Les Jones

Media losing faith in global warming?

Thursday, October 15th, 2009 | Environment, Media Behaving Badly | Permalink | 1 Comment |

So says Tim Blair, quoting Marc Marano. “We have reached the ‘tipping point.’ 2009 can now be officially declared the year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears.”

And from The Daily Mail, Whatever happened to global warming? How freezing temperatures are starting to shatter climate change theory:

Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains. Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.

But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics. According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth’s hottest recorded year was 1998. If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931. Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man’s abuse of the environment

Warming advocates always liked comparing the 80s and 90s to the 50s and 60s, but the mid-century was remarkably cooler than the early part of the century. That fact never really fit with the idea of greenhouse gas-induced global warming.

And, yeah, record cold temperatures this year are shattering some people’s faith in global warming. If the temperature continues to drop then global warming advocates will be forced to defend theories and computer models that failed to predict the temperature drop. If that happens during this time of reduced solar activity then the solar theory of global warming and cooling is going to start taking hold in the media.

Tags: global warming

“What happened to global warming?”

Sunday, October 11th, 2009 | Environment, Science | Permalink | 8 Comments |

BBC - What happened to global warming?:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on? Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

Tags: global warming

Obama science czar John Holdren in 1971: A ‘New Ice Age’ likely

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | No Comments |

I’ve blogged about Obama science czar John Holdren’s wrong-headed environmental beliefs before. Now there’s a new chapter in the nuttiness.

Zombietime - John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely:

In 1971, John Holdren edited and contributed an essay to a book entitled Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man. He wrote (along with colleague Paul Ehrlich) the book’s sixth chapter, called “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide.” (Click here to view a photograph of the table of contents, showing Holdren’s essay on pages 64-78; click on the image to the left to view the cover.) In their chapter, Holdren and Ehrlich speculate about various environmental catastrophes, and on pages 76 and 77 Holdren the climate scientist speaks about the probable likelihood of a “new ice age” caused by human activity (air pollution, dust from farming, jet exhaust, desertification, etc.).

Zombietime has scans of the original book. Good stuff.

Previously

• Obama’s science advisor was loser of a famous bet
• John Holdren, Obama’s science czar, advocated totalitarian measures to address overpopulation

Tags: john holdren

North Pole ice was completely melted March 17

Monday, September 14th, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | No Comments |

March 17, 1954, that is. “Bastardi used this photograph of a U.S. submarine at the North Pole on March 17, 1954 to illustrate his point that Arctic ice can be highly variable.”

Tags: global warming

“Your carbon emissions smell like farts; ours smell like roses”

Friday, September 11th, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | No Comments |

Financial Times - Sarkozy calls for carbon tax on imports.

The French president has in the past sparked accusations of protectionism after calling for European import tariffs on products from countries that do not abide by international targets on carbon emission reductions.

On Thursday economists warned that such an initiative – likely to be supported by some European countries such as Italy – could have catastrophic consequences for the ongoing attempts to strike a global trade deal.

“This would put the developed world on a collision course with China, India and other developing countries. It could do serious damage to the international trade system,” said Simon Tilford, chief economist of the Centre for European reform. “It would be seen as naked protectionism.”

If you raise the price of your own country’s goods with a carbon tax, you have to tax imports or you’ll disadvantage your domestic manufacturing base. But of course you don’t have the ability to do the same thing in outside markets, so your own products will be at a disadvantage in a global economy. This is why you don’t put a carbon tax on your country’s products. Only a fool doesn’t see that.

Biofuels - a vote-buying farm subsidy since 1930

Friday, September 11th, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | 1 Comment |

News from 1930: “Germany requires gasoline to be blended with 2.5% alcohol to benefit potato farmers.”

There wasn’t any environmental rationalization for Germany’s decision in 1930 to require gasoline to contain 2.5% alcohol. The politicians were just throwing the farmers a bone. That’s the the same reason politicians support biofuels today. The environmental patter is for the suckers.

Previously

• Peak coal
• Leading biofuels company goes under; Congressmen demand more biofuels
• Ethanol production creates 15% of Iowa’s greenhouse gases
• Time Magazine, Paul Krugman Admit Biofuels are Snake Oil
• Rolling Stone: “Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America’s Biggest Political Boondoggles”
• Oil sands petroleum extraction is already profitable

Tags: biofuels

More evidence backing solar-based global warming/cooling

Friday, August 28th, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | 6 Comments |

Reason - Sunspots Do Really Affect Weather Patterns, Say Scientists:

A new study in the journal Science by a team of international of researchers led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research have found that the sunspot cycle has a big effect on the earth’s weather. The puzzle has been how fluctuations in the sun’s energy of about 0.1 percent over the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle could affect the weather?

