“Going Green” takes a lot of green*

“Going green” sounds so easy and oh so correct.  After all, how can one object to saving Mother Earth from being burned up by greenhouse gasses.  Reality, however, has a bad habit of interfering.  For example, in one of America’s “greenest” cities, when both the cost of and the inconvenience associated with switching to an “environmentally-friendly” house hits home, a lot of people do object.  

Boulder, Colorado is a gorgeous city, and its elected officials take their role as environmental nannies seriously.  Like many of their fellow elected officials in our nation’s capital, Boulder’s municipal leaders are big on both mandating green measures, as well as employing the “carrot” of tax revenues as incentives to accomplish their goals. 

Since 2006, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, the city has been using tax revenues to subsidize “audits” of homes to determine what steps are needed to improve their environmental footprints.  In that same year, the city decided to institute the country’s first annual “carbon tax,” which currently stands at $21 per household.  With the funds thus raised, the city embarked on an extensive media campaign to promote environmentally-friendly steps homeowners should take.  In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, the campaign included newspaper and radio ads, e-mail alerts, and municipal newsletters. 

One of the city’s programs, discussed in the Journal piece and in a number of other publications, is cleverly branded “Two Techs in a Truck” and employs more than a dozen “energy-efficient teams” going door-to-door to convince individual homeowners to let them enter their home, scope out the interior, and make green changes.  Such steps include removing incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with the dimmer and slow-to-illuminate, compact fluorescent bulbs; installing low-flow showerheads; setting up drying racks for clothes in laundry rooms; and, as noted by the Journal, even inflating the tires on the homeowner’s car (if they are so environmentally-insensitive as to own a car) to the proper pressure.

To characterize the results of this taxpayer-funded campaign as disappointing would be overly generous.   As the Journal noted, Boulder’s carbon emissions, measured against the benchmark year of 1990, were 27% higher in 2008 – a figure worse than the national average (15%) for the same period; but did result in one small bit of good news – that the city’s carbon emissions did decrease from 2006 to 2008, but by less than 1%.

How is the city responding to the failure of its citizens to enthusiastically embrace the agenda being pushed by its elected officials?  Like most who are convinced of their own righteousness and who control the public purse strings, Boulder’s leaders are considering moving from voluntary green audits of homes, to mandatory green “upgrades.”  The cost for such measures will not be insignificant; for example, according to the Wall Street Journal, estimates are that upgrading a single, average apartment unit will run at least $4,000. 

The cavalier attitude of the city council to forcing businesses and individuals to spend thusly is reflected in comments last year in Boulder’s “Community Guide” to the city’s “Climate Action Plan” by then-mayor and now-city Councilman Matthew Applebaum: “Everyone has a role to play.“  Mr. Applebaum was somewhat more directive in commenting just last month to the Wall Street Journal, that “everyone needs to do something.”  Or, as Marie Antoinette said some years before, “let them eat cake.”

Other, non-voluntary shoes will not likely be long in dropping.  As noted in a recent report to the city detailing the lack of progress in achieving results through voluntary measures, such actions are too “slow” to show the “significant results” the city deems necessary.  Those homeowners who did not consent to allow “Two Techs in a Truck” into their homes to catalog everything therein, may find the next visit to be not so friendly or voluntary. 

There’s one major problem for Boulder in all this.  The city relies almost entirely on coal-powered plants for its energy needs.  This means that no matter how many green measures the city encourages or mandates, the impact will never meet the expectations of its advocates.  Unfortunately, the history of government mandates tells us that such reality rarely slows those who enjoy using the heavy hand of government to force behavior. 

*[Author's note:  The original version of this article did not include appropriate attributions to certain materials contained in a recent Wall Street Journal article; this version includes those references.]

55 comments Add your comment

Joel Edge

March 1st, 2010
7:59 am

I think I read somewhere. “Green is the new red.” Twenty years ago if you had written of this happening in an American city, I would have called you a lying dog. These days, nothing surprises me.

Al Gore

March 1st, 2010
8:00 am

Now that I have the internet up and running, I have made it my personal mission to make sure everyone knows about global warming and raisign environmental conciousness. Obviosly the folks in Boulder are not gettign the message. As soon as it warms up and the snow clears, I am going to get on my jet and fly right over there and hammer the message home.

Barack

March 1st, 2010
8:03 am

I think envornmental conciousness is great. Requiring all American citizens to “go Green” is a great way to raise taxes and create more opportunity for the government to control the lives of all Americans.

