Author Archives

Change of Tune

There has been a subtle yet important shift in the rhetoric of some global warming alarmists, whose industry has thrived for years on a disciplined party line of “ignore the skeptics.”  This has played out in many absurd ways , including by insisting that only a dozen or so actually exist.  The audience for their rhetoric has remained instead the public.

 

We see here what appears to be almost desperation, coming on the heels of widespread pickup given to a recent Inhofe, et al compilation of more than 400 scientists – from both “soft” and “hard” disciplines, just as is true with the IPCC and alarmists, generally, though they conveniently forget this when attacking (see the series of exposés on this from the gang at Climate Resistance).

 

The icing on the cake is the rest of the instruction, to change the subject.

 

To borrow their phrase, that’s “climate progress”.

   

01/07/2008 @ 11:22 am | Global Warming | No Comments

Sea Treaty Fallout

Today one presidential aspirant joined a growing list of senators in opposing U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Taking as long as the opposition has to assert itself, this clearly was a difficult decision for these political leaders to step out on this matter, flying as it does in the face of one of President Bush’s “to do” items before he leaves office. The latter have an actual vote on the matter which appears likely (though by no means certainly) headed to the Senate floor this year. The former merely would have to live with LOST’s constraints and other fallout. If LOST is implemented as its opponents fear, this fallout will include a replication — only worse — of what we saw after Bush snubbed the International Criminal Court and Kyoto Protocol upon taking office, both of which were signed by President Clinton though only the former was unsigned by Bush (his treatment of the latter was for all legal and practical purposes no different than his predecessor, if rhetorically in stark contrast).

Whatever the motivations and difficulties underlying these decisions, they are the right ones. Much has been written about the principal reasons that LOST should remain among the more than 400 treaties signed by the U.S. but never ratified. In brief, these remain that: 1) LOST cedes far too much sovereignty to supranational governance, 2) this includes taxation, euphemized as “fee collecting”, authority, 3) elevating the level even of eco-governance to which we subject ourselves, specifically including sweeping authority to govern “land based pollution”, and 4) a binding tribunal and other dispute resolution ensuring that by the front door or back, the Kyoto agenda will be imposed upon the U.S.

The voting begins this week at the Senate subcommittee level.

   

10/30/2007 @ 1:19 pm | Constitutional & Legal, Global Warming, International | No Comments

Don’t Worry be Happy, Valley

Yesterday’s Washington Post ran a letter from the Central Valley (CA) program manager for a National Parks Conservation Association, titled “How to counter climate change”. The writer informs us that “climate change is melting snow packs and mountain glaciers that communities such as the Central Valley in California depend on for irrigation, drinking water and power generation”, to stop which “the federal government must cut pollution from coal-fired power plants”.

That, of course, is the same Central Valley where the daytime temperatures have been falling but whose nighttime temperatures have been warming rapidly, as Christy et al revealed (pdf pp. 13-18) are indeed directly a result of Man, but the agriculture-intensive Valley’s own land-use/irrigation.

Here is the point: when you look at daytime temperatures of the Valley versus the Sierras, you see a dramatic drop in the temperatures in the Valley versus the Sierras in the daytime, especially during the summer, and that is what is consistent with irrigation. Irrigation will cool the air in the boundary layer. You won’t see this up in the deep layer of the atmosphere, but in the boundary layer you would. Now in the nighttime temperatures, you see here rapid warming in the Valley; relative to the mountains, it peaks in the irrigation season. This is consistent with two things, both irrigation and urbanization. But what you don’t see up there is something that is consistent forcing of that particular part of the world. [pdf p. 14]

[Abstract of full paper: Christy, J. R., W. B. Norris, K. Redmond, and K. P. Gallo. 2006. “Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?” Journal of Climate 19(4): 548–563].

   

09/05/2007 @ 4:34 pm | Global Warming | No Comments

Quelle horreur!

