All time record snowfall 2011 in Oregon and California unfortunately for EPA global warming profiteers

5/8/11, "It's endless winter at Mt. Bachelor with record snowfall into May," The Oregonian

"It's a sunny Friday afternoon in late April.... I've just discovered a fun string of little moguls while skiing on the northwest side of Mount Bachelor.

By this time of year, most right-thinking people have forgotten about snow. But 22 miles outside of Bend, Mt. Bachelor Ski Resort recently surpassed its

• all-time record for seasonal snowfall,

which was 606 inches. At press time, the current total stands at 633 inches -- and counting. Compare that with the average snowfall: 387 inches. (That's the running total for the season; the actual snowpack at mid-mountain was around 180 inches late last week.)"...

-----------------------------------------------------

4/10/11, "News For Travelers: Tall ships sailing up Columbia, and record snowfall at California resorts," Oregonian

"Record snowfall at California ski resorts

"Seasonal snowfall records have been set at some California ski resorts, including Squaw Valley USA near the north shore of Lake Tahoe, Heavenly Mountain Resort on the lake's south side and Mammoth Mountain, the sprawling eastern Sierra resort that attracts Southern California skiers and snowboarders.

More than 61 feet of snow has fallen in the 400-mile-long Sierra Nevada this season, second only to the 1950-51 season when 65 feet fell, according to California Department of Transportation records. Although spring has arrived, the Sierra typically gets some snow in April,

• bringing the prospect of an all-time record.

At Squaw Valley, home of the 1960 Winter Olympics, ski patrol guides had to create tunnels just to reach their warming huts, and avalanches broke out windows at two lift stations. Nearly 59 feet of snow has fallen there this winter,

• beating the old record by 29 inches.

Squaw is extending its season through Memorial Day, while Mammoth, with a peak elevation exceeding 11,000 feet, might remain open

• through Fourth of July."

via Tom Nelson, Steven Goddard

Newsday cover of Neo-Con killer Obama shows a hypocritical PR sheet. Too bad the American people have no one doing PR for their cause

Their cover of a hysterically grinning neo-con/killer/Nobel Peace prize laureate/multi-millionaire is a joke. Newsday would rather go out of business than stop airbrushing those bleeding this country dry. 5/7/11 front cover.

5/6/11, "The First-Person Presidency," NRO, Victor Davis Hanson

"President Obama takes credit for operations that

• would have been impossible

• had Senator Obama’s views prevailed."

"Senator Obama complained about airborne attacks on the Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands. President Obama increased Predator assassination attacks fivefold.

• He has killed

• four times as many terrorist suspects by Predators in 27 months

• than did President Bush in eight years.

In January 2007 — three weeks after President Bush announced the surge — Senator Obama introduced the “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.” If it had passed, that law would have removed all troops from Iraq by March 2008. Obama derided the surge in unequivocal terms both before and after its implementation: “I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” “Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked.”

Candidate Obama criticized warrantless wiretaps, in accusing the Bush administration in the harshest terms: “This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.” A disinterested examination of present policy regarding both wiretaps and intercepts would show no change from the Bush administration, or

• indeed considerable expansion of the use of these tools....

“I taught constitutional law for ten years at the University of Chicago, so . . . um . . . your next president will actually believe in the Constitution, which you can’t say about your current president.” George Bush did not believe in the U.S. Constitution?

In sum, Senator Obama opposed

• tribunals,

• renditions,
  

• Guantanamo,
  

• preventive detention,
  

• Predator-drone attacks,
  

• the Iraq War,
  

• wiretaps, and

• intercepts —

before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to

• embracing targeted assassinations,
  

• new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and
  

• a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation--

• this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family.
  

The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama’s radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has

• simply been airbrushed away.

Times change. People say one thing when they are candidates for public office, quite another as officeholders with responsibility of governance. Obama as president naturally does not wish to be treated in the manner in which he once treated President Bush....