Lean Green Mean Machine

March 1st, 2010
9:00 am

Well, I think Barr is dead wrong, as usual. My house is a show place for environmentally friendly changes. When you enter the house, you can barely see where you’re going because the light bulbs are so dim. If you didn’t know it, you’d think you were entering a house of ill repute. And you don’t need to flush the toilet more than a dozen times per use because of the low-flow feature. I don’t need more than 40 minutes to take a good shower because of the low-flow shower head, and I’m Home Depot’s best customer for caulk to put around the windows.

I won’t even get into how often I go out in the cold to check the tire pressure on my hybrid cars. And I can hardly wait for the new battery-powered autos to hit the market. Maybe the state will make driving a golf cart on the highways legal while we’re waiting. I have my eye on one of those new babies at the PGA Superstore. It looks just like a Rolls Royce. Maybe the tax credit for buying one will still be in effect by then.

Anyhow, I invite all to come on out to my place to see what a homeowner can do to cut down on carbon emissions. Meanwhile, I’m shutting this PC down to save on electricity and soften my carbon footprint.

Nancy Green Thing Pelosi

March 1st, 2010
9:10 am

I beleive everyone should recycle and turn off their lights when they are not using them. I quit buying the AJC and other papers to save trees and think we should all quit buying newspapers. The house where Mr. Lean Green Mean Machine lives should serve as a model home for us all. In fact, I started using alternative fuel in my own personal G-5 jet as an example to other Americans.

No More Progressives!

March 1st, 2010
9:22 am

“Since 2006 the city has been using tax revenues to subsidize “audits” of homes to determine what steps are needed to improve their environmental footprints.”

Audits? Under what authority? This should terrify freedom-loving people.

Soon, someone from the government will be on your porch, demanding “Let me see your papers.”

Karl Marx

March 1st, 2010
10:17 am

At least they finally found Owl Gore and got him out of hiding and` what did the leader of the Carbon trade Ponzi scheme have to say about the incompetent global warming scientist? He said, “What are a few mistakes anyway”. Oh not much except fraud. Anyway the inventor of global warming is safe. I was afraid he would have caused harm to himself for being so wrong. Remember Owl Gore did not invent the internet but he did invent global warming. Remember Green jobs equal no jobs for the rest of us.

Keep up the good fight!

March 1st, 2010
10:22 am

Once again Barr shows his ability to spin. Emissions may have increased Bob but what were the population increases, what was the temperature changes and weather impact. Assessment of statistics means that you have to make adjustments to be sure to compare apples to apples. Given proper assessment the incentives may have saved adding another coal plant or water. It takes time and commitment.

But of course Bob you are playing to the idiots who think snow means there is no climate change when all science agrees it is the result of climate change. Another Fox not really news graduate.

As for “forced” spending, seems Bob you again ignore your own statement. They are providing tax credits and incentives. It is no more “forced” than when you are “forced” to follow current building code when you remodel your home. Smart green pays and that has been proven. Just as reducing energy use in the past has actually stimulated energy and business…but dont let the facts get in the way of the kneejerks.

Jess

March 1st, 2010
10:41 am

Cap-and-trade will do just about as much good as the Boulder programs. The government will make money, the traders will make money and the consumers will ultimately pay the bill. Anyone who thinks companies will eat their extra costs by reducing profits is dreaming. This, however, is what the government cost projections heavily lean on.

matt r

March 1st, 2010
10:45 am

Jess

March 1st, 2010
10:55 am

Keep up….

“All science agrees…..”. Sorry but saying this over and over again don’t make it so. Scientists are jumping ship every day as the sloppy and fraudulent data is being reviewed. At least you are using the new branding of “climate change” rather than “global warming”. This way you really can’t go wrong. The climate has never been static.

The Tar and Feathers Party

March 1st, 2010
11:00 am

Mah motto is “kill a tree a day, and let god sort them out.”

Common Sense

March 1st, 2010
11:08 am

If a greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide AND trees and plants (which I understand are good things) love carbon dioxide then should not we be generating more and more carbon dioxide to help the trees?

I mean they are green aren’t they?

StJ

March 1st, 2010
11:10 am

“Those homeowners who did not consent … may find the next visit to be not so friendly or voluntary.”

Isn’t there something in the Constitution against this? Ah, yes…”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

Some more government fascists need to be impeached and thrown out of office.