A couple of weeks ago The Washington Post ran a story about the recent correction of surface temperature measurements the wonderful Steve McIntyre brought to NASA’s attention. Actually, as is to be expected with the Post, they didn’t report on the correction, but instead weighed in some time after it broke to report complaints by the alarmists that some skeptics had gone too far with claims about how much this proves or disproves. Distractions aside, we do know that the correction dramatically revised some of the global warming alarmists’ money quotes, like Al Gore’s claim that nine of the 10 “hottest” years on record were in the past decade. Of course now we know that of the 10 (warmest) years, four occurred in the 1930s, three in the 1990s, and one each in this decade, the 1950s and the 1920s.

The author of yesterday’s story, “In Northern France, Warming Presses Fall Grape Harvest Into Summertime,” apparently missed the prior story, and gets front-page treatment in the process to go on about the horrors confronting vintners:

Throughout the wine-producing world, from France to South Africa to California, vintners are in the vanguard of confronting the impact of climate change. Rising temperatures are forcing unprecedented early harvests, changing the tastes of the best-known varieties of wine and threatening the survival of centuries-old wine-growing regions.

How unprecedented? Well, so far as we can tell, since 1978, from which year, the Post reports, the date on which a certain farmer in Northern France harvested his grapes has moved up by nearly two months.

Casual observers of the issue might recall 1978 as the approximate end of the 30-year cooling trend, or, if one prefers, the beginning of the subsequent 30 years’ warming of the same, er, degree. No mention of that in the story.

   

09/04/2007 @ 9:28 am | Global Warming | No Comments

Apologism

My colleague Iain Murray notes here at OpenMarket and at Planet Gore about a series of past alarmist NASA pronouncements, which list I admit is hardly exclusive but certainly illustrative; but it does seem odd that none of them mention how the purported scorchiness — as in truthiness – of the particular year at issue in any given release relates to the not-a-dime’s-worth-of-difference heat of 1934 or the 1930s, generally.

After all, as the Washington Post rushed to helpfully note about NASA’s temperature correction — in a story not about the flaw and correction, which would be oh so gauche but, natch, about how it was being inappropriately flogged by some internet and radio chortlers — that “[c]limate researchers have long known that the mid- and late 1930s were quite warm and that 1934 may have been the hottest year of the century — although average temperatures in 1998 were statistically just as high”. Oh. Of course. The Post has regularly added such context when reporting on other NASA releases like those Iain cites, right?

No. While it is true, and James Hansen now rushes to protest, he did mention 1934 in this context previously (once…?…in 2001), can we at least admit that this pooh-poohing about a tenth of a degree here or there is a newfound induglence, and the notion of such small differences being, well, small have hardly been the topic of conversation — let alone reportage — that the Post’s coverage and other alarmist apologism would have you believe?

The lesson of this episode has little to do with that tenth of a degree or so but that we are just about back to where we were in the 1930s, but certainly not abnormally warmer; that is, we see it affirmed that what we’re serially told isn’t true — that 1900, for example, was warmer than 2000 would certainly surprise most of the public — and that the organs telling us these things have a demonstrable bias toward hype and alarmism, and now apologism.

   

08/27/2007 @ 6:01 pm | Odds & Ends | No Comments

We’re right behind you

We see that Al Gore et al plan to commit upwards of $100 million to persuade the public to take the hit and agree to the “wrenching transformation of society” that Gore has so long preached, in the name of preventing catastrophic man-made global warming. Even though this campaign will certainly seek to frighten, as opposed to educate or otherwise logically persuade, the debate that it is certain to engender remains, on net, a good thing, given the stakes — it hasn’t warmed in a decade, after all — but it reminds us of one of the alarmists’ glaring contradictions: George Bush and a few dinosaurs are standing in the way of real action that the public supports, nay, demands; and to prove it we’re going to spend (another) $100 million to, er, get the public behind us.

This is not all that different from congressional Democrats shouting to the heavens for six years that they know the problem, they know the solution, we must act now, the public demands it, and your hearings are an irresponsible delay tactic (pant pant)…only, upon receiving the gavel, to schedule two dozen hearings, not one on a legislative proposal but all instead apparently to discuss how mean some Republicans are for not agreeing with them.

As such, note this recent gem, courtesy of Dr. Fred Singer’s most recent “The Week That Was “:

We Care About GW, But Not Really

Americans have the “right” opinions on environmental issues, but “they don’t really care,” concludes Matthew Yglesias, a blogger and editor for the Atlantic Monthly. He says he reached this conclusion after perusing the results of a report from the research and strategy firm American Environics and the Nathan Cummings Foundation.

