No Climate Tax Pledge

Partial transcript:

Hello, I'm Senator Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, and I am proud to be one of the hundreds of lawmakers on all levels of government to sign the Americans for Prosperity "No Climate Tax Pledge." This pledge states clearly that climate change legislation should not be used to fund a dramatic expansion in the size and scope of government. As I add my name to the list, I am also here to call on all those who oppose the largest tax increase in American history to join me in signing the pledge by going online to http://www.noclimatetax.com/.

I have worked tirelessly over the past ten years to expose cap-and-tax for what it really is: the largest tax increase in American history. I began by leading the opposition against Kyoto in 1997 and have successfully led the fight against the cap-and-trade tax in 2003, 2005 and most recently in 2008. Today as American consumers continue to face tough economic times, the last thing Washington should be doing is raising the price of gas at the pumps, energy in our homes, and the cost of food in our grocery stores.

We have a lot to do in the coming months to defeat cap-and-trade again, and hopefully this time, for good.

Denver Museum's Solar Panels, Touted As Part Of A "Green Economy" During Obama's Stimulus Tour, Won't Pay For Themselves For 110 Years

Todd Shepherd, the Independence Institute's investigative reporter and co-founder of CompleteColorado.com, has an outstanding followup to President Barack Obama's vaunted Denver visit in February to sign the "stimulus" package:

Before signing the $787 billion stimulus package into law on Feburary 17, 2009, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden toured an array of solar panels on top of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. The photo-op allowed the President to once again extol the virtues of the coming “green” economy.
. . .
A 2008 article in the Denver Business Journal sheds further light on the subject. The article notes the total price of the solar array was $720,000. And Dave Noel, VP of operations and chief technology officer for the Museum, was quoted as saying, “We looked at first installing [the solar array] ourselves, and without any of the incentive programs, it was a 110-year payout.” Noel went on to say that the Museum did not purchase the solar array because it did not “make sense financially.”

Additionally, most solar panels have an expected life-span of 20 to 25 years.

The article really is worth your time--the obstinacy from the DMNS on transparency surrounding the solar array is really quite unsurprising.

Shocker.

Global Warming: Policy Change, Not Climate Change, Is the Real Danger

By Julian Dunraven, J. D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

Global warming does indeed seem to be a pervasive problem. Yesterday it plagued me in my morning paper, harangued me from radio and television broadcasts, and even managed to insinuate itself into the conversation of irksome social acquaintances. Although I have become accustomed to bad policy masquerading as good science, and even look forward to reading my Global-Warming-Article-of-the-Day in the paper, yesterday’s news was particularly insufferable.

Todd Hartman of The Rocky Mountain News started it off, trumpeting Dr. Susan Solomon’s new pronouncement that CO2 emissions “will irreversibly change the planet,” for centuries to come no matter what we do. I suppose someone should suggest to Dr. Solomon that, if she has noticed human behavior has little to no impact on climate change, it might be because the whole things is part of the earth’s natural and periodic cycles. However, I was rather hoping her pronouncement might end the climate change squawking; after all, she does not seem to have much hope that there is anything more to be done. Alas, fortune is not so kind.

True believers never lose hope, and so NPR did its best to keep the faith alive by broadcasting proposed solutions. It seems a few members of the scientific community were watching “The Simpsons” and drew a bit too much inspiration from Mr. Burn’s attempt to block the sun by raising a giant metal disk over Springfield. Of course, the earth is a lot bigger than the town of Springfield, and thus there would have to be quite a few of these disks launched into orbit before we could block enough sunlight to begin cooling the earth. The disks would also have to be replaced occasionally as they fell out of orbit. The real sticking point is the cost, which is currently several trillion dollars. It is always unfortunate when mere economics gets in the way of good Simpsons . . . or science rather.

Another absurd proposal NPR and others have deigned to promulgate, involves launching sulfur particles into the atmosphere. This, would be far cheaper than the Mr. Burns plan, and would sufficiently darken the sky to promote global cooling. Unfortunately, it may also severely change weather patterns, increase acid rain, and—oh yes—darken the sky. No one quite knows how many species of animal and plant life would be devastated from a decrease in light sufficient to cool the earth. It might eventually leave the world a barren wasteland, but everyone agrees it would be a cooling barren wasteland.

Fortunately, it is only bureaucrats like those running the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who seem to use middle school science fair projects as the standard for publishable research. The IPCC’s report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists, was widely touted as representing the final and absolute conviction among the scientific community that Global Warming is the result of human produced CO2 emissions. Instead, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has soundly refuted this in its Minority Report, which cites over 650 scientists, all contesting the IPCC’s claims.

One of the more interesting dissenters is Dr. Don Easterbrook, whose study of the climate indicates normal and alternating periods of warming and cooling stretching back for millennia. Not only does Dr. Easterbrook contest the idea that Global Warming is caused by humans, after looking at the sun’s recent activity and the Pacific Ocean’s decadal oscillation, he has staked his reputation on his theory that we are now entering a period of Global Cooling, and the Warming advocates will soon see their arguments collapse.

Whether or not he turns out to be correct will be largely irrelevant for the next four years. President Barack Obama’s cabinet selections clearly indicate the he accepts the idea of human caused Global Warming absolutely, and intends to write policy with that in mind. In his January 2009 Monthly Review, Richard Loomis of World Energy gives a thorough analysis of “President. Obama’s Energy Picks.”

As. Mr. Loomis explains, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees Global Warming as a national security threat and, during her campaign, advocated for strong carbon cutting measures. Steven Chu, as Secretary of Energy, has expressed great distaste for oil, dislikes nuclear power for the waste it generates, and refers to coal as, “my worst nightmare.” Solar, wind, and natural gas power and natural gas fuel seem to be his preferences. Carol Browner, the “Energy Czar,” comes to us from the EPA, where she argued that California should be granted a waiver from the Clean Air Act to allow it to more strictly regulate carbon emissions. Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, pushed a moratorium on new coal plants as the EPA head for New Jersey. Then there is Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior who, while not joining the rest in his hatred of coal, is strongly opposed to expanding oil drilling whether on land or off shore.

From this list, Mr. Loomis is correct to fear some sort of cap and trade mechanism being forced on the U.S. by executive order. And herein lies the real danger of Global Warming. In his January 24th broadcast of “the Big Picture,” Jim Puplava warns that the U.S. will have a difficult time convincing the rest of the world to join in such an initiative during this economic crisis. Europe especially will be disinclined to rely more on natural gas when Putin has consistently demonstrated his willingnes to use the gas supply as political leverage. Thus, the U.S. will be forced to pursue carbon reduction policy alone. The high energy costs of such a policy would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to Europe, China, and our other major trading partners. This is especially worrisome at a time when tax revenues are declining and government spending is increasing, and Mr. Puplava is right to wonder how much more of our debt the world will continue to finance when other nations are beset with their own economic problems.

Then there is peak oil. The recent IEA World Energy Outlook reports a 9.1% annual depletion rate in the world’s oil reserves. All major oil fields are in decline, virtually no new discoveries are being made, and oil demand continues to rise across the world—despite the economic crisis—especially in China, India, and oil producing nations developing their own economies. We are set for an oil supply crisis to hit between 2012-2015. Our own oil reserves are not sufficient to avert this problem, but they can help buy more time for us. However, as developing an oil field takes anywhere from 4-6 years, we would need to start investing today. Instead, low oil prices, and the refusal of the Obama administration to expand drilling while it considers actually raising taxes on oil produces has all but killed capital investment in this vital field.
Natural gas fuel is also a viable stop gap measure while we search for something to more permanently replace oil. However, it is not unlimited, and if we insist on squandering it to supply our electricity, it will not be of much help to us when we face the coming oil supply crisis.

