Dr Roy Spencer weighs in...

...and comment from this man is received with a degree of respect...Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming...


My Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate
1. The term “climate change” itself.
2. “Climate change denier”.
3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research.
4. Appeal to authority.
5. Unwillingness to debate.
6. A lack of common sense.
7. Use of climate models as truth.
8. Claims that climate models have been tested.
9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased.
10. The claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the right thing to do anyway...read the full article, here...and quote of the day, from the UK Telegraph...

"...At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed..."

If the USA sneezes...we catch more than a head cold...

...There are two driving forces behind Cap-and-Trade. One is the claim that “green” energy producers will generate new jobs if the government just provides a combination of legislative mandates for its use (wind and solar) and, two, that a massive new trading apparatus in “carbon credits” for the generation of “greenhouse gas emissions” will protect the Earth against “global warming.”...Using “global warming” to justify any government mandates or to empower the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” is a lie. It is a very big lie. As the Energy Tribune authors point out, “To generate real industrial jobs you need a basic commodity to trade, such as oil, gas or coal.” This is in marked contrast to wind and solar energy. “The trouble is that alternative energy technologies currently don’t work. That is to say, they remain inefficient, offering a very poor energy return on investment.”“Cut off the flow of public subsidies and the alternative energy industrial revolution would grind to a halt tomorrow.” ...If you had a choice, would you prefer to see wind, solar and biofuel energy producers receive billions in taxpayer subsidies or would you prefer to see independent energy producers permitted to extract oil and natural gas or the coal industry have access to the U.S. reserves that would provide electricity for centuries to come? This is not mere conjecture. The experience of European Union nations demonstrates that for every green job created, a real job is destroyed elsewhere in the economy. Carbon regimes drive manufacturing to nations that do not impose limits on coal, oil and natural gas. For example, “Germany’s Angela Merkel is insisting on major exemptions for German heavy industry come December’s global climate summit in Copenhagen. Merkel’s government is also supporting the building of 26 new coal-fired power plants across Germany.” Compare that with one hundred such plants whose construction was thwarted in the United States by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.“In June, deputy head of Poland’s Solidarity trade union, Jaroslaw Gresik, estimated that the EU’s climate policy would cost 800,000 European jobs.” Widely circulated data from a study of the heavily subsidized wind and solar energy industry in Spain revealed that its alternative energy program destroyed nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in its economy or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every ‘green job’ created. Consumers there have seen their electricity rate increase by 31 percent.Other independent studies reveal that Obama’s claim of five million new “green” jobs would cost an estimated $500 billion to create... The Big Lie about “Green jobs” is going to cost jobs. The Cap-and-Trade bill is a massive tax increase. If the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill is passed, it will undermine the economy, cost jobs, and leave the nation increasingly dependent on the import of energy resources while our own lay underground, unexplored, untapped, unused..a grim picture for US taxpayers, social and economic disaster unfolding, thanks to lies, overstatement and ideology. With thanks, and with sympathy to WarningSigns...

Growing resistance in the US to Cap and Trade...John Key in the WSJ...

"The Obama budget did more to help us consolidate and coalesce the business community than anything we could have done. It's opened eyes to the fact that this is about a social welfare transfer system, not about climate..." ...more here... Williamk Kovacs, US Chamber of Commerce, interviewed in the Wall Street Journal... There in a nutshell from Mr Kovacs is what global warming hysteria is about, not just in the USA but internationally. "The climate" is the excuse, the reality is an unprecedented wealth transference. The deceived Obama supporters will respond with great anger when the truth becomes evident...
...and John Key and Helen Clark hit the bigtime in the same issue...
...in the 1980s, New Zealand's government implemented a wide-ranging program of economic liberalization, including deep reductions in tariffs and subsidies, and privatization of state-run industries. The plan, nicknamed "Rogernomics" after then-Finance Minister (now Sir) Roger Douglas, was akin to Reaganomics, and the island nation grew smartly.
But while the U.S. and Australia broadly continued their economic liberalization programs under both right- and left-wing governments, New Zealand didn't -- until now. Over the past nine years, Helen Clark's left-wing Labour government rode the global economic expansion and used the revenue surge to expand government welfare programs, renationalize industries, and embrace causes like global warming. As a result, the economy stagnated while Australia took off. "We have been on a slippery slope," Mr. Key says...
...more from The Wall Street Journal here...