No More Progressives!

March 1st, 2010
11:12 am

“They are providing tax credits and incentives. It is no more “forced” than when you are “forced” to follow current building code when you remodel your home. Smart green pays and that has been proven.”

Tax credits…..to who? Bob doesn’t say.

Smart green pays & it’s proven? Really! Proven by who? Luny Left AL Polar Bear Gore?

Common frickin sense tells you to insulate & weatherproof your house, not the bloody local/state/federal gub’mint. Especially when you live in Colorado.

So the auditors show up, perform their typically incompetant gub’mint audit, and hand you a $40,000 to-do list to get up to “compliance.” And your house is only 4 years old. Then what, Mr. Greenie?

Aquagirl

March 1st, 2010
11:16 am

Jess, scientists aren’t jumping anywhere. Your Faux News Worldview (where all possible viewpoints carry the same weight) doesn’t apply to science, where there is agreement on climate change. A few pissy e-mails by some researcher don’t disprove anything.

The new name “climate change” is for dingbats who can’t understand weather is a global phenomenon. One snowstorm means they can haul their fat behinds into a fat SUV and demand taxpayer subsidized roads from their door to all desired destinations. Lord help our grandchildren, who will be left to deal with the aftereffects.

Keep up the good fight!

March 1st, 2010
11:20 am

Cap and trade means that those providers who do not emit carbons to their cap may actually sell them to those who do. Those who can invest and reduce emissions have incentive to do so to reduce their purchases or to have emission limits to sell. The overall cost is less than $137 per family….and that is not including the health and climate benefits. Hows that high heating bill working for you this year because of climate change? Or maybe that investment in additional energy production you get billed for by energy providers to make additional plants?

As for facism, try reading the column. Even Barr states that current audits are voluntary. Now if anyone has any real facts to show the “not so friendly” visits are violating constitutional limits, you are silly to fall for the Repugnuts fear mongering.

Seeing Red

March 1st, 2010
11:30 am

Where has not “Going Green” gotten us?
Reliance on foreign oil.
The cost of that is of course blood.
Try to deny it.
Say what you want about scientists and Al Gore.
But our servicemen and women are dying for the price at the pumps.

Scout

March 1st, 2010
11:31 am

Going “Green” is just a ruse for going “Red” !

Dr. Lidar

March 1st, 2010
11:33 am

Well, Bob – ya had ta be there, as they say, and I was, 1968-1978. Boulder is indeed beautiful, but only because preservationists saved its natural and architectural beauty from the developers. The generation before mine enacted a city tax to purchase the Greenbelt, which is a ring around the city that includes the mountain backdrop. They did this through “elected officials”, as you called them. Then us hippies came in & got the developers and realtors voted off the city council & we enacted growth control and height limits and whatnot, again through elected officials. Over the decades, a very environmentally responsible ethic evolved in Boulder, one that seems foreign to people like Bob Barr. Now, elected officials are perhaps taking some strong action to “go green” and Bob doesn’t like it. But hey, if the citizens of Boulder don’t support it, then those officials will get unelected real soon. That’s Boulder, and that’s democracy. Don’t worry about it – celebrate it.

Keep up the good fight!

March 1st, 2010
11:38 am

“Common frickin sense tells you to insulate & weatherproof your house, not the bloody local/state/federal gub’mint. Especially when you live in Colorado.”

Really, have you checked the status of your home? Opened up the walls to see where the insulation was not put in correctly? What is the R-value and where are there leaks? Have you put in a geothermal furnance? Low flow toilet to save water? Have you checked your house to code recently? Who verifies your home was built to code (which by the way is a minimum)? How often is the building code updated in Georgia?

Its the government that sets minimum code but does not have enough enforcement to assure that builders follow it. The govt is not going to hand you a $40k bill to change your home. The govt says low flow toilets save us processing additional sewage at so much a cubic foot so lets pay homeowners who buy qualifying toilets $100 to save us money. Win win. When your drywall gives off poison in your air because it came from China, you will be asking the govt why it did not do more.

Huck Finn

March 1st, 2010
11:38 am

I think it is a great idea for local governments to come in and “audit” our homes. In fact, we should pay them for the privildge of spending their time to do so. To be most efficient, they should send a large staff in busses to make sure the audits are done correctly…can you say job creation? If our homes aren’t “green”, we should gladly pay to upgrade our insulation, replace our toilets and light fixtures and be required to sell our gas guzzling cars. And if we don’t, we should pay a “Not Green” tax or be incarcerated for not being a good tree hugger. Nuclear sounds good too.

