Author: admin

Media Desperation

By Patrick J. Michaels

Desperate Strategies for Desperate Times . . . and Post.

On August 18, both the New York Times and Washington Post featured uncharacteristically shrill top-of-masthead editorials demanding immediate climate-change legislation. The Post warned of an imminent geophysical “tipping point” because of global warming, while the Times went one better, threatening the national security of the United States.

Why the desperation? Perhaps because the great unwashed who live outside the Beltway or somewhere other than Manhattan are in open revolt, and not just against Obama’s health care proposals. In their role as the nation’s opinion leaders, these mastheads can’t let such behavior go unchallenged.

Things are getting out of hand in the real world. Since the June 26 House vote on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, lawmakers from both chambers have backed significantly away from the legislation. The first raucous town-hall meetings occurred during the July 4 recess — before health care. Voters in swing districts were mad as heck then, and they’re even angrier now. In order to rescue global-warming regulations the Post thinks people can be mollified by ditching the detestable 1,400-page cap-and-trade bill, while the Times thinks they can be pandered to by appealing to their patriotism.

The Post resignedly confesses its favored approach to the warming menace: “Yes, we’re talking about a carbon tax.” The idea there is that a carbon tax will be less complicated than cap-and-trade (true), and that the cost to individuals and businesses “could be rebated . . . in a number of ways.”

While ostensibly tackling the all-encompassing peril of global warming, the Post would have Congress rejigger other areas of the tax code to achieve a zero net loss in economic productivity or jobs. Right.

The Times, meanwhile, accurately notes that “proponents of climate change legislation have now settled on a new strategy: warning that global warming poses a serious threat to national ” and that absent regulation, global warming could induce resource shortages that would “unleash regional conflicts and draw in America’s armed ”

Utter nonsense. Every nation is short of some kind of resource, and the supply of many are dependent upon year-to-year fluctuations in weather, as well as to long-term fluctuations in climate. This is why we have markets. It’s too cold in Canada to buy corn, so they import ours and export ice hockey. Markets are always more efficient than Marines, and will doubtless work with or without climate change.

Cynically, the Times admits that “this line of argument could also be pretty good politics — especially on Capitol Hill, where many politicians will do anything for the Pentagon. . . . One can only hope that these arguments turn the tide in the Senate.” Militarization of domestic issues is often the last refuge of the desperate. How many lives has this cost throughout history?

Simultaneously, the evidence for this climatic tipping point has gone AWOL. Global surface temperatures haven’t budged significantly for 12 years, and it’s becoming obvious that the vaunted gloom-and-doom climate models are simply predicting too much warming.

Nor will any conceivable law do much about climate change. If every nation on earth that has obligations under the United Nations’s failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming successfully adopted the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade approach, only 7 percent of the warming forecast by the UN’s own “midrange” climate models would be prevented over the course of this century. By mandating a reduction of over 80 percent in current emissions by 2050, Waxman-Markey will allow the average American the same carbon dioxide emissions of the average American in 1867.

Alternatively, consider the Post’s energy tax. How high does it have to be?

The last time gasoline hit $4.00 a gallon, we managed to reduce our consumption by a grand total of 4 percent. How high does the price have to go to knock out 80 percent? The answer is pretty simple: no one knows, because a technologically and politically feasible alternative does not exist. How expensive will fossil-fuel powered electricity become?

Nonetheless, one must admire the Post and Times for their altruism. The economic distress caused by a carbon tax, militarization, or any other radical climatic policy certainly won’t be good for their already shaky finances, unless, of course, the price of their support is a bailout by the Obama administration.

Now that’s cynical.

— Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.Source

Climate Money – Big Government outspends Big Oil

By Joanne NovaThe Exxon “Blame-Game” is a Distracting Side Show

Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)

As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign, “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).

Perhaps if Exxon had balanced up its input both for and against climate change, it would have been spared the merciless attacks? It seems not, since it has donated more than four times as much to the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP).5, 6 Exxon’s grievous crime is apparently just to help give skeptics a voice of any sort. The censorship must remain complete.

The vitriol against Exxon reached fever pitch in 2005-2008. Environmental groups urged a boycott of Exxon for its views on Global Warming. It was labeled An Enemy of the Planet. James Hansen called for CEOs of fossil energy companies to be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” In the next breath he mentioned Exxon.