Okay, the public perhaps understands all that hypocrisy as the stuff of presidential politics. But I think it will not quite accept the next step of taking full credit in hyperbolic first-person fashion for operations that

• would have been impossible had his own views prevailed."

via Gateway Pundit

NY City Mayor Bloomberg signs $1 billion Nissan taxi deal including 6 electric Nissan Leafs to road test in 2012

NYC Mayor Bloomberg signs $1 billion dollar deal with Japanese company Nissan to make NYC cabs.

5/3/11, "Announcing NYC's Taxi of Tomorrow: The Nissan NV200," NYC.Gov, mikebloomberg.com

"It is anticipated the first “Taxi of Tomorrow” will be introduced into service in late 2013. As part of the regular phase out of taxis, the current fleet on the road will be retired out of service within three to five years, depending on whether they are in-use part or full-time,

• and replaced by the Nissan NV200.

Nissan will be able to manufacture the NV200 to run on electric-only power starting in 2017. The City will test the use of all-electric powered taxis starting in 2012 with six fully electric Nissan Leafs – provided free of charge – to road test electric vehicles. If the pilot proves successful, the City will explore the possibility of the wider use of electric powered taxis." (last paragraph)

======================================

5/3/11, "Nissan Wins $1B Pact To Provide NYC Taxis Beginning In Late 2013," Wall St. Journal

"New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Tuesday that Japanese automobile company Nissan Motor Co. (NSANY, 7201.TO) had won a 10-year, $1 billion contract to provide thousands of taxis to the city

• beginning in about two years.

The other "Taxi of Tomorrow" finalists were Ford Motor Co. (F) and Turkish car maker Karsan Otomotiv Sanayii ve Ticaret AS (KARSN.IS). At a press conference here, Bloomberg said none of the interested bidders proposed making their cars in the U.S., at least at first, so the move shouldn't be seen as choosing

• a foreign company over a domestic one."...(subscription)

=======================================

Bloomberg and Obama in golf cart on Martha's Vineyard,

August 2010, ap photo.

========================================

Mayor Bloomberg has a business, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, devoted to profits in the global warming and carbon trading industry. Since 2007 he has called for more taxes on Americans as reparation for climate crime. From his UN speech 3 years ago:

--------------------------------------
2/12/2008, "Mayor (Bloomberg) Compares Threat of Global Warming to Terrorism," NY Sun, Benny Avni, United Nations

"While he acknowledged that scientists are unable to predict its consequences, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday compared the scourge of global warming to

• the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of

• weapons of mass destruction.

Although it is a "long-term" fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of "everybody" on the planet, the same way that fighting terrorism and its proliferation saves lives in shorter terms. Addressing a U.N. climate change conference, the mayor also announced a new plan to reduce the use of tropical hardwoods by New York City and told delegates that the city plans to host a meeting in June of leaders from 20 major world cities to discuss ways for the largest municipalities

• to reduce global warming.
  

Other participants in the conference called for a "war" against climate change, in which

• the United Nations would serve as a
  
• front-line combatant.

Mr. Bloomberg renewed his call, made first late last year, for taxing countries such as America that emit large amounts of carbons, which are believed to cause changes in the planet's climate. "So long as there's no penalty or cost involved in producing greenhouse gases, there will be no incentive" to meet

• targets set by international institutions,
  

the mayor told the General Assembly. "For that reason, I believe the U.S. should enact

• a tax on carbon emissions.

"Terrorists kill people. Weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill an enormous amount of people," Mr. Bloomberg told reporters after addressing the U.N. General Assembly, but

• "global warming in the long term has the potential to kill everybody."

Like smoking, Mr. Bloomberg said, these are preventable killers. "We should go after terrorists every place in this world, find them and kill them, plain and simple," he said. If weapons of mass destruction "get out of the hands of the countries that have them and get into the hands of terrorists, the potential is just mind-boggling," he added. And while global warming "is a much longer-term thing," he said, it "has all of the same potentials of destroying the planet that we live on.

• No scientist knows for sure what's going to happen, but you don't want to wait to find out."

