Monday, August 01, 2016
Destructive forest fires are due to – WHAT?
Climate change is all-purpose excuse for Big Green and federal misfeasance and malfeasance
First the Obama EPA came for coal mines, coal-fired power plants, miners, workers, investors, and all who depend on reliable, affordable electricity. Then the EPA, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and other agencies came after oil and gas drilling and fracking, and the workers, industries and families that need petroleum. They’re also targeting farming, ranching, airlines and manufacturing.
It’s all to stop “dangerous manmade climate change,” rising seas, warmer and colder weather, wetter and drier seasons, and other “unprecedented” calamities. Now the Feds want us to believe worsening forest fires threaten communities, wildlife and wildlife habitats because we burn fossil-fuels.
Thousands of fires have already torched millions of acres, amid yet another dangerous and costly fire season. It happens every year, and has for centuries. But now, the Department of the Interior misinforms us, “climate change is making it worse. Wildfire seasons are now hotter, drier and longer than in the past.” Sure they are. Wanna buy a bridge?
I lived out West for a decade, back in the 1970s, and saw wildfires and dozens of burned-over forests. I hiked, camped and skied during extra wet and ultra dry years. During a flight from Denver to Seattle, I watched multiple fires rage across tens of thousands of acres in four states.
I’m in Whitefish, Montana this week, where hundreds of trees are just a few inches in diameter, packed in clusters of a half dozen or more, inches from one another – perfect kindling for vicious wildfires. Over time, most will get crowded out and die, leaving just a few hardy specimens to grow into hefty 50-100 foot beauties – assuming they are not engulfed in a super-heated inferno first.
Vast stands of densely packed, water- and nutrient-starved trees – skinny matchsticks waiting for a spark – are far too common in our western states, because land mis-managers refuse to thin the trees.
The resulting fires are not the “forest-rejuvenating” blazes of environmentalist lore. They are cauldron-hot conflagrations that exterminate wildlife habitats, roast bald eagle and spotted owl fledglings alive in their nests, boil away trout and trout streams, leave surviving animals to starve, and incinerate every living organism in already thin soils … that then get washed away during future downpours and snowmelts. Areas incinerated by such fires don’t recover their arboreal biodiversity for decades.
Homes in and near the forests become ashes, chimneys and memories. Residents die in their homes or trying to flee the infernos. Firefighters perish trying to extinguish them.
The fires can certainly be far worse in drought years. But droughts are nothing new, either. We all recall the seven-year drought that brought Joseph to prominence in pharaoh’s Egypt, and the eight-year-long Dust Bowl during the 1930s. Historians describe a 50-year “water famine” that drove Anasazis out of the American Southwest, the 200-year drought that ended Mayan civilization, and other parched periods in China, Africa, Mesopotamia and other regions.
In short, whatever “hotter, drier, longer” forest fires we are witnessing today have nothing to do with fossil fuels, plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide or “dangerous manmade climate change.” They have a lot to do with incompetent forest mismanagement policies and practices.
Far too many environmentalists, bureaucrats, politicians and judges would rather let forests burn, than let anyone selectively cut timber, thin out overgrown trees – or even let loggers harvest usable timber left from beetle kills, devastating fires or volcanic explosions like Mount St. Helens. (Do you suppose they’d alter their policies if loggers promised to use chain saws powered by little wind turbines or solar panels?)
Eco-purists want no cutting, no thinning – no using fire retardants in “sensitive” areas because the chemicals might get into streams that will be boiled away by conflagrations. They prevent homeowners from clearing brush around their homes, because it might provide cover or habitat for endangered species and other critters that will get incinerated or lose their forage, prey and habitats in the next blaze. They rarely alter their policies during drought years.
The Obama Administration spends billions of dollars annually on manmade global warming “research,” billions more on renewable energy boondoggles for crony corporatist campaign contributors, billions more to convert more private land to federal control. But it never seems to have enough money for expanded or modernized fire control.
Meanwhile, the Administration is gearing up to plant thousands of wind turbines across these areas, to slice and dice whatever raptors and other birds aren’t obliterated by fires.
