Heliogenic Climate Change

“French ministers scrambled on Wednesday to rescue a carbon tax … which was annulled by the Constitutional Court just 48 hours before it was due to come into force. …

The new tax was expected to raise 1.5 billion euros ($2.15 billion) next year and the court’s decision will put added pressure on the budget deficit, already forecast to come in at a high 8.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2010.

Ministers promised to present a revised text on January 20 but it could take weeks more to get the law back through parliament and badly needed cash flowing into state coffers.” “French Government Rushes To Revive Carbon Tax“

“When Oregon started handing out jumbo tax subsidies for renewable energy projects two years ago, one of the biggest beneficiaries was also one of the world’s richest corporations — Walmart.

No, the retail giant hasn’t branched to solar panels or wind turbines.

Instead, Walmart took advantage of a provision in Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit that allows third parties with no ties to the green power industry to buy the credits at a discount and reduce their state income tax bills.

State records show Walmart paid $22.6 million in cash last year for the right to claim $33.6 million in energy tax credits. The cash went to seven projects, including two eastern Oregon wind farms and SolarWorld’s manufacturing plant in Hillsboro. In return, Walmart profits $11 million on the deal because that’s the difference between what it paid for the tax credit and the amount of its tax reduction.

The loser in the transaction is Oregon’s general fund — which pays for public schools, prisons and health care programs — because the state is out the full $33.6 million in tax revenues.

Walmart isn’t alone. An analysis by The Oregonian shows Costco and U.S. Bank, which also rank among the nation’s top 200 wealthiest businesses, have made millions by buying up energy tax credits to cut their Oregon tax bills. Dozens of other companies and hundreds of individual Oregon taxpayers also have cut their tax bills by buying up the tax credits.

The practice, known as “pass-through,” has become a popular, nearly risk-free way for profitable corporations and high wage-earners to avoid paying taxes in Oregon. …

The tax credits, known as BETC, or “Betsy,” have come under increasing fire this year because the cost to taxpayers skyrocketed. It went from about $10 million in 2007 to an estimated $167 million in the 2009-11 biennium at the same time the economic recession hammered other areas of the state budget. …

Walmart, Costco and U.S. Bank, which top the list of energy credit buyers, shelled out a combined $67 million to avoid paying $97 million in Oregon income taxes.

Walmart and others are making money on projects that were closed, went belly up or never produced the energy or energy savings they initially claimed.” “Walmart, others make money on Oregon’s energy tax credits” h/t Climategate
-

“Berkeley High School is considering a controversial proposal to eliminate science labs and the five science teachers who teach them to free up more resources to help struggling students.

The proposal to put the science-lab cuts on the table was approved recently by Berkeley High’s School Governance Council, a body of teachers, parents, and students who oversee a plan to change the structure of the high school to address Berkeley’s dismal racial achievement gap, where white students are doing far better than the state average while black and Latino students are doing worse.

Paul Gibson, an alternate parent representative on the School Governance Council, said that information presented at council meetings suggests that the science labs were largely classes for white students. He said the decision to consider cutting the labs in order to redirect resources to underperforming students was virtually unanimous.” “Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs” h/t Climategate

“[E]ven [assumed AGW] warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not.In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals. Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory.” “Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age” h/t FuturePundit
-

“The decade just past marked the transition from red into green. It was the decade in which environmentalism replaced socialism as the authoritarians’ and the busybodies’ ideology of choice. … Read the rest of this entry »

“We all know how hard it is to say “sorry” when we’ve got something seriously wrong. Much easier, instead, to come up with a formula which says that even though some fools might perceive us to have been in error we were in fact right all along. This is why, just as they did once before when they stopped talking about “global warming” and started talking about “climate change” , climate-fear-promoters like [Charles] Clover are starting to big up this deadly new threat called “acidification of the oceans.”

This is no more a genuine threat than is AGW as you’ll learn if you read here, here, here, [here,] or this article at Watts Up With That. But it has the huge advantage, from the climate-fear-promotion industry’s point of view, that it continues to finger CO2 as the real villain of the piece. And so long as they can do that, it means our governments will still have the excuse they need to continue with their insanely expensive directives on carbon emissions; and it means – while most of us are impoverished by our inflated utility bills – that the thieves and fat cats who are on top of the carbon trading scam will get stupendously richer and richer.” “The scariest article you will read this year“

“Continuing Wikipedia’s trend of blocking skeptics from the ClimateGate debate, another skeptic has been banned from Wikipedia. This time it’s me.

I have a total of 1 edit to Wikipedia. Yes, just 1. And it’s not even to an actual article.

On the ClimateGate deletion discussion page I said that William Connolley should not be allowed to vote on the ClimateGate issue, as he’s personally involved in it. I provided two links to ClimateGate emails involving him.

