MC

So we're now down to the semi-finals:

 

Joanna

Maya

Donnie

Kelly

 

I think Maya should win with Donnie second and Joanna third.

Source: NEW YORK TIMES!

 

Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor

 

By JOHN M. BRODER

Published: November 2, 2009

 

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.

 

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

 

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

 

Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

 

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

 

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

 

Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

 

“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

 

In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades.

 

“I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service,” Mr. Gore wrote. “As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.”

 

Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally friendly energy and technology business ventures, like carbon trading markets, solar cells and waterless urinals.

 

He has also given away millions more to finance the nonprofit he founded, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and to another group, the Climate Project, which trains people to present the slide show that was the basis of his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” Royalties from his new book on climate change, “Our Choice,” printed on 100 percent recycled paper, will go to the alliance, an aide said.

 

Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.

 

As a private citizen, Mr. Gore does not have to disclose his income or assets, as he did in his years in Congress and the White House. When he left government in early 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee.

 

Since then, his net worth has skyrocketed, helped by timely investments in Apple and Google, profits from books and his movie, and scores of speeches for which he can be paid more than $100,000, although he often speaks at no charge.

 

He is a founder of Generation Investment Management, based in London and run by David Blood, a former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (the firm was quickly dubbed Blood and Gore). Mr. Gore earns a partner’s salary at Kleiner Perkins. He has substantial personal finances invested at both firms, officials of the companies said.

 

He also serves as an adviser to high-profile technology companies including Apple and Google, relationships that have paid him handsome dividends over the last eight years.

 

Mr. Gore’s spokeswoman would not give a figure for his current net worth, but the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund started by his friend Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of eBay.

 

Ion Yadigaroglu, a co-founder of Capricorn, said that Mr. Gore does not sit on the fund’s investment committee, but obviously agrees with the partners’ strategy of putting long-term money into promising ventures in energy, technology and health care around the globe.

 

“Aspirationally,” said Mr. Yadigaroglu, who holds a doctorate from Stanford in astrophysics, “we’re trying to make more money than others doing the same thing and do it in a way that is superior in ethics and impacts.”

 

Mr. Gore has said he invested in partnerships and funds that try to identify and support companies that are advancing cutting-edge green technologies and are paving the way toward a low-carbon economy.

 

He has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market and in an array of companies in bio-fuels, sustainable fish farming, electric vehicles and solar power.

 

Capricorn holds a major stake in Falcon Waterfree Technologies, the world’s leading maker of waterless urinals. Generation has holdings in Ausra, a solar energy company based in California, and Camco, a British firm that develops carbon dioxide emissions reduction projects. Kleiner Perkins has a green ventures fund with nearly $1 billion invested in renewable energy and efficiency concerns.

 

Mr. Gore also has substantial interests in technology, media and biotechnology ventures that have no direct tie to his environmental advocacy, an aide said.

 

Mr. Gore is not a lobbyist, and he has never asked Congress or the administration for an earmark or policy decision that would directly benefit one of his investments. But he has been a tireless advocate for policies that would move the country away from the use of coal and oil, and he has begun a $300 million campaign to end the use of fossil fuels in electricity production in 10 years.

 

But Marc Morano, a climate change skeptic who until recently was a top aide to Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said that what he saw as Mr. Gore’s alarmism and occasional exaggerations distorted the debate and also served his personal financial interests.

 

Mr. Gore has testified numerous times in support of legislation to address climate change and to revamp the nation’s energy policies.

 

He appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April to support an energy and climate change bill that was intended to reduce global warming emissions through a cap-and-trade program for major polluting industries. (So technically not a lobbyist, but he tries to alarm everyone about his "global warming" threat, and they pass legislation that puts millions in his pockets. But he's not a lobbyist...)

 

Mr. Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his climate advocacy, is generally received on Capitol Hill as something of an oracle, at least by Democrats.

 

But at the hearing in April, he was challenged by Ms. Blackburn, who echoed some of the criticism of Mr. Gore that has swirled in conservative blogs and radio talk shows. She noted that Mr. Gore is a partner at Kleiner Perkins, which has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in firms that could benefit from any legislation that limits carbon dioxide emissions.

 

“I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it,” Mr. Gore said, adding that he had put “every penny” he has made from his investments into the Alliance for Climate Protection.

 

“And, Congresswoman,” he added, “if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”

Source.

 

October 22, 2009

Poll finds nearly 2 in 3 Americans are Manmade Global Warming 'Deniers'

Marc Sheppard

 

According to a Pew Research Poll released today, the number of Americans believing there to be “solid evidence that the earth is warming” has dropped 14% since last year. And the biggest drop – 22% -- was among those identifying themselves as independents.

 

And while 57% are still buying into the continuing warming hype, the number attributing the warming to human activity has dropped from 47% to 36%. What’s more, the number seeing global warming as a “very serious” problem is down 9 points to 35%.

 

These latest results would suggest that messages of continued scientific debate and flat or falling temperatures in the past 11 years are indeed being heard, despite a strident media campaign to silence them.

 

Only 46 days to go before climate alarmists from all over the planet are off on the road to Copenhagen, where they’ll attempt to finalize a treaty intended to control how the entire world produces and consumes energy.

 

But it appears that the de facto treaty leaders from the U.S. will not only arrive at the summit without an American climate bill with which to demonstrate their leadership, but also without the support of almost two thirds of the citizens they represent back home.

 

And happily, that doesn’t bode well for the energy governance threat, be it domestic or foreign.

Eyes have it for Jessica, Gerard

 

Jessica Simpson and Gerard Butler had a date at Soho House Tuesday night, with friends including her hair stylist pal, Ken Paves, as chaperones. "They were at a table with friends, but Jessica and Gerard, who sat next to each other, seemed to only be interested in each other and chatted for hours," a spy told Page Six. "They were laughing and flirting and eventually left together, along with Ken." Publicists for both didn't return calls.

Maybe a threesome?

BORING season!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: look at the photos from the "Batman Begins" premiere. Katie is wearing a brown satin dress, and she is clearly pregnant. I voted for Chris Klein, although it could be Hartnett.

Great article, Tuba Girl. I was just coming here to post that.

 

Check this out:

 

Unfortunately for him, he looks very nervous and when he couldn't/wouldn't answer the question, they cut off the microphone of the questioner.

 

Nice to see that journalists are silenced to make the politicians look good.

 

I do like what the journalist said, "Treat big environment like you treat big politics, big government or big business. Where is the money coming from? Who is channelling it? Is this reported? Where is the independent verification of those claims?"

Eliminated so far:

 

Ashley Hamilton

Macy Gray

Kathy Ireland

 

I wonder who will go tonight. Len was brutal with his scores last night!

We're bombing the moon? We have people living on the streets, people who are starving and uneducated and we spend money on bombing the moon? WTF?