Even The Royal Society, which ought to stand up for scientists and also for impeccable standards of logic, joined the chorus to implore Exxon to censor its speech. The unprecedented letter from the 350-year-old institution listed multiple appeals to authority, but no empirical evidence to back its claim that a link with carbon and temperature was beyond doubt and discussion. The Royal Society claims that it supports scientists, but while it relies on the fallacious argument from authority how will it ever support whistle-blowers who by definition question “authority?”

While Exxon has been attacked repeatedly for putting this insignificant amount of money forward, few have added up the vested interests that are pro-AGW. Where are the investigative journalists? Money that comes from tax-payers is somehow devoid of corrupting incentives; while any money from Big Oil in a free market for ideas, is automatically a “crime”. The irony is that taxpayers’ money is forcibly removed at the point of a gun, but Exxon has to earn its money through thousands of voluntary transactions.

Those who attack Exxon over just $2 million a year are inadvertently drawing attention away from the real power play and acting as unpaid PR agents for giant trading houses and large banks, which could sit a little uncomfortably with greenies and environmentalists. After all, on other days, some of these same groups throw rocks at big bankers.

The side show of blaming Big Oil hides the truth: that the real issue is whether there is any evidence, and that the skeptics are a grassroots movement that consists of well respected scientists and a growing group of unpaid volunteers.

Source

Greenhouse gas my ass! CO2 is our friend!

By John Ziraldo

Hi folks,

I am a grandfather of two wonderful boys for whom I want to do everything within my means to provide a decent future. I have been very worried about the Global Warming threat and I set out about two months ago to learn everything I could about it. I am now more worried about the impact the AGW alarmists are having on politicians and businesses. Climate Change seems minor compared to the threat of the alarmists to change our economy and way of life.

I wanted to complement you on your website and wish you all the best in being heard and getting this monster back in it’s cage. Unfortunately, it appears to me that it is going to take more than a few decades of cooling temperatures to undo the damage caused so far by Gore, Hansen, the UN, and even David Suzuki in Canada.

FYI, in order to draw some attention on this subject within my list of contacts, and hopefully influence a few people at a time, I made up this image and put it on a t-shirt. I thought it went well with your site name.

Sincerely,
John Ziraldo
Richmond Hill, ON

—
Make your voice heard! Submit your letter, article, or story to info [at] ilovecarbondioxide.com

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Aug. 21st 2009

This week British kids wear eco-uniforms, polar bears refuse to drown and greens celebrate their efforts to make our lights go out. It’s high summer so crank up the air conditioner and open a window to fight global warming as you dive into the fascinating depths of the weekly round-up.

Part One: Al Gore & Friends

It’s summertime, so Al has been pretty quiet in the past week, but he did find some time to open up a new Repower Tennessee office. Considering the size of his own power bill, it’s likely that the state needs repowering. The Goreacle and his global warming acolytes have been rudely shoved to the back of the news cycle by the current bunfight over health care reform, but Al knows how to grab a headline. He floated the idea of holding his own townhall meetings to promote his ‘climate crisis’. Al supports the push toward a new ‘.eco’ domain, but that effort has turned messy and green groups are fighting each other for the right to sell the names. It’s almost as if this had something to do with profit rather than the more altruistic goal of saving the planet. Surely not?

can anyone explain why it's not green? anyone?can anyone explain why it’s not green? anyone?

One lefty writer called Leonard Pitts used a quote from Al Gore as a way to illustrate that opponents of health care are using scaremongering tactics to frighten people away from reform. I guess he missed this less convenient quote from Al:

“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.”

If you’re confused, remember that using scaremongering tactics to promote the global warming hoax is approved, but use of the same to oppose health care reform is verboten. Clear enough? Canuckian Hippie David Suzuki has decided he’s suddenly interested in the state of the Canadian mining industry, but only because some firms are willing to say publicly that they ‘believe’ global warming is affecting them. Three short years ago, miners were the climate enemy, but Suzuki’s such an alarmist whore that he’ll cozy up to anyone that might have a buck for him.

Part Two: AGW Scaremongers

In Europe, manufacturers are worried that science has been labeled a ‘force of evil’ by eco-religion nutjobs, and that has made the transition of research to innovation slower and more expensive. Greens the new Luddites, but with less fun.Click on over to The Daily Bayonet to read the rest and check out this weeks global hottie!

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

By Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong. “I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present. The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.” Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements. Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion. Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate. “We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.” (Watch the full BBC interview with Leipold here.)

