Update: Russell Cook writes “Not much preventing enviro-activists from trying to pull a ‘Mark Hertsgaard stunt’ on skeptic scientists next. However, my whole article collection shows how the AGW accusers themselves are highly vulnerable. This info came in handy for showing how Hertsgaard has mega-problems he’d probably rather not have aired out.

Excerpt: There is a bigger problem for Hertsgaard, when we reword a biblical phrase to say, “let he who is above reproach cast the first interrogation”. Enviro-activists like him have long made unsupportable accusations. What happens when the tables are turned, with hard scrutiny of those accusations?
Hertsgaard unwittingly opens the door to a Pandora’s box of interrogation aimed at him and many others who have portrayed skeptic scientists as corrupted by big oil interests.”

-------

Our thanks to Marc Morano for exposing this story on climatedepot.com. I would love to see Marc up against the know-nothing Hertsgaard in a debate....no contest. See Hertsgaard ambush Senator Inhofe on this video here.

With their credibility falling faster than the temperatures did last week in Oklahoma when a new all time cold record of -31F for the state was set, warmers are gathering to call out skeptics...calling us “climate cranks”.

Leo Hickman, the UK Guardian

Just what the climate debate doesn’t need: a new moniker for those who do not accept the mainstream scientific view of anthropogenic climate change.

According to environmental activists planning a day of protests across the US tomorrow, “climate crank” is set to be the latest name added to the growing list - self-appointed, or otherwise - which already includes sceptic, denier, contrarian, realist, dissenter, flat-earther, misinformer, and confusionist. But, for the protest organisers, the term “crank” more accurately describes this grouping:

For years, climate “sceptics” have denied the near-unanimous scientific consensus around global warming in an effort to delay action. They’re not “sceptics” - they’re cranks, and it’s time to unmask those who are holding our nation’s climate policy hostage. We’re taking action to call out the climate cranks, shift the climate debate in Washington and, yeah, we are looking to make news.

The rallying cry seems to be centred around Mark Hertsgaard, the Nation’s environmental correspondent and author of a new book called Generation Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth. (Icecep Note: the latest scientific illiterate science book author after Tom Friedman, Ross Gelbspan and of course Al Gore) The idea behind the day is to “name and shame the climate cranks sabotaging our nation’s response to climate change”.

Peter Rothberg, a fellow Nation journalist, has written a blog detailing his colleague’s efforts:

On Tuesday, February 15, Mark and supporters will head to Capitol Hill, the Fox TV bureau, the Chamber of Commerce and other hotbeds of climate denial. The goal? Put the climate cranks on the spot and make them explain - on camera and in front of kids - why they have condemned the young people of ‘Generation Hot’ (as Mark calls them), to spending the rest of their lives coping with the hottest climate in human history.

In his book, Hertsgaard offers further explanation:

We will highlight the ludicrousness of their anti-scientific views, which alone should discredit them from further influence over US climate policies. And we will show how our nation could still change course - for example, if the federal government were to use its vast purchasing power to kick-start a green energy revolution that would create jobs and prosperity across the land. We welcome your help and constructive suggestions for how to achieve these goals and invite you to join us.

See much more at Climate Depot here. See Chris Horner on the convergence on DC - the average metro area IQ will drop by 20%.

See Lindzen’s testimony to congress in which he states ‘Cicerone of NAS is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide’. Cicerone’s primary claim to fame is the ozone hole, which has been proven not to be man-made.

Ghandi said “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” They are fighting back in a last ditch effort to save their failed theory.

By Andrew Restuccia, E2 Wire

A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.

The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency's climate authority.

The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.

"It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling," Simpson said in a statement. "It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I'm concerned that EPA has overreached."

The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA's budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee's budget.

"I realize that many of these cuts will not be popular, but the simple truth is that you can't spend money you don't have," Simpson said.

The bill also prohibits funding for the president's climate change policy adviser. Carol Browner, who currently holds the position, announced last month that she is resigning. Republicans acccused Browner of holding too much influence over White House climate policy.

The legislation includes funding limitations on another of the Obama administration's other energy and environment priorities. It would cut funding for the Bureau of Land Managements "wild lands" policy, which would allow the Obama administration to protect lands that have not been formally designated as wilderness land. Republicans have railed against the policy, arguing it could result in restrictions in oil and gas drilling.

It would also prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from terminating a license review for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The repository has been marred by years of regulatory delay and President Obama moved to abandon the project when he became president.

Post.

Note: At CPAC, Newt Gingrich said he would work to eliminate the EPA.

US House of Representatives

As House leaders examine ways to cut spending and address the ever growing budget deficits that have plagued Washington for years, U.S. Representatives Bill Posey (R-FL), Sandy Adams (R-FL) and Rob Bishop (R-UT) were joined by several other of their colleagues in calling for a reprioritization of NASA so human space flight remains the primary focus of the nation’s space agency as budget cuts are considered.

In their recent letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) and Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Posey, Adams and Bishop state that while “moving forward under a constrained budget, it will be critical for the Appropriations Committee to produce legislation that is precise in its budget cuts. For years, Presidents and Congress have charged NASA with completing tasks that fall outside the scope of NASA’s primary mission.

“Our space program attracts and inspires the world’s greatest minds and gives our young people inspiration to excel in math and science. Human spaceflight, however, is not simply a matter of national prestige. Our nation’s ability to access space is a critical national security asset and plays an important role in our future economic competitiveness. Space is the ultimate high ground and nations such as China, Russia, and India are anxious to seize the mantle of space supremacy should we decide to cede it.”

“Limited resources force us to make important decisions with regard to the objectives of all federal departments and agencies, including NASA,” said Representative Bill Posey (R-FL). “NASA’s primary purpose is human space exploration and directing NASA funds to study global warming undermines our ability to maintain our competitive edge in human space flight.”

“As NASA’s human spaceflight program hangs in the balance, it is imperative that we ask ourselves: What is the future of NASA? With the current administration unable or unwilling to outline a plan or stick to their original promises, it is time to refocus NASA’s mission towards space exploration,” said Representative Sandy Adams (R-FL). “That is why I am encouraging Chairmen Rogers and Wolf to reduce funding for climate change research, which undercuts one of NASA’s primary and most important objectives of human spaceflight.”

“It is counterintuitive to direct millions of dollars to NASA for duplicative climate change programs and at the same time cancel its manned space flight program- the purpose for which the agency was originally created. Far too many forget that at one time in our nation’s history we were losing the space race. With the creation of NASA, we emerged as leaders and have remained so ever since. If NASA’s manned space program disappears, our nation will once again experience a ‘Sputnik Moment.’ Our country will again watch from the sidelines as countries like Russia, China and India charge ahead as leaders in space exploration and missile defense,” said Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT).

In Fiscal Year 2010, NASA spent over 7.5% --over a billion dollars-- of its budget on studying global warming/climate change. The bulk of the funds NASA received in the stimulus went toward climate change studies. Excessive growth of climate change research has not been limited to NASA. Overall, the government spent over $8.7 billion across 16 Agencies and Departments throughout the federal government on these efforts in FY 2010 alone. Global warming funding presents an opportunity to reduce spending without unduly impacting NASA’s core human spaceflight mission.

See letter here.