Thanks for kind recognition go to Robert Bluey of Bluey Blog, who writes “One of the best resources for the latest news on global warming is a new blog called The Chilling Effect.” It’s part of his great round-up on pushback against global warming hysteria. Among the great efforts out there is the Americans for Prosperity’s Hot Air Tour, which kicks off today (see picture at right). But, a word of caution, as well:

AFP’s activism is just one of several new projects under way to combat global warming alarmists and the forthcoming Lieberman-Warner climate change bill in Congress. With notable conservatives such as Newt Gingrich and John McCain sounding more like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi these days, there’s reason to be concerned.

We don’t weigh in that often on biofuels, but many believe that our nation’s environmentally driven policies are now causing great harm around the world, not the least of which comes through high food prices the world’s poor simply can’t bear. Enter Sen. Jim Inhofe, probably the loudest and clearest voice for sound policy, who said this from the Senate floor:

We are in the midst of global food difficulties brought on by decades of misguided environment and energy policies. As worldwide food availability decreases and prices continue to skyrocket, decades of ill-conceived planning by politicians and bureaucrats afraid of expanding our energy supplies are now bearing an ugly fruit. American families and the international community continue to suffer from these misguided policies; Washington must take the first steps to begin addressing these problems.

We recently recapped a great book discussion by Lawrence Solomon, who wrote Deniers after learning of merciless attacks on the credibility of global warming skeptics. A great piece in The Badger Herald this morning specifically calls out Al Gore for his part in such attacks:

Mr. Gore has demonstrated his willingness to disregard science — for example, by inserting biblical phases into his presentations — if he thinks it will help his cause. And when asked about some of his alleged scientific statements, he claimed his scientist confidants told him these things privately and hadn’t published such views because they couldn’t prove them.

By appealing to faith, using ad hominem attacks and claiming privileged knowledge with which only he can be trusted, Mr. Gore demonstrates a profound disregard for science. These tactics represent a desire not to engage in scientific debate, but to shield one’s views from scrutiny.

Too true. Let’s hope Solomon was right that “At some point, possibly quite soon … this whole big lie may come crashing down.”

One thing that we hope to do at The Chilling Effect is reproduce as much of the good material floating out in the ether(net) on global warming hysteria as we can. We have received kind permission from Paul Driessen, senior policy advisory for the Congress on Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power / Black Death, to run the following article in its entirety. Continue Reading »

Be sure to check out the new report from the Science & Public Policy Institute, which reports on “Observed climate change and the negligible global effect of greenhouse-gas emission limits in the state of Colorado” which reports:

Annual temperature: The historical time series of statewide annual temperatures in Colorado begins in 1895. Over the entire record, there has been an upward trend, which has resulted in temperatures in the early 21st century being about 2ºF warmer than temperatures 100 years ago. Despite this long-term rise however, the record continues to be largely dominated by annual and decadal-scale variability. The run of recent warm years comes on the heels of a period of falling temperatures that extended from the early 1940s through the early 1980s. Previous to then, temperatures warmed rapidly from the 1910s through the 1930s, long before high levels of industrial CO2 emissions. The highest annual average statewide temperature was observed in 1934.

Science and policy buffs should click through and read more.

Heritage has a new video up here.

While we watched it, we came across this other great Heritage video, called “Two Key Principles of Positive Global Warming Policy,” which notes the problematic Lieberman-Warner bill

From the Heritage Foundation’s Ben Lieberman:

Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts have been busy trying to block an onshore [liquefied natural gas] facility in their state — at least when they’re not busy denouncing high home heating bills or the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. Sen. Frank Lautenberg is no less critical of a proposed facility off the New Jersey coast. Ditto a large California delegation regarding several proposed LNG projects there.

Traveling a bit, so we missed for the moment this piece of tripe as highlighted by Shopfloor’s Carter Wood. We’ve mentioned before, as many have, many environmentalists’ underlying antipathy for little things like progress, pleasure, and wealth. Now this:

“The system of modern capitalism . . . will generate ever-larger environmental consequences, outstripping efforts to manage them,” Speth writes. What’s more, “It is unimaginable that American politics as we know it will deliver the transformative changes needed” to save us from environmental catastrophe.

Without sounding like total fanboys for capitalism (even though we are), allow us to beg pardon… but c’mon, only the most wacked-out anti-corporate drone will maintain with a straight face that it’s not market-driven technology that’s creating cleaner fuels, more efficient engines, and a brighter future. Sure, a few companies have played with rent-seeking government incentives to piggyback on the public purse, but it’s going to be the market — not politicians and hippies — that keeps America growing economically and growing greener.

After a quarter century of high profile research and forecasting on the annual hurricane season, Dr. William Gray may get a simple “thanks for playing” from Colorado State University officials who say handling the volume of media inquiries has become too much for overworked university staff. Gray says that his skeptical and outspoken views against the climate change consensus are the real reason:

As he enters his 25th year of predicting hurricane season activity, Colorado State University officials say handling media inquiries related to Gray’s forecasting requires too much time and detracts from efforts to promote other professors’ work.

But Gray, a highly visible and sometimes acerbic skeptic of climate change, says that’s a “flimsy excuse” for the real motivation — a desire to push him aside because of his global warming criticism…

The dean of the College of Engineering, which oversees atmospheric sciences, said she spoke with Gray about terminating media support for his forecasts solely because of the strain it placed on the college’s sole media staffer.

“It really has nothing to do with his stand on global warming,” said the dean, Sandra Woods. “He’s a great faculty member. He’s an institution at CSU.” According to Woods, Gray’s forecasts require about 10 percent of the time a media support staff member…

Maybe longtime respected institutions are worth only 5 percent of media staff support time.

From Steven F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in this morning’s Wall Street Journal:

Right now our cars and trucks consume about 180 billion gallons of motor fuel. To meet the 2050 target, we shall have to limit consumption of gasoline to about 31 billion gallons, unless a genuine carbon-neutral liquid fuel can be produced. (Ethanol isn’t it.) To show how unrealistic this is, if the entire nation drove nothing but Toyota Priuses in 2050, we’d still overshoot the transportation emissions target by 40%.

The enthusiasm for an 80% reduction target is often justified on grounds that national policy should set an ambitious goal. However, claims on behalf of alternative energy sources – biofuels, hydrogen, windpower and so forth – either do not match up to the scale of the energy required, or are not cost-competitive in current form.

How on God’s green earth will we make up the difference? Someone should put this question to the candidates. And not let them slide past it with glittering generalities