Promotion of Global Warming Derailed

Of course Marc Morano has been the center of dispensing information contrary to the pro global warming material. We have not had a public debate so much as a battle of the apologists.

Again, for the record, the northern hemisphere warmed up quite nicely for a decade or two until 1998. At that point as should be obvious, the northern hemisphere was warm. The sea ice had already been reduced by sixty percent by the warming process. This melt continued for the past ten years because conditions were warmer but also stable. The sea ice is now much further reduced and could easily be eliminated by another cycle of warming or even maintenance of the past decade’s warmth.

Instead, we presently have dropped a degree or so in apparent temperature. Thus it is also plausible that the sea ice is presently on neutral and may swing lower to induce the regrowth of sea ice.

What is completely convincing is the proposition that the climate is been managed with zero regard to the amount of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere. I am using the word zero here because most people seem to have difficulty with approximate, or negligible. To put it as clearly as possible, I do not need haul in CO2 as a cause to explain anything, particularly now when the climate is showing itself to be a hugely independent variable.

After all, if the coincidence of a decadal temperature rise is to be successfully associated with rising CO2 until 1998, how do we explain the effect of twice as much CO2 dumped into the atmosphere since? The warming effect must be much greater! If we accept their simple minded arithmetic, then the only explanation is that we have just staved of a little ice age. We are certainly heading there in terms of logical consistency,

When I started this blog, I began by clearly delinking the two phenomena. I said at the time that such linkage was both weak science and likely to damage the important cause of CO2 management. Such management leads directly to a program of terraforming the Earth. The only problem with that, is that the natural supporters are so called environmentalists who are so biased that they can not do any thing constructive. That leaves the rest of us to push at small beginnings.


http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2597/Exposed-Climate-Fear-Promoters-Greatest-Fear--A-Public-Trial-of-the-Evidence-of-Global-Warming-Fears-Inconvenient-Developments-Continue-to-Mount

Exposed: Climate Fear Promoters Greatest Fear -- A Public Trial of the 'Evidence' of Global Warming Fears! Inconvenient Developments Continue to Mount

'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated'

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - By

Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Climate Depot Editorial

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has shocked the global warming debate by its formal call to hold a public global warming trial to decide on the “evidence” that mankind is driving a climate catastrophe. The Chamber seeks to have a complete trial “complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.” Some are referring to the potential for a global warming trial as the “U.S. Chamber of Commerce wanting to put AGW (anthropogenic global warming) creationism on trial.”

Brenda Ekwurzel of the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists, is discouraging the idea of a trial. This is the same Ekwurzel who claimed global warming made it “less cool” this summer. See: Climate Fear Promoters Try to Spin Record Cold and Snow: 'Global warming made it less cool' – July 27, 2009

More significantly, it is the same Ekwurzel who badly lost a public debate over man-made climate fears in 2007. See:

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate – March 16, 2007 & see: Climate Fear Promoters Avoid Debates and Lose When They Engage in Them)

No wonder the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for a full trial on global warming claims. Desperation time has arrived for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, as the science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse.

In 2009, a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated.

A small sampling of developments include: new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm.

In addition,

public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears and a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishing for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of a climate threat.

There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. Lack of warming for past decade and recent global cooling, follow a peer-reviewed analysis showing the 20th century was not unusually warm. In addition, a global temperature analysis on April 24, 2009 found "No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974."

The news is so grim for man-made climate fear activists that they are already looking for the next environmental scare to hype! See: AGW RIP? Is It Time for Next Eco-Scare Already? Gore's producer Laure David touts plastic crisis: 'Plastic waste is in some ways more alarming for us humans than global warming' - July 31, 2009 & UK Green Party: 'There exists a more serious crisis than the 'CO2 crisis': the oxygen levels are dropping and the human activity has decreased them by 1/3 or ½'

The environmental activists who are choosing to ride out the unfounded CO2 scare are getting more and more comical and shrill.

Climate campaigner Adam D. Sacks declared in Grist Magazine on August 24, 2009: “We must leave behind 10,000 years of civilization” to deal with global warming."

“If we live at all...'live locally...means we are able get everything we need within walking (or animal riding) distance,” Sacks wrote.

Former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm has also reached the heights of desperation. Romm

claimed on June 6, 2009 that skeptical websites like Climate Depot were spreading “disinformation” that may end up being responsible for “unspeakable misery and/or violence to billions of people!”

