Scientists will this week warn that Italy may be forced to import the basic ingredients for pasta, its national food, because climate change will make it impossible to grow durum wheat.

In a report to be released by the Met Office tomorrow, scientists predict that Italy’s durum yields will start to decline from 2020 and the crop will almost disappear from the country later this century.

The report will say: “Projected climate changes in this region, in particular rising temperature and decreasing rainfall, may seriously compromise wheat yields.”

Is this the same Met Office who was left red faced after predicting a “barbecue summer,” yet ended up with an wet summer? The same one that had to back off on their unhinged Arctic predictions? The one that refuses to release their raw data? The one that is throwing out yet another “we only have 10 years left” prediction? That one?

Meanwhile, Al Gore was boo’d by hundreds of people during a speech in Florida.

The AP beclowns itself with a story about Hawaii’s shrinking beaches, caused by AGW, of course, but…

Chip Fletcher, a University of Hawaii geology professor, says scientists in Hawaii haven’t yet observed an accelerated rate of sea level rise due to global warming.

Instead, the erosion the islands are experiencing now is caused by several factors including a steady historical climb in sea levels that likely dates back to the 19th century.

Oops!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Men should urinate outside on their compost heaps to help fertilise their gardens and save on flushing the lavatory, the National Trust has urged.

The rather unusual practice is already actively encouraged at stately homes around the country where “pee bales” have been deposited in secluded areas of National Trust gardens to allow male members of staff to relieve themselves.

The Trust, which actively campaigns on climate change, said answering the call of nature outside saves both on water and the energy used in flushing the lavatory.

At Wimpole Estate in Cambridgeshire up to 20 male staff are being encouraged to use a straw “pee bale” that is then added to the compost heap and eventually spread on the garden and fields.

Is there any need to discuss how nuts this is? Nope. But, we can always pray three times a day to Mother Gaia to help her cool down. Oh, wait, we are already cooling down.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A POLITICAL row has broken out over a Derby Conservative councillor’s decision to show a climate change-sceptic film in the city’s council chamber.

The new film, Not Evil Just Wrong, is a documentary which suggests evidence of global warming is inconclusive and that the impact climate change laws will have on industry is much more harmful to humans than beneficial. It is a direct challenge to Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, with was shown to councillors in Derby during Labour’s control of the authority in 2007.

Tory councillor Frank Leeming put forward the idea to show the new film today, sparking criticism from Labour councillors.

Wait, they were having a freak out simply because it was suggested that the film be shown last Saturday? A freak out included a request that the Conservative chairman resign? I wonder if they felt the same when Gore’s “movie” was shown? You know, the one which a British judge ruled was full of lies and half-truths, excuse me, 9 significant errors, which had to be told to the kiddies before they are forced to watch the propaganda piece.

“We are a democratic group which allows free speech. I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t do this,” (Harvey Jennings, leader of the Conservative group) said.

Bah, Free Speech is so over-rated in Liberal World.

The Leadership Campaign, a Massachusetts-based student-run group focused on the environment, is looking to have a series of sleep-overs on Boston Common imbued with a sense of urgency about taking action on the environment.

“Hey, we’re bringing awareness. We aren’t actually doing anything to reduce our own carbon footprints, that’s for someone else to do.” After the sleep-0vers, which they say will continue till the Copenhagen AGW working vacation, they are going to march down to the State House to whine. That should go well, seeing as how they certainly will have had no showers. I bet even Harry Reid would complain about the smell.

Over at the Daily Wildcat, after a bit of overly hysterical AGW claims, such as a potential global temp rise of 11.5 degrees F, we get

So what can we do? For the average college student, financial viability takes precedence over environmentally friendly alternatives to their lifestyle and this is completely understandable. Installing solar panels on your home and buying a Toyota Prius are simply not feasible ways to reduce your carbon footprint for most people. But there is a way to minimize the detrimental impact that you personally are having on our environment without having to make a radical change to your lifestyle or budget.

The answer is semi-vegetarianism.

Eating different food as a social statement. Only in Liberal World. And, the opinion writer even tells us the story of a freshman who is a vegan not because she likes it, but to “try to offset the average American’s consumption of meat.” Bet she is fun at parties.

It doesn’t matter whether you consider yourself to be environmentally conscious or not. We are all equally responsible for allowing the health of our earth to continue to deteriorate. We can no longer afford to be ignorant of the devastating effects that cultivating livestock has on global warming. You have no excuse.

Except, the health of the Earth is in no danger. Even if the temps went up 11.5 F, the Earth would get along just fine. You want to talk about actual pollution, I’m there with you. If you want to go climastupid, well, I’ll leave the rest of that thought un-written.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Cary Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard CEO and probable candidate for U.S. Senate from California, is starting to look like a viable choice for conservative voters in the Golden State, giving the GOP two conservatives from whom to choose.

