**Except, well, if you are in Great Britain. And Anglican. Because your Bishops want you to repent of your carbon excesses. Instead of turning off that ipod and TV so you can tune in God, they want you to “carbon fast” this lent. Yes. Delightful. It’s like people who give things up for the sake of just giving things up; or avoid the sweets during lent to loose a few pounds. No. No. No. Lent is NOT about reducing our carbon footprint! After all, “remember man that you are carbon and to carbon you shall return.”

Minnesotans for Global Warming has come up with a brilliant take-off on The Who in honor of the severe winter we’ve had.  I came across these guys through Powerline, and they evidently have a lot of time on their hands up there in Minnesota.  The best part of this song is the banjo replacing the synthesizer–it’s astoundingly close.

From the “I feel safer already” file (via AP):

The Air Force Academy has set aside an outdoor worship area for Pagans, Wiccans, Druids and other Earth-centered believers, school officials said Monday.

A double circle of stones atop a hill on the campus near Colorado Springs has been designated for the group, which previously met indoors.

“Being with nature and connecting with it is kind of the whole point,” said Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longcrier, who sponsors the group and describes himself as a Pagan. “It will dramatically improve that atmosphere, the mindset and the actual connection.”

Pat Robertson has been accused of blaming the Haiti earthquake on” God’s wrath” and Haiti’s “pact with the Devil” – though if you actually listen to his comments, that isn’t’ exactly true – though I would agree that his words, and their timing, were poorly chosen at best. Nothing really new for Reverend Robertson. Now, Danny Glover is blaming the Haiti earthquake on Gaia. So, my question to all you theologians: Who’s running this world, Father God or mother nature? Will Glover suffer the same scorn? Of course, the questions are rhetorical ones.

And, in a very strange providence, I watched a PBS documentary last night about Haiti and her revolutionary military leader, François-Dominique Toussaint L’ouverture. It was a fascinating film. Part of the narrative went into some detail about Haiti’s voodooism and their so-called “pact with the devil.” At about 6:11 into the following clip–and until the end of the clip taken from the PBS special–the connection between voodoo and Haiti’s revolution against France is quite plainly made by the narrative–the same connection to which Robertson referred in his now infamous comments. Hmmm . . . did the producers of this documentary consult with Pat Robertson or are they simply saying the same thing without the charismatic, evangelical “flair”?

While we’re on the subject of faith and conservation, Robert Royal’s wonderful AEI lecture “The Virgin and the Dynamo: The Use and Abuse of Religion in Environmental Debates” is available through the Catholic Conservation Center (HT reader The Sheepcat).  Here are two sample paragraphs, but read the whole thing or read his book of the same title.

On the other side, many pro-development people, seeing the often nutty New Age leaders of religious environmentalism, or the non-biblical ways in which even Christian and Jewish environmentalists sometimes argue, assume that modern religious environmentalism is an anti-Western, left-wing movement with Marxist overtones. Often, that’s true. But sometimes a conservative dislike of industrialism and modernity energizes environmental concerns. In an earlier age, orthodox Christians like G.K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis championed nature and organic societies. More recently, Jacques Ellul in France, Francis Schaeffer, Russell Kirk, George Grant in Canada, Wendell Berry in the American South (preceded by the Fugitives and the Agrarians) have made similar arguments. Even Paul Johnson, firmly in the capitalist camp, announced last year his leanings toward vegetarianism and his awe at the destruction of complex, divine order that occurs in the mere swatting of a fly.⁷ So it is wrong to dismiss religious environmentalists as mere New Age tree-huggers. Some are, but the real struggle continues to be what we think of the overall record and prospects of industrialism and markets.

The modern problem is how to reconcile material abundance with simplicity of life and a renewed appreciation of nature. (One of the uses of monasteries and convents is that it gave people with a strong need for simplicity a place where it could be lived out.) Making the pursuit of material wealth an end in itself leads to an obtuse spirit. And lack of contact with the immeasurable, unclassifiable richness of the Creation stunts our imaginations. We first learned to imagine human flight from watching birds, long before we had the technical capacity to try imitating them. Anyone who knows the ancient and medieval bestiaries, the rich literature of nature, or some of the remarkable naturalist writing by people like Annie Dillard–to say nothing of taking a walk in the woods oneself–will suspect that nature does something good for our minds and hearts. A good part of the Western religious tradition has always maintained that God speaks to us in two ways: in the book of nature and in the book of revelation. In a pluralistic society there should be room for people who read more deeply in one or the other, but if we entirely lose touch with either, we are living in a different world than the one God created. That world has room for both extensive use of nature and contemplation of nature’s natural richness.