HDB

March 1st, 2010
11:43 am

What people failed to realize that the tax INCENTIVES for the average American to “go green” were removed under the REAGAN Administration! If Reagan hadn’t taken from the tax code the incentive for home-based alcohol fuels, wind and solar power for residential usage…this nation would have been energy independent by now! If the OIL COMPANIES did not buy and destroy the plans that GM and Chrysler had for gas-turbine cars that ran on alcohol rather than petroleum, the US would be energy independent by now! If USAC hadn’t banned Andy Granetelli’s STP Turbine Car from the Indy 500, gas turbine techonology would be eons farther along than it currently is!! If the oil companies would uncap oil wells in TX and OK rather than import oil from the Middle East (because they said it was CHEAPER!…and look where we are now!!)…..this nation would be energy independent by now!!

Lean Green Mean Machine

March 1st, 2010
11:46 am

If our homes aren’t “green”, we should gladly pay to upgrade our insulation, replace our toilets and light fixtures and be required to sell our gas guzzling cars. And if we don’t, we should pay a “Not Green” tax or be incarcerated for not being a good tree hugger. Nuclear sounds good too.

I don’t have good feelings about a tax. But five years in Atlanta Federal would do a lot of scofflaws a world of good.

Huck Finn

March 1st, 2010
11:54 am

Way to go HDB blame it all on a dead guy. Brilliant. At least he has done his frair share by turning himself into fossil fuel.

Jess

March 1st, 2010
11:56 am

Aquagirl,

All science agrees on climate change? Of course they do. The climate has been changing forever. The climate has also been in a general warming trend since the last ice age. The issue is wheter CO2 is the cause. Here science does not all agree.. Not by a long shot.

Accurate Reader

March 1st, 2010
12:16 pm

I see that Bob got all the way to the second paragraph before he took a cheap shot, the phrase “environmental nannies.” Then he complained about the slow-to-illuminate CFLs. They’re not slow to illuminate. They come on just like that.

Somebody talked about having to flush the low-flow toilet a dozen times. They’re all low-flow now; that’s the only kind Home Depot sells, and they flush just fine the first time. Maybe the early models didn’t work so well, but I believe we’re living in 2010.

The electric cars coming out this year are nothing like golf carts. The Leaf and the Coda are both freeway-legal cars. I drive a Civic Hybrid and enjoy getting 40 mpg. Never did like giving my income to the oil companies. We’re planning to put in energy-efficient windows and more insulation this year, and we’re looking forward to a new fridge when the rebates kick in this April.

And we have a white roof.

It doesn’t hurt to use good sense.

No More Progressives!

March 1st, 2010
1:02 pm

“Its the government that sets minimum code but does not have enough enforcement to assure that builders follow it.”

Your incompetent local/state/federal gub’mint at work.

If they have no enforcement ability, why do builders need to buy a permit from a gub’mint agency?

My house was built in1861, and is a work in progress. But no beaucratic, numbskull from your precious, all-seeing, all-knowing gub’mint is going to TELL me what to modify & when until they start paying the mortgage payments. And since I’m FORCED to buy electricity & gas from the locality where I live, what the hell do they care?

Simple answer: mind your own business.

Do the Math

March 1st, 2010
1:06 pm

Going green can save you a ton of green!
Putting your kids in the local public school will save you gas and time in car pool.
Next time you buy a car, buy one with a 4cyl engine and a manual transmission.
Next family vacation, travel somewhere by car instead of flying.
Save thousands of dollars a year while reducing your carbon foot print. Only takes a little comon sense……….that’s bad news for most folks who live in the burbs.

Aquagirl

March 1st, 2010
1:32 pm

@ Jess, we can now add the unwieldy “anthropogenic.” No, not all science agrees, but the majority of climatologists do agree to the anthropogenic causes, and if you want to listen to a few dissenters, go for it. In a nation where scientific illiteracy is epidemic, there’s little hope of convincing you otherwise. Anthropogenic climate change (happy now?) has become a political football, like evolution. I’m sure we can both post long lists of the “pro” and “con” scientific consensus, but in the end, the list of those who agree is much weightier, no matter what you may have heard from Faux News.

