A huge number of states recorded record low temperatures:
Ohio, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania experienced their coolest July on record. Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Michigan each had their second coolest July on record, while Minnesota and Tennessee had their third coolest July on record.
But a few states were warmer than normal:
[…]Alaska posted its second warmest July, Arizona had its third warmest, while New Mexico and Washington had their ninth warmest.
That doesn’t sound like global warming to me. How is the left supposed to impose socialism now? We’ll need another lie!
Polar bear numbers in Canada have increased in 11 of 13 regions in recent years.
Another report shows that polar bear encounters on the North Slope oil fields have risen to record levels the last two years. The global warming religionists blame the increase in polar bear sightings on shrinking ice flows. So, now the alarmists are blaming manmade global warming on both increased and decreased polar bear populations.
There are 5 times as many polar bears today as there were 50 years ago…
In August 2008 Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sued the federal government seeking to reverse the decision to put the polar bear on the threatened species list.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s.
But it’s much worse than that.
The suppression of the evidence
Not only is the number of polar bears 5 times higher than it was 50 years ago, but the research of the most prestigious scientists is being suppressed.
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Dr Taylor… was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.
Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.
The Waxman Markey Cap and Trade bill passed by a narrow margin tonight, 219 to 212 with 8 Republicans supporting and 44 Democrats voting against, hardly overwhelming support.
What it means:
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent, natural gas prices would increase 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and worst of all, electricity prices would jump 90 percent.
But the direct tax on household energy use is just the beginning. The energy tax also hits producers. As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, the household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.
ECM sent me the findings of two more studies from The Beacon Hill Institute, at Suffolk University in Boston. The studies were linked by the American Spectator.
Excerpt:
“Contrary to the claims made in these studies, we found that the green job initiatives reviewed in each actually causes greater harm than good to the American economy and will cause growth to slow,” reported Paul Bachman, Director of Research at the Beacon Hill Institute, one of the report’s authors….
And:
If the United States were to cut emissions alone, with no cutbacks (relative to trend) by other countries, it would bear the full cost of abatement (PV = $3.85 trillion) while reaping only about $0.27 trillion in benefits. This represents a net cost, relative to doing nothing, of $3.42 trillion. It would cost the United States $154 billion by 2020 and $1.318 trillion by 2050.
Green Hell linked to a must-see video of Rep. John Boehner filibustering the bill in the House. No one has even read the 1200-page bill, or the 300-page amendment.
Gateway Pundit has a video of Rep. Paul Broun trying to tell the House that global warming is junk science:
Gateway Pundit has a video of Rep. Tom Price requesting a moment of silence to recognize the 2 million plus who will lose their jobs for the sake of junk science and inflated egos.
What is totally sad in the bill’s passing is, like socialism, it has been a total failure wherever it has been tried. Across Europe and even down to Australia,this nonsense has been scrapped. The economist in Spain blamed their own version of a climate change bill on their tragically high unemployment rate of 18 percent. The government reports that for every “green job” created equaled two losses in other private sector jobs. Energy prices have skyrocketed and businesses find it too expensive to produce. Therefore, they pass on the costs by cutting back production, which are driving prices higher, and laying off employees, which are driving unemployment numbers higher. Sounds like a recipe for contraction.
Why can’t we learn from the mistakes of other countries?