 

LCROSS impact site picked

 

 

NASA has chosen the final destination for the LCROSS lunar impacting probe: the crater Cabeus A, near the Moon’s south pole.

So why is NASA smacking a probe into the Moon at high speed, and why there?

The idea is that over millions and billions of years, a lot of comets have hit the Moon. The water from these comets hits the surface and sublimates away… but if any settles at the bottoms of deep craters near the Moon’s poles, these permanently shadowed regions can act as a refrigerator, keeping the water from disappearing. It can stay there, locked up as ice, for a long, long time. Some estimates indicate there could be billions of tons of ice near the Moon’s south pole.

Detecting that water is tough. Radar results have been inconclusive, with some people saying there’s lots of water, and others saying there’s none at all. By impacting a probe there, any ice located at the impact site will be shot up above the lunar surface, where sunlight will break it up into O+ and OH- molecules, which can be detected. Thus, LCROSS. I have a more detailed description of all this in an earlier blog post about LCROSS.

The choice of Cabeus A for the impact site is a good one. It’s near the south pole, it’s a likely spot for there to be ice under the surface, it’s on the near side of the Moon, so people back here on Earth can observe it, but close enough to the limb that any ejected water can be seen. Here’s a map of the area:

 

 

LCROSS is planned to impact the crater at 11:30 GMT on October 9, which is early morning for the U.S. (in fact, there will be two impacts; one from the spacecraft and another by the Centaur booster) The plume from the impact should stretch up many kilometers. It will almost certainly be too thin to be seen by amateur instruments, but the impact itself should make a bright enough flash to be seen if you have a telescope. The crater itself will be in shadow, making the light flash easier to spot. It’ll only last a second or two, so if you want to observe it, be prepared! NASA has a nice webpage with all the info you need to watch this historic event for yourself. I hope everyone gets a chance to see this!

Congratulations to Rio de Janeiro!!!

Source.

 

 

Oct 2, 2009 10:27 am US/Central

O NO!! CHICAGO LOSES 2016 OLYMPICS

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (CBS) ―

 

Despite four years, millions of dollars in planning and a last-ditch pitch from President Obama, the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid ultimately fell short.

 

The City of Chicago was eliminated in the first round of voting, before any host city was selected.

 

An expert called it the "biggest shock in IOC history."

 

A disappointed USOC President Larry Probst left the venue and refused to comment, saying the Chicago delegation would respond later.

 

Supporters gathered in Chicago were equally shocked. Many left the rally in Daley Plaza tears.

 

Tokyo was also eliminated in the first round.

 

Even the president's star billing wasn't enough to put Chicago over the top in what some experts said was the tightest race for the Games in its history.

 

"The President did everything he could to bring the Olympics to our country and we're obviously disappointed that we didn't win them," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton.

 

The contest lasted four years and endured several stumbling blocks. But many believed that when President Barack Obama elected to go to Copenhagen to deliver the closing remarks of Chicago's final presentation, the move would seal the deal to send the games to Chicago.

 

But the president's pitch, along with the star power of First Lady Michelle Obama and TV queen Oprah Winfrey, couldn't sway enough votes.

 

In the short term, CBS 2 Mike Flannery reports that the Chicago defeated leaves Obama politically wounded by taking on a fight that he really didn't have to take.

 

The vote is also a stinging defeat for Mayor Daley, who has been used to getting what he wants. Although opponents now no longer have the Olympics, and the potential for cost overruns and mismanagement, as a campaign issue.

 

CBS 2 Olympics expert Mike Conklin said the defeat points to the United States' lack of standing within the International Olympic Committee, dating all the way back to the U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics.

 

City officials first announced in July 2005 that Chicago would be making a bid for the 2016 games. Mayor Richard M. Daley had originally said the millions required to make a serious pitch would not be worth it, but local business leaders came forward and said they would foot the bill.

 

Retired Aon executive chairman Patrick Ryan came on as the chairman of the 2016 Olympic bid committee.

 

By 2006, Mayor Daley was meeting with the International Olympic Committee and traveling to compare notes with other cities. He proposed the construction of a temporary stadium in Washington Park, which would house the opening and closing ceremonies, as well as track and field events and open-air festivals.

 

Plans for an athletes' village soon followed. Eventually, the campus of Michael Reese Hospital on the city's Near South Side was chosen as the site.

 

The U.S. officially decided to enter a bid for the 2016 Games in January 2007, and picked Chicago over Los Angeles for the bid in April of that year.

 

The city began courting major sporting events to show its preparedness for the Olympics, including the World Boxing Championships, which were held in the city in October 2007. The city had also hosted the Gay Games in the summer of 2006.

 

In June 2008, Chicago cleared yet another hurdle, when the city was named one of four finalists for the 2016 Games. Three others were eliminated from the race – Doha, Qatar; Prague, Czech Republic, and Baku, Azerbaijan.

 

Chicago's Olympic bid got a monumental boost when Barack Obama was elected president.

 

At a rally in Daley Plaza five months before the election, Obama drummed up enthusiasm for the bid. He said: "In 2016, I'll be wrapping up my second term as president, so I can't think of a better way than to be marching into Washington Park alongside Mayor Daley, alongside Rahm Emanuel, alongside Dick Durbin, alongside Valerie Jarrett as President of the United States, and announcing to the world, 'Let the games begin!'"

 

But as the bid pushed ahead, questions began to arise about the city's bid. Analysts began to cast doubt because of the city's plan to finance the bid completely with private funding, while the other cities all had public guarantees.

 

Protests against the Olympics began to erupt in Chicago, on fears that there would be cost overruns and taxpayers would get stuck with the bill.

 

Still, the Chicago 2016 team pressed on, recruiting President Obama, Michael Jordan, and other dignitaries and celebrities to appear in promotional videos. In April 2009, the city wined and dined a group of IOC members, showing off proposed Olympic venues and other plans, and treating the dignitaries to a gala attended by Oprah Winfrey.

 

But the week the bid team picked to host the dignitaries was unseasonably cold, and attention on the IOC visit was disrupted by a protest by Chicago Police officers who were angry over their lack of a new contract.

 

Still, the IOC seemed to come away impressed.

 

When asked what stands out as a highlight of the Chicago bid after the visit, El Moutawakel said, "We felt, honestly, that the concept and vision and the love of the sports were there …We felt that the whole community was behind the bid, backing the bid."

 

But the question of funding still remained, and eventually mushroomed into its own controversy. Following a June 2009 visit to Lausanne, Switzerland, for a final pitch to the IOC, Mayor Daley appeared to change course and said "yes" when asked if he would sign a contract guaranteeing that the city would assume "the financial responsibility for the planning, organization and staging of the Games."

 

In total, the Olympics had an estimated price tag of $4.8 billion.

 

Daley later said the city would be on the hook for "no more than the $500 million already approved by City Council."

