Roger Harrabin is one of the less ideological reporters for the BBC and he sometimes mentions things that call global warming into question. But that does not suit the British Bias Corporation of course. In this article, Harrabin mentioned recent global cooling. But when someone senior to him saw it, they were obviously not happy. The article was changed after it initially appeared.
I have a PDF of the article produced shortly after it was posted. I also have a PDF of what was up last time I checked. Let us compare the 3rd/4th sentences in each. In V1, they say:
'This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory. But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.'
In V2 they say:
'But this year's temperature would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.'
How low the BBC has sunk from the grand old days of Lord Reith when it could be relied on as a source of objective and unbiased information! The Left corrupt anything they get their hands on. As Orwell pointed out, they think that truth is what they declare it to be.
Global cooling provokes 'snow rage' in Canada
A record snowfall in eastern Canada this winter has inspired some, crushed others, led to a rash of snow-blower thefts and incited at least two armed clashes, authorities said Wednesday. Police and psychologists describe the latter incidents as "snow rage," akin to road rage or assaults by frustrated drivers in traffic. Quebec City police say they received more than a dozen calls this winter from warring neighbors upset that snow was being shoveled onto their driveway or sidewalk by the folks next door.
The city was buried this winter in a record 460 centimeters (183 inches) of snow, and is running out of places to put the fluffy white powder until spring arrives and it melts. In nearby Montreal, where residents are recovering from a ninth major snowstorm this season, a man was charged this week with threatening a fellow motorist with a toy gun over a rare parking spot on a snow-clogged street. And in likely the worst case, an elderly Quebec City man pulled a 12-gauge shotgun on a female snowplow operator on Sunday for blowing snow onto his property, after warning her. "How can you fight a three-ton snow-blower?" he told the Globe and Mail newspaper, accusing her of trying to run him over with the plow. "It takes a man who stands up."
"People are sick of snow," Quebec police spokeswoman Sandra Dion told AFP. "I'm seeing so much white that I'm seeing red," echoed psychologist Luc Tremblay. "At some point, people feel overwhelmed, crushed. It's playing on their morale and their nerves," he told the Globe and Mail.
According to officials, snow-blower thefts in Quebec and neighboring Ontario provinces are up significantly this winter. Cities throughout the region have blown their multi-million dollar snow removal budgets. Airports reported many more delays or flight cancellations than usual because of bad weather, several roofs collapsed under the weight of snow, and hundreds of traffic accidents were blamed on icy roads and limited visibility due to blowing snow. As well, a woman was killed on a local highway after being struck by a passing snowplow, and a child digging in a snow bank died when it collapsed suddenly.
Global warming? Don't worry about it. It's over
No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private jets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from greenhouse gases. The United Nations World Meteorological Organization is reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. That would be the same temperatures that models from the U.N.'s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change said would be scorching the earth into an unlivable wasteland except for those coastal areas flooded by seas gorged with water from melting ice sheets.
Of course the IPCC spins the news. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, "and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming." His explanation for the cool spell is the effect of the Pacific Ocean's La Nina current, "part of what we call 'variability.' " If that's the case, then why can't the Pacific's El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply be seen as a "variability" and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn't fit the agenda?
Were the IPCC not dedicated to spreading fear, it would admit its climate models, on which much of the global warming madness is based, are flawed. While pandering politicians, media sycophants and Hollywood dupes desperately seeking significance have lectured us about our carbon dioxide emissions, real temperature changes measured over the past 30 years have not matched well with increases predicted by the IPCC's models.
This is not some gas-guzzler's fantasy but the finding of a credible study published last year in the International Journal of Climatology. Looking at the data, four researchers [Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer] concluded "the weight of the current evidence . . . supports the conclusion" there is no agreement between the models and the observed temperatures.
That means that projections of future warming are too high, that the entire global warming assumption is suspect, and that Gore should find something more productive to do with his time.
It also proves that Howard Hayden, physics professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, was correct in describing the machinery of the climate model-hysteria industrial complex as one that takes "garbage in" and spits "gospel out." The global warming debate is not over. Indeed, the debate is beginning to favor the skeptics!
