A few tidbits:

It is tempting to look at the line-up of storms in the Atlantic (Hanna, Ike, Josephine) and, in the name of everything green, blame climate change for this state of affairs. But there is another inconvenient truth out there: We are getting more vulnerable to weather mostly because of where we live, not just how we live.

In recent decades, people around the world have moved en masse to big cities near water. The population of Miami-Dade County in Florida was about 150,000 in the 1930s, a decade fraught with severe hurricanes. Since then, the population of Miami-Dade County has rocketed 1,600% to 2,400,000.

So the same intensity hurricane today wreaks all sorts of havoc that wouldn’t have occurred had human beings not migrated.

Could mankind possibly be warming the atmosphere and be partially to blame for seemingly worse storms? Possibly. But nothing can compare to the fact that humans are purposely moving into the paths of these disasters.

What’s changed is what we’ve put in the storm’s way. Crowding together in coastal cities puts us at risk on a few levels. First, it is harder for us to evacuate before a storm because of gridlock. And in much of the developing world, people don’t get the kinds of early warnings that Americans get. So large migrant populations - usually living in flimsy housing - get flooded out year after year. That helps explain why Asia has repeatedly been the hardest hit by disasters in recent years.

Secondly, even if we get all the humans to safety, we still have more stuff in harm’s way. So each big hurricane costs more than the big one before it, even controlling for inflation.

And finally my point, and one that many people caught up in the “climate change” emotional swing don’t seem to realize.

But even if greenhouse gas emissions plummeted miraculously next year, we would not expect to see a big change in disaster losses. So it’s important to stay focused on the real cause of the problem, says Pielke. “Talking about land-use policies in coastal Mississippi may not be the sexiest topic, but that’s what’s going to make the most difference on this issue.”

Another inconvenient truth for climate change nuts. The problem is not that storms are getting worse. It’s that more and more people are purposely putting themselves in the way of storms that are no more powerful than they have ever been. You can cut our carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, but if you keep building houses on the coast and below sea level, it shouldn’t be a shock when a hurricane blows them over and floods them.

It’s official: Daylight Saving Time is a bust. Designed (and recently extended) as a measure to save energy in a period of inflated electricity prices, an in-depth University of California study has now shown that DST doesn’t save anyone any money at all. In fact, it’s costing consumers extra, to the tune of $3.19 in extra utility bills per year.

The study was made possible because of the peculiarities of the state of Indiana, which was only partially on DST until 2006. When the whole state finally went DST (to sync with the national business day), some comparisons vs. the prior method were made apparent. The study calculated that the shift costs Indiana residents an extra $8.6 million in electricity bills in total.

Why? Shouldn’t they be, well, saving daylight—and burning fewer light bulbs?

They are, said the study. But while lighting bills were reduced, air-conditioning units had to run more often, because people were home on hot afternoons when they’d otherwise be still at the office. Heaters had to be run on cool mornings, too, when people got up and it was still dark outside.

Professor Matthew Kotchen, who pioneered the study, noted, “I’ve never had a paper with such a clear and unambiguous finding as this.”

This isn’t the first time the energy-saving rationale of Daylight Saving Time has been attacked. The first was in 1976, three years after DST went into effect, when the National Bureau of Standards found that there was no significant energy savings after the switch. The recent expansion of DST to a few extra weeks was also revealed to have saved no energy during its run. And yet here we are…

In related news, it was also revealed that Daylight Saving Time actually creates no additional daylight.

Now that we know, can we finally get rid of this nonsense? It steals an hour of evening light during the winter, doesn’t reduce energy costs, and actually costs the US more! What kind of sense does that make?

The former VP preaches his new-age theology, telling us “the debate is over.” That’s only because he refuses to debate his feelings and concerns about global warming with eminent scientists armed with facts.

A fact such as water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect, but humans produce less than 0.001 percent of it. This is common knowledge among climatologists; however, Hollywood elites, editorialists and special interest and certain governmental groups normally ignore this fact altogether.

Gore intones there is consensus, which is defined as “general agreement: unanimity,” and there may indeed be consensus among true believers like Alicia Silverstone and Leonardo DiCaprio, and now Pastor Evans. However, a majority of climate scientists have never endorsed the notion that human activity is causing global warming or that it is a crisis that requires immediate urgent action.

Evans calls Gore a prophet—“someone with spiritual insight who evaluates present circumstances and then speaks the truth to power about future consequences.”

Actually, he is more akin to a seer—“one that practices divination especially by concentrating on a glass or crystal globe.”

The problem is, Gore only sees himself in that globe, holding his Nobel Peace Prize and his Oscar. Thus the rationale for Gore’s zealotry - self-aggrandizement. He wasn’t elected president, so he set out to save us from ourselves. Hallelujah.
Dale Hill
Montgomery

And as much as I enjoyed that, I enjoyed one of the reader comments to the article even more:

I’d call setting up companies that “sell” carbon offsets taking care of himself and his cronies ... but that’s just me.

In the old days, you could pay for a pardon for your sins ... with the religion of global warming you can do the same.

Interesting, no?  Get into a discussion with a group about global warming and mention any real facts, and people will look at you like you just committed blasphemy by questioning global warming. It really is becoming a religion, with blind devotion in spite of facts, an extreme emotional response to people who disagree, and with a “pay your way out” carbon credit and everything.  I wonder how long until they start a “Global Warming Inquisition?”