Here is CEI’s press release, and my colleague Chris Horner’s post is here.

Andrew Revkin’s story in tomorrow’s New York Times has already been posted on the Times’s web site.  Here is one interesting tidbit from Revkin’s story:

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millennia, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide a decline” in temperatures.

‘Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often use the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.” “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.

Yes, that’s right, everyone knows that “trick” is used as a technical term in many professions.  For example, in prostitution “trick” means….

There is nothing remotely new in anything Hudson reports, but the article is astonishing for what it reveals about the changing grounds of the debate.  Hudson concludes:  “One thing is for sure.  It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.  Indeed some would say it is hotting up.”

Naturally, the alarmists are not amused.  Nor will they be amused by Debra Saunders’s column in the San Francisco Chronicle or the fact that the Drudge Report featured the BBC story

The fecklessness of climate diplomacy was on full display last week at the Group of Eight summit of industrialized countries in Italy, where the international community simultaneously vowed to limit global warming and disavowed the necessary action to do so.

Al and Friends Create a Climate of McCarthyism
Bjorn Lomborg, The Australian, 16 July 2009

Discussions about global warming are marked by an increasing desire to stamp out “impure” thinking, to the point of questioning the value of democratic debate. But shutting down discussion simply means the disappearance of reason from public policy.

Could We Be Wrong about Global Warming?
Doyle Rice, USA Today, 16 July 2009

Could the best climate models — the ones used to predict global warming — all be wrong? Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience.  The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery

No wonder skeptics consider the left’s belief in man-made global warming as akin to a fad religion - last week in Italy, G-8 leaders pledged not to allow the Earth’s temperature to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Climate Bill Ineffective
Kathryn Gaines, Human Events, 13 July 2009

House Democratic leaders must be in a state of shock. The EPA announced that the Waxman-Markey Bill, the cap-and-trade bill, would not “materially effect global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere.” Why then are Americans being asked to take on $9 trillion ($9,000,000,000,000) worth of spending from 2012-2050 for nothing?

The Cap-and-Tax Disaster
Sarah Palin, Washington Post, 14 July 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Leading coal and electricity companies on Friday won a billion-dollar chunk of stimulus money from the Obama administration, highlighting once again how President Barack Obama’s anti-lobbyist and anti-big business rhetoric is divorced from his actions.

Farmer Brown Fights Back
William Yeatman & Jeremy Lott, American Spectator, 17 June 2009

To all appearances, green special interests are on a roll.

Global Cooling
Colorado Gazette Editorial, 16 June 2009

More and more, progressives who want American citizens to fork over their money in an effort to control the climate are trying to market the phrase “climate change” instead of “global warming,” in an urgent about face they hope nobody will notice. That’s because they’re faced with an inconvenient truth: all the hystrionics about icebergs melting and drowning coastal cities in coming years may not be true. To continue the fear, and therefore generate support for spending billions to solve the crisis, fear-mongers need terminology that will work no matter what the climate does.

Both these books look comprehensively at global warming and cover much the same ground in much the same order. There the similarities end. First published last year, Lord Lawson’s Appeal is the best short book on the entire range of issues in the global warming debate that is available from a British publisher. This paperback edition with a substantial new afterword is therefore most welcome. Lawson is lucid, thoughtful and fair-minded. The book’s highly useful footnotes and bibliography attest to Lawson’s familiarity with the wide range of scholarship on the many scientific disciplines that contribute to understanding the climate and with the major economic analyses of the energy-rationing policies proposed to deal with warming.

CO2 Is Hot Air
Chris Horner, Washington Times, 10 June 2009

Your Tuesday story “GDP hit found with cap, trade” (Nation, Politics) states: “A cap-and-trade system would decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the air to a level that researchers say is safe.” The piece cites no such researchers making any such claim because no researcher on record says any such thing.

The EPA’s Protection Racket
Angela Logomasini & Jeff Stier, National Review, 9 June 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency is making “significant strides” on issues such as “protecting children’s health” and “confronting climate change,” says a memo from EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson. Not surprisingly, the agency has requested a 37 percent budget increase for fiscal year 2010.

Proponents of a cap-and-trade program to combat global warming face an uphill fight. For all their attempts to spin it as a solely environmental issue about saving the planet from extinction, the reality is that it’s a political question that ultimately comes down to economic tradeoffs.

Plan To Fight Global Warming? Pie in the Sky
Jonah Goldberg, Los Angeles Times, 9 June 2009

The latest example of anthropogenic-lunar empowerment is global warming. Al Gore and Barack Obama routinely cite the Apollo program as proof that we can make good on the president’s messianic campaign pledge to stem the rising ocean tides and hasten the healing of the planet.

The Carbon Offsets Con
William Butier, Financial Times, 4 June 2009

In my discussion of the Cap & Trade scheme for carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E) emissions (greenhouse gases) proposed by U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass. (the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009), I argue that the two key issues are (1) the size of the overall quota and (2) the enforcement of the rule that without a permit, you cannot emit.

It might well be called “the tale of two planets”. On one planet live all the Great and Good who have recently been trying to whip up an ever greater panic over global warming, as the clock ticks down to next December’s UN conference in Copenhagen when they plan a new treaty to follow the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.

Side Effects of Greenie Alarmism
Jay Ambrose, Orange County Register, 7 June 2009

Eternal vigilance - that’s the only answer I can think of in the fight against a certain style of extreme environmentalism that, first off, would mendaciously fill you with fear to win your support for a cause, and then turn around and do something worse. It would deny the enormous human costs of causes it endorses.

Scientists: Think Twice about Green Transport
Breitbart.com, 7 June 2009

You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint — the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system.

How Obama Made Energy Platform ‘Pop’
Steven Mufson & Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, 31 May 2009

After a long day of campaigning on July 8, candidate Barack Obama arrived at his Chicago headquarters for a three-hour brainstorming session about a suddenly hot issue: energy and climate change.

The Breath Tax
Joseph C. Phillips, Bog Hollywood, 1 June 2009

The rationale for the “Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” otherwise known as Cap and Trade, is that environmental catastrophe awaits us if we do not control the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) flowing into the atmosphere. This hysteria has been propelled by alarmists using computer models to predict (not to prove) that what-used-to-be-called-Global-Warming-before-it-became-clear-that-the-earth-is-cooling-so-it-is-now-called-Climate Change is caused by man made emissions of carbon dioxide.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on the evening of May 21 passed the biggest piece of the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats’ agenda to put the federal government in charge of the American economy. On a 33 to 25 vote, the Committee approved the “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” H. R. 2454. The 946-page energy-rationing bill is better known as Waxman-Markey, named after its two chief sponsors, Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.

Climate Smart Aid Is Anything But
William Yeatman, International Affairs Forum, 27 May 2009

Now here’s an inconvenient truth: curbing the planet’s carbon footprint necessarily slows economic growth, the primary engine of human well-fare. International aid organizations need to carefully consider the impact of the climate “solutions” they advocate, lest they do more harm than good.

German Minister on Copenhagen: “No real advances”
DPA, 26 May 2009

The much-anticipated UN Climate Change Conference scheduled to take place in December in the Danish capital Copenhagen is heading for disaster, German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said Tuesday in Paris. “There is no movement,” Gabriel complained just before the conclusion of a two-day preparatory meeting of ministers from 16 industrial nations in the French capital. “The expectations we all had… have not been fulfilled.”