Featured Story Continued

Watch the trailers for both films below:

This Week's Headlines

The GOP & Climate Skepticism

Ford Fears Australia's Emissions Trading Scheme Will Drive Jobs Out of the Country

Obama Flunks Global Warming 101 on Fargo Floods

China Considers Setting Targets for Carbon Emissions

Will Global Warming Make Future Generations Worse Off? (No!)

1970's Lifestyle 'Protects' Planet

Third World Stove Soot is Target in Climate Fight (How dare those poor people cook their food!)

Global Warming Heretics Increase in Numbers

Most Egregious Claim of the Week

Stephen Chu, Energy Secretary of the United States.

"I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent -- I remember this number -- one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will -- some of them will disappear."

But he didn't stop there:

"Lots of area in Florida will go under. New Orleans at three-meter height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is -- this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous."

We announce the winner of the Most Egregious Claim of the Week on this blog every week. To see the other nominees, sign up for our weekly newsletter here.

GreenWatch Newsletter 23 (April 13, 2009)

Featured Story:

The Washington Times brings word of disastrous new provision in the House climate bill that would allow anyone "who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part" due to government inaction to combat greenhouse gas emissions to sue the federal government.

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill was written by two Democrats; Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts. Though the payouts for such lawsuits are minimal, capped at a total of 1.5 million dollars per year, what it could do is force the government to take action against climate change at the order of a judge, allowing activist judges to decide a crucial portion of economic policy for the entire country.

Of course, there's a part of me that sees a story like this and says, "alright, bring on the lawsuits. Let's see those claims of settled science exposed as the frauds they are in a court of law."

Perhaps Waxman and Markey are seeing the writing on the wall with regards to the entire global warming movement and this is their last, desperate ploy to get something done. Americans still aren't drinking the kool-aid, funds for climate projects are being cut, and former pro-anthropomorphic global warming propagandists are starting to realize that The Deniers may well have a point.

I propose a second bill: Allow citizens like you and me to sue the federal government and private businesses for the mental anguish of having to deal with this incessant campaign to convince us the world is going to end because of the success of industry - a campaign that was built on lies and that, fortunately, seems to be on the verge of failing.

More Headlines:

George Will and the Sea-Ice Controversy: Was He More Correct That Thought?

Fewer Showers to Help Global Warming

Study: Biofuel Threatens Water Supplies

Obama's Economic Mirage

UCLA saves the world by not eating beef on Thursdays

For Alaska's Inupiat, Climate Change and Culture Shock

The Reader's Corner:

Send your questions, comments and story leads to GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com with the subject line "The Reader's Corner".

Donald B Parsons: "Whenever I read the articles saying the sky is falling and blaming mainly CO2 emissions I would chuckle a little. I always respond with the same rhetoric that this article does and that is that for at 30 years (since science class) that we emit CO2 and breath O2 and our symbiotic partners (all flora) take in CO2 and emit O2. I know from reading botany books as well as horticulture books and being a hands in the dirt farmer who has had a small garden for our own food source knows that 283 ppms are minimal even up to 380 ppms are small, most plants especially large ones like tomato plants and trees can accept 1200-1500 ppms. I fear the extreme Global Warmers are going to plunge Mother Earth into a tall spin by going TOO far in the WRONG direction. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK and continue refuting all the LIES and over exaggerations by the Al Gores of the world."

Felix Stinson, Winston Salem, NC: "Thank you for your work. This manmade climate change agenda of socialists all over the world is the biggest threat to this country besides terrorism. It will break our economy and our freedom. It is also the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on this ol' world....the propaganda is almost overwhelming and has influenced our kids and many gullible folks our there.....keep hammering away....I hope you all are not just preaching to choir."

[PG]: Don't worry, Felix. We're going to keep hammering away as long as it takes. And we're continuing to explore new ways to get the word out. Along those lines, we've got some exciting plans in store for GreenWatch. Keep an eye out for announcements in the next newsletter.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

"It may be wrong to suggest impending doom, but if doom isn't impending, it's out there somewhere...If running out of oil doesn't scare you, maybe an iceberg the size of Connecticut floating away from Antarctica and hitting the United States will get your attention."

-Andy Rooney

GreenWatch Newsletter 22 (April 6, 2009)

Featured Story:

It's one of the first things I remember learning in second grade science class: People breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, plants "breathe" in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. It seems that some scientists and journalists missed that day of class:

The phenomenon has been discovered in a variety of flora, ranging from tropical rainforests to British sugar beet crops.

It means they are soaking up at least some of the billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans that would otherwise be accelerating the rate of climate change.

Plants survive by extracting CO2 from the air and using sunlight to convert it into proteins and sugars.

Since 1750 the concentration in the air has risen from of CO2 278 parts per million (ppm) to more than 380 ppm, making it easier for plants to acquire the CO2 needed for rapid growth.