Follow the link for the answer. While greenhouse gases continue to increase there hasn’t been significant warming since 1998. There seems to be little doubt that 2009 will be a record cold year.

The greenhouse theory of global warming was based on correlation: greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were increasing and global temperatures were increasing. As everyone knows, you can have correlation without causation.

What you can’t have is causation with correlation. If the greenhouse theory is correct then temperatures should continue to rise as greenhouse gas concentrations rise. That correlation has been broken for more than a decade. In fact, the correlation now seems to be reversing, with low temperature records being shattered all over the planet. That spells disgrace for the greenhouse gas theory.

Tags: global warming

Lifestyles of the rich and environmentalist: Thomas Friedman

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | 10 Comments |

“I’ll start acting as if it’s a crisis when the people who are telling me it’s a crisis start acting as if it’s a crisis.”
– Glenn Reynolds

That’s Thomas Friedman’s house, via Planet Gore. Thomas Friedman is a New York Times columnist and the author of Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–and How It Can Renew America. From the Salon book plug interview:

What’s going to make Americans change their energy-consuming behavior? Well, I’ll give you a really lame answer. According to some reviews of the book, this answer’s just not adequate! I say, I’m sorry it’s not adequate, it’s the only answer: It’s leadership. You must have a leader who can frame this problem in an exciting way — not just the answer to these big five problems, but this incredible opportunity. It’s why I say, “Change your leaders, not your light bulbs.” Not that changing your light bulbs isn’t important. We’ve done it. Everyone should do it.

Well, I’m glad they’ve changed their light bulbs. Must have taken weeks. And this:

Yes, “Americans” are popping up all over now — people who once lived low-energy lifestyles but by dint of oil wealth or hard work are now moving into U.S.-style apartments, cars and appliances.

Our planet cannot tolerate so many “Americans,” unless we take the lead and change what it means to be an American in energy terms. Attention Kmart shoppers: the world consumed about 66.6 million barrels a day of oil in 1990. We’re now consuming 83 million barrels a day.

If you think it’s scary to think of “Americans” popping up all over, you must think it’s really scary to think of “Thomas Friedmans” popping up all over.

Previous global warming hypocrites and their giant houses, houseboats, and SUVs:

• Al Gore (house and houseboat)
• Leonardo Dicaprio (house)
• Laurie David (house)
• John Edwards (house and SUVs)

“Hypocrisy is not merely aiming for perfection and failing at it, for we are all sinners, and we all fail. Instead, hypocrisy is not aiming for perfection at all, and lying about it.”
– pogo

Tags: lifestyles of the rich and enivronmentalist

John Holdren, Obama’s science czar, advocated totalitarian measures to address overpopulation

Saturday, July 11th, 2009 | Environment, Population, Science | Permalink | 5 Comments |

Via Ace of Spades, Zombietime has unearthed a book of environmental extremism written by Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich. The book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, advocates extreme measures such as forced abortions and forced sterilization to combat the threat the authors foresee from overpopulation.

All quotes directly from the book (and Zombietime has photographs of these passages if you have any doubts):

• Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
• One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
• Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
• If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.
• In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

In the 1970s overpopulation was the environmental boogeyman that would destroy us all. Now global warming has replaced overpopulation as the all-encompassing threat to our existence, with not just a hint that overpopulation is the real problem that will have to be controlled. Reading the quotes above you can’t help but be reminded of the shameful history of social Darwinism and eugenics.

The only country that followed this sort of advice was Communist China, which enforces its one child per couple policy with forced abortions. Disgusting as the proposals above are, they’re the tip of the iceberg. In order for a government to engage in forced abortions or forced sterilizations they would first have to eliminate most civil liberties, just as China has done. In the name of saving the planet our government would have to become as brutal and totalitarian as China’s.

P.S. Holdren was the loser of a famous bet involving the Earth’s resources and commodity prices.

Tags: democrats aren't the party of science either, john holdren

T. Boone Pickens calls off wind power plans

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | 1 Comment |

CNBC - T. Boone Pickens Calls Off Massive Texas Wind Farm:

Plans for the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he’s looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines. Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall—taller than most 30-story buildings.

“When I start receiving those turbines, I’ve got to … like I said, my garage won’t hold them,” the legendary Texas oilman said. “They’ve got to go someplace.”

In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He’d hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.

Like, maybe, transmission lines are expensive and most people don’t want you building them on their property, and then there are lines losses over large distances. Remember that the next time someone talks about putting solar panels out in the middle of the desert.