Science fiction writer Margaret Atwood was interviewed by NPR about the relationship of science and religion.  Atwood is most famous, of course, for her novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, a dystopian novel set in an America that has become a fundamentalist theocracy (which explains its popularity in schools).  Evidently, she envisions a very different sort of church in her latest novel, The Year of the Flood.

Set in a world destroyed by genetic engineering run amok, the novel treats a group of survivors called “God’s Gardeners” who have created a religion around conservation and environmental awareness.  Based on the interview, Atwood seems to take her role as guru of a new religion fairly seriously:

Atwood points out that the beginnings of her religion of the future have already appeared in the present.

“Indeed, we now have the Green Bible among us, which I did not know when I was writing this book,” Atwood marvels. “[It] has tasteful linen covers, ecologically correct paper … and a list at the end of useful things which you can do to be a more worthy ‘green’ person.”

For her novel, Atwood created a new pantheon of saints, including Rachel Carson, Al Gore and the murdered conservationist Dian Fossey. Fossey figures into one of the hymns Atwood wrote for God’s Gardeners:

Today we praise our Saint Dian
Whose blood for bounteous life was spilled
Although She interposed her faith
One species more was killed …

Ah yes, Saint Rachel, whose book stirred the hysteria that has resulted in millions of needless deaths in the Third World.  And the Blessed Algore, the first man to walk on the sun, if his figures are right.

I wonder if the Green Bible has the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Actually, I think it does, since it’s NRSV and probably a very fine project, though it looks like a facsimile edition of Leaves of Grass.)

“Terminator Smurfs…” —Glenn Reynolds

Instapundit shoots and scores, and I hope that’s how James Cameron’s half-zillion-dollar Avatar will come to be remembered.

The world doesn’t need yet another morality tale of amoral corporate greed, moral and noble savages, and the morality of ecological moral purity.

[Well actually, some of the world believes it does, and they're gathered in Copenhagen presently...]

King Kong was king because it was a morality tale of man’s inhumanity to man, even if it was to a near-human beast. Its theme was similar, but there were no villains—only men doing what men do out of folly or thoughtlessness, and the unfortunate consequences ensue.

That’s tragedy; and poor Kong, regardless of his animal purity, had to be brought down off the Empire State Building, if only to save the exquisite Fay Wray. You just can’t have gorillas stealing your women and taking over your biggest building. You just can’t, even if it’s ultimately your fault and not his.

Sorry, Kong. But that’s tragedy.

Today, cardboard corporate villains have become the modern Hollywood substitute for the guy twirling his mustache.

Snidely Whiplash, c. 1960

That’s melodrama. Kong was not melodrama; Avatar clearly is, and there you have it.

As for computer-generated ick [CGI], frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. The Na’vi are not people, they are Smurfs. As Reynolds puts it, they’re action figures put into computer motion, as “unrealistic as a kid’s diorama.”

No, I won’t be seeing Avatar, at least until it comes on cable, if ever. I got Al Gore and President Obama and Prince Charles and the whole Copenhagen crowd in my face back here in the real world, saying all the same stuff.

Now, the Avatar the video game looks interesting—you can choose to play an “invading human” and plunk Na’vi to your heart’s content.

If only Al Gore were among the targets. Cameron says it’s boring to shoot zombies, but Copenhagen is a gathering of them like flies on offal, and I’d so much more enjoy a virtual zombie-shoot there than on Cameron’s Planet Pandora. Or Shooting Smurfs.

