Weyerhauser Joins Enviro-Industry Climate Coalition
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN of Greenwire, NY Times, March 18, 2010 [here]
Global timber giant Weyerhaeuser Co. said today it has joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership group that is lobbying for comprehensive climate and energy legislation on Capitol Hill.
The Federal Way, Wash.-based company becomes the 29th member of the business-NGO lobbying coalition, alongside General Electric Co., General Motors Co. and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“The forest products industry will play a leading role in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and reducing emissions of carbon dioxide using biomass from forests, a sustainable resource and one of the best at sequestering carbon,” Weyerhaeuser CEO Dan Fulton said in a press release. “The role of forest fiber in a low carbon economy will depend on the public policy concepts under debate in Washington, D.C.”
“USCAP,” Fulton added, “has successfully integrated the expertise of numerous stakeholders, and we believe our membership will help positively position sustainable forestry, biomass and forest products in these important policy discussions.”
Membership in U.S. CAP has more than doubled since its inception just prior to then-President George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech in January 2008. The group played a critical role in pushing the House toward passage of climate legislation last June.
But the group has also seen some of its power dwindle after recent defections. Two big oil companies, BP America and ConocoPhillips, and Caterpillar Inc., withdrew last month from the $100,000-a-year membership club. And Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) recently questioned GM and Chrysler LLC’s participation after they received $17 billion in federal bailout funds. Barton also helped drive insurance giant AIG Inc. out of the group after it got $85 billion from the Treasury.
U.S. CAP officials insist they are still playing a big role in the climate debate on Capitol Hill that has been largely in standby mode in the Senate. The coalition’s CEOs are expected to participate today in a conference call with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a lead author of the Senate proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions. … [more]
Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed.
by Charlie Martin, Pajama Media, March 10, 2010 [here]
Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).
The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.
These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.
Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.
The reporter never published it. … [more]
California global warming law may lead to job losses, report says
The state’s nonpartisan legislative analyst’s office says the losses could occur in the short term. State Sen. David Cogdill uses the report to criticize climate regulation.
By Margot Roosevelt, LA Times, March 10, 2010 [here]
Debate over the economic effects of California’s first-in-the-nation global warming law flared this week, with a report saying short-term job losses can be expected.
The state’s nonpartisan legislative analyst’s office examined 2008 economic modeling by the California Air Resources Board and concluded that it “may overstate the number of jobs” attributable to future implementation of the 2006 climate law.
While acknowledging the uncertainty of such projections, the report said, “On balance, however, we believe that the aggregate net jobs impact in the near term is likely to be negative, even after recognizing that many of the . . . programs phase in over time.”
The report comes at a politically charged moment, when polls show employment to be Americans’ top concern. Signature gathering began last week on a November ballot initiative that would delay the law, known as AB 32, until unemployment drops to 5.5% for at least a year. California joblessness is over 12% today.
The report came in response to a query from Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), a critic of the law. Released by Cogdill on Monday, the report emphasized that job effects are “difficult to accurately predict . . . with gains in some occupations (including so-called green jobs) and losses in others (primarily involving fossil fuel-related energy production).” … [more]
NSIDC Reports That Antarctica is Cooling and Sea Ice is Increasing
By Steven Goddard, Watts Up With That, March 8, 2010 [here]
Last month we discussed how NASA continues to spread worries about the Antarctic warming and melting.
A January 12, 2010 Earth Observatory article warns that Antarctica
“has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002″ and that “if all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet).”
But NSIDC seems to be thinking differently in their March 3, 2010 newsletter. They say Antarctica is cooling and sea ice is increasing (makes sense – ice is associated with cold.)
Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region.
The NSIDC graph below shows the upwards trend in Antarctic Sea Ice. Some recent years have shown anomalies as high as +30%. … [more]
Greatest Arctic Ice Extent On Satellite Record
Arctic sea ice has reached its greatest extent since accurate satellite measurements have been made, according to the Centre for Ocean and Ice, Danish Meteorological Institute [here].
Current Sea Ice extent
Total sea ice extent on the northern hemisphere since 2005. The ice extent values are calculated from the ice type data from the Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF), where areas with ice concentration higher than 30% are classified as ice.
The total area of sea ice is the sum of First Year Ice (FYI), Multi Year Ice (MYI) and the area of ambiguous ice types, from the OSISAF ice type product. However, the total estimated ice area is underestimated due to unclassified coastal regions where mixed land/sea pixels confuse the applied ice type algorithm. The shown sea ice extent values are therefore recommended be used qualitatively in relation to ice extent values from other years shown in the figure.
Note: Richard B. points out in the comments that the ice extent today is not as great as in 2002, the first year that accurate satellite data was collected.
The Global Warming Hoax Money Trail
Joanne Nova, ABC.net.au, 4 March 2010 [here]
Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed.
Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.
