Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

Fox News/Rush Limbaugh watchdog Media Matters for America did climate realists a big favor last night by posting a segment without comment from last night’s “O’Reilly Factor,” in which host Bill O. interviewed AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi about California wildfires and global warming. As O’Reilly explained, he invited Greenpeace to send a representative to appear on the program with Bastardi but the group declined to do so. That left the well-respected weatherman to present plenty of evidence that the fires have nothing to do with global warming. Witness:

1. Given an opportunity by O’Reilly to slam Greenpeace, Bastardi says “I don’t want to disparage them. They’ve done some good things.” But then he adds, “in this case their house of cards (the global warming-wildfires connection) goes up in smoke.”

2. (Illustrating with meteorological maps and that cool telestrator thing) “Over the last two years…whenever the Pacific Ocean starts cooling, and global temperatures start to cool, California gets dry….All this cold water off California means the air sinks over the top of California; when it sinks it dries out, so global cooling is actually a cause of drought in California…”

3. (Showing a temperature anomalies chart) “To prove to you the globe is actually cooling, if you look at the [IPCC] their forecast was for temperatures to go up, up, up, and over the last 10 years you can see — in an up-and-down manner — they are coming down. So for the last 10 years, it’s cooling.”

4. “While the earth was supposed to be warming a little bit, the atmosphere over the tropics was really supposed to be warming up quite a bit. (Shows model of tropical greenhouse warming) What has actually been happening? (replaces with chart of “reality” in the tropics) Nada.”

5. (Posts chart of accumulated cyclone energy trends) “And consequently, an inconvenient truth is, the tropical cyclone accumulated energy is down at record low levels, not record high levels.”

Watch for yourself, and pass along a big thanks to both MMFA and Greenpeace for letting facts reach the public without adding their lies and spin.

From the Energy Information Administration and the General Accounting Office (via the Institute for Energy Research):

Total Federal subsidies for electric production for fiscal year 2007 from solar power are $24.34 per megawatt hour, compared to 44 cents for traditional coal, 25 cents for natural gas and petroleum liquids, 67 cents for hydroelectric power, and $1.59 for nuclear. Solar subsidies for non-electric production in fiscal 2007 totaled $2.82 per million Btu, second only to ethanol/biofuels at $5.72 per million Btu. (Figures are in 2007 dollars.)

In fiscal year 2007, solar received 9.2 percent of all federal research subsidies to power generation but produced only 0.016 percent of U.S. electricity. Per kilowatt-hour, this was 1255 times higher than the amount allocated to coal, most of which was spent to develop cleaner technologies. Coal produced 51.4 percent of all U.S. electricity in fiscal year 2007.

So then, how does this happen (USA Today):

Investors holding solar energy stocks are getting one nasty burn. Shares of companies that make solar panels have flamed out this year, missing out on what’s been a significant recovery in the stock market.

Market leaders, including First Solar and SunPower, for instance, are down 12 percent and 30 percent this year, even as the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 index is up 13 percent. And the Market Vectors Solar Energy ETF, which tracks stocks in the industry, is down 6 percent this year.

Is there any amount of taxpayer money that could be thrown at solar to make it efficient and profitable?

As Energy Tribune’s Robert Bryce explains today in the Wall Street Journal:

Politically correct bird kills:

Politically incorrect bird kills:

Over at American Spectator today I explain the origins and activities of the Alliance for Climate Education, which targets teenagers with global warming propaganda via high school assemblies. What I don’t think can be emphasized too much is the rapper that ACE believes is their most effective “educator” — Ambessa Contave — since he is their only presenter featured in their promotional video (a must watch). Contave is half of a duo called Fiyawata, and this is how they describe their music on their YouTube page:

“Our music is high frequency medicinal erotic sorcery that sways humanity into cosmic ecstasy.” Indeed, Fiyawata’s music is utterly compelling, luring the listener into a transcendent trance. There is fun to be had here, but this is an experience that extends well beyond mere entertainment. For Fiyawata, music is a being that makes the listener feel “ecstatic, energetic, all-powerful, vibrant and like God.”

Fiyawata also promotes a “solar-powered” hip-hop festival called “Grind for the Green.” Sounds like a potent formula to sway teenagers for your cause, huh?

Update 1:11 p.m.: The Santa Rosa (Calif.) Press-Democrat reports that an two ACE presentations were so popular at Windsor High School (north of the Bay area) that faculty added a third presentation.