Now that sounds like fun, unlike Avatar. I might even give my mustache a twirl. Hahaha…

Best to all,
TVD

Who doesn’t love an energy efficient light bulb? Yes. I know. I know. Some of them have dangerous toxins in them, but seriously, how backwards can you be to use a high energy bulb when there is a low energy bulb. What’s that you say? High-energy bulbs give off more heat? Well! Duh! More heat is produced when more energy is used. You’re not going to heat your house with a light-bulb now are you, nim-wit? Of course not! So let’s get rid of all high-energy light bulbs starting with traffic lights:

Cities around the country that have installed energy-efficient traffic lights are discovering a hazardous downside: The bulbs don’t burn hot enough to melt snow and can become crusted over in a storm — a problem blamed for dozens of accidents and at least one death.

“I’ve never had to put up with this in the past,” said Duane Kassens, a driver from West Bend who got into a fender-bender recently because he couldn’t see the lights. “The police officer told me the new lights weren’t melting the snow. How is that safe?”

D’oh!!!!

While the Chinese have no intention of reducing their emissions, they are more than willing to accept Western concessions and political cover.  In a brilliant bit of spin, the Chinese are now claiming a place on the vanguard of carbon reduction because of their unmatched efforts at ‘population control.’

They will find a sympathetic hearing in Copenhagen. What’s an unborn child worth in carbon offsets?

COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change….

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.

Shocking though it may be, Fox News reports a high level of moonbattery in Copenhagen. Here’s a sampling:

• A group called GenderCC (Women for Climate Justice) rejects using distractions like “numbers” and “target dates” to track and fight climate change, and doesn’t appear very interested in the environment itself. Instead, it hopes to implement “gender-mainstreaming” and ensure that the U.N. guarantees the fullest participation of “feminist scientists” at every level.

• The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is putting on an exhibit to “explore how thoughts affect matter and how a shift in consciousness can transform current deteriorating conditions” for the environment.

• International Planned Parenthood is putting on a show about how to increase contraception in the third world to stop babies — who later become adults — from ruining the environment.

You’ve just got to love the addition “who later become adults.”  It has that wry Shep Smith quality.

Just in case you missed this.  It’s a sample of the kind of thinking we can expect in Copenhagen.

ADDRESS BY H.E. Mr. EVO MORALES AYMA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE OCCASION OF THE 64th SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

(The Permanent Mission of Bolivia to the United Nations) September 23, 2009

After hearing many speeches, I’ve concluded that in this new twenty-first century, defending Mother Earth will be more important than defending human rights. If we do not defend the rights of Mother Earth, there is no use in defending human rights. I am willing to debate this concept, but now or later it will be proven that the rights of Mother Earth supersede the rights of human beings. We must protect what gives us life.

Anyone out there interested in setting up a lobbying group to defend other elements in the periodic table: Oxygen? Neon? Zinc? Carbon emissions are now declared a hazard. This is interesting, scientifically speaking. Carbon emissions, per se, are not what is damaging to the environment. It is the cumulative emission of  too much carbon that is being theorized as being hazardous. This is different, say, from CFCs, raw sewage, nuclear waste, etc. which even in small quantities pose a threat, by the nature of what these pollutants are. Carbon by its basic nature is not a pollutant. Is not carbon, in fact, the most essential element to life and therefore, to some degree aren’t we implying it is life itself that is the true threat to the environment? Mind numbing.

Over at NRO’s Planet Gore, Greg Pollowitz has a piece from the enviro-mag Grist on the President’s decision to descend on Copenhagen for the final day of the climate talks rather than stopping by earlier.   Even they see the danger here; when the environmental left is more level-headed and savvy than the White House staff, we’ve got a problem.

The first week of every COP meeting consists of posturing, speeches, protests, and NGO reports. Everything of significance to the treaty is announced late in the meetings, often on the last day, after a flurry of last-minute negotiations. Coming to Copenhagen at the climax of the talks, specifically to push negotiations “over the top,” as the White House statement says, is a risky move for Obama. He’s got skin in the game now; he’ll look foolish if he rides in at the last minute and fails to broker an agreement.

Well, it worked so well with the Olympic bid…

Much as I will enjoy the spectacle of another colossal public failure by Obama, it will unfortunately involve another public humiliation for the United States.  The man (or his advisors) simply doesn’t understand that you do not put the prestige of the office on the line unless you are certain of the outcome.

Btw, Planet Gore is a great place to sit back, mix a toddy, and enjoy the continuing fallout from Climategate.