As I have said before, Global Warming is something science is still vigorously debating as it attempts to fully understand the causes of climate change. However, to the Obama administration, the debate is over. In the midst of an economic crisis, it is willing to tax coal and nuclear power into extinction—despite an already overburdened grid. It is willing to put our nation’s entire economy in peril of the worst oil supply crisis ever seen and squander the natural gas resources that could help protect us. And it is willing to do all of this solely on the basis of its faith in human caused Global Warming. Whether climate change is a real problem caused by humans is still up for debate. However, the dangers of policy change based on that premise are very real and imminent.

More Than 650 Scientists Dissent over UN Global Warming Report

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends,

Whenever any religion seeks to turn dogma into law, society should be wary. Inevitably, when dogma becomes law, liberty, reason, and true scientific inquiry all suffer. It is not hard to find examples. Just look at the disasters which befell the Catholic Church with Copernicus and Galileo. The Catholic Church learned its lesson though. It has since formed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to ensure that the Church is never again on the wrong side of the facts. The academy is more interested in truth than in dogma, and thus does not require its members to be Catholic. As a result, its membership roster includes some of the greatest minds of our time, such as Nobel laureate Dr. Steven Hawking, a man who believes more in mathematics than in the common conception of a creator being.

Contrast this with the nations under the sway of Islam. There, any scientific finding that does not fit with the Muslim dogma is either discarded or, worse, condemned. It is a common complaint among the expatriates of Islamic nations that, in order to conduct decent scientific research, they must first leave their native countries. To these people, the West has been a safe haven. However, when it comes to the issue of global warming, the West has its own problems.

In 2003, Michael Crichton famously criticized environmentalism as shifting from genuine scientific concern into the religious preference of urban atheists. In 2005, he continued his criticism of the zealous absolute faith our people seem to place in the idea of global warming, despite a great deal of uncertainty in the data. Certainly, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) displayed a dogmatic commitment to global warming worthy of any Islamic nation when it issued its recent report on climate change in June of 2008. It claimed to represent a consensus of scientific thought and pronounced that the debate over global warming had ended. They should have said that the debate over global warming would no longer be tolerated.

It seems someone forgot to inform the bureaucrats and politicians who assembled the IPCC report that “consensus” and “compromise” are words from the world of politics which have no place in the world of science. While useful for crafting policy, incontrovertible facts do not compromise no matter how much political pressure they may be under or how many people dislike them. Yet, since the publication of the report, we have learned that it was indeed policy—not proofs—which the UN and IPCC were expressing. Any study which did not confirm or support the conclusion that Global Warming was a real problem caused by human action was systematically excluded from the report. It is fiat science.

Fortunately, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has sought to correct this egregious misrepresentation of scientific fact. The Committee’s Minority Report cites over 650 scientists who dispute the claims made in the IPCC report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists. Among its 231 pages, you will find links to peer reviewed studies which claim that the sun’s increasing activity may be responsible for the warming we have recorded on earth, along with many other theories that did not fit into the agenda of the global warming advocates at the U.N..

The studies cited should make it abundantly clear that the debate over global warming is far from finished. The topic of climate change is still filled with a great deal of uncertainty and deserves far more study before we commit to climate policies which could damage both our liberty and economy without giving any guarantee of helping our environment. In the meantime, we should be wary of what to believe on faith alone. Though waiting on the scientific method may be tedious, history shows us the disastrous consequences of putting our faith in the wrong place. The modern Islamic world gives us a very good picture of what dogmatic science can do to a society. More to the point, though, if we cannot trust our own government to manage even basic fiscal policy responsibly, why should we trust an organization of many governments to issue scientific findings by political decree on something as complex and uncertain as the climate? I should think the current financial crisis would be more than enough reason to keep them away from anything more complex than acknowledging that the sky is, indeed, blue.

Climate Change Blasphemy Must Be Prosecuted Says NASA Scientist

It always amazes me to see how people view the legal system. Dr. James Hansen, vaguely referred to by The Guardian as one of the world's leading climate scientists (presumably due to the fact that he becomes hysterical more swiftly than the others), now thinks we should prosecute oil company executives for, "high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming."

Last time I checked, expressing doubt as to any theory, and then trying to disprove that theory, was part of the scientific method--not a violation of the criminal code. But never mind that, we have important criminal accusations to consider.

So, what are crimes against humanity and nature anyway? Article 7 § 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as:

any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Strangely, it says nothing about climate at all. Even if it did, Global Warming might be widespread, but could hardly be called a systematic attack upon any civilian population by oil company executives from the lawful operation of their businesses.

That leaves crimes against nature. Crimes against nature are not international crimes at all. They are generally part of state law. They forbid things like masturbation, oral sex, and sodomy. After the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), most of the so called crimes against nature are unconstitutional as they violate our fundamental right to privacy. Of course, bestiality and necrophilia are both still forbidden, but Global Warming just does not seem to fit into this category does it? Then again, perhaps it does.

It seems the oil companies have violated neither international nor domestic law with their pernicious doubts about Global Warming. Of course, this is not the real problem here. The particular criminal charge does not matter so long as we can find one that will work to silence these doubters once and for all.

Generally speaking, true scientists want a lot of doubt expressed about their theories. They want the whole scientific community to have a go at them, and, if they still stand up, undamaged, at the end of the day the whole world is likely to embrace them. Such is not the case with Global Warming, though. Almost any rational person can manage to find considerable holes in the Global Warming theories. A scientist would say this means it requires more research and study.

Dr. Hansen and his ilk, however, remind us that this is about more than just science or law: it is about moral goodness. More research and more study takes time. Persuading lawmakers to act takes even longer. But we know what is evil now. Global Warming is evil. Those who doubt it are evil. There are many of them out there—doubting—and they are getting away with it!

There was once a time when our legal system would have accommodated such thinking. Indeed, both Church and State tried for a long while to prosecute irritating “doubters” for insufficient belief. Back then, though, we did not use those words. Instead, we used words like Inquisition, heretics, and blasphemy. The system had a splendid effect upon morality, but apparently science lagged a bit. We called that time the Dark Ages. Ironically, today, any government that tried to manage belief in such a way would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. See supra, Article 7 § 1(h).

Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Guest Editorials--Global Warming Legal Theories, Guns And Church Security

From now until the election SP will feature guest editorials/rants on everything from politics to the environment to religion and everything else in between. Today there are two--First up, JD (who has blogged here before) tears apart a new radical environmental legal theory, and Meg offers her take on an article concerning security (read: guns) at Churches and argues for guiltless self-defense.

There is no censorship at SP, and though the view may from time to time depart from SP's "politics." This is excellent for two reasons--1) the only true "diversity" is a diversity of opinion guaranteed by the Constitution and the only method for providing a true forum for the exchange of ideas; 2) additional voices strengthen any blog. I welcome them both, and if you have responses or questions, leave them in the comments. I know they'll be appreciated.

JD--first read this:

University of Oregon law professor Mary Wood is tired of waiting for government officials to take action on global warming. So she’s devised a new legal tool to hurry them up.

...Wood has developed a theory that claims the atmosphere is an asset that belongs to all but is held in trust by the government. The government has a legal obligation to protect that trust from harm, she argues…

The legal response:

What utter nonsense. Even the news page at her own the law school’s web site seems to acknowledge that her theory will probably lead to frivolous and nuisance lawsuits; the only benefit might be pushing the Federal government to negotiate with environmentalists in order to discourage those lawsuits.

She has some severe problems with her theory, all of which she glosses over by claiming that, as an academic, she will leave actual litigation strategy to practicing attorneys. Of course she will. That is because there is no way to implement her strategy in actuality.

The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts are both federal statutes and have clearly articulated enforcement provisions upon which the courts can rely. They do indeed flow from the public trust doctrines in common law. However, they also go considerably further than the origins of the common law doctrine, which basically held that submerged and submersible land was to be held and preserved by the state for public use in navigation, fishing, and recreation.