Australia: Greenie doctors preaching absurdities
Cold is a bigger threat to health than warmth. Have these crooks ever noticed that winter is the time for coughs, colds, flu etc.? Any increase in heat-related deaths would be more than matched by a reduction in cold-related deaths -- particularly among the elderly
Doctors have warned of disastrous health outcomes over the next 10 years, particularly among children and the elderly, unless greater action is taken on climate change. Improved strategies are required to reduce the impact of climate change on health, including a growing incidence heat-related illness and infectious diseases, a report by Doctors for Environment Australia says. The report, released on the eve of World Health Day and titled Climate Change Health Check 2020, was prepared for the Climate Institute and endorsed by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.
Newcastle-based GP and co-author of the report Dr Graeme Horton said climate change presented a major challenge for the health system. "Climate change is already a reality in our waiting rooms and surgeries, and is set to be key challenge for our health system over the coming decade," Dr Horton said. "Clearly, climate change will place our health system under increasing stress, and as always the elderly, children and the vulnerable will be hardest hit." Dr Horton said the greatest impact would be felt in rural, regional, remote and indigenous communities.
Some of the impacts on health listed in the report include an increased incidence allergic disease, food poisoning and mosquito-transmitted diseases such as Dengue fever and Ross River virus. There would also likely be increased trauma from extreme weather events such as drought and natural disasters, as well as a large increase in demand for aid from neighbouring countries.
Dr Grant Blashki of the University if Melbourne's Department of General Practice said planning for climate change should be part of every future deliberation on the healthcare needs of the community. "Effective health strategies will require strong collaboration between government, health professionals and the community sector," Dr Blashki said. Future medical workforce planning would need to take account of climate change impacts in areas such as preparing for disasters and supporting communities hit by long-term drought, the doctor said.
Silly scenarios for the Arctic
In 1817, nearly a century before Roald Amundsen first navigated the long-sought Northwest Passage, the Royal Society in London got word of "new sources of warmth" in the Arctic. The society was the Victorian-era equivalent of NASA, and its president reacted with great enthusiasm to the sudden prospect of discoveries "not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
Times change, as does the climate. New sources of warmth are no longer greeted with such good cheer. Last year's "record" melt of sea ice in the Arctic caused a flood of reporting on the growing threat from global warming. The statistic most tossed about put the area of open water in the Arctic at "six Californias" more than the summer average. The media coverage was mostly characterized by a deep anxiety about the fate of the polar bear. Little prospect for intercourse was seen in its future.
Then came the Arctic winter of 2007-08, described as "colder than average" by NASA researchers in a recent teleconference. The ice recovered remarkably quickly and by March, when it reached its annual maximum, had exceeded the three year average by some 4 percent.
Despite this unusually cold weather, scientists at NASA and elsewhere remain concerned about the state of the Arctic. They point to the loss of multiyear ice, which makes up the thickest sections of the icecap and is therefore more likely to survive the summer melt. Multiyear ice now represents less than 30 percent of overall ice cover, down from as much as 80 percent in the 1980s. They also point to the long-term trend, though long-term may be a misnomer. Reliable records on arctic ice go back only to 1979, when satellites first started to survey the poles. As Richard Lindzen, a prominent global warming skeptic and a professor at MIT, puts it, "this is a primitive field where nobody has much idea of anything."
Still, based on this short record, some scientists predict the Arctic may see ice-free summers as early as 2013. Julienne Stroeve, a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) who briefed Al Gore on the subject last fall, said she "wouldn't be surprised if that were to happen." Joey Comison, senior research scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, is more cautious, saying only that the Arctic would lose its summer ice cover "within the century." Ignatius G. Rigor, who last year authored a NASA-led study on sea-ice decline, is reluctant to offer any forecast, though he does expect this summer's melt to break last year's record.
Suffice it to say that not everyone agrees the end of the summer sea ice is nigh, but it is the prevailing view. The NSIDC's official projection has the Arctic ice-free in the summer months starting in 2030, and according to Stroeve, there is no way to reverse the process. "I think we are going to lose it," she says.
