Voter support for offshore oil drilling remains as strong as it was during last year’s presidential election, but many also continue to believe individual states should be able to stop it off their own coastlines. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% of U.S. voters believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed. Just 20% oppose drilling for oil off the coast of the United States, with another 12% undecided.

But far more dramatic is the divide between Mainstream voters and the Political Class, voters who tend to trust political leaders more than the public at large and are far less skeptical about government. While 76% of Mainstream voters support offshore drilling, 70% of the Political Class are opposed to it.

Sixty percent (60%) of all voters say oil drilling should be allowed within 50 miles of the U.S. coastline. Of that number, 26% say drilling is okay just 12 miles out. Twelve percent (12%) favor drilling 100 miles off the shore, while 14% say it should be done more than 100 miles out.

GOP voters and those who are unaffiliated are much more likely than Democrats to favor drilling within 12 miles of the coast.  However, 48% of voters nationwide say individual states should have the right to ban drilling off their own coastlines. Thirty-four percent (34%) disagree and say states should not have this right. Seventeen percent (17%) aren’t sure. Fifty-four percent (54%) of unaffiliateds and the plurality (48%) of Democrats say states should have the power to stop drilling off their own coasts. Republicans are more closely divided on the question.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters think it is at least somewhat likely that gas and oil prices will go down if the United States allows offshore oil drilling, including 33% who say it’s very likely. Thirty-one percent (31%) say it’s not very or not at all likely that offshore drilling will cause gas and oil prices to decline.

Yet most voters like the idea of developing alternative energy sources, too. Sixty-five percent (65%) favor tax incentives to help develop solar power, wind power and new conservation programs. Still, that’s down 12 points from September 2008. Twenty-six percent (26%) oppose tax incentives for these purposes.

Democrats are more strongly in favor of tax breaks for the development of alternative energy sources than are Republicans or unaffiliated voters. The Political Class, while strongly opposed to offshore drilling, is overwhelmingly supportive of promoting alternative energies.

Forty-four percent (44%) of all voters see a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection, a view that’s been fairly consistent for months. Thirty-one percent (31%) do not see this conflict, and another 25% are undecided.

Seventy-five percent (75%) say it’s more important for the country to find new sources of energy than to require automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars. Just 15% of voters think development of new energy sources should be President Obama’s top priority. Cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term as president is the priority voters have consistently listed first all year. See report here.

------------------------

Fourth International Conference on Climate Change on May 16-18, 2010, Chicago, Illinois.

Make plans now to attend ICCC-4, an international conference on climate change calling attention to new scientific research on the causes and consequences of climate change, and to economic analysis of the cost and effectiveness of proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

------------------------

75% of American Meteorological Society Broadcasters Reject IPCC Man-made Climate Claims
By Bill Murray, Weather Historian, Alabamawx.com

A survey of weathercasters’< feelings on global warming was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It had some interesting findings. There were 121 respondents. 94% of the respondents had at least one of the three major seals.

Television meteorologists are the official scientists for most television stations. The overwhelming majority felt comfortable in that role for their stations. The majority agreed that the role of discussing climate change did fall to them.

The eyebrow raising responses:

"Respond to this IPCC conclusion: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

"Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced." A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed.

"Global climate models are reliable in their predictions for a warming of the planet." Only 3% strongly agreed and another 16% agreed. A full 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

"Respond to one TV weathercaster's Quote saying "Global warming is a scam." Responses were mixed. The largest percentage was neutral, at 26%. A total of 45% disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (22%). 19% of the respondents agreed with this statement and 10% strongly agreed.

The amount of uncertainty found in this survey tells that even the most educated and motivated communicators are still uncertain about the truth on this issue. Interesting article.

The entire text can be found here.