The report, “Energy Attitudes,” found that 69 percent of voters would support a candidate with whom they disagreed on environmental matters and that there are six issues, including gay marriage, abortion and taxes, that are more important to them).

Even people who described themselves as “environmentalists” put other issues higher on their priority lists. The upshot of the report, Mr. Yglesias writes, “is that while there’s public eagerness to do something about global warming, it’s very tenuous, and people are rabidly opposed to anything that would increase energy costs.”

From NY Times Aug. 25

In short, despite an unprecedented campaign to date, the public remains unpersuaded that the sky is falling, let alone that the prosperity about which, yes, they feel a little guilt about, will cause it. I believe this campaign meets the definition of the Gambler’s Dilemma.

   

08/27/2007 @ 10:28 am | Global Warming | No Comments

Credit where credit is due

This story makes clear that the Bush administration’s climate change team — for all of their faults, not least of which is a reluctance to aggressively defend their position against the remarkably dishonest rhetoric that this issue attracts — at least has recognized the key to gaining buy-in on their vision of a post-Kyoto world and, it is now clear, has acted upon the recognition rather effectively.

First and foremost, they saw what was important in outflanking the European Union’s insistent pressure campaign to gain approval by the rest of the world – read: the U.S. – of an international pact of the cap-and-trade variety in which Europe has vested so much political face. This entailed gaining the blessing for their alternative approach from the U.N. (its relevant body being the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) — motto: It’s not just a treaty; it’s an actual bureaucracy, too), by communicating the importance of keeping that outfit unthreatened and the primary caretaker of any broad-based global warming regime (anyone who has read Kyoto or understands how it operates knows that whatever the objective emissions reduction isn’t it).

As difficult as that proposition may have originally sounded barring simple capitulation, this they have achieved.

Continue reading this post »

   

08/27/2007 @ 9:40 am | Global Warming | No Comments

Cap-and-Trade: Everything Old Is New Again

In its story “Big bucks at stake in cap-and-trade allocations”, Tuesday’s Greenwire (subscription required) offered another in a series of examples of how even (particularly?) journalists who specialize in writing about things like environmettal policy cannot quite grasp certain fundamentals inherent in fashionable environmental policies. Or else are simply bowled over by breathless press releases and rhetoric by the well-heeled Big Green and rent-seeking machine.

To wit, consider the following regrettable word choice:

But key players are split on a critical question behind cap-and-trade: how to distribute credits worth tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars to the carbon dioxide-belching [NB: objectivity alert] industries faced with a mandatory new U.S. carbon market….Ideas abound for how to distribute the credits [that would be mandated, created and allocated under rationing schemes floating around Capitol Hill], but there is a great divide over whether U.S. climate policy should drive newfound wealth toward the CO2-releasing industries or into the Treasury….Assuming a CO2 credit equals about $25 per ton, the market would be worth about $100 billion a year, or 1 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. For the range of bills introduced since Democrats won control of Congress last November, economists project the new U.S. program will generate somewhere between $50 billion and $300 billion in new income annually. Stretched out over the first 30 years, the U.S. carbon market is poised to produce between $2 trillion and $9 trillion. [emphases added]

Ummm…”newfound wealth”? “New income”? From a rationing scheme demanding redistribution? Upon even the slightest scrutiny, isn’t this transfer instead identifiable as scarcity rents coupled with deadweight loss identified at up to 1% of GDP? For shuffling ration coupons around I might add, not reducing any emissions (as will soon be exposed as the hallmarks of Europe’s ETS in a pending follow-up study by OpenEurope).

   

07/19/2007 @ 10:50 am | Global Warming | 1 Comment

Counties Challenge Congress on Climate Change

Catching up on emails, I see that Tuesday’s E&E Daily (subscription required) notes that Senator Bingaman yesterday touted his “Low Carbon Economy Act” before the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, who themselves are preparing to adopt their first climate policy resolution.