 

Some Chicago aldermen grew skeptical, including Manny Flores (1st), Sandi Jackson (7th) and Joe Moore (49th), who called for an independent auditing team for the Olympic bid.

 

But in late August 2009, a report by the Civic Federation concluded that as long as the city stuck to its plan, taxpayers would be protected from the costs of the Olympics.

 

Controversy also erupted when the city began demolition of the Michael Reese Hospital campus. Critics said the city had engaged in risky real estate speculation in purchasing the campus, and lamented the demolition of some buildings designed by renowned architect Walter Gropius.

 

On Sept. 2, an IOC commission put out a report that criticized the bid for its failure to provide a full public guarantee to cover an economic shortfall, the city's limitations of transportation system, and the costs of the Olympic Village and new venues.

 

But the report also called the city's budget "ambitious, but achievable," and criticized other cities too. Overall, Rio de Janeiro came off the best in the report.

 

On Sept. 4, a Chicago Tribune poll indicated that only 47 percent of Chicagoans supported the Olympic bid, and 45 percent were against it. The survey was criticized for its sample size of only 300 people, but other cities used the poll in an effort to sell themselves over Chicago.

 

Meanwhile, President Obama was on-again, off-again for weeks about whether he would go to Copenhagen for a final pitch before the vote on the host city.

 

On Sept. 16,Obama said his efforts to finalize a health care reform plan had to take precedence. He said First Lady Michelle Obama would go to Copenhagen instead, along with White Hosue adviser Valerie Jarrett, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Oprah Winfrey also headed to Copenhagen for the final vote.

 

But on Sept. 28, Obama changed his mind, and the White House announced that he would be going after all.

 

The chief executives of Japan, Spain and Brazil were all in Copenhagen, and when it appeared that Obama was not going, IOC officials warned that his absence would be "noticed."

 

But Chicago's bid fell short even with Obama's presence.

 

Now, like the failed plans decades ago for a 1992 World's Fair, the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid will only exist in the world of what might have been.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source.

 

Enviros Use ACORN Tactics and Attack the Journalist (Literally)

by Phelim McAleer

 

It really is a great time to be an independent journalist/filmmaker.

With the mainstream media devoting to trying to turn policy differences into racism it leaves the task of asking hard questions to people in power open to the rest of us

Inspired by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles who have shone an uncomfortable light on Acorn by asking obvious questions and by simply letting people answer I decided to cover the New York premiere of “The Age of Stupid” – a documentary that claims the human race will be extinct by 2055 because of Climate Change.

 

 

Much of the “Age Of Stupid” is spent attacking those in the developing world who want our lives and lifestyles. The documentary is particularly critical of those in countries such as India who want to fly more for business or pleasure.

The documentary is quite clear that flying in aeroplanes is disastrous for the planet. “Apart from setting fire to a forest flying is the single worst thing an individual can do to cause climate change,” we are told.

 

So after applying for and being given press accreditation by their publicists I decided to find out whether the film makers and their celebrity supporters have stopped or even reduced their flying hours.

Or is it only the people of the developing world who must fly less while environmentalists continue with their luxuries because their campaigning is so important it has to continue.

 

I had been told that Franny Armstrong “The Age of Stupid’s” director, had been careful whilst making the film but has been on a massive flying binge promoting the documentary. Then there were the rest of the celebrity supporters such as Kofi Annan, the head of the UN, Mary Robinson, the former Irish President, actresses Gillian Anderson and Heather Graham and Moby who is apparently a famous DJ.

Are they making the sacrifices they demand be enforced on the people of the developing world?

 

Unfortunately there seems to be one thing environmentalists dislike more than flying and that is hard questions about their own flying habits.

After a few questions which revealed that none of those at the premiere had the slightest intention of living up to the standards they demand of others the film makers decided they didn’t want to be accountable. Along with their security guards they manhandled me and and forced me of the press deck despite having given me accreditation to be there.

 

I didn’t realise press accreditation now comes with provisos that you are not allowed to ask awkward questions of environmental activists and their celebrity supporters.

They then used their security team to block my camera.

 

There were lots of other press at the premiere but they didn’t seem interested in seeing if environmentalists even tried to live up to the standards they demand of some of the poorest people on the planet.

They didn’t even seem interested in covering the obvious expulsion of another reporter for asking difficult questions.

 

And they wonder why no one is watching their TV news or buying their newspapers.

Source.

 

U.N. climate meeting was propaganda: Czech president

Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:28pm EDT

Featured Broker sponsored link

 

By Louis Charbonneau

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus sharply criticized a U.N. meeting on climate change on Tuesday at which U.S. President Barack Obama was among the top speakers, describing it as propagandistic and undignified.

 

"It was sad and it was frustrating," said Klaus, one of the world's most vocal skeptics on the topic of global warming.

 

"It's a propagandistic exercise where 13-year-old girls from some far-away country perform a pre-rehearsed poem," he said. "It's simply not dignified."

 

At the opening of the summit attended by nearly 100 world leaders, 13-year-old Yugratna Srivastava of India told the audience that governments were not doing enough to combat the threat of climate change.

 

Klaus said there were increasing doubts in the scientific community about whether humans are causing changes in the climate or whether the changes are simply naturally occurring phenomena.

 

But politicians, he said, seem to be moving closer to a consensus on climate change.

 

"The train can't be stopped and I consider that a huge mistake," Klaus said.

 

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon organized the climate summit to help create momentum before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December to reach agreement on new targets for reducing so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

 

However, new proposals by China and a rallying cry from U.S. President Barack Obama did little to break a U.N. deadlock about what should be done.

 

Klaus published a book in 2007 on the worldwide campaign to stop climate change entitled "Blue Planet in Green Chains: What Is Under Threat -- Climate or Freedom?"

 

In the book, Klaus said global warming has turned into a new religion, an ideology that threatens to undermine freedom and the world's economic and social order.

Will someone please explain to me how you can get the most viewers (17.5 million for DWTS) and come in third?? Are they really saying that if you didn't beat yourself, you lose?

 

Source.

 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

Fox wins first night of season: 'Heroes' falls, 'Big Bang' leads CBS

 

 

High ratings drama Monday night with a deluge of broadcast network premieres:

 

>> Fox won the opening night of the fall season for the first time in its history. The network aired the two-hour return of "House" (16.5 million viewers, 6.5 preliminary adults 18-49 rating), the medical drama climbing 14% from last year as most of its competitors declined.

 

>> CBS placed second in the key adult demo with its comedy block and "CSI: Miami" (13.7 million, 4.3). Most returning CBS shows took a ratings hit, with "Miami" down 17%, though still beating ABC and NBC at 10 p.m. combined. The exception was "Big Bang Theory" (12.8 million, 4.6), which managed to rank as the network's highest-rated show in its new time period after "Two and a Half Men" (13.6 million, 4.4). "Big Bang" grew 28% from last year and hit a series high. Leading off the night, "How I Met Your Mother" (9.2 million, 3.5) was off only a tenth from "Big Bang" in the slot last year. New comedy "Accidentally on Purpose" (9 million, 3.2) lost less than 10% of its lead-in and did pretty well considering the intense competition.