The Duggar family, stars of the TLC program 18 Kids and Counting, are under scrutiny because of all those children (they are expecting a 19th) and their environmental impact:

According to recent research, having lots of kids may have a much bigger impact on the environment than previously thought.

Here’s why: Oregon State University researchers say that if you’re serious about reducing your carbon footprint, the best way to do it is to have one less child. They claim the effect is almost 20 times greater than recycling, driving a high-mileage car, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs over your entire lifetime.

So by the mathematical logic by the clowns in Corvallis, if the Duggars planned to have 26 kids, then they should do their part and have 25 instead. Problem solved!

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, the double-minded man on cap-and-tax, is continuing his high-stepping through the the hot coals of global warming policy prescriptions. In a Flathead Beacon article that attempts to assess the prospects of the national Waxman-Markey bill, the chairman of the Western Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association is said to “clarify” his position on carbon emissions trading schemes, but in reality he only muddies further:

In an interview last week, Schweitzer clarified his position, saying he “categorically” believes gasses produced by humans, like methane and CO2, were causing climate change and the U.S. needs to take action to reduce emissions of these gasses. But then added: “Do I believe that the carbon cap-and-trade system is the best proposal? The answer is no.”

As for Waxman-Markey, Schweitzer said, “I have some concerns with it” and that he hasn’t “been able to find anyone who can understand” the bill.

But Schweitzer would not speculate on the political prospects of Waxman-Markey’s passage, saying only that the bill is sure to be altered by the Senate and eventual conference committees, which could result in a much different bill. Nor did the governor say he backed cap-and-dividend. Instead, he said he would like to see some type of policy mechanism where fees on carbon emissions were used to develop new technologies dedicated to a cleaner, more efficient energy system, encompassing everything from carbon capture, to new transmission grids, to wind and solar power. Such a system would allow the market to motivate companies to develop these technologies, whether a carbon cap is imposed or not.

“I don’t know that you need a hard cap if you send clear market signals that you need to decrease carbon dioxide emissions,” Schweitzer said.

So what does that mean for his state’s continued participation in the Western Climate Initiative’s cap-and-tax scheme, as the governor sees it? Your guess is as good as anyone’s, but he will probably be allowed to evade a straight answer as long as Montanans (and their media) let him.

That’s the question that Carbon Control News considers today in an article the publication has placed outside its subscriber wall, just for you special blogreaders! Unfortunately CCN‘s reporter can draw no definitive conclusions:

(Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s appointee) George LeMieux, who will be sworn in as Florida’s junior senator when Congress reconvenes next week, ran Crist’s successful 2006 campaign for governor and served as Crist’s chief of staff until the beginning of last year, when he returned to private practice at a Tallahassee law firm. As Crist’s top aide, LeMieux helped organize the governor’s first climate summit in 2007, during which activists, scientists and public officials from around the world gathered in Miami to consider the challenge presented by global warming and develop potential solutions.

As the Miami Herald reported (and I blogged about) last month, Crist has begun his run to replace quitting Sen. Mel Martinez by running with hair on fire from the no-longer-helpful global warming issue, after basking in media love the last two years when he hosted climate panic conferences featuring California Gov. Arnold Warmalarmer. This year Charlie says he may not hold another speech meet because of concern over the costs to sponsors (really!). But even though LeMeiux (“I am a Charlie Crist Republican”) will placehold, CCN says there’s no telling how he’ll vote on the Senate version of a cap-and-tax bill this year:

While environmentalists are encouraged by the appointment, LeMieux’s membership on the board of an industry organization that opposes cap-and-trade, combined with the potential pressure created by Crist’s conservative Republican primary opponent (that’s former Fla. House Speaker Marco Rubio), suggest his support for climate legislation is far from assured.

Because the two are so closely aligned, Crist likely will have to answer on the campaign trail for LeMieux’s votes on Senate legislation, which likely will include a cap-and-trade bill expected to be introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) as soon as next month.

If the belief still exists that Crist is anything more than the Sunshiny State’s Specter of Arlen, then Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas squashes it like a malarial mosquito:

…Predicting Crist is simple. Simply do the political calculation.

He would easily beat any Democrat in the Senate race. All he has to worry about is Rubio in the primary. So the environmentalists are of little use to him now. They may grumble as he abandons them, but he knows they won’t publicly attack him because he is going to win. And they will need him in the future, if not for climate change then for Everglades funding.

Crist is on your side when there is something in it for him.

And when it comes to climate change, there is nothing in it for Crist anymore.

That is, until the political winds change again.