The Brian Griffiths Minute: 02-08-2010

Liberals need to help save the planet for a change

This story gets to combine two of my least favorite things in life: pork and global warming hysteria. Observe:

The use of crop-based biofuels could speed up rather than slow down global warming by fueling the destruction of rainforests, scientists warned Saturday.

Once heralded as the answer to oil, biofuels have become increasingly controversial because of their impact on food prices and the amount of energy it takes to produce them.

They could also be responsible for pumping far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they could possibly save as a replacement for fossil fuels, according to a study released Saturday.

Whoops.

Now, we've all had this massive rush in Washington to subsidize corn based ethanol, mainly because they grow a lot of corn in Iowa and they happen to have a Presidential Caucus there. All of the Democratic pork producers love it, because they get to bolster their Presidential cred, make environmentalists happy, and get to say they are "protecting the family farm."

And remember: this 'aint our first rodeo with noting the dangers of biofuels.

One of the big problems that Republicans like myself have has little to do with the idea of using alternative fuels; exploring new ideas and innovation makes good sense. But our problem has been and continues to be this rush to judgment for the latest and greatest fad that will purportedly "save the environment" when, in fact, the science on that is unproven at best or shows that we are doing even more damage at worse.

Rushing to judgment means we all pay. And we are all paying dearly for rushing to judgment and pork barrell spending on envirofuels.

Next thing you know, we're going to be taking about perpetual motion engines as a national priority....

Turning Up the Heat on Peddlers of AGW

Looks like the global warming cult is seeing the tide of public opinion turn against them (H/T Josh Painter):

Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party by eight points put the blame on planetary trends.

That's not all:

With Barack Obama and the new Congress focused heavily on economic recovery, it’s interesting to note that 46% of voters believe there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. Thirty-two percent (32%) see no such conflict, however, and 22% are not sure.

Finally, it looks like all of the preaching and the pushing and the peddling of this nonsense without scientific data is finally starting to be realized, at least by a plurality of the public.

However, that is one thing that is so damnably frustrating about this poll. The same public who sees the folly of the AGW argument elected for Barack Obama, the most notoriously ecofriendly Presidential Candidate this side of Al Gore. Obama is going to pursue programs that address this problem. Obama is going to pursue policies that harm our economy in the name of environmental justice. In essence, a decent percentage of these people voted for Obama and by doing so contradicted their own beliefs and their self-interest in being opposed to these global warming arguments (perhaps speaking, again, to the relative weakness of the Republican brand in the 2008 election).

Opposition to self-interest aside, it's good to see that critical consideration of global warming arguments is continuing....

I Get Letters

Needless to say that yesterday's post about Paul Foer earned me a nastygram....from Paul Foer:

from	Paul Foer
to		brian@briangriffiths.com
date		Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:36 AM
subject		Thanks for all the free publicity of my ideas......

We've never met, yet you sure have taken an interest in me. I appreciate the fact that you read Capital Punishment, take me so seriously and pay so much attention to what you label as my "fringe left" views that you feel compelled to tell even more people about it--who then visit my blog. I think it's funny that you say I resort to "yelling" because I put a few sentences in bold. At least I don't resort to immature name-calling.

Regarding the Bay Bridges, you confidently feel that we'll alway have the energy available to power all the vehicles you anticipate for years and years to come. Okay. Talk about sticking one's head in the sand. There's plenty of it at the beach, so enjoy your next trip there...over two spans or ten....why not just build a fifty lane bridge? More bridges everywhere.....

It's bad enough that your views don't consider the tremendous changes we will are undergoing now, but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing. But you don't know me. You know nothing about me.


Paul Foer

Wow. Foer does realize that I am not promoting his ideas....I'm mocking them for their lack of foresight, thought, and reason.

If that weren't bad enough, he then tries to completely change the argument. At no point in my rebuttal of his post did I talk about fuel. Why? Because something is going to power cars. I don't know if it will be gas, ethanol, sawgrass, hydrogen, or chicken droppings, but the people of this country will be using cars. That's not going to change anytime soon. People have been using personal, land based conveyances since a minor invention 5700 years ago. If Foer believes that is going to stop, that we won't evolve to cleaner fuels, than he is even more naïve than I thought he was.

This is my favorite part:

but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing.

You mean like this?

No, Mayor Moyer, you're just a mean-spirited, angry, paranoid incompetent as mayor. You are not a bad person. Rough around the edges perhaps. Quick to anger. Not always warm and fuzzy. We can handle that. But please, we have a municipal government to run, a corporate body, and it just keeps getting worse.

Yeah, couldn't imagine how I'd find you a hypocrite.