The New York Times has also waded into global warming “desperation” territory with an uncritical article touting “national security” fears from global warming. (See:

Climate Depot's Inconvenient Rebuttal to 'National Security' Climate Argument – August 9, 2009)

The Obama EPA has been accused of censoring science in an apparent effort to produce the best science that politics can manufacture. See: EPA further muzzles global warming skeptic Dr. Alan Carlin - August 25, 2009

Other climate fear promoters are using threats and intimidation to silence the climate debate. See: 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' - June 3, 2009

As the climate fear activists point fingers and regress into amusing rants, the evidence that the global warming fear movement is collapsing -- abounds.

In July 2009, the world's largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS's climate activist editor.

But the American Chemical Society's scientific revolt is only the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

Another development in shattering the so-called “consensus” was an Open Letter signed by more than 130 German scientists urging German Chancellor to “reconsider” her climate views. See: 'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 130 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views – August 4, 2009

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

The petition was signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In addition, in 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

The year 2009 also saw a report from 35 international scientists countering the UN IPCC. See: “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change”

This year also saw the flow of peer-reviewed scientific papers continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. as well. See: Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009

Peer-Reviewed Study Demonstrates Anthropogenic Contribution to Global Warming Overestimated, Solar Contribution Underestimated - Geophysical Research Letters- March 3, 2009

New Peer-Reviewed Study: Evidence that Global Temperature Trends Have Been Overstated: 'Effects of CO2 on global temp trends may have been overstated in past assessments by some amount' - August 13, 2009

Another New Peer-Reviewed Study: Ocean net heat flow is connected with climate shifts – CO2 not correlated – no 'warming in the pipeline' - August 17, 2009

Science is Settled! CO2 irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist Lindzen: 'We know that CO2 is having very little effect on the climate' - August 18, 2009

'Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!?'

New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 )

This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. 'There is no warming in the pipeline' )

In addition, many scientists and reports are predicting a coming global cooling. See:

Astronomers: 'Sun's output may decline significantly inducing another Little Ice Age on Earth' - August 15, 2009 & Scientific evidence now points to global COOLING, contrary to U.N. alarmism - August 4, 2009

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears.

In addition, the following recent developments further challenged the “consensus” of global warming.

Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admitted in 2009 that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.” By Schlesinger's own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

In April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.”

In 2008, a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian Earth scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”, with only 26% of the scientists attributing global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.”

A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here ]

In addition, there has been failure of the oceans to warm, and Antarctic ice continues to grow. Even the poster child of the warming fear campaign, the Arctic is not cooperating . (See: April 'Arctic sea ice extent within expected range of natural variability' -- ice grew by 'more than the size of Texas over last two years' & UK Met Office: Arctic Ice Changes 'Could Easily be Due to Natural Fluctuations in the Weather' & 'These are good times to be a climate skeptic' - 'Global sea ice extent presently above long-term average' )

New Zealand Climate Scientist Chris de Freitas revealed on May 1, 2009 that "warming and CO2 are not well correlated." de Freitas added, "the effect of CO2 on global temperature is already close to its maximum. Adding more has an ever decreasing effect."

Australian Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer wrote on August 8, 2009: "At present, the Earth's atmosphere is starved of CO2...One big volcanic eruption can add as much CO2 in a day as humans do in a year."

Plimer, who authored the skeptical book Heaven and Earth, added, "On all time scales, there is no correlation between temps and CO2. If there is no correlation, then there can be no causation."

A growing number of scientists challenge the premise of CO2 driving climate change. Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, mathematician, computer programmer and engineer, wrote on August 24, 2009: "There have been ice ages when the levels of Co2 in Earth's atmosphere have been many times higher than today's." Hoffman, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics, co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth.

'Climate change issue is about to fall apart'

Many scientists are now realizing that the UN IPCC and the promoters of man-made climate fear are in a “panic” about the lack of global warming, the growing number of scientific defectors and sinking public support. South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander wrote in March 2009, “'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart...Heads will roll!”

UK scientist Dr. David Bellamy once believed man-made climate fears, but has since reversed his views and become a skeptic. “The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science, Bellamy said in November 2008.

It is no wonder that the environmental movement is urging its troops to no longer use the term “global warming,” as temperatures fail to cooperate. (See: NYT obtains enviro strategy memo: Stop use of term global warming! ) The man-made climate fear promotion movement has descended into “climate astrology.”

