No tangerines for you?

The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, In a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.

"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.

"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be.

Edwards had talked about "sacrifice," at the meeting, but Elizabeth's suggestion illustrated just how difficult it is to sell the specifics of sacrifice.

Asked about her comment immediately after the event, John Edwards avoided the question twice, then said he isn't sure.

"Would I add to the price of food?" he asked. "I'd have to think about that.

" UPDATE: Just to be clear, he's not talking about a food tax. The basic point is that any plan that imposes new costs on carbon emissions is going to make anything that's transported long distances with fossil fuels cost more. It is, in a way, a moment of clarity in this debate.

NEW YORK (Reuters) -The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, private forecaster WSI Corp said on Tuesday.

The season will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes and three will become major hurricanes, WSI said in its revised outlook. WSI had previously expected 15 named storms of which eight would become hurricanes and four would become major hurricanes.

"Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce our forecast numbers slightly," said Todd Crawford, a WSI seasonal forecaster.

The energy and insurance industries are keenly watching the 2007 storm season after the record damage caused by hurricanes two years ago.

During the 2005 season, hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated parts of the U.S. Gulf Coast and temporarily knocked out a quarter of U.S. crude and fuel production, sending energy prices to then-record highs.

WSI's Crawford added that wind conditions due to the lack of an El Nino event were less conducive to formation of tropical storms.

Despite the downgraded forecast, WSI still expects the 2007 season to be more active than last year, and added that storm-weary parts of the Gulf Coast could still be hit.

"We feel the general threat to the western Gulf is reduced slightly, with a corresponding increase in the threat to the eastern Gulf and Florida," Crawford said.

Democrats’ climate clash heads to floor By Jonathan E. Kaplan July 10, 2007

The intensifying battle between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a powerful committee chairman may lead to a global-warming showdown on the House floor later this month.

The outcome of an anticipated vote on energy legislation before the August recess could determine whether Pelosi will control the debate over a more comprehensive and controversial climate change bill this fall.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Pelosi have been publicly at odds on climate change since the beginning of the Congress. And there have been clear indications recently that the tension between the two high-profile lawmakers is escalating.

As Dingell lobbed fresh insults in an interview late last week at the global warming panel that Pelosi created, Democratic leaders were discussing how to structure the time and format of the energy bill debate, according to Democratic aides and lobbyists familiar with the discussions.

If she is successful in passing legislation that includes a measure to raise fuel standards for cars and trucks, Pelosi will have dealt a blow to Dingell, who favors a slower approach to increasing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

They call this a consensus? Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.

Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world's most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 "planetary emergencies," among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being "Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone)."

Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right. - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

YOU'RE A GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTIC? THEN YOU'RE A CRIMINAL!

I'm a global warming skeptic. I believe that there has been some warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the last 20 years or so, but I do not believe that this warming has been primarily caused by man. In fact, I don't believe man has been much of a factor at all.

That makes me a criminal. That means I should be put on trial for "crimes against humanity."

This is the idea of David Roberts, a staff writer for Grist magazine. You may not have heard of Grist, but Al Gore has. Bill Moyers the hard-left so-called "newsman" from PBS has. They've granted interviews to Grist to push their global warming agendas. David Roberts is now calling for trials for war-crimes trials for people who express doubts that global warming is caused by man. He calls these people "bastards" and refers to the global warming "denial industry." Roberts is suggesting trials for these skeptics that mirror the Nuremberg trials for those responsible for the Holocaust.

Al Gore seems to be part of the Roberts crowd. He calls people like me "global warming deniers," a not so vague reference to "Holocaust deniers." An odd phrase for Gore to use considering the fact that his buddy Roberts is calling for Nuremburg-style trials.

So ... this is the status of free speech in 21st Century America for anyone who disagrees with the thoughts put forth by the anti-capitalist environmental crowd.

Do I need a lawyer yet?

Global warming discussions in schools By Sky Barsch Free Press Staff Writer Burlington Free Press March 17, 2007

Some parents question how global warming is taught in schools

In Montpelier earlier this year, Bill Burrell's sixth-grade students testified before legislative committees about global warming and what Vermont can do about it. The students also are immersed in conservation and alternative energy projects.

In South Burlington recently, a middle school math teacher used a portion of Al Gore's documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” to illustrate linear equations. An English teacher used the movie to spark opinion writing. Another documentary, "Too Hot Not To Handle," was shown in a science class during a climate and weather unit to help illustrate the effect that human beings have on the environment, according to Frederick Tuttle Middle School Principal Joe O'Brien.

In Jericho this week, Jericho Elementary School students put on a play about global warming.

As global warming has shifted from the subject of scientific trade journals and alternative media to the center of the public and political arenas, it also has become a hot topic in public schools. That has some parents questioning what their children are hearing. Parents who disagree with the global warming theory, or who chalk it up to environmental alarmists or political hyperbole, are finding that their points of view aren't given the attention afforded the "other side."