Fiorina’s bona fides have been a question to many California Republicans because she is a relative newcomer to politics and many are not familiar with her political philosophy or what her campaign will stand for. But her recent hard hitting editorial in the Fresno Bee helps bring her ideals better into focus for the voters.

Firoina’s editorial in the Bee focuses on the water controversy of the San Joaquin Valley. As many know, a federal bureaucracy has summarily shut off water to thousands of acres of farmland merely in order to save a fish; the delta smelt. This enviro-activism has shut down thousands of acres of farmland and put thousands of residents out of work. Down the line it will also negatively affect the nation’s food supply because the San Joaquin Valley supplies much of our vegetables and fruits.

Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) recently said that the water crisis is a manmade one.

Here is the truth about federal water regulations that are cutting our local water supplies in the name of saving endangered fish: We are being punished for pollution entering the water system as far north as Sacramento and beyond, as well as for the predatory bass and other stressors beyond our area’s control.

So this situation is a volatile one pitting environmentalists against workers of the Valley. It would be easy for a candidate to soft sell a stance on this issue in an attempt to satisfy both the fish lovers out there and the residents that are losing their livelihoods. Fiorina, however, came out strong in her position.

Fiorina is unequivocal on her stance: the water should be turned on regardless of what it is doing to the fish. Of her fact finding trip to the Valley, Fiorina said:

The day began with a visit to a local farm and a thorough briefing by water and agriculture experts. They provided a realistic assessment of the ill-considered actions that have literally turned off the spigot and prevented farmers from getting the water necessary to put their land into production.

She agreed with Senator Dianne Feinstein for supporting a federal study to investigate California’s water crisis, but said that the water should not be shut off during this study period.

Pragmatism calls for a solution that provides economic relief to a devastated region. It continues with a review and improvement of the science as Sen. Feinstein has recommended.

Ideology should not triumph over common sense and compassion. Leaders in our state and nation should focus on our top priority — jobs and opportunity.

Clearly Fiorina is promulgating a strong conservative principle here. It seems likely that conservatives will find much to like about Fiorina’s stance at least on this issue.

In the meantime, Barbara Boxer voted against this sort of solution by turning down Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment that would temporarily return the water to the Valley as the situation is studied. Boxer’s solution is to allow the harm to the Valley’s delicate economy to continue while bureaucrats dither and ponder the lives of fish.

Still, Fiorina has a long way to go — including making her campaign official and not just exploratory — before she is a lock. To be sure Chuck DeVore, an announced Republican candidate for Senate (chuckdevore.com/), has been in the race for some time unlike Fiorina who is still in the exploratory phase of her effort. A recent poll pitting DeVore against Fiorina finds respondents rating the two nearly even. The poll also shows greater than half the respondents are undecided, however, and both candidates seem to have an uphill battle against incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer, with Fiorina having a slight advantage over DeVore on this count.

It is clear that both Fiorina and DeVore have a ways to go to convince California’s Republican voters that they are the right choice. Fiorina in particular has a lot of work to do if she is to convince voters that she is the right choice. This trip and editorial should help reveal her viability. She has launched a website, though like many, I am not a big fan of it and it’s sort of hokey kicker line: “Carlyfornia Dreamin!!!” (yes, it does have all three exclamation marks). But let’s not mark a candidate by how cool her website is, shall we?

Finally, I can’t resist this. I just have to show you DeVore’s great ad displaying the ill-tempered Barbara Boxer:

And let’s be clear here. No matter who the Republicans pick as a candidate for Senate, This, Boxer, is what they face.

(Cross posted at RedCounty.com.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

This week Natural England officially deemed the ring-necked parakeet as a pest, making it possible to shoot the birds without a licence.

However Dr Ian Rotherham, Director of the Environmental Change Research Unit at Sheffield Hallam University, said there is a danger that labelling parakeets as a “nasty alien” just because they are from abroad could be seen as a form of “racism” towards a foreign species.

Intones Dr. Rottenham:

If there is a problem – for example with the birds taking fruit – then we have to take steps to deal with it. If you start to label it as alien then that is some sort of racism. Eco-xenophobia is the label I would use.

Another birdbrain concurs:

Matthew Frith, Deputy Chief Executive of the London Wildlife Trust, said parakeets were “as British as curry” and agreed it was dangerous to label the birds as a pest just because they are foreign.

Farmers complain that the parakeets eat their crops, but rather than resort to violence, it would be more correct of them to open a dialogue, and attempt to establish the root causes of the birds’ pestilent behavior.

