By The Marshall Institute

The Cocktail Conversation Guide to Global Warming offers succinct replies to questions about climate change.  The Cocktail Guide is a handy reference for anyone following the efforts of the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration to construct domestic and global restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions (and the energy producing those emissions).

When climate alarmists publicly state that the threats of global warming should be exaggerated to motivate regulation, it is hard for the public to know what the truth about climate change really is.  The Cocktail Guide considers 8 basic questions about the scientific basis for global warming. 

“Every American should understand these central issues to the global warming debate,” Marshall Institute President Jeff Kueter said.  “President Obama and the Congress have set the U.S. on a precarious path based on assumptions and preconceptions, not documented facts.  Our Guide will help the public become better informed about the uncertainties in the scientific evidence used to justify severe constraints on energy use and intrusions into day-to-day lives of the American people.”

Please contact the Marshall Institute at 202-296-9655 or info@marshall.org for details on how to obtain your “Cocktail Party Pak” (15 copies of the Guide, cocktails napkins and drink swizzles), everything you would need to host your own climate change cocktail party!

>

Read more here. Download the Cocktail Party Conversation Guide to Global Warming here.

The Liberty Journal

As I was doing some research in some non-profit’s literature, appeared before me was a 2006 picture of John Holdren, Bill Clinton, and this other guy (name not mentioned).  So what, you say.  Well the caption indicates, John Holdren’s Woods Hole Research Center Director excepts $1mil check from Goldman Sachs Center for Environmental Markets (CEM). 

Woods Hole Research Center describes themselves: “The Woods Hole Research Center is an independent, non-profit institute engaged in fundamental environmental science, applied policy analysis, local and regional capacity building, and public and policy-maker education aimed at clarifying the interacting functions of the Earth’s vegetation, soils, water, and climate in support of human well-being and promoting practical approaches to their sustainable management in the human interest.”

In other words, they’re another rich environmental think tank 501(c) non-profit with rich members, well connected to the corporate world, who use their income to influence public policy to further increase their wealth. The Woods Hole Research describes this venture with Goldman Sachs and Bill Clinton:

“A new partnership between the Woods Hole Research Center and The Goldman Sachs Center for Environmental Markets (CEM) announced yesterday at the Clinton Global Initiative will develop new market-based approaches to value the sustainable uses of forests for marketable products and ecosystem services.”

John Holdren is obviously excited as stated:

“It’s particularly gratifying that we developed this project with Goldman Sachs as part of the Clinton Global Initiative - a farsighted effort of the former President to stimulate new partnerships among businesses, researchers, and public-interest organizations to address the great challenges in global health, environment, and economic development. This is not only a grant but also a partnership, in which insights from the Woods Hole Research Center about how forests work and what is needed to keep them working will be linked with expertise at Goldman Sachs about the economic forces and incentives that affect how forests are used and managed.”

Maybe Holdren and Goldman Sachs share ideas while they are at the Council on Foreign Relations meeting.  Maybe it’s that John Holdren speaks at Goldman Sach’s conferences, like the “Energy, Environment and the Financial Markets: The Global Opportunity” in London.

Well, they want to make sure they know the value of every last tree and forestland on the earth.  Ok, Goldman Sachs is your company if you want to figure how to equate everything with some monetary value as to create an investment from it.

Now to enforce that idea.  From their website, here is how Goldman Sachs describes the CEM: “The Environmental Markets Group manages the Goldman Sachs Center for Environmental Markets. The Center works with independent partners in the academic and non-government organization communities to examine market-based solutions to environmental challenges. Two of their primary goals are : (1) Market-making in carbon emissions and other climate related commodity markets and (2) Launching GS SUSTAIN, a global equity strategy that incorporates environmental, social and governance issues into fundamental analysis of companies

Well, it’s merely the rich using tax free big bucks through non-profits to grease palms and divy up the spoils of their pillaging of tax-payer coffers.  Only in American politics. See post here.

See SPPI’s new paper on climate money here by Joanne Nova. It starts out: “The US government has spent over $77 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.”

**********************
The Morality of Climate Change: (Uploaded 18 July 2009)
One has to know all the facts to determine the morality of an issue. John Christy on CO2Science.org, below and enlarged here.

See this town hall attack on Mike Castle, one of the Republicans who voted FOR Cap-and-Trade below.

By Piers Corbyn, WeatherAction

“It should be ignored absolutely. The opposite to whatever the Met Office says in long range has been what happened for the last three years!” Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist of WeatherAction said today, 23 July:

“The Met Office long range forecast attempts at seasonal and world developments totally failed to predict ANY of the 5 notable weather developments since 2007. They predicted the opposite to what occurred for the wet summers 2007, 2008, and 2009, the icy snowy winter 2008/09, and world temperature decline over recent years. On the other hand our WeatherAction Solar Weather Technique predicted all these major situations correctly and did it ahead of the Met Office prognoses.

Their score of zero out of five is lamentable. It could not be worse. They should stop issuing these reckless ‘forecasts’ which only serve to mislead the public, commerce and emergency authorities and cause unnecessary misery danger and possible death. 

Their forecast for a mild winter in 08/09 disarmed the emergency services and Councils and led directly to the UK running out of road salt, transport chaos and extra road accidents when the snow deluges predicted by us at WeatherAction hit Britain and Ireland. The Met Office stupidity cost the economy billions of pounds. “The recent heavy rains and weather prospects spell failure for the Met Office forecast of a ‘barbecue summer’ which we advised our own forecast users would fail. For how much longer will government, ‘opposition’ and much of commerce continue to follow failed methodology which is without scientific basis? 

“The Met Office long range forecasts will continue to fail because they are founded on the politically motivated false theory of man-made global warming and related computer models. The fact is the world has been cooling for at least 7 years while CO2 has been rapidly rising. Our proven science explains why and shows the world cooling will generally continue at least to 2030 and the world will remain generally cooler than recently for a hundred years (see more here and here).

“The Met Office ‘forecast’ (issued 23 July) for winter 2009-10 to be probably milder and wetter than average is nonsense and entirely what one would expect them to say. Their religious belief in non-existent man-made Global Warming means they could not say anything different. Their forecast should be ignored absolutely. Statistically speaking the opposite to what they say has a success score of 5/5.

“In the immediate future I suggest the major clothing chains should consider sue-ing the Met Office for misleading advise 3 years running which is now leaving stacks of ‘barbecue summer’ wear falling onto the streets.  And anyone who had an accident in winter because road-salt ran out should sue the Met Office and the local Council for negligence. 

“Politicians of all the major parties should be called to account for their promotion of projects spending and taxation for the green bubble of false value which is the ideological basis for these stupid and damaging forecasts. Gordon Brown’s welcome moves to more accountability of public life are being undermined by the green fools who mis-advise him on environmental matters and he should get rid of them. The dead hand of the promoters of climate hysteria is causing needless economic and personal suffering and unless stopped it will end in tears and leave us all worse off”.