Plants are getting bigger and stronger, taking in more CO2 and, I presume, sending out more O2. Could it be that a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere, rather than spelling out doom for every living thing on the planet, is...a good thing? Could it be that increased CO2 will mean stronger plants, and thusly more and better crops? Could it be that efforts to stem the tide of the increase in CO2 will lead to decreases in food production and food shortages across the globe?

Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers, wrote about this very phenomenon last June in the Financial Post, in a column called "In Praise of CO2."

Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.

If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed. The second order effects could be dire, too. To bolster food production, humans will likely turn to energy intensive manufactured fertilizers, depleting our store of non-renewable resources. Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms. Carbon sequestration, a darling of many who would mitigate climate change, could become a top inducer of earthquakes, according to Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Because the carbon sequestration schemes tend to be located near cities, he notes, carbon-sequestration-caused earthquakes could exact an unusually high toll.

Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.

Everywhere you look, there's another hole in the theory of Global Warming. Even a second grader could tell you that.

Additionally, a few weeks ago in this space we told you about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). The goal of this act was to protect small children from ingesting lead. Andrew in New York brings my attention to the sobering reality; the consequences have been disastrous for business, families, and, as it turns out, could be putting children in harm's way:

Thousands of children 12 and younger ride motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles, which is why a lot of effort and time has gone into designing vehicles made for smaller folks. On Friday, The Wall Street Journal noted a study by the Motorcycle Industry Council that concluded "90% of the youth fatalities and injuries on motorcycles occur when kids ride adult vehicles.

On Thursday of last week, the Senate of the United States voted 58 to 39 to reject an amendment to the budget bill designed to keep kids on bikes designed for them and thus off adult vehicles. The reason the amendment was offered by South Carolina's Jim DeMint is because the 2008 "Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act" mandates that products containing even trace amounts of lead --trace amounts highly unlikely to ever come in contact with a child's digestion system-- were banned from sale to children 12 and under.

The law took effect in February an instantly made it illegal to sell the kid-sized vehicles because of nearly undetectabl amounts of lead in tire valves, brakes, batteries etc. Replacement parts for vehicles for kids are similarly interdicted.

Ed Morrissey states the obvious:

I find it ridiculous to point this out to Congress, but children do not eat ATVs. The lead content of its components will not end up in small stomachs. Children do not ride ATVs without being clothed, so skin contact is minimal and transitory. What's next -- banning cars because children might ride in them?

No, they'll be banned because of the emissions, silly!

More Headlines:

Earth Population Exceeds Limits

Sun Has Fewest Sunspots Since 1913

Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism

China, India Reject Climate Agreement That Obstructs Economic Growth

Vanity Fair Abandons Green Issue

The Great Antarctic Ice Scare: The Facts

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Will Global Warming Doom Maple Syrup? The mere thought keeps me up late at night, fearing for the fate of my french toast. This article in The Daily Green seems to claim that it will:

All farming depends on the weather, but few foods are more dependent on a specific climate than maple syrup. After all, for the sugar maple's sap to run at all requires cooperative weather - freezing nights followed by warmer days.

But with the buildup of invisible greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, those temperature swings don't happen as reliably. At risk is an American tradition that stretches back even before Europeans discovered the "New World."

"Weather controls it all," says Marty Fitzgerald, a fifth-generation sugarmaker in upstate New York.

But this claim, just like every dubious dire prediction from the Green Agenda, has no basis in reality.

From the Wausau Daily Herald, April 6, 2009: Maple Syrup Producers Optimistic

From WIVB.com, March 20, 2009: "New York Maple Producers had a bumper crop in 2008..."

From the Lindsay Post in Ontario, CA, April 2, 2009: So Far, So Good for Maple Syrup Producers

Eventually, the Green Agenda will have to feel at least a little twinge of guilt from egregious claim after egregious claim...right?

GreenWatch Newsletter 21 (March 31, 2009)

Featured Story:

Last Saturday from 8:30-9:30 pm was "Earth Hour." Organized by the World Wildlife Fund, the event was supposed to be "a vote for the future of planet Earth," and organizers hoped every light in the world would be turned off for one hour at that time.

Unfortunately for the organizers, it seems that "Earth Hour" was a global bust.

Here is a picture of Times Square. The top is before "Earth Hour," the bottom is during it. See any difference?

In California, Roger Sowell examines the data and determines that "There was no apparent decrease in the power load throughout the state, from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. No step changes, nothing, nada, zip, zilch."

In Australia, GreenWatch favorite Andrew Bolt tells us that electrical consumption in Melbourne did fall, but only by 2 percent. A year ago, it fell 10.1 percent.

Noted Global Warming denier Bjorn Lomborg penned an editorial in The Australian arguing that turning out the lights for Earth Hour would actually increase emissions if people turned to candlelight as a substitute.

