GreenWatch Newsletter 19 (March 17, 2009)

Featured Story:

The BBC covered the Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen. Here is the headline:

Climate Scenarios 'Being Realized'

Sounds like this conference was filled with hard scientific data regarding the current impact of climate change and how the impacts correlate with previous projections. But read past the headline and what do you find (bolds are mine)?

In a statement in Copenhagen on their six key messages to political leaders, they say there is a increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climate shifts.

Even modest temperature rises will affect millions of people, particularly in the developing world, they warn...

New data was presented in Copenhagen on sea level rise, which indicated that the best estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made two years ago were woefully out of date.

Scientists heard that waters could rise by over a metre across the world with huge impacts for hundreds of millions of people.

There was also new information on how the Amazon rainforest would cope with rising temperatures. A UK Meteorological Office study concluded there would be a 75% loss of tree cover if the world warmed by three degrees for a century.

There's not a single fact related to the headline in the entire story. This is a press release from the pro-global warming propaganda machine, passed off as an objective news story.

The BBC, as far as I can tell, did not cover the Heartland Institute's second annual International Conference on Climate Change, covered brilliantly by Marc Sheppard of The American Thinker. I can find only one mention of the "Oregon Petition," (in the 'Student Life' section) which has been signed by more than 30,000 scientists and includes the following text:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

For too many years the media have been blatantly promoting the global warming agenda. They've boosted dubious claims from scientists with dubious credentials and politicians with no credentials whatsoever, while suppressing dissenting opinions. Fortunately, the public is starting to catch on.

"Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject."

The media are caught in a conundrum now. They can continue suppressing dissent and watch their own reputation continue to plummet, or they can give those scientists who dissent from the "consensus" a voice in the debate, and watch as the truth gets out, and support for global warming dwindles down to nothing.

Whoopsy Daisy:

Last week, we tried to link readers to a clip of Bjorn Lomborg challenging Mr. Gore to a debate at the ECO:nomics conference hosted by The Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, we linked you to the incorrect clip. You can see that clip here. Apologies for any confusion our error may have caused.

More Headlines:

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory

Kerry: Climate Change Delay is "Suicide Pact"

Britain's Birds Facing Extinction Due to Climate Change?

Has Global Warming Accelerated? (No)

Time to Prepare for Climate Change

The Reader's Corner:

Raymond of Bakersfield, CA: "I remember that back in the 1970's scientists had predicted the probability of a new "Ice Age" and how we had to increase the earth temperature, or we all would freeze to death. They all has a load of computer generated models to back their point, just like Al Gore and his people have today. There were major scientists who were convinced it would happen and the movie industry came out with a load of movies as well.

Now let's face a few facts, depending on where one lives we see 4 climate changes every year, they are seasonal. Yes, Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall, that is solid proof we have global climate change. We sometimes have hot years and colder years, that is because of that big ball of burning gas a few million miles away called the sun.

Now it is a fact that water vapor is the most destructive of the greenhouse gases. With too much of it, we have massive rains which cause flooding, soil erosion and with too little of it we have droughts, which cause soil erosion too. Now can Al Gore and his people tell me how to control the weather so everyone can get a decent amount of rain?

Now in the course of man down the ages, what did man do back in the stone ages to cause global warming? What industries did he have that contributed to the "Ice Ages" and what amount of Mastodon poop tipped the scales to cause the warming of the earth to end an Ice Age?"

Lee, San Antonio, TX: "If anybody believes Al Gore they must also believe in the Tooth Fairy! He's in it strictly for the money. His zinc mine on his property in Tennessee has been polluting the Caney Fork River ever since Armand Hammer first mined it back in the '40s!"

[PG]: Here's a recent USA Today story on the zinc mine I believe Lee is referring to.

Mary, Pittsgrove, NJ: "I do not believe there is true global warming; there are some changes, which are probably the earths' adjustment to the effects of man's activities. I believe the earth has gone through many changes, over the course of eons, and "full of himself" Al Gore ignores these truths for his personal benefit.