Skeptical scientists generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is

currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions, which even the UN concedes do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are unreliable. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

Climate models 'violate basic principles of forecasting'

Since real world observations are not supporting the alleged climate catastrophe, climate fear promoters are instead touting unverified computer models predicting doom 50 or 100 years from now. But even the UN admits the models are flawed and do not account for “half the variability in the climate” and they are instead referred to as “story lines” not even “predictions.” (See: IPCC lead author Trenberth, refers climate models as “story lines.” ) In addition, top forecasting experts say the models violate the basic principles of forecasting. (See: Ivy League forecasting pioneer “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72.” )

Other Inconvenient Developments for Climate Fear Promoters:

'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise' says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008

Report: Sea Level rise 'has stumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008
Renowned Sea Level expert predicts sea level 'will rise in the 21st century by about 8 inches' - April 23, 2009

Global warming may not affect sea levels, study finds - January 11, 2008
Plus see Climate Depot's June 2009 comprehensive sea level report

Many glaciers are advancing:

Alaskan glaciers at Icy Bay advance one-third of a mile in less than a year
Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier advancing
Hubbard Glacier in Alaska Advances
Western Canadian glaciers advance
'Weather variations, not global warming cause Himalayan glaciers to melt' - August 8, 2009
Research Reveals global warming not cause of Kilimanjaro glacier reduction – September 24, 2008

[Editor's Note: Climate Depot is publishing a series of exclusive A-Z fact sheets on every aspect of the global warming debate. Climate Depot has already published comprehensive fact sheets on: the Arctic; RealClimate.org; Climate Models; Sea Level Rise; Climate Threats & Intimidation; Climate Funding; CO2; Global Warming's Global Governance; Amazon and Rainforests; Warming Activists Stuck in Polar Ice; Congressional Cap-and-Trade Bill; Record Cold Temps; Lack of Warming; Report on Obama Admin. Climate Report; Overpopulation Myths; Hurricanes; Climate Astrology; Gore Effect;]

Marc Morano ClimateDepot.comCFACT1875 Eye Street, NWFifth FloorWashington, D.C. 20006202-536-5052Morano@ClimateDepot.com

Sen. Vitter on Failing Climate Bill

This piece of curious legislation is on its way to a natural death. I have no doubt it was meant to fail but to provide a fig leaf of cover for those politicians wanting to maintain green credentials.

The real climate bill will be the one that establishes a national power grid combined with an aggressive power plant build out with windmills and geothermal and solar. It will even generate major employment while it replaces our rolling stock with electric vehicles.

This sucker was more of a trial balloon to discover who cared and to measure real support.

The senator has pointed out the two key issues. Cap and trade and the lack of international cooperation are areas of new law with a lot of issues. Cap and Trade is a flat royalty on the US economy and such form of taxation can only depress the economy however traded. It also inevitably swings open the door to special exemptions and save the jobs subsidies. Thus it is simple in conception and likely impossible to administrate fairly.
Also, governments avoid royalty style taxes because they are a direct drag on economic growth and are usually imposed after the golden goose is in the nest and laying. This will tax a newly minted coal mine and actually prevent it from been built.

And then there is the issue of China and India, or rather the issue of no international framework to regulate the problem. If India and China joined in the program, then the offending factories would spring up elsewhere.

There are other methods, but cap and trade looks more and more a bad solution.

Vitter: Global warming bill will fall short in Senate vote

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/51067097.html?showAll=y&c=y

U.S. Sen. David Vitter denounced a U.S. House-passed global warming bill Friday and predicted it will fail in the Senate.

“I don’t think there is anything salvageable in this bill,” said Vitter, R-La.

The Republican spoke to about 180 ExxonMobil Chemical Co. employees and fielded several questions, mostly on energy policies.

Vitter spent most of his time blasting “cap and trade” legislation that won narrow House approval last month with heavy backing from President Barack Obama.

Backers said the measure would offer the first enforceable limits on global warming pollution and create millions of clean energy jobs.

The legislation is supposed to reduce the heat-trapping gases building up in the atmosphere and gradually move America to cleaner sources of energy.

Vitter said the proposal would ignite a huge energy tax increase — $846 billion by one estimate — and damage Louisiana’s economy.

He said the measure also stems from a false premise on how much humans contribute to global warming.
“I don’t think it is clear and settled, the extent of the human impact on temperature trends,” Vitter said afterward.

The bill includes mandatory reduction of emissions that would raise the cost of energy from coal, oil and natural gas. Other provisions are designed to protect consumers.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill would cost the average household $175 a year in 2020. Others dispute that estimate.

Vitter said the bill faces opposition from most of the Senate’s 40 GOP members and some of the chamber’s 60 Democrats. Bills in the Senate need 60 votes to get around opponents and fatal delaying tactics.

“It will really come down to getting 60 votes in the Senate,” he said.

Vitter also said that, without similar action by China and India, sweeping steps by the U.S. on global warming will mean little.

“It means we won’t have made any impact,” he said.

Vitter said the bill will get its first look in a Senate committee where he is a member come September. He said he plans to offer at least 300 amendments.