Mr. Bloomberg announced that in addition to his initiatives to convert the city's taxi fleet to hybrid fuels, devise a plan for congestion tax, "green our buildings," and plant more trees, the city would curb the use of tropical hardwoods, which it purchases to the tune of $1 million a year, causing rainforest deforestation. The city will immediately reduce by 20% the use of such hardwoods, which are used in park benches, ferry landings, beach boardwalks, and the Brooklyn Bridge walkway. A new design study would devise ways to replace them altogether in the long term, the mayor said. The two-day conference, titled "Addressing Climate Change: the United Nations and the World at Work," included, in addition to members of the General Assembly, such stars of entertainment and industry as

• film actress Daryl Hannah and
  
• Virgin Atlantic Airways founder Richard Branson.
  

Mr. Branson called on governments to match his company's announced prize of $25 million to encourage scientists and inventors to find a technological solution that would

• "avert a catastrophe" to the environment.
  

• "We need a war room," he said.

On another issue, Mr. Bloomberg told The New York Sun that the Fire Department of New York has had access to the U.N. compound on First Avenue, and "we think we have plans if there were fire" there. "The United Nations is making progress," he added. "They're going in the right direction, they are not there yet." Specifically, he indicated, plans should be made ahead of the ambitious U.N. renovation plan this spring. "Construction is always a dangerous period, so we're going to have to work very carefully with them going forward."

Jurisdiction issues have hampered relations between local emergency teams and the United Nations. Most recently, the organization declined to notify local authorities when workers got sick after handling boxes from

• North Korea at a U.N. basement.
  

After the Sun reported on the incident, FDNY officials were permitted to examine the boxes and determined that mold was the cause of the sickness. "We are not here to try to take their sovereign right to dictate what goes on, on their property," Mr. Bloomberg said of the United Nations. "But given the interaction with the emergency responders in the city, we have to work together.""

Bloomberg addresses United Nations on alleged global warming in 2008.

• photo from Gothamist.

.

Corruption in green schemes threatens climate industry

5/1/11, "Green schemes are 'wide open to major corruption'," Independent UK, David Connett and Chris Stevenson

"Millions of pounds in grants and aid are being siphoned off by fraudsters, warns report"

"Corruption is threatening global steps to combat climate change, a new report from Transparency International (TI) warned yesterday. Billions of pounds will be plundered and wasted, it says, unless stronger measures are introduced against embezzlement and misappropriation.

The organisation warns that 20 nations most vulnerable to climate change – where millions in grants and aid will be targeted – are judged to be among the most corrupt in the world – and stronger oversight is needed to ensure the funds are properly spent. None of the countries, which include Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Egypt and Vietnam, scores higher than 3.6 on TI's influential Corruption Perception Index, where 0 is wholly corrupt and 10 "very clean".

Any siphoning off of green grants would undermine efforts to reduce the impact of climate change by developing projects such as wind farms or solar power plants, improving sea wall defences, irrigation systems and housing capable of withstanding natural disasters, says TI.

"Corruption holds nothing sacred, not even our planet's future," said Huguette Labelle, chair of TI. "Failure to properly govern climate change measures now will not only lead to misallocated resources and fraudulent projects today, but also hurts future generations," The report, Global Corruption Report: Climate Change, estimates the total investment into combating global climate change will reach almost $700bn (£420bn) by 2020. "Where huge amounts of money flow through new and untested financial markets and mechanisms, there is a risk of corruption," it says.

Carbon markets, the main financial tool for combating climate change, have already been hit by fraud, the report points out. In January, the European Union's carbon market was shut down after it was attacked by cyber-hackers. More than three million carbon credits were stolen from government and private company accounts.

The system has also been hit by repeated tax frauds. One scheme to meet all of Europe's power needs from concentrated solar power plants covering 1 per cent of the Sahara desert was undermined after experts said bureaucratic complexity and corruption in north Africa raised the risks and costs of investment there. After an investigation by Spanish officials, it was discovered that more than one in 10 of its solar parks was falsely registered as operational, despite making no contribution to the energy grid.

