While falsely portraying it as a David versus Goliath event, the Institutional Left has been caught in an orchestrated effort to attack Charles Koch, while creating a public relations event around California’s ballot initiaitve, Prop 23. Koch openly supports the cause of Liberty and we know how much today’s left hates that. Not only that, sources have now confirmed that, while portraying itself as covering this story, a writer at the Huffington Post has actually conspired in the making of it. There is no room for credible journalism for such a practice.

Look for more on that at Big Journalism.

Charles Koch Challenged to Debate Prop. 23 by California Student Leader Joel Francis

Joel Francis, a Marine Corps veteran and senior at Cal State Los Angeles, has issued a debate challenge to Koch Industries’ billionaire CEO Charles Koch on his support for the disastrous Prop 23 attack on California’s climate and clean-energy progress.

This didn’t just happen because Francis is, allegedly, merely a student leader with a veteran’s cred. Francis and his effort are part of an effort by the so called California Student Sustainability Coalition. If you scroll to the bottom of their site and read the fine print, you’ll find this: “The California Student Sustainability Coalition is a project the Earth Island Institute.

To understand the actual viewpoint the Earth Island Institute represents, take a look at this press release from them after 9/11. These are the same people propping up Joel Francis today and paying the freight to push the effort. The record below demonstrates that.

U.S. Responds to Terrorist Attacks with Self-Righteous Arrogance

We need to correct the rightist spin of the Bush administration and media. This was not an “act of war.” This was an act of anger, desperation and indignation.

This was not an “attack on Freedom.” It was a politically targeted attack on the core structures of the U.S. military and the U.S.-dominated global financial structure.

This was not an “attack on all American people.” This was not the sort of flat-out terrorism that targets random innocents at a disco or a beach. The majority of the victims were, unfortunately, working for the Pentagon and various elements of multinational financial empires.

Below is just one press release from PR firm, Tiger Comm, being used to push the story out to the media and here is Serena Conner, of Tiger Comm.

(more…)

My eye-opening experience with Enron revealed to my surprise just how it is that certain interests actually drive Big Green, and make otherwise inconceivable policy ideas into threats and often even reality. The revelation was such that it left me shaking my head in wonder as to how the (now suddenly) obvious, at least seeing how it escapes the interest of at least the establishment press cheerleading the same agenda: when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are guaranteed the enthusiastic support of Paul.

In fact — as I learned regarding Enron’s and BP’s pet projects, “carbon cap-and-trade” and related ‘green jobs’ schemes all designed to make uneconomic investments in windmills etc. pay off — sometimes the entire enterprise is Paul’s idea.

So it is that we see with deep pocketed gents now scrambling to protect their bets on uneconomic investments and rent-seeking schemes, by supporting the campaign to defeat Proposition 23 in California. Prop 23 would delay California’s climatically meaningless but economically suicidal state-level adoption of Kyoto agenda, called AB 32. Oddly, there is no condemnation of these bags of money being thrown at killing a ballot initiative, despite the opprobrium heaped upon those few who have dared venture in to help the “Yes” campaign.

This is a shame, for the question Cui bono? is so readily answered simply by scanning the growing list of those digging deep to make sure the ‘green’ gravy train of wealth transfers isn’t derailed (regardless of the fairly obvious economic consequences if they are successful, which in a rational world would be of great interest to a watchdog press).

(more…)

National Journal ran a piece yesterday (behind a paywall) by the German Marshall Fund’s Bruce Stokes, making the arguments that will be ratcheted up in the Senate beginning on Monday in favor of mandating windmills and solar panels: if we don’t mandate them, we not only won’t be using them but we won’t be making them either! This dire situation will leave the Chinese only themselves to sell the things to. Carry the one and you see how that harms our competitiveness.

Where to begin? At the root of this ritual case is a strange notion that being a leader in something – here, it’s windmills or solar panels – is intrinsically a desirable end. As I discuss in “Power Grab”: if we’re not the world’s windmill king…so what? It’s a windmill. It is not, as President Obama said, a new technology”, one of his rhetorical repetitions the curiosity of which should require no elaboration. Windmills are not a strategic industry. We have centuries of fossil fuels.