Good thing rattus norvegicus doesn’t come from a place where people have swarthy skin, or ecokooks would proclaim rat traps to be racist.

On a tip from Steve T. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Here’s a heretical thought, one that might even further inflame the great global-warming slanging match. Has the world set out to tackle climate change in the wrong way? It’s not, I admit, the most tactful moment to put the question. On Tuesday the heads of the world’s governments meet in New York for the first universal climate summit. This is just the most important of a series of high-level get-togethers addressing the issue, which started on Thursday with a meeting of ministers from the most polluting countries, and continues to the G20 summit in Pittsburgh at the end of the week. But it has to be asked. For more than 20 years the world has been trying to negotiate agreements to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and felling forests. But they have gone on growing: indeed, their rate of growth has been accelerating.

Concentrating on carbon dioxide was understandable. It is, after all, the biggest single cause of climate change. Scientists have known for more than 180 years that it warms up the atmosphere, and – for more than 110 – roughly what the effects of increasing its concentration would be.

How does one type a harsh buzzer noise? Bzzt doesn’t cut it. Maybe a Gonnnnnnnnnnng!? Regardless, what is the actual biggest cause of climate change? That would be the Sun. Then you have things like water vapor, volcanoes, the Earth’s axial tilt, and other natural forces. We also know that CO2 increases tend to follow temperature increases. We also know that there tends to be an 800 year lag for CO2 increases, as in, something happened 800 years ago, CO2 concentrations go up.

But CO2 is only responsible for about half of the problem. The rest is caused by other pollutants. No worldwide attempt has been made to control some of them, even though doing so would be much less contentious and would reduce global warming far faster.

Sigh. Still wrong. And those were the first three paragraphs of the article.

Take black carbon, which gives soot its colour. It is now accepted to be the second biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for between 10 and 25 per cent of it. Formed through incomplete combustion of wood, vegetation and fossil fuels, it lands a unique double whammy.

Nope. Unless Geoffrey is specifically talking about what Mankind is doing, and then, according to the UN IPCC reports, the number one gas is methane, which pretty much elicits giggles and, um, breaking wind jokes and recollections. Speaking of which, there was this one time back in college when we made Hamburger Helper Chili Mac for dinner and….. well, maybe another time.

The real problem is that people set out to deal with a fake issue and reduced true environmental concerns to subsidies of anthropogenic global warming, a term which they couldn’t even stick with since over that period of time. We should put our energies into keeping the environment as clean as we can, a worthy goal. Besides, science is science. Once you start down the road Geoffrey has gone, it becomes politics, which is strictly where AGW is at.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

One of the most effective ways a President influences public policy and law in a lasting manner is through regulatory actions taken by the federal government. It’s not an area that typically garners substantial media attention because regulatory work is generally a highly technical matter performed by policy wonks largely unknown to the public.

Yet, despite their general obscurity, federal regulations have a substantial impact on virtually every facet of society. And the personnel who oversee the regulatory process have far greater influence than most would imagine.

Chief among the personnel who oversee the regulatory process is the administrator of an unheralded office within the White House’s Office of Management and Budget called the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The administrator is also known as the “Regulatory Czar.” Earlier this year the President nominated Cass Sunstein to run this office. Sunstein’s nomination is now pending before the full Senate. A vote on his nomination is expected next week….

Some of Mr. Sunstein’s views are troubling to say the least. He is on record supporting rights for animals including giving standing to private persons to sue on behalf of animals under existing laws. He has also stated that he believes there should be more regulation in the area of animal rights.

This is slippery slope to say the least. What will happen if he is presented with a regulatory situation where he is free to “follow the law” as well as advance his own personal views at the same time? And what if he uses the power of this office to influence the law he then eagerly follows?

In my own past work experience, I’ve had substantial firsthand experience with OIRA. The office can be a bear to deal with since it has life and death power over regulatory actions. And I have seen how the personal views of OIRA staff can become dangerously problematic, as the regulators attempt to push the law in one way or another because they are in a position to affect (or even craft) law, not just follow it.

More HERE

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

More forests, deserts and grasslands in the U.S. will be used to produce energy under a proposal to cap greenhouse gases, an unintended consequence of efforts to fight global warming, according to a Nature Conservancy report.

A bill that boosts energy from wind turbines and biofuels will increase the amount of land needed for energy development as much as 48 percent, or almost 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) during the next 20 years, said Robert McDonald, a scientist with the Arlington, Virginia-based Nature Conservancy environmental group. An area larger than Minnesota will be affected even without any climate change bill, he said.

Wait, a “green” organization is saying this? Whoa! Did something just freeze over?