And now I’m indefinitely blocked.

Screenshot showing I’ve been blocked. [screenshot]

Screen shot showing every edit I’ve ever made to Wikipedia. It’s from the deletion discussion page. (Minus links to emails that someone edited out.) [screenshot]

I’ve sent off an email to the admin who blocked me, Rlevse, asking why he blocked me.” “Another skeptic blocked from Wikipedia — me“
-

“France’s constitutional court rejected a proposed tax on carbon emissions, saying a web of exemptions violated the principal of equality …

The tax, which would have started on Jan. 1, was set at 17 euros ($24.38) per ton of carbon-dioxide emissions, President Nicolas Sarkozy said in September. To make the tax more palatable, he partially or fully exempted power plants, public transport, airlines, farming and fishing, as well as 1,018 older cement, steel and glass factories.

In all, 93 percent of all industrial carbon emissions in France would have avoided paying the full tax, the constitutional court said in a decision published on its Web site. The tax would have fallen disproportionately on fuel for heating and cars, it said.

“The court ruled that the system of exemptions, due to their extensive nature, … contravene the principle of equality before the tax system,” the court said.” “French Constitutional Court Rejects Carbon Tax“

Three to 5 degrees warmer and nothing happened to the planet, no “runaway” warming, no tipping point, nada, and CO2 had nothing to do with it:

“Around 125,000 years ago, global warming drove sea levels to surge by more than 20 feet.

Sea levels were likely eight meters higher around 125,000 years ago when polar temperatures were 3-5 degrees Celsius (5.4-9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer, says a new study published Wednesday …

“We find a 95 percent probability that global sea level peaked at least 6.6 meters (nearly 22 feet) higher than today during the last interglacial,” the study said.

“It is likely to have exceeded 8.0 meters (around 26 feet) but is unlikely to have exceeded 9.4 meters (nearly 31 feet),” it said. …

The researchers also calculated that during the last interglacial period the average sea level rose six to nine millimeters a year compared to around two millimeters a year during the 20th century.” “Sea Levels Spiked With Ancient Warming Event“

“Quebec will become the first province in Canada to adopt California’s strict auto emissions standards, the province’s environment ministry said on Tuesday.

The new rules will come into effect on January 14 and will impose increasingly stringent limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cars and light trucks made between 2010 and 2016 that are sold in the province.

Emissions from vehicles will be cut by about 35 percent over the four years, from 187 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer for passenger vehicles to 127 grams per kilometer by 2016, Charles Larochelle, assistant deputy environment minister in Quebec, said in an interview.” “Quebec Adopts California’s Auto Emission Standards“

“Once again – see Barclay et al. (2009) and Menounos et al. (2009) – we have a situation where the Little Ice Age was found to have been the coldest period of the current interglacial [italics added], which suggests (once again) that 20th-century global warming could not have taken the earth into “uncharted” thermal territory, but only back to something similar to what prevailed prior to the Little Ice Age, like the Medieval Warm Period, which was merely a run-of-the-mill relatively warmer period that was still much colder than the several-millennia-long Holocene Thermal Maximum, which Briner et al. report “was several degrees warmer than today [italics added].” Consequently, since much larger temperature changes than the warming experienced over the 20th century occurred at various earlier times in the Holocene, when the air’s CO2 content was almost invariant, there is no need – nor even a compelling reason – to invoke the 20th-century increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration as the cause of 20th-century warming.” “The Glaciation of Arctic Canada’s Baffin Island“

“When it is realized that the Little Ice Age was likely the coldest interval of the current interglacial period, and that it extended all the way up to the start of the 20th century in western Canada, it can be appreciated that the warming that has been experienced there subsequently is certainly nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, it actually represents a return to what was “ordinary” over great intervals of the prior millennia. Hence, it can be appreciated that to return to that more ordinary climatic state surely does not require the help of an increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration. The earth has experienced that condition many times before, without any increase in the air’s CO2 content; and it can surely experience it again, without any increase in the air’s CO2 content, as it indeed has done over the course of the 20th century, perhaps with a little help from its friend – the sun.” “Holocene Glaciers of Western Canada“
-

“In the aftermath of the Copenhagen Climate conference, it is clear that the United Nations-driven process is a bust, and that any similar process requiring economic suicide and massive wealth transfers will go nowhere. It is long since time to drop this charade, take the question of climate change out of the hands of the U.N., and implement more reasonable policies. …

What went on in Copenhagen was more political theater than an effort to think about realistic approaches to managing the risk of climate change, whether man-made or natural. The world would be better off with a fresh start and a process that isn’t run by U.N. bureaucrats for whom every problem is an excuse to expand their power.” “Get the U.N. Out of the Climate Business” h/t Marc Morano
-

“There is increased evidence [climate models are not evidence] that the Arctic could face seasonally ice-free conditions and much warmer temperatures in the future.