In line with environmentalist ideology and Democratic Party ideals, it’s also expanding efforts to eliminate the last vestiges of drilling, mining, timber harvesting, ranching, farming and property inholdings (private lands allowed to remain within subsequently designated parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas) on government-controlled lands in America’s western states and Alaska. Many call it cultural cleansing, to create private recreational domains for the rich and famous.
The Feds have guidelines that say fires in certain areas can be extinguished if they are of human origin (arson or untended campfires, eg) – but must be allowed to burn if they are “natural” (caused by lightning, for example). One must take it on faith that “experts” can make that distinction in the midst of an inferno, and pray that small fires won’t become raging infernos. The Federales even have jurisdictional policies that can prevent aircraft from dropping water on a fire, if the crew cannot tell whether the blaze is on Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service land.
A relatively new product called FireIce smothers fires, by taking heat and oxygen away from combustible materials. Dropped directly onto a fire from airplanes, it penetrates through smoke, fire and treetops down to burning timber and trees and brush in a fire’s path. It can also be carried to blazes in standard fire and tanker trucks, or blended on location using dry FireIce powder and on-site water. Homeowners can brew up their own batches, adding water to the dry chemical, and use the concoction to coat their houses, shrubs and other property – protecting them against onrushing flames.
Unfortunately, state and federal officials have employed this highly effective fire killer only sporadically. The results are predictable, as recounted above.
The Justice Department has prosecuted farmers and ranchers for trying to protect their property from current or potential fires, by starting “controlled burns” or “backfires” that got out of control and burned a few hundred acres of US forest. But when intentional Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service fires in Oregon or South Dakota got out of control and burned thousands of acres of US and private forestland, forage and livestock, no repercussions, prosecutions or compensation were forthcoming.
As to the Interior Department’s convenient claim that today’s forest fires are due to US greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, let’s not forget that rapidly developing countries are emitting increasing amounts of carbon dioxide every year – numerous times what the USA can possibly eliminate – and there is still no Real World evidence that humans have replaced powerful natural forces in climate change.
It’s time to give America’s forest management and fire control policies a thorough review and revision, before we lose more habitats, wildlife, homes and human lives. And while we’re at it, let’s end this insane obsession with manmade climate Armageddon.
Allow capitalism to save the tiger
Tomorrow is International Tiger Day, but it’s been a rough year for the big cat. Only an estimated 3,000 of them remain in the wild, and Cambodia declared the tiger extinct within its borders earlier in 2016.
To make matters even worse, some groups who claim to be protecting the endangered tiger have been revealed as frauds. Thailand’s famous Tiger Temple, a monastery that allowed tourists to pay a fee and interact with tigers, was recently charged with illegal possession of endangered wildlife and wildlife trafficking. When the wildlife department officers went to seize the monastery’s 137 tigers, they discovered 60 frozen and bottled tiger cub carcasses, pelts, and other endangered-species parts. It is thought that the monks were mistreating the tigers and illegally selling tiger products for huge profits on the black market.
So this International Tiger Day, how do we protect this iconic animal? Unfortunately, trade bans, efforts against poaching, and days of awareness have clearly not been enough to save the wild tiger. Though these approaches could work if everyone agreed that every last tiger is worth protecting, the harsh reality is that there are people who will pay big money for tiger parts, poachers who have no qualms about killing tigers, and plenty of people who live with tigers and see them as threats. To address these realities, Barun Mitra suggested another approach to tiger conservation in his 2006 Perc Reports article “Saving the Tiger”: allowing tigers and their parts to be legally raised and traded.
If we truly value the tiger, we need to explore the tiger’s commercial potential. By harnessing the real economic value of tigers and other forest produce, we may make the tiger earn its keep, and avoid the specter of extinction of this magnificent species in the wild.
The tiger, which is at the top of the food chain in its ecosystem, would be at the top of the economic ladder because of its market value. Among the results we can expect from breeding tigers to reduce poaching in the wild:
The scale of farmed tigers will reduce the incentive for smugglers to kill wild tigers
Scientists and wildlife managers will improve their breeding, management, and rehabilitation methods for tiger reintroduction; forest dwellers, who have detailed knowledge of their natural surroundings, will facilitate wildlife management.
Rural populations will change their incentives. Villagers who are often lured by smugglers into killing a wild tiger for a few dollars will now defend their new environmental assets, because a live tiger will be more profitable to them than a dead one.