This has educators wondering if global warming is the next intelligent design versus evolution debate? “That’s always a very delicate situation, that we provide a balance," O'Brien said of the global warming discussion. O’Brien was contacted recently by parent Linus Leavens, who was upset that "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Too Hot Not To Handle" were shown to his children.

Although school officials say the movies were used as a tool to illustrate linear equations and to show how an argument can be presented, Leavens is still concerned that countering theories were not shown.

Leavens said he is not convinced that humans are causing climate change. He points to the views of S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University who is skeptical of global warming theories such as those discussed in Gore's movie, and wants to ensure that the views of global warming dissenters are presented at school. Also, he complains, Gore is a politician.

"Al Gore is a political animal," Leavens said. "That, I have an issue with. There are people out there who are not buying the left-wing environmental blitz hook, line and sinker. I want both sides to be presented."

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH' Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact: Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431 editor@tennesseepolicy.org

Global Warming Ruling Called 'Victory for the Bad Guys' By Melanie Hunter and Monisha Bansal CNSNews.com Senior Editor and Staff Writer April 02, 2007 (CNSNews.com) -

Global warming skeptics reacted strongly Monday to a Supreme Court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars, calling the decision "bad news" for the country and predicting that the economic fallout will be "vast."

In the first case of its kind to reach the high court, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gases and that the agency has "no reasoned explanation" for not doing so. "

Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," the court said.

"While we are still reviewing the case for its regulatory implications, having the authority to regulate C02 as a pollutant and justifying that authority are two different things," Marc Morano, spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Cybercast News Service.

"CO2 is not an air pollutant and should not be treated as one," Morano added.

According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the court's decision has broad implications ranging from the judicial standing of environmental plaintiffs to America's economic future.

"The decision implies that Congress ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1977 when it enacted the Clean Air Act's Section 202 regulating auto emissions, but somehow forgot to tell anybody," said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. The Kyoto Protocol, drawn up in 1997, requires industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by specified amounts. The U.S. did not ratify the treaty.

"The same groups that sued EPA to regulate CO2 auto emissions under Section 202 will now sue EPA to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for CO2," he added. "However, in previous rulings, the court has forbidden EPA to consider cost when setting NAAQS. As a result, the potential for economic harm is vast."

"The court's decision empowers EPA to take control of America's global warming policy," argued CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell. "This should certainly be a surprise to Congress, which has been vigorously debating the issue for years.

"For an agency as unaccountable as EPA to be deputized in this way is bad news for the future of our country," he added.

The National Center for Public Policy Research called the decision "a victory for the bad guys in the battle over whether the American people will be governed by accountable elected officials or unaccountable judges."

"Unable to convince the Senate to vote upon, let alone ratify, the Kyoto global warming treaty, the left has adopted the Kyoto-by-stealth strategy of asking judges to force its version of science into the pocketbooks of the American people," the group's president, Amy Ridenour, said in a statement.

"We learn from Justice Stevens today that carbon dioxide is 'the most important... greenhouse gas.' Science cannot confirm the Justice's confident statement. The role of water vapor, the most plentiful greenhouse gas, is not yet understood. Nor is the role of carbon dioxide understood," said Ridenour.

"Such uncertainty, among many others, is the reason scientists annually request and spend several billion dollars of funds supplied by hardworking U.S. taxpayer for research into climate change. Can the taxpayers now expect relief? After all, the Justices have spoken; the verdict is in," she added.

"We shall see how many groups on the political left today ask: 'How many peer-reviewed papers has Justice Stevens published?'" Ridenour said.

She added that - as dissenting Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito have said - policies regarding "the alleged threat of global warming should ... be determined by the Congress and the Chief Executive."

"As the dissenting Justices also observed, '[Global warming] is not a problem that... has escaped the attention of policymakers in the executive and legislative branches of our government, who continue to consider regulatory, legislative and treaty-based means of addressing global climate change,'" Ridenour said.

"The Supreme Court should have stayed out of the way. The legislative and executive branches are empowered by the Constitution with the duty of setting environmental policies, and, unlike our rapacious judicial branch, also are accountable to the American people," she added.

GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP

Sun Mar 18 2007 20:23:00 ET Drudge

Temperatures are predicted to reach a high of only 43-degrees on Wednesday in Washington, but look for high-heat to come out of Al Gore's schedule appearances on The Hill!

Gore is set to solo before Rep. John Dingell's [D-MI] all powerful Energy and Commerce Committee in the morning and Sen. Barbara Boxer's [D-CA] Environment and Public Works Committee in the afternoon.

Both are expected to have overflow seating, and protesters, both for and against Gore.

Gore will get a 30 minute opening and then Boxer and her republican counterpart, Sen. Inhofe, each get 15 minutes each of questioning in addition to their opening statements. Other senators will only get 5 min of Q & A.

"Democrat Dingell is a big global warming skeptic, so do not expect him to go too lightly on Gore," predicts a congressional source.

Proposed questions for Gore, which are circulating behind-the-scenes, have been obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT -- question that could lead Gore scrambling for answers!

Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.

Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?

Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)