The dash for low-carbon solutions is proving a curse for some communities, TI warns; governments who sell off land for bio-fuel cultivation must respect local land rights. Half the world's known reserves of the lithium vital for electric vehicles are believed to lie in Bolivia's Uyuni salt lake, but companies exploiting the reserves have failed to consult with local groups and have damaged eco-systems, threatened water supplies, and blighted tourism.

Illegal logging, an industry estimated to be worth more than $10bn a year, is fuelled by corrupted customs and other officials, the report says. Some countries have already claimed carbon credits for fictitious forest plantation projects. In Kenya, deforestation is exacerbated by corruption among under-resourced forest guards. TI estimates that in 1963 Kenya had about 10 per cent forest cover; by 2006, it was less than 2 per cent.

All countries are vulnerable: Britain is criticised for its failure to deal with so-called "greenwashing" marketing techniques used by companies to misrepresent how environmentally friendly their products are.

Also highlighted is America's failure to curb the influence of the "brown lobby" – the 2,000 registered oil, gas, coal and electricity lobbyists who spent an estimated $400m in 2009 compared with the green lobby's $22m."

• Misleading statement at best. US taxpayers have already been robbed of billions for global warming 'research.'

===============================

Comments:

"CaptainH 8 minutes ago

The whole point of the green schemes is to create subsidized industries, giving them to friends and family, to create carbon taxes, producing huge new undeserved revenue streams for government spending, and to create cap and trade, a huge new false economy based on carbon which is virtually impossible to truly monitor and thus ripe for rampant fraud and corruption, making certain individuals and banks very wealthy at the people's expense. Why else would Gore have invested so heavily in the chicago carbon exchange and so many green companies (all surviving only due to government infusions of tax payer cash).

The dream of every entrepreneur is to get in one a new industry at the beginning. The green scam is to simply create new industries by fiat and mandate, allowing select individuals the blessing of knowing that their companies cannot fail die to subsidies."

----------------------------------------------

derekcolman 3 days ago

"Carbon markets are a scam anyway, so is it any surprise organised crime and fraudsters are moving in on it? They just want a piece of the action. As for aid to poor countries to promote green energy schemes, everyone except the green idealogues knows that most of the money will end up in the numbered bank accounts of the despicable despots around the world. We in the west have been pouring aid money into those countries for years, supposedly to improve the lot of the poor. The effect has been close to zero.
Meanwhile we see delegates from hundreds of countries flying all over the world at our expense to junkets, sorry conferences, to discuss how they can enable the transfer of our tax money to these corrupt countries. Any one of these scientifically illiterate delegates will gladly explain to us how the science shows we have to do something about climate change. Then we see the spectacle of any number of them eagerly signing a bogus petition in Cancun for the abolition of that dangerous chemical, dihydrogen monoxide."






via Climate Depot

Warren Buffett says greenhouse gases not a risk for his insurance operations

.
"Buffett says he doesn't believe greenhouse gases represent a material risk for Berkshire's insurance operations.

4/30/11, "Berkshire shareholders reject emissions goals," AP

"Berkshire Hathaway shareholders reject a measure that would have required the company's utilities to set goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

At the company's annual meeting on Saturday several people spoke in favor of the measure, saying Warren Buffett's company could be hurt financially by potential liabilities associated with carbon emissions. Berkshire owns several utilities through its MidAmerican Energy Holdings subsidiary.

Investment manager Bruce Herbert of Newground Social Investment says investors should be concerned.

Buffett and Berkshire's board, which collectively controls 38 percent of the voting power, opposed the measure, so it was overwhelmingly rejected.

Buffett says he doesn't believe greenhouse gases represent a material risk for Berkshire's insurance operations. And Berkshire's major utilities are governed by state regulators who might

• object to changing sources of electricity, he said."

via Tom Nelson

EU countries have already met 2020 emissions targets due to recession-UK Guardian, Harvey

1/31/11, "An atlas of pollution: The world in carbon dioxide emissions," UK Guardian, Harvey

• "Continuing expansion of China has offset the reduction in carbon emissions in recession-hit western countries"

"According to calculations from Sandbag, the green campaigning group, the impact of the recession on emissions means

• European Union companies could do

• nothing more to fight climate change between now and 2016,

• and still meet their targets of a 20% cut by 2020."...

