By Marc Morano, Climate Depot

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. responded to Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider’s May 24, 2009 boast that he could “slaughter” skeptical scientists in a global warming debate. (See: Warming Promoter Prof. Stephen Schneider warns skeptical scientists he could ‘slaughter them in public debate!‘ )

Pielke Sr . May 15, 2009 Excerpt: I would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider (or any of the other individuals who are listed).

I also challenge them to refute in the professional literature (and in a debate) the numerous peer reviewed articles and national (e.g. see) and international climate assessments (e.g. see) that present scientific evidence that conflicts with the narrow perspective on climate science that Steve Schneider is representing.

I am disappointed that Steve Schneider personally attacked the websites that are listed. I have quite a bit of respect for Dr. Schneider’s past work [e.g. his book Genesis Strategy is an excellent example of why we need a resource-based, bottom-up assessment of vulnerability, as has been discussed in our peer reviewed papers (e.g. see) and books (e.g. see)].

However, his casual denigration of each of the websites, Watt’s Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science (each of whose contributions to the discussion of climate science are informative and very valuable) represents a failure to engage in constructive scientific debate.

This cavalier dismissal of these websites illustrates that instead of evaluating the soundness of their scientific evidence, the authors of these websites, who provide a much needed broader viewpoint on climate science, are insulted. This is not the proper way to discuss scientific issues. For Dr. Pielke Sr. full response see here.

See the claim by Schneider he or any other alarmists could slaughter a climate skeptic in a debate during an interview here.

Examiner Excerpt: Question: More specifically, the principal skeptic websites (Watt’s Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science) that I look at regularly seem to think they are winning the day. They think data is coming in that questions the established paradigm.

Schneider: They have been thinking that as long as I have observed them and they have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them--a petroleum geologist’s opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientists opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are “winning” why don’t they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings--not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute--but with those with real knowledge--because they’d be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol’ me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.

Of course, the Heartland offered to pay numerous alarmists and Al Gore (his normal huge fee) to attend and speak at the Heartland and they all declined. They all recall what Schneider has forgotten, that in every debate between alarmists and skeptics, the skeptics have won.

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate - March 16, 2007

Lord Monckton Declared Victor in Global Warming Debate - By His Opponent! - August 19, 2008

Debate Over Whether ‘Global Warming is a Global Crisis’ - March 6, 2009

Climate Depot’s Morano debates former Clinton Official Romm - April 6, 2009

By Steven Pearlstein, Business Columnist, Washington Post

Climate bill ‘badly flawed’: ‘It would be difficult to implement even in Sweden’ - ‘It’s not too late to change our minds’

Something very important has been happening this week—more important, if you can believe it, than what Nancy Pelosi knew about waterboarding or why Kris Allen scored his upset victory on “American Idol.” I refer to the marathon committee markup on Capitol Hill of a monster piece of legislation that promises to reduce by 83 percent over the next 40 years the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from American cars, power plants and factories.

There remains a robust argument over whether the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 represents a crucial step in preserving life as we know it. But there is no question that there are few pieces of legislation that are likely to have a more profound effect on the U.S. economy. It would bring about dramatic changes in the relative prices of energy and goods produced by energy-hungry industries. It would redistribute trillions of dollars in business sales and household income and generate hundreds of billions in government revenue. And it would represent the most dramatic extension of government’s regulatory powers into the workings of the economy since the early days of the New Deal.

There are probably not more than a few hundred people who really understand what’s in this legislation, how it would work and what its impact is likely to be. The other thing to say about it is that it is a badly flawed piece of public policy. It is so broad in its reach and complex in its details that it would be difficult to implement even in Sweden, let alone in a diverse and contentious country like the United States. It would create dozens of new government agencies with broad powers to set standards, dole out rebates and tax subsidies, and pick winning and losing technologies, even as it relies on newly created markets with newly created regulators to set prices and allocate resources. Its elaborate allocation of pollution allowances and offsets reads like a parody of industrial policy authored by the editorial page writers of the Wall Street Journal. The opportunities for waste, fraud and regulatory screwup look enormous.

