Study: Sea-level rise threatens 1,400 U.S. cities

Island is slowly sinking as sea levels rise. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How bad is the sea-level rise? Though scientists debate the severity, a new study says at least 316 U.S. cities and towns will be mostly submerged unless pollution can be pulled from the sky.

A rise in sea levels threatens the viability of more than 1,400 cities and towns, including Miami, Virginia Beach and Jacksonville, unless there are deep cuts in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, says an analysis out Monday.

Prior emissions have already locked in 4 feet of future sea-level rise that will submerge parts of 316 municipalities, but the timing is unclear and could take hundreds of years, according to the paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. If global warming continues at its current rate through the year 2100, at least an additional 1,100 cities and towns will be mostly under water at high tide in the distant future.

"It's like this invisible threat," says author Benjamin Strauss,a scientist at Climate Central, a non-profit, non-advocacy research group based in Princeton, N.J., that's funded by foundations, individuals and federal grants. He says these sea levels are much higher than what's predicted this century — typically 1 to 4 feet — because climate change multiplies their impact over hundreds of years. Read more >>

Marsha Blackburn busts Al Gore on cap and trade corruption

Via Mish

winteryknight.wordpress.com

Surprise! Al Gore stands to gain from the cap and trade legislation that he’s backing! No wonder Democrats oppose domestic oil production.

Gateway Pundit has the story:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) challenged Al Gore’s motives for supporting climate change legislation including his links to a firm that will make millions from cap and trade:

Funny… During that same hearing Gore compared global warming skeptics to fraudster Bernie Madoff.

Video clip:

More from The Hill:

Blackburn noted Gore’s role as partner in Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, a venture capital firm that invests in technology to address global warming.

Blackburn asked Gore if he stood to benefit financially from cap-and-trade legislation, which would force companies to reduce carbon emissions. Companies would likely turn to the kinds of technologies Kleiner Perkins helps develop.

“This bill is going to fundamentally change the way America works.” Given the magnitude of those changes, I think it’s really important that no suspicion or shadow fall on the foremost advocates of climate change legislation. So I wanted to give you the opportunity to kind of clear the air about your motives and maybe set the record straight.”

Transcript:

BLACKBURN: I’ve got an article from October 8th, the New York Times Magazine about a firm called Kleiner Perkins. A capital firm called Kleiner Perkins. Are you aware of that company?

GORE: (LAUGHS) Well yes, I’m a partner at Kleiner Perkins.

BLACKBURN: So you’re a partner at Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap and trade legislation. So is the legislation that we’re discussing here today, is that something you are going to personally benefit from?

GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us. And I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a non-profit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness about why we have to take on this challenge. And Congresswoman, if you’re, if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.

BLACKBURN: I’m not making accusations. I’m asking questions that have been asked of me. And individuals, constituents that were seeking a point of clarity–

GORE: I understand exactly what you’re doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does.

BLACKBURN: Well, are, you know, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit? Does all of it go to a not-for-profit that is an educational not-for-profit.

GORE: Every penny that I have made has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy. I’ve been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there’s something wrong with being active in business in this country?

The Heritage Foundation has more on Al Gore’s testimony here.

I blogged about the increases we can expect in energy prices here.

Read my lips. Cap and trade is a tax on energy consumption: (H/T Gateway Pundit, The Heritage Foundation)

Remember Al Gore’s house?

So much that last August Tipper and Al Gore used twice as much electricity in their two-building property as an average U.S. household uses in an entire year, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a think tank, reported Tuesday.

Public power and gas bills turned up by the group show that the man behind the Oscar-winning global warming wakeup documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” uses much more overall carbon-based fuel than the average American, spending thousands of dollars a month on electricity and gas.

An inconvenient truth.

Pew Poll: Public's Priorities for 2010: Economy, Jobs, Terrorism

Pew Research Center

As Barack Obama begins his second year in office, the public’s priorities for the president and Congress remain much as they were one year ago. Strengthening the nation’s economy and improving the job situation continue to top the list. And, in the wake of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, defending the country from future terrorist attacks also remains a top priority.

At the same time, the public has shifted the emphasis it assigns to two major policy issues: dealing with the nation’s energy problem and reducing the budget deficit. About half (49%) say that dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority, down from 60% a year ago. At the same time, there has been a modest rise in the percentage saying that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, from 53% to 60%.