The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it’s chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
Money for Sceptics: Greenpeace has searched for funding for sceptics and found $23 million paid by Exxon over 10 years (which has stopped). Perhaps Greenpeace missed funding from other fossil fuel companies, but you can be sure that they searched. …
Money for the Climate Industry: The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 — to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program. The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it could be a lot bigger. …
Ultimately the big problem is that there are no grants for scientists to demonstrate that carbon has little effect. There are no Institutes of Natural Climate Change, but plenty that are devoted to UnNatural Forces.
It’s a monopsony, and the main point is not that the scientists are necessarily corrupted by money or status (though that appears to have happened to a few), but that there is no group or government seriously funding scientists to expose flaws. …
Money for the Finance Houses: What the US Government has paid to one side of the scientific process pales in comparison with carbon trading. According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion. This is turnover, not specifically profits, but each year the money market turnover eclipses the science funding over 20 years. Money Talks. Every major finance house stands to profit as brokers of a paper trade. It doesn’t matter whether you buy or sell, the bankers take a slice both ways. The bigger the market, the more money they make shifting paper. …
The stealthy mass entry of the bankers and traders poses a major force. Surely if money has any effect on carbon emissions, it must also have an effect on careers, shareholders, advertising, and lobbying? There were over 2,000 lobbyists in Washington in 2008.
Unpaid sceptics are not just taking on scientists who conveniently secure grants and junkets for pursuing one theory, they also conflict with potential profits of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and every other financial institution or corporation that stands to profit like the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, PointCarbon, IdeaCarbon (and the list goes on) as well as against government bureaucracies like the IPCC and multiple departments of Climate Change. … [more]
Coldest Irish winter since 1963
Belfast Telegraph, 1 March 2010 [here]
Ireland suffered its coldest winter in almost five decades as the country shivered in the big freeze, it was revealed.
Met Eireann said temperatures were around two degrees lower than average during the season, making it the coldest winter recorded since 1963.
Arctic conditions experienced at the end of last year continued through January and February, with widespread spells of frost, sleet and snow.
Temperatures plummeted to below minus 10C in some places, with minus 16.3C recorded at Mount Juliet, Co Kilkenny, on January 7.
There were as many as 30 days with snow in parts of the east and west, mainly in the form of showers, and up to 80 ground frosts recorded during the season.
The weather summary for the winter months revealed that while the cold snap gripped the country, there was less wind and rain.
Wind speeds were below normal and just half the average amount of rain fell, making it the driest winter at Shannon Airport since 1963/4. … [more]
Stop Al Gore Before He Lies Again..and Again…and Again!
by Alan Caruba, Climate Realists, February 28th 2010, [here]
The New York Times once again is Al Gore’s “enabler”, publishing a February 28 opinion editorial, “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change”, despite the mounting evidence that global warming was and is a complete fabrication.
In November 2009, the Telegraph, a British newspaper, carried a story, “Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire”, so let us disabuse ourselves of the notion that Gore just wants to save the world.
Heavily invested in the “carbon credits” scam and technologies whose success depend on people believing fairy tales about “clean energy” alternatives such as wind and solar energy, Gore has enriched himself by trumpeting the biggest hoax of the modern era.
It is no surprise that The New York Times published his latest collection of lies. The reportorial record of the Times has been decades of lies about global warming. Whatever patina of respectability it once had has been eroded by its participation in the fraud. Why should it stop now?
There is increasing discussion of whether testimony before Congress by Gore and other global warming advocates constitute criminal behavior that begins with lying under oath.
On February 24th The Washington Times reported on a hearing of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget. “Republican James Inhofe told EPA head, Lisa Jackson, that man-made climate change was a ‘hoax’ concocted by ideologically motivated researchers who ‘cooked the science.’”
“More than that, Inhofe in releasing a GOP report questioning the science used to support cap-and-trade legislation, hinted that such activities may be part of a vast criminal enterprise designed to bilk governments, taxpayers and investors while enriching those making the false claims.” … [more]
A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC
The emerging errors of the IPCC’s 2007 report are not incidental but fundamental
By Christopher Booker, UK Telegraph, 27 Feb 2010 [here]
The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm – after three months when the IPCC and Dr Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost.
The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC’s last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other “extreme weather events” were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The “science is settled”, the “consensus” is intact.
But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.
All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC’s 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.
Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge. … [more]
Conflict of Interest or Double Agent?
Attorney General’s Senior Counsel Doubles as President of Law Firm Pushing CO2 Emissions Cap
By Jim Scarantino, New Mexico Watchdog, February 25, 2010 [here]
Stuart Bluestone wears two hats. He is Senior Counsel to Attorney General Gary King. He is also president of the board of directors of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, the law firm representing petitioners pressing the Environmental Improvement Board to impose an unprecedented statewide cap on emissions of carbon dioxide and gases they claim are causing global warming.