Which to any layman will raise an obvious question: So what? Stroeve says there may be an impact on the weather further south. Some climate models show reduced rainfall and snowfall in the American southwest as a result of the loss of Arctic ice. Others show more precipitation in southern Europe, "but again, these are climate models, and they're not perfect. ... There's no real consensus now." Beyond that, Stroeve says, "I'm not really sure at this point how it's all going to pan out, because we really don't know."
As Ignatius explains, to some extent how one views the loss of summer sea ice "depends on how you feel about polar bears." "This is a big loss of habitat" for the animals he said, and "for local subsistence hunters this is a retreat or a loss of the surface that they hunt on."
But there's good news, too. The Inuit might find better work in the oil and gas sector, as high energy prices and melting ice make the Arctic an increasingly attractive area for exploration. A few weeks ago, an ambitious U.S. firm with a bent for publicity, Arctic Oil and Gas, petitioned the United Nations for the right to act as the "sole development agent" in the extraction of what they estimate to be 400 billion barrels of oil beneath the Arctic seabed. Shipping promises another windfall for the sparsely populated region. A Denver-based entrepreneur purchased the Canadian port of Churchill on the Hudson Bay for just $7 in 1997, hoping that he might cash in to the tune of as much as $100 million a year once the Northwest Passage becomes a viable shipping lane. The benefits of warming to consumers may be substantial.
Polar bears, on the other hand, are expected to see few benefits, even if the threat they face from warming is a matter of dispute. Lindzen flatly describes worry over polar bears as "gibberish." "Polar bears are going up in number," he says. "They're not worried; they can swim a hundred kilometers." The notion of threatened polar bear populations was recently challenged by J. Scott Armstrong, a professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. In an article for the journal Interfaces, Armstrong and his coauthors argued that a series of complex and "erroneous assumptions" undergird much of the research showing polar bears at risk, and they offer compelling evidence that the animals have survived far warmer conditions in the past.
Still there is a push to have the polar bear officially listed as a "threatened species." Hugh Hewitt, who practices natural resources law in addition to hosting a radio show, explained in a recent column that the move would clear a path for environmentalists to "argue that every federal permit that allows directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons is a federal act that might impact the polar bear." Such permits would thus be subject to a new range of environmental regulations affecting all manner of industry.
Assuming the threat to the bears from climate change is real, and that the computer models are to be believed, there may be a less costly solution. The warming of the last century has had no real effect on the ice floes of the Antarctic. In fact, the Antarctic Ocean appears to have become more favorable to the formation of sea ice over the last 30 years. Could the polar bear be relocated? In Antarctica, Rigor says, "the polar bear would have the issue where most of the sea ice is seasonal, so [with] the big retreat of Antarctic sea ice during the summer, the only place where polar bears could go is onto the Antarctic ice sheet, which probably isn't the happiest place to be."
Can a polar bear's happiness really be allowed to impede the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations?
Geologist: Climate change or climate con?
Article below by Dr. Gerrit van der Lingen, a geologist and paleoclimatologist and former director of Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand.
Abbreviations: In this article I will use the following: MMGW - Man-made Global Warming; IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; NIPCC - Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change; ppmv - parts per million by volume.
Update: Before commenting on Professor Bryan Storey's article in the March issue of Avenues (`Evidence for climate change'), I want to start with an update on two items I discussed in my article in the February issue, items essential to this debate.
1. I mentioned some of the worldwide extreme cold events in recent time. Since then many more have made the headlines:
* China experienced its worst snowstorms in 50 years, affecting millions of people. More than 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow
* Avalanches in the Indian Kashmir, caused by the worst snowfall in decades, killed 22 people
* A record-breaking cold spell in Vietnam killed about 60,000 cattle
* On 30 January, 20cm of snow fell in Jerusalem
* North America was hit by severe winter storms
* The exceptional cold spell also affected the Arctic. Sea-ice between Canada and Greenland reached its largest extent in 15 years. In many places the ice was 10 to 20cm thicker than last year
* The northern hemisphere recorded its largest snow cover since 1966 (reversing the trend of Professor Storey's Figure 4c)
* On November 17, 2007, Buenos Aires recorded its lowest temperature in 90 years.
