janelle

Dear Fellow Conservative:

It's enough to turn you purple with rage.

Power-hungry politicians blacklist scientists who reject global warming alarmism...

U.S. Senators threaten companies that fund climate-change dissenters...

Mainstream media outlets openly reject the notion of "balance"...

Unscrupulous scientists candidly admit the need to twist the facts to paint an uglier picture in order to keep the faucet of government money flowing...

In the name of "saving the planet," anything goes.

But now, Christopher Horner -- bestselling author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, and himself the target of environmentalist dirty tricks and smears -- blows the whistle on this campaign of lies and threats.

In his brand-new book, Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, Horner reveals how global warming alarmists, relentless in pursuing their anti-energy and anti-capitalist agenda -- together with unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money -- resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and the old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate.

Now, for a limited time, HUMAN EVENTS is making Red Hot Lies available to you absolutely FREE.

In your FREE copy of Red Hot Lies, you'll discover:


How the global warming industry is made up of lifestyle nags and nanny-statists who are seeking to curtail our liberties -- backed by "green" industries who want the state to create mandates and hike subsidies


How Big Government, politicians and global warming nutjobs are abusing power in the pursuit of even more power, as environmental alarmists knowingly spread false and exaggerated data on global warming


How, in the Left's efforts to suppress free speech (and scientific research), they have compared global warming dissent with "treason"


How the liberal media lie and conceal the truth while the global warming establishment moves ruthlessly to crush dissent and ruin the lives of dissenters


How that establishment, not content to dominate the mainstream media, is even propagandizing children, and not hesitating to use alarmist scare tactics to do so


Proof that most scientists are actually global warming skeptics

CLICK HERE to get your FREE copy of Christopher Horner's Red Hot Lies today.

Sincerely,

Thomas S. Winter
Editor in Chief, HUMAN EVENTS

HumanEventsOnline.com

atprm

janelle -- do you have a direct link to this article... because what I found offers no free download of the book.


Amazon though has it for $18.45 with FSSS or Amazon Prime free shipping.

__________________
2 days from now, tomorrow will be yesterday.

janelle

It's not an article. It is an email ad from Human Events Online.

www.humaneventsonline.com

Here it is.
http://www.hebookservice.com/product...Global+Warming


To get it free you need to subscribe to the magazine---I think.

https://members.humaneventsonline.co...php?offer=1444

atprm

yeah, I checked the site... no free download or free copy.



I put it in my amazon cart for when I have racked up more mturk certificates.

__________________
2 days from now, tomorrow will be yesterday.

atprm

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

__________________
2 days from now, tomorrow will be yesterday.

Jolie Rouge

To slow climate change, tax carbon Nick Schulz
Fri Feb 13, 3:00 am ET

Washington – Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California announced this month she intends to move ahead with legislation designed to lower the emission of greenhouse gases that are linked by many scientists to climate change. But the approach she's taking is flawed, and the current financial crisis can help us understand why.

The centerpiece of this approach is the creation of a market for trading carbon emission credits. These credits would be either distributed free of charge or auctioned to major emitters of greenhouse gases. The firms could then buy and sell permits under federally mandated emissions caps. If a company is able to cut emissions, it can sell excess credits for a profit. If it needs to emit more, it can buy permits on the market from other firms.

"Cap and trade," as it is called, is advocated by several policymakers, industry leaders, and activists who want to fight global warming. But it's based on the trade of highly volatile financial instruments: risky at best.

The better approach to climate change? A direct tax placed on emissions of greenhouse gases. The tax would create a market price for carbon emissions and lead to emissions reductions or new technologies that cut greenhouse gases. This is an approach favored by many economists as the financially sensible way to go. And it is getting a closer look by some industry professionals and lawmakers.

At first blush, it might seem crazy to advocate a tax increase during a major recession. But there are several virtues of a tax on carbon emissions relative to a cap-and-trade program.