In this context of associations adopting such vows I must note this recent resolution by the National Association of Counties, which they humorously describe as “a resolution calling on NACo to urge Congress to address global warming, regardless of its source”; so, even if climate is changing because that’s what climate does, well, we demand that you stop it!

Talk about the fatal conceit that underpins this movement (yes, I understand that this was likely a sop to internal forces seeking to avoid over-aggressive jumping on the “Man did it!” bandwagon, but such a stance simply begged, nay, pleaded for ridicule).

   

07/19/2007 @ 10:50 am | Global Warming | No Comments

“Dr. Hockey Stick” Michael Mann sticks his neck out

A colleague directs my attention to a remarkable example of someone needlessly sticking their neck out, specifically “Dr. Hockey Stick” Michael Mann, whose fall I expose in detail in my book and again address on the Glenn Beck Special, “Exposed: The Climate of Fear” which ran on Wednesday night.

Sayeth Mann in a thou-doth-titter-too-much blog post, “However, there was one amusing moment: Beck asked Christopher ‘Incorrect’ Horner what the key thing to google was that would show that Al Gore was wrong. Horner suggested the lag between CO2 annd [sic] temperature in the ice cores. Of course, if you do google that , the first hit is the Realclimate debunking of the issue. Thanks!”

Uh, well, you’re welcome, but may I suggest that Dr. Mann possibly learn at some point that not everyone limits their research to whatever pops up first? It does seem that a false hope of such sloth is what landed him in the humiliating position of having his Hockey Stick “disappeared” from the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report, placement of which in the UN’s Third AR it turns out he ensured as the relevant author. Sure, the UN apparently didn’t bother checking his claims out, but a couple of Canadians I know neither granted him that grace nor limited themselves to “the first hit” while sleuthing out the scandal, and the result — see, first, Mann, Bradley and Hughes (2004) Corrigendum, Nature July 1, 2004, page 105…then of course proceed to other sources — was rather embarrassing . And an enormous black eye for the alarmist movement.

To which I can only reply, “Thanks!”

   

05/07/2007 @ 9:08 am | Environment | No Comments

Supremes: More Power to EPA Bureaucracy

This morning the Supreme Court issued opinions in two “environmental” (actually, energy) cases with major implications, Massachusetts v. EPA and Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy (disclosure: I filed amicus briefs in both). I hope to have more comment later on the specifics of the opinions but for now note the following.

 

First, both opinions send the actions back from whence the disputes came; that is, respectively, to EPA to better explain (or capitulate on) their decision to not regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and to the lower courts to, in essence , start anew with various technical parameters having been established.

 

 

Regarding the CO2 case, CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis offers the following, inescapable and breathtaking conclusion as to the meaning of the Supremes’ opinion, both according to the five-Justice majority, and to all of us if EPA simply capitulates:

 

“The decision implies that Congress ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1977 when it enacted the Clean Air Act’s Section 202 regulating auto emissions, but somehow forgot to tell anybody. The same groups that sued EPA to regulate CO2 auto emissions under Section 202 will now sue EPA to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for CO2. However, in previous rulings, the Court has forbidden EPA to consider cost when setting NAAQS. As a result, the potential for economic harm is vast.”

 

Continue reading this post »

   

04/02/2007 @ 1:13 pm | Environment | No Comments

Everyday Kerry

Call it a case of Oscar Envy or simply the road more well-traveled, but Saturday’s Boston Globe featured a headline, “Kerry’s new book hails everyday people saving the environment.” The piece opens by noting that Kerry’s “bitter” defeat inspired him to author an environmental tome about how each of us can do such little yet surprising things to save our planet. From the jet-setting super wealthy presumably. Heck, we just might be a couple more bitter Democratic defeats from achieving Eden. Or at least a full row on the bookshelf.Kerry menaces his Dutch Uncle role in the upcoming presidential selection promise, intoning “’I'm going to sit with every one of the candidates and I’m going to urge them with every ounce that I have to make this a central issue,’ Kerry said. ‘I think it is critical’.” Oh, ye cynics out there reckoning some Gore line about making environmental salvation “a central organizing principle” of society!

Now, it’s not that these calls don’t carry weight, all coming from the Four-Mansion-Minimum Club. I’m just saying.