The result is an unwieldy compromise with lots of belt-and-suspenders redundancy. But now that we know what a climate-change bill looks like when it is jury-rigged to accommodate all the special interests, maybe Americans will be willing to reconsider one of the cleaner, simpler approaches—a carbon tax with all the revenue rebated to households, for example, or a cap-and-trade system that generates enough revenue to erase the national debt, or even a tough new regulatory regime requiring businesses to produce more fuel-efficient cars, buildings and appliances.

It’s not too late to change our minds. Read full post here.

Dr. Edward F Blick, Retired Prof of Engineering and Meteorology, Univ. of Oklahoma

Waxman and the Dems are in a “full court press” to pass “Cap and Tax” in the next few days. They need to read the attached paper. It proves Global Warming is a Rotten Egg hatched by the UN, using Al Gore as their Joseph Goebbles. (if you tell a lie long enough and often enough, people start to believe it!)

Charts at the end of the paper, show that most of the high temperature records of all seven continents and Oceania were made before 1940!  Between 1880 and 2000 the temperature in the U.S. rose about 0.3 deg. C. For this Waxman and his friends have got their “underwear in a wad” and want to waste trillions of dollars that will turn off the lights in America? Unbelievable!

The evidence of the warming we had in the 2Oth Century was because we were coming out of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1300 Ad until the early 1800s. Our Sun was more active in the 20th Century than it had been for thousands of years. There is no man-made global warming! Unfortunely during this past 9 years our Sun has done a 180, and we have entered a cooling phase. All sorts of snow and ice records have set. Glaciers have started growing a gain in Alaska! There has been a drastic reduction in sun spots and solar magnetic storms. The sun seems to be mimicking what occurred in The Little Ice Age. How long will this global cooling last. Some Solar weather experts are predicting the cooling phase may last a decade, or a half century or more. In any event, our government should be listening to real experts and start planning in the event this global cooling continues. More people die from cold than from heat! During The Little Ice Age millions died from famines and diseases. It doesn’t take much cooling to kill off croplands in Canada, northern U.S. and northern Europe.


See larger image here.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, as some members of our government claim. It is aerial fertilizer for plants. CO2 is presently about 385 ppm, but it was up to 450 ppm in the 1940s and the early 1800s. If CO2 drops to 200 ppm, plants get sick, and if it drops to 160 ppm, the plants die. Humans can tolerate CO2 levels up to 50,000 ppm . Sailors in US submarines live and work in 8000 -1000 ppm CO2 levels. Greenhouse growers for 100 years have been enriching greenhouse atmospheres with 1000 ppm CO2 levels to increase their yield. The increase atmospheric CO2 levels in the 20th Century greatly increased crop yields and tree growth. If congress decides to sequester CO2 (pump it into old oil or gas wells) they will lose the farmers votes and consumers, when crops fail and food prices skyrocket!

CO2 is being used as a phony excuse to kill off the use of coal and oil. Oil was discovered in 1859. at about the same time we started using coal. In 70 years America went from living like “Little house on the Prairie”, (horse and buggy, outhouses no electricity) to planes, trains and automobiles, electricity and indoor plumbing! In just 70 years we built the most highly developed civilization that ever existed.! Why...because we discovered an extremely high concentration of energy in a small package, oil and coal. Folks we can’t run our civilization on windmills. solar panels or biofuels! windmill can hardly make enough energy to make a windmill. I know about windmills, having developed a new type of windmills back in the 1970s. I’ve also built my own solar panels. These thing are useful in some very restricted, isolated areas, but they are never going to replace coal and oil. Any politician who says otherwise is a snake oil salesman and is planning on destroying civilization as we know it. We will be back using horses for transportation, Will the CO2 emanating from trillions of tons of horse dung on our streets cause global warming?Scientific illiteracy is part of the problem with Waxman and friends, but we know the big reason for their campaign to control carbon is...."If you control Carbon you Control the World”. (Richard Lindzen. Climatology Professor, MIT). Years ago Baltimore newsman H. L. Mencken wrote about Politics 101; “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by scaring them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Folks, we can stop this Trillion dollar bank robbery if enough of us contact our congressmen and inform them if they vote with Waxman on this bill we will work to get them defeated in the next election. Read more here.