Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

In conjunction with today’s Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, the Heartland Institute (my organization and conference host) is releasing “Climate Change Reconsidered: A Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.” The 880-page book (posted entirely online at the Web site) challenges the scientific basis for concerns that global warming is man-made or is a cause for concern.

The report rebuts the several manifestations of findings by the United Nations Intergovernmental (I would say Pro-Governmental or Governmentalovin’) Panel on Climate Change, which serves as the foundation for several policies favored by President Obama and Congressional Democrats to limit greenhouse gas emissions. From the NIPCC site:

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report addresses several scientific areas, including global climate models, temperature record observations, solar variability, climate cycles, species extinction, glaciers, sea level, and more. In announcing the release of the book, Heartland President Joseph Bast said:

“I think it is fair to say that this is the largest independent compilation of research on climate change ever published, and I think it marks a real turning point in the national and international debates on climate….

“Whereas the IPCC pretends it has absolute confidence in its findings, and puts forward projections that might be predictions, but maybe they’re not predictions, this book doesn’t do that. It’s much more intellectually modest and I think honest.”

I, for one, am glad to finally see a major resource in this area that is not paid for and owned by government. Let them do things they are good at like running postal delivery, banks, and automobile companies.

Unless I’m totally misunderstanding the sketch of today’s editorial cartoon by the Washington Post‘s Tom Toles, which unimaginatively illustrates climate change “deniers” like a head-in-the-sand ostrich, he also also has drawn a huge sun which apparently is throwing intense heat on the “deniers” (which are supposed to be Republicans, I guess).

But in drawing the sun Toles has unwittingly made a case for solar activity being a stronger climate driver than greenhouse gases. I think Harvard solar scientist Willie Soon would love it.

With the EPA and Congress barreling towards greenhouse gas regulation, you might think that all the states and local governments putting together their own plans might declare victory and move on to more pressing matters like creating make-work with federal stimulus money. You’d be wrong.

The Almanac newspaper reports today that the Menlo Park (Calif.) City Council earlier this week approved a climate action plan created by its volunteer Green Ribbon Citizens’ Committee. As with TARP, however, it appears local leaders may only be willing to go as far as tax-grabbers from larger jurisdictions will pay for them to go:

The City Council approved the plan in a unanimous vote at its May 19 meeting. Prepared by a consultant that specializes in creating climate strategies for local jurisdictions and revised by city staff members, the plan expands upon and fleshes out a dense list of recommendations prepared by the volunteer Green Ribbon Citizens’ Committee in late 2007, council members say.

They acknowledge, however, that (the plan is) incomplete. The city exhausted the $38,000 it expects to receive in grant money to prepare the plan before it had a chance to fully revise the document, and council members look poised to allow a city commission to work on the plan — possibly in consultation with the Green Ribbon committee.

Undoubtedly it was the “consultant” who exhausted the $38k (which the city doesn’t even have yet!). Pretty good gig when these eco-consultants can drop their “climate plan” template on a municipality and collect a cool five-figure (plus?) sum for filling in the blanks. By the way, local watchbloggers, you might check how these consultants are working, lobbying, and wining and dining city officials to get these deals. Back to The Almanac:

Much of the discussion at the May 19 meeting centered on how the city could quantify its efforts to rein in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere. In an impassioned speech to the council, Mitch Slomiak, head of the Green Ribbon committee, urged the city to set measurable goals in reducing emissions, and to treat its “carbon budget” in the same way it regards its general operating fund budget.

You know, like their personal slush fund and favor factory. Like Waxman-Markey.

But council members struggled with how to make the issue tangible.

Easy — make it as tangible as CO2!

Unlike most of the line items in the city’s budget, a decreased carbon output won’t provide a direct benefit to the city.

Hmmm…truly a dilemma for politicians who expect something in exchange for wasting their constituents’ money.

“One might almost conclude that anything we do here is basically symbolic, and setting an example,” said Councilman Andy Cohen.

Money quote: About as close as you’ll get to hearing a global warming alarmist politician saying their climate plans are meaningless.

Councilman John Boyle said he was struggling with the idea of how the plan would fit in with the city’s budget. He noted that even actions that would pay for themselves, such as installing solar panels on city buildings, often take decades to recoup their costs.

But you’re forgetting all the green jobs!

The plan leaves much to be desired, but council members say that approving it is an important gesture — and that its existence may help the city in competing for grants, especially through the federal stimulus bill.

Aha, the real motive — meaningless gestures paid for by (not yet issued) grants, so you can get more grants!

Arkansas Democratic Rep. Mike Ross is one of three middlin’ congressmen on the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment who was targeted by the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund in a media campaign to support Waxman-Markey. Ross, one of 50 or so in the Blue Dog Coalition, told Arkansas syndicated columnist David Sanders last week he’s getting mighty miffed about Democrat leadership leaving his group out of the negotiation and writing of important cap-and-trade and health care reform legislation. On the energy bill:

Ross explained that it became obvious to him that the Democratic leadership’s strategy on cap-and-trade included blowing past the Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Moderates on the committee responded by slowing down what was, in their estimation, a very bad bill.

“We were never brought in,” he pointed out. “We put the brakes on and tried to make it a better bill.”

But after nearly two weeks of work by the moderates on the committee, only modest changes were made.

“This bill is to the left of Barack Obama,” Ross said, adding that it could get worse during the final mark up.

That said, he predicts the controversial legislation will clear the committee and pass the full House, although without his support. And then he believes the legislation will go to the U.S. Senate and die.

Not a good way for Pelosi, Waxman and Reid to keep everybody in their big tent happy and cooperative.

The New York Times ponders today what will happen now that Utah’s Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert, a global warming realist, will replace departing (to a China ambassadorship under President Obama) Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., an alarmist in the Schwarzeneggar/Crist image:

In 2007, in the tradition of his fellow Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, he signed on to the Western Climate Initiative, an effort by Western states to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

Assuming Mr. Huntsman is confirmed by the Senate, his successor will be lieutenant governor Gary Herbert, who is known in the state for holding very different views on climate. Mr. Herbert would serve through 2010.

“Basically, we are going from a governor that was a national leader in the world’s most important environmental issue to one that denies that global warming exists,” said Marc Heileson, a Sierra Club representative in the group’s Utah field office, in an e-mail message.

One of my sources in Salt Lake City emailed me and said he thought he heard Herbert say he would withdraw Utah from the WCI, something many state legislators would heartily approve. But the source misheard and wrote, “he said he has no plans to pull us out of the WCI…BUT he has many concerns with cap and trade.”

I wouldn’t be so sure that Herbert won’t eventually move in that direction. I met him when I visited last year (while Salt Lake was hit with its largest snowstorm of the season) and heard clearly that it was an issue he strongly disagreed with the governor about. But it’s too soon (and inappropriate) to ask for him to make any commitment today, during a transition press conference when full respect is due the previous administration.