Category: Climate & Energy

Based on Friday’s climate comments: Rick Santorum is awesome; Chris Christie is still bad. Continue reading Santorum passes, Christie fails climate litmus test

“In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned. President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream,” reports the New York Times. Continue reading NYTimes: Green jobs = Pipe Dream

Switzerland says that Italy is emitting 10-20 times more of the “potent” greenhouse gas trifluoromethane (HFC-23) than the Italians officially report. The Swiss observe, “International agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) basically have one snag: it is almost impossible to independently verify whether participating countries abide by the agreement.”

GOP presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry told the Dallas Morning News that “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they would have dollars rolling in to their projects. We’re seeing it almost weekly or almost daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change. The cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions if not in the trillions of dollars.” Perry said he would refuse to regulate greenhouse gas emissions based on questionable research.

Climate war veterans will remember that President Obama promised at the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference to contribute to a $100 billion fund for third-world kleptocracies. Soon after, though, Secretary Clinton backed away from the promise because of budget concerns. Continue reading GOP tricked in budget deal: Climate aid hidden in Defense budget

When the New York Times first opined on Climategate (December 6, 2009), the paper called it “noise.” On Saturday, the paper had this to say about Polar bear-gate in an editorial entitled “A Polarizing Polar Bear Investigation“: Continue reading NYTimes: Polar bear-gate a 'minor sideshow'

The good news for Ford Focus buyers is that they’ll soon be able to save a lot of money on gas with a rooftop solar power option. The bad news is that the $18,000 option will more than double the price of the $16,500 car — although taxpayers will pick up $10,000 of that cost. Read Wall Street Journal coverage.

“Novelists from Margaret Atwood to David Mitchell are hoping to bring the dangers posed by climate change to life, through a new collection of short stories tackling the climate crisis,” reports The Guardian.

From Human Events:

In particular, investigators are asking questions about the peer review work on Monnett’s drowned polar bear paper, which was done by his wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as Andrew Derocher, the lead researcher on the Canadian study under review by the inspector general’s office…

With investigators suggesting his research is collapsing, Monnett was defensive in the interview, and asked for the inspectors’ credentials to question his work or second-guess his calculations.

For example, there was some confusion as to whether it was three or four dead bears used in the calculation to determine the ratio of survival, and whether Monnett assumed that four swimming bears seen the week earlier were the same polar bears recorded as dead in the next survey. The statistic in question was the percentage of bears likely to survive when swimming in a storm—Monnett estimated it to be around 25%, whereas investigators put the number at more than 57%.

“Is there a potential we made a mistake, and the peer reviewers didn’t catch it? Possibly,” Gleason said.

So what part of climate alarmism isn’t scam-like?