Listing posted on Tom Nelson Blogspot

ABC and the Washington Post polled Americans about the most important issue to them in the upcoming elections. The economy ranked #1 with 41%, Iraq #2 with 18%, Health Care #3 with 7%, Terrorism/National Security #4 with 5%, Immigration and Ethics followed with 4%, Education and Morals with 2%, Environment and Global Warming continue to receive a 0%.


See full size table here

By Marlo Lewis, Opinion, Planet Gore

Yesterday, in his Rose Garden speech on climate change, President Bush proposed a “national goal” of freezing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2025, with reductions to follow thereafter. Thanks to conservative
opposition, the President stepped back from more damaging options, such as a cap-and-trade program for utilities.

Bush’s proposal is bland stuff compared to the economy-chilling emission reduction targets pushed by Al Gore, Gov. Schwarzenegger, and the European Union. One reason Bush gave the speech was to explain the
position U.S. negotiators would be taking at today and tomorrow’s “major economies” energy and climate meeting in Paris. If Bush can actually persuade some of the world’s industrial powerhouses to back similar
national goals as an alternative to the Kyoto process, then maybe some good will come of this initiative. More likely, I fear, his speech will further legitimize Gore’s “planetary emergency” spin on global warming.

The White House Web site has a Fact Sheet elaborating the points Bush made in his speech. “There Is A Right Way And A Wrong Way To Approach Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution.  Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges, but should be debated openly and made by the elected representatives of the people they affect.”

Yes, the American people deserve an honest assessment. The Gore camp repeatedly portrays its draconian emission reduction schemes as a free lunch or even as a road to riches. Bush is also absolutely correct that decisions with far-reaching economic impact should not be made by unelected regulators and judges. But does the President have the fortitude to reject and condemn the policy extortion of those who would
use the threat of court-ordered regulation to demand Kyoto-style energy rationing as a legislative remedy? That remains to be seen. Read more of Marlo’s detailed review here.

By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I—no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.

By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don’t suspend belief when we read Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet’s cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse.

While I’ve been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Wikipedia—or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen—beware. Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots.

See another example here of a Wikipedia embellished story on the west Antarctic icesheet. It has forecasts sea level impacts far greater than Gore and Hansen and way out of line with the IPCC.