Energy problems aren’t easy to solve, even for Texas billionaires.

Tags: alternative energy

New technology is the result of technology and economics, not politics

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 | Economics, Environment | Permalink | 5 Comments |

A fine point:

“When was the last time human beings modernized our energy sources by making older power sources more expensive?” [asks Michael Shellenberger, co-founder of the tiny, Oakland-based think tank the Breakthrough Institute in 2002 with and Ted Nordhaus] “And, of course, by now you probably know that the answer is never.”

Personal computers didn’t take off because there was a tax on typewriters, he says. And the Internet didn’t sprout up because the government made telegraphs more expensive.

And here’s my standard objection to the government trying to make clean energy what we use. If solar, wind, et al are so darned ready to pick up the slack from coal, oil, InsertEvilTechnologyHere, why haven’t they already done it somewhere in the world?

You can’t blame our current energy use on evil U.S. companies or evil U.S. policies. There are plenty of non-U.S. countries with money and engineering talent - China, the U.K., Japan, Sweden, France, Finland, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, South Korea, etc.

If it were economical to use solar and wind to power a first world economy someone other than the U.S. would have done it by now out of self-interest. The fact that it hasn’t happened yet suggests that the technology and/or economics isn’t there yet.

The one energy source that is more common outside of the U.S. is nuclear. Nuclear energy in the U.S. was curtailed by excess regulation, political considerations, and NIMBYism.

Leading biofuels company goes under; Congressmen demand more biofuels

Sunday, May 17th, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | No Comments |

CleanTech Brief - GreenFuel Algae Company Calls It Quits:

GreenFuel Technologies, the Harvard-MIT algae company, is ending operations.

“We are closing doors. We are a victim of the economy,” Duncan McIntyre at Polaris Venture Partners, which invested in Greenfuel, told Greentech Media.

The closing comes despite millions of dollars raised – over $70 million in venture funding since its inception in 2001, from investors, including Polaris, Access Private Equity and Draper Fisher Jurvetson – and a deal with Auranta to build test facilities in Spain. GreenFuel says it could not get the funding to complete the project. In January, it laid off half its staff – 19 people.

Meanwhile…

Ace of Spades - Congressmen Demand ‘Biofuels’, Science Be Damned:

In a nutshell, the EPA in 2007, after enabling legislation by Congress, issued rules about how to count the greenhouse gas emissions produced during the production of biofuels. One of those rules required that the agency consider indirect land use when calculating the emissions associated with biofuels. But it turns out that if you calculate emissions in this manner, biofuels actually produce more emissions than plain old gasoline.

The Democrats (and greedy, faithless, pathetic worms like Republican Frank Lucas from my former district in Oklahoma) have an easy solution: we just won’t count indirect land use! Science be damned, they want biofuels and they’re not going to take “no” for an answer.

Previously

• Ethanol production creates 15% of Iowa’s greenhouse gases
• Time Magazine, Paul Krugman Admit Biofuels are Snake Oil
• Rolling Stone: “Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America’s Biggest Political Boondoggles”
• Oil sands petroleum extraction is already profitable

Tags: biofuels

Study: Spain’s green energy destroyed 2x as many jobs as it created

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 | Economics, Environment | Permalink | 5 Comments |

(Repost. -LLJ)

Bloomberg - Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study:

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

Study: E-commerce good for the environment

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009 | E-commerce, Environment | Permalink | No Comments |

Wall Street Journal - The Green Side of Online Shopping:

E-commerce reduces the environmental impact of shopping by using about a third less energy than traditional retail — but only if you skip the express airmail.

A study out Tuesday by the Carnegie Mellon Green Design Institute offers a scientifically rigorous estimate of e-commerce’s green benefits. E-commerce not only uses less energy, but its carbon footprint is also a third smaller than bricks-and-mortar retail, the scientists found.

Lead researcher H. Scott Matthews and his team compared the energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions required to deliver a small flash drive to a shopper via a trip to a traditional store versus buying and shipping the flash drive via Buy.com.

Coming up with these calculations required many assumptions by the scientists – but they’re a lot more informed than past attempts to account for the environmental benefits of e-commerce, say the researchers. That’s because the e-commerce site Buy.com made available to them information about its data center, last mile delivery practices and other sources of energy consumption. (Buy.com is a member of the Green Design Institute’s Corporate Consortium, but didn’t pay for or direct the study.)