That said, the article about the melting of Arctic Summer Ice is confusing. I have read the ice is getting thicker in Antarctica. Can you provide an explanation?"

[PG]: Mary - the Arctic summer ice they're referring to in the North Pole, not in Antarctica (which, being in the Southern Hemisphere, is in the midst of winter while you in New Jersey, I in New York, and the polar ice caps in the North Pole, are enduring summer). You are correct; the ice in Antarctica has been expanding. As for offering an explanation...well, I'm afraid I can't offer anything more interesting than it's just part of a natural cycle. See, I'm not one of the people arguing that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are warming the atmosphere, leading to world-altering natural disasters and unsustainable habitats for most of humanity. So when information like this comes around, it's easy for me to take it in stride. I think you can understand why it's a bit tougher for them.

Have a comment on one of the stories this week? Got a story you'd like us to cover for next week's newsletter? Email us at Greenwatchamerica@gmail.com. Be sure you include your name and location.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

According to some global warming experts, global warming will raise sea levels enough to make New York City vulnerable to hurricanes and storm surges, which, of course, brings thoughts of the special effects extravaganza The Day After Tomorrow. This story makes a similar claim:

"Scientists at the Copenhagen conference said that modest IPCC estimates of likely sea level rise this century need to be increased. Extra melting in Greenland could drive sea levels to more than a metre higher than today by 2100"

But it seems the greens made a few errors in calculation:

"This is typical eco-bloat. Taking into account that the Earth's surface is 70% ocean and that it takes 1.1 cubic mile of ice to make a cubic mile of water, to raise the oceans one inch would take 2400 (2398+) cubic miles of ice. To raise the oceans one meter would take 94,488 cubic miles of ice melting. Greenland is melting at 55 cubic miles a year, their dream is to make us believe that the melting would become not two or four times faster than today but 18.67 times faster, from 55 cubic miles a year to 1027 cubic miles a year for 92 years."

A typically silly error from the Green Agenda. But to be fair, that's really just a math error or, at worst, a cynical exaggeration. Far worse is a claim from Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that he offered at the previously mentioned Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen, who said that a warming of five degrees globally could make the earth unsustainable for more than one billion people.

That, in simple English, means that he believes a five degree increase would kill more than five billion people. The Hadley Center claims that the earth is on course for a possible 7 degree increase in global temperature by 2100. Good thing there are only 6.7 billion people on earth.

GreenWatch Newsletter 18 (March 9, 2009)

Featured Headline:

This week the Wall Street Journal hosted their second annual conference on so-called "green" energy called ECO:nomics - Creating Environmental Capital. Many famous figures in the global warming debate turned out to discuss "the intersection of business and the environment." Among them, of course, was Al Gore. Mr. Gore, as has become his M.O. harped on the immediate need for action:

I think that we're at a moment in history when we as a civilization have been slow to recognize the enormity of the climate crisis. It is a genuine planetary emergency. And this is the moment to make a one-off investment in the transformation of our energy infrastructure from one that is based on dirty and expensive, declining, vulnerable carbon-based fuels to one that's based on fuels that are free forever.

Later in the event, the floor was open to questions from the audience. Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish Environmentalist and global warming denier, stood up to challenge Mr. Gore's position. I've transcribed it below, but you can watch the video yourself at this link.

Lomborg: It seems to me that you are probably the most well-known person arguing that we should be spending a large sum of our money and we should be spending most of our concern on focusing on cutting carbon emissions, and cutting very, very soon. And I would argue that the Copenhagen Consensus [think tank] and certainly a lot of really well-esteemed Nobel awards tell us that both scientifically and economically, it's not a very good way to spend our money.

And so my point is to actually say, "Shouldn't we have that debate?" I know you've sort of dodged that bullet before, and I don't mean to corner you. Well, maybe I do mean to corner you. Do you want to have a debate on that? Would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?