From today’s The Hill:

Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,’” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

Now, this is what she said about climate change whistle-blowing in 2007 on the Chris Matthews Show:
(more…)

Rush was talking today about Al Gore’s ridiculous cover illustration for his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.  As reported by Infowars.com, Gore has a rather sexed-up image of the globe conforming to his notion of the coming apocalypse.

Yes, hurricanes will spin the wrong way, they will cross the equator with abandon, and Cuba will disappear entirely.

And you thought snake-handlers were crazy. (Warning, turn your speakers down at about 1:40 into this video.) Hat tip to  http://biggovernment.com/

From Powerline.  Just devastating.  Here’s a sample:

The upshot? The Danes retain the title of world’s most prolific wind producer, and President Obama cites their experience as a path to be followed. The cost? Danish ratepayers are forced to pay the highest utility rates in Europe. And the American people are led to believe that, though wind may only provide a little more than one percent of our electricity now, reaching a 20 percent platform – as the Danes have allegedly done – will come at no cost, with no jobs lost and no externalities to consider.

Speaking of jobs, the report also pulls back the curtain on the wind power industry’s near-complete dependence on taxpayer subsidies to support the fairly modest workforce it presently maintains. Just as in Spain, where per-job taxpayer subsidies for so-called “green jobs” exceeds $1,000,000 per worker in some cases, wind-related jobs in Denmark on average are subsidized at a rate of 175 to 250 percent above the average pay per worker. All told, each new wind job created by the government costs Danish taxpayers between 600,000-900,000 krone a year, roughly equivalent to $90,000-$140,000 USD.

Any thoughts on the subject?

It’s such a simple concept, but difficult to drive home — you cannot simply impose a costly mandate on society and claim that the jobs created to deal with the mandate will foster greater economic growth.

As Ronald Bailey complains: “Proponents need to stop pretending cap-and-trade will cost nothing and create tons of jobs.”

I think the problem here, as with so many other regulatory issues, is that nobody fully understands the economy and it’s a complex beast. There are many factors affecting the economy, which tends to be cyclical, and so messing around with various regulations does not have an obvious and direct effect on economic growth.  In two years, we could pass cap and trade, enact draconian CAFE standards and burn Bill Gates at the stake for having too much money, and the the economy still might be chugging along at a good tick.

However, the economy wouldn’t be doing as well as it could, or should, be doing. Costly new regulations effectively change the baseline, so while the economy would still go through highs and lows, you would be cutting growth overall.

And then, before you know it, you’re Europe.  That’s why I shudder when I hear the phrase “Green Jobs.”

These days I’m looking a bit peaked—a little green in the face you might say—so sick am I of that haranguing ubiquity know as the “green” movement.  When checking my personal email last evening, I found three successive advertisements about being green: one from Sam’s Club, one from Home Depot, and one inviting me to an NFP class on “Why Green Sex Is Best”.  On second thought, the last one may require further study. (more…)

The chairman of Britain’s  Sustainable Development Commission, Sir John Porritt, (sir of what, I’m not sure) will be issuing a forthcoming environmental policy report calling for Britons to limit themselves to two helpings of off-spring and to help themselves to a generous dose of abortion and contraception. All in the name of what? Ohhh, Greening our planet, ahhh. Father Jonathan Morris calls out this rat: (more…)

The global warming crowd seems to be preferring the phrase “climate change” instead of, well, “global warming”.  I guess they are tired of people mocking them when they give speeches on the subject during a cold spell in April.

My column in today’s Washington Examiner looks into the latest bogus mega-lawsuit strategy wherein ambitious pols and ambitious plaintiffs’ attorneys try to bring down an industry while generating big headlines and big cash. Read all about it. Hint: When a chicken poops in the chicken coop, does haste in disposing of waste make the chicken farmer environmentally unchaste?

On August 28, I posted this essay, in which I used the (thus far) gross meteorological miscalculation of the 2006 hurricane season to cast aspersions on those (particularly the global warming alarmists) who attempt to forecast climactic conditions decades from now.