 

>> In third place, ABC aired a two-hour "Dancing With the Stars" (17.5 million, 4.1), down 24% from last fall's premiere and down 33% from its spring edition. Tom Delay is a poor substitute for Melissa Rycroft, it seems. This was the reality competition's lowest-rated premiere yet. The second season debut of "Castle" (9.4 million, 2.3) was soft; on par with "Boston Legal" in the slot last fall, but dipping from its midseason debut.

 

>>NBC ranked fourth, it's two-hour "Heroes" premiere (6 million, 2.7) free falling 46% from last year's one-hour opener. Heroes" didn't face "House" last year, though. At 10 p.m., "The Jay Leno Show" (5.7 million, 1.8) assumed its third-place position and dipped below a 2.0 for the first time. Though expected, this means "Leno Show" went from being the highest-rated show last Monday among the major broadcast networks to the lowest rated last night.

 

>> Against significantly increased competition this week, the CW's "One Tree Hill" (2.5 million, 1.2) impressively maintained its premiere rating, but "Gossip Girl" (2.1 million, 1.1) was knocked down 21%.

 

Analysis:

 

 

The big winners here are "House" and "Big Bang Theory" ... Fox hopes that next week's addition of "Lie to Me" will help the network maintain a powerful presence on Mondays this season ... The rest of CBS' block that took ratings hits could easily improve -- the shows aren't serialized and CBS viewers often check out other networks during premiere week, then loyally wander back to CBS for their Charlie Sheen comfort food. The "Accidentally on Purpose" number gives no hint where this new show is going ... ABC's "Dancing" has dropped with nearly every premiere. That's eventually going to be a problem, but not for a while -- the show is still doing really well ... "Heroes" took a hard hit, and not unexpected considering how dramatically the show's ratings fell last season. "Leno Show" is in its still-settling ratings netherworld, but this is about where insiders expect the show to be.

Source.

 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2009, 4:02 PM ET

Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy

 

By Ian Talley

 

This post was updated Monday evening.

 

When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.

 

 

Energy Secretary Chu: A teaching moment (AP)

Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

 

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” (In that case, the Energy Department has a few renegade teens of its own.)

 

The administration aims to teach them—literally. The Environmental Protection Agency is focusing on real children. Partnering with the Parent Teacher Organization, the agency earlier this month launched a cross-country tour of 6,000 schools to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.

 

“We’re showing people across the country how energy efficiency can be part of what they do every day,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “Confronting climate change, saving money on our utility bills, and reducing our use of heavily-polluting energy can be as easy as making a few small changes.”

 

Still, Secretary Chu said he didn’t think that the public would throw the same political temper tantrum over climate legislation has has happened with the healthcare debate.

Asked if he expected a town-hall style pushback, Dr. Chu said he was optimistic the public would buy the administration’s arguments that energy efficiency and caps on greenhouse-gas emissions will spark an economic rebound.

What is this guy smoking?

 

“I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate” that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters.

 

Don’t look now, but there’s actually quite a lot of debate as to the economic merits of the new green-energy economy. Whether that will spell a healthcare-style revolt against the energy and climate bill stewing in the Senate is another question.

 

An update: Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: “Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing.” No, we can read. He WAS comparing the American Public to teenagers in regards to how we act! Shame on him. Who made him our judge?

Will someone please have a scientist call him? He clearly hasn't been keeping up with things!

 

Source.

 

 

Obama Says U.S. 'Determined' to Combat Climate Change, Despite Senate Delay

A failure to address climate change could create an "irreversible catastrophe," President Obama warns in a speech at the United Nations.

 

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

 

 

 

President Obama promised the United Nations Tuesday that his administration is "determined" to do more to address the nation's climate change obligations.

 

But left out of the speech to the General Assembly special session on climate change was the political reality the president faces in trying to keep that promise.

 

While the House passed a sweeping climate change bill this year, it has stalled in the Senate as health care reform dominates the domestic agenda.

 

Yet Obama asserted Tuesday that, while the United States was slow to respond to the global warming threat, his administration is doing more to combat climate change than any in history.

 

He touted progress that has been made during his term, including new standards for fuel efficiency in automobiles and the House version of the so-called cap-and-trade bill -- which he called the most important part of U.S. efforts.

 

"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations," he said.

 

Obama warned that a failure to address the problem could create an "irreversible catastrophe." Obama said time is "running out" to fix the problem but that, "we can reverse it."

 

That wasn't nearly enough to blunt the criticism directed at the United States by European and Asian leaders. (Wait a minute. What's CHINA doing?)

 

He was immediately followed on stage by Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, who criticized the West for "complacency and broken promises" on climate change.

 

Former President George W. Bush rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in part because major developing nations like China and India were left out.

 

Now the United States is being held up as an excuse by those very countries, who question why they should make strict commitments if the United States is not doing enough. (Just a stall tactic, they won't comply even if we do!)

 

John Bruton, head of the European Union delegation in Washington, also issued a statement ahead of Obama's speech blasting the U.S. Senate.

 

"I submit that asking an international conference to sit around looking out the window for months, while one chamber of the legislature of one country deals with its other business, is simply not a realistic political position," he said.

 

The U.S. House bill passed earlier in the year would set the United States' first federal mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. Factories, power plants and other sources would be required to cut emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by mid-century.

 

It's unclear how long Obama has to harness the Democratic majorities in Congress to push through domestic priorities like climate change legislation. Many forecasters predict Democrats will lose congressional seats in 2010, making it all the more pressing for the Senate to make progress soon.

 

Even if the Senate passes its own version, the differences will have to be reconciled before a bill heads to the president's desk.

 

But Obama maintained confidence Tuesday that the United States will act and put added pressure on developing nations to do the same.

 

"Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead, and that includes the United States. And we will continue to do so -- by investing in renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency, and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050," Obama said. "But those rapidly-growing developing nations that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon emissions in the decades ahead must do their part as well.

 

"They will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own. We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together," he said, adding that wealthy nations have a responsibility to help developing nations financially to make the changes. (China considers themselves a "developing nation", as does India, which is why they were left out of the yoto agreement. Are we going to give them financial aid for this?)

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

From the LA Times

 

 

'Dancing With the Stars': You've got male!

September 22, 2009 |

 

Woo hoo! “Dancing with the Stars” is back, and bigger than ever! With a whopping 16 contestants vying for that coveted Mirrorball trophy, the producers split Season 9’s first week’s competition into two parts: the men and the women. Which means three whole days of fringey fun!