Gore: Look, I think that I want to be polite to you. But the scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we as a civilization, let alone we as the United States of America, should pretend that this is an on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand kind of situation.

You know, the tobacco industry for many years after the surgeon general's report collected the epidemiological evidence that was already very, very damning. They had strategic exercises with the PR experts to try to divert people down into the details of this and that. And they delayed public-health action for 40 years. And millions and millions of people died as a result. The stakes this time are so high.

Look closely at this exchange: Mr. Lomborg wants to debate Mr. Gore, not on whether or not the science of global warming is settled, but rather how wealth can best be used to benefit mankind, whether it be through disease prevention, feeding the hungry, or other philanthropic efforts. Mr. Gore, however, either doesn't hear or chooses to ignore Mr. Lomborg's point, instead responding smugly as though Mr. Lomborg were questioning the science on the issue.

If Mr. Gore simply didn't hear or didn't understand Mr. Lomborg's point, then his response, while tone deaf, is excusable if cowardly. If he did both hear and understand Mr. Lomborg, then Mr. Gore's response is abominable. Would he really suggest that the time has passed for debate how people, businesses and governments can best use their own money to do the most good? Would he just have us give it all to him to do with as he pleases?

Or perhaps Gore is simply afraid of any debate at all. The organizers of the conference rescheduled Mr. Gore's appearance at the last minute. Why?

Former U.S. vice-president Albert Gore allegedly feared a direct confrontation with Czech President Vaclav Klaus at a conference on global warming, and this is why Gore's presentation was rescheduled for another day, Lidove noviny (LN) writes Thursday, referring to Klaus's spokesman.

And it's really no wonder Gore refuses to debate. Just three years ago, the public overwhelmingly believed Gore's theory, largely because it hadn't been challenged. Now? A Pew research poll places Global Warming dead last on the list of issues Americans believe Barack Obama should focus his attention on, below, in order, the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, energy, Medicare, health care, deficit reduction, health insurance, helping the poor, crime, moral decline, the military, tax cuts, the environment, immigration, lobbyists, and trade policy.

It seems as far as a global warming debate is concerned, if it weren't for his friends in the media, Mr. Gore couldn't convince anybody.

More Headlines:

Jacoby: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Top Ten Climate Change Deniers

Gore Effect Ctd: Temperatures Have Dropped Since the Release of "An Inconvenient Truth"

Warning: Breathing Causes Global Warming

Columbia University Scientists Probe Stone Age Solution for Global Warming

The Reader's Corner:

Jerry of Hampton, NH: "The tragedy of climate as seen through the eyes of Gore and Hansen and others who profit from such lies reminds me of an old adage: 'Lord, protect me from my protectors.'"

Alexander writes in all the way from El Salvador: "Every intelligent person knows that Global Warming is a myth! If Al Gore really believes it he is in denial. But I doubt that. It is just another leftist political ploy at gaining control over our lives."

David critiques our photography: "Regarding your picture of the capitol gathering - your camera angle was wrong! Shoot through their feet and it looks like twice as many people are there and then you only have to cut and paste half as much to get the 'real' effects! Hope this technique is of some help to you in the future!"

Well David, those actually weren't our pictures last week. But we'll be sure to take your advice to heart next time we want to mislead the public and the media regarding turnout at an allegedly "major" event combating global warming.

Felix from Winston-Salem, NC: "Yes, I saw a comment that I would like to second. I too would love to place my foot in Al Gore's fat behind with a swift kick. People of his ilk should be exposed, ridiculed, and put out of business. This man made global warming movement is based on a hoax perpetrated by individuals who stand to profit from Cap and Trade schemes and enemies of America's system of government and way of conducting business. The sooner the American nation realizes that this is a ruse the better."

And finally, Marcella from Huntsville, AL: "Sunday morning, March 1, we woke up to a rare and beautiful site...a dusting of snow in Huntsville, Al. As we entered church that morning our Priest welcomed us with 'happy snowbal warming'"

Need to comment on one of the stories this week? A story you'd like us to cover for next week's newsletter? Email us at Greenwatchamerica@gmail.com. Be sure you include your name and location.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Headlines rang out across the nation: Expert Says Arctic Summer Ice Could Vanish by 2013!

The Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's sea ice cover in summer could vanish as early as 2013, decades earlier than some had predicted, a leading polar expert said on Thursday.

Warwick Vincent, director of the Center for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said recent data on the ice cover "appear to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", which call for an ice free summer in 2013.

The year "2013 is starting to look as though it is a lot more reasonable as a prediction. But each year we've been wrong -- each year we're finding that it's a little bit faster than expected," he told Reuters.

Of course the next paragraph goes on to note that Arctic ice actually increased in 2008, but never mind pesky details like that. In any case, we were particularly struck by this claim. It reminded us of something else...something we had heard before...

ABC NEWS: ARCTIC'S FIRST ICE FREE SUMMER POSSIBLE EVEN THIS YEAR

June 27, 2008

The distinct possibility that this summer -- for the first time in recorded history -- the North pole could be free of sea ice, is now a common subject of discussion among the world's climate experts.

Whoops.

GreenWatch Newsletter 17 (March 3, 2009)

Featured Story:

God has a wicked sense of humor:

"Global warming activists stormed Washington Monday for what was billed as the nation's largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change -- only to see the nation's capital virtually shut down by a major winter storm.

Schools and businesses were shuttered, lawmakers cancelled numerous appearances and the city came to a virtual standstill as Washington was blasted with its heaviest snowfall of the winter.

It spelled about six inches of trouble for global warming activists who had hoped to swarm the Capitol by the thousands in an effort to force the government to close the Capitol Power Plant, which heats and cools a number of government buildings, including the Supreme Court and the Capitol."

Nancy Pelosi had planned on attending the global warming protest, but her flight to Washington was canceled due to the weather. This is yet another example of the so-called Gore Effect, which the website Urban Dictionary defines as, "the phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow visits an area to discuss global warming." Some examples of the Gore Effect:

• January 2004: Gore delivers speeches in Boston and New York City on one of the coldest days in either city's history
• November 2006: Gore visits New Zealand, New Zealand experiences unusually cold October, hurting local Farmers
• November 15, 2006: Al Gore visits Australia
• November 16, 2006: Snow falls in Queensland Australia for the first time in at least 65 years.
• March 2007: Capitol Hill media briefing on global warming canceled due to a snowstorm
• October 2008: Gore gives global warming speech at Harvard in 125 year record breaking cold temperatures

The cynic in me says this is justice for Dr. James Hansen and Gore's initial bit of stagecraft in 1988, when they first sold the idea of global warming to the American public. Gore and Hansen planned ahead, picking one of the hottest days of the year and opened all the windows so the air conditioning in the capitol wouldn't work properly. This chicanery gave Hansen's testimony a real sense of urgency, as he was constantly wiping his brow while predicting the grave future of a warming earth.

As an aside, organizers of the event claimed thousands of participants at the protests. GreenWatchAmerica wasn't among them, so we have no way of determining the accuracy of that number. All we can do is link you to this picture and ask, does that really look like thousands of people?

More Headlines:

Japanese Commission Challenges UN: Global Warming Not Man-Made

Global Warming On Hold?

The High Cost of Climate Lies

Consensus Propaganda Is Corrosive to Science - and Liberty

The Reader's Corner:

Last week I started The Reader's Corner as a venue for GreenWatch's loyal readers to have their say. And wow did you respond! Let's get right to it.

Disgusted Danny in Kansas: "Thanks for keeping to the facts, something El Gordo loves to inconveniently disregard. Oh, by the way, El Gordo owns the company that you pay those carbon credits to.....another inconvenient truth for Gordo. I remember the same misinformation artists predicting in the 70's that we were headed for a New Ice Age, last year it was the dimming sun, and now it's modified into climate change....but don't worry the alternative energy fairy will wave its Obama and poof! Wind will provide all the jobs that we need to replace coal and cheaper too....and if you believe that I've got an Illinois Senate seat I'll sell you---Cheap!!"