Today, courtesy of this post by Iain Murray at National Review Online’s The Corner, I see that the climate change jihadis are not letting the facts get in the way of their argument. Murray’s piece links to this article in today’s Houston Chronicle, titled “Valid science or a perfect storm for controversy? Theory that warming spawns more hurricanes gains support but still has skeptics”. In it, reporter Eric Berger details the release on Monday of a research paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluding that “human burning of fossil fuels has warmed the oceans, providing the fuel for tropical cyclones to become monster hurricanes.” Berger quotes Tom Wigley, one of the authors of the paper and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, as saying, “The work that we’ve done closes the loop”. What loop? The one that says that humans are the “primary driving force behind increased hurricane activity”, according to Robert Correll, a senior fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

To his credit, reporter Berger then gives us the other side of the story. It turns out that loopy is an appropriate characterization of Wigley, et al.’s report:

[S]ome researchers who study the complicated interplay between hurricanes and global warming suggest little has changed in the last few months to suggest that scientists have come to a consensus.

“Honestly, I don’t think anyone’s changed their mind,” said Phil Klotzbach, a hurricane researcher at Colorado State University. “To me, this looks like the same people saying the same thing over and over again.”

Earlier this year, Klotzbach published a paper suggesting that, despite a rise in ocean temperatures during the last 20 years, hurricane activity worldwide has decreased.

Klotzbach is not alone:

Some environmental groups, including the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, called for National Hurricane Center director Max Mayfield and other officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to resign, saying they were covering up evidence linking global warming to hurricanes.

“I can honestly say that no one in NOAA, or anywhere in the government for that matter, has contacted me to tell me how to respond to the issue of what effects global warming might have on hurricanes,” Mayfield said earlier this summer.

Klotzbach, Mayfield and others say the data simply don’t exist to support the conclusion.

Add National Hurricane Center scientist Chris Landsea to the list of the unimpressed as well:

[L]andsea said warmer water doesn’t lead necessarily to stronger hurricanes.

“I agree with the paper’s conclusion that the warming trend in the tropical oceans is likely due, at least in part, to greenhouse gases,” Landsea said. “But this paper certainly isn’t the ‘key link’ between hurricanes and climate change. Its focus is on something that I thought was settled quite some time ago.”

The skepticism is not limited to the United States:

Johnny Chan, a hurricane researcher at the City University of Hong Kong, has studied the effect of sea-surface temperatures on hurricanes that form in the Pacific.

Chan said his research has shown that in years when Pacific sea temperatures are higher than normal, there tend to be fewer, and less-intense hurricanes.

“The problem with these guys is that they keep focusing on sea surface temperatures, and sea surface temperatures alone,” Chan said. “For the Pacific, I can confidently say that they are wrong if they latch onto sea surface temperatures and nothing else.”

What I found remarkable about Berger’s article was his complete omission of any reference to the 2006 hurricane season. If anthropogenic global warming / production of greenhouse gases / “human activity” is driving more frequent and more intense hurricanes, then WHERE ARE THEY? Answer: Not here, and, according to this September 1, 2006 hurricane season update from Klotzbach and his colleagues at the Colorado State University Tropical Meteorology Project, not on their way:

We now anticipate that the 2006 Atlantic basin tropical cyclone (TC) season will be considerably less active than the seasonal activity we anticipated in our earlier forecasts and in our updated 3 August forecast. We now expect that the 2006 hurricane season will have slightly less hurricane activity than the long-term average. This is due to an unexpected increase in tropical Atlantic mid-level dryness (with large amounts of African dust) and a continued trend towards El Niño-like conditions in the eastern and central Pacific.

Of course, I would expect the climate change / global warming Chicken Littles to now seize on the absence of hurricanes as evidence to support their thesis that Evil Mankind is despoiling Mother Earth. “Large amounts of African dust preventing hurricanes from forming?! See, it is global warming leading to the growth of the Sahara. Seize their SUVs now!”

As an aside, it appears that I was mistaken where, in prior post, I wrote that the field of hurricane research was “relatively non-politicized.” As the Houston Chronicle story and this post from Roger Pielke, Jr. make clear, it appears that hurricane research can be every bit as political as research into the issues of anthropogenic global warming / climate change. The good news is that where we’ll likely not live to see the debunking of The Day After Tomorrow fraud, we can observe right now what appears to be the disproving of the “global warming = more frequent hurricanes” canard.