As trade and marketing channels develop for both consumptive and non-consumptive use of tigers, investment in better technologies and management practices will take place. National and international brands will appear. Tourism will increase.
A successful wildlife economy will help build awareness of the value of environmental resources. The price of the tiger in the black market will collapse, and legal trade will thrive.
Investment will improve the productivity of wildlife farms, and assured supply and low prices will take the pressure off the wild tigers, allowing their numbers to revive.
A legal framework for tiger breeding would help resolve the conflict between the people and animals that has contributed to the tiger’s drastic decline. Once people can profit from these resources, they will have the incentive to optimize the use of the resources. It is mostly forgotten that forest and wildlife, including tigers, are renewable.
Under such a framework, rather than being in conflict, humans and animals would both prosper. Commerce could be the most powerful ally of conservation.
Legal, monitored ranching and trade of endangered species has been shown to preserve their populations. Take the Nile crocodile, for instance, which was previously endangered and whose trade was banned under CITES. Kenya, however, made an arrangement to allow for the private ranching of these crocodiles under a strict permitting and management system.
Part of the program involved ranchers training community members on methods of wild crocodile egg collection and handling, and it then paid them for collecting the eggs. In 2006, CITES noted the success of crocodile ranching on local populations, saying, “overall, community crocodile egg collection programme has helped turn the human crocodile conflict problem into a sustainable socio-ecological and economic opportunity, which supports conservation of the resource.”
A similar story can be told with respect to southern white rhinos in South Africa. South Africa used to allow rhino trophy hunting, but rhinos were un-owned property. Landowners had incentive to sell off rhino hunts as quickly as possible before a rhino wandered off the property or was poached, and the animals’ numbers dwindled.
But the Theft of Game Act of 1991 decreed that white rhinos that could be identified according to certain criteria such as a brand or ear tag could be privately owned. It then made sense for private ranchers to breed rhinos and also limit rhino trophy hunting to sustainable levels. As a result, southern white rhino populations flourished, and it is the only rhino species with a large enough population to avoid the endangered species list.
As we celebrate International Tiger Day and consider the plight of the big cat, we must change our approach to conservation if we want to keep the species around for generations to come. As uncomfortable as some may be with the idea of harvesting tigers for market use, tigers continue to be slaughtered to near-extinction by black-market poachers even given existing prohibitions.
Many of these regulations misalign incentives and promote illegal, unsustainable black-market trade. The successes of the Nile crocodile and southern white rhino demonstrated how property rights and markets can help preserve animals when rhetoric and bans fail. Mitra had a point – it’s time for tigers to be a local asset and allow commerce to be a powerful ally of their conservation.
Looks like even the Donks don't really believe in global warming
A Leftist moan from the New Yorker below
If you watched the political conventions during the past two weeks, you heard a lot about isis and national security and police and race and jobs. You didn’t hear much, though, about climate change, despite the fact that it’s arguably the most consequential long-term problem the U.S. faces, and one that requires government action. Yet it’s simply not an issue that most American politicians want to talk much about. The Republicans, of course, are actively hostile to discussions of the problem, dismissing it as relatively trivial when they’re not denying its existence. At the G.O.P. Convention, the phrase “climate change” was mentioned only a few times, and the subject was raised only to reject the idea that it’s a problem at all. The Party’s platform, meanwhile, explicitly rejects the recently signed Paris Agreement.
The Democrats are, at least in theory, committed to slowing the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions, and, eventually, to shrinking them. But watching the Democratic Convention, climate change didn’t seem to be a high priority. There was no prime-time segment devoted to the subject—certainly nothing like the ones devoted to national security, police-citizen relations, and other issues. James Cameron did present a short film on climate change, on Wednesday evening, but it didn’t air in prime time. As for the marquee speakers, they made only glancing reference to the threat of climate change, when they mentioned it at all. Barack Obama made one reference to the Paris Agreement, and had one line about climate change. Hillary Clinton said, “I believe in science” (a sadly necessary counter to the G.O.P.’s denials of climate science), and, “We can save the planet.” But she had far more to say about other issues, and said nothing about specific measures we might take to deal with the problem.