Joanne: "Teresa's comment in your e-mail of February 24 correctly states the deception of our public officials to gain more control over our lives as they personally profit from it. They must be stopped....like completely ignoring their lies. I am reminded of the Scriptures.....'And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie.' I see America clearly in this powerful Word!"

Lamar in Mobile, AL: "I'd like to know if Al Gore has heard or read about all the hot, humid places that temperature monitors have been found, such as on building rooftops, in jet blast areas at airports and inside 'protective' enclosures with light bulbs in them, and what his reactions were to such information."

(Me): Lamar, this is an excellent point. Some of the monitors used to calculate global temperature are located where their daily readings can be impacted by all sorts of factors having nothing to do with the weather. For more on this topic, see the late Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear, which, while a work of fiction, contains accurate descriptions of this phenomenon.

Keith in Hollywood, FL: "Everyone should realize there are billions of dollars in grants and research as well as book sales, speaking engagements; for the scientific populace there has never been money so available for research on any subject and of course this will disappear if the 'science' is debunked. Many people including politicians have made huge investments in the future of 'alternative energy' and CO2 mitigation, they will do everything in their power to maximize their gain... In the meantime, they are not drilling for U.S. Oil, not building 'green' nuclear plants, not building out the hydrogen infrastructure so that fuel cell autos can be refueled. It's all smoke, mirrors and MONEY and we are the fools who pay for it! There are a series of 'Tea Parties' being held to disavow the politician's belief that they have a 'mandate' for all of this BS. Please join in, fax, e-mail of even WRITE your Congressperson and Senators. They think we are stupid, apathetic and lazy, let's prove them wrong and stop this nonsense."

And we'll leave it to Floyd to end this week's installment of The Reader's Corner: "As cold as it is here, I would like to contribute to warming and leave my big carbon foot print on Al Gore's big broad behind."

Have something to say? A comment on one of the stories this week? A story you'd like us to cover for next week's newsletter? Email us at Greenwatchamerica@gmail.com. Be sure you include your name and location.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Steve Guilbeault of Green Peace:

"Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter; that's what we're dealing with."

How convenient.

GreenWatch Newsletter 16 (February 23, 2009)

Featured Story:

Global Warming advocates have made a habit of arguing that Global Warming not only will lead to more natural disasters, but actually has already done so. Climate realists, including this newsletter at times, have just as frequently pointed out that there is no evidence to support this claim. Well it seems our side has a new ally: Al Gore.

That's right. The Goracle himself has removed a slide from his oft-rebutted PowerPoint presentation "An Inconvenient Truth" that contained a graph which purported to show an incredible spike in disasters in recent years. He culled the data from Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times explains:

"The graph, which was added to his talk last year, came just after a sequence of images of people from Iowa to South Australia struggling with drought, wildfire, flooding and other weather-related calamities. Mr. Gore described the pattern as a manifestation of human-driven climate change. "This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented," he said. (The preceding link is to a video clip of that portion of the talk; go to 7th minute.)

"Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here's why.

"Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters."

In fact, this isn't the only bogus claim of Gore's recently debunked. Al Gore and United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon published an Op-Ed in The Financial Times last month that claimed that there are significantly more jobs to be found in the wind-energy industry than in the coal industry. A related article claimed that there were 85,000 jobs in wind and just 81,000 in coal. But according to The Christian Science Monitor:

"...it's a bogus comparison. According to the wind energy report, those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as "varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more." The 81,000 coal jobs counted by the Department of Energy are only miners. Their figure excludes those who haul the coal around the country, as well as those who work in coal power plants."

Using faulty statistics to support their position is not the behavior of a movement confident in their position. And how could they be confident, with global temperatures declining, arctic ice levels matching those from 30 years ago (more on that below) and the American public growing more and more resistant to their claims?