For starters, the country already has a mechanism in place to deal with taxes. Tax collection is something the government has abundant experience with. A carbon trading scheme, on the other hand, requires the creation of elaborate new markets, institutions, and regulations to oversee and enforce it.

Another relative advantage of the tax is its flexibility. It is easier to adjust the tax to adapt to changing economic, scientific, or other circumstances. If the tax is too low to be effective, it can be raised easily. If it is too burdensome it can be relaxed temporarily.

In contrast, a cap-and-trade program creates emissions permits that provide substantial economic value to firms and industries. These assets limit the program's flexibility once under way, since market actors then have an interest in maintaining the status quo to preserve the value of the assets.

What's more, they can be a recipe for trouble. As my American Enterprise Institute colleagues Ken Green, Steve Hayward, and Kevin Hassett pointed out two years ago, "sudden changes in economic conditions could lead to significant price volatility in a cap-and-trade program that would be less likely under a carbon-tax regime."

Recent experience bears this out. Europe has in place a cap-and-trade program that today looks a little like the American mortgage-backed securities market – it's a total mess. The price of carbon recently fell – plummeting from over $30 to around $12 per ton – as European firms unloaded their permits on the market in an effort to shore up deteriorating balance sheets during the credit crunch.

It is this shaky experience with cap-and-trade that might explain an unlikely advocate of a carbon tax. Earlier this year, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson pointed in a speech to the problems with Europe's cap-and-trade program – such as the program's volatility and lack of transparency – as reasons he prefers a carbon tax.

That said, new taxes are a tough sell in Washington, which helps explain the current preference for a cap-and-trade scheme.

Despite this, there are ways to make a carbon tax more politically appealing. The first is to insist that it be "revenue neutral." This means that any revenues collected from the tax are used to reduce taxes elsewhere, such as payroll taxes.

The advantage of this approach is that it places a burden on something that is believed by many to be undesirable (greenhouse-gas emissions) while relieving a burden on something that is desirable (work).

Another selling point is that the tax can justify the removal of an assortment of burdensome and costly regulations such as CAFE standards for cars. These regulations become largely redundant in an era of carbon taxes.

But it may be that a carbon tax doesn't need an elaborate sales pitch today when the alternative is trading carbon permits. The nation's recent experience with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage-backed securities market should prompt Congress to think twice when a member proposes the creation of a highly politicized market for innovative financial instruments, no matter how well intentioned the program may be.

• Nick Schulz is the DeWitt Wallace Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of The American.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090213/cm_csm/yschulz

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Hillary Clinton's climate-saving voyage
By the Monitor's Editorial Board
Fri Feb 13, 3:00 am ET

Hillary Clinton chose Asia, particularly China, for her maiden voyage next week as secretary of State. While the most urgent issue is Beijing's help to end a global recession, Mrs. Clinton's more planet-saving goal is to enlist China to set curbs on its carbon emissions. Without that, President Obama may not be able to win enough Senate votes for a cap on US greenhouse gases.

As the world's two largest emitters, China and the US will set the pace this year among all nations in make-or-break negotiations for a post-Kyoto treaty on global warming. The talks end this December with a summit in Copenhagen.

If the world is to make a commitment to fight climate change, each of these giant polluters needs to know the other will jump into the same chilly pool of obligatory curbs on their tailpipes and smokestacks.

But if China isn't making much of a sacrifice, many US senators, especially those from coal states, may not support CO2 cuts or a treaty seen as reducing US competitiveness. China says it and other developing countries deserve to be allowed to pollute for a while to catch up to modern standards.

Mrs. Clinton must break this standoff. The bleak future that each country faces in a warming planet isn't all that different. And working together on climate change might even draw them closer.

Both countries have taken a long time to wake up to the task. Mr. Obama's election ushers in a drive for a "green" economy. And since 2005, Beijing has made some efforts to rein in its worst polluters, if only for the sake of not letting the local damage hinder growth or to quell rising environmental protests that challenge the party itself.

But China has two problems that may keep it from satisfying the US.