-----------------------------------------------

Do UK citizens know this? Are they demanding the government stop all subsidies for climate related programs for the next few years at least? ed.

.

Communist China and rest of Asia CO2 emissions render US efforts irrelevant. China passed US in CO2 emissions 5 years ago.

"Why the government even bothers trying to reduce CO2 emissions is a mystery. Rising CO2 emissions from China and the rest of Asia

• make any efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S. irrelevant."...

5/1/11, "Adventures in the Climate Trade," American Thinker, Norman Rogers

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter to article says:

"Posted by: Steve100

May 01, 01:25 PM

---

This article correctly refers to the climate change scam as a juggernaut and properly notes that billions if not trillions of dollars are involved in this outrage. Despite the hint that public opinion in support of this scam may be waning, children from Kindergarten to young adults at Universities are continuously being brainwashed in the religion of the warmists. The heartland Institute does a fine job of providing factual rebuttals of the global warming mythology, but their efforts are minimal in confronting the juggernaut. What is needed is an approach that

• follows the money.

Who are the enablers to this flow of treasure to the academic and industry scammers? It is Congress that appropriates and mandates. Even so-called Republicans like McCain anf Graham are outspoken supporters of this ongoing scam.

• Political pressure on Republican fund raisers would be a start.

More publicity in the form of educational attacks on candidates running for political office would be more appropriate than preaching to the AT choir."

---------------------------------------------------------

"Global warming, now called climate change, is a big industry with academic and commercial branches. One way or another the government provides the money to keep it in business. The academic side supports thousands of scientific workers churning out some good science larded with lots of junk science. The commercial side is busy turning out tank cars filled with corn ethanol and covering the landscape with windmills. Nobody would be doing any of this without government subsidies and mandates. A recent example of how the geniuses in Washington direct policy is the loaning of hundreds of millions to electric car companies like Tesla. Tesla is the stock that everyone is going to be trying to short when they aren't trying to short First Solar.

Some of this government support is direct, such as the 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour subsidy for windmill electricity. But much is mandated by regulations that result in increased consumer prices -- a hidden tax. For example utilities may be required to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from green sources such as windmills. Since the electricity from these sources is expensive,

• prices to the consumer must be raised.

Why the government even bothers trying to reduce CO2 emissions is a mystery. Rising CO2 emissions from China and the rest of Asia make any efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S.

• irrelevant."...

----------------------------------------------------
"China...overtook the US as the world's biggest emitter in 2006-07 "...1/31/11, UK Guardian
----------------------------------------------------
(continuing, AT): "The numbers and trends are very obvious on this point. China currently generates 1/4 as much electricity per capita as the U.S. and China has 4 times the population. This suggests that China could eventually increase its electricity generation by a factor of 16 to match the per capita electricity usage enjoyed in the U.S. In the single year 2010 electricity production grew 15% in China, a pace that would double production in 5 years. Electricity in China comes mainly from coal, the indigenous fuel available in large quantities and the most CO2 emitting fuel. China is also consuming ever increasing quantities of oil to support its growing automobile population. Even at its current early stage of economic development

• China passed the U.S. in the generation of CO2 5 years ago.

Some apologists for Chinese CO2 policy claim that China is leading in windmills and solar panels while neglecting to point out that these are export industries, selling hardware or emissions credits to Europeans who are even bigger believers in the climate change religion than we are. Those Chinese industries are currently suffering because

• the Europeans are running out of mad money.