“I am going to be very, very active in that committee,” he said.

Vitter told reporters later that he believes “it is always important to try to improve a bad bill.”

All seven members of the Louisiana delegation voted “no” on the bill when it passed the House on June 26.

EPA Riles Paterson

Sober second thought is now setting in of the cap and trade scheme. I have no doubt what has been proposed will be unrecognizable by the time it reaches signature. So much simply cannot stand.

There is nothing more fraught with danger to the political class than new tax law. Even when it is absolutely the right thing to do, the political blow by is atrocious. Yet with a collapsed credit system it is proposed to add what will be an energy tax to the economic system. The only proposal I imagine that could be worse would be a payroll tax in terms of direct consequences to corporate America.

Quite bluntly, if they pass such a tax; the next congress will repeal it.

I do not think it will get to that. Congress has found a wonderful way to unite agriculture, the oil industry and the auto industry under one tent. And let us not forget the Unions who are been asked already to give up huge numbers of jobs.

I cannot imagine a way to make this medicine go down, and with a Congress that cannot do the right thing with a medical insurance system that is a disgrace to the developed world, and easily garnered popular support, passing a cap and trade act in the face of neither is impossibility.

Peterson cries foul on EPA ethanol proposal, vows not to support climate change bill

(5/6/2009) By Sally Schuff

http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=F4D1A9DFCD974EAD8CD5205E15C1CB42&nm=Breaking+News&type=news&mod=News&mid=A3D60400B4204079A76C4B1B129CB433&tier=3&nid=2ED25D0552384C0396608AE0F548F8E9

House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson (D., Minn.) sent a message to the Obama Administration today not to count on his support for climate change legislation.

"I'm off the train," Peterson said May 6 during a strongly worded statement at a hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's new proposal for assessing indirect effects of ethanol production on greenhouse gas emissions. Peterson predicted that the EPA proposal, combined with the climate change legislation under consideration, could "kill off corn ethanol."

Peterson said, "I will not support any kind of climate change bill -- even if you fix this -- because I don't trust anybody anymore. I've had it."

Peterson said his position was not negotiable. "I don't have any confidence. The only way I would consider supporting any climate change legislation would be if it was ironclad that these agencies had no ability to do any rulemaking of any kind whatsoever ... (that) we could be absolutely guaranteed that these folks would not get involved," he said.

Following his statement at the hearing, Peterson told reporters he had notified both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) and the White House of his position.

Peterson charged that corn ethanol had been singled out by its opponents for assessment of its indirect land impacts, while petroleum, which has a much larger carbon footprint, was not subject to the same scrutiny.

He made his remarks as Margo Oge, EPA director of transportation and air quality, prepared to testify on the agency's proposed rulemaking, which was unveiled May 4 with more than 1,000 pages of rule language and background. There is a lively debate among scientists on how accurately the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions can be calculated from land use for biofuel crops.

A U.S. Department of Energy briefing document on the controversy is online at www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/obp_science_response_web.pdf.

Lomborg on Cutting CO2 Emissions

Bjorn Lomborg once again makes a powerful argument questioning our assumptions regarding action on Global Warming and points out that the cost reward ratios for the proposed solutions simply fail to work, while other protocols have better outcomes altogether while appearing counter intuitive.

Been a champion on the implementation of biochar carbon sequestration done in such a way as to fully engage agriculture even at the subsistence level, I obviously do not care much how much carbon is burned so long as an equal amount is sequestered while improving the life way of billions of subsistence farmers.

I am also too well aware that directly tackling CO2 without recruiting the sun is certain to expend as much energy as perhaps originally generated. This is the end of the entropy food chain.

Lombord has published many critical results pertaining to the economics of various strategies and is a recognized authority that is not likely to get things wrong. This is in sharp contrast to the likes of Al Gore who cannot leave an expedient stretched fact alone.

The one take home here is how much the developing world relies on burning carbon. We can waltz into the sunset on nuclear, and geothermal and even solar and happily displace the coal burners. China and India do not have that luxury. They want power now. Later perhaps.

This is going to be just as true for Africa and South America. And there, they are stripping forests to produce charcoal and need coal technology right now.

The really good news is that these countries are passing through the industrial revolution in literally a man’s short lifetime. A child today been fed with food cooked over a charcoal burner, will grow up to mine coal and retire to a home heated with nuclear power.


Op-Ed Contributor

Don’t Waste Time Cutting Emissions
By BJORN LOMBORG

Published: April 24, 2009
Copenhagen
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/opinion/25lomborg.html?_r=1

WE are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey.

Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted.