The list goes go on and on. However, the amazing aspect of these cold events was the fact that environmental organisations and most of the media maintained a deafening silence about the majority of these extreme cold spells. They certainly never wondered if this was typical for global warming. It would have been a different story had there been a heat wave, like the 2003 one in Europe.
There are three science agencies that provide data on average global temperatures. One of these is the British Hadley Centre. Their latest graph (Figure 1), from 1988 to January 2008 shows a remarkable drop in temperature of 0.595oC between January 2007 and January 2008. This is almost the same as the entire global warming over the last 150 years.
One MMGW promoters' blog (RealClimate) includes the comment that eight years of climate trends is meaningless and people who pay any attention to recent climate trends are misguided. This aptly reveals the mindset of these people. Their comments would have been the opposite had the trend been one of warming. The chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, said he would look into this recent trend and suggested that there may be natural factors causing it. To which we MMGW agnostics would say: "Yeah, right!"
Someone lent me a copy of a recently published book by Gareth Renowden, titled Hot Topic. Renowden, who is not a scientist, but grows grapes, olives and truffles in Waipara, makes a spirited defence of his belief in catastrophic MMGW, as promoted by the IPCC. He starts his Introduction as follows: "Our climate is changing. New Zealand is getting warmer. The whole world is warming, and it will continue to heat up for decades to come."
Yes, the climate is changing and has been doing so for billions of years and will continue to do so and there is nothing humans can do about it. No, New Zealand is not getting warmer. No, there is no evidence that we will continue to heat up. To the contrary, there is better evidence that we may be entering a cooling phase (see comments above and my February article).
This illustrates very well the chasm between the computer-based, virtual reality world, in which the global warming alarmists are living, and the real world.
2. In my February article I expressed concern that some of the draconian measures proposed by MMGW advocates, "to save the planet from catastrophic global warming," are a direct threat to democratic freedoms and freedom of speech. Most of them would also be catastrophic for poor people in the world, as exemplified by the rush into biofuel production, resulting in a dramatic increase in food prices and the cutting down of natural rainforests. `Saving the planet from catastrophic MMGW' and `Making poverty history' are mutually exclusive objectives.
To say that the MMGW hysteria poses a threat to democratic freedoms may seem a bit far-fetched, until one reads some of the anti-democratic utterances from catastrophic-MMGW advocates. For instance, Mayer Hillman, called a `leading green thinker,' said in a published interview: "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life. Rationing has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."
Al Gore openly expressed hostility towards the democratic process. He called certain elected governments "obstacles to the environmental agenda." Freedom of speech is threatened by the regular calls for the silencing of anyone who dares to doubt or criticise the catastrophic-MMGW dogma. For instance, the Academy Councillor of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Professor Keith Hunter, wrote in the Royal Society Alert newsletter of October 4, 2007: "It is discouraging to see that the media in New Zealand, which is generally not known for the quality of its scientific journalism, continues to pay so much attention to the ravings of the various climate change deniers in our midst. Naysaying of this nature can be very dangerous and counter-productive."
It's a bit rich when scientists who believe in an unproven hypothesis start calling those who don't share their belief `deniers.' One would have expected howls of protest from members of the Royal Society. Not a peep. The only group lodging a protest was we, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. But we can be ignored, as we are those "climate change deniers in our midst." It is very sad that this once august, scientific body, whose raison d'^tre should be to uphold the free and frank exchange of scientific ideas and opinions, unencumbered by ideologies, has now stooped so low.