Other policy priorities show little change from a year ago. For example, despite the ongoing debate over health care reform, about as many now call reducing health care costs a top priority (57%) as did so in early 2009 (59%). In fact, the percentage rating health care costs a top priority is lower now than it was in both 2008 (69%) and 2007 (68%).

In addition, the percentage placing top priority on providing health insurance to the uninsured stands at 49%. That is little changed from a year ago and off its high of 61% in January 2001. Notably, there is now a wider partisan gap in opinion about this issue than for any of the other 20 issues in the survey: fully 75% of Democrats rate providing health insurance to the uninsured as a top priority compared with just 26% of Republicans.

More than six-in-ten Americans say securing the Social Security system (66%) and securing the Medicare system (63%) should be top priorities for Obama and Congress. About as many (65%) say that improving the educational system should be a top policy priority. For all three items, public evaluations are not significantly different than they were one year ago.

In the wake of the financial crisis, the public does not place increased financial regulation among its top policy priorities. Fewer than half (45%) say stricter regulation of financial institutions should be a top priority for the president and Congress.

Budget Deficit and Energy

The priority given to reducing the budget deficit has risen seven points over the last year; in early 2009, 53% of the public called deficit reduction a top priority compared with 60% in the current survey. Both Republicans (+10 points) and Democrats (+8 points) have become more likely to say this is a top priority.

Emphasis on the budget deficit has increased since 2002, when it reached a low ebb following several years of budget surpluses (from 1998 to 2001 the question was worded “paying off the national debt”). Currently, the priority given to reducing the budget deficit is not significantly higher than it was in 2008 (58% top priority) or 1997 (60% top priority) and it lags slightly behind the high of 65% in December 1994.

In the past two years, there has been no difference between the priority Republicans and Democrats place on reducing the budget deficit. In the current survey, a single point separates Republicans (61% top priority) from Democrats (60% top priority). In 2009, partisans were equally close in their views. This is a dramatic change from much of the previous decade. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats expressed far more concern than Republicans over the deficit. The opposite was true in 1997, when Bill Clinton was in office. At that time significantly more Republicans than Democrats said reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority.

Six-in-ten independents say this should be a top priority, matching the views of Republicans and Democrats. Independents’ concern over the budget deficit has been stable over the past three years.

While concern over the budget deficit has gone up, the percentage giving priority to dealing with the nation’s energy problem has declined significantly – and this decline has taken place among Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. In the current survey, 49% rate energy a top priority, down 11 points from 60% in 2009. In the late 2000s, about six-in-ten consistently gave top priority to dealing with the nation’s energy problem. The current number is more in line with views from the early years of that decade, when the percentage that said dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority ranged from the low-to-mid 40s.

Global Warming and the Environment

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public’s list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.

Jobs, Economy and Terrorism Defense

Strengthening the nation’s economy, improving the job situation and defending the country from future terrorist attacks are far-and-away the top three policy priorities for the public. No other item comes within 14 points. Last year, both the economy and jobs edged ahead of defending the nation against terrorism as top priorities. In 2008, the economy and terrorism defense were virtually tied atop the priority list, while somewhat fewer people expressed concern over jobs. In 2006 and 2007, the public was more concerned about terrorism than it was about economic issues.

Improving the job situation has moved to the top of the list only recently. For much of the past decade, the percent of the public calling the job situation a top priority fluctuated in the 60s and trailed the economy. It spiked to 82% in 2009 and stands at 81% in the current survey.

There are no major differences in how Republicans, Democrats and independents prioritize strengthening the economy. Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans and independents to rate improving the job situation as a top priority. And Republicans are slightly more inclined than Democrats and independents to give top priority to defending the country from future terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, at least 75% of all groups give top priority to these issues, and partisan differences are generally modest when compared to differences over other policy priorities.

Dueling Partisan Agendas

Despite general partisan agreement on the importance of improving the job situation, strengthening the economy and protecting the country, large differences exist between Republicans and Democrats on other leading issues.

Republicans and Democrats take starkly different positions on the importance of providing health insurance to the uninsured; 75% of Democrats call this a top priority compared with 26% of Republicans. The 49-point gap in opinion is the largest for any of the 21 issues tested. Health insurance also was the most political divisive issue a year ago, though the gap was smaller at 38 points. In the current survey, 41% of independents call providing health insurance to the uninsured a top priority.