ICECAP NOTE: The broadcasters asked for more materials such as powerpoints and graphics which they could use to better study and present climate change. Thanks to your recent contributions, we are assembling materials including some videos and powerpoints and pdfs to provide balance to the dogma presented by COMET and Heidi Cullen’s George Soros sponsored Climate Central. Other broadcasters or meteorologists with powerpoints are welcome to submit them to ICECAP, where we will compile them along with our materials in a special section the next two months. One note: they transfer better via email as compressed pdfs. Thanks on behalf of the broadcasters for whatever you do. By the way, please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

Excellent libraries of stories and papers and reviews can be found at Climate Science weblog by Roger Pielke Sr., CO2 Science site with the Idsos, Watts Up With That with Anthony Watts and Friends, World Climate Report, SPPI compiled by Bob Ferguson, Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre and Friends of Science with Tim Ball and others. This is just a few web sources.

------------------------

Hide The Decline
By Elmer Beauregard, M4GW

A parody for “Draggin the Line” by Tommy James and the Shondells about Climategate. Thanks also to JibJab.com for their great animations, I covered up their logo so people didn’t think they made this or condone this message.

---------------------------

BOYCOTT the companies pushing cap-and-trade.

UPDATE: Reader’s Digest Responds to Boycott, Removes it’s Name as Supporter of Copenhagen Climate Treaty
Minneapolis - Reader’s Digest has responded to a boycott by having its name removed from a list of corporate supporters of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.

Mr. William Adler, Vice President of Global Communications at Reader’s Digest sent an email to the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition asking that Reader’s Digest be removed from a list of 20 organizations that are being boycotted due to their support of the Copenhagen Treaty.  Mr. Adler stated that Reader’s Digest had been incorrectly listed as a supporter of the Copenhagen Treaty at .  A review of the website confirmed that Reader’s Digest’s name had been removed as a ”friend of Hopenhagen.”

“Smart organizations like Reader’s Digest are starting to realize that lending their brand to radical environmental movements is bad for business,” said Jeff Davis, organizer of the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition.  “We hope other organizations named in the boycott wake-up and recognize this fact as well.” There are a total of 19 remaining organizations targeted by the boycott, including Google, Pepsi, Nike and BP America.  The complete list of boycotted companies can be seen here.

------------------------

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here. Note that many more are coming, in part thanks to your donations.

------------------------

See 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming here. See more here and still more annotated here.

------------------------

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

-----------------------

And from the Marshall Institute,

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

------------------------

Skeptics Handbook II! Global Bullies Want Your Money
By Joanne Nova

Finally, Part II in the Skeptics Handbook series - the bluster and bluff, the deceit, and the money.  Enjoy & Share.

It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big Oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with freedom-of-information requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008and bankers get set to make billions. See the handbook here.

------------------------

Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:

See full size display here.

And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here

See sister sites:

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

Weather/Climate and Health here.

The Weather Wiz here.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to the practice of governments trying to buy support for their failing Ration-N-Tax Scheme using tax money raised in an underhand fashion from the same people.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes, said that since the “Climate Scare-a-Day” campaign of 2009 has failed to spook the people, the New Year will see acceleration of the next ploy - “carbon bribery and corruption”. “This dodge aims to buy supporters with promises of handouts, exemptions, subsidies, “research” grants and market privileges.

“Handouts and privileges cost money. This is why politicians will promote carbon taxes, both direct ones like that proposed recently by France, and underhand ones like the Australian Ration-N-Tax Scheme which relies on the sale of carbon emission permits. “The political challenge for warmist politicians is to publicise the bribes and subsidies, but conceal the taxes needed to fund them.

“The Australian Government Treasury mandarins have already concocted figures to show how the government can use their carbon tax slush fund to bribe 2.9 million voters with handouts. But their paltry bribe, estimated at $190 per voter per year, will not compensate for the loss of their jobs to China and India.

“And the other 11 million Australian voters will be much worse off.

“The rejection of the corrupt French carbon tax scheme by their Constitutional Court is a warning to all politicians - “Don’t bury carbon, bury carbon bribery and corruption”.

Viv Forbes is Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.

For details on the Court rejection of the French carbon tax go here.

For details on the number juggling by the Australian Treasury go here.

Settled science?: If dark carbon causes 94 percent of Arctic warming, and if contrails account for another 15-20%, how much is caused by natural variability and trace amounts of CO2?