And what did our favorite Global Warming icon Al Gore do for Earth Hour?

I pulled up to Al's house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48pm - right in the middle of Earth Hour. I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on.

In fact, most of the windows were lit by the familiar blue-ish hue indicating that floor lamps and ceiling fixtures were off, but TV screens and computer monitors were hard at work. (In other words, his house looked the way most houses look about 1:45am when their inhabitants are distractedly watching "Cheaters" or "Chelsea Lately" reruns.)

The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore's mansion.

I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn't be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees.

It seems even Al Gore is getting tired of Global Warming Propaganda. Or maybe it's just that, as if with every other sacrifice he asks of regular Americans in this loony fight against global warming, he figures if everyone else does it, he won't have to.

More Headlines:

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Draw Quality Complaints

Washington Times: Protect Us From The EPA

Proof of Man-made Global Warming: Lost in Space

Spokane Residents Smuggle Suds Over Green Brands

Pollution Visible From Space

Quote of the Week:

From a participant in the climate change conference in Copenhangen we covered last newsletter:

"Tell me what the stock market will do in 100 years and I will tell you what the climate will do."

The Reader's Corner:

Last week we printed a well reasoned letter from one of our readers in the hope you would respond. And respond you did:

Gary Pinson, Apple Valley: "Spot on! I know Gordon Cooper and he is one of the smartest people I have ever met. Soft spoken and gentlemanly, but as a former Army Air Corps pilot during WWII and a retired Bio-Chemical Engineer, he is awesome!"

J Neel: "Thank you for printing Gordon's email .... what a wonderful response to all the "Dooms Day" articles lying about "Global Warming" to make a few rich, off the backs of we, the "Poor Taxpayers", who are footing the biggest "Give Away" program in the history of the world .... Al Gore just happens to be a co-owner of the company who would SELL the right for companies to emit their gases .... It sounds like Y-2K, all over again."

Bert Conner: "Gordon, I agree with you 100%. Water vapor is the most important item in the greenhouse family. It seems to be absent in a lot of studies. I have been looking at David Archibald's data, written in laymens terms, not being an advanced Physics individual.

"Personally, [I believe] AGW is now politically driven! Pure and simple! God help our checkbooks!"

James G. Monroe, Ph.D.: "While I do agree with Gorgon's comments, I think we must consider something else. There is not real scientific evidence that variations in CO2 are the result of human activity. The only person to hit on a solution seems to be ignored. Pope Benedict XVI has recommended tree planting to help eliminate the CO2. What we really need is a ban on any activity in the Amazon rain forest and an international effort to restore it. The destruction of the rain forest has done more to alter climate than any other human activity."

And finally, regarding our featured story last week, from a reader who neglected to leave his name, but I felt it should be run anyway (Remember readers, please send your name and location in with your comments!):

My question to Mr. Brown would be: Just how do you propose to achieve this 50% population reduction?

Controlling immigration would not achieve this goal as it only stops one group of people from migrating to the UK, but they are still having negative effects on the planet from another land mass.

Since a single generation is 20 to 25 years, would he suggest no babies be born in the UK at all? After this time span, most remaining women would be too old to procreate. Besides, the Global Warming believers say we do not have any time left before the planet is destroyed.

That leaves one very chilling (no pun intended) alternative. Selective thinning "of the herd", so to speak. Now, I wonder, just who would get to make this decision? Will he have a lottery? How about who pays for this and will he have to raise taxes to fund it? Who would be left to actually pay these taxes anyway? What if Mr. Brown's number were selected first, would he set a noble example and bravely march forth for the good of the planet?

All very perplexing questions. Another example of bogus science run amuck.

Have a comment on a story this week? Would you like to see us cover a certain story or topic? Email us at greenwatchamerica@gmail.com.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

The United Nations got on the "Earth Hour" band wagon this week, agreeing to go dark as part of the "largest demonstration of public concern about climate change ever attempted." They claimed that not only was the choice a "vote for the future of planet Earth," but that it would also save them money. A lot of money.

In fact, they claimed turning off the lights in the UN for Earth Hour would save them $81,000. Extrapolate that out. If they pay 81,000 dollars an hour for electricity, they would pay $1,944,000.00 per day, $58,320,000.00 or so per month, and $709,560,000.00 for the year.

After seeing that this initial projection of $81,000 dollars saved didn't quite add up, the UN reduced its estimate to $24,000 saved for the hour. But that too didn't come close to making sense, so they finally came out with a third estimate: Turning the lights off for Earth Hour would save the United Nations a grand total of $102.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

GreenWatch Newsletter 20 (March 23, 2009)

Featured Story:

Jonathon Porritt, one of the leading environmental advisers to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, will claim this week that if the country wants to build a sustainable society, it will need to halve its population from 60 million to 30 million.

"Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact."

Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.

However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

"We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder," he said.

Rick Moran of the American Thinker explains just what is so dangerous about this claim.

This is beyond insidious. In order to achieve a 50% reduction in population, Great Britain would have to mandate family size and even take control of family planning completely, making the decisions regarding which parents will be able to have children and which won't.

And there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that reducing the population of a developed country will impact climate change one iota. They are just making stuff up as they go along.

These sustainable development freaks look at humans as the rest of us look at cockroaches. And it's high time they stopped bugging us with their wild, unsupported stupidities regarding the kind of world that would feature little industry, less commerce, and everyone rooting around on their own 40 acres growing sweet potatoes while trying not to exhale too much carbon dioxide.

Just last week we highlighted a story claiming Global Warming would reduce the world's population by more than 5 billion people, and now the solution to global warming is halve a country's population. Tell me, if dramatic population reduction is the only solution to avoiding the calamitous result of...dramatic population reduction, then what, exactly, is the point?

More Headlines:

World's Cheapest Car: Boon or Bane?

Alarmist Propaganda 101: Could Global Warming Turn Rhode Island Into the Under-Ocean State?

Democrats Carbon Cap and Trade Plans Cancelled?

Global Warming Alarmist Complains the Weather Isn't Supporting the Theory

Alarmists Turn Blind Eye to Global Warming Benefits...Again

The Reader's Corner:

Usually we feature several emails in this space. This week, however, we're saving it for just one. What a delight it was to read this email, from Gordon Cooper of Apple Valley. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. And I hope it will stimulate some discussion amongst our readership:

"A review of some facts reveal the the global warming promotors selectively pick data to support their global warming contention. The atmosphere is made up of 78 % nitrogen, 20 % oxygen, 1 % argon and .038 % carbon dioxide. Note that water is not included. However, water is the greatest absorber of solar radiation and greatest contributor to atmospheric temperature changes with carbon dioxide to a much lesser degree while nitrogen and oxygen are completely passive. Results of computer models compared with actual atmospheric data show carbon dioxide has been assigned too much affect. Computer models predict the upper atmospheric temperature should increase compared to previous times when carbon dioxide was lower. However, measurements show lower temperatures.

"The warmers underestimate the great affect of water. If you view a photo of the earth from space, you see that much is covered by clouds so that most of the sun's energy is reflected to space. The oceans have a vast effect in stabilizing the earth's temperature because one thousand times as much energy is required to evaporate water as to change the liquid one degree Fahrenheit. A slight increase in the ocean temperature would cause an increase in evaporation and cloud cover and increase the radiation to space. The temperature of our neighboring waterless planets change hundreds of degrees from day to night compared to 30 degrees in our desert or 10 in vegetated areas on earth. The reason for the difference is our oceans cover three quarters of the earth and moist land.

"If the earth is warming and the glaciers and snow packs are melting, the water must end up in the ocean and the sea level must rise. We have accurate measurements from satellites reporting one to two millimeters increase per year over the past several years. This is barely more than the seasonal variation, so what is wrong? We have photos of glaciers receding in Alaska but we are not told of the snow pack on Greenland covering planes that crashed during WW II by 200 feet. We are told Antarctica is melting and a piece of ice the size of Delaware has been sliding into the sea. Actually, the temperature of Antarctica rarely gets up to freezing and ninety percent of the earth's fresh water has accumulated there to a average height of 8200 feet. This huge piece is not melting but is sliding off a mountain of ice. Sea level would increase 260 feet if all the Antarctic ice melted. An increase of one or two millimeters should not be a cause for fear."

If you have anything you'd like to say in response to Gordon, please email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com. This space is yours, readers. We want to hear from you, even (especially) if you disagree with something you read here.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

According to a tribunal in England, if you support the Green Agenda, you are entitled to the same legal protections for your beliefs as a Catholic, Muslim, or Jew has for theirs:

An executive, who is devoted to saving the environment, has been given permission to sue his employers for unfair dismissal for allegedly discriminating against his views on climate change.

Tim Nicholson's commitment to green causes was enshrined in law by an employment tribunal as a "philosophical belief" under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations...

Mr Nicholson said that his frustrations were underlined when the Rupert Dickinson, the chief executive, "showed contempt for the need to cut carbon emissions by flying out a member of the IT staff to Ireland to deliver his BlackBerry that he had left behind in London".

Mr Nicholson also fell foul of his colleagues when he tried establish a carbon management strategy for the company which had been listed as a target in its annual report. But when he tried to calculate the firm's carbon footprints the information was refused to him by the personnel department. He said that Grainger's executives would turn up for meetings in "some of the most high polluting cars on the road".

Effectively, this tribunal is saying that the Green Agenda is just like a religion. The most surprising aspect of this week's claim?

We actually agree with it!