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Dirty money for clean industry

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009 | Environment, Politics | Permalink | No Comments |

“Only Republicans are corrupt.”
– Steve at White’s Creek

From The Corner:

Tags: only republicans are corrupt

If politicians could tax baby bunnies they would

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 | Economics, Environment, Political Survival Kit | Permalink | No Comments |

“No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.”
– Lily Tomlin

I’ve said it before. If a politician says he wants to enact a tax to protect baby bunnies, the truth is usually that he’d just as soon tax the baby bunnies if he could get away with it.

Investor’s Business Daily - Dems Cool On Climate Change As Economic Pressures Escalate:

Pelosi said earlier this year that she wouldn’t even try to bring up a climate-change bill in 2009 because she lacked the votes. She reversed course last month, telling the San Francisco Chronicle that the House would try to set a vote by December to coincide with a global warming summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

One reason for the change, Pelosi said, was that the government needed the money it could get from the auctioning off of the emissions permits under a cap-and-trade program. “I believe we have to because we see that as a source of revenue,” the Chronicle reported her saying.

When a politician says “it isn’t about raising taxes” it’s about raising taxes. At this point Pelosi isn’t even denying that the emissions permits are all about the Benjamins. And that other thing, too, the enviro-whoozit.

There’s never been a better time to buy pollution!

Monday, February 23rd, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | 1 Comment |

The Guardian - A collapsing carbon market makes mega-pollution cheap:

‘Roll up for the great pollution fire sale, the ultimate chance to wreck the climate on the cheap. You sir, over there, from the power company - look at this lovely tonne of freshly made, sulphur-rich carbon dioxide. Last summer it cost an eyewatering €31 to throw up your smokestack, but in our give-away global recession sale, that’s been slashed to a crazy €8.20. Dump plans for the wind turbine! Compare our offer with costly solar energy! At this low, low price you can’t afford not to burn coal!”

Set up to price pollution out of existence, carbon trading is pricing it back in. Europe’s carbon markets are in collapse.

Mister, at these prices you can’t afford not to pollute. What’s it gonna take to get you and the little lady to drive off the lot in some non-point source emissions? Come over here and stick your head inside. Smell that? That’s the new pollution smell.

Tags: irony

Why does being green seem to mean reaching for your wallet?

Thursday, February 19th, 2009 | Economics, Environment, Home Life | Permalink | 2 Comments |

Via Insty I found about this UPPAbaby Vista Stroller:

This comes with DNA consisting of 50% sports car, 50% super utility vehicle and 100% performance, the VISTA stroller system is ready to take you to a new level of enjoyment. UPPAbaby is an eco friendly company, dedicated to creating a better environment for our children. It comes with an eco inspired organic bassinet. This carrier is fully lined with a blend of organic soybean and cotton. The optional adapters are available for infant seats for Graco, Peg Perego and Chicco.

You can debate the eco-friendliness of the product, which is hard to measure, but you can’t debate the price, which is in fact $669.

Ouch. Our first Graco stroller was roundabout a hundred bucks. Our second Graco, a double stroller after our second child was born, was $125 used at a church sale. We’ve still got it in the attic. I reckon we’ll sell it at the church sale in March now that our kids have outgrown strollers.

More on guns in national parks and the phony lead bullet issue

Thursday, February 19th, 2009 | Environment, Guns | Permalink | No Comments |

And another thing. Most or all national parks allow fishing. Are lead sinkers banned in national parks?

Previously

• Guns in national parks and the phony lead bullet issue

Tags: ccw, lead ammo

Guns in national parks and the phony lead bullet issue

Thursday, February 19th, 2009 | Environment, Guns | Permalink | 14 Comments |

In relation to the new rules on carry in national parks, Donald Sensing writes:

That’s the tack that the Obama administration will take: it’s the lead that’s the problem, so guns must be banned from federal lands. This is not a new tactic, of course, since opponents of Second Amendment rights have long tried to shut down firearms use by trying to cripple ammunition makers and users with absolute liability for ammunition use. It won’t matter, either, that ammunition without any lead at all is available on the civilian market. A way will be found, a reason will be given. The present “defense” of the Bush rule is just theater.

I have a question. Park rangers carry guns, so what kind of bullets do they use and do they contain lead? I think I know the answer and I think you, do, too.

Tags: ccw, lead ammo

Responses to Jonathon Porritt’s polemic on limiting the number of children

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 | Environment, Population | Permalink | 2 Comments |

From Ann Althouse:

“The Optimum Population Trust… says each baby born in Britain will… burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland….”

Why old-growth oak woodland? Why specify your absolute favorite form of vegetation in comparison to a completely generic baby? We’re just talking about carbon emissions over the course of a lifetime. Why not weigh one largish cornfield against the entire lifetime of love and service of somebody’s adorable grandma?