I am pleased that Professor Storey is not perpetuating the apocalyptic view of MMGW. This is unusual, as many MMGW advocates are trying to outdo each other in predicting imminent climate catastrophes. For instance, Sir David King, the science advisor to the British Government, has said that, unless we drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, the only habitable place on Earth by the end of this century will be the Antarctic continent. Not to be outdone, James Lovelock, the author of The Revenge of Gaia, predicted that the only habitable place by the end of this century would the Arctic. Our own professor Peter Barrett, of Victoria University, wrote that we only have about ten years to avoid the destruction of our civilisation by the end of this century (Pacific Ecologist, Issue 11, 2005/6). In 1999, he warned a group of politicians visiting McMurdo Station in the Antarctic that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet was on the point of melting, which would cause a 6-metre rise in sea level (The Press, January 28, 1999). All these apocalyptic predictions have no base in science and are highly irresponsible. But the human species seems to have a predilection for predicting the end of time. I call it a `longing for Apocalypse.'
The science is not settled
One often hears that the science of global warming has been settled and that the debate is over. I am pleased therefore, that Professor Storey does not share that opinion. He writes that the climate is "a complex interactive system" and is "affected by many natural processes and increasingly influenced by human activities. Consequently, there's valuable debate (and argument!) and scientific research in progress." As I wrote in my February article, thousands of scientists disagree with the catastrophic- MMGW hypothesis, and hundreds are actively involved in debating the science.
Points of difference
However, there are many scientific points on which Professor Storey and I differ. In this short space I can only mention a few. By necessity some of these arguments are rather technical. Carbon dioxide (CO2): There is major disagreement on the magnitude of the warming effect of CO2. According to many scientists, its effect is very small and almost impossible to measure. Professor Storey mentions its `blanketing effect.' Yet, this blanket has large holes in it. CO2 can only absorb infrared radiation from the Earth in specific small windows of the electromagnetic spectrum. Outside these areas, the infrared radiation escapes into space. Furthermore, theoretical considerations suggest that those spectral windows can become saturated. This means that at a certain point, any additional carbon dioxide will have no further warming effect. Theoretical considerations also suggest that the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is not more than 0.5 to one degree.
That the IPCC predicts higher future temperatures is entirely based on computer modelling, by factoring in all sorts of positive feedbacks. The warming predictions of models vary wildly, from 1.4 to 11oC. They are just computer games.
Professor Storey writes that the present level of CO2 (380 ppmv) "has reached a record high relative to more than the past half million years," based on ice core data. The problem is that CO2 data in ice cores are only an average over hundreds to thousands of years - the time it typically takes for snow falling on ice caps to turn into solid ice and trap air in bubbles. However, there are other modern scientific methods to determine past CO2 levels. One is based on stomata (pores) in fossil plant leaves. More CO2 in the atmosphere results in fewer stomata in leaves. Extensive research by scientists at Utrecht University has found that CO2 levels about 1550 years ago were higher than at present (Figure 2).
Moreover, when one tries to join CO2 data from ice cores with present-day actual measurements, there is a big gap, suggesting that the ice core data do not reflect actual atmospheric levels. Finally, a German scientist, Ernst- Georg Beck, investigated over 90,000 chemical analyses of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out between 1812 and 1957, some by Nobel Prize laureates (Energy & Environment 2007). Many of these analyses had an accuracy better than 3%. There were high CO2 levels around 1825, 1857 and 1942, some higher than 400 ppmv. It is not surprising that his research has been anathema to MMGW believers.
Even if the present-day CO2 is an at alltime high, we have no clear proof that human emissions from burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of increasing temperatures. Figure 3 shows that there is no correlation between fossil fuel consumption and temperature.....
There are several aspects of the MMGW dogma that can be falsified. I will mention two:
1. All climate computer models state that MMGW will first become evident in the polar regions. MMGW advocates will say that this is obvious in the Arctic, which has been warming in recent times. But what they omit to say is that it was warmer in the 1930s and 40s (Figure 5). The falsification is clinched by the fact that the Antarctic continent has been cooling (only the Antarctic Peninsula has been warming, but that is a local phenomenon). This is clearly shown in the temperature record of the South Pole station (Figure 6).