If Congress wants to go beyond the common law and write another law to deal with global warming, it is certainly entitled to do so. At that point, the courts would gladly enforce it. Congress has not done this, though, which is why Prof. Wood is promoting her theory. Instead, she wants the courts to extend the common law doctrine themselves. This will not happen.

Courts are hesitant to extend the common law unless it clearly fits with extant legislation. While the courts may tell the EPA that it needs to look at carbon emissions as part of its mission as defined by statute, it will not tell the EPA what standards it needs to set. With that sort of hesitancy, the courts are not about to go so far beyond statute as to order the EPA to take up the fight against Global Warming. They would need clear legislative direction before they would ever do such a thing.

Prof. Wood is attempting to take all the environmental protection cases and laws and argue that, en mass, they provide a basis for viewing the global atmosphere and climate as a public trust. Sure, the air in Denver is a public trust as it clearly affects the health and well being of the people who live here. It is also clearly regulated by statute. The same cannot be said of the entire global atmosphere and climate. There are not clear laws regulating that here in the U.S. More to the point, the U.S. cannot legislate to the rest of the world. Without worldwide effort, any effort is largely pointless. Treaties and executive agreements, not court rulings, provide the only means of achieving worldwide action.

Let us ignore that fundamental problem for a moment, though. Let us assume that the U.S., by its own actions, could have a major impact on the world climate and atmosphere. A court would still want to know what that impact could be. The sad truth is that no one knows for certain. There are a lot of theories, but no absolutes, and the range of different models is severe. Also, before declaring the atmosphere and climate public U.S. trusts, courts must balance the uncertainly of any action against the negative impact on commerce and personal liberty such action would have. That we can measure with certainty, and it is enormous. The bigger the impact, the higher the standard the court will set before it rules. Can it be shown that there is an extremely important state interest at stake which cannot be protected by less restrictive means? I rather doubt it. Environmentalists would have to admit that we would be creating major economic upsets for extremely uncertain results. The opposition would then show that the earth has undergone numerous climate shifts over time, that it is unclear how much impact humans are having, and even more unclear as to whether we can do anything about it if we are a major factor. Faced with that, the courts would universally hold that this is a political issue which must be decided by the political branches.

No court is going to extend the common law without clear legislative instruction on such a thin pretext. No amount of creative argument will change that. No matter how many scientists are brought in, an equal number can be brought in by the opposition who either disagree or show different results—even while agreeing in principle. The courts won’t touch this. It is too big and too broad. Bring a case that says aerosols are destroying the ozone, and they may happily outlaw those particular aerosols. A certain type of fishing is driving sea turtles to extinction? Fine. Pick your venue; even the WTO adjudication body will help there. But global climate change? Too big, too broad, too political. In truth, I would call it a matter of faith, and the courts have done a very good job of maintaining the separation of church and state.

Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Our second editorials takes aim (sorry, couldn't help myself) at the issue of guns in Churches, a particularly important topic given the twin shootings at religious venues last December here in Colorado:

The Denver Post profiled a church security workshop that took place last Thursday in east Denver. Church representatives came to the workshop presumably to learn how to formulate plans to make their churches a little safer in the wake of madman Matthew Murray’s shooting spree at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

Unfortunately, the Post’s article has the usual slant. The headline? “More churchgoers are carrying guns: Trend since shootings is risky, church leaders told”. There was no mention of Jeanne Assam, the woman whose bullets brought Murray down; she was again referred to as “a New Life security officer.” No mention of New Life’s senior pastor Brady Boyd’s praise of the security plan that had been implemented that Sunday. Assam had heard of the shootings in Arvada and suggested that the church increase security measures just in case. Boyd credited the security plan with saving dozens of lives. Instead, the article makes it sound as though New Life had sunk into total chaos during the Murray rampage, detailing how members retrieved their guns from cars or tried to wrest them from Murray, supposedly confusing police and making things “stressful.”

The response at the security workshop? Each church should come up with a “hazard plan,” including so-called surveillance for firearms. “It’s important to know who’s armed in your church,” according to Sgt. Gene Enley of the Littleton police. Add this to the statement by Bill Ray of the Trinity Springs Church in Elbert County: “We can [develop a hazard plan]… but we can’t have guns in our church.”

We can’t have guns in our church. It’s important to know who’s armed.

Same old anti-gun, fearful attitude, despite Assam’s blazing bravery and showcase of what concealed weapons can do to save lives. My questions… Who will maintain the list of church members who have concealed weapons permits (CCWs)? Who will have access to this list? Will there be judgments of certain members’ “qualifications” to carry a gun, despite the fact that all CCW holders in the state have to pass stringent requirements? What will happen to those who do not self-report, especially if there is a crisis?

Some more blunt questions: Does anyone care about CCW holders’ privacy… or safety, for that matter? What is the point of concealed weapons permits if someone else knows that you are carrying? These skittish church officials probably encounter dozens of people every day with a concealed firearm, and they have no reason to know that these folks are armed. Bottom line: my concealed weapon is no one’s business but mine. It’s bad enough that the state must pass judgment on me that I’m worthy to carry a concealed weapon. My church doesn’t need to get in on this game, too.

Meg

I am a member of the group that Grover Norquist calls the "Leave Us Alone Coalition." I dislike people who think that they know better than me how to run my life. I think that the government is way too involved in citizens' everyday life, and sadly some have come to depend on it. In a nutshell, I think the government should spend more time protecting rights and sticking to functions written into the Constitution, and less time on inventing rights and creating new functions of government. Colorado is better than most, but we could easily go the wrong way, especially with some of the leadership. You'll find my hands-off approach reflected in my writings, and I have even been known to stray from the "traditional" conservative path in doing so. I promise to try to keep things interesting for you when you hear from me. --In the interest of total disclosure, I work as an engineer for the government, in an area firmly written into the Constitution: national defense. Ahh, there, I said it, so don't try to blast me as some kind of hypocrite. After all, I serve YOU as a civil servant. Do note, however, that none of my comments necessarily represent the views of my agency, the DoD or the United States Government.

Carbon Belch Day--June 12

We'll see if this carbon belch "holiday" will be better observed than the washout of "Earth Hour" back on March 31:

Conservative grassroots group Grassfire.org wants people to waste as much energy as possible on June 12 by "hosting a barbecue, going for a drive, watching television, leaving a few lights on, or even smoking a few cigars."

The point: the group wants to "help Americans break free from the 'carbon footprint guilt' being imposed by Climate Alarmists."

CSU's Hurricane Forecaster And Climate Change Skeptic Dr. William Gray Faces Cold Shoulder For Global Warming Comments

**Update--Gray and CSU dispute original story:

Gray, who is in Florida this week, spoke with 9NEWS over the phone.

He said he was "very sorry and embarrassed" about the news saying, "CSU continues to support me."

In response to his comment within the memo, Gray said, "(My stance on global warming) could have been a factor in the talks, but I don't know."

He added, "CSU has never come out to say I should restrict my views on global warming… I have absolutely no complaints at CSU."

Aside from reporting that CSU may pull support from Gray, the national cable news network, Fox News, also wrote on its Web site, "Hurricane expert may lose job over climate views."

Gray and Woods both said there was never even a whisper about that.

"There has been no change to my status at CSU," Gray said.

---

Via Drudge:

By pioneering the science of seasonal hurricane forecasting and teaching 70 graduate students who now populate the National Hurricane Center and other research outposts, William Gray turned a city far from the stormy seas into a hurricane research mecca.

But now the institution in Fort Collins, Colo., where he has worked for nearly half a century, has told Gray it may end its support of his seasonal forecasting.

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.

Among other comments, Gray has said global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children."

Now an emeritus professor, Gray declined to comment on the university's possible termination of promotional support.

But a memo he wrote last year, after CSU officials informed him that media relations would no longer promote his forecasts after 2008, reveals his views:

"This is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to me to be a cover for the Department's capitulation to the desires of some (in their own interest) who want to reign (sic) in my global warming and global warming-hurricane criticisms," Gray wrote to Dick Johnson, head of CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and others.