   

03/12/2007 @ 11:10 am | Environment, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony | No Comments

Who will foot Europe’s emissions bill?

By now you’ve read about the EU’s purported “binding” promise (again) to lead the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, during the announcement of which the ritual Euro-speak was on full, enthusiastic display. ’We can once again say to the rest of the world, Europe is taking the lead, you should join us in fighting climate change’, said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. He called the deal ‘the most ambitious package ever agreed by any institution on energy security and climate change’.” Yes, you could say that. And most in Brussels generally do, no matter what the facts say.

It appears that U.S.-based AP got carried away with EU self-congratulation in a way that German media, or the Polish President, for that matter, did not.

The following translations are courtesy of Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moore’s University and host of CCNet. Emphasis courtesy of yours truly (note that the first excerpt references that the old Member States — the EU-15 — will once again be forced to carry the burden of “new Europe,” though this time without the benefit of the UK’s one-off of a dash-to-gas or shutting down East Germany; more on that and its implications, anon):

“The European Council decides that a differentiated approach to the contributions of the Member States is needed reflecting fairness and transparency as well as taking into account national circumstances…It recognises that the implementation of these targets will be based on Community policies and on an agreed internal burden-sharing.”
—The Council of the European Union, 9 March 2007

[EU Commission President José Manuel] Barroso promised to submit a bill with binding targets later this year. This is made more difficult, however, by the fact that the European Union has formally no competence over energy policy. Hence he is dependent on the good will of member states. The lacking power of the Commission to implement the agreement could still prove to be a problem. Asked what the Commission would do if a country refuses to accept binding targets, Barroso and Merkel failed to give a convincing answer. She does not see any reason to discuss this problem today, the German Chancellor said stroppily.”
—Spiegel Online, 9 March 2007

For those holdouts among (particularly) U.S.-based media insisting on buying Europe’s claims of a grand new bargain, Polish President Lech Kaczinski has a few choice words

“‘At first reading of the initial proposal, it would seem that each EU country would need to have 20% of renewable energy sources and to cut emission by 20%, also cutting energy consumption,’ Kaczynski told a press conference in Brussels. ‘It is now apparent that every country may adopt tasks that are compliant with its own point of departure…Also, no country will be forced to adopt measures in this field without its consent.’ Kaczynski also said.German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday EU states agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by the year 2020…‘[The leaders' intention] is to reach 20% of generation from renewable energy sources as a European average,” Merkel said at a separate press conference in Brussels.”

The question remains: with “new Europe” doggedly maintaining its rhetorical refusal to actually cut emissions – matching the refusal in practice by “old Europe” – the question remains, who will foot the bill?

   

03/12/2007 @ 10:56 am | Environment | No Comments

The Devil Inside

When the White House published the Climate Action Report (CAR) in 2002, it did so in very misguided fashion.  This is because the document constitutes a catalogue of U.S. “policies and measures” relating to anthropogenic climate change, according to the Rio Treaty Articles 4.2 and 12.  This is a bad thing because the Administration believed that it could appease global warming alarmists without risk by leaving in controversial conclusions so long as it added qualifiers.  This led to no end of grief – mostly spurious cries – and even serves as the basis for claims and congressional hearings both past and coming) alleging that the White House “censored science.”

 

The next CAR is in process – and The New York Times is on the case. Further, word on the street has it – pardon my vagueness, but I now tend to put out of mind who tells me what given the show trials in which we all are possible bit players – career employees of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP, which by statute and subsequent delegation manages large parts of the document), joined by folks seconded to draft this CAR, are cleverly setting up the CAR Controversy II.  That is, they are creating a paper trail of urging the State Department (which ostensibly publishes the document) to drop the phrase “as the science justifies.”  They also purportedly have demanded that the White House stop using the phrase, not just a common sense qualifier but common throughout government policy for years.

 

This is the latest increment in the effort to impose a speech code on the subject of anthropogenic climate science.

 

Word also has it that the same individuals are obstructing publication of CAR in the name of demanding that State beef up the “scientific assessment” (more models, outcomes, etc.).  Whatever the outcome this abets Chairman Henry Waxman’s planned next installment in his series of show trials, both on “substance” and timing.

