Source: National Legal and Policy Center  

I recently came across a report written by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which estimated the cost to taxpayers for “federal policies to promote (aka subsidize) the manufacture and purchase of electric vehicles (EVs).” The piece also predicts the short-term benefits of the subsidies and includes the effects of rising federal requirements for fuel economy (known as CAFE) standards. The outlook is that federal subsidies will cost taxpayers $7.5 billion over the next few years for little or no benefit (even when including the impact of CAFE) to total gas consumption or emissions. (more…)

Source: Sun News[Canada]

Lord Monckton

Michael Coren talks to Lord Monckton about climate myths.

 http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/climate-its-changed-before/1846053237001

Collection of Monckton SPPI papers

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/

Source: Tom Nelson  

 Bummer: “Between 2010 and 2099, climate change will cause an additional 30,000 murders, 200,000 cases of rape, 1.4 million aggravated assaults, 2.2 million simple assaults, 400,000 robberies, 3.2 million burglaries, 3.0 million cases of larceny, and 1.3 million cases of vehicle theft in the United States”

Source: Powerline

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html?Itemid=0

Source:  Wattsup

I’ve noticed there’s a lot of frenetic tweeting and re-tweeting of this “sound bite” sized statement from this Climate Central piece by Andrew Freedman.

July was the fourth-warmest such month on record globally, and the 329th consecutive month with a global-average surface temperature above the 20th-century average, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

It should be noted that Climate Central is funded for the sole purpose of spreading worrisome climate missives. Yes it was a hot July in the USA too, approximately as hot as July 1936 comparing within the USHCN, No debate there. It is also possibly slightly cooler if you compare to the new state of the art Climate Reference Network.

But, those comparisons aside, here’s what Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman and NOAA/NCDC won’t show you when discussing the surface temperature record: (more…)

Source: Tribune-Review

Marc Morano operates Climatedepot.com, an Internet clearinghouse for information on climate, environmental and energy news. Morano, a former aide to U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., spoke to the Trib on the latest developments in the climate-change debate.

Q: It’s the hottest year on record so far in the Northeast. Must be global warming, right?

A: Globally, it’s not the hottest. In fact, here is the problem: The heat they are touting as proof of man-made global warming is occurring in the continental United States, which is less than 2 percent of the Earth’s surface. So far in 2012, (global) temperatures have been slightly below the average for the last 15 years. So if the Earth isn’t actually in record warmth globally, why are we looking at 2 percent (of its surface) and then trying to draw extrapolations?

Q: Why are we? (more…)

Source:  No Frakking Consensus

CTV is Canada’s “largest private broadcaster.” Yesterday afternoon it published a news story on its website titled Climate change to spur crop shortages, study claims. The story begins with this sentence (bold added by me):

The world may be 2.4 degrees warmer by the end of this decade, and that could have deadly consequences for global food production, according to a new study overseen by Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist Osvaldo Canziani.

Further down in the article, in case we missed it the first time, we’re reminded:

Canziani, a Nobel laureate and former co-chair of the IPCC, oversaw the report.

What the unidentified journalists who wrote this news story didn’t make clear is that Canziani is not a Nobel laureate in the normal sense of that term. He is a recipient of the Peace Prize by virtue of the fact that he worked on an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. His Nobel is the exact same Nobel that was awarded to Al Gore. (more…)

Source:  UK Guardian

EurekAlert! carried a study with unfounded global warming claims that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020

An online news service sponsored by the world’s premier scientific association unwittingly promoted a study making the false claim that catastrophic global warming would occur within nine years, the Guardian has learned.

The study, by an NGO based in Argentina, claimed the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020 and projected dire consequences for global food supply. A press release for the Food Gap study was carried by EurekAlert!, the news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) , and the story was picked up by a number of international news organisations on Tuesday.

“This is happening much faster than we expected,” Liliana Hisas, executive director of the Universal Ecological Fund (UEF) and author of the study, said of her findings.

But, in an episode recalling criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), when the UN climate science body wrongly claimed the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035• , the UEF claims about rising temperatures over the next decade were unfounded. (more…)

by Dennis Ambler

The Cancun Climate Conference and most national policies confirm equalization of wealth as the real objective. Everything is based on falsified evidence and completely unnecessary. If a private citizen practiced such deception it would constitute fraud. Despite evidence of manipulated data, corrupted science, false claims, and failed predictions the nonsense continues.