More Headlines:

Next Decade May See No Warming

Earth and Mars Both Have Global Warming (How did our CO2 get all the way out there?)

In Australia, Tensions Boil Over on Climate Change

Climate Fears Driving "Eco-Migration" Across Globe

Global Warming Increases Respiratory Disease

Global Cooling Increases Respiratory Disease

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Here's the claim: Arctic Sea Ice is at historically low levels. You've heard it repeated a thousand times.

This year, however the claim seemed to be bunk. Arctic ice was recovering dramatically, nearly matching levels from 30 years ago. Then suddenly, for no discernible reason, it dropped severely. Why?

"A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called "sensor drift," began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That's when "puzzled readers" alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site."

Here's a link to a map showing Arctic ice cover. On the left is January 1, 2009. On the right is January 1, 1979. Here's a comparison of 2009 and 1989. And here's 2009 and 1999.

Judge for yourself.

The Reader's Corner:

We're adding a new feature to the newsletter this week: The Reader's Corner. This is your opportunity to sound off on Global Warming, a story in the newsletter, or whatever springs to mind this week. Just email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com. Please include your name and where you're from.

Rennie from Missouri: "My opinion of global warming is another government control gimmick to impose restrictions on companies, so that they can control those companies by forcing them to comply and I also believe it is in a round-about way, government's way of controlling private lands."

Buck responds to the featured story from last week, about the government restricting the amount of lead in children's toys: "I have worked with Lead for most of my life and am now 70 years old and in good health. Lead can be harmful if you do not take care of yourself. It will take drinking it do any harm."

Teresa writes in about the stimulus bill including money for an arctic ice breaking ship: "Now, why on God's green earth would they need an Ice Breaker if the ice is melting in the Arctic as 'they' claim?"

And Gene thinks we're not doing enough: "After reading your e-mail about "The New Book Banning" it is obvious your stand on 'Global Warming' is as timid as Congress's bull in the china shop approach is stupid greedy and totally uninformed!! The Congress is hot on global warming because it allows them to steal large sums of money from the American People in the form of 'Carbon taxes', supposedly to 'fight global warming' but really just a slush fund from which to steal money and hide it for themselves and their scummy 'friends'."

While we can't do anything about Congress, we'll certainly try to do better, Gene!

Have something to say? Want to tell Al Gore and Goracles how you feel? Email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com

GreenWatch Newsletter 15 (February 17, 2009)

Featured Story

Last August, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, a seemingly sensible reaction to the scare over lead paint in toys from China. The bill included provisions that imposed strict limits on lead in products intended for children and applied those restrictions retroactively. In this quarter's City Journal, Walter Olson exposes the unintended effects of this law:

"...goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don't conform. The law has hit thrift stores particularly hard, since many children's products have long included lead-containing (if harmless) components: zippers, snaps, and clasps on garments and backpacks; skateboards, bicycles, and countless other products containing metal alloy; rhinestones and beads in decorations; and so forth. Combine this measure with a new ban (also retroactive) on playthings and child-care articles that contain plastic-softening chemicals known as phthalates, and suddenly tens of millions of commonly encountered children's items have become unlawful to resell, presumably destined for landfills when their owners discard them"

Thrift stores, who barely scrape by as it is, were presented with the option of having their products undergo tests they couldn't possibly afford. The results throughout the country have been disastrous. Just look at this incredible state by state rundown Olson compiled detailing the impacts of this misguided law.

Perhaps the most egregious result is the possible banning of children's books from thrift stores, used book stores and even public libraries, "which daily expose children under 12 to pre-1985 editions of Anne of Green Gables, Beatrix Potter, Baden-Powell's scouting guides, and other deadly hazards."