Bluestone has served as a director of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center (NMELC) since 2007. During that time, he has also served as Senior Counsel to Attorney General Gary King. In January 2010 he was named as president of the board of the NMELC.
NMELC is a law firm that represents private individuals and organizations in a wide range of environmental matters across the state. It sues private and public entities, participates in appeals, intervenes in lawsuits and administrative proceedings, and seeks to influence and persuade administrative agencies in adjudications and rule-making. It is the legal counsel representing the petitioners who are pressing the EIB to impose a cap on gases they claim are causing global warming. The cap they seek would cut carbon dioxide and other emissions by 25% below 1990 levels, the most drastic such emissions cap in the country. Electric power utilities, representatives of manufacturing, mining and agricultural industries, chambers of commerce and others fear this cap will have a devastating impact on New Mexico’s economy and tax base. … [more]
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley Is a Lying Sack
Senators Boxer and Merkley Owe Apology, says SPPI
SPPI Blog, February 24th, 2010 [here]
In Senate EPA hearings today false claims were made by Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Merkley (D-OR) that the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is Exxon Mobil funded, implying its work and findings should be cast aside.
Says SPPI president, Robert Ferguson, “SPPI has never been offered or accepted funds or support in any form from Exxon Mobil. Senators Boxer and Merkley owe an apology and a correction in the record.” Added Ferguson, “It is rather simple for any senate staffer to call Exxon Mobil to verify the facts, or examine public filings for Exxon Mobil’s Contributions and Community Investments.
The intended slurs came as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson faced stern questioning from Senator James Inhofe (R-AR) and Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) about recent revelations of the shoddiness of the science underpinning the EPA’s CO2 ‘endangerment’ finding.
Senator Barrasso referenced a recent study by SPPI indicating that NASA and NOAA temperature records had been manipulated, and asked the Administrator if she’d be willing to have the EPA IG investigate and review the allegations.
In Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? [here], veteran meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed world temperature records with the startling conclusion that instrumental land temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely and systematically tampered with that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant global warming in the 20th century. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
On the other hand, the Senators have not noted that in 2002, Exxon Mobil donated $100-million — $10-million a year for 10 years running — to Stanford University “for research into global warming and renewable energy alternatives.” Neither did the Senators suggest rejection of “oiled” testimony from any witness from Stanford University, including extreme alarmist Stephen Schneider’s in 2003.
Other academic institutions support by Exxon Mobil include Columbia, George Washington, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, North Carolina and Texas.
Also, MIT’s hurricane researcher, Kerry Emanuel, has accepted reimbursement payments from Exxon Mobile funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute for participating with NOAA’s Chris Landsea in a congressional staff briefing. Is Dr. Emanuel’s testimony considered tainted by Senators Boxer and Merkley?
“The act of dismissing information and data from SPPI which is not Exxon funded and accepting it from others who are Exxon funded — all the while saying Exxon funding disqualifies testimony — is Theater of the Absurd, “said Ferguson. “Perhaps California and Oregon voters will see it that way, too.”
Oregon Senate approves bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks
By Scott Learn, The Oregonian, February 23, 2010, [here]
Despite unanimous opposition from Republicans, Oregon’s Senate passed a bill this afternoon aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from cars, SUVs and pickup trucks in metropolitan areas even as the state’s population grows.
Senate Bill 1059 would require Oregon’s departments of transportation and land conservation to develop a statewide transportation strategy on greenhouse gases and educate the public about “the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles” and the costs and benefits of doing so.
The agencies would also establish a “tool kit,” planning guidelines and vehicle greenhouse gas reduction targets for five metropolitan areas: Bend, Corvallis, Eugene/Springfield, Medford and Salem/Keizer. The Portland area is already proceeding with legislatively mandated planning around vehicle emissions.
The tool kit would likely focus on mass transit, more compact development and measures to reduce traffic congestion, such as better timing of traffic signals, all aimed at meeting Oregon’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Seventeen Democrats supported the bill. The Senate’s 12 Republicans all voted against it, joined by Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Mount Hood, who said the bill doesn’t “mention anything about economic vitality.”
“We can certainly reduce greenhouse gases if nobody is working,” Metsger said. … [more]
Note: true environmental justice. The liberal urban centers elected the Dems in the Orygun Senate. Now they’ll reap the reward of their dystopian fancy: cars will be banned from their streets. Urbanites will be hoofing it to the welfare offices and soup kitchens.
The myth of global warming blizzards
by James M. Taylor, Heartland Institute, ClimateChangeFraud.com, 23 February 2010 [here]
Faced with the embarrassment of record snowstorms this winter, global warming apologists are now telling us such blizzards prove the existence of global warming.
Global warming computer models, we are told, predict a higher frequency of extreme weather events, such as heat waves, drought, floods, violent storms, and, yes, blizzards. The problem with this theory is that there is no such increase in extreme weather events in the real world.