Yet Another Human Climate Warming Effect In The Arctic - Aircraft Contrails - Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

...an article in Scientific American by David Biello based on a study by Charlie Zender, a climate physicist at the University of California, Irvine stated
“ on snow - even at concentrations below five parts per billion - such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming”.

Now we have yet another human climate forcing that was reported by Rex Dalton of Nature News in the article How aircraft emissions contribute to warming - Aviation contributes up to one-fifth of warming in some areas of the Arctic.

The article includes the text: “The first analysis of emissions from commercial airline flights shows that they are responsible for 4-8% of surface global warming since surface air temperature records began in 1850 - equivalent to a temperature increase of 0.03-0.06 C overall. The analysis, by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, also shows that in the Arctic, aircraft vapour trails produced 15-20% of warming.”

-------------------------
Thriving with Nature and Humanity
By Malcolm Roberts

Today, security has broadened beyond economic and military security to encompass many facets of life including health, safety, community and environmental. What I’ve seen in many nations and in all industry sectors is that care for our planet and our natural environment is inherent in humans. At our core, we feel concerned about fouled and toxic air, skies, water, oceans, beaches, land and food. We have green hearts and want to stop pollution. We care for our natural environment, our beautiful planet.

In developed nations, modern technology and inherent care for Earth mean city air is cleaner than it has been for hundreds of years. Technology and improved understanding of Nature raises crop yields, minimizing land clearing for food. Yet, at times, in ignorance or fear, people damage the environment.

Once humans are aware though of our actions we rectify - removing petrol (gasolene) lead, saving the Bald Eagle, changing farming practices to conserve water and topsoil. Deep within, we all know we share our own personal source with all people, animals and life forms - we are of the universe, in unity with all life.

Environmental responsibility, sound engineering and commercial acumen are natural partners because all aim to minimise waste. Fulfilling environmental responsibilities minimizes waste and maximises productivity - it makes sound business sense. Balanced fulfilment of environmental responsibilities provides commercial advantage.

Today, perceptions of environmental damage - even perceptions not rooted in integrity - can remove consent to manufacture, mine or farm. As political processes enmesh with sensationalist media headlines some politicians and executives become wind vanes. Instead, industry needs leaders with character to ensure informed and responsible community perceptions and to protect our nation’s future.

Effective, sustained leadership at all levels and in all spheres - industry, corporate, community - is ultimately based on three factors. Firstly, sound use of data to develop understanding and clarity on which to base informed, responsible decisions. Secondly, integrity of character driving sound decisions based on facts. Thirdly, solid relationships to implement decisions.

Understanding climate alarm illustrates challenges facing leaders globally in industry and in our communities and nations.

The genuine environment and conservation movement is one of the most important social movements on Earth. Yet, its credibility is endangered by confused and fearful politicians, alarmist activists, sensationalist media and prominent extremists with financial conflicts of interest. Read much more in this well-done report that replaces fear, guilt and control with facts, forgiveness and freedom. See PDF.

Today, security has broadened beyond economic and military security to encompass many facets of life including health, safety, community and environmental. What I’ve seen in many nations and in all industry sectors is that care for our planet and our natural environment is inherent in humans. At our core, we feel concerned about fouled and toxic air, skies, water, oceans, beaches, land and food. We have green hearts and want to stop pollution. We care for our natural environment, our beautiful planet.

In developed nations, modern technology and inherent care for Earth mean city air is cleaner than it has been for hundreds of years. Technology and improved understanding of Nature raises crop yields, minimizing land clearing for food. Yet, at times, in ignorance or fear, people damage the environment.

Once humans are aware though of our actions we rectify - removing petrol (gasolene) lead, saving the Bald Eagle, changing farming practices to conserve water and topsoil. Deep within, we all know we share our own personal source with all people, animals and life forms - we are of the universe, in unity with all life.

Environmental responsibility, sound engineering and commercial acumen are natural partners because all aim to minimise waste. Fulfilling environmental responsibilities minimizes waste and maximises productivity - it makes sound business sense. Balanced fulfilment of environmental responsibilities provides commercial advantage.