First up: the men. And Macho Monday did not disappoint. We were treated to not one, but two dances by each of the male contestants: one solo routine, and one dance performed side by side in a relay. And it started out with a high-energy romp at the beginning by our very own male pros, danced to Thin Lizzy’s “The Boys Are Back in Town.” Were you as excited as I was to see all your pro favorites back and hopping? I was lucky enough to be in the studio audience for Monday’s taping, and the crowd seemed to be electrified by the performance. Not only was it hot, but it was tight (as in tight pants). And the roar of the crowd was deafening.

 

 

Taking the lead after Monday’s competition were Aaron Carter and Karina Smirnoff, who received a 22 for their cha-cha. And why wouldn’t Aaron do well, what with his musical background, and when you’ve got four-fifths of the Backstreet Boys in the audience to have your back (all right!). The little brother of Backstreet Boy Nick showed off a bevy of moves in his cha-cha-cha, displaying a nice split through Karina’s legs and more than ample amounts of swagger. He also had tons of energy, though at times the flaunting and prancing reminded me of an unbridled colt champing at his bit. Didn’t Karina’s fringey pipe-cleaner pants look like the ones she sported on Sunday night’s Emmy awards? And was that top left over from Santa’s coat? Way to recycle, girl! Loved how it matched Carter’s lacy snowflake top. Very winter wonderland, by way of Cuba. Carrie Ann remarked how “little Aaron Carter is all grown up,” Len said the cha-cha was “a little bit stiff, but a great start,” while Bruno said it was “spiky … all the energy goes all over the place.” Aaron was a little more successful reining it in for the waltz relay, though at times it seemed to me that it was a little prancing. Still, Carrie Ann liked his lines, and Bruno admired his rotation, and that was enough to earn him and Karina the 10-point maximum. Total: 32

 

Just two points behind was Donny Osmond. And let me tell you, there were plenty of ladies in the audience who were hot for Donny tonight. Everything he did was met with ear-splitting screams. Even though he claimed to get embarrassed with the intimate holds (what’s going to happen when he gets the rumba?), the Pride of Provo seemed very relaxed with his fox trot, and the audience just ate him up (during a commercial break, an audience member asked to have Donny, rather than the free T-shirt the crowd-warmer was giving out). And to his credit, Donny was quite the performer. With Aussie partner Kym Johnson by his side (and sis Marie in the audience, accompanied by another famous sibling, Jermaine Jackson), Donny did his darndest to overcome his Osmond Slouch and win over the voting public with his “All that Jazz” routine. While Len complained that it was “too theatrical, too much razzmatazz,” Bruno complimented him on his “full on, full frontal theatrical.” His smooth salsa moves helped cement his stance as both an audience favorite and a technical front-runner. Carrie Ann said Donny “smoked” the competition, and Bruno exclaimed he was “shaking like the king of Puerto Rico” (whatever that means). He got a 20 for his fox trot, plus the full 10 points for the salsa. Total: 30.

 

Actor Mark Dacascos also showed great promise. Unbeknown to those who only know him as the dramatic chairman on “Iron Chef America,” Dacascos has 11 years of martial arts training under his belt, which makes him more than fit to compete in this competition. He can also do middle splits – hello! His cha-cha with partner Lacey Schwimmer showed a nice fluidity of movement (and rocking guns, thanks to that sleeveless top). But while Carrie Ann said she “loved the Asian theme,” Len wasn’t buying it. “I don’t want to see kung fu in the waltz,” he pouted. And while I usually like the occasional gimmick myself, I have to agree with the stodgy head judge on this one: I thought they were pushing the kung fu theme a little far. OK, he’s Asian. He’s versed in martial arts. But the Asian outfit, the dragon in the back, the dancing to “Kung Fu Fighting,” the fists of fury, the “grasshopper” reference … all a bit much. Who are we karate kidding? Luckily, there were no martial arts references in the Viennese waltz relays, and Mark was able to put his stellar arm extensions front and center. He earned a 21 for the cha cha cha, and 8 points for the waltz. Plus, he gets an extra credit for showing off his “man boobs.” Total: 29.

 

Another dark-horse competitor: Louie Vito. The champion snowboarder (who’s training for the 2010 Olympics) is arguably one of this season’s lesser-known “stars.” And a lot of signs seemed to go against him coming into the competition. First, the name: He sounds like he should hang with mobsters in Jersey rather than grace the ballroom floors. Secondly, he looks alarmingly young: When he came down the stairs I wondered if someone had mistakenly brought their 12-year-old to the show. Third, he claimed he’d never even seen an episode of “DWTS” before signing on (which kind of makes you wonder how and why he got corralled into this). Fourth, he’s a snowboarder. But despite all these strikes against him (and the fact that he was dressed up in an ill-fitting suit whose collar just about swallowed him whole), Louie Vito’s fox trot with partner Chelsie Hightower was totally engaging. “Don’t think snowboarder, think prince,” Chelsie wisely counseled. And it seemed to work: Louie displayed a fair amount of grace and nice up-and-down movement, good form, and a winning smile that looked like he was having a blast the entire time. “Very charming,” Tom said admiringly, “That was a little surprise,” marveled Carrie Ann. “You respected the dance.” Len, despite hating on Louie’s mop of hair, “enjoyed your dancing very much.” And Bruno, ever the tactician, blustered: “It was so cute! It was like watching a little dancing Hobbit!” Louis totally won me over with his affability, his commitment to the dance, and his sheer adorableness, and I just wanted to put him in my pocket and take him home. His salsa also packed a nice amount of heat: A great tumbling pass at the beginning, and a not bad snake move at the end. The judges awarded him a 19 for his fox trot, and eight points for the salsa. Total: 27.

 

Hats off to Chuck Liddell for his admirable performance. And while Liddell is also versed in martial arts, you don’t see him plucking at bonsai trees and karate kidding himself (Sweep the leg, Chuckie!). Though the former ultimate fighting champion was saddled with another theme: the Neanderthal. “A lot of people have the impression that fighters are a bunch of Neanderthals,” he said during the rehearsal footage. Cut to him emitting a very caveman-like “uggghhh!” of frustration as he attempted to glide with partner Anna Trebunskaya across the floor. While his fox trot left a lot to be desired, with what Bruno called poor footwork, terrible lines and bad timing, it was admirable to see Chuck trying so hard to feel the flow, and last season’s runner-up, Gilles Marini, was one of the first on his feet to applaud this fighting champ after his routine. Chuck did a lot better on his salsa, however: The fan favorite loosened up and actually appeared as though the dance was actually fun, rather than pain-inducing. It even led Carrie Ann to comment that Chuck “knows how to work a woman” (huh?). The judges gave the fighting champ a 16 for his fox trot, and a six for the salsa. Total: 22.

