By Christopher Booker, UK Telegraph

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 - as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues - but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration - a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents - was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of “scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice”. But also check out Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year’s recovery from its September 2007 low, this year’s ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine. See post here.

Editorial by Marc Morano, Climate Depot

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed global warming bill (219-212 vote) will no doubt be hailed by many as “historic” or “landmark” or “The Bill of the Century.” This passage of this bill does not signify any great “green revolution” or “growing” climate “awareness” on the part of Congress. Instead, the methods and manner that the Pelosi led House achieved final passage, represents nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting, intimidation and special interest handouts.

The House of Representatives passed a bill it did not read, did not understand. A bill that is based on crumbling scientific claims and a bill that will have no detectable climate impact (assuming climate fear promoters are correct on the science and the bill is fully implemented - both implausible assumptions).

Proponents of the bill made spectacular claims in their efforts to impress the urgency of the bill on their colleagues. Democratic Congressman G.K. Butterfield reported claim that the bill “‘will literally save the planet” reveals just how out of touch scientifically, politically and economically many of the bill’s supporters have become. To illustrate just how delusional some of the supporters of the bill have became, imagine if in 1909 the U.S. Congress passed a bill attempting to predict climate, temperature and the energy mix powering our national economy in the year 2000. (not to mention sanctimonious claims about “saving the Earth.") Any such attempt would have been ridiculed, but somehow in 2009, attempting to control the economy and climate of the year 2100 is seen as reasonable by many.

If we actually faced the man-made “climate crisis” proponents claim, we would all be doomed if we had to rely on this bill save us. A May 2009 scientific analysis of the bill revealed its temperature impact to be ”scientifically meaningless.” Sorry Congressman Butterfield, far from “saving the planet”, this bill will instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. Many environmental groups opposed the bill because it failed to actually reduce emissions. (See: Obama’s global warming plan would result in U.S. burning MORE coal in 2020 & Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey...’bill chooses politics over science’ )

President Obama attempted to call the bill a job creator and proponents cited a Congressional Budget Office report to downplay the cost to Americans. But these arguments failed to hold up under the close light of scrutiny. (See: Rebuttal: Obama Tries to Sell Cap-And-Tax as a Jobs Bill ) Even fellow Democrats failed to parrot these mythical claims. Democrat Congressman John Dingell of Michigan was blunt, calling Cap and trade a “great big” tax in April.

Even Obama advisor Warren Buffett failed to tow the rhetorical line on the climate bill. Buffet came out strongly opposed to cap and trade, saying it would be “a huge, regressive tax.”

The climate bill now moves to the Senate where it faces a much tougher road ahead. The best news of the climate bill’s passage is that the American public, which has wholeheartedly rejected man-made global warming fears, will now be awakened to what their representatives in Washington are up to.
Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted against the bill, realized Americans were not concered about global warming, saying: ”There is no public outcry to pass this legislation. It’s an institutional push.”

Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania reported his constituent calls were “running 9-1 against” the climate bill. Current polling data reveals that the American people “get it” when it comes to man-made global warming fears. Given the wealth of recent polling data showing Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, Congressmen and Senators are simply not hearing any clamor from voters to “act” to “solve” global warming.

In fact, the opposite is true, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called “solutions” in growing numbers. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.

1) Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues - March 2009
2) Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has ‘Failed’—‘The public is just not that concerned’ about global warming - May 2009
3) Zobgy Poll: Only 30% of Americans support cap-and-trade—57% oppose - April 2009
4) “Gallup Poll: Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated” - March 11, 2009
5) Rasmussen Poll found Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming - ‘Lowest finding yet’—‘reversal from a year ago!’

Now that the bill has cleared the house and heads to the Senate (where they will be preparing their own version of a cap-and-trade bill) the American people will awake to the reality that this purely climate symbolic bill with real economic and lifestyle impacts may actually become law. An American public that is aware of a “non-solution” global warming bill has the potential to literally shut down Washington with phone calls, emails and faxes. Thus far, global warming bills have been a distant possibility somewhere in the future. With the passage of this bill, it is now game on.