Source

Cap-and-Trade Insanity

By Alan Caruba

To understand how insane the Cap-and-Trade bill really is you need to know that it based on the belief that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to avoid a global warming that is NOT happening.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a giant scam involving “carbon credits” to be sold and traded. It is also about billions in taxpayer’s dollars being wasted on wind and solar generation of electricity. If this was a sensible way to produce energy, it would be a dominant producer, but it isn’t. Short of producing electricity by peddling bicycles, it is as inefficient and impractical as possible.

So-called “clean energy” accounts for just over one percent of all the electricity Americans use every day and it exists only because the government subsidizes it by taking your tax dollars and giving them to wind and solar energy producers. Some States require utilities to buy electricity from them.

As for “security”, how much energy security does the United States enjoy if it must import 60% of the oil it uses for transportation and a wide range of products, not the least of which is anything made from plastic?

Real security means drilling and mining right here, right now. There’s plenty of oil in ANWR and offshore. The government forbids access to it. And, where’s there’s oil there’s natural gas as well. As for coal, the U.S. has enough for centuries of affordable electricity, but the environmental organizations have in recent years stopped the building of a hundred coal-fired plants and they brag about it.

A study of the economic impact of the bill by the American Council on Capitol Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers concluded that, if passed, Cap-and-Trade would decrease the Gross Domestic Product of the United States by $2 and $3 trillion by 2030. That’s lost job and lost industrial production.

That’s because Cap-and-Trade would increase the cost of all activities, business and others, by increasing the cost of electricity, the master resource that powers everything in the nation.

Remember, this would be done to limit “greenhouse gas emissions.” This cost would solely be on the backs of Americans while other nations of the world would be free to continue emissions, i.e. providing jobs and producing goods.

Remember, too, that global warming is not occurring. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for a decade.

This bill is so horrible, Americans can only guess at the consequences of its passage. One thing is certain. It would massively expand government because thousands would have to be hired to administer it.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates it would cost $8 billion over a ten-year period because to operate efficiently it would require the approval of approximately 1,500 new regulations and mandates involving at least 21 federal agencies.

The introduction of Cap-and-Trade would “create the nation’s largest commodity market in which polluters would buy and sell rights to emit carbon dioxide” according to a recent Washington Times article, but it is essential to understand that emitting CO2 is not “pollution.” Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a gas vital to all plant life on Earth. If CO2 were a pollutant, than surely oxygen is as well because oxidation causes rust.

The Cap-and-Trade’s carbon credits could “be a $2 trillion market within five years,” said Bart Chilton, commissioner of the Commodities Futures Trade Commission.

So Cap-and-Trade is NOT about greenhouse gases or global warming. It is about trading credits for the right to GENERATE or USE ENERGY.

How insane is that?

Keep in mind that the present financial crisis is the direct result of the GOVERNMENT getting into the mortgage loan market in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, purchasing loans from banking institutions and mortgage lenders who were required by law to make bad loans. Those loans, in turn, were “bundled” and resold as assets, but they were worthless.

Nothing is more worthless than carbon credits. Nothing is more dangerous to the economic future of the nation than the Cap-and-Trade Act. The U.S. Senate must defeat this bill which has already been passed by the House. YOU must defeat this bill by demanding your Senators vote against it.

Debunking 'climate change myths'

By Cory de Vera, News-Leader

Those convinced that the earth is warming — and that such warming is going to trigger catastrophic disasters — have jumped on to the latest eco-scare that just isn’t backed by science, said Marc Morano (pictured) who runs a Web site called Climate Depot.

Morano was among the speakers Thursday at a one-day conference called “Debunking Climate Change Myths” in Springfield.About 150 attended the conference, presented by a group called “Scientists for Truth.” Attendees included high school students, local politicians and others.On ClimateDepot.com, Morano links to news stories about climate change, as well as providing his own thoughts on the issue.In his speech, he said those who believe in global warming and its dangers also post messages — noting the different sides of the debate may not get along.”But at least they are fighting, they are engaging each other,” he said.While other speakers at the event presented scientific critiques, Morano offered quotes he’s collected from various news sources, politicians and scientists.In 1975, for instance, Newsweek Magazine sounded alarms over climactic change. But the difference was writers were warning of an impending ice age, he said.In the 1980s and the 90s, the popular eco-cause became saving the Amazon Rainforests, a topic Morano made a documentary about in 2000.But, Morano pointed out that even the New York Times reported that for every acre of rain forest being cut, 50 are growing back.Until March, Morano worked for the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works committee, where he wrote a dissenting report that 700 scientists signed.He said more scientists and others who previously supported a belief in catastrophic climate change are looking at data and challenging conventional wisdom.However, he expressed amazement that more aren’t challenging statements made from supporters like Nobel Prize winning economist Thomas Schelling.According to Morano, Schelling was quoted in The Atlantic as wishing for natural disasters: “I sometimes wish we could have over the next five or 10 years a lot of horrid things happening, you know, like tornados in the Mid west and so forth. That would get people concerned about climate change.”