Scientists documented evidence that the Arctic Ocean and Nordic Seas were too warm to support summer sea ice during the mid-Pliocene warm period (3.3 to 3 million years ago). This period is characterized by warm temperatures similar to those projected for the end of this century, and is used as an analog to understand future conditions.

The U.S. Geological Survey found that summer sea-surface temperatures in the Arctic were between 10 to 18°C (50 to 64°F) during the mid-Pliocene, while current temperatures are around or below 0°C (32°F).” “Arctic Could Face Warmer and Ice-Free Conditions“

“OK, so you’re a climatologist and some whistler blower published your emails on the internet for all to see. What can you do? Well, you might take a cue from a lying, cheating scumbag whose wife walked in on him and his mistress while they were…(cough)…emitting lots and lots of carbon dioxide.

Here’s what the bastard might say to his wife as she pulls a .44 magnum from her purse:

“Honey, this isn’t what it looks like…”

Of course, you can’t use those exact words, but you can massage them a bit like you do temperature data to achieve the objective of covering your ass:

“Those emails aren’t what they seem; they were taken out of context…”

Now the wife isn’t stupid. She saw with her own two eyes what the lying, cheating scumbag husband of hers did to his mistress…and the bed sheets. Unfortunately for you, some of the public aren’t stupid either–they can read the emails.

The cheating husband will be in for a world of hurt, since the wife is aiming the gun at his privates. Your career could suffer a similar fate if you don’t come up with a better line of BS. Here is what the bastard husband might come up with:

“OK, Honey, you win! It IS what it looks like–but…but…but I only cheated on you this one time. Throughout the rest of our marriage I have been faithful to you.”

Here again, you can’t use those exact words, but you can tweak them like you do the climate data to get the result you want:

“OK…OK…so I manipulated the data–but…but…but all the other data out there in the greater climatology world is perfectly valid–and it shows that we are all going to die if the world doesn’t do what I say…(keep sending grant money, etc.) “

Unfortunately for the lying, cheating husband, he is now a soprano. But you need not worry because some members of the public are gullible–they won’t check the other data because you said it’s OK, or better yet, your friends at the drive-by media say it’s OK–so it must be OK. Right?” “Sex, Lies and Climate-gate“

“The “finding” of the [EPA] administrator was not made under Title I [stationary source programs]. In fact, its legality is highly questionable even under Title II [motor vehicle programs]. I seriously doubt the EPA can escape a duty to develop national air quality standards under Section 108(b) of the Act based on statutory history and the case law. Promulgating such standards requires consideration of “all relevant science” before it can occur. In short, if this is made into a fight over genuine science, with rules in play about the competence of evidence and witnesses, I have little doubt that the skeptic view will win.

People need to see the wolves in green clothing for what they are: charlatans. Honest environmentalists need to stop their unquestioning clamor, revisit the science, and recognize the truth, lest the very good cause they serve be seriously harmed.

Americans and American business should not knuckle under to this cynical and corrupt power grab. Before new policy and rules are made, we must demand a thorough airing of the climate science with a fair and honest process by a reliable investigating team. It will not be that hard to root out the fudging and falsification of data.

This is the fight that will define the twenty-first century as either a time when mankind advances due to honest enterprise, quality science, and technical achievement…or we are subjugated by government micro-regulation from manipulative control freaks based on false and slanted data from grant recipients with no scruples.” “Clearing the Air on the Clean Air Act and Climate Change“
-

“Fresh from the fiasco in Copenhagen and with a failure in the U.S. Senate looming this coming year, the climate-change lobby is already shifting to Plan B, or is it already Plan D? Meet the carbon tort.

Across the country, trial lawyers and green pressure groups—if that’s not redundant—are teaming up to sue electric utilities for carbon emissions under “nuisance” laws.

A group of 12 Gulf Coast residents whose homes were damaged by Katrina are suing 33 energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly contributed to the global warming that allegedly made the hurricane worse. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and seven state AG allies plus New York City are suing American Electric Power and other utilities for a host of supposed eco-maladies. A native village in Alaska is suing Exxon and 23 oil and energy companies for coastal erosion.

What unites these cases is the creativity of their legal chain of causation and their naked attempts at political intimidation. “My hope is that the court case will provide a powerful incentive for polluters to be reasonable and come to the table and seek affordable and reasonable reductions,” Mr. Blumenthal told the trade publication Carbon Control News. “We’re trying to compel measures that will stem global warming regardless of what happens in the legislature.”