 

Coming in two points behind was Tom DeLay, who (gasp) did not suck! Kudos to Cheryl Burke, not only for helping the former House majority leader get in touch with his inner “Wild Thing,” but also for outfitting him in pants that didn’t sit squarely on his belly button. Cheryl had the unenviable task of whipping this conservative Republican into dancing shape, despite a pre-stress fracture and an innate inability to go left. But his cha-cha, while stiff, seemed to be perfectly functional. Also functional: His swinging bottom. While we in the studio audience witnessed the rampant rump shaking at a safe distance, sadly, those at home were smacked with the searing image in extreme close-up. And while no living creature should have to be subject to that much swinging DeLay derriere, the politician really did display a John Ratzenbergerian lightness of step, as Carrie Ann said. Bruno called the Hammer’s out-there cha-cha “crazier than Sarah Palin,” while Len said “parts were magic, parts were tragic.” The waltz relay showed off more of DeLay’s elder gentleman sensibilities, though Len thought it was a “tad skippy.” None of which has DeLay that worried. “I’ve got bigger critics than those judges,” he quipped. DeLay earned a 16 for his cha-cha, plus four for the waltz. Total: 20.

 

Tied for last place was NFL hall of famer Michael Irvin – who, despite his ebullient personality and intense inner rivalry with Jerry Rice, could not curry the judges’ favor. And while his cha-cha with partner (and last season’s pro dancing competition winner) Anna Demidova may have lacked in content, I don’t think it warranted fours from Len and Bruno. His shimmies were full of life and swagger, and very infectious. Plus, the guy is just so entertaining: All that time spent in front of the mirror shows how he is his own best friend and worst enemy -- so much inner conflict! Plus, I love how Anna uses his rivalry with Jerry to motivate him. Irvin fared a little better in his waltz, however. While I thought he looked a little stiff and his shoulders tensed up, both Bruno and Carrie Ann commended him and Anna for infusing more content into the routine. He received measly 13 for the cha-cha, plus 6 for the waltz. Total: 19.

 

Just happy to be here was Ashley Hamilton. Son of the “tan man” (and former “DWTS” competitor George), the actor and comedian was just trying to follow in his father’s footsteps, and maybe even emerge in his own right out from under his dad’s melatonin-rich shadow. (Pere Hamilton was in the audience tonight, and looked so tan that Edyta looked pale by comparison.) Ashley had an impressive height to his advantage, and a self-deprecating attitude that was likable. He even was paired with dad’s old partner and leg-warmer queen Edyta Sliwinska, and their outfits were very complementary and dapper. If only his fox trot wasn’t so stiff and bland. And if only he wasn't constantly being reminded how he wasn’t measuring up to dear old dad. Bruno was particularly harsh: “To me, this was dead. Your daddy knows how to sell it. You have to sell it. I didn’t like it.” Ouch. And his salsa relay didn’t fare much better. Len called it “a dance only your father could love.” Eek. Ashley received a 15 for his fox trot, an additional four for the salsa and a lifetime's worth of daddy issues. Total: 19.

 

While voters usually respond to against-the-odds stories like Ashley’s recovery from a devastating motorcycle accident, I’m not sure if it will be enough to save the younger Hamilton from being eliminated this week. Michael Irvin had the same point total, but “DWTS” voters love their sports stars (including Aaron Carter, who appears to be Michael’s biggest fan) too much to let him go the first week. Who do you think will be cut? Were you impressed by the performances? Should you nix the kung fu, and tone down the razzmatazz? Sound off below, and then check back Wednesday for the ladies' night recap!

 

— Allyssa Lee

Meet this season's pairs who are eager to put on their shoes and begin learning the steps:

 

Aaron Carter and Karina Smirnoff

Natalie Coughlin and Alec Mazo

Mark Decascos and Lacey Schwimmer

Tom DeLay and Cheryl Burke

Macy Gray and Jonathan Roberts

Ashley Hamilton and Edyta Sliwinska

Melissa Joan Hart and Mark Ballas

Kathy Ireland and Tony Dovolani

Michael Irvin and Anna Demidova

Joanna Krupa and Derek Hough

Chuck Liddell and Anna Trebunskaya

Debi Mazar and Maksim Chmerkovskiy

Mya and Dmitry Chaplin

Kelly Osbourne and Louis Van Amstel

Donny Osmond and Kym Johnson

Louie Vito and Chelsie Hightower

Source

 

 

 

Kevin Libin: You'll just have to take our word on the global warming stuff

Posted: August 18, 2009, 8:30 AM by Kevin Libin

 

 

Though a striking number of prominent scientists have recently recanted their initial belief in manmade global warming, joining an already robust community of distinguished skeptics, those who continue to advance the theory could be their own worst enemy. Whatever the truth is about anthropogenic climate change — the contention that carbon dioxide emitted by human industrial activity — the tendency among some climate-change believers to embellish the effects of planetary warming has only served to undermine their credibility in the eyes of the public and, less so, the media.

 

For years, global warming advocates held up every calving ice shelf, failed crop or natural disaster as proof of a dawning warming apocalypse; whether it was too much rain, or not enough — either way, it was abnormal, and the fault of Big Oil and anyone questioning that, labeled a “denier.” As Vicky Pope, a senior British climatologist, citing overblown claims of rapid melting of arctic sea ice, and the ice sheet around Greenland, bemoaned earlier this year, for scientists, “overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening.”

 

But probably nothing could damage the credibility of climate change believers than the recent revelation by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that it has lost or destroyed all the original data used to construct historic global temperature records. The CRU, at the University of East Anglia in the UK, which has been using information collected from weather stations across the globe for decades, is probably the most widely cited source worldwide for those mounting a case that the earth has exhibited an inexorable warming trend: its website boasts that CRU’s research has “set the agenda for the major research effort in, and political preoccupation with, climate research.” The critical raw climate data responsible, which scientists of all climate-creeds have a natural interest in, is now gone, apparently, forever. With the exception of a handful of countries that the CRU has agreements with to sell its data, all that remains for the bulk of the statistics are “value added” versions, which is to say, consolidated, homogenized data. Actually, the CRU says it doesn’t even have all the data for countries it has data-sharing agreements with. “We know that there were others, but cannot locate them, possibly as we've moved offices several times during the 1980s,” the CRU writes in a rather embarrassing explanation for all this posted on its website.

 

The Unit makes this admission now, coincidentally, as it faced a flurry of requests, under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, to make available its data to interested researchers. The CRU, it seems, had not been much in a sharing mood prior to that. UK's register reports that Professor Phil Jones, the fellow in charge of maintaining the CRU data set, told an Australian researcher a few years back that he refused to publicly share his statistics. “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” The idea that scientific progress rests completely on the constant testing and retesting, verifying and refuting, of studies, seems not to be shared by Mr. Jones, even though this particular data set had massive implications for policymaking in pretty well every country on the planet. Unfortunately for him, as part of a publicly managed and funded organization, his group was nonetheless subject to transparency laws, and so, when researchers sought to shake the data loose without his consent, it had mysteriously vanished. “We have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value,” they explained in coming up dry for the FOI requests. As Stephen McIntyre, the Canadian economist famous for his addiction to poring through volumes of mind-numbing climate statistics, and occasionally finding errors (as he did, with Ross McKitrick, in deconstructing and undermining the famous “hockey stick” graph), writes on his Climate Audit blog here, it appears that the impoverished CRU even lacked filing cabinets in which to store its records.