Today, perceptions of environmental damage - even perceptions not rooted in integrity - can remove consent to manufacture, mine or farm. As political processes enmesh with sensationalist media headlines some politicians and executives become wind vanes. Instead, industry needs leaders with character to ensure informed and responsible community perceptions and to protect our nation’s future.

Effective, sustained leadership at all levels and in all spheres - industry, corporate, community - is ultimately based on three factors. Firstly, sound use of data to develop understanding and clarity on which to base informed, responsible decisions. Secondly, integrity of character driving sound decisions based on facts. Thirdly, solid relationships to implement decisions.

Understanding climate alarm illustrates challenges facing leaders globally in industry and in our communities and nations.

The genuine environment and conservation movement is one of the most important social movements on Earth. Yet, its credibility is endangered by confused and fearful politicians, alarmist activists, sensationalist media and prominent extremists with financial conflicts of interest. Read much more in this well-done report that replaces fear, guilt and control with facts, forgiveness and freedom. See PDF.

A survey of weathercasters’ feelings on global warming was published in this month’s edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It had some interesting findings. There were 121 respondents. 94% of the respondents had at least one of the three major seals.

Television meteorologists are the official scientists for most television stations. The overwhelming majority felt comfortable in that role for their stations. The majority agreed that the role of discussing climate change did fall to them.

The eyebrow raising responses:

“Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

“Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.” A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed.

“Global climate models are reliable in their predictions for a warming of the planet.” Only 3% strongly agreed and another 16% agreed. A full 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

“Respond to one TV weathercaster’s Quote saying “Global warming is a scam.” Responses were mixed. The largest percentage was neutral, at 26%. A total of 45% disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (22%). 19% of the respondents agreed with this statement and 10% strongly agreed.

The amount of uncertainty found in this survey tells that even the most educated and motivated communicators are still uncertain about the truth on this issue. Interesting article.

The entire text can be found here.

ICECAP NOTE: The broadcasters asked for more materials such as powerpoints and graphics which they could use to better study and present climate change. Thanks to your recent contributions, we are assembling materials including some videos and powerpoints and pdfs to provide balance to the dogma presented by COMET and Heidi Cullen’s George Soros sponsored Climate Central. Other broadcasters or meteorologists with powerpoints are welcome to submit them to ICECAP, where we will compile them along with our materials in a special section the next two months. One note: they transfer better via email as compressed pdfs. Thanks on behalf of the broadcasters for whatever you do. By the way, please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

Excellent libraries of stories and papers and reviews can be found at Climate Science weblog by Roger Pielke Sr., CO2 Science site with the Idsos, Watts Up With That with Anthony Watts and Friends, World Climate Report, SPPI compiled by Bob Ferguson, Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre and Friends of Science with Tim Ball and others. This is just a few web sources.

------------------------

Hide The Decline
By Elmer Beauregard, M4GW

A parody for “Draggin the Line” by Tommy James and the Shondells about Climategate. Thanks also to JibJab.com for their great animations, I covered up their logo so people didn’t think they made this or condone this message.

------------------------

See Chris Horner debate with Environmentalist Howard Gould on FOX News. The outcome “Greens: Nothing to see here...then admit investigation warranted before any US involvement in Copenhagen Kyoto II, Cap-n-trade, EPA Regulations, etc” .

------------------------

See UK Astrophysicist and Long Range forecaster Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction debate a Russian environmentalist on Russia Today.

-------------------------

See the real CO2 history as determined from actual chemical measurements as opposed to the error prone ice cores.

-------------------------

See now where global warming is blamed for TOO MANY POLAR BEARS here.

--------------------------

“cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and entire east and west coasts”
Dr Richard Lindzen talk at the Cooler Heads Coalition October 26th meeting

On Monday, October 26th, the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Proposing their own version of “cap and trade” climate legislation, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have put forth a draft of the new “pollution reduction bill.” Kerry stressed that the bill is about security. Boxer was interviewed by C-SPAN about her insight of how protecting consumers from energy cost increases will reduce emissions. Dr. Lindzen disputes some of the claims made by global warming alarmists, presents real climate facts, and questions the purpose of the bill.