As Roger Fraley says, "tow the global warming line . . . or else!"

Global Warming--Command And Control Or Technological Approach?

Sen. James Inhofe lays out the economic stakes of a planned cap-and-trade scheme that would only exacerbate current economic downturns by crippling the American economy--and offers in its stead a free market, technology approach that would likely prove immensely more successful in its state goal of cleaning the environment while also keeping the economy strong:

The United States Senate will soon begin to debate a global warming cap-and-trade bill that, if passed, would impose severe economic constraints on American families and American workers for no environmental gain. We have had this debate before, starting with the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, then again in 2003, and again in 2005. Each time, these cap-and-trade measures were defeated for two simple reasons: they did not include developing nations; and because of the significant economic impact on the American public. With the American economy facing troubles, now is certainly not the time to try this costly experiment.

What proponents of this bill fail to understand is that the American environmental success story has been built while growing our economy. Over the past three decades, Americans have proven that we can clean up our environment while expanding our population and vibrantly growing our economy. Democrats and their special interest allies have consistently taken the opposite approach and emphasized job-killing regulations and expanding the government’s power. The U.S. can follow a path of onerous government mandates or we can follow a path of developing and encouraging new technologies. A simple history lesson reveals that the technological approach is the only viable path forward as carbon cap-and-trade mandates are proving to be a failure throughout the developed world.
. . .
The Lieberman-Warner command and control path utterly fails in comparison to an approach that embraces and develops new technologies. A technology emphasis is the only politically and economically sustainable path forward. I have long advocated a technology approach that brings in the developing world nations such as China and India. My home state of Oklahoma demonstrates that tomorrow’s energy mix must include more natural gas, wind and geothermal, but it must also include oil, coal, and nuclear energy, which is the world's largest source of emission-free energy. This approach serves multiple purposes – it will reduce air pollution, expand our energy supply, increase trade, and, along with these other goals, reduce greenhouse gases. Developing and expanding domestic energy will translate into energy security and ensure stable sources of supply and well-paying jobs for Americans.

Will the United States Senate choose the economically harmful Lieberman-Warner bill or the new technology path? With five weeks to go until the debate, the question is largely up to you. If you believe, like I do that we must not impose more costly mandates on the American people, I urge you to engage in the debate and contact your Senator and make your voice heard.

Colorado Snowpack April Update

For Winter Year 2007-2008 (in black) on April 12 when the majority of Colorado's ski resorts closed, compared to the past three winters and the 30 year average (in red):



More proof the MSM can't get the story straight--two stories from 9NEWS reporting on recent concerns about flooding following a bountiful, near-record winter snowfall season, produced within 7 hours of each other on Monday. The first indicates the flooding concerns have abated--and the headline agrees--"Climatologist: Dry spell cuts flood threat from Colo. snow melt" (published at approximately 10 AM):

A Colorado weather expert says several weeks of dry weather have reduced the risk of flooding from Colorado's deep mountain snows.

State Climatologist Nolan Doesken said Monday the deep snow is a cause for concern but the threat has decreased.

Doesken says Colorado's snow usually melts off gradually as warm temperatures work their way up to high elevation, reducing the chance of floods.

Major flooding becomes more of a threat when snow melts quickly.

Doesken says not all of Colorado has benefited from deep snow.

Much of the Eastern Plains have been dry since last summer.

He says recent storms have reduced the threat of drought but the area still needs spring storms to keep from drying out again.

Here is the second story, not an update, but a rehash of comments from the same State Climatologist, Nolan Doesken (at around 5 PM). Note the wide difference in tone, especially the headline--"Higher than normal snowpack raising risk for flooding":

Snowpack at higher elevations is at levels researchers have not seen in a decade.

"Basin wide, the snowpack is 110 percent to 130 percent than average. There is a concern for flooding because it's been years since we've had this much of a snowpack where the snow is deep at high elevations, all the way from northern New Mexico to the Colorado/Wyoming border," said Colorado climatologist and Colorado State University researcher Nolan Doesken.

Doesken says on a scale of one to 10, the risk of flooding in river basins like the San Juan, Rio Grande and Gunnison basins is "a five or six." So far, spring temperatures have been relatively cool, said Doesken. Depending on the precipitation in the coming weeks, Doesken says the risk of flooding may be increased even further.

"There's still plenty of time, lots of different ways the snowmelt could occur, but when there's a lot of snow and when spring has been cool, that does increase the chances of flooding later on," said Doesken.

Snow at elevations 10,000 feet and above usually begins to melt in May and continues on through June. Doesken says if there are many consecutive days of warm temperatures, then flooding is more likely, but he emphasized that Colorado has historically had a "well-behaved" snowmelt.

Shortly after it became clear that Colorado's snowpack would be well above average--in record setting territory perhaps as second wettest in 113 years--the local MSM started stoking the "imminent flooding" story, no doubt trying to bring the focus back on to climate change and global warming causing all the snow to melt rapidly.

Apparently someone at 9NEWS didn't get the memo. The first story appears to have the basic theme of the climatologist right--there is still a chance that a rapid warm-up will cause some minor flooding concerns, but that risk diminishes over time as normal melting occurs. The second story buries the climatologist's estimate of "a five or six" with fearmongering headlines about the raised risk of flooding.

At least get the story straight, 9NEWS. It was the same climatologist and interview, fer Chrissakes!

Moonbat Convergence: CU-Boulder's Conference On World Affairs; Live Video Feed Available

**Update 2--live video streaming available from Macky Auditorium and the UMC Center Ballroom:

Macky:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwamacky.mov
Macky Audio Only:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwamackyaudio.mov

Macky1:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwa2008macky1.mov
Macky1 Audio Only:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwa2008macky1audio.mov

UMC Center Ballroom (SkyCam):
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwa2008UMC1.mov
UMC Center Ballroom Audio Only:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwa2008UMC1audio.mov

**Update--M*A*S*H star Mike Farrell:

Mike Farrell -- an actor turned anti-war activist and humanitarian -- will speak on several panels addressing war and violence during his first trip to the University of Colorado's Conference on World Affairs. The 60th annual conference begins today.

"People don't get a full discussionof the issues anymore," Farrell said. "Conferences like this offer an opportunity for them to get in on a different point of view."

There will certainly be a great deal of viewpoints at the conference from being adamantly against the war to zealously opposing it, and all viewpoints in between.

---

Every spring for the last 60 years, moonbats from around the world have gathered at CU-Boulder's Conference on World Affairs to hold forth on a variety of subjects--from art to science to politics and even philosophy.

This year will be no different, as the following schedule "highlights" reveal. These represent less than a third of the overall schedule, and include some of the most clearly out-in-left-field panels topics and panelists. Even the most innocuous subject matter devolves into some sort of anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, America-bashing diatribe by the panelists themselves--heaped upon by the indoctrinated students (Ward Churchill produced some of the best and the brightest!) and Boulder hippies that comprise the audience, all while maintaining the appearance of intellectual earnestness under the guise of university sanction. This is Recreate 68's target audience, and chief recruiting station for Denver's Democratic National Convention.

Just try saying anything positive about America. Or capitalism. You may just be lucky and escape the room intact. Be prepared for copious name-calling (whenever they don't understand or can't refute your argument) and hissing. Lots of hissing.

So, who'll be attending? Among the most prominent this year, activists Jello Biafra and Mike Farrell (M*A*S*H):

Best known for his eight years on M*A*S*H and five seasons on Providence, Mike Farrell is also a writer, director, producer, and author of a memoir, Just Call Me Mike: A Journey to Actor and Activist.