Besides Foer. I know what your game is. You make money off of the transit industry, so naturally he is going to denigrate alternatives in an effort to put some money in his pocket. It kinda reminds me of this (warning, language):



Foer also makes money on boating, including gas-guzzling motorboats. So I'm not exactly sure I want to get preached at on the environment by somebody who makes a living on things that guzzle more gas than my Saturn.

I point out people like Foer because these are the people who think they know better than you. Paul Foer thinks he is better than me, better than you, and better than anybody involved in politics or government. In truth, he's just a bitter guy, mad that he wasn't old enough to be a hippie, so bitter that even reasonable liberals like Bruce Godfrey have trouble getting a meaningful conversation out of. I point people like Foer out because these are the people that are brining nothing constructive to the political conversation, and people like him need to be exposed for what they really are.

Take the Hint

Well, the joker who came up with the "Big O" is just not going to take no for an answer:

At first, Rick Husong was stunned by the overwhelming wave of negative and sometimes crude reactions to his bid revealed in Whispers last week to build a pro-Sen. Barack Obama movement around a hand salute dubbed the Big-O. Among the hundreds of comments posted on the Whispers site were those comparing it to a gang gesture, a Nazi salute, or worse. "This is how Sieg Heil got started. And, no I'm not saying Obama is Hitler. I just think people should be careful about slipping into a personality cult for a charismatic leader," wrote Jake of Tennessee. Husong tells me that he was pretty depressed by the reaction to his idea and free design offered on the website of Loyalty Inc., his California creative company. That is until he heard of a fan walking on Venice Beach wearing a T-shirt displaying the artwork. In fact, despite the tsunami of criticism, the artwork has been downloaded 7,700 times and his site has been hit 214,000 times since the first Whisper went live. "I would call that a raving success," he says, adding that he plans to make his Big-O the "peace sign of our generation."

Well, don't let abject failure and public humiliation keep you down, right?

And then Husong, the founder of this "movement" goes off into space cadet territory:

He also E-mailed me last night to say that the hits on the artwork have inspired him to push even harder to build a movement around the hand signal. Here's what he wrote: "Our symbol 'O' is about much more than Barack Obama. It's a symbol of unity, hope, solidarity, and an end to the divisiveness that has plagued this country for too long. It is the peace sign of our generation; a sign for those who are tired of the fear, the hatred, the greed, and the ignorance. There will be resistance, democracy requires it, but we believe that the good in the American people will persevere.

The peace sign of our generation? A slick, corporately produced hand symbol that is reminds people that Barack Obama is little more than a slick, media production? All flash, no substance. That's what he wants to publicize a hand symbol for? At least the peace sign was an organically developed hand gesture, developed by people who were part of a movement. It was not something that an advertising agency came up with, like this one is, for a candidate who is desperately trying to create an air of substance around his candidacy.

The good news is that while Obama supporters figure out new and creative ways to show their loyalty and subjugation to Obama cult, their savior is out losing the election, so I suppose they need to find something to pump them up.

Just Pathetic

Need I say more (H/T Moe Lane):

And now, if a Los Angeles creative agency gets its way, Sen. Barack Obama will see fans meet him with his own salute like the one above. "Our goal is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama's nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future," says Rick Husong, owner of The Loyalty Inc. Husong tells me that he got the idea after seeing the famous Obama-Progress poster by artist Shepherd Fairey. "We wanted to get involved some way," he says. So, the agency came up with their own a symbol of hope and progress that also plays off Obama's name. "We thought, 'Let's try and start a movement where even while walking down the street, people would hold up the O and you would know that they were for Obama,' " says Husong.

What a pathetic, cheap, and desperate attempt to create gravitas and a sense of community around Obama.

Unfortunately, I can think of a couple of other movements started where people could identify their fellow travelers while walking down the street. Let's just say those didn't turn out too well....

The Free Market Strikes Back

We have talked a lot about the economic damage that may potentially be brought be the overzealousness to implement new eco-friendly standards and laws. Well over in England, the party is over and the free market is reasserting itself:

Julie Burchill can't stand them. According to her new book, Not in my Name: A Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy, she thinks all environmentalists are po-faced, unsexy, public school alumni who drivel on about the end of the world because they don't want the working classes to have any fun, go on foreign holidays or buy cheap clothes.

Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, agrees. In an interview with Rachel Sylvester and me, he told us that the "nutbag ecologists" are the overindulged rich who have nothing better to do with their lives than talk about hot air and beans.

So the salad days are over; it's the end of the greens. Where only a year ago the smart new eco-warriors were revered, wormeries and unbleached cashmere jeans are now seen as a middle-class indulgence.