Here’s a question: since anthropogenic climate change is certainly a possibility (unless you dismiss all those scientists as part of a conspiracy) at what point do you think we should do something? If there’s a 50% chance we’re changing the climate? 30%? 85%? These are pretty big stakes. If I told you there was a 30% chance your kid was going to be hit by a truck, you’d probably get them out of the street.

Borat

March 1st, 2010
1:51 pm

Aquagirl…you are surely the most smartest person cause you know such beeg wurds. I say you must be right with such great alphabet. You know more beeg words? Eet is cold in Kazakhstan and whee dunt want no warmer things cause whee like it these way. Make us more green and keep theengs cold. No more of these bad gases.

Use your brain

March 1st, 2010
2:08 pm

The numbers Barr cites are meaningless. Come on, people. Boulder’s program combats PER CAPITA carbon emissions, not overall emissions. Some quick internet research reveals that Boulder’s population increased by 30% in the same time period as their TOTAL emissions rose by 27%, so per capita emissions actually fell. Way to go, y’all.

Quick economics lesson: negative externalities (i.e. pollution) result in the overproduction. The invisible hand is a beautiful thing, but there exist cases in which taxing actually helps the economy. Taxing polluters can result in a more efficient market. Even a free-market libertarian should see the value of taxes that work to counter the effect of externalities.

No More Progressives!

March 1st, 2010
2:29 pm

Aquagirl

March 1st, 2010
1:32 pm
@ Jess, we can now add the unwieldy “anthropogenic.” No, not all science agrees…..”

So, from this we learn that electricity only SOMETIMES goes to ground; Boyles Law only SOMETIMES causes gases to expand, acid only SOMETIMES has a pH of 2, and on & on & on.

I learned something today. Science is a part-time thing.

Jess

March 1st, 2010
2:43 pm

Aquagirl,

The point I would like to make is that in the last four months, the scientific weight is changing quickly. Even the American Physical Society who has for years supported the climate science, now has a petition by a large number of scientists to pull their letter of support until the society can investigate the sloppy and potentially fraudulent research results. Drs. Happer, head of the Happer labs at Princeton started the petition if you wish to confirm.

This was also done prior to the discovery by a Chinese scientist that many of the weather stations for which data had been reported did not exist, and before Phil Jones began backpeddling on the warming since 1995, and his admission that medieval times were probably warmer than now.

By the way I rarely listen to Fox, And I worked in a research environment for 6 years. Nothing upsets someone who does believe in science more than politics disguised as science.

No More Progressives!

March 1st, 2010
3:02 pm

Game, set & match, Jess!! Bravo!!

Aquagirl

March 1st, 2010
3:27 pm

Jess, you mean “had” as in past tense. The APS has not changed its position based on the few petitioners, one of whom was Fred Singer, who has been on the payroll of GM, Exxon, and plenty of other like-minded corporations.

So, what percentage of APS members signed this document? I bet you’d be embarrassed to admit that number.

Jess

March 1st, 2010
3:45 pm

The APS voted to keep it’s support letter immediately after “climategate”. The petition was in response to this vote, and has not yet been resolved.

I also fail to see why one’s employer has anything to do with their scientific qualifications. If it’s because money or threat of job loss may taint their work, then you should take a real hard look at the government sponsored scientists. Do you have any idea the amount of grant money on the line. It’s much, much more than private industry can muster, and as we have all seen, dissenters are not well tolerated in the world of climate change science.

Aquagirl

March 1st, 2010
4:11 pm

No, the petition was rejected. If you have knowledge of another one, please post a link.

http://physicsfrontline.aps.org/2009/11/10/aps-council-overwhelmingly-rejects-proposal-to-replace-societys-current-climate-change-statement/

And I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you over your transparent attempt to divert the subject—how many APS members signed that petition?

Jess

March 1st, 2010
4:29 pm

Aquagirl,

Sorry, but the petition has not been rejected nor accepted. It has prompted the APS to do an independent study on the questions raised by climategate, and other irregularities which have come to light. The APS has appointed Dr. Socolow, from Princeton to head this investigation. Drs Happer, Austen and Lewis are protesting this appointment as Dr. Socolow’s [a global warming advocate] lab recieves over $ 22 million a year in Federal grants. The annual meeting of the APS is to be held March 10-15 where this will be further discussed.

The link you refer to is from Nov. 2009. The investigation has been called since then.

Jefferson

March 1st, 2010
4:40 pm

Does anyone miss the ice that is melting?

