Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’
The Susan G. Komen group sustained a bit of a body blow over the last week when it canceled funding to Planned Parenthood, then reinstated it, then fired an executive over all the embarrassments that ensued. There’s talk of permanent damage, but if they hunker down, get a lot smarter and stay on their breast cancer mission, they’ll be OK.
Maybe the same can’t be said for global warming advocates, because a sustained barrage of body blows does a cause much more harm than a single blow, or even a triple blow, like Komen just felt.
The latest salvo against global doom prophets came today in Germany’s Bild newspaper (circulation, oh, about 16 million!), and in the new #1 best-seller in Germany, upon which the Bild story is based. Since we don’t read German, we will borrow from a post on the No Tricks Zone blog, which specializes in reporting climate news from Germany, in English.
That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.
This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.
Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow.
Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media [The other was Der Spiegel.] published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun).
Germany has now plunged into raucus discord on the heated topic of climate change.
Die kalte Sonne is written by a Social Democrat/green activist who is credited as one of the fathers of Germany’s powerful green movement, teamed with a geologist/paleontologist. That’s akin to a general defecting to the other side in the heat of battle.
Some numbers from the book: 800 sources cited, 80 charts and figures, 20,000 copies in the first print run … and most important, #1 on Amazon.de.
Expect the German environmental movement to throw everything they’ve got at this over the next few weeks, and then some. Everything from alternative findings to character assassination will be used to tromp down the furor and assure the public that they still need to follow the rules and accept the high cost of fighting global warming.
The global warming activists will hold on for now, but the movement has to realize that when major news media turn against them, it’s akin to a major ally – not just a general – changing sides during a war. They shouldn’t minimize the harm Bild, Der Spiegel and Die kalte Sonne’s sales will do to their cause.
What were the three biggest California water stories of the past seven days? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here every Thursday, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
The Long Goodbye to the Drought
News that Gov. Brown was going to declare the drought over leaked like December’s deluges. We started hearing about it days before the formal announcement, and we figured he was waiting for the Wednesday Sierra snowpack reading. We were right – the announcement came Wednesday night, shortly after DWR reported snow levels in the Sierras were to die for. The Guv did the right thing by reminding us all to conserve, but disappointingly (not surprisingly!) said nothing about the need to fix the ongoing regulatory drought.
The Center for Biological Depravity…er, Diversity, announced its top 11 priorities for bringing the U.S. economy to a halt in 2011. It was going to go with 12, but making sure Jerry Brown appointed an ultra-enviro to head California’s Resources Agency has already been crossed off the list.
As you’d imagine, this year’s agenda is filled with plans to protect a whole slew of species from various man-made dangers. If you’re a wolf or a bluefin tuna, this just might be your year. Humans…not so much. After taking baby steps last year, the Center hid in the middle of its list a rather Maoist priority to “Challenge the Overpopulation Paradigm.” That’s right Joe Citizen, you and your 2.3 adorable kids (and their future kids) now have big fat target on your back. As if an economic meltdown and global terrorism weren’t enough.
We’ll continue to encourage other groups to tackle overpopulation this year. We’ll distribute hundreds of thousands of condoms and ramp up the overpopulation dialogue through high-profile projects, including a study on the connection between overpopulation and diminishing water supplies in the Lower Colorado River Basin, the Center’s unique newsletter, Pop X, and targeted actions to Congress.
We’ll be interested to see their study on the Colorado River, which is facing challenges. But that’s more so from several years of drought than too many newborns from too many “What Happens in Vegas…” nights.
Maybe the Center is grabbing for headlines to boost its coffers. Maybe it’s tired of fighting on the environmental front lines and has chosen to try the back door. Maybe it just doesn’t care for chubby babies with good short games. Maybe all of the above.
Either way, it’s time to come to grips with the fact that you and your family are the bane of the world’s existence. Happy New Year!
Read the rest of the Center’s 2011 priorities here.
Doom-and-gloom emotional messages that paint pictures of the sky falling or the earth burning don’t work well when you are trying to change public opinion. That’s what a new study by two Berkeley professors found when they studied the impacts of fact-based vs. emotion-based global warming messages.
The professors had one group of subjects read stories that began with facts, but ended with apocalyptic warnings, while the other half read positive stories that focused on solving problems. Those who read the positive stories were less skeptical than the group exposed to doom-and-gloom messaging.
What were the three biggest California land development stories of the past seven days? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
Totally Cool About Climate Change
UCLA economist Matthew Kahn thinks global warming is the real deal, and he’s really cool with it. “There is a lot of evidence that we can cope with change, that we are not mice, and we have big brains,” he told the LA Times, stating what we’ve always thought was obvious. As for California’s water woes in a hotter world, he’s once again positive … in a way: ”Climate change may force us to get rid of our crazy outdated [water] laws,” he said. Looks like good times ahead for water lawyers!
We are big fans of the Public Policy Institute and its surveys of public opinion in California. We like that its executive director, Mark Baldassare, came out of Chapman University here in OC, and we like even more that it presents a largely unpartisan take on what Californians are thinking. But we’re disappointed in PPICs handling of AB32 and Proposition 23 – California’s “save the planet” global warming law, and the Nov. 2010 proposition to delay its implementation.
… Californians’ views on another contentious environmental policy issue have held steady since last year. Two-thirds (67% today, 66% in 2009) favor the state law (AB 32) that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 is the focus of renewed debate because Proposition 23 on the November ballot asks whether the law should be suspended until unemployment drops to 5.5% or below for a minimum of one year.
Because the ballot language has not been finalized, we posed a more general question about timing: Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improve? A slim majority (53%) say California should act right away, while 42 percent say the state should wait.
Is that really what Californians said? We don’t think so, and here’s why:
The Field Poll recently asked a scientifically valid number of Californians (who, we’re sure, feel just great about having been scientifically validated) a pretty important question as primary season rolls around:
Thinking of the November election for Governor, how important will the candidates’ position on each of the following issues be to you in deciding whom you would support?
The issues were asked in random order; here they are alphabetically: crime/prisons, education, environmental protection, gasoline prices/energy, global warming, health care, illegal immigration, jobs/economy, state budget deficit, taxes and water.
Only those living in a time warp would be surprised that economic issues rocked the vote … and rocked it hard. Jobs and the economy was ranked most important by almost 60 percent, followed closely by the state’s budget, a few decimal points behind. At the other end of a scale, in near-lockstep for the last two positions were environmental protection and global warming. A scant 23 percent of those polled ranked the imminent destruction of the planet by greenhouse gases as the top priority in their decision-making.
We wonder why, given these results, politicians throughout the state, from Sacramento to local city councils, remain so deferential to environmental interests when these greater environmental protections (as if the laws on the books don’t go far enough already!) come at the cost of jobs.
If America’s greenest metro areas are in California, why do environmentalists make it so hard to build here?
The answer may benefit your project.
It may come as a surprise to you, but you’ve probably been indoctrinated by the environmental movement. Don’t think so? Well, just answer this question: Is LA – sprawling, smoggy, freeway crisscrossed LA – a “green” city or a “brown” city?
If you answered “brown,” you’re wrong. It turns out that Los Angeles is the fourth greenest metropolitan area in the country. Why’s that? Because the climate here is temperate, so LA’s carbon footprint for air conditioning is less than Atlanta’s or Houston’s, and its footprint for heating is smaller than that of Minneapolis or Chicago. So says a study by Edward Glaeser and Matthew Kahn, UCLA and Harvard profs respectively.