But the problem for the green lobby isn't that it has been overrun by "toffs": it's the chilly economic climate that has frozen the shoots of environmentalism. Espousing the green life, with its misshapen vegetables and non-disposable nappies, is increasingly being seen as a luxury by everyone.

Read the whole thing.

It's nice to see that we have clearly reached a tipping point when it comes to the environmental movement. Sure, it's easy to be somebody like Al Gore and (claim to) live a life in balance with the Earth, and with carbon offsets, and all that rot. But while this rich environmentalists can afford to take major steps in order to (claim to) be more environmentally friendly, clearly not everybody can live that way.

The reactions that we see in stories like this, and the reaction to yesterday's issue in Germany gives me more hope that economic factors will continue to keep radical environmentalism at bay, and allow the public and private sectors to assume more reasonable stances in regards to conservation and environmental protection.

The Green Dictatorship

Given the jones that Governor O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats has for the expansion of power in the name of the all things environment, I expect that this idea from Germany will be coming to a General Assembly near you:

This fairy-tale town is stuck in the middle of a utopian struggle over renewable energy. The town council’s decision to require solar-heating panels has thrown Marburg into a vehement debate over the boundaries of ecological good citizenship and led opponents to charge that their genteel town has turned into a “green dictatorship.”

The town council took the significant step in June of moving from merely encouraging citizens to install solar panels to making them an obligation. The ordinance, the first of its kind in Germany, will require solar panels not only on new buildings, which fewer people oppose, but also on existing homes that undergo renovations or get new heating systems or roof repairs.

To give the regulation teeth, a fine of 1,000 euros, about $1,500, awaits those who do not comply.

Read the whole thing.

This, of course, is completely appalling to anybody who believes in private property rights. Why should any government in any country force business owners and homeowners to install a technology that is inefficient and far from cost-effective? And all in the name of what? In the name of cleaner energy? In the name of global warming? Or, in actuality, is it really in the name of the expansion of government power?

This is the sort of thing that concerns me about the future of our state. We know many things about Governor O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats. They look for ways to diminish the property rights of Marylanders. They are committed to the religion of global warming. They are committed to the expansion of government powers. And they are committed to higher taxes, higher fees, and forcing taxpayers to spend money on unnecessary expenses.

If you think about it, this sort of thing is right up O'Malley's alley. And let's face it, we have seen this sort of thing before here in Maryland. After all, it was only just this year that the General Assembly narrowly averted destroying Maryland's economy by passing the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Whether or not Team O'Malley tries to implement the policy in place in Marburg, there is certainly an impetus not just here in Maryland but across the nation to impose a "Green Dictatorship" that severely restricts the freedom and the wallets of citizens and taxpayers alike. We must remain vigilant in order to protect our economy and protect our nation from this radical ideology.

Al Gore: Owned

The Al Gore is God Society may take umbrage with this, but let me share with you this clip from Meet the Press yesterday as Al Gore tries to defend his "do as I say, not as I do" lifestyle:



Glenn Reynolds notes the following:

My observation is that Al Gore is looking (and sounding) more and more like a Baptist televangelist all the time.

Amen...

The Continually Unraveling Consensus

If there is anybody left who actually believes that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening, chew on this:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

Now obviously, an influential component of a very large and important organization of scientists distancing themselves from this unproven theory should shatter the notion of a consensus in support of anthropogenic global warming.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Al Gore had his little shtick the other day, and Michelle Malkin helps expose he and his minions for what they are:

Britons buck belief in bunk

Even the British, with their more recent leftward swings in government, don't buy the hype in anthropomorphic global warming (h/t Instapundit):

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

I would be willing to be that the sentiments are the same here in America as well. What's one reason that the British don't buy the bill of goods they are being sold?

More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.

No confidence in politicians. No confidence in the UN. No confidence in the scientists. And a belief that it's all a just an excuse to raise taxes and grow government. Looks like the Brits really have a grasp on the global warming hype...

Aren't you over your carbon limit, comrade?

For better or for worse, Britain once again is taking the lead on completely insane policymaking:

Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

And how would this cockamamie idea work?

Every adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.

The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.

Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.

A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.

When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.

When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.

Anyone who doesn't use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies.

Leave it to the British to institutionalize bad policies under a Gordon Brown's stewardship (which, if there is anything fortunate about it, is making Tony Blair look like a Thatcherite and helps give ascendancy to the Conservatives, such as happened in London).

Of course, such a policy has not been well thought out by the MP proposing it. What about government agencies? Tourists? Local schools? How in the world does such an idea work? And what type of penalties does one receive for being a "carbon criminal" and selling petrol without the proper papers?

Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling that such idea may again see life in a General Assembly near you...

Consensus This

Once again, the global warming consensus myth dies:

Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released yesterday....

...He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

The study, published online yesterday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.

Again, this does nothing to prove there is or that there is no global warming. Just the fact that the myth propagated by the left of this magical consensus on global warming is pure and utter bull....

But what about the independence of scientists?

What about it? You see, William Gray (as I have noted before) is the world renowned meteorologist from Colorado State University, famous for his hurricane season predictions. He's also a global warming skeptic. And one for whom the university tried to curtail funding for recently:

By pioneering the science of seasonal hurricane forecasting, William Gray turned a university far from the stormy seas into a hurricane research mecca.

But last year, the long-term relationship between Gray and Colorado State University, where he has worked for nearly half a century, nearly unraveled in an episode that highlights the politically charged atmosphere that surrounds the global warming debate.

University officials told Gray that handling media inquiries related to his forecasting required too much time and detracted from efforts to promote other professors' work.

Gray, who has emerged as a leading voice of skepticism about global warming, reacted hotly, firing off a memo to Dick Johnson, head of CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and others. He didn't buy the too-much-media reasoning.

"This is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to me to be a cover for the Department's capitulation to the desires of some (in their own interest) who want to reign (sic) in my global warming and global warming-hurricane criticisms," Gray wrote in the memo obtained by the Chronicle.

Gray initially declined to speak about the issue. But on Tuesday, Gray acknowledged the dispute.

"You see, so many people in our department make a living off the global warming threat," he said. "So I think that's part of why they came to me."

Since last year, he said, the university has "backtracked" on its position.

CSU officials said late last week that they intend to support the release of Gray's forecasts as long as they continue to be co-authored by Phil Klotzbach, a former student of Gray's who earned his doctorate last summer, and as long as Klotzbach remains at CSU.

Gray, an emeritus professor at CSU who has taught dozens of graduate students who populate the National Hurricane Center and other research institutions, has become increasingly vocal in his skepticism about climate change, saying the planet is warming due to natural causes.

Other than once again noting the fact that the concept of scientific "consensus" on global warming is pure crap, I have to ask this question; is the row over funding at Colorado State related to his skepticism of global warming. And if it is, would not the global warming believers be crying foul if, say, a scientist who believed in global warming had his fundingcurtailed by a Republican administration?

Baby it's gonna get cold outside!

Once again, more scary scientifically-based reasons to think that the Ice Age is on it's way:

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

As always, read the whole thing. And remember this; the evidence that we are entering a period of natural, solar-related global cooling is just as strong, if not stronger, than the evidence that we are suffering from anthropomorphic global warming. And it's all the more reason why states and countries should not trip over themselves trying to pass far reaching legislation (i.e. O'Malley's Global Warming Solutions Act) without seriously considering the scientific and economic ramifications of such legislation.....

Impending Global Warming Hysteria induced Economic Cataclysm somewhat averted

I bet you that the people of Western Maryland won't give a lick about global warming if this happens:

A bill being considered in Annapolis today would require businesses across the state to cut their average emissions of pollutants that cause global warming by 25 percent by 2020 and by 90 percent by 2050.

Gary Curtis, a vice president of NewPage, said these limits could mean he would have to replace coal with natural gas - which creates less carbon dioxide but costs five times as much.

He said he could try to make his machinery more energy-efficient, but that would shave only a few percentage points off his fuel consumption. Substituting wind or solar power for coal wouldn't work, he said, because they are not reliable enough to run his wood pulping machines 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

"It would basically put us out of business," said Curtis, as he watched a clattering conveyor belt carry logs into a machine with whirling blades.

"We need to have [pollution] goals that are aggressive but achievable - and forcing us to do this much would be disastrous," he said.

With 950 employees, NewPage is the largest industrial employer in Western Maryland. And it's one of several businesses in the state, including the former Bethlehem Steel mill and power plants, that have complained that the Global Warming Solutions Act could make it impossible for them to compete by imposing limits that do not exist in other states or countries.

I'm glad that the O'Malley Administration is so dedicated to global warming that they plan on finishing off the state's economy once and for all in the process. And the impending economic disaster will be far worse for places in Western Maryland, where there are fewer industrial related jobs than it will in the Baltimore area. Places like Luke (population: 80) are dependent on these jobs to keep their economies above water., and it is something that impacts their entire region:

"This is one of the lone remaining heavy industries in the whole region," said Matt Diaz, director of economic development for Allegany County. "If it closed, it would have a ripple effect all over Western Maryland, impacting not only mill workers, but also a lot of loggers and coal miners and truck drivers."