Aquagirl

March 1st, 2010
4:58 pm

No, really, the petition was rejected. Your statement:

“Even the American Physical Society who has for years supported the climate science, now has a petition by a large number of scientists to pull their letter of support…” Now, what was that number, one more time?

If the APS is investigating climategate, it means someone is asking questions, and they’ll review the data. If you have so much experience with research, you ought to know this is perfectly normal, and you are deliberately misleading with “people are asking questions about e-mails–this thoroughly proves humans aren’t responsible for climate change!”

Really, you should be a Republican spin doctor. Grab onto whatever scraps you have (which will always be there in science) and pimp them to the max by saying “large numbers of scientists have signed a petition.” The APS hasn’t changed its position. If they do, get back to me sweetie. I won’t be holding my breath.

Accurate Reader

March 1st, 2010
5:02 pm

Jefferson
March 1st, 2010
4:40 pm

Does anyone miss the ice that is melting?

————–

Some people in Alaska do. They’re losing their homes because the sea is inundating their little island. The polar bears miss it; that’s where they live.

Borat

March 1st, 2010
5:24 pm

The little Aquagirl is right. It is getting hotter every day. If you cannot agree with this position then you are a brainless conservative spindoctor. Otherwise you are all wet. Those are the facts now get over it and run for shade and get a snorkle…or better yet…build an ark for the rising floods from the melting polar ice caps. And don’t forget the bread and milk. Tomorrow might be a snow day.

dewstarpath

March 1st, 2010
6:27 pm

Aquagirl –

Great posts. You are right on the money when you stated
that “climate change is the new political football, like
evolution”.

Is it snowing because there’s no such thing as global
warming, or because it’s still WINTER ?

Borat

March 1st, 2010
7:30 pm

Be sure that it is snowing because of global warming.

Seriously

March 1st, 2010
7:43 pm

As far as climate change is concerned, my only question to the left is compared to the earths natural expulsion of carbon into the air our carbon output is almost insignificant. How could we be impacting climate with such small percentages of change compared to the earths natutral carbon output. The earth may be getting hotter, probably is, but is it beacuse of my car and house? You cannot prove the connection yet you insist on drastic measures. The science is flawed because so much of it is funded to create specific results. The science is no longer independent of the politics.

All of that said I am replacing every window in my house and replace my ac units & heating (which are 21 years) to improve the quality and comfort of my life with better control of the climate in my house and expect to see a significant redution in my bills. In time it will pay for itself and I plan on staying in my house another 30years unless my lotto ticket is the winner. However, my decision was based on capitalism. It was for me. Make LED lights a little cheaper and I will by them. Environmentalism needs to be driven by the consumer not the government.

By the way a Hummer has a much smaller carbon footprint than a Toyota Prius Hybred. Those batteries are nasty for the environment and their construction is a horrible process of chemical and metal collection an mining.

EdR77203

March 1st, 2010
10:47 pm

I have to laugh. This is the same city that still has lead paint on the walls of their older houses.

LibraryJim

March 2nd, 2010
9:53 am

Nah, the polar bears are not missing it — in fact their population is on the rise, doubling since they were placed on the endangered species list by Washington DC folk — over the objections of Alaskans who knew better.

No More Progressives!

March 2nd, 2010
9:57 am

An article posted in HotAir.com, for your reading pleasure.

The entire article: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/02/another-american-media-failure/

Or just the core of the article:

•University of East Anglia e-mails that exposed data destruction, attempts to hide contradictory data, and conspiracies to sabotage the work of skeptical scientists
•The East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data, undermining any effort to check their work
•NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases
•East Anglia CRU’s below-standard computer modeling
•No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol
•IPCC withdraws claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035
•IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri knew Himalayan claim was bogus for months before exposure
•Amazonian rainforest conclusions not based on scientific research but on advocacy group claims
•Mountain glacier claims based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from climber magazine
•Search of IPCC report footnotes exposes ten more student dissertations presented as peer-reviewed research
•Medieval Warming Period temperatures may have been global, undermining entire AGW case
•Measurements used for AGW case were influenced by urbanization, poor location, bad data sets
•African-crop claims exposed as false
•IPCC researchers excluded Southern Hemisphere data to exaggerate effects of warming on hurricanes
•Hurricane claims further exposed as false by actual peer-reviewed research — including by some AGW researchers
•Major scientific group concludes IPCC-linked researchers “complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices“

Jess

March 2nd, 2010
10:47 am

No more…..

Good compilation. Thanks.