This cooling is an obvious embarrassment to the MMGW advocates. They have been frantically looking for an explanation. Professor Storey writes that the ozone hole is the culprit. This was first suggested by two scientists in 2002 (Thompson and Solomon, Science, vol. 296). However, in 2004 another group of scientists suggested that El Nino might be the culprit (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31). It is obvious they simply do not know.
2. A recently published, peer-reviewed, scientific publication provided the most devastating falsification of the IPCC hypothesis (Douglas et al., International Journal of Climatology, 2007). According to all climate computer models used by the IPCC, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere should cause a decadal rate of warming (especially in the tropics) of the mid-troposphere (the troposphere is that part of the atmosphere directly above the surface of the Earth, about 20km thick at the tropics and 7km at the poles), which then radiates that heat back to Earth, causing the greenhouse warming (Figure 7a).
However, they found that real world, direct measurements by weather balloon radiosondes since the 1960s and satellites since 1979 did not show any such rate of warming (Figure 7b). For a detailed technical analysis see Monckton 2007. As this is a fundamental aspect of the MMGW hypothesis, this falsification should be the final nail in its coffin. But don't hold your breath. The catastrophic-MMGW hypothesis has nothing to do with science anymore, as so clearly demonstrated by Professor Hunter's comments. The hypothesis has become a quasi-religion.
The 'No, Nothing' Democrats
Most sources of energy are beyond the pale in the Democratic Party, but nothing carries quite the moral stigma of coal. The latest excommunication is under way in Kansas, of all places, and it may be a forerunner of national political trends. Governor Kathleen Sebelius calls it "a moral obligation," as though she were opposing crimes against humanity. This is a reference to coal companies guilty of nothing more than attempting to provide power to consumers. But their misfortunes include emitting carbon dioxide into the current political atmosphere, and also the presence of Ms. Sebelius, who recently invented another way of enacting her preferred global-warming policies without legislation.
No one disputes that Kansas needs more baseload energy capacity to meet growing demand, especially at peak times and in the more rural west. In 2006, Sunflower Electric proposed to add two new generators to one of its existing coal facilities. The plans met or exceeded every federal and state air-quality and environmental regulation, and included the latest pollution control technologies.
But in October, one of Ms. Sebelius's cabinet secretaries, Roderick Bremby, denied Sunflower its permits. Using "emergency" discretion, he creatively ruled the expansion an imminent danger to the public - because the estimated 11 million tons of greenhouse gases it would emit each year might contribute to climate change. It was the first time ever that such reasoning formed the sole basis for blocking a power project; and, in the absence of any state laws relating to carbon control, it amounted to a public policy putsch.
Ms. Sebelius joined the green regulatory lobby that wants to unilaterally classify CO2 as an "air pollutant," though it has none of the qualities that have always defined the term under federal or state law. Her effort is also an opening charge for a national moratorium on new coal plants, which is backed by the likes of Democrats Harry Reid, Ed Markey and, needless to say, Al Gore.
By wide bipartisan margins, the Kansas legislature passed a bill resurrecting the project and closing the "discretion" loophole, telling Ms. Sebelius to obey the rules on the books. She vetoed that measure late last month, which the legislature will try to override today, and the votes may come up a few short.
The losers here are ordinary Kansans, who won't benefit from a reliable source of low-cost power and will pay higher electricity rates. The state is running up against the limits of its ability to provide electricity for its growing population and economy. The current generating fleet has an average age nearing 40 years and hence is less efficient (not to mention more polluting).
Ms. Sebelius suggests commercial wind power as an alternative. The numbers suffice as rebuttal: Some three-quarters of Kansas electricity comes from coal-fired utilities. Currently all "renewables," including wind, account for 2%, at best.
Ms. Sebelius is a Democratic wunderkind and her name is circulating for a cabinet post in an Obama Administration, maybe even Vice President. She's representative of the party's "no, nothing" wing, which knows only what energy it wants to ban or limit, not what it is going to offer in place. Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity because it is cheap and abundant - and viable. Wind turbines and the rest of the boutique alternatives are none of those, a reality that Democrats are going to have to square when they actually bother to pass a climate-change bill.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.