This is a great video. Highly recommended viewing.

One of the subjects covered are the ideas of Julian Simon (one of our heroes), which Bjorn Lomborg enthusiastically agrees with and inspired him in his research which resulted in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. For those unfamiliar with Simon, his grand idea was:

I recently read an article over at the Duke Chronicle that discussed the link between global warming and hurricanes and, more importantly, the inability to link global warming and hurricanes.  The article says that Hurricane Ike reignited the debate of whether or not a link exists between hurricanes and climate change.  Having done my own study on the connection between tropical systems and temperature, I can tell you that I didn’t see any connection.  Activists, however, see things differently.  Al Gore recently tried to link the two, citing higher temperatures that cause more ocean water to evaporate, leading to stronger storms.

I’ve written many posts in the past that outlined the debate over hurricanes and global warming.  From insurance rates going up for those living along the coast because of global warming to genuine debates over the impact of climate change on tropical storms.  It comes as no surprise to skeptics of climate change that no one really knows whether or not hurricanes and global warming can be linked.  It’s a big guessing game as computer models just don’t possess the ability to model every single element of the atmosphere and derive accurate results.

With the clock ticking down to what some are calling “Energy Freedom Day” — October 1, 2008, when the congressional bans on offshore oil drilling and onshore oil-shale development are set to expire — anti-drilling Democrats have backed down from a high-stakes stand-off that could have caused a government shutdown and will now result in the complete demise of the drilling bans. This is a stunning victory for grassroots activists over environmental special interests and business-as-usual in Washington. If not derailed, it also will be great news for all American consumers.

Here’s a behind-the-scenes look at how the pro-drilling victory transpired.

With the “meltdown” on Wall Street, it looks like global warming is striking the financial markets.

Don’t laugh. It must have gone somewhere because it’s not doing as the left and the media had warned. Just a few months ago, supposedly responsible journalists were telling us that the Arctic could be ice free this summer because of the dreaded realties of warming.

There are 1.74 million reasons why that didn’t happen. That’s how many square miles of ice are still standing after Arctic ice hit its low point for the season.

On July 28, NBC’s Anne Thompson was the one on ice patrol. “But this summer, some scientists say that ice could retreat so dramatically that open water covers the North Pole, so much so that you could sail across it.”

Collapse of financial institutions is just part of a disturbing failure of leadership in the business segment of society. It is part of a wider crisis of leadership at all levels of society, but is the most immediate and potentially dangerous right now. The business world pushed by government has capitulated to greed and deception and has put people in financial jeopardy. Sadly, all this plays to a conundrum identified by David Lillenthal, Big business is basic to the very life of this country; and yet many--perhaps most--Americans have a deep-seated fear and an emotional repugnance to it. Here is monumental contradiction.

The financial debacle is serious but ultimately small change compared to the cost of unnecessary programs to deal with non-existent global warming, natural climate change and many other so-called environmental problems. 

As Louise Gray explained in The Daily Telegraph, 17 September 2008 about the problems facing Britain, ”We are looking at something that looks like a slow motion train crash,” Fells said, accusing the government of vacillating over climate change and energy policy, starving the power industry of direction and reducing investment to a minimum.

Why Do Most Climate Skeptics Accept ‘The Consensus’ that Humans are the Principal Source of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels?

WE have all heard about the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.   Along with most people, I have accepted that this is mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels. After-all, this is the accepted view, even for most so-called climate change skeptics.

But there is evidence indicating that most of the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be from natural sources.

So, asks Alan Siddons from Holden, Massachusetts, why do most climate skeptics tacitly and even explicitly accept that man is the culprit?  

Let’s consider some of the available evidence.