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

Yeah, why cure illnesses? Let them loose to off more people with carbon footprints. True, it’s not as good as abortion, where you avoid the entire life of an old-growth forest killer. But a couple of middle-age disease deaths is the equivalent of an abortion, and these things add up. Just think of the immense progress in population control we could get with a major flu epidemic or bold new plague.

And one more thing. Why are we supposed to care about carbon footprints? Because of global warming? But why do we care about global warming? Because it will hurt people. If we see people as the problem, then there’s nothing to care about anymore.

James Lilieks:

It hasn’t taken long, but it’s taken hold: children, to some, are not bundles of joys, but bundles of sticks whose inevitable combustion harms the planet. It doesn’t matter whether reducing the population might deprive the world of another Mozart or a scientist who can cure cancer; the latter would just mean people living longer and going more harm, and it’s an act of pure cultural arrogance and classism to suggest we need another Mozart anyway.

Yep. According to mainstream environmentalism we’re supposed to save the planet for the children. And what’s the biggest threat to the planet? The children.

We should save Mother Earth for the children. Which we shouldn’t have, because they’re bad for Mother Earth.

Thinking of children? Think of the children!

If you had loved Mother Earth you wouldn’t have been born.

This sort of environmentalist thinking taken to its logical conclusion is madness and makes a person hate humanity and themselves.

Americans less concerned about environment, global warming

Friday, January 23rd, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | No Comments |

Pew Research - Economy, Jobs Trump All Other Policy Priorities In 2009:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 7-11 among 1,503 adults on cell phones and landlines, finds that strengthening the economy and improving the job situation are higher priorities today than they have been at any point over the past decade, and the recent upward trend has been steep. The share of Americans saying that strengthening the nation’s economy should be a top priority has risen from 68% two years ago to 75% last January to 85% today. Concern about jobs has risen even more sharply. The 82% who rate improving the job situation as a top priority represents a 21-point jump from 61% a year ago.

Of the 20 issues people were asked to rate in both January 2008 and January 2009, five have slipped significantly in importance as attention to the economy has surged. Protecting the environment fell the most precipitously – just 41% rate this as a top priority today, down from 56% a year ago. The percentage rating illegal immigration as a top priority has fallen from 51% to 41% over the past year, and reducing crime has fallen by a similar amount (from 54% to 46%). And while reducing health care costs remains a top priority to 59% of Americans, this is down 10-points from 69% one year ago.

Concern about global warming was the lowest priority, falling to 30% in 2008 from 38% in 2006.

Behold the power of signs

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | No Comments |

Via Taxing Tennessee.

Meanwhile, only 41% of Americans believe global warming was caused by man, as opposed to 44% of people who believe it was caused by long-term planetary trends, according to a new study. That’s opposed to results of 46% and 37% respectively last year. I guess people are noticing all the global colding.

Me, I’m tempted to test this sign theory by putting a “Stop Deficit Spending” sign in my yard. Knowing my luck it would get buried by these.

Global sea ice returns to 1979 levels

Saturday, January 17th, 2009 | Environment | Permalink | 4 Comments |

Daily Tech - Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979:

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly — defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Previously

• James Hansen’s 1988 global warming predictions vs. reality
• 2008: The end of anthropogenic global warming

James Hansen’s 1988 global warming predictions vs. reality

Thursday, January 15th, 2009 | Environment, Science | Permalink | No Comments |

From Climate Skeptic:

Hansen had some less alarmist scenarios, but they haven’t panned out well, either. This is data from mid-2008 (actual data in black and grey); it would look worse for Hansen now, with temperatures nearly the same as in 1988:

More recently amateur anthropogenic global warming skeptic Steve McKintyre found flaws in Hansen’s supposed actual climate numbers that Hansen later had to correct. That Wikipedia entry is far too kind to Hansen and bends over backwards to make him look as good as possible in a bad situation. Not mentioned is that McKintyre asked for Hansen’s algorithm, but Hansen - a NASA employee seemingly unfamiliar with the idea of open scientific inquiry - refused. McIntyre had to reverse-engineer the algorithm.

A few months ago Hansen beclowned himself again when the NASA department he’s in charge of, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), claimed increased global temperatures in October despite record-shattering low temperatures. The change was caused by a seeming 10 degree year over year increase in the Russian October temperatures. In reality, the dramatic increase was a mistake. Someone had repeated Russia’s September data in October.

One day I expect historians of science will use Hansen as an example of what happens when scientists becomes politicized.