The fact that the O'Malley Administration is content to kill off economies across Maryland for a visionless plan based on junk science should give all Marylanders pause...

....which made it even more curious to see this today:

The O'Malley administration today proposed paring back a bill aimed at reducing global warming pollution after Maryland industries warned the legislation could put them out of business.

Instead of mandating a 90 percent cut in greenhouse gases statewide by 2050, an amended version of the bill would set this as a goal that the state should write a plan to try to reach, officials said.

"The Maryland Department of the Environment will institute the planning process to get to the 2050 goal ... but we want to clarify that the bill does not require a straight out 90 percent reduction," Maryland Environment Secretary Shari Wilson told a joint hearing of State House committees this afternoon.

Which means this bill is actually even more pointless than before. However at least we have seen at least some capability of common sense to seep into Annapolis before we try to close the last remaining industrial wage-earning jobs we have here in Maryland.

This crisis has been averted, hopefully because legislators realized the damaging consequences to Maryland's working families.

Obviously we're all going to die!

Now that I've got your attention, it's time to break out the parkas, folks (H/T Instapundit)

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

And yes, there is a handy-dandy chart to show the cooling.

As I keep saying, in the long-term picture this means absolutely nothing. But it is interesting to see scientific evidence as to how much our planet has cooled just in the last year.

And that, of course, makes all of this stuff coming out from the O'Malley administration about carbon trading, carbon credits, and all of the other global warming nonsense coming out of Annapolis that much more farcical. While it's a typical tenet of O'Malleynomics to act before thinking, we should make sure that we fully understand what is going on around us before we go to great lengths to destroy Maryland's economy.

Yes, it was that cold

Apparently, January was one of the coldest months in a while:

This is yet one more indication of the intensity of planet-wide cooler temperatures seen in January 2008, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, which has seen record amounts of snow coverage extent as well as new record low surface temperatures in many places.

What does this prove about climate change? Absolutely nothing, other than to show once again the hysteria of the left...

Hysteria, meet reality

This is less than surprising (H/T Instapundit):

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
• Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
• Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
• Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

• Maldives, 252%.
• Sudan, 142%.
• China, 55%.
• Luxembourg, 43%
• Iran, 39%.
• Iceland, 29%.
• Norway, 24%.
• Russia, 16%.
• Italy, 16%.
• Finland, 15%.
• Mexico, 11%.
• Japan, 11%.
• Canada, 8.8%.

Which ties in nicely with this editorial from Governor Pete du Pont in today's Wall Street Journal:

In light of all this criticism, what is the status of global emissions over the past few decades? Compared with other countries, how has America done? We generate about 25% of the world's global warming emissions, which is not surprising since we are about 27% of the global economy.

From 1990 to 1995, America's emissions increased 3.9% compared with 3.4% for other developed nations.

From 1995 to 2000, the emissions increased to 11.3%, compared with other developed nations' decline of 1.4%.

From 2000 to 2005, our increase was 0.6% compared with other nations' 2.7%.

So we are making progress. Comparing us with other nations over the 1990-2005, period we are doing better than Canada, Greece, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain and Turkey, and not as well as Australia, France, Germany, Britain and the Scandinavian nations.

There is no question we must do the research to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and that is going forward. As President Bush pointed out in last year's State of the Union address: "Since 2001 we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources." If the Congress fully funds the President's 2008 budget it will total $15 billion.

Governor du Pont also postulates that the real reason for the insistence of developing nations to get the U.S. to adhere to Kyoto and Bali is to slow the American economy to the levels of these developing nations. And when you consider that the liberals don't blink an eye when China, home to 16 of the world's most polluted cities, keeps building coal-fired electric plants to keep with their electric demand, that point seems rather strong.

What the fringe environmental alarmists fail to see is all of the progress that we have made in the United States. I have seen pictures of the 1960's and 1970's, all of the haze in the air. All of the pollution in the waterways. The Cuyahoga catching fire. Can people honestly look around at the air, at anti-pollution measures, at Green Space initiatives, and say that our air quality and our environment in these United States are worse now than it was thirty or forty years ago?

I am a conservationist, in the sense that it is not good politics or good policy for us to be trashing the natural resources that we have been blessed enough to receive here in this neck of the galaxy. But there is not a panacea or a magic wand that will be able to fix pollution without doing serious damage to the American economy. When you consider that it is currently countries that have lousy economies where a large chunk of the pollution is coming from, how is shrinking the American economy going to be able to save the environment when folks who are forced out of their jobs due to inflation and the hyperinflating cost of doing business? You think folks struggling to make ends meet are going to care at that point?