The exception to this relative indifference was Bernie Sanders’s speech, on Monday night. Sanders explicitly articulated the nature of the threat, calling it “the great environmental crisis facing our planet,” and talked about the consequences of failing to act. He also conveyed a real sense of urgency, saying that action was necessary “in the very near future.” Although Sanders has a reputation for caring only about wealth inequality and campaign-finance reform, he spoke consistently about climate change throughout the primaries, and has highlighted Donald Trump’s refusal to take it seriously.
The Democratic establishment’s comparable reticence on climate change speaks to the fact that it isn’t seen as an issue that galvanizes voters (even though two-thirds of Americans wanted the U.S. to strike a climate agreement in Paris last year). This helps to explain why, when you compare the U.S. to European nations such as Denmark or Germany, or even to China, we’ve made relatively little progress in transitioning away from fossil fuels. The opponents of meaningful action on climate change are, for ideological and financial reasons, heavily invested in stopping or slowing action. That, combined with our political system’s tendency toward inertia, has made action difficult—the only reason the U.S. could sign the Paris agreement, after all, was because Obama did an end-run around Congress.
The many barriers to action mean that if Democrats are serious about addressing climate change, they’ll need to do more to marshal popular support. In that sense, the Convention was a missed opportunity. The planet can’t afford too many more of those.
The federal government is draining Folsom Lake, one of California's larger reservoirs-in the midst of a historic drought. We had a good Sierra snowpack this year, so the lake was almost full at the end of May. In the past when the lake was full, we could leave our boat in its berth at the marina until December, when the Bureau of Reclamation drains the lake to make room for the winter rains. But this year the Bureau is already draining the lake-to benefit the salmon in the Sacramento River, so we must pull our boat out in July.
One good snowpack is not enough to make up for four years of bad ones. Last summer faucets ran dry in some communities in the Central Valley, irrigation water to farmers was cut off, and thousands of farm workers were put out of work. You can see dead or dying orchards up and down Interstate 5. This summer the State-imposed restrictions on water use remain in place. Dead lawns and dying trees abound in our neighborhood. But still the feds are draining the lake. And they expect the rest of us dutifully to abide by the restrictions they have imposed on us.
The standard response to this sort of madness, among those able to recognize it as madness, is to blame it on radical environmentalists. But this is not the work of ideologues operating on the fringes of the environmental movement. This is standard-issue, mainstream environmentalism as practiced by the green establishment in Washington and Sacramento. This is not to deny that draining a major reservoir in the midst of a drought is a radical act. The point, rather, is that mainstream environmentalism is itself a radical ideology, and the current water shortage in California is Exhibit A.
From its beginnings in the 1960s, as I argue in my book Radical by Nature, environmentalism has been about preserving natural landscape where it exists, and restoring it where it does not. In California, this has meant, among other things, halting economic growth and development as much as possible. And what better way to halt growth than to restrict the supply of new water?
Since 1970 the population of California has increased 100 percent. But the volume of water stored in her reservoirs has increased only 26%. The last major dam in California, the New Melones, was built in 1980. Environmentalists tend to oppose new dams. In recent years, it has been all we can do to prevent them from tearing down existing ones.
California voters recently approved a $2.7 billion bond for water improvements, among which are two proposed dams. But Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute thinks dams are a bad idea. "Storage is the old way to think of water problems. The biggest thing we are missing is that we're really underinvesting in conservation and efficiency, which is the most effective solution. It's the cheapest, fastest, and most environmentally sound solution." In other words, we should all accept fewer toilet flushings, shorter showers, and plastic lawns as the new norm. Make do with less; that is the environmentalist way.
But reservoirs behind dams aren't the only source of water. Consider the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project. Cadiz is a private company on private land in the eastern Mojave Desert. They sit above a natural aquifer that is replenished by rain that falls in the nearby mountains. Eventually, the water in the aquifer works its way to several dry lakebeds, where it percolates to the surface and evaporates. Cadiz developed a plan to tap into the aquifer and use the water to supplement municipal water supplies in dry years. In wet years, those municipalities would be able to pipe water surpluses to Cadiz to be stored underground in the aquifer for future use.