Thanks to the Cooler Heads Coalition here is the video parts 1-6. Here is the powerpoint.  See also Dr. Lindzen in Wall Street Journal post here.

-----------------------

See Harvard’s Sallie Baliunas on how scientists have cooked the books on climate here. Sallie who was persecuted by Mann and his ‘team’ has been vindicated by the exposure of this kind of fraud in the emails.

---------------------------

BOYCOTT the companies pushing cap-and-trade.

UPDATE: Reader’s Digest Responds to Boycott, Removes it’s Name as Supporter of Copenhagen Climate Treaty
Minneapolis - Reader’s Digest has responded to a boycott by having its name removed from a list of corporate supporters of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.

Mr. William Adler, Vice President of Global Communications at Reader’s Digest sent an email to the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition asking that Reader’s Digest be removed from a list of 20 organizations that are being boycotted due to their support of the Copenhagen Treaty.  Mr. Adler stated that Reader’s Digest had been incorrectly listed as a supporter of the Copenhagen Treaty at .  A review of the website confirmed that Reader’s Digest’s name had been removed as a ”friend of Hopenhagen.”

“Smart organizations like Reader’s Digest are starting to realize that lending their brand to radical environmental movements is bad for business,” said Jeff Davis, organizer of the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition.  “We hope other organizations named in the boycott wake-up and recognize this fact as well.” There are a total of 19 remaining organizations targeted by the boycott, including Google, Pepsi, Nike and BP America.  The complete list of boycotted companies can be seen here.

------------------------

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here. Note that many more are coming, in part thanks to your donations.

------------------------

See 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming here.

See more here and still more annotated here.

------------------------

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

-----------------------

And from the Marshall Institute,

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

------------------------

Skeptics Handbook II! Global Bullies Want Your Money
By Joanne Nova

Finally, Part II in the Skeptics Handbook series - the bluster and bluff, the deceit, and the money.  Enjoy & Share.

It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big Oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with freedom-of-information requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008and bankers get set to make billions. See the handbook here.

------------------------

Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:

See full size display here.

And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here

See sister sites:

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here. Note story on LED lights - a good choice for Christmas lighting here.

Weather/Climate and Health here.

The Weather Wiz here.

The Wall Street Journal reports: “Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant. An ‘endangerment’ finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions—even if Congress doesn’t pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected. Many business groups are opposed to EPA efforts to curb a gas as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide. An EPA endangerment finding ‘could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,’ U.S… Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement “EPA action won’t do much to combat climate change, and ‘is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy,’ said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry. The oil industry has warned that climate legislation could force some U.S. refineries to shut down, because importing gasoline from countries without emission caps could be cheaper than making the gasoline on domestic soil.”

‘E.P.A. Sets Carbon Crackdown’
By John Broder
From The New York Times’ Green, Inc. blog: “The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday will finalize its determination that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health and the environment, paving the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories refineries and other major sources. The move gives President Obama a significant tool to combat the gases blamed for the heating of the planet even while Congress remains stalled on economy-wide global warming legislation. The E.P.A. finding also will allow Mr. Obama to tell delegates at the United Nations climate change conference that began today in Copenhagen that the United States is moving aggressively to address the problem. E.P.A. Administrator Lisa P. Jackson is expected to announce the step at a news conference this afternoon in Washington.  In late September, the agency announced a proposed ‘tailoring rule,’ that limits regulation of climate-altering gases to large stationary sources such as coal-burning power plants and cements kilns that produce 25,000 or more tons a year of carbon emissions. Industry groups and the United States Chamber of Commerce have objected to the proposed regulations, saying they would damage the economy and drive jobs overseas. Some groups are likely to file lawsuits challenging the new regulations, which could delay their effective date for some years.”

--------------------------

Dismissing Climategate, EPA Moves Forward on CO2 Regulation
Marc Sheppard

To surprisingly tepid applause, EPA head Lisa Jackson just announced that she has signed “two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’

One was of course the anticipated Endangerment Finding, which states that current and projected concentrations of six so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The other was the Cause or Contribute Finding, which finds that the combined emissions of the 6 GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

This certainly suggests that light-duty vehicle GHG regulation remains their primary goal.  But Jackson also mentioned potential future permit requirements for stationary sources of GHG under section 112 of the CAA.  And as that might affect everything from schools and hospitals to larger private homes, that’s where the most serious potential for government command-and-control lies.