Despite the American people’s rejection of warming fears and climate taxes, Congress may persist in pushing them for other non-scientific reasons. Hint, hint. See: Dem. Senator calls cap-and-trade ‘the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.‘

Beyond just economics, lifestyles changes will be in order under the new climate regime. As a June 7, 2009 Washington Post editorial stated: “Why does Congress, and not the market, need to dictate these changes?” The Post noted the climate bill “contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to specs on hot tubs; it will reshape America’s economy.” Also see: 19th Century Living: Under climate plan ‘Americans allowed to emit same carbon volumes as citizens did in 1867’)

In May, House speaker Nancy Pelosi declared “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to battle global warming and reduce our carbon footprints.

In addition, even the two strongest proponents of man-made global warming fears - NASA’s James Hansen and UK’s James Lovelock—are now ridiculing the Congressional cap-and-trade approach as “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.” Adding to that, Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader has also voiced opposition to cap-and-trade. Remember, these are the words of scientists and activists who believe in a looming human caused climate “crisis.”

Americans are becoming aware that the debate is not “over” as more than 700 prominent international scientists publicly dissenting, including many who are reversing their views on climate fears and declaring themselves skeptical. Americans are becoming aware that there has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal noted in a June 26, 2009 article, the “Democrats are attempting to “quickly jam the climate bill through Congress because global warming tide is shifting.” The article noted that the “Scientific debate roaring back to life” as the “number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”

As the Senate considers global warming cap-and-trade legislation that will raise energy prices during a massive economic downturn, curious voters will soon be asking their Senators the following basic questions:

1) What impact will this bill have on temperatures? (Answer: “Meaningless")
2) What will the bill cost? (Answer: Trillions)
3) Why are you voting for a bill that will have huge economic impacts and harm the poor and seniors on fixed incomes the most—but will not have a measurable climate impact?
4) Why are more and more scientists publicly rejecting man-made climate fears and why has the Earth failed to warm as predicted?

The answers to the above questions will likely cause massive angst with many Democrats, particularly in rust belt states. These questions will have to be answered as all eyes turn to the U.S. Senate. But, never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer non-solutions to problems that don’t even exist.
Stay tuned… See full post here.

After its passage, Minority leader Boehner correctly called the Climate bill a ‘pile of s--t’ .

By Brian Wingfield, Forbes

Key business groups are fighting multiple battles on climate change.

They’ve lost an early battle, but some influential members of the business community are still waging a two-front war to prevent the government from limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

By a vote of 219-212 Friday evening, the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill that would establish a so-called “cap-and-trade” system limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Until the last minute, influential industry groups like the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were lobbying fervently to defeat the bill.

“It allows Congress to select winners and losers,” wrote NAM’s top lobbyist, Jay Timmons, in a letter to every member of the House on the eve of the vote. The Chamber’s lobbying chief, Bruce Josten, says it “would impose 397 new regulations and 1,060 new mandates on the American public.”

NAM and the Chamber will now have to take up their fight with the Senate, where the legislation has a much slimmer chance of survival. If it fails there, business groups may still be faced with a potentially more expensive threat: regulation of carbon dioxide and several other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Opponents of such a move claim it would exacerbate unemployment in the U.S. and would subject businesses to billions of dollars in compliance costs.

That said, business groups don’t seem to be too scared of the regulatory threat. One reason: Both President Obama and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson prefer that Congress--not the administration--deal with the issue of greenhouse gas emissions.

In April, the EPA concluded that high concentrations of CO2 and other gases endanger the public health. A public comment period on this “endangerment finding” just ended, and regulations could be forthcoming. However, the EPA is likely to wait and see what action lawmakers take. That’s good news for opponents of carbon constraints. See report here.

Icecap Note: We will be listing on the Icecap blog, some of the comments filed with the EPA by Icecap and some noted scientists.