September 2008

Suddenly, oil and gas exploration is all the rage on Capitol Hill.

Celebrating the end of the House Republicans' five-week energy protest, Florida congressman Adam Putnam beamed from the Capitol steps, "The House Republicans would like to welcome the Democrats back to Washington, D.C.!"

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

True to expectations, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science withheld their global warming alarmist report from public scrutiny (except for leaking it to their friends at the Baltimore Sun) until last week, when they formally rolled it out (PDF) with the overall recommendations from the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. As I mentioned in an earlier Cooler Heads post, the Sun reported on the UMCES study:

Look for balmier winters and blistering summers in the decades to come. Enjoy the colorful fall foliage in Western Maryland – while you can. And unless circumstances change, prepare to see a different mix of plants, trees and birds by the end of the century, worsening dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay, and for the state that some call "America in miniature" to get dramatically smaller as rising waters push the shoreline inland.

So says a group of scientists who have compiled the first comprehensive assessment of how Maryland could be altered by global climate change.

The report, which was edited by UMCES's Donald Boesch and written collectively (by collectivists?) by 17 scientists from Maryland universities and two men associated with the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as (surprise!) two representatives from environmentalist groups: the World Wildlife Fund ("Climate change is the number one environmental issue of the 21st century") and the National Wildlife Federation ("Global warming is the single biggest threat to wildlife today"). The Sun did not identify those two enviro-groups in its story. The report was also funded (surprise again!) by the Town Creek Foundation ("Global climate change may be the most important challenge of our time. Twenty years from now our children and grandchildren will find it hard to understand how we fiddled away a half trillion dollars (and counting) in Iraq as the planet burned") and the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment. Somehow the Sun forgot to report that also.

I also predicted in my earlier CH post that "this report is probably littered with many 'could be'-like phrases, based not on observational data but instead on fanciful computer modeling devoid of any proof of anthropogenic cause…." You've seen one IPCC-derivative, you've seen them all — from the UMCES report:

"This is an assessment of the likely consequences of the changing global climate for Maryland’s agricultural industry, forestry resources, fisheries resources, freshwater supply, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and human health…"

"The Assessment was based on extensive literature review and model projections…"

"The results from supercomputer models of the responses of climate to increased greenhouse gas concentrations were used to project future conditions for Maryland…"

"…summer droughts may increase groundwater demand for agricultural irrigation…."

"Crop production may increase initially, but then decline later in the century…"

"Later in the century, crop production is likely to be reduced…"

"Rains and winds from hurricanes are likely to increase…"

And so on…likely, maybe, coulda, woulda, shoulda…if ifs and buts were candies and nuts…

Like most of these alarmist reports, the UMCES work focuses much on derivative impacts upon other ecological areas (coastline, wildlife, agriculture, forests, etc.) based upon the deeply flawed, gussied-up climate super-models funded by environmental extremists. In fact, the entire Maryland Commission on Climate Change is funded completely by such alarmist grantmakers. So it doesn't surprise that they would completely ignore real and observed climate trend data.

How much will it cost the European Union to fight global climate change? Clearly, the answer depends on what your target is, how you propose to get there, and the size of the EU’s contribution compared with those of the US, China and so on. But a new report from the Centre for European Policy Studies thinktank offers some useful estimates.

The California Assembly passed S 375, a major land use bill designed to fight global warming by regulating how California communities grow. The Senate already has approved the bill, which is likely to be signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sometime next week. S 375 would curb urban sprawl by linking $15 billion in state spending on infrastructure to so-called “smart growth” planning. The idea is to compel Californians to live closer to one another, so that people drive less and thereby emit fewer greenhouse gases.

The number-one economic issue this election is gasoline prices at the pump. The tax-hike effect of surging oil on global markets that has translated to a huge spike at your local gas station has drained the economy of its vitality. It has damaged consumer purchasing power, made it tougher to pay mortgages on time, worsened the credit crunch, raised the inflation rate, undermined corporate profits, and thrown stocks into the first bear market in five years.