Beyond his prolific work in the entertainment industry, Farrell has traveled the world for the last 25+ years as part of prominent international human rights and peace delegations. Destinations have included El Salvador, Nicaragua, USSR, Paraguay, Chile, Israel, the Occupied Territories, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Czechoslovakia, Somalia, Kenya, Croatia, Bosnia, Cuba, Rwanda, Zaire, Tanzania, Costa Rica, and Honduras. This work led to his helping establish the Southern California Committee of Human Rights Watch, where he served as co-chair until 2004. His opposition to the war in Iraq resulted in his having co-founded Artists United to Win Without War.

A life-long opponent of the death penalty, Farrell has “seen too many death rows.” President of the board of Death Penalty Focus since 1994, he speaks, debates, writes extensively, and coordinates campaigns for individuals across the country facing execution. He is currently involved in an international effort to establish a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.

That included convicted murderer, "Tookie" Williams.

Who else will be there?

Columnists from The Guardian. A former U.S. Senator from Colorado, Tim Wirth. And tons of activists. Heck, you can't even get a speaking gig at this event without the word "activist" somewhere in your resume. The only Republicans or conservatives present (CU President Bruce Benson, former Congressman Bob Beauprez) have been allowed to moderate a panel or two. Don't be surprised if they become the focus of the panel's ire, and get trashed in the process.

This is the People's Republic of Boulder, after all.

Here are some highlights to peruse (full list of events by day//full list of speakers):

Monday, April 7:
1102 Bush Legacy: Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Matter
1103 Teste Women: Why We Fear Women in Power
1104 America's Reliance on Immigrant Workers
1105 Privatizing War: Blackwater, et al.
1500A PLENARY The New "New International Economic Order"
1504 College Athlete = Indentured Servants
1601 The Orgy of Corporate Greed
1602 Surviving Contact with Extraterrestrials--[so you too can exact revenge at the end of a movie, Independence Day-style]
1701 RADIO BROADCAST Metro - Cuba After "W" and Raúl
1702 Resistance to America's Cultural Colonization
1703 The Candidates on Iraq: The Silence is Deafening
1802 LIVE BROADCAST Air America The Rachel Maddow Show
1804A PLENARY Keep Your Grubby Mitts Off My Constitution

Tuesday, April 8:
2103 The EU: Dissing American Dominance
2106 Do You Believe in Magic?
2201 The Death Penalty on Trial
2304 Poverty American-Style
2402 Censorship: Who, How & Why
2403 Science: Who's Afraid of the Future
2605 Torture: When the Unthinkable Becomes Acceptable
2606A AL SMITH MEMORIAL PLENARY Exploring Dystopia: Nuclear Holocaust
2701 2008 Election: Don't Screw This Up, America
2702 Exporting Cookie-Cutter Democracy
2706 Waging Peace--[militantly, of course]
2802 Separation of Art and State

Wednesday, April 9:
3000 LIVE BROADCAST A Public Affair - The Obama Phenomenon: A Post-Racist America?
3101 Latin America: Viva Change!--[Guaranteed to be a Che t-shirt, somewhere in the room]
3104 Men, Sex and Power
3105 Republicans: It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To
3108 The Impact of the Religious Right
3202 Iraq: We'll Pull Out in Time. Honest.
3203 Mythologizing the Past: FDR, JFK, MLK, Reagan
3303 When Kids Go to Jail
3505 Bench the Eagle: The End of the American Empire
3506 Global Warming Is Eating Up Our Food Supply
3600A PLENARY wwjd (What would Jello do?): Magic Solutions to All the World's Problems
3705 The Real Reasons Iran Is the Next Target
3801 Three Billion Reason$ for Campaign Finance Reform
3805 Bill O'Reilly and Rupert Murdoch Can SoundByte Me
3807 North Korea: Small Place, Big Noise

Thursday, April 10:
4200A MOLLY IVINS FREEDOM FIGHTIN' MEMORIAL PLENARY Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran
4201 Hollywood: Setting or Reflecting American Values--[After yet another failure of an anti-war movie, I'm guessing neither]
4404 Hip Hoppers, Beatboxers and Punk Rockers: A Battle Cry for Social Change
4502 Post-Petroleum Economics
4503 Dude! Where's My Constitution!
4604 Film and the Aesthetics of Brutality
4702 National Service Should Be Mandated--[Bringing back the draft, moonbat style]
4704 Feminism: The New F Word

Friday, April 11:
5102 Energy Conservation is a Waste of Energy
5103 Every Joke Is a Small Revolution
5104 It's the End of the World as We Know It
5105 A Woman's Right to Shoes
5106 Democrats: It's My Party and I'll Cry if I Want To
5107 Gun Violence: The Madness Affecting America
5201 If the Rest of the World Could Vote for U.S. President...
5303 American Education: A Rising Tide of Mediocrity
5304 Advice for the Next President
5307 Evangelical Atheism
5403 Green Goes Nuclear
5501 Ban Tobacco, Legalize Marijuana
5502 Fundamentalism and World Conflicts--[how much you wanna bet this panel completely ignores Islam, or equates it to rabid Christian fundamentalists?]
5504 Death to Innovation: Patents and Copyrights
5507 Third Party Spoilers

If you've got some time, head up to Boulder for a little "reeducation."

But don't say I didn't warn you.

Even "The People's Republic" Of Boulder, CO Can't Meet Kyoto Goals Using Heavy Carbon Taxation

"The bottom line is even if all the developed countries fully complied with the Kyoto Protocol, the effect would be minuscule. It's a completely negligible amount of global warming"--Kevin Doran, Center for Energy and Environmental Security at the University of Colorado

More evidence the moonbat plan to use carbon taxes to help reduce greenhouse gases in order to achieve the rather modest Kyoto goals (modest compared to all the new plans for "climate change" solutions) will fail across the country and present a financial boondoggle to boot--they can't even succeed in the Berkeley of the Rockies--Boulder, Colorado:

The way things are going, Boulder will only make it about halfway to its goal of cutting enough greenhouse gases to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, according to a memo released by the city staff Wednesday.

The Office of Environmental Affairs is requesting a 53 percent increase in funding, which would boost its budget from $875,177 to $1,343,133. Even if the City Council approves the increase, which would translate to a higher carbon tax, Boulder would still meet only 85 percent of its Kyoto goal.

"It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone," said Sarah Van Pelt, Boulder's environmental sustainability coordinator. "We knew we were just starting at the lowest tax rate and slowly phasing in all the programs."

When voters approved the Climate Action Plan tax in 2006, they actually gave the OK to a range of possible taxes. Now, electricity users are taxed at the lowest level, and the new proposal would up the taxes to about midway through the possible range. Van Pelt said it has always been part of the plan to increase taxes as time went on. Residential users now pay an average of $13 extra a year in carbon taxes. The new proposal would increase the average to $19.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 7 percent below 1990 levels. Locally, that means reducing emissions, from 1.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide -- the amount Boulder residents were responsible for in 2006 -- to just under 1.5 million metric tons by 2012.

Well, 85% isn't too far off, so how will they get there? They could always deploy "greenshirt" youth to, um, "encourage" their neighbors to switch their lights off . . .

So far, the city's approach to emission reduction has relied heavily on marketing and subsidies -- most of which are offered in conjunction with Xcel Energy or Boulder County -- to convince people to take voluntary actions, including retrofitting their homes, driving less and buying wind-power offsets. The Office of Environmental Affairs would also dump the majority of new money into reducing greenhouse gases through energy efficiency.

"I feel like it's very possible that the community can meet the Kyoto target," Van Pelt said. "We just have to decide to do it."

To meet the Kyoto Protocol, city staffers project that they will have to come back to the City Council and request more money in the near future.

Of course--more money!

But change by the tried-and-true "incremental" approach won't even have much of an effect anyway, as the Kyoto Protocols "don't go far enough":

Even 100 percent compliance with the Kyoto Protocol doesn't go far in the battle against climate change, according to some researchers.

"The bottom line is even if all the developed countries fully complied with the Kyoto Protocol, the effect would be minuscule," said Kevin Doran, who works with the Center for Energy and Environmental Security at the University of Colorado. "It's a completely negligible amount of global warming."