 

With access only to “homogenized” consolidated data, there is no way for researchers — skeptical or believers — to verify or refute the original statistics or calculations behind the CRU’s widely relied-upon weather information. The data could be accurate, or not. It could be that temperatures haven’t been warming at the rate the CRU claims, or it could be that they’re warming faster, perhaps arguing for an even direr situation for the planet. Nor can the raw data be run through different modeling programs in order to corroborate conclusions, or question them. The science is permanently frozen into the CRU’s original grid, and we are, evidently, forced to assume everything is perfectly accurate, a relatively rare thing in complex statistical calculations compiled over decades.

 

Which is why Mr. McIntyre (who has also found evidence that could, maybe, suggest that the CRU has been deleting important data files from its servers) isn’t the only one incredulous and indignant over the CRU’s missing records. Roger Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado Center for Science and Technology Policy Research is a firm believer in global warming. But even he calls this a “big” “misstep,” writing on his blog that “just because climate change is important and because there are opponents to action that will seize upon whatever they can to make their arguments, does not justify overlooking or defending this degree of scientific sloppiness and ineptitude.” Scientists of all climate creeds know that access to basic data is critical to keeping research credible. Of course, the CRU is only one of a couple key organizations whose research based on historical weather data is used to support global warming theory. Given that the Unit has admitted now that it cannot fully substantiate its work, it raises the uncomfortable question of whether CRU’s historic climate research should be used any longer at all.

 

National Post

 

 

Gee, now what am I supposed to think about them losing that data???? Maybe it doesn't really hold up to close scrutiny??

WOW! In this day and age, with such important data, it hasn't been transferred to their research computers? Something's rotten in... East Anglia!

Of course it doesn't hold up to scrutiny and if they destroyed it (which I doubt), then it's because it absolutely does not prove Gore's theories and would totally disrupt the whole "sky is falling" industry.

Source.

 

Another Meteorologist Dissents: 'Does carbon dioxide drive the climate? The answer is no!'

Friday, July 10, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

 

Chief Meteorologist David Paul, a holder of the AMS (American Meteorological Society) Seal of Approval and the upgraded AMS CBM (Certified Broadcast Meteorologist) holds a degree in meteorology and is currently at Louisiana's KLFY TV10, dissented from man-made global warming fears in July 2009.

 

“Is there a climate crisis? I say, absolutely not!” Paul wrote in a July 8, 2009 article on KLFY TV 10's website. “Does carbon dioxide drive the climate? The answer is no! Natural cycles play a much bigger role with the sun at the top of the list,” Paul explained. “There's much more driving the climate than carbon dioxide. There are so many variables at work, known and unknown, that not a single person, or computer model, can predict the future climate for sure,” Paul wrote.

“Then there's El Nino Southern Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation, the Arctic Oscillation, the Pacific-North American Teleconnection, Milankovitch forcing, ocean variations, and so on and so forth. Is there any way to model all these variables? Again, the answer is no! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has tried and failed!” Paul added.

 

"Just know this; climate change has occurred in the past, is occurring now, and will occur in the future. Trying to pinpoint that change on carbon emissions and human activities...is really a stretch," Paul wrote.

“Since before the industrial revolution the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising, up to around 385 parts per million by volume today. That amounts to a miniscule 0.0385% of the atmosphere. Increased CO2 levels are beneficial to plants since they require carbon dioxide to grow. In this experiment, plants exposed to CO2 levels of 1,090 parts per million by volume by far exhibited the most growth,” Paul wrote.

 

“As a forecaster I'll tell you this. Forecasting in the short-term is fairly accurate compared to forecasting long-term. So if these climate models are so far off already, there's really little chance of them being right further out.

For Paul's full article and scientific citations go here or here.

Related Link:

March 2009 U.S. Senate Report: 700 Plus Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Warming Claims.

Source.

 

SATURDAY, JULY 11, 2009

Skeptics From Around the Globe-APS Letter

UNITED STATES

 

An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society

 

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

 

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th -21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

 

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

 

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human -- on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.

 

Dr. Salvatore Torquato

Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Materials Institute and Applied & Computational Mathematics, Princeton University, Fellow APS; 2009 APS David Alder Lectureship Award in the Field of Material Physics

Source.

 

Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global Governance'

Climate Depot Exclusive

Friday, July 10, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

 

Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

 

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

 

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

 

Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000.

On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance."

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added.

Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed UN's Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.”

 

'Global Carbon Tax' Urged at UN Meeting

 

In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

 

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

'Redistribution of wealth'

 

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

 

[Editor's Note: Many critics have often charged that proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.]

Source.

 

July 11, 2009

Obama's Wrapping Paper

David Heath

Perhaps by accident, but more likely by design, President Obama may have very well found the new cover he can apply to the statist ambitions he has for America: "Saving the Planet." If Obama is somehow able to get his much desired Cap and Trade legislation, already passed by the House, through Senate, it would open the door for all sorts of new laws and regulations that would seriously compromise the way of life that American have been accustomed to.

 

The reality of the Cap and Trade bill is, that anything that uses ANY amount of energy, either in the item's production, or in the item's use, would be subject to regulations. As the "science of global warming" is based on unverifiable and unquantifiable data anyway, it opens the door for huge amounts of corruption, as anyone with an agenda can manipulate and skew any data to make it support any argument they want to put forth as truth. And because they are able to wrap it up in the feel-good "big green bow" of "saving the planet," many of us in this country will willingly eat it up without thought to what the real implications are.

 

The sky is potentially the limit with this one. Lawmakers, under the guise of saving the planet, could potentially do all sorts of things we never thought possible before. Certain anti-gun legislators have not been able to take arms away from the public due to the Second Amendment. However, swaddled in the wrapping paper of saving the planet, those same lawmakers could use their "environmental concerns" to perhaps illegalize, or at least highly regulate, the discharge of firearms, citing the emissions gunshots release, without a need to even touch the Second Amendment.

 

"Global Warming" wrapping paper will serve Obama for some time. In this paper, he will no doubt wrap every controversial and anti-American idea he has in store for us. Where we live, what we do for a living, what we eat, what we drive, whether we smoke or not... All of these things, and much more, could potentially fall under the regulation of a new climate protection bill. Unfortunately, a large potion of the American population will see their freedoms slowly disappearing, but will nonetheless cheer their Messiah for making the hard choices to save the climate, not realizing that his true intention, far from saving the environment, is to consolidate and retain his own power.

Source.