Only a fool would doubt that the announcement was intended to coincide with goings-on 4000 miles to the east in Copenhagen, where Obama would otherwise arrive at the table next week rudely empty-handed of anything but empty promises.

But it was another scheduling issue Jackson was immediately challenged on.  And she responded to the question about the finding’s timing in relation to the CRU controversy by claiming the unit to be but one of many sources of the indisputable scientific evidence that humans cause climate change, adding that:
“Nothing in the hacked emails undermines the science on which this decision was based.” Where’s Joe Wilson when you need him?

------------------------

Fourth International Conference on Climate Change on May 16-18, 2010, Chicago, Illinois.

Make plans now to attend ICCC-4, an international conference on climate change calling attention to new scientific research on the causes and consequences of climate change, and to economic analysis of the cost and effectiveness of proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

On Monday, October 26th, the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Proposing their own version of “cap and trade” climate legislation, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have put forth a draft of the new “pollution reduction bill.” Kerry stressed that the bill is about security. Boxer was interviewed by C-SPAN about her insight of how protecting consumers from energy cost increases will reduce emissions. Dr. Lindzen disputes some of the claims made by global warming alarmists, presents real climate facts, and questions the purpose of the bill.

The video is now available in addition to the powerpoint. Thanks to CEI’s globalwarming.org

Thanks to the Cooler Heads Coalition here is the video parts 1-6. Here is the powerpoint.  See also Dr. Lindzen in Wall Street Journal post here.

-----------------------

See Harvard’s Sallie Baliunas on how scientists have cooked the books on climate here. Sallie who was persecuted by Mann and his ‘team’ has been vindicated by the exposure of this kind of fraud in the emails.

---------------------------

BOYCOTT the companies pushing cap-and-trade.

UPDATE: Reader’s Digest Responds to Boycott, Removes it’s Name as Supporter of Copenhagen Climate Treaty
Minneapolis - Reader’s Digest has responded to a boycott by having its name removed from a list of corporate supporters of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.

Mr. William Adler, Vice President of Global Communications at Reader’s Digest sent an email to the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition asking that Reader’s Digest be removed from a list of 20 organizations that are being boycotted due to their support of the Copenhagen Treaty.  Mr. Adler stated that Reader’s Digest had been incorrectly listed as a supporter of the Copenhagen Treaty at .  A review of the website confirmed that Reader’s Digest’s name had been removed as a ”friend of Hopenhagen.”

“Smart organizations like Reader’s Digest are starting to realize that lending their brand to radical environmental movements is bad for business,” said Jeff Davis, organizer of the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition.  “We hope other organizations named in the boycott wake-up and recognize this fact as well.” There are a total of 19 remaining organizations targeted by the boycott, including Google, Pepsi, Nike and BP America.  The complete list of boycotted companies can be seen here.

------------------------

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here. Note that many more are coming, in part thanks to your donations.

------------------------

See 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming here.

------------------------

See John Coleman’s talk at a Minneapolis conference here and his story on Al Gore’s mentor Roger Revelle here.

-----------------------

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

-----------------------

And from the Marshall Institute,

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

------------------------

Skeptics Handbook II! Global Bullies Want Your Money
By Joanne Nova

Finally, Part II in the Skeptics Handbook series - the bluster and bluff, the deceit, and the money.  Enjoy & Share.

It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big Oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with freedom-of-information requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008and bankers get set to make billions. See the handbook here.

------------------------

Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:

See full size display here.

And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here

See sister sites:

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
(Note latest story is on LED lights - a good choice for Christmas lighting here.)

Weather/Climate and Health here.

The Weather Wiz here.

CAP and TRADE - License your house - MUST READ!!!

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA.

A License required for your house, no longer just for cars and mobile homes.

Thinking about selling your house - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don’t get a ‘high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.

The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America. Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.” Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards. See the story here and see the full bull, I mean bill here.