Doran said Boulder isn't alone, and he estimates that most of the 800 cities that have signed on to meet the Kyoto demands will fall short.

"A lot of them rely on activities and reductions that are outside of their zone of influence," he said.

The real "bottom line" won't be the negligible effect these measures will have, but the tremendous costs incurred trying to achieve them.

But what's a global warming/climate change article without a scientist--I mean, where's the consensus . . .

Roger Pielke Jr., who works for CU's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, wasn't surprised that Boulder is challenged to meet the Kyoto Protocol. He published an article in the journal Nature this week that says it will be more difficult to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than society has been led to believe.

"This is a perfect example of the challenge," Pielke wrote in an e-mail from the United Kingdom. "Even with the best of intentions and strong political support, a tiny step like meeting Kyoto proves extremely challenging for Boulder under current conditions. ... If Boulder can't meet the very small step of Kyoto, why would anyone think that the world can do something much, much more difficult?"

Takeaways?

More action, now! 'Cause if Boulder can't do it, no one can!

Wait, that isn't right. But it's the gesture that counts.

MSM Columnist Praises Earth Hour Youth Going Door-To-Door In Denver To Enforce Lights Out

Yes, I'm serious--brainwashed elementary school kids pounded the pavement on behalf of Earth Hour, encouraging guilting harassing their nighbors into darkness by insisting that lights be switched off in their neighborhood (h/t Drunkablog, who has included several "photos" purported to be the children in question):

This column came knocking at 8:10 p.m. Saturday.

"It's Earth Hour," said one of a gaggle of seven young neighbors holding candles on our front porch.

"Why are your lights on?" asked another, eyebrows furrowed, glaring at me with 120 watts of disappointment.

These were the children of the 500 block of High Street, a plucky bunch of grade-schoolers whose games and laughter grace our neighborhood even more than the tall trees.
. . .
The troupe went global Saturday.

When the clocks struck 8:00, they mobilized to save the planet by knocking loudly on neighbors' doors with a metal key — a technique one of the older boys learned selling tins of caramel corn for Boy Scouts.
. . .
Most of our neighbors' homes also darkened, one by one, after visits from the little organizers.

Ah the young--they grow up so fascist fast.

The "greenshirts" were just doing their part to save the planet:

"We need to save all the juice in the earth so there will be some left when we're old," said 8-year-old Dara Pasquino.

"Just this hour of darkness is saving, like, trillions and trillions of gallons," added her brother, Dante, 10.

Nine-year-old Daniel Scher expounded on the need to "reduce, reuse and recycle" and "plan for sustainability."

"We're teaching grown-ups not to be wasters," added Juliana Pfeifer, 6. "Besides, firelight makes you sing songs and tell stories. Candles make everything more wonderful."

By 10 p.m. — well past their bedtimes — the tired firebrands smiled when they realized most of the block was still dark even after Earth Hour was history.

They had changed their world, at least for a few hours.

Then, at the prodding of their parents, the kids of High Street headed home to bed, skipping into the balmy night, triumphant in the darkness.

Triumphant in their moonbattery at the age of SIX.

Of course the lefty Post columnist sees nothing wrong with this situation. The children were accompanied by their parents after all, no doubt encouraging them to continue their efforts, and perhaps verbally scolding those on the block who were non-compliant.

These kids have been doubly abused--through the indoctrination they have clearly received from their parents and most likely also from their schools, and because they have been taught that argument, debate, and persuasion are to be avoided in favor of "collective action," guilt, and groupthink. Rather than using logic, they have been taught to "feel" their way through the situation.

They have certainly not been exposed to the other side of the debate, and that is a shame.

But as is usual for the left, feeling and doing outweigh thinking.

"Earth Hour" Futility, Google Hypocrisy Revealed

**Update--Earth Hour Denver timelapse and video:


As you can tell, not much was turned off. About the only participants in Denver were the Hard Rock Cafe and the Denver Convention and Performing Arts Center:

The Hard Rock dimmed lights inside and out. It was joined by the Virgin Megastore and Lucky Strike Lanes, which turned off their huge neon signs. Meanwhile, the marquee of the nearby Paramount Theater shone bright.

The Paramount wasn't alone, as businesses up and down the mall, both big and small, kept lights blazing, operating in the dark when it came to Earth Hour.

However, nonessential lights were turned off in the City and County Building, the Wellington Webb Municipal Building and the Denver Performing Arts Complex.

And at the Northfield Stapleton shopping center, some restaurants planned to serve customers by candlelight.
. . .
Power savings in the Denver area were expected to be modest. Xcel Energy said that lighting accounts for about 7 percent of home energy use, so that savings from people turning off lights will be only a portion of 7 percent, depending on how many households participate.

That'll stave off climate change. But it's the gesture that counts, right?

As I read on another blog (and can't remember where), we each voluntarily perform "Earth Hour" every night--by going to bed and turning off the lights and electronics inside the house.

This pathetically empty symbolic gesture achieves nothing more than assuaging global warmenist guilt. If it were really that important, these measures would become mandatory. How long is it before "Earth Hour" observations become energy controls, with fines and punishment for profligate consumers (except the limousine liberals, of course)?

Wait. I shouldn't be giving them any ideas . . .

---

"We applaud the spirit of the idea, but our own analysis as well as that of others shows that making the Google homepage black will not reduce energy consumption. To the contrary, on flat-panel monitors (already estimated to be 75% of the market), displaying black may actually increase energy usage. Detailed results from a new study confirm this"--Google, on turning its screen black, which it is doing once again for "Earth Hour"

Earth Hour's site is currently running slowly, no doubt due to traffic:



Moonbattery highlights Google's hypocrisy and black-screen futility--the color change saves no energy, as Google itself admits:

Reducing climate change by saving energy is an important effort we should all join, and that's why we're very glad to see the innovative thinking going into a variety of solutions. One idea, suggested by the site called "Blackle" (which is not related to Google, by the way, though the site does use our custom search engine), is to reduce energy used by monitors by providing search with a black background. We applaud the spirit of the idea, but our own analysis as well as that of others shows that making the Google homepage black will not reduce energy consumption. To the contrary, on flat-panel monitors (already estimated to be 75% of the market), displaying black may actually increase energy usage. Detailed results from a new study confirm this.

The Drunkablog has a fun bunch of links to Tim Blair (from down under, who is tracking the event around the world), who is combatting "Earth Hour" moonbattery with the "Hour of Power", and a roundup of local MSM cheerleading coverage.

Ed Morrissey has much more on Google's hypocrisy at Hot Air.

Earth Hour's "Ten Things to do in the Dark" (annotated):

Host a Green Party

Get your friends together for an Earth Hour eco-party. Fire up the flashlights and battery lanterns, serve organic food, avoid the disposable utensils, use natural décor (like flowers and hanging plants) and have a friend provide acoustic music. Talk to your guests about how you’re each reducing your environmental footprint and share ideas and solutions for saving more energy, money and carbon dioxide.
--Yes, have all of your friends DRIVE to your EH eco-party. Be sure to have them charge those batteries ahead of time--you are using rechargeables, aren't you?

Give Yourself an Energy Makeover

Use Earth Hour to make your home more energy efficient: Replace your old light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs; install power strips (so you can turn computers and electronics on and off more easily); and change your air conditioner filters. Or go one step farther and install one new energy-efficient item, like an EnergyStar qualified DVD player. And on Monday, call your local utility and sign up for green power—like wind, hydro or solar.
--Replace incandescents with CFLs--and don't worry about all that harmful mercury. Make sure to find the most expensive alternative source of energy--you are committed, aren't you?

Go Green with Your Kids

Earth Hour is a perfect time to talk to your kids about the environment and why we need to protect our planet from the dangers of climate change. Check out books on the environment from the library and read by flashlight, or head into the yard and have a night picnic. Or how about a night of board games? There are even Earth Hour kids’ activities you can download at www.earthhour.org.
--Indoctrinate the future polluters Educate your kids, and make sure they properly fear climate change. Al Gore says so.