July 09, 2009

In Search of an Intelligent Energy Policy

By Andrew Foy and Brenton Stransky

 

 

No responsible energy policy can go forward that is rooted in the belief that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions significantly contribute to global warming or "climate change" as it is now called. This article will address data from the historical temperature record as well as climate models that refute the theory that: CO2 causes or to a large extend amplifies climate change.

 

Based on the following data it appears that the only thing consistent about the climate is that it is always changing. Unfortunately, the Waxman-Markey bill, recently passed by the House, sets the foundation for an energy policy guided by the premise that man-made CO2 emissions are causing climate change and must be reduced regardless of the economic consequences.

 

In the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore presented data from the Vostok Ice-Core, which was a collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica. It yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 meters. By careful analysis of this historic ice core, researchers reconstructed trends of temperature and CO2 concentrations over a period of 420,000 years.

 

The authors of the Vostok project concluded that during glacial inception (the beginning of a global cooling period) and termination (the start of a global warming period), temperature goes up or down first followed by an increase or decrease in CO2.1 The conclusions from the original Vostok report have been reproduced from other ice-core samples and it is now well accepted that during glacial inception and termination that atmospheric CO2 content lagged behind shifts in air temperature by 800 to 5,000 years!

 

The ice-core data is interesting on two accounts: one, it demonstrates that the simple cause and effect relationship presumed by the current man-made climate change hypothesis - "that changes in CO2 levels cause changes in the temperature" - is actually the other way around; two, it demonstrates that the earth has experienced significant warming periods in the past - much warmer than the current period at a time when man wasn't burning fossil fuels!

 

The following is a graph of CO2 (Green), temperature (Blue), and dust (Red) measured from the Vostok Ice-core as reported by Petit et al., 1999 - you can disregard the red graph for purposes of this discussion. It is clear from the graph that the current warming period (at time 0 on the horizontal axis) is the coolest and most stable warming period recorded - within this warming period, which began 10,000 years ago there have been several warmer periods all of which occurred before man started burning fossil fuels

 

Even over the last century where we have undisputedly experienced a warming trend, which is not unusual based on the historical temperature record - there has been two sustained periods where CO2 levels were increasing and yet the planet was cooling. The first period occurred roughly from 1940 to 1975 at which time many scientists were concerned about the prospects of an impending ice-age. The June 24, 1974 TIME Magazine cover read - The Cooling of America.

 

A Newsweek column from April 28, 1975 stated, "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change [cooling], or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climate uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality." Enough said.

 

The second period of cooling is occurring now, represented by the graph from Joe D'Aleo - combining temperature data from NASA's Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) (Blue)and the UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit (Hadley CRUT3v) (Pink)with CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (Green).

 

The most recent cooling trend, displayed on the above graph, is well outside the predictions of the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (shown below). The IPCC has been the most influential body in driving energy policy in countries around the world and uses climate models like the current Waxmen-Markey bill to make projections regarding how much warming we can expect to save by cutting CO2 emissions to certain levels. The following graph from the Science and Public Policy Institute displays the real temperature trend from 2001-2009 versus the IPCC projections. This graph emphasizes that assumptions used by the IPCC models - that a certain level of CO2 causes a certain degree of warming - must be incorrect!

 

It would appear from the data that CO2 is unlikely to be the culprit responsible for precipitating or significantly contributing to climate change. The skeptical position can be summed up well by Professor William Happer's statement to the US Senate on February 25, 2009. Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He was also the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990-93, where he supervised all of DOE's work on climate change. His statement includes the following:

 

The climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.

 

Is there still a possibility that man-made CO2 could be significantly contributing to climate change? - yes, but this theory seems less and less likely given the recent data and the failure of the models to accurately predict temperature change. It's also important for the public to remember that the burden of proof is not on those skeptical of the man-made climate change theory but rather on the scientists and policymakers who believe an invisible gas - that humans exhale from their lungs with every breath - will cause a climate catastrophe. In the meantime, the one catastrophe we can be sure of is the growing national debt and this is why any responsible energy policy should focus on making use of all the natural resources here at home including oil, natural gas, and coal to grow our economy in this struggling time.

A recent study from EnergyTomorrow.org projected that the economic impacts of private sector spending in 2020 - if drilling bans were lifted on the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Outer Continental Shelf (Pacific and Atlantic offshore and the Eastern Golf of Mexico), and the Rocky Mountains - would result in the creation of 110,000 - 160,000 jobs and 22 - 33 trillion dollars in revenue. Lifting these drilling bans would appear to be a reasonable place for an intelligent energy policy to begin.

 

Andrew Foy, M.D. and Brent Stransky are co-authors of the forthcoming book, "The Young Conservative's Field Guide: Facts, Charts and Figures to Convince Your Friends." They can be contacted through their website at www.aHardRight.com.

 

1. Petit, JR et al. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antartica. Nature. 1999:399:429-436.

Source.

July 7, 2009

Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change

 

Ben Webster, Environment Editor and Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

 

Al Gore invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill today by encouraging political leaders to follow the example of Britain’s wartime leader and unite their nations to fight climate change.

 

The former US vice-president accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming. He said lack of awareness among voters allowed governments to avoid taking difficult decisions.

 

Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment , sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.” He added: “We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource.” Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat during World War 2.

 

“The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshhold where political leaders feel that they must change.

 

“The only way politicians will act is if awareness raises to a level to make them feel that it’s a necessity.” Mr Gore, who brought the issues around climate change to a mass audience with the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, said the great hope for the future lay in the high level of environmental awareness among young people.

 

He said sceptics who refused to believe dramatic cuts in carbon emissions could be delivered should consider the example of the young scientists in the Nasa team which put a man on the moon on 1969.

 

“The average age of scientists in the space centre control room was 26, which means they were 18 when they heard President Kennedy say he wanted to put a man on the moon in 10 years. Neil Armstrong did it eight years and two months later.” He said future generations would put one of two questions to today’s adults.

 

“It will either be ’what were you thinking, didn’t you see the North Pole melting before your eyes, didn’t you hear what the scientists were saying?’ “Or they will ask ’how is it you were able to find the moral courage to solve the crisis which so many said couldn’t be solved?’.” Sir David King, the Government’s former chief scientist and now director of the Smith School, also berated politicians for failing to follow up their statements on climate change with a clear programme of action.

 

“I do think it’s relatively easy for a prime minister to make a speech on climate change which sounds committed and very much more difficult for that prime minister to persuade the Treasury to put the finance behind that commitment to make it a reality.

 

“There is a long distance in government between saying what you think needs to be said and then doing in terms of making budgets available.” Sir David expressed disappointment that no senior British politician had taken up his invitation to address a conference attended by the world’s top climate scientists, senior business leaders and the presidents of the Maldives and Rwanda.

 

“I tried to pull in a lot of IOUs. But where was the Lord Mandelson [the Business Secretary], where was Ed Miliband [the Energy and Climate Change Secretary]? Where was David Cameron? Where was William Hague?”