How big is the climate change industry and how large could it become? Probably the research side is in the single digit billions. The mitigation, or CO2 reduction, side is where the big bucks are. To get an idea consider that the cost of electricity amounts to about $3 a day for each person in the U.S. or around $300 billion per year. Double the cost of electricity, something that is seen as good start by the preachers of climate change, and you have another $300 billion per year. That's half of the cost of Medicare in 2008. Some people in California are already paying 5 times^[i] as much as people in areas less affected by the green virus. The beauty of green electricity mandates is that it results in a gradual creep upwards in the cost of electricity and

• it's not easy to know who to blame.

Of course the climate change industry reaps the benefits as surely as if the government wrote them a check. Perhaps writing a check should be considered, because it would be a big savings if the government just bribed these people to stop building windmills.

The U.S. climate change industry, if allowed to grow, could surpass the trillion dollar mark. The uneconomic schemes will become a drag on every sector of the economy. We already have corn ethanol increasing the price of food and gasoline.

• More biofuel schemes are in the wings.

Electric cars will give us a new and more annoying way to run out of gas. The power grid must be rebuilt to support the intermittent electricity from windmills. We' re supposed to

• bury CO2 emissions underground.

The list is endless. Perhaps our young people can emigrate to China and get jobs in factories building windmills for export.

One financially minor, but intellectually important, part of the industry is the writing of alarming reports detailing the global warming catastrophe that awaits us if we don't support the industry. This is the marketing or propaganda side of the climate change industry. A constant drumbeat of propaganda is needed to generate support for the high cost borne by the rest of society to finance the industry. There are many of these alarming studies.

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) generates the most prominent alarmist tract. The World Bank has a report. The National Academies of Sciences has a report. The British government did the well-publicized Stern Report. Even the state of California gets into the act, albeit with more amateurish^[ii] reports.

The reports lend a scientific gloss to what otherwise would be science fiction type speculation. There are plenty of distinguished scientists who have looked at the global warming thesis and pronounced it nonsense. Notably absent are those scientists whose work is financed by the global warming juggernaut. Since the juggernaut controls the research money and has plenty of propaganda money, the global warming activists have controlled the public conversation until recently. Numerous scientific mistakes and scandalous revelations from bloggers and journalists have changed the public conversation and now the juggernaut is in retreat.

USGCRP stands for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. In spite of the name the USGCRP does not directly do any research. It writes reports. The research is done by numerous programs spread about federal government entities. The USGCRP is hard at work on its periodic national climate assessment. In the jargon of bureaucratic action, numerous conferences, workshops and inputs from stakeholders are driving this

• supposedly accountable and transparent project.

The report writers are well informed concerning the requirements of political correctness. They consider tribal (and Alaska native) interests as well as considerations of environmental justice. A federal advisory committee has been formed with more than 40 outside experts and representatives from various federal agencies. Supposedly this advisory committee will write the report and ensure its scientific validity. But a committee of 40 unpaid academics is unlikely to accomplish anything beyond a lot of talk.

The staff will write the report and the purpose of the committee is to bless it and lend credibility. It's a status exchange. The unpaid academics get to add membership in the federal advisory committee to their resumes and the schemers in the bureaucracy get scientific credibility for their ideological promotions. The wizard behind the scenes is John Holdren, the president's science advisor, radical environmentalist and one of the most talented

• science politicians of our time.

I had the experience of attending a 3-day meeting of this federal advisory committee at a hotel in Washington, DC. Meetings of federal advisory committees are open to members of the public such as myself. The welcoming speech was given by presidential adviser Holdren. Most of the public attendees were professional climate change people, either working for the government or non-profits. The outside experts on the federal advisory committee were overwhelmingly academics professionally engaged in promoting or interpreting the alleged imminent global warming catastrophe. There did not appear to be any member of the committee even mildly skeptical of the global warming catastrophe story. This was surely not an accident. I was told that every member of the committee had to be

• approved by the White House, presumably by John Holdren.

The organizers were very welcoming to the members of the public. For a fee we were able to participate in the lunches and coffee breaks. A majority of the key staffers were women and that might account for the welcoming and friendly atmosphere. But even nice people have been known to waste taxpayers' money.