Do a Recyclables Scavenger Hunt

Get your flashlights and scour your cabinets and shelves for cans, bottles and cardboard (like cereal boxes) that you don't normally recycle. Make a list of all the non-recyclable containers you’re using now (like plastic shopping bags and butter tubs), and figure out ways to reduce your consumption of items that end up in landfills. One easy tip: get reusable grocery bags...and reuse them!
--Recycle, recycle, recycle--make it your mantra! Find more expensive, organic alternatives for all of your consumption. Or ELSE.

Green That Workspace!

Working the night shift? Even if you can’t turn off all the lights at work, look around and see what you can unplug, turn down or use less of (like consuming less paper by printing double-sided). Every day millions of computer screens and speakers are left on overnight—shut ‘em off! And talk to your coworkers about what they can do to help make a difference too.
--Conduct surveillance on your wastrel colleagues and report them immediately! You can also afford to strain your eyes by turning off all those annoying lights.

Involve Your Local Leaders

If your city or town isn't already hosting an Earth Hour event, ask your local government to set up a community "green" discussion in a public building from 8 to 9 p.m. on March 29. Help organize attendance by reaching out to local environmental and community groups, and come prepared to ask your leaders what they’re doing to make your city greener.
--Enforce your views on your neighbors by insisting local government bend to your every demand. Make sure to eliminate all dissent. Shame those who dare to ask questions.

Clean Up Your Neighborhood

Grab a flashlight and take a long walk through your neighborhood, picking up trash and recyclables as you go. It's a great chance to do some stargazing too!
--Make sure to do it in the dark, so that picking up trash can turn into a game of "name that trash!"

Unplug and Chill Out

Most of our daily activities—like watching TV, shopping online and texting friends—require loads of electricity, but do we really need to do so much stuff all the time? Take one hour for yourself to just chill...turn off the screens, put down the handheld devices and just take some "you" time to reflect, read or talk to your family. After all, why do more when you can do less?
--Yes, read in the dark. It's easy if you try. Or better yet, sleep. Recreate the conditions of bedtime, when you normally turn off all the lights/appliances/electronics . . . um, yeah, basically do what you do EVERY night. That'll make it EXTRA symbolic.

Take Your Temperature

Your thermostat and your refrigerator are responsible for a huge portion of your carbon footprint. If you lower your thermostat by just 2 degrees and set your fridge to 37° F. and the freezer at 0° F., you'll make a big difference.
--Doable. It is Spring or Fall around the globe, and so you won't exactly freeze or swelter.

Make a Pledge for the Planet

Earth Hour shouldn't end at 9:01 pm—it's a chance to take a first step toward lowering your overall impact on the environment. So use part of that hour to make a personal pledge to do more—recycle, drive less often, remember to turn off or unplug electronics, and beyond. The only way we're going to stabilize our climate is if we make real changes in our everyday lives. That change begins with Earth Hour, and ends with a healthy planet.
--Rather than waste your time on symbolic gestures that accomplish nothing but make you feel really, really good about yourself, make a plan to actually conserve in a meaningful, sustainable way. We don't actually want you to return to the Stone Age, now, do we?

The Warm, Dry Winter That Never Arrived--Colorado's Second Wettest Winter Ever, Scientists Baffled

Winter precipitation was much above average from the Midwest to parts of the West, notably Kansas, Colorado and Utah. Although moderate-to-strong La Niña conditions were present in the equatorial Pacific the winter was unique for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Niña typically brings drier-than-average conditions--NOAA

Nothing typical about the latest regional and statewide (Colorado) snowpack levels:




From The Pueblo Chieftain:

It appears the warm, dry winter never arrived.

A warm, dry spring still is being forecast by the Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service, but that shouldn’t hamper the valley’s water supply, as reservoir storage continues to increase, streams run high and water managers make room for an expected flood of imported water.

Snowpack in the Arkansas Basin is at record levels through mid-March, with several feet of snow with high water content at nearly all sites. Snowpack was at 159 percent of average in the basin as of Friday, and running ahead of any previously recorded years. Already, snowpack is far above the maximum average accumulation as well.

Conditions were similar in the San Luis Valley, where officials are concerned about spring flooding and snowpack is rated at 154 percent of average.

Statewide, snowpack was 126 percent of average.

So, um, how could this be?

From NOAA:

Winter precipitation was much above average from the Midwest to parts of the West, notably Kansas, Colorado and Utah. Although moderate-to-strong La Niña conditions were present in the equatorial Pacific the winter was unique for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Niña typically brings drier-than-average conditions.

During January alone, 170 inches of snow fell at the Alta ski area near Salt Lake City, Utah, more than twice the normal amount for the month, eclipsing the previous record of 168 inches that fell in 1967. At the end of February, seasonal precipitation for the 2008 Water Year, which began on October 1, 2007, was well above average over much of the West.

Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.
Record February precipitation in the Northeast helped make the winter the fifth wettest on record for the region. New York had its wettest winter, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Colorado to the West, had their second wettest.

Snowfall was above normal in northern New England, where some locations posted all-time record winter snow totals. Concord, N.H., received 100.1 inches, which was 22.1 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1886-87. Burlington, Vt., received 103.2 inches, which was 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71.

Wait, there's more--Steamboat Springs hitting an all-time record for snowfall in a season before the middle of March, and more on Colorado's impressive snowpack.

How impressive? Second. Wettest. Winter. Ever.

But how do record precipiation figures look visually?

Glad you asked:


Way, way above average in more than half the states


Not especially toasty anywhere this winter

From early February, when "climate experts" admitted they were way, way off base:

Dry-winter forecasts were flat wrong this year for much of Colorado and the Southwest, and weather experts say they're struggling to understand why the snow just keeps falling.

Some forecasters blame climate change, and others point to the simple vicissitudes of weather. Regardless, almost everyone called for a dry-to-normal winter in Colorado and the Southwest — but today, the state's mountains are piled so thick with snow that state reservoirs could fill and floods could be widespread this spring.

"The polar jet stream has been on steroids. We don't understand this. It's pushing our limits, and it's humbling," said Klaus Wolter, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Wolter, however, remained defiant--"I'm sticking with my forecast, except that I acknowledge I have some egg on my face."

Try an omelette.

Gateway Pundit has maintained an extensive and excellent archive of similar global cold weather-related phenomena in a series aptly titled--"Brrrr!"

2007-2008 Colorado Snowpack Update; Steamboat Set To Break Season Record Snowfall

How 2008 (in black) fares against the trend lines from the previous three years, as well as the average:



And from a few days ago, a look at snowpack across the West:



More snow news--Steamboat is about to break its season record, with more than a month of good snow season left:

The Steamboat ski area was less than a foot away from setting its all-time record for inches in a season, and could break the record any hour now.

The city of Steamboat Springs is expecting 10 to 14 inches of snow today, National Weather Service meteorologist Ken Ludington said. "It looks good, if you really want to break that record," Ludington told the Steamboat Pilot newspaper.

Steamboat's all-time record is 447.75 inches, set in 1996-97, said Heidi Thomsen, a spokeswoman for Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp.

As of Thursday, Steamboat had 438 inches of snow — that's 36 1/2 feet of the white stuff. By midafternoon the resort was reporting 7 inches of new snow in the past day.

DNC "Green" Plan Unveiled; Climate Change Takes Another Hit

Drunkablog has an extensive roundup with all the necessary links--to the carbon footprint calculator, carbon advisor, and, of course, "tips."

New evidence doesn't support global warming or climate change fearmongering--Gateway Pundit has latest:

Satellite measurements available since 1979 show no warming in the southern hemisphere and the trend in the northern hemisphere appears to have waned since 2001.

Plus, Green Bay has record snowfall, there's so much snow in Quebec it has spurred "snow rage"--complete with guns and fists, and NOAA says that this was the coolest winter for the US and the world since 2001.