A key element of the plan was to be a 43-mile long pipeline connecting Cadiz to the Colorado River Aqueduct, a pipeline that would run within an active railroad right-of-way across federal land. But at the behest of Senator Diane Feinstein, the Bureau of Land Management disallowed the pipeline. The senator argued that the project would drain the aquifer faster than it can replenish itself, thereby harming the "fragile desert ecosystem." She said the use of the railroad right-of-way, which would have enabled Cadiz to avoid certain environmental reviews, represented "an egregious misuse of federal policy."
Feinstein's claim about draining the aquifer echoes the complaints of Gifford Pinchot and other early advocates of "conservation" a hundred years ago that private owners of natural resources could not be trusted to use them responsibly. Pinchot was a father of the movement that eventually made the federal government permanent custodian of a third of the nation's land.
As for Feinstein and her environmentalist patrons, increases in the water supply are a problem to be avoided. As a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity said of the Cadiz project, by making more water available to southern California municipalities, it would "increase urban sprawl" along the coast. Stop the water, and we stop the growth. Problem solved.
Another new source of water is the millions of gallons of waste water from California's oil fields at the south end of the great Central Valley. During the current drought, oil companies have been selling this water to farmers for irrigation. Now environmentalists want to halt the practice until it can be proven "safe."
Still another possible source of water, and perhaps the most promising of all, is the Pacific Ocean. Desalination now provides one fourth of the fresh water used in Israel. There is no technological reason why desalinated water could not be used to turn all of California's deserts into verdant gardens. But environmentalists will never allow this to happen.
There are seven desalination plants now operating in California, and three more sitting idle. In December of 2015, the largest desal plant in the western hemisphere opened at Carlsbad, north of San Diego. It is now supplying about seven percent of the potable water used in the San Diego region.
But the Carlsbad plant was not unopposed. It took twelve years to win all the necessary approvals (from 13 different state and federal agencies), resolve a half dozen lawsuits, and complete construction of the plant. This is the standard environmentalist strategy: make it so time-consuming and expensive to build anything that, even if a given project manages to get built, similar, future projects begin to look less and less economically feasible. The Pacific Institute reports that as recently as 2012 there were 19 desalination plants proposed for California. But now, despite four years of punishing drought, there are only 9 proposed, plus 2 in Mexico that would be joint U.S.-Mexican ventures. The pro-desalination forces may have won the battle at Carlsbad, but, if things go true to form, they eventually will lose the war to make desalination a major source of new water in California.
Environmentalists believe that a natural landscape is preferable to a man-made one. In California, whenever they have to allow a man-made project to go forward, they routinely impose all sorts of conditions on the builder to minimize the environmental "impact" of the project, conditions such as requiring homebuilders to devote a significant portion of the land in their project to "greenbelts," or to leave a percentage of the native trees in place, or to provide pathways for wildlife to move through the project.
The developers of the Carlsbad desalination plant, for example, had to construct 66 acres of wetlands in San Diego Bay "to offset the plant's environmental harm," as the San Jose Mercury News put it. That "harm" consisted of building a desalination plant on what had been vacant land. The plant is treated, in effect, as a necessary evil; if a plant must be built on natural land, then a new tract of natural land must be extorted from the developers to make up for the "harm." This is the environmentalist view, and developers are forced to sanction it, at least implicitly, in order to see their projects through to completion.
But every single thing that gets built on this planet must cause some degree of change to the environment. The more the environmentalists succeed in persuading the rest of us that such change constitutes "harm," the easier it will become for them eventually to halt all further development. In my own county during the last election, even some members of the local Tea Party were seduced into supporting the "Keep Our County Green" movement, this in an effort to stop some proposed developments in our largely rural county.
One of the common complaints environmentalists have about desalinated water is the cost. Having to satisfy 13 regulatory agencies and defend against a half dozen lawsuits will tend to drive up the cost of a just about any kind of project. But desalination also requires large quantities of electricity, and, thanks to environmentalist efforts to restrict the supply of electricity in the state, California's rates are among the highest in the U.S. (California's rates are 28 percent higher than neighboring Arizona's, 46 percent higher than Oregon's, and 66 percent higher than Nevada's.)
But the cost argument exposes an important environmentalist premise. In the old days, before environmentalism, the cost of a project was the developer's problem. If he underestimated the cost, he lost money, and it was no one's business but his and his investors'. But environmentalists treat all land and water as, in the final analysis, "our" resources. How those resources ought to be used thus becomes a public matter, to be settled politically (or, increasingly, administratively).