"Not until 1985 did it become unlawful to use lead pigments in the inks, dyes, and paints used in children's books. Before then--and perhaps particularly in the great age of children's-book illustration that lasted through the early twentieth century--the use of such pigments was not uncommon, and testing can still detect lead residues in books today. This doesn't mean that the books pose any hazard to children. While lead poisoning from other sources, such as paint in old houses, remains a serious public health problem in some communities, no one seems to have been able to produce a single instance in which an American child has been made ill by the lead in old book illustrations--not surprisingly, since unlike poorly maintained wall paint, book pigments do not tend to flake off in large lead-laden chips for toddlers to put into their mouths."

Now the beautifully crafted books that generation after generation of children grew up reading are being thrown in the trash, thanks to knee-jerk legislation forced through by a fearful Congress.

So how does this relate to Global Warming?

There are two main fronts to the global warming debate: Whether or not the science is true, and, if it is, how to deal with it. The Green Agenda, led by Al Gore, wants you to believe that the first of these points is not up for debate, despite mounting scientific evidence and sentiment to the contrary.

We object to Gore's proclamations of settled science because we believe such claims are A. inaccurate and B. against the very nature of science, which should encourage further study, not dismiss it. However, the possibility remains, however unlikely, that the basic theory of global warming is correct, and that the earth is accelerating through a period of unnatural warming caused at least in part by man. This leads to the second part of the debate: What can we do about it?

This is where things get scary. Our government (and all governments, for that matter) has a tendency of taking bold, drastic regulatory actions where smaller, more thought out steps would be prudent. When they need a scalpel, they reach for the battle axe. This is precisely what happened when it came to CPSIA. Congress overreacted to some shoddily made Chinese toys, hopped aboard their white horses, and swooped in to save the day. And now regular American business owners are paying the price.

If Congress is allowed to react the same way to Global Warming, the results will be the same on a much larger scale.

Economic disaster.

Other Headlines:

2008 coolest year on record since 2000, just 0.69 degrees warmer than the average from 1850-1924

Newest Deniers: George Will and Former Moon Walker and Senator Harrison Schmitt

Science Settled? Rate of Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting "Unknown"

Great Profile of John Coleman, Weather Channel Founder and Global Warming Denier

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Alright, now they've got my attention.

GreenWatch Newsletter 14 (February 12, 2009)

Featured Story:

A bushfire raged through Australia earlier this week, devastating towns north of Melbourne. The latest report puts the death toll at 181, and it's expected to rise. While the fires are suspected to have been set on purpose (All fires that cannot be tracked to a lightning strike are assumed to have been deliberately started), members of the Green Agenda practically leaped over one another to offer their take on the cause of the tragedy.

"The bushfires are the worst natural disaster in Australia in 110 years. The previous worst bushfire was the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983 which killed 75 people.

"The blazes have increased pressure on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to take firm action on climate change as scientists blamed global warming for the conditions that fueled the disaster."

There's a word for this kind of brazen exploitation of the loss of life: "Shameless."

In America, we're familiar with scientists and politicians exploiting national tragedies to promote their own agendas. The same phenomenon occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Scientists, the media, and even a certain politician railed on about how the deadly storm was caused by global warming. It practically became accepted knowledge that Hurricane Katrina was an storm of unprecedented power and the cause of that power was global warming. In reality, the deadly hurricane struck land as only a class 3 hurricane, the horrific death toll was caused not solely by the storm, but by poor maintenance of the levees that should have protected New Orleans from the storm surge and by inadequate preparation and response by the local, state, and federal governments. Not to mention the fact that scientists actually have no idea what effect global warming has on hurricanes, since at different times they have "linked" global warming to more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, weaker hurricanes, and none of the above.

But the Green Agenda in Australia is perhaps even more shameless. Why? Because the extent of the damage may be directly linked to a policy they worked to enact; a policy that may have cost dozens of Australians their homes, and a few their lives.

Angry residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.

During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne's northern fringe, Warwick Spooner -- whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze -- criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you d*ckheads won't cut trees down," he said.

One family, however, refused to follow the draconian zoning regulations that prioritize the rights of trees over the safety of people (as the Green Agenda always seems to do). In 2002, Lian Sheahan and his family ignored the rules and bulldozed 250 trees surrounding their house. For this, they were called law breakers, forced to appear before a magistrate and fined $50,000. His family was "emotionally and financially drained."