In reality, they are correct, and this has actually been a concern for many groups, particularly those who care about the environment, and aren’t linking every little thing to AGW. It takes quite a bit of clear cut land to build solar receptor farms. To light up San Diego, it takes 5 square miles of desert. Of course, they still need a nuclear or coal plant fully on-line for when it is dark or cloud covered. Wind farms will take up large amounts of space, too. This means less trees, which are heavily controlled in Waxman-Markey.

The problem with Democrats in government is that intentions and actions are what count, not results and consequences. They want pie in the sky energy, but, they do not consider what will actually happen, because their intentions are “pure.” Yes, we need to consider other options. Personally, I would like to see more research into making small home solar and wind units considerably better at capturing energy, rather than large area plants. There are certainly areas where large solar and wind farms could be created, but, interestingly, it is often the same environmentalists and Democrats who block these projects. A certain Senator who shall remain nameless was primary in blocking the Cape Wind Project. It interfered with his boating.

I wish I could find the two links again, but, even on ye olde Interwebz, some things can be hard to find. First, there is a solar project outside Los Angeles that was blocked because environmentalists sued over the transmission line. Second, there was a paper I read a few years ago about the potential for large amounts of solar panels to cause serious problems to the earth, because the solar light was not reaching the ground in sufficient quantity, and because not enough light was being reflected back into the atmosphere, light needed to make sure the greenhouse effect continues and keeps the Earth warm enough for life.

And then there is the land needed to grow corn, used to create ethanol which is virtually worthless when compared to gasoline. Oh, and it requires huge amounts of water to create. Oh, oh, and then there is the fact that it is worse that gas when it comes to CO2 output. But, hey, intentions over consequences.

Meanwhile, Senator Mary Landrieu is against cap and trade.

CO2 causes global cooling. Wait, what?

A climahysteric soft prOn site? Yup. Anthony Watts has the details.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

New research shows oxygen depletion in the atmosphere has been accelerating since 2003, coinciding with the biofuels boom.

Yup, Mankind.

The Institute of Science in Society (SiS) which published the research says that climate policies that focus exclusively on carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans.

Sadly, action to tackle climate change mitigating policies are almost all aimed at reducing CO2 without considering other climate change factors.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. So, have fun, and leave a good looking corpse.

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho who compiled the research, reports that within the past several years, scientists have found that oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere has been dropping, and at higher rates than just the amount that goes into the increase of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, some 2 to 4-times as much, and accelerating since 2002-2003. Simultaneously, oxygen levels in the world’s oceans have also been falling. Although the causes for the sudden acceleration in oxygen depletion are yet unclear, changes to natural ecosystems through deforestation and the expansion of agriculture could be playing a significant role.

So, they have no clue what the causes are, but, hey, why not blame it on Mankind through a leap of “logic”? But, yeah, about those trees. Oh, and here, too. And here.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

When First Lady Michelle Obama planted an organic vegetable garden on the White House lawn in March 2009, she hoped to both set an example of healthy eating and to grow tasty edibles for her daughters and husband. But Michelle’s organic dream has been dashed by a nasty toxic legacy lurking in the soils of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It turns out that a previous Presidential gardening team had used sewage sludge for fertilizer.

This is a fairly common practice with one huge problem. Sewage sludge tends to be laced with anything that people pour down the drain and often contains heavy metals. Not surprisingly, the National Park Service tested the dirt beneath Michelle’s garden and found the plot has highly elevated levels of lead averaging 93 parts per million. That’s below the 400 ppm that the Environmental Protection Agency says is a threat to human health. But I’d wager that Sasha, Malia and Barack won’t be getting arugula or tomatoes from this garden any time soon.

The likely source of the toxic sludge that has ruined Michelle’s garden? The Clinton White House apparently used a sludge-based product to fertilize the lawn during the 1990s! Aside from casting a shadow on the first White House vegetable garden since Eleanor Roosevelt resided there, the sludge ensures that Michelle’s garden will never attain organic status. Organic certification processes strictly prohibit the use of sludge as a fertilizer substitute.

Oops! All you barkers can’t blame this one on Bush.

In reality, organic might be nice for a small garden, but, pesticides are wonderful things, so people do not have to sit out there and pick the bugs off constantly. Bugs that lay their eggs, as well as leave diseases, on the produce. Is it really a wise idea to use fecal waste (you know, that S word) as fertilizer? Try cleaning out all sorts of unwanted plants by hand in a farm field. The regular large farm produces way more food with less labor, and the food is in better condition, than organic. Yields can be 20% lower. And it is really no better for the environment. Among other issues.

Personally, I would prefer not finding screw worms in the stuff I eat.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post