High temperature extremes are not becoming more frequent. …
Flooding events likewise show no sign of increase. …
A study of stream flows and flooding events published in the April 2009 peer-reviewed Journal of the American Water Resources Association confirms this. “There is broad evidence … for increased magnitudes of low and moderate flows both regionally and nationally,” while “trends in high flows have been much less evident,” the study concluded.
Nor is drought becoming a problem. …
The oft-repeated claim that violent storms are becoming more numerous is also demonstrably false. …
The hurricane record is similar. National Weather Service records show hurricanes struck the United States far more frequently in the late 1800s through the 1950s than has been the case since the 1960s. In fact, global hurricane frequency during the past two years was lower than at any time since at least the 1970s.
Which brings us back to blizzards. Global warming apologists are claiming this year’s frequent blizzards and record snow amounts are evidence of global warming because warmer temperatures allow the air to hold more moisture, which in turn leads to heavier snow events. The problem with this theory is that North America has experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. It is certainly not warmer air this year that is causing more blizzards.
Moreover, prior winter snow records, such as Washington DC’s prior record snowfall in 1899, were set during unusually cold winters, not unusually warm ones. The winter of 1899 was one of the coldest U.S. winters on record, especially during February when most of the record blizzards occurred.
Global warming apologists seek to blame anything and everything on global warming, but the assertion that global warming is causing more blizzards and extreme weather events simply does not stand up under objective analysis. … [more]
Senator Barbara Boxer and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Throw IPCC Under the Bus
Following the release of the Inhofe Report, Boxer claimed she was only quoting “American scientists,” and Jackson reversed herself on the use of the IPCC as the “gold standard.”
by Charlie Martin, Pajamas Media February 23, 2010 [here]
During the review of the Environmental Protection Agency budget in today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, both Senator Barbara Boxer — the chair of the committee — and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Boxer and Jackson’s statements, in addition to being a striking change in policy, are problematic because U.S. climate science is very closely tied to the IPCC reports (as Christopher Horner showed in his recent PJM series on the NASA FOIA emails.)
The statements by Boxer and Jackson followed Senator Inhofe’s release (see the PJM exclusive report) in his opening statement of a minority staff report documenting many flaws in the IPCC report and the other evidence revealed in the Climategate files. (See the full hearing on CSPAN here; the exchanges with Senator Boxer and Inhofe, and Administrator Jackson begin at about 56 minutes into the video.)
Both Boxer and Jackson appeared to be trying to distance the EPA from the IPCC report. Boxer said:
In my opening statement, I didn’t quote one international scientist or IPCC report. … We are quoting the American scientific community here.
When Inhofe directly asked Jackson if she still considered the IPCC report the “gold standard,” she answered:
The primary focus of the endangerment finding was on climate threat risks in this country.
Jackson also noted:
[The errors Inhofe had presented were] international events. The information on the glaciers and other events doesn’t weaken … the evidence we considered [to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2.]
The EPA has specifically cited the IPCC AR4 report as the primary source from which it drew information to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2 as a pollutant. In the past, the worldwide nature of the climate changes, and of the data, had been cited as one of the reasons for using the IPCC report, but now it appeared that Jackson was trying to separate the Endangerment Finding from the IPCC. … [more]
A Dying Initiative: Western Climate Initiative
by Lawrence Solomon, SPPL Blog, Source: Financial Post, Feb. 23, 2010 [here]
The Western Climate Initiative’s cap and trade market may soon need to be renamed The Canada Climate Initiative.
Until last week, the Western Climate Initiative boasted seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces who were working toward the launch of a regional cap and trade system on Jan. 1, 2012. Last Thursday, Arizona formally announced it was backing out of cap and trade. As the state with the fastest rate of emission growth — 61% between 1990 and 2007 — many feared a body blow to Arizona’s economy if it tried to meet the initiative’s carbon reduction goals. The following morning neighbouring Utah indicated it might follow suit. By a 6 to 2 vote, its House Committee on Public Utilities and Technology passed a nonbinding resolution to urge Governor Gary Herbert to pull out of the Western Climate Initiative. Earlier in the week, the full Utah House voted resoundingly — 56 to 17 — to curb any carbon-curbing attempts by the federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency.
Specifically, the resolution introduced into the House “urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and with its ‘Endangerment Finding’ and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of the climate data conspiracy and global warming science can be substantiated.”
To date, only four of the 11 jurisdictions have adopted legislation that would allow them to participate in the cap-trade-market: California, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, with Manitoba appearing close to joining. Oregon, Washington, Montana and New Mexico have not yet adopted cap-and-trade legislation and now California, which is tottering toward bankruptcy, has become iffy: A voter initiative in California, if it passes in November, would halt the cap-and-trade program until unemployment falls to 5.5%.