Climate Change CO2 Corruption Caravan Continues At Cancun, Commercially: You Must Pay For Your Sins

Tim Ball on the money again…. (more…)

Source:  Canada Free Press

by Joseph A Olson

There now appears to be a photo finish in the horse race for the ‘worst week in climate science history’ with that already infamous week of the Climate-Gate hacking, aka the “East Anglia Event Horizon”.  The universal increase in knowledge has been devastating to the Royalist-Monopolist-Elitist Alliance hell bent on universal serfdom.

There was so much bad news that it can only be covered as bullet points with one common theme.  What had been presented as an appeal to authority, i.e. scientific consensus, is now being presented as an appeal to the COMMON PEOPLE.  A point that will be emphasized throughout this article.

The week included the Michael Mann open letter in the Washington Post, begging the COMMON PEOPLE to vote for Democrats.  In his best Elmer Fudd impression, Mann complains that the “waskily wepublicans will wack Mann if elected”.  Yes, two coats of Penn State whitewash might not hold up under serious Congressional science inquiry.

The Eco-snuff flick “No Pressure” by the lovely 10:10 Division of the Climate Action group brought universal stinging rebukes.  First, the two largest sponsors withdrew their support.  Then over 20,000 supporters requested to be removed for the 10:10 rolls as supporters.

A protege of the flawed UK Climate Research Unit and a lead author of the IPCC reports was recognized to have tampered with the New Zealand temperature records.  This prompted the following statement from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research:  “There is no ‘official’ or formal New Zealand temperature record.” (more…)

Source:  World Climate Report

We conducted a web search for “Global Warming and Maple Syrup” and found over 150,000 sites – almost all proclaim that the maple syrup industry is in deep peril given the threat of global warming. This must surely be seen as bad news for all those who enjoy maple syrup on waffles, pancakes, oatmeal, crumpets, and French toast (and in any number of desserts as well). Before you think this threat is less than serious, be aware that maple syrup is big business in New England and in Canada.

But, as with most things you read about on the majority of websites, the fate of maple syrup turns out to be not nearly as bad as portrayed. In fact, the future may be even better for maple syrup production than the past.

In case you do not know, maple syrup is a sweetener made from the sap of sugar maple or black maple trees. In cold climate areas, these trees store starch in their stems and roots before the winter, which when converted to sugar, rises in the sap in the spring. Maple trees can be tapped and the sap is collected and concentrated.

Vermont is the biggest U.S. producer, with nearly a million gallons of syrup produced annually. Maine produces about a third of that amount annually; New York, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Connecticut all produced marketable quantities of maple syrup as well. While the U.S. production of maple syrup is significant, Canada produces 80% of the world’s maple syrup with most production occurring in Quebec.

Production is concentrated in February, March, and April, depending on local weather conditions. Freezing nights and warm days are needed to induce sap flows. The change in temperature from above to below freezing causes water uptake from the soil, and temperatures above freezing cause a stem pressure to develop, which, along with gravity, causes sap to flow out of tapholes or other wounds in the stem or branches. You immediately see that sap is dependent on climate conditions, predicted changes in local and regional climate can be linked to the production of maple syrup, and according to thousands of websites—and U.S. government climate impact reports—climate change will surely be bad for syrup production, at least in New England. (more…)

Source:  Climate Realists

By Dr. Vincent Gray

This issue I will answer an Email from Barry for a comment on a paper by Peterson on the First Difference Method.

I would like to put this in the perspective of my 20 years of intensive study.

It all began when many people became convinced that the “planet” was being “destroyed” by human greenhouse gas emissions and the every measure must be used to “save” the “planet” from this impending disaster.

It was evident from the beginning that the regular scientific techniques could not be used. The quality of the data and the extent of our knowledge of the climate were inadequate. Many honest scientists (for example W G Hessell) and even prominent warmists in their lucid moments (for example Jim Hansen) admitted that this was so. I have summarized this impossibility in a recent paper (here). This paper has been rejected by “Energy and Environment” It seems that even they dare not be publicly associated with what everyone knows is true. (more…)

Source:  Quadrant on Line

by David Archibald

Edited extract: “Why did so many scientists get it wrong?” from David Archibald’s book - The Past and Future of Climate:

If the data and forecasts in this book are correct, then the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO in Australia are all wrong. How can this be? Firstly, there aren’t that many scientists involved in the IPCC deliberations. The inner core is possibly twenty souls. Secondly, they were untroubled by the necessity to concoct fraudulent data to get their desired results. The only unknown question regarding the IPCC scientists is “Did they actually believe in the global warming that they were promoting?” (more…)