Rather than slow its economy with emission caps, it wants the West to give it advanced energy technology, such as "clean" coal plants. That's a cost the US may not be willing to bear given the energy investments it needs.

The second is that the Communist Party, despite its green intentions, seems unable to control local chiefs in the provinces who are rewarded for growth and often ignore party mandates. And many of them are part owners in polluting factories.

A top-down campaign against CO2 is likely to fail. Until Beijing allows local democracy – and full freedom for citizen activists – there won't be enough public pressure on these local chiefs.

While Beijing has tolerated a blossoming of environmental groups since 1994, it keeps a rein on them, fearing they may spark a "green" revolt against the regime. Clinton needs to push China to loosen those reins and allow political and media freedom.

She can start by asking for the release of Wu Lihong, a prominent activist who was given a three-year sentence in 2007 after leading a campaign against pollution in the home province of President Hu Jintao. His release would signal a new freedom for eco-advocacy.

Just as millions of Americans now pressure their leaders for action on global warming, China needs millions of courageous activists like Wu Lihong.

For want of a dissident released, a planet should not be lost.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090213...hinawarm/print

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

February 25, 2009
Global Warming Hype From Both Sides Of The Aisle
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/sc...pagewanted=all

Andrew Revkin of the Times discusses global warming hype from both true believers (exemplified by Al Gore) and skeptics, carried by George Will [but do check this story about official Japanese skepticism]:

Get used to it:

Mr. Revkin has more at his blog. And John Tierney's thoughts about the ability of scientists to maintain the line between science and advocacy seem topical.


The story from Japan is kind of a big deal
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02...ion/print.html

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report
By Andrew Orlowski (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
Environment, 25th February 2009 12:23 GMT



Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.

Summary
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:

"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:

"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "

Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."


--------- There is more at link -----------

Daily Tech had coverage of this last January
http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Re...ticle13934.htm


The Japanese Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) has published a new study on the causes of Global Warming. Entitled, "Global warming: What is the scientific truth?”, the report highlights the differing views of five prominent Japanese scientists.

All but one of the scientists disagreed that global warming is the result of human activity.

...

While all the researchers agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", four of the five disagreed with the claim that the primary cause of the increase was due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The only researcher to agree with the IPCC's assertion was Emori, who is himself a member of the IPCC.

Akasofu countered with the statement, "CO2 emissions have been increasing, but the rise in air temperature stopped around 2001. Climate change is due in large part to naturally occurring oscillations". Akasofu says the earth's warming trend began prior to the industrial age, and believes much of the warming seen may simply be a natural recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age, that ended in the 17th century.

Professor Itoh attacked the temperature record itself, saying "Data taken by the U.S. is inadequate. We only have satellite data of global temperatures from 1979 onwards". Itoh, who has previously called global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history", is also an expert reviewer for the IPCC.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

mikej

**********

mikej

The coal, natural gas and oil industries have funded these studies. These scientists, none of whom are climatologists, are paid to do one thing; please their employers.

There is consensus among climatologists that the Earth is warming and that man is responsible.

jasmine

My personal opinion on global warming~~ the earth has been shifting, changing, hurricanes, earthquakes, ice bergs melting, floods, ~~ you name it since the beginning of time. I think it's necessary and just one way the earth always changes and grows, and the earth is going through another growth spurt! Now I do recycle my paper and aluminum. I know I could do more, such as plastic....
I also heard that the new light bulbs are extra hot, and to be careful not to put them in a tall lamp like next to the curtains or anything. I have read though that they do save you on the electric bill, and last soooo much longer. I personally havn't had the money to dish out to replace the old ones, and every time I go to the store to get more,it's nice and convenient to only pay $1 for a 4 pack rather than around $6 for only two of them. Right now our electric company is having a special, they are selling the new bulbs for only $1 a piece, limit 10~~ I think I will do that next week and see how I like them. I like a bright house though, so just about all of my bulbs are 100w. But I also noticed that the last time I went to the store for more light bulbs I could only find them up to 90watts.