And after all this time windmills have come about as far as they can and will come with the possible exceptions of improvements in efficiency at the margins(solar is spectacularly worse). The laws of physics will not be repealed, the wind cannot be made to blow any more or regularly, and you will not decrease the host of very troubling NIMBY and other issues elaborated here by George Will.

Even rabid demander of such mandates, Obama’s Science Czar” (and population nut) John Holdren implicitly acknowledges the falsehood of the sales pitch that we can replace energy sources that work with windmills and solar panels. This leaves us with the principal argument in favor of these costly schemes, reported by E&E News last week as even acknowledged by Brookings Institute economist Adele Morris, as “the immediate need to reduce emissions”.

(more…)

We will call the whole thing off.

Although the media altered the story line beginning in March 2001, the inescapable fact is that the Clinton administration doomed the Kyoto treaty by agreeing to something for which there was insufficient will in Congress. Clinton thereby put our name and political prestige on the line recklessly, hoping to pressure Congress, but leading to eight years of (largely either uninformed or simply disingenuous) harping about the wretchedness of George W. Bush refusing to follow through on Clinton’s political commitment.

By this and according to none other than candidate Barack Obama, our national name was tarnished. He vowed to restore it. He has not only failed but made things worse, though we should remain thankful for small favors such as this.

(more…)

All across this nation, families and businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and many more worry that they will be next. But Americans are meeting these times with courage and by putting first things first, at least everywhere but the White House.

It is astonishing that in the midst of the worst recession in 26 years, this administration and Democrat leaders continue to advance job-killing proposals like the national energy tax and will carry that message to the global warming convention in Copenhagen.

Rather than making a priority of creating jobs, the president plans to attend negotiations at the United Nation’s convention on climate change in Denmark. This decision is wrong on several levels. The administration’s participation in the Copenhagen negotiations raises a number of concerns that the president should address before catching his flight.

(more…)

Imagine if a Bush administration official had said this:

“For most of the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, people were blissfully ignorant of the fact that emissions caused a greenhouse effect. It’s a relatively recent phenomenon.”

That was the Obama administration’s “special envoy for climate change”, Todd Stern. Now, the Industrial Revolution is generally accepted as having begun in or about 1850. And of course Svante Arrhenius famously posited the greenhouse effect hypothesis in 1896 (and as a very beneficial thing, incidentally). So, it’s fair to say that this claim is somewhat off.

(more…)

Here’s something to consider for those who wondered why the usual suspects flew up in arms earlier this week over reports that ‘Circle of Commitment’, countries including the U.S., were seeking to wrest control of the Kyoto revenue mechanism to the World Bank (there’s no such move afoot, incidentally; that was merely an overwrought reaction to said suspects finding something that they hadn’t been allowed to write).

That of course would have implications for the “global carbon offset market” if Kyoto II ropes us in and finally begins chugging down the tracks, next stop “Oil for Food on Steroids”.

Today’s Open Europe press briefing includes the following item (in bold in original):

(more…)

Believe it or not, the UN just whined that climategate is the Russian’s fault. It appears that the United Nation’s position is that the obvious cover-up of the false doctrine that is global warming perpetrated by global warming “scientists” is not the fault of the lying scientists, but that of the assumed “paid” Russian hacker that hacked the globaloney scientist’s emails and exposed the cover-up to the world. Convoluted reasoning, no?

Remember when you were a child and your Mother discovered through hearing about it from the neighbors that you were doing something you weren’t supposed to be doing? Remember how instead of taking responsibility for your actions you cried that it wasn’t right that someone narced on you? Well, that is the same sort of childish, facile reasoning that the UN has employed to explain away this climaegate scandal.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), recently said that the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were obtained and hyped by Russia in order to “destroy public confidence” in the “science” of man-made global warming… or is it now “climate change”? It’s hard to keep up with their constant name changing as they look for more sellable rhetoric.