Morano called characterized such statement as insane. “A man who can’t convince people on the science because the science isn’t there, so he’s now wishing for death, destruction on people through tornados,” he said.Morano predicted that the next “eco-fears” will include a so-called oxygen crisis — a crisis caused by a shrinking supply of oxygen on earth — and a crisis of plastic waste.Laure David, producer of Al Gore’s film on global warming, has been trying to draw attention to the issue of plastic waste, calling it “in some ways more alarming” for humans than global warming, Morano said.The conference was organized by Ron Boyer, who runs a consulting firm. He also sits on the Missouri Air Conservation Commission — though the conference was not connected to the commission.Boyer said he wanted to hold the conference because he was tired of hearing that the debate on climate change is over.”That’s not how science works. Science continues to examine,” said Boyer, who has an undergraduate degree in chemistry.Boyer said future conferences will depend on whether or not the Senate passes the Cap and Trade legislation.”If they do pass it, the debate is over because it will be a done deal,” said Boyer.But, he said, if it doesn’t pass this year there will be a chance to continue debating the science another year.John Lilly, a medical doctor and Willard school board member, said he attended the conference because he wanted to support the scientists who are trying to debunk global warming.”Those who support global warming do it for political reasons rather than actual scientific reasons,” he said.

Source

CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN WELFARE

An email from Dr. John Lewis, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program, Duke University

I call your attention to a new volume, “Natural Resources, the Environment, and Human Welfare,” edited by Ellen Fraenkel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr. and Jeffrey Paul (Cambridge, 2009). This is the book version of the journal “Social Philosophy and Policy” 26.2 (Summer 2009) dedicated to “The Environment: Philosophy and Policy.” This highly regarded publication is aimed at readers in the fields of the social sciences, as well as philosophy, public policy and law. See here

My own article, “History, Politics, and Claims of Man-made Global Warming” challenges readers to consider a broad view of the natural history of the earth, the voices of scientists who do not accept the truth of an imminent climate disaster, and the dangerous political consensus that threatens us with a disaster of our own making. My article follows one by Michael Mann, “Do Global Warming and Climate Change Represent a Serious Threat to Our Welfare and Environment?” Reading the two articles in series offers readers a chance to evaluate the positions of a scientist who agrees with the climate disaster claims and thinks that aggressive political action is required, and a non-scientist who thinks that the political disaster we are creating far outstrips any human impact on the environment.

A sample from my article:

“Among people who are in the position to create and enforce government policies, however, there is a consensus that human responsibility for global warming is a settled issue, and that the task now is to implement the laws required to atone for that responsibility. This political consensus is a dangerous thing, because the remedies being proposed to mitigate the AGW predictions are breathtaking in their scope, and will have negative consequences for billions of people. This conclusion is not a matter of hypothetical computer modeling, conjecture, or percentages on a graph. The governmental actions being planned now are on a scale commensurate with socialist planned economies, and would place the very heart of industrial society-the motive power that keeps its industry beating-under the control of a labyrinthine maze of all-powerful government bureaucracies. Should these proposals be adopted, the people of the industrialized nations will be subjected to controls over minutiae of daily life on a level previously thought intolerable. It behooves policy planners, scientists and citizens alike to grasp the consequences of such policies, while they consider the shaky, disputed scientific grounds on which the calls for action are based. . . .

“The purpose of this essay is to bring into focus two crucial aspects of this issue. The first is to present a basic outline of natural history as an historical context for the AGW claims, along with the evaluations of top-rank scientists who do not accept those claims. The second is to illuminate some of the regulatory proposals that these claims have engendered, as well as the economic, political, and moral meaning of these proposals. The specific focus here will be on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 11, 2008, along with a brief summation of its background in American and international political action. This examination should assist non-scientists in forming judgments about whether claims of man-made global climate disaster are strong enough to warrant these radical, irreversible government actions.”