Then there's the snowpack--Colorado is doing quite well, as is the entire West, with almost all areas above 90% (green, blues, and purple--click to enlarge):

Thursday Morning Linkage

First the bias:

After years of Colorado's MSM going on and on about the lingering effects of the drought from 2002, Colorado finally has a year where each basin is above 100%, and the overall snowpack is approximately 130% of the 30 year average. The story? The snow is going to melt (I know, shocking), and that means spring flooding! Nothing like a little MSM sensationalism.

---

Or perhaps the state's economy. The headline? "Colorado unemployment inches up to 4.2 percent in January." The story? Much, much different. The numbers:

Colorado's unemployment rate rose two-tenths of a percentage point to 4.2 percent in January as the labor market weakened slightly, state labor officials said Tuesday.

The number of Coloradans with jobs rose by 14,500 while the number of unemployed rose by 7,100, the state Department of Labor and Employment said. [a net gain of 7,400 jobs]

Total employment in January was 74,000 higher than a year earlier, but about 116,000 couldn't find work, up from about 104,000 a year ago.

"Colorado continues to display modest employment gains in the face of a national economy seemingly on the verge of contraction," said Don Mares, the department director.

The spin is clear--the rest of the country as a whole is not fairing as well, but Colorado is showing only "modest" gains. How about resiliency or, you know, strength?

But that isn't the whole story. Seems the estimated unemployment increases of the final four months of last year were nonexistent, and had to be revised:

The department also said its revised report on 2007 largely erased large increases in unemployment originally reported late last year.

After revision, adjusted unemployment rates stayed essentially flat the final four months of the year.

The department originally reported increases of one-tenth of a percentage point in September and four-tenths in both November and December.

The October rate had showed a decline of two-tenths of a percentage point.

Mares said the state's major labor indicators were mostly positive in 2007, with an average annual jobless rate of 3.8 percent, down from 4.3 percent in 2006.

The 2007 average was the lowest since 2.7 percent in 2000.

Total employment grew by 65,700 last year while the average number of unemployed residents dropped by 11,600.

Compared to the downturn a few years ago following the tech bust and post 9/11 effects, and considering the current oil, currency, and stock market uncertainty, Colorado looks to be doing quite well. Not excellent, but certainly better than a story leading with the unemployment rise (which could also be revised) or a "mostly positive, modest" description.

---

This one's a few days old, but it looks like the state's greenies and global warmenists are enjoying their time in the sun with Colorado's Democratic controlled House, Senate, and Governorship:

These are happy times for the environmental movement under the dome.

As the legislative session begins its second half this week, every one of the the dozen bills the groups have identified this year as priorities is still on the road to passing.

The bills touch areas of state policy from water use to power generation to wildlife protection. Two are awaiting the signature of the governor, who, by the way, doesn't seem to go a day without mentioning the "new energy economy." That phrase was at least partially created by the environmental community.

Both chambers of the legislature also have "pro-conservation majorities," as the environmentalists put it.

"There are many Democratic constituencies that have influence under the dome," said political analyst Eric Sondermann. "But my perception is that the environmental constituency is first among equals."

Nothing like a little payback from Gov. Ritter.

Has Colorado gone green, imbibing from Al Gore's global warming climate change kool-aid sippy-cup:

Environmental lobbyists say that, after years of getting their bills killed in Republican legislatures, their ideas have gained wider appeal in a world of rising gas prices and greater acknowledgment of climate change. They credit voters for bringing to power the current crop of conservation-minded lawmakers — mostly Democrats but also several environment-friendly Republicans — who in turn have looked favorably upon the environmental agenda.

"It really has been a pretty incredible shift," said Carrie Doyle, the executive director of Colorado Conservation Voters. "I think what's leading this shift are voters' concerns."

Environmental leaders say they also have become more politically skilled in recent years. They work to build coalitions more often, with farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, local elected officials, business owners — anybody who might have an interest in land or water.

They shoot more for incremental change. And they are more willing to compromise on issues to see at least part of their goals enacted.

Incremental change? Translation--back door, Trojan horse approach. Death by a 1000 cuts. Same thing.

There is a cost to all this environmental correctness, as Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, points out, "All of us want to protect the air and the water and the land," Gardner said. "We just don't want to sell Coloradans down the river to get there."

Come on Rep. Gardner. The science is settled. Don't be a big business shilling climate change heretic!

---

---

In other news:

In another follow-up to last December's church shootings, Colorado Springs Police release a 450 page report that includes Matthew Murray's angry letter to God.

---

Democrat State Sen. Chris Romer's I-70 plan, updated with citizen input includes tolls, trucking restrictions, lane reversal, and trip preregistration. Yep, that'll work. Apparently, the bill is not being so well-received, even by members of his own party.

New Evidence Threatens MSM's "Cold Equals Weather, Heat Equals Climate" Rhetoric

Via Newsbusters:

One of the truly hysterical aspects of media's obvious discomforture are the press proclamations that seasonal temperatures are not an indicator of climate trends.

Comically, this is exactly what climate realists counter every time press representatives point to a heatwave or a hurricane as proof of anthropogenic global warming.

The impetus for this "weather is not climate" restatement is an EPW blog entry covered here last week.

Earlier "consensus" was that Colorado would suffer the effects of global warming climate change in the form of less snow (more rain due to warmer temperatures) and less precipitation overall (drought).

Now, record or near-record snowfall is simply a function of global warming climate change, because more heat means more moisture and therefore, more snow.

Climate Change Skeptics Get The NY Times Treatment

When it is blazing hot in the summer and the Arctic ice melts, or when Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans in 2005--that is evidence of global warming, a specifically anthropogenic form of climate change.

When it is abnormally cold, with record snows in the Northern Hemisphere? Just "good old-fashioned" weather, not climate change.

And they wonder why skeptics question the not-so-unified "consensus":

The world has seen some extraordinary winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past year: snow in Johannesburg last June and in Baghdad in January, Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer, paralyzing blizzards in China, and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature.

It is no wonder that some scientists, opinion writers, political operatives and other people who challenge warnings about dangerous human-caused global warming have jumped on this as a teachable moment.

“Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way,” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano, the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

So what is happening?

According to a host of climate experts, including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern.

What about the sun?

If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint whether such a new force is at work.

Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air.

“The current downturn is not very unusual,” said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.

“Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over,” he said.

They'd better, or things are gonna really get inconvenient for Al Gore's minions.

"Skeptics’ last stand"?

Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on the last few months or years as evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a harmful distraction.

Discerning a human influence on climate, he said, “involves finding a signal in a noisy background.” He added, “The only way to do this within our noisy climate system is to average over a sufficient number of years that the noise is greatly diminished, thereby revealing the signal. This means that one cannot look at any single year and know whether what one is seeing is the signal or the noise or both the signal and the noise.”

The shifts in the extent and thickness of sea ice in the Arctic (where ice has retreated significantly in recent summers) and Antarctic (where the area of floating sea ice has grown lately) are similarly hard to attribute to particular influences.

Doesn't difficulty in attributing influence mean there is some doubt as to the exact cause--that there may actually be a combination of effects from different sources, not just human-made greenhouse gases?

It seems the only "noise" right now is the sound of panic from global warming alarmists who can't believe that "respondents who are better-informed about global warming 'both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.'"

Some scientists remain undaunted, criticizing the precise same "piecemeal" tactic employed by global warming activists like Al Gore in their attempt to dismiss dissent:

“Climate skeptics typically take a few small pieces of the puzzle to debunk global warming, and ignore the whole picture that the larger science community sees by looking at all the pieces,” said Ignatius G. Rigor, a climate scientist at the Polar Science Center of the University of Washington in Seattle.

It appears the climate change debate--like the climate itself--is going through a "cycle", and right now the skeptics are beginning to chip away at the already crumbling scientific "consensus".