 

Game this out:  If they are rebuffed, their communications will find their way into WaxCarthyite missives shouting to the heavens of proof of censorship; if they succeed, it is (again) “proof!” but that the Bush White House (particularly the next scheduled victim, former White House Council on Environmental Quality chief of staff Phil Cooney, et al.) “censored science,” because the absence of certain parties we see at last the truth permitted, and so on.

  

Just imagine the trial lawyers salivating over the prospect of the litigation that this will foster, once “(even) the Bush Administration now admits the science is settled!”  Let us hope that the administration can learn from (CEI’s cautions, ignored) last time that this is not a throwaway document but per a ratified treaty the U.S. official position on, e.g., the science of climate change; and that dropping this common sense qualifier is one more giant step toward making the case for the Alien Tort Claims Act class our litigious barristers are now doubt desperate to certify.

   

03/12/2007 @ 10:37 am | Constitutional & Legal, Environment | No Comments

Doesn’t Always Pay to Advertise

For whatever reason, when then-economic advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Andrei Illarionov, began touting an official 2002 UK document styled “Report of an Inter-departmental Analysts Group (IAG)” on greenhouse gas reductions that would be demanded under the Kyoto agenda, the document was suddenly not to be found on Internet portals where it had previously been available.

Having recently stumbled back upon the report, it is worth reviewing the following chart (3.1, on page 31 of the document), which set forth HMG’s expert view of what should be required of a “post-2012” global warming treaty, and which was of particular interest to Illarionov, revealing one possible reason why the document “disappeared”:

The meaning of this for the Average Joe might be found in the priceless quote from then-Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom (now EU Commission Vice President), that the pain appears to be intended to fall most heavily on the U.S. (80 percent reduction from 1998 levels):

“As Margot Wallstrom, the European Union’s commissioner for the environment told The Independent of London: ‘This [global warming] is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an issue where the scientists are not unanimous. This is about international economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious.’ In other words, Ms. Wallstrom is saying it is necessary to hobble the U.S. economy to help the failing, over-regulated European economies.”

   

03/01/2007 @ 5:18 pm | Environment | No Comments

• « Earlier Posts 
•  

• About Us

  OpenMarket.org is the staff blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. We believe that people improve their lives not through government regulation, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace.

• Search

• Recent Posts

  • XM-Sirius, Dish-DirecTV Update
  • DNS Internet Flaw: How Much Worse It Could Have Been
  • Is Green Fanaticism on its Way Out?
  • Taxes Comic
  • Media Double Standards

• Categories

  Agriculture
  Bureaucrash
  CEI in the City
  Culture
  Economic Liberty
  Energy
  Environment
  Global Warming
  Healthcare Reform
  Insurance
  Intellectual Property
  International
  Legal
  Mobility
  Nanny State
  Nano & Biotech
  Odds & Ends
  Personal Liberty
  Politics as Usual
  Precaution & Risk
  Privacy
  Sanctimony
  Tech & Telecom
  Trade

• RSS Center

   Subscribe to all Posts
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Contributors

  • Al Canata
  • Alex Harris
  • Alex Nowrasteh
  • Allen Unzelman
  • Angela Logomasini
  • Chris Horner
  • Christine Hall
  • Cord Blomquist
  • Courtney Long
  • Doug Bandow
  • Eli Lehrer
  • Fran Smith
  • Fred Smith
  • Greg Conko
  • Hans Bader
  • Iain Murray
  • Ivan Osorio
  • Jody Clarke
  • John Berlau
  • Jonathan Tolman
  • Julie Walsh
  • Justin Higginbottom
  • Keith Moody
  • Lene Johansen
  • Marlo Lewis
  • Michelle Minton
  • Myron Ebell
  • Richard Morrison
  • RJ Smith
  • Ryan Lynch
  • Ryan Radia
  • Ryan Young
  • Sam Kazman
  • Wayne Crews
  • William Yeatman

• Blogroll

  • American Spectator
  • Bluey Blog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • CAGW The Swine Line
  • Cato@Liberty
  • EcoWorld
  • GlobalWarming.org
  • Tech Liberation Front

• Archives

  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • March 2006