The BEEB came up with a BS theory that CO2 is “Killing Nemo,” the clownfish from the popular Disney cartoon feature. It seems that the fish are losing hearing due to increased acidification of the oceans due to CO2 absorption. However, the Blogprof debunks the story in the following paragraph:

Now, what interested me about the article the most is the above argument is a tacit admission that any extra CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t stay in the atmosphere but is rather absorbed by various surfaces and media including the ocean. This undermines the alarmists claim that extra CO2 produced by man remains in the atmosphere and causes global warming. you cannot have both. Either the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere or it does not. It turns out that the acidification of the oceans is more backed by science than non-existent global warming: News: CO2 levels in atmosphere haven’t changed in at least 150 years
.

Via: Planet Gore

When the Governator signed the California ammo microstamping bill, we knew we had to be out of there. Our other focus, of course, was the insane green policies endorsed by this P.O.S.

Ramirez seems to share our latter viewpoint with his latest . . .

Ramirez notices that we’re getting the usual half-truth from the Japanese disaster.

Dilbert gets some insight into the greenbat mentality . . .

I cannot believe that I saw this billboard just a quarter mile from the acres and acres of these ugly wind generation machines. Where are the enviro-nuts when the viewing pleasure of those gorgeous snow capped mountains is being obstructed by these monstrosities? There are roughly twenty-five miles of these inefficient, expensive and eye-offensive whirling obscenities from Palm Springs, CA to Cabazon, CA along Interstate 10 in the Banning Pass between Mount San Jacinto and Mount San Gorgonio. Click on the image to enlarge.

We always laugh at the dudes we see in the so-called “Smart Car.” Imagine a head-on with a Hummer or something else substantial.

From WUWT:

Looking at Dr. Roy Spencer’s daily UAH plotter, comparing to last year at this time, globally we are nearly a full degree Fahrenheit cooler.

First, there is the matter of General Motors taking the government bailout. And now, there is a candid admission by GM’s North American President, Mark Reuss that they really don’t care what their customers think.

From Henry Payne via Planet Gore:

The Government Auto Show

With four inches of snow blanketing Detroit outside Cobo Convention Center and flakes falling on 49 of 50 U.S. states (Florida excepted), GM announced at the Detroit Auto Show this week that it is developing an all-electric vehicle fleet to combat . . . global warming.

Americans are flocking to snow-covered dealer lots to trade in their compact sedans for four-wheel drive SUVs, but The General also rolled out a new Chevy subcompact and the first Buick compact.

GM’s North American president, Mark Reuss, made it clear what’s driving product development. “Forget about gas prices. The regulatory environment through 2016 is going to dictate what we do,” he said. “You got to plan your portfolio to be there from a CO2 greenhouse gas standpoint.”

In a rare candid moment, a major auto executive admitted that what motivates today’s auto production is not the consumer — it’s the government.

For complete auto show coverage, go to The Michigan View.com.

Emphasis added.

This is reprinted from the Senate EPW Blog. Senator James Inhofe presents yet another dingy Democrat dupe . . .

For some, global warming is the sinister cause of every problem plaguing the world-even the conflict between India and Pakistan.

[Image - Half-wit Holbrooke]

This misapprehension has apparently taken hold of Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars, Holbrooke believes there is a “global warming dimension” of the India-Pakistan conflict.”In one discussion about the tensions between Pakistan and India,” Woodward wrote, “Holbrooke introduced a new angle. ‘There’s a global-warming dimension of this struggle, Mr. President,’ he said.” Woodward wrote that Holbrooke’s “words baffled many in the room.” It’s not hard to see why.

“‘There are tens of thousands of Indian and Pakistani troops encamped on the glaciers in the Himalayas that feed the rivers into Pakistan and India,’ [Holbrooke] said. ‘Their encampments are melting the glaciers very quickly. There’s a chance that river valleys in Pakistan and perhaps even India could be flooded.’”

Woodward reported that attendees were incredulous. “After the meeting,” Woodward wrote, “there were several versions of one question: Was Holbrooke kidding? He was not. Holbrooke subsequently detailed his concerns in a written report.” I among many others would surely like to read Holbrooke’s report. I wonder if it notes the massive gaffe committed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific body responsible for, among other treasures, the Kyoto Protocol.

Back in January, the IPCC was forced to retract a claim, buried in its dense 2007 climate change report, that the Himalayan glaciers would very likely melt away by 2035 (”very likely” in the IPCC’s rendering means more than a 90% chance of occurring). It turns out the IPCC was off by 300 years. The mistake sparked an international outcry. Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial head of the IPCC, admitted that “the clear and well-established standards of evidence required by the IPCC procedures were not applied properly.” One wonders what those procedures looked like.

In fact, the 2035 claim was based on a 2005 paper by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an activist environmental group. WWF in turn got it from an Indian glaciologist who, according to the Guardian newspaper in London, conceded that his work was “speculative.” Glaciologists interviewed by that paper said that “Himalayan glaciers contain so much ice it will be 300 years before it vanishes.” It turned out that the glacier gaffe was one of many undermining the credibility of the IPCC’s 2007 report, and of the IPCC itself. I have followed the inner workings of the IPCC for years, so these revelations came as no surprise. Yet I would have hoped that a senior government official responsible for such a sensitive matter as relations between India and Pakistan would know better.

Even more troubling is Holbrooke’s apparent acceptance of the notion that global warming poses national security threats, requiring the imposition of energy rationing schemes such as cap-and-trade, at home and abroad, to alleviate international conflict.

But those schemes, as even the Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed, would do little to affect climate or Earth’s temperature, and therefore would be of no consequence in international relations. What they would do is harm America’s economy through, among other things, higher costs for energy, food, and other consumer goods, more dependence on foreign oil, and further decline of our manufacturing base.

That, not global warming, is the real national security threat.

Emphasis added. With a little luck on Tuesday, (Senator Ma’am) Boxer will be out as chairperson of the EPW committee and Senator Inhofe will be back in.

The Idso Clan at CO₂ Science report on a study that reveals that biofuel production will be harmful to the environment and will cause food shortages.

Excerpt from The Large-Scale Production of Biofuels in a Food-Insecure World:

In a review article published in the Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, Rattan Lal of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center of Ohio State University (USA) introduces the subject of his concern by writing that “the world is faced with the trilemma of climate change, food insecurity, and energy demand,” because (1) “there still are more than one billion food-insecure people in the world (FAO, 2009a,b),” (2) “the world food supply will have to be doubled between 2005 and 2050 (Borlaug, 2009) because of the increase in population and change in dietary preferences,” and (3) “the world energy demand is also increasing rapidly and is projected to increase by 84% by 2050 compared with 2005.” And what makes the problem even worse is the fact that in an attempt to meet the anticipated increase in the global demand for energy, “the emphasis on biofuels is strongly impacting the availability of grains for food and soil resources for grain production.”