Those who work for the global warming juggernaut realize that public opinion and elite opinion are turning against them. For this reason there is a new emphasis on propaganda, called communication inside the climate change bubble. The climate change workers seem to think that people outside of the bubble can be won over

• if the message is dumbed down enough.

For example, instead of the traditional term "greenhouse gases" we now have "heat-trapping gases." In order to make the global warming predictions of doom more meaningful the USGCRP will issue personalized predictions of doom for various regions of the country. These regional predictions will be based on downscaling studies. Downscaling is a complicated scheme for supposedly extracting regional long term climate forecasts from global climate models. The global climate models disagree with each other concerning global climate trends and often their predictions are contradicted by reality. Extracting regional forecasts from the dubious global forecasts requires extensive adjustments to the data in order to get anything remotely plausible. Downscaling lacks a convincing scientific basis. But, downscaling studies are very popular because they can be

• sold for cash to credulous local governments.

The Global Change Research program is mandated by the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 to produce a scientific assessment at least every 4 years. The scientific assessment, among other things: "analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years." Never mind that a scientific basis for predicting global change trends for the next 100 years

• is nonexistent.

If the Congress wants it, the Global Change Research program will provide it. A better name than scientific assessment would be

• the crystal ball report.

The 2009 previous scientific assessment is not an impressive document. The process that produced the document involved a previous federal advisory committee, various reviewers including so-called blue ribbon reviewers. The resulting document is a rehash of global warming alarmism doctrine. Annoyingly, citations are not given for most of the claims. In the first paragraph of the executive summary the following unsupported claim is made:

The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.

This statement could be called the fundamental theorem of global warming alarmism. If it is not true the whole house of cards collapses.

The evidence for the fundamental theorem is runs of various clashing computer climate models. The scientists who have fertile imaginations when imagining all the bad things that global warming will do are unable to think of anything that could have caused the warming of the last 50 years except CO2 and the other greenhouse gases. But, early in the 20th century from 1910 to 1940 there was a very similar warming not caused by greenhouse gases. Back then greenhouse gas generation was in its infancy. Neither the scientists nor their computers know what caused the early century warming. If the scientists can't explain the early century warming why are they so quick to pin the late century warming on greenhouse gases? There are plenty of alternative explanations available such as cosmic rays or oceanic climate cycles. But, if global warming is not our fault and we are the helpless victims of nature, we wouldn't need the climate change industry. Restraining their imaginations is

• a precondition for continued employment.

The 2009 crystal ball assessment report recites the dubious claims of global warming disaster so loved by the popularizers of environmental doom. The cute polar bears will die. We'll all

• get tropical diseases if we don't die in heat waves.

Agricultural productivity will suffer from weeds, droughts and floods. The sea will rise up and flood the coasts. This stuff has been refuted by angry experts many times, but no matter, some stories are too good to check. No doubt we are in for more of the same with the new report to be published in 2013.

Norman Rogers is a Senior Policy Advisor at the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. His personal website is www.climateviews.com

^[i] Pacific Gas and Electric residential tier 5 is $0.403 per kilowatt hour for usage 300% over baseline allowance. ( http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-1.pdf ).Compare this to the U.S. residential average of $0.1104 per KWH and many states with average costs between 8 and 9 cents per KWH. ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html )

^[ii] The California Air Resources Board wrote an allegedly scientific analysis of the wonderful results that would follow for the California economy from draconian greenhouse gas limitations. The Board was mandated by law to obtain a peer review of their report. The 4 peer reviewers, all hired hand professors, demonstrated that there are limits to corrupting academics with money. They all said, not very politely considering the source, that the Board's economic analysis was garbage.

• The Board ignored them.

http://www.ab32ig.com/documents/peer_review_comments_arb_responses.pdf"

=============================

The radical left's 5 greatest tools today were provided by supposed Republicans:

1990, The U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, by Pres. George Bush the first, which spoke of human induced "global warming"

1970, The EPA was created by Richard Nixon

1970, The Clean Air Act signed by President Richard Nixon

1970, NOAA was created by Richard Nixon.

1973, The Endangered Species Act was created by Richard Nixon


.