Imagine, instead, that America still worked the way it did in Grover Cleveland's day. An entrepreneur buys several thousand acres of desert land. He then builds a desalination plant on the coast, purchases a right-of-way to his land in the desert, and builds a water pipeline from the plant to the land. Now his low-value desert land has become high-value real estate, and his desalination plant pays for itself many times over. This is how capitalism works. It is how a free country works. California's water problems could be solved overnight with a good dose of old-fashioned American freedom. It ain't too late.
Leftist Support for Natural Gas Sits on Empty
Earlier this week at the DNC convention, Bernie Sanders declared: “This election is about climate change, the greatest environmental crisis facing our planet, and the need to leave this world in a way that is healthy and habitable for our kids and future generations.” Not jihad, mind you, as evidenced by the fact the DNC has skirted the topic thus far. But we digress. Even if the premise was true, the environmental lobby once lauded natural gas as an effective carbon footprint mitigator. And considering this alternative form of energy has defied expectations and saved Americans billions at the pump, that’s great news, right? Just one problem: Ecofascists have decided to end their friendly relationship with natural gas.
As Karen Alderman Harbert, who heads the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, writes in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, this year’s Democratic Party Platform is a radical departure from just four years ago, when natural gas played a crucial role in the energy portion of the 2012 manifesto. Today, Democrats basically consider it irrelevant.
“Supported by both campaigns and enthusiastically cheered by environmentalists, the final language stops short of calling for a nationwide fracking ban but incorporates a raft of anti-energy provisions, such as promising new Environmental Protection Agency rules on fracking, instituting a Keystone XL-like ‘climate test’ for future federal permitting, and generally discouraging the use of natural gas,” Harbert writes. The departure is quite remarkably. In 2012, the platform committee promoted “an all-of-the-above approach to developing America’s many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas.” After all, the committee explained, “a new era of cheap, abundant natural gas is helping to bring jobs and industry back to the United States,” so Democrats “will continue to advocate for use of this clean fossil fuel.” What happened?
“[T]his year each plank was exiled from the platform with nary a word of discussion,” says Harbert. “Blanket praise for the importance of natural gas as a job creator was replaced by blanket promises to restrict its production and use. This is a dramatic and troubling about-face. The shale revolution has lowered energy prices and fueled a renaissance in American manufacturing while improving our security by lowering dependence on foreign oil.” What this tells us is that leftists aren’t interested in finding solutions to so-called “climate change.” Instead, they’d rather keep moving the goal posts so that the climate issue can remain a priority for eternity. It’s politics at its worst.
Sad DNC climate movie
I was amused to learn the Democratic National Convention was going to screen a climate movie this evening. I didn't watch but was intrigued when Twitter lit up about "over the top" and how poorly the movie went over.
So, I went to the DNC web site but couldn't find the movie. However, I did find it here. And, much to my surprise, most of the early part of tonight's movie is recycled footage from two years ago! The original program ran on Showtime and it was called Years of Living Dangerously. I wrote about it here. The title of my piece was an allusion to Showtime's "Californication."
The entire Dangerously video had an intentional sepia tint to make it look "drier" and conditions worse than they were.
Tonight's movie repeated the same sepia-tinted west Texas footage about the supposed terrible drought in that region (see below), presented as current climate conditions. A farmer is on camera talking about "last year" as if it were 2015 when, in reality, it was 2013.
The only problem with that segment is the drought in west Texas broke long ago. Currently, no part of Texas is experiencing drought conditions.
Apparently, the climate has been so benign that they couldn't find new more disasters to film since tornadoes are way down, there have been zero major hurricanes in the U.S. and the drought in West Texas ended. The same old footage of Hurricane Sandy has gotten tiresome.
The DNC movie repeated the same old lie that the rise in sea level the last 100 years is "largely due to climate change" when the rate of sea level rise hasn't changed since the end of the Little Ice Age.
I had to laugh at noted climate scientist Jack Black making a prediction about when Miami would be under water.
So, the DMC got to see old footage, inaccurately presented. Typical of Big Climate.
I hope the DNC knows what they were being billed for.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here
Posted by JR at 12:09 AM