Fortunately, there is a better option: to make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources. This requires much more spending on research and development of low-carbon energy technology. We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not.

Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.

The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development. That would increase the amount of such spending 15-fold to $30 billion, yet the total cost would be only a sixth of the estimated $180 billion worth of lost growth that would result from the Kyoto restrictions.

Kyoto-style emissions cuts can only ever be an expensive distraction from the real business of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India, where laborers now enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.

No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now. Given substantially more research, however, green energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century.

Sadly, the old-style agreement planned for Copenhagen this December will have a negligible effect on temperatures. This renders meaningless any declarations of “success” that might be made after the conference. We must challenge the orthodoxy of Kyoto and create a smarter, more realistic strategy.

Bjorn Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”

Monetization of Global Pollution

For the past forty plus years, there has been a concerted effort to resolve the pollution problems of industry and agriculture. One underlying problem has emerged over and over again. It is that the actual decisions are been made by people who are simply unqualified to make those decisions, or worse, are selling an engineered solution whose merit is based primarily on its ownership.

Over and over again, better ways exist but are not deployed because those with their hand on the till cannot profit. Twenty years ago, I was led into surveying the nascent soil remediation business and came away convinced that the whole process was corrupted. It may be better now.

If there is one economic sector that demands a global regulatory protocol, it is the licensing of waste disposal. We already hear about Cap and Trade for CO2. This needs to be extended to every other known pollutant.

This does not mean that just because every metal producer has to pay money to dispose of SOx and NOx that they will all get together to do anything about it. What it does do is define the expense for an entrepreneurial solution while regulatory oversight becomes almost unnecessary except to audit and collect the charge.

Why it has not happened is that waste has been thrown into a global commons. As soon as you have a real problem you shop for a compliant jurisdiction. This facility has had the unwanted effect of shipping dangerous polluters into strange places.

Yet it is obvious that a global disposal charge would immediately focus everyone’s attention on amelioration strategies.

And it might be easier to get a consensus on this before we can get it of CO2. With most pollutants, most countries have little to lose and once everyone understands that the new regime is universal, it is easier to sell politically.
I would like to see the UN reconstitute itself to properly deal with this particular agenda. There exists a global consensus and it simply needs to be mobilized. The economic tools need to be created and managed openly to avoid fraud. And it fraud occurs it is still small enough to not be overly damaging.

It would gain the institution credit that is impossible to get in military adventures.

Obama adresses Global Warming

It is fascinating that the first non partisan address by president elect Barack Obama should be about Global warming and be coached in the language of a true believer.

At least we will be on a global drive to eliminate CO2 dumping into the atmosphere. That is good and necessary policy and I think its implementation to be good business however it is justified. I only hope the next few years of lousy weather do not cool everyone’s ardor.

The science is certainly beyond dispute, as the temperature has dropped most of a degree for the first time in a couple of decades this past year. His speech writers are clearly as out of touch with science as he is. In the meantime we are setting up for a bitter cold winter that is sure to mock all his efforts on the subject and certain to trigger a blow up in the grand tradition of scientific dispute.

Of well, let him have his warm-ups for the inauguration. His speech writers may even learn to get someone scientifically literate on board who knows the appropriate weasel words.

Report on Video Address

The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear," Mr. Obama says. "Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."

Obama says the White House has often failed to show leadership on the issue. "That will change when I take office," he says. "My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process."

He proposes a federal cap and trade system to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and an additional 80 percent by 2050; an annual $15 billion investment in private sector efforts to build a clean energy future; solar power, wind power, next generation biofuels, safe nuclear power, and clean coal technologies.

"Delay is no longer an option," he says. "Denial is no longer an acceptable response."

Good Comment Here

President-elect Obama was very explicit in his intention to implement a carbon cap-and-trade system to reduce CO2 emissions, with an 80% reduction goal by 2050, and it should be mentioned that John McCain also deserves credit for supporting cap-and-trade. To me, these developments are a clear sign of how far the world, following the universal lead of science, has moved past arguing whether CO2 reduction is necessary, and is discussing how to accomplish it. It's probably unrealistic to expect that all voices resisting a transition from fossil fuels to an economy reliant on renewable energy will immediately fall silent, but those of us who want our voices heard rather than ignored would be wise to engage in the discussion of carbon remediation options. The upcoming meeting in Poland will be another important step, although it's regrettable that China will not be participating from what I understand. Even so, China has already begun to match rhetoric with some constructive actions to reduce the magnitude of its CO2 emissions while it continues to promote its industrialization efforts, and its desire to receive help from the West in implementing carbon control technologies deserves a favorable response from the industrialized nations.

Fred Moolten