' surcharge.
It appears that paying for saving mankind from a projected 1- or 2-degree increase in temperature over the next century already is proving too costly in today's limited dollars. Read More
More and more people are starting to see the global warming scam for what it really is. The idea of forcing consumers to pay for a $600 million think tank that will talk about theory and multi-decade forecasts is a waste. Man has never been able to control the weather and never will. As I have said many times before, the only thing constant about the weather is that it is always changing. We are merely along for the ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)