Source

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Aug.14th 2009

In this week’s round-up you can learn about the Green Guilt-o-meter, the mortal enemy of the biosphere and how much fun it’s possible to have have with alliteration and Richard Branson. Last week Magnus at Klimathot called me a Skeptikerpunk. Thanks Magnus, I think. Become beveraged, citizens, for it all starts here…

Part One: Al Gore & Friends

Pity the poor Goreacle. His climate crisis is all but forgotten as America erupts over Obamacare, yet still he blogs from his lonely mansion, desperately hoping to mobilize the two or three people that remember Waxman-Malarkey. Another tough break for Al is that a couple of Irish folk have set a release date for their little film ‘Not Evil, Just Wrong’, which promises to be An Inconvenient Truth about An Inconvenient Truth, if you know what I mean. And I think you do.

Al looms large over AfricaAl looms large over Africa

The Weekly Round-Up is unkind to Al Gore several times a week, and sometimes we (almost) feel bad about it. So let’s take time to celebrate an anniversary with Al. Summer 2009 is the 20th Anniversary of the first time we were warned we only had 10 years to fix global warming. Happy Annniversary, Jim and Al. OK, enough empathy, on with the mocking. Al has a new green initiative. It’s green (of course) and looks like grassroots. But, look a little closer and it’s clear that Al is endorsing some pretty un-American activity. The .eco domain might be all over the Interwebs if Al and some of his friends have their way. I indicated last week was a good idea because then we’d have a place to store the cyber-hippies. Not all greens think the .eco is a good idea, they don’t want to ‘ghetto-ize Green‘. One quick aside to greens – you might want to rethink the label ‘ghetto‘. Together with the free abuse of label ‘denier’ it’s beginning to look like you’ve got a nasty underlying problem. Canuckian fruit-fly expert David Suzuki is a tool. Or something.

Part Two: AGW Scaremongers

Click on over to The Daily Bayonet to read the rest and check out this weeks Global Hottie!

Green Jobs, Real Jobs and Welfare

A Statement by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia

Audit needed on the Green Jobs Program
The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, today called for an audit by the Productivity Commission into PM Rudd’s Green Jobs Plan. Forbes explains: “Whenever politicians claim to create jobs, close examination usually finds that the jobs were created in another country and their policies have merely created more welfare recipients. “Much of the tax funded subsidy money being thrown at “alternative energy” is creating jobs in China making the hardware. Then it employs a few short term people installing the stuff. In the end, the only real jobs created are repairing wind towers and cleaning dust off solar panels. Even these are not real jobs because the moment the government stops forcing electricity companies to use their expensive and unreliable green power, these jobs will also evaporate. “Real jobs are those that produce unsubsidized goods or services that can be sold in open markets at a profit. “Jobs that depend for their existence on government subsidies or mandates are not jobs, but welfare with fancy names. They live off taxes paid by real jobs. “For example, spending $19 million of tax payers’ money on a mindless slaughter of wild camels “to save the environment” is green job creation. Harvesting camels in a sustainable industry is a real job. Final Product from a Green Job in the Camel Industry Final Product from a Real Job in the Camel Industry.
(Photos by Paddy McHugh). “Moreover, replacing the dole with “environmental training programs” is just creating indoctrination camps for green zealots. Al Gore has enough money to run his own training camps. “And managing carbon regulations, carbon taxes, carbon trading and carbon grants is not a job, it is an overhead. “Job creation is not just a matter of spending tax payer money. “All job creation starts with an innovative idea for satisfying a real consumer demand. Today, however, too many “innovators” spend their time dreaming up innovative reasons for getting access to government slush funds, protection schemes or “research” grants. The cost of supporting these green rackets always destroys jobs in real industry (see the example from Spain, below). “Grass is the most valuable green product in Australia. And managing grasses and forests to produce low cost meat, milk, grains, wool, timber and tourist products are the most important green jobs in Australia. They will be still producing sustainable green products long after the Green Jobs Program, the Ration-n-Tax Scheme and the Renewable Energy Targets are forgotten.”Disclosure: Viv Forbes and his wife Judy have real green jobs managing green grass to raise healthy cattle and sheep.

For a report on the results of green job creation in Spain see:
http://www.carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2140

And for a concise comment on the chances for considerable carbon consequences from the costly camel cull caper see:
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/08/07/camel-cull/