Then the fires struck. The result? In his own words:

"We are the only house standing in a two-kilometer area."

I guess sometimes "criminals" do prosper.

This Week's Headlines:

Obama Nominee for Chief Science Advisor to the President Believes 1 billion will die from global warming by 2020

New York Times Headline, May 15, 1932

A New Denier Emerges (And Pays the Price)

CO2 Emissions Hit New High

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Already a Nobel Prize Laureate and an Emmy and Oscar winner, Al Gore added another trophy to his ever increasing collection: The Grammy for best spoken word album for An Inconvenient Truth. That means the voters decided that of all the "spoken word albums" released this year, the absolute pinnacle was the audio book of the book of the film of the PowerPoint presentation that has long since been scientifically discredited on virtually every criteria.

Sounds pretty egregious to me.

GreenWatch Newsletter 13 (January 29, 2009)

So Al Gore braved the winter storm and the world's sense of irony to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on global warming. As usual, Mr. Gore's testimony was riddled with scientifically questionable claims and hyperbole passed off as indisputable facts: "This would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on earth...And this is within the century, if we don't change." As usual, Mr. Gore's claim of a scientific consensus went unchallenged ("The scientists are practically screaming from the rooftops") despite more and more scientists coming out as skeptics. And as usual, Mr. Gore's standing to profit from alternative fuel technology subsidies, as he hoped to include in the stimulus, went ignored by the media and committee alike. As usual, the dissenters did their best to point out Gore's inconsistencies. As usual, they were ignored by the media.

However, something very unusual is happening despite business-as-usual on The Hill. The American people are starting to catch on to these inconsistencies. According to a Rasmussen poll, 41 % of voters believe global warming is caused by human activity, while 44% believe it is the result of long-term planetary trends. This is a huge swing from as recently as April, when 47% believed it was man made, and just 34% believed it to be a natural phenomenon.

And what to make of this article, from the usually reliably left-leaning Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Within it, Mr. Milbank mercilessly mocks the former Vice President, repeatedly referring to him as the "Goracle" and mocking members of the committee for fawning at his feet.

Could Al Gore be wearing out his welcome not just with the American public, but even with his once staunchest allies?

One can only hope.

This Week's Headlines

Al Gore's Propoganda

Bundle Up! Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Cutting Emissions Will Not Bring Relief

Wind Farms aren't Economically or Environmentally Sustainable

Most Egregious Claim of the Week

We've ranted on it before, and we will undoubtedly do so again, but claims like this one, from Australia's "Climate Change Minister" Penny Wong, simply cannot be ignored:

"Obviously you have to look on a much longer time frame than week to week, but what we do know is that 11 of the hottest years in history have been in the last 12 [years]. And we also know, particularly in the southern part of Australia, that we've seen less rainfall. All of this is consistent with climate change and all of this is consistent with what scientists told us would happen."

Of course, Australia has been enduring a week of excessive heat, so Wong thought it an appropriate time to advance the Global Warming Agenda. From James Hansen's first testimony in 1988, Global Warming propogandists have used any examples of extreme heat to support their agenda, while at the same time dismissing any single piece of countering evidence as irrelevent. They even attempted to change to name of their movement from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" in order to claim any extreme weather conditions for their cause.

The simple fact is that short term weather trends are not, I repeat, ARE NOT indicative of long term anthropogenic global warming and politicians and scientists alike who claim that they are are being irresponsible and, dare I say, unscientific. I leave it Andrew Bolt to explain:

"The more important fact is that the temperature of the world has in fact fallen since 2002, which contradicts climate models that predicted warming as we pumped out ever more carbon dioxide. That's the inconvenient truth Wong repeatedly fails to address, as I found when I asked her about this myself.

All this recent heat has proved is the accuracy of forecasts that Melbourne in summer can be damn hot. And?"