With Ernesto having now been downgraded to tropical storm status, we have reached the eve of the first anniversary of Katrina’s landfall with no hurricanes having hit the continental United States in 2006. This despite predictions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and from the leading hurricane researchers at Colorado State University that this season would be “very active”. For instance, in their December 6, 2005 prediction, the Colorado State University team wrote

We foresee another very active Atlantic basin tropical cyclone season in 2006. However, we do not expect to see as many landfalling major hurricanes in the United States as we have experienced in 2004 and 2005.

On May 31, 2006, the day before the official June 1st commencement of the hurricane season, the CSU researchers reiterated their prediction:

We continue to foresee another very active Atlantic basin tropical cyclone season in 2006. Landfall probabilities for the 2006 hurricane season are well above their long-period averages.

In NOAA’s May 22, 2006 press release, the agency forecast that

“For the 2006 north Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA is predicting 13 to 16 named storms, with eight to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which four to six could become ‘major’ hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,” added retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.

On average, the north Atlantic hurricane season produces 11 named storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes. In 2005, the Atlantic hurricane season contained a record 28 storms, including 15 hurricanes. Seven of these hurricanes were considered “major,” of which a record four hit the United States. “Although NOAA is not forecasting a repeat of last year’s season, the potential for hurricanes striking the U.S. is high,” added Lautenbacher.

As this entry at Wikipedia describes, both the CSU and the NOAA teams have lowered their preseason estimates. And I am aware that we are are relatively early in the hurricane season, and that this post could prove to be dramatically wrong. Blogger Brendan Loy, for example, points us to this August 16 post from hurricane expert Dr. Jeff Masters, who in turn writes

Peak hurricane season starts about August 18 and runs through October 18. The worst part of hurricane season is in front of us, and I do anticipate that conditions will get active. Witness 1998, when only one named storm occurred prior to August 19, and 10 named storms and 7 hurricanes formed by the end of September. A similar pattern of activity occurred in 2000, with only two named storm by this date, and a season total of 15 named storms. So, those of you who doubt NOAA and Dr. Gray’s predictions of 15 named storms this season need to put your skepticism on hold.

But I am willing to risk the embarrassment of premature evaluation to say the following:

If the relatively non-politicized corps of hurricane researchers couldn’t get the 2006 hurricane season right just days before it began, then why are we supposed to believe that the uber-politicized cadre of so-called climate experts are correct about the existence and/or impact of global warming years and decades from now?

[As a pre-emptive strike against those who might claim that I am conflating weather with climate, please examine the linked May 31 document from CSU, which states, "Our research team has shown that a sizable portion of the year-to-year variability of Atlantic tropical cyclone (TC) activity can be hindcast with skill exceeding climatology." Also note that the NOAA press release expressly says that, "The north Atlantic hurricane seasonal outlook is a product of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, National Hurricane Center and Hurricane Research Division."]

We’re all directly affected by the high price of gas, for example, I haven’t filled my truck’s gas tank in months. Instead, I put in about $15/week which lasts for 7 or 8 days (I drive maybe 135 miles a week). The important question to consider, though, is whether the current rise in prices will be sustained for an extended period of time. Only then will it be shown that people are actually changing their habits/lifestyle. This question is examined by an insightful article from the Christian Science Monitor that’s well worth the read.

If today’s prices are a temporary spike, then consumer habits are unlikely to change. Some economists have been surprised at how little the nation’s gasoline consumption has budged so far, even though prices are double what they were at the beginning of 2004. Americans are buying as many new vehicles as ever, and they have continued to favor light trucks over cars.

So far, Americans aren’t slowing down.

The Pacific Legal Foundation lists them here.

I have become quite numb to the politics of climate change.  Perhaps I just don’t respond well to boo! rhetoric.  It seems there are two kinds of scaring going on.  One directed at the general public to frighten the bejesus out of them….. as in this recent Time feature.

The other is the burn-the-witch mentality in the academy directed at those who dare dissent from popular global warming theory….. as noted in “The Climate of Fear in Climate Studies.” 

(Do you see me yawning?) If you guys are free this weekend, come on over and we’ll barbeque a goat and enrich some uranium. It’ll be fun.