Today’s New York Times carries an article, “Hopes fade for comprehensive climate treaty.“  It’s not that important an article about the lead-up to Copenhagen.  What’s most interesting are the comments from these NYT readers — many expressing skepticism about catastrophic global warming, confusion about the science, and linkages between energy use and economic growth. Here are some examples of those views - of course, the usual “sky is falling” comments are there too.

MrPitchfork

Maybe some day, someone will finally say, “Global…

Read the full story

In today’s E&E TV interview with Monica Trauzzi (http://www.eenews.net/tv/), UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer did not balk at Trauzzi’s statement that, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that the Senate may not see floor action on climate until next year.” Nor did he bat an eye when she said that the Obama administration seems to have ”shifted to using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions.” Like many observers, de Boer appears to have low expectations for the Waxman-Markey bill, at least for this…

Read the full story

Your host Richard Morrison welcomes returning guest co-host Jeremy Lott of the Capital Research Center and special guest Sean Higgins of Investor’s Business Daily for Episode 58 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We begin with a revolt against congressional incumbency, wicked and foolish climate policy and a political sea change in the land of the rising sun. We continue with a technology news interview with Ryan Radia and finish with some fiscally sound Olympic News.

Read the full story

The global warming community have suggested for a while now that, given the almost-certain change in US administration policy on global warming (remember John McCain’s position), the conference of the Kyoto Treaty parties in 2009 at Copenhagen would result in a sea change in global action on greenhouse gas emissions. Copenhagen would produce a new treaty, son-of-Kyoto, that would have full US participation, set stringent and enforceable emission limits aimed at getting the world to the sort of emissions levels…

Read the full story

So if the EU has just put together an agreement to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020, why are the climate alarmist groups calling it “a dark day” and “an embarrassment”?

Well, the answer is because the actual agreement is for a 4% reduction (also explained in the last link, but Roger Pielke Jr does it better). And that may be null and void if a global agreement doesn’t emerge at Copenhagen next year, which it probably won’t.

Note also that the “rich”…

Read the full story