The Bipartisan Policy Center is convening a roundtable today to discuss geoengineering as a last ditch solution to catastrophic climate change. Oy vey… Continue reading Stoking climate fears through geoengineering talks
Month: October 2011
McGurn: The green problem of billionaire guilt
“We’re all familiar with the greedy businessman who pushes taxpayer subsidies to enrich himself. Solyndra tells us we might want to start paying more attention to the businessman who’s already rich—but seeks to salve a guilty conscience by putting taxpayers on the hook for his pet causes” — the money line from William McGurn’s column in today’s Wall Street Journal.
This couch is more comfortable but that one is greener…
Is this really how businesses think consumers will evolve? Continue reading This couch is more comfortable but that one is greener…
Thinking — not just pink-ing — on breast cancer
It’s October, so it must be breast cancer industry month. Continue reading Thinking — not just pink-ing — on breast cancer
EPAcalypse Now: Lights Out in 2012?
The National Mining Association last week asked the Obama EPA to reconsider its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) citing the agency’s failure to adequately consider electric reliability. While this may sound boring, if you like electricity and don’t want to be without air conditioning in future heat waves, you ought to read it. Continue reading EPAcalypse Now: Lights Out in 2012?
'First millionaire bureaucrat': NASA's James Hansen earns up to $1.2 million in 2010
Climate alarmist — and government employee — James Hansen made up to $1.2 million last year according to disclosure forms, reports the American Tradition Institute.
WashPost hits country club for methyl bromide use
The Washington Post continued its crusade against the fumigant methyl bromide in an editorial attack on Chevy Chase Country Club for using the chemical. But as we’ve pointed out previously… Continue reading WashPost hits country club for methyl bromide use
NYTimes: Trees 'are on the way out'
The New York Times concludes in this lengthy, front-page and hand-wringing article that to save the forests, fossil fuel use needs to be limited. Although the article is filled with dire forecasts and conclusions from many “scientists,” there’s actually no science presented in the article.