Mull over that one for a moment. Mr. Blumenthal isn’t suing to right a wrong. He admits that he’s suing to coerce a change in policy no matter what the public’s elected representatives choose. …

The nuisance suits ask the courts to make such fundamentally political decisions themselves, with judges substituting their views for those of the elected branches.” “The New Climate Litigation” h/t Larry Tomasson

“In the middle of the night on Monday morning, enough believers posted they wanted the [Climategate] article deleted to tie the count evenly between delete and keep. Then the polling was shut down early and the page was deleted. It’s now a redirect to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article.

Editor Rd232 has tried to block the ClimateGate author from posting to wikipedia. This isn’t the first time this has happened. Wikipedia previously blocked all known skeptics from posting on the ClimateGate article.

The deletion is under review, as it occured less than 12 hours after the delete notice was posted and there was no consensus for deletion. We need wiki editors to get over there and get this reversed.

And Rd232 needs to lose his editor privileges due to abuse.” “Climategate page deleted from Wikipedia“
-

“In December 2009, Scientific American, once a respected popular-science journal and now a pulp science-fiction picture comic, viciously attacked US Senator James Inhofe because he had proclaimed 2009 to be the Year of the Skeptic. By skepticism, he meant “standing up and exposing the science, the costs and the hysteria behind global warming alarmism”.

Venomously, Science Fiction American’s editorial comment continued: “Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists.” Yah-Boo! This name-calling marks the depth of unscientific desperation to which the proponents of the “global warming” nonsense have now sunk.

Unscientific American pompously continued: “Not everyone who questions climate change science fits that description, of course—some people are genuinely unaware of the facts or honestly disagree about their interpretation. What distinguishes the true naysayers is an unwavering dedication to denying the need for action on the problem, often with weak and long-disproved arguments about supposed weaknesses in the science behind global warming.”

Politicized American, following a host of similarly left-leaning bodies such as the Royal Society and the unspeakable BBC, proceeded to parody and then condemn the now-overwhelming scientific case against the notion that CO2 is the principal driver of the past half-century’s “global warming” by setting up and then knocking down seven feeble straw men – childish, dishonest simulacra of the true scientific arguments against “global warming” hysteria. It described its straw men as “only a partial list of the contrarians’ bad arguments”. Yah-Boo!” “Scientific American’s Climate Lies” Original Scientific American article [read the comments!]

“BC [British Columbia], like so many other jurisdictions, continues to show its support for one of the most socially distasteful schemes of modern times — to kill off millions, perhaps billions, of people in the third world by reducing the global supply of food.

One of the most under-reported stories in the west today are widespread food riots caused by escalating food prices. Millions have died. The scale of this catastrophe completely dwarfs the Asian tsunami, and yet we have not heard a peep from the media.

A search of Google for “food riot” returns 3000 videos, 4 million images, and 9 million web pages. Check it out.

The World Bank has estimated that around two-thirds of the recent dramatic increase in food prices was directly attributable to using land to grow biofuels instead of food. And this is only the beginning.

Now, BC reiterates its support for and participation in this scheme, in the name of reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — despite the fact that additional CO2 increases the productivity of food crops. …

And yet, despite the innumerable problems, BC turns a blind eye and marches ahead to the beat of the climate-change drummer — who, by the way, has no clothes.

Below is the latest press release from the province about new regulations to ‘encourage’ the use the biofuels in BC.” “BC’s killer plan to reduce emissions“
-

“California’s battle against greenhouse gases is likely to come to the Bay Area soon — with rules designed to reduce the carbon footprint of new housing and commercial development. …

But some environmentalists and city planners fear that the new set of guidelines being considered by the region’s air quality regulators could have an unintended [!] consequence, making it more difficult and more expensive for developers to construct buildings within already urbanized areas. …

Greg Tholen, a principal environmental planner for the [Bay Area Air Quality Management District], said his agency was only trying to be helpful. With everyone from the state attorney general to environmental watchdog groups suing local governments to force them to account for greenhouse gases from new development, Mr. Tholen said, the board’s members thought new guidelines would help the locals deal with the issue in a consistent way. …

After performing a set of intricate calculations, the board’s staff determined how much greenhouse gas the Bay Area was likely to produce by 2020, and by how much that projected amount would need to shrink to comply with new state guidelines. Then the board estimated what part of that reduction would be accomplished through the state’s broader effort to regulate carbon emissions. The amount left over was deemed to be the obligation of new development, and, in essence, each potential project was given an allowance of greenhouse gas emissions.

If a new project appears to exceed its allowance, it would trigger an environmental impact report to look for ways to reduce it. Guidelines suggest that a typical condominium development with more than 77 units would go over the threshold, as would a single-family housing project with 56 homes.

And that caused an uproar throughout the region. …

Berkeley is opposing the new guidelines, as is San Francisco, Oakland, Emeryville and several other cities. The pushback has forced the air board’s staff to retool and try to clarify its recommendation.” “Air Quality Guidelines Face Unexpected Critics“
-