Democrats also are far more likely than Republicans to put a top priority on dealing with global warming, the problems of poor and needy people, protecting the environment, reducing health care costs and improving the educational system. In each case, Democrats are at least 20 points more likely than Republicans to consider each of these issues top priorities.

Republicans, by contrast, place more emphasis than do Democrats on strengthening the military, dealing with illegal immigration, and reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington. Here again, the gaps in opinion are relatively large, with Republicans being about 20 points more likely than Democrats to call each of these issues top priorities.

The gap between Republicans and Democrats on reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington has widened this year; 45% of Republicans say this should be a top priority compared with 27% of Democrats. In 2009, Republicans (37%) were somewhat more likely than Democrats (30%) to call reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests a top priority. And in 2007, the partisan balance was reversed with more Democrats (44%) calling this a top priority than Republicans (28%).

Reducing the budget deficit and reducing federal income taxes for the middle class are two points of partisan agreement. Almost the same percentage of Republicans and Democrats call these issues top priorities.

State of the Union Address

With Obama’s State of the Union address set for Jan. 27, 39% say that this year’s address will be more important than past years’ addresses, while 45% think it will be about as important as previous State of the Union addresses. Just 9% say it will be less important. At 39%, the public assigns greater importance to Obama’s address than they did to the last three State of the Union speeches given by former President George W. Bush. Nonetheless, fewer see Obama’s upcoming address as more important than said that about Bush’s State of the Union addresses in 2002 and 2003.

In January 2002, 54% said that Bush’s State of the Union was more important than in previous years. Opinion was similar a year later in January 2003. The percentage saying that Obama’s State of the Union address is more important than in previous years is much greater than it was for former President Clinton’s speeches in 1999 and 2000.

About half of Democrats (54%) say that Obama’s State of the Union address will be more important than speeches in past years. Republicans and independents are less inclined to take this view: 30% of Republicans and 32% of independents say it will be more important, while pluralities of both groups say it will be about as important as past addresses (49% of independents say this, as do 47% of Republicans).

Al Gore Caught Lying at Copenhagen Summit

Image by Steve Rhodes via CrunchBase

Andrew Thomas
Al Gore shoots self, climate summit in foot
Oh dear. Saint Al Gore, the man who invented both the internet and anthropogenic global warming and made himself obscenely rich in the process, has banged yet another nail into the rickety coffin of the global warming religious cult by coming out with what scientists describe as 'a complete load of bollocks' at the Copenhagen climate worryfest.

Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, claimed that the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. One would think that in the light of the Climategate scandal, the Blessed Al would make sure that his data was accurate and pretty much bullet-proof, but sadly he merely added to the pantheon of completely fabricated climate stats.

In his speech, Gore said: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

Unfortunately, the scientist whose research was quoted by Gore, Doctor Wieslav Maslowski, rather pissed on his chips by stating:

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

A Gore spokesman backpedalled furiously, saying that the figure quoted was merely a ballpark figure that was mentioned in a conversation between the two men a few years ago.

The Copenhagen conference was already looking pretty much dead in the water yesterday after the African delegation walked out in protest at Danish moves to ignore emissions targets agreed at the Kyoto conference in 2007. Gore’s gaffe makes it look very much as if no meaningful agreement will be reached before the conference ends.

Gore’s speech was slammed by climate scientists, one of which, Jim Overland from the US Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said: “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics. You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this. It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Climate Change Bombshell: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which expose deceit, duplicity and collusion between climate researchers to maintain the fraud of the manmade global warming theory. These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details about how this fraud has been developed and perpetuated, and Dr. Ball shares his insights on what they show.

Global warming: 100% Exposed FRAUD!

Al Gore 100% exposed.

FOIA documents reveal cap and trade law would cost taxpayers $200 billion a year

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

CBS News reports:

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats' cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June -- the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to "no" -- and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

One difference is that while Heritage's numbers are talking about 26 years in the future, the Treasury Department's figures don't have a time limit.

"Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately," says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. "It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."

"They're not telling you the cost -- they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."

The FOIA'd document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: "Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.)

Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.

The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this.