(more…)

Over at the Weekly Standard, the always impressive Steven Hayward has a good summation of where we are in Climate Gate:

Slowly and mostly unnoticed by the major news media, the air has been going out of the global warming balloon. Global temperatures stopped rising a few years ago, much to the dismay of the climate campaigners. The U.N.’s upcoming Copenhagen conference–which was supposed to yield a binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction treaty as a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol–collapsed weeks in advance and remains on life support pending Obama’s magical intervention. Cap and trade legislation is stalled on Capitol Hill. Recent opinion polls from Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen, ABC/Washington Post, and other pollsters all find a dramatic decline in public belief in human-caused global warming. The climate campaigners continue to insist this is because they have a “communications” problem, but after Al Gore’s Nobel Prize/Academy Award double play, millions of dollars in paid advertising, and the relentless doom-mongering from the media echo chamber and the political class, this excuse is preposterous. And now the climate campaign is having its Emperor’s New Clothes moment.

In mid-November a large cache of emails and technical documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Britain were made available on a number of Internet file-servers for download by the public–either the work of a hacker or a leak from a whistleblower on the inside. The emails–more than 1,000 of them–reveal a small cabal of scientists who, in the words of MIT’s Michael Schrage, engaged in “malice, mischief and Machiavellian maneuverings.” In an ironic twist, one of the frequent correspondents in this long e‑trail (University of Arizona scientist Jonathan Overpeck) warned several of his colleagues in September, “Please write all emails as though they will be made public.” Small wonder why. It’s being called Climategate, but more than one wit is calling them “the CRUtape Letters.”

(more…)

I have one item of suggested reading before passing judgment on the occasionally strident internet-sensation that is the commentary by Lord Monckton on the draft negotiating text for an anticipated U.S. signature in December — certain to be delayed, to July — on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol (discussed with Monckton on BreitbartTV here). That instrument is of course the “global treaty” assigning economically damaging responsibilities to 35 industrialized countries (the titans Iceland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovakia…) but not 155 others (such as tiny China, India, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia…) .

The reason I suggest this is because one of the more hot-button items Monckton raises, the Kyotophile desire to get around at least half of the allegedly out-dated concept of Article II “advice and consent”, has, despite certain parties insisting that Monckton’s commentary offers nothing of interest…move along now…for more than a year been telegraphed by Obamaphile activists. It was even alluded to in a paper by someone who now carries the title of our nation’s “Climate Envoy” (really). And now the Obama administration is reported to have briefed European diplomats to be ready to accommodate certain delays and procedures that this would require.

First, allow me to note one particular, relevant specific on which I differ with Lord Monckton’s assessment. That is the notion that the administration would just adopt Kyoto through domestic legislation. He may just be short-handing it here, which if so, I understand, but it is important to get the specifics on the record. It is of course the point of the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bills to adopt Kyoto’s principal obligation of carbon dioxide emission reduction, though these bills’ only international components are direct and indirect wealth transfers of a few billion dollars a year to other countries. There are no substantive sovereignty implications, outside of certain energy security concerns.

(more…)

One learns a new language upon first wading into the world of ,what’s favorably called by the Al Gores and Jacques Chiracs of the world, “global governance”. That term, used in all seriousness and intended as a compliment, means the web of international agreements (typically in the name of the environment), committing the prosperous world to agree to  do things it would never enact via its own democratic processes. New words such as “subsidiarity” and “additionality” are forged and tossed around like Mardi Gras beads at earnest negotiating sessions and in deathless texts. It’s Esperanto for the bossy jet-setters racked with guilt over your lifestyle.

Another of my favorites is “capacity building”, which means wealth transfers to prepare a poor society to receive a larger wealth transfer in the future. You see, certain among those societies our green superiors are trying to hector into behaving in a certain way – which is all of them – are not yet able to deal with the financial windfall due them from the Kyoto Protocols of the world. These international agreements frankly are more about redistribution than anything else. For example, Kyoto is in no way about actually reducing “greenhouse gas emissions”, but instead it creates a Ponzi-like scheme of paying other countries to sell you pieces of paper saying that you reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

And a good thing, too, because those few countries who are covered by Kyoto have all – like the rest of the world – increased their actual emissions since agreeing to this “historic emissions reduction pact.” Still, as we approach the December deadline for agreeing to a successor, Kyoto will be nonetheless be hailed for its accomplishment. Maybe by this they mean the recent cooling.

(more…)