A geologist from the northern reaches of Alberta changed his mind on global warming after building a "Kyoto house" which he says uses less than 10% of the natural gas used in a regular home. Bruno Wiskel's research resulted in a new book titled The Emperor's New Climate.

Wiskel, who teaches an extension course at the University of Alberta called "Building an Energy Efficient Home for Less" does not seem to be cut from the same cloth as most global warming skeptics. I'd be interested in reading his book, but I can't find it for sale in any of the typical book-selling venues. His other books, Woodlot Management and Pond Raising Rainbow Trout are available. There seems to be irony in that.

ExxonMobil should be getting used to this. In early September, the UK branch of ExxonMobil, Esso UK Limited, received a letter from the Royal Society, then in late October Senators John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe sent a letter to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson asking the oil giant to cease funding of climate change "deniers." Heck, there's an entire web site focussed on "outing" ExxonMobil's funding of climate change skeptics. The Wall Street Journal, which has a bit of a skeptical bent on the global warming issue, comments extensively on the senators' letter.

I've got mixed feelings on this. First of all, the $19 million dollars spent by ExxonMobil since the late 1990s (7 or 8 years) seems to be a relative pittance, especially given the monstrous profits the company has generated in recent years. The think tank specifically mentioned in the letter, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has received just over $2 million from ExxonMobil since 1998 (through 2005) - that just doesn't seem like a lot to me.

Of course, it's always best to trust peer-reviewed science over research which hasn't come under the same scrutiny, but is peer review always fair? An April, 2006 editorial in the Wall Street Journal from Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, included this paragraph expressing his own frustration at the peer review process:

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Mr. Lindzen is criticized by some for taking consulting fees from oil and gas interests.

The green blog Gristmill yesterday posted an entry in their series "How to talk to a climate skeptic" titled "Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle." Since that idea gets raised over here frequently, I thought I'd give you all a link and see what you think.

Was the pressure too much, or too late? ExxonMobil has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Exxon stopped funding CEI in 2006, prior to the letter from Senators Snowe and Rockefeller as well as the UCS report, and the letter from England's Royal Society.

"Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world's biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been 'widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.'

Exxon's funding action was confirmed this week by its vice president for public affairs. Kenneth Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that Exxon decided in late 2005 that its 2006 nonprofit funding would not include CEI and 'five or six' similar groups.

Cohen declined to identify the other groups, but their names could become public this spring when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups."

The oil company is also involved, along with representatives of 20 other companies, in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a D.C. based nonprofit. The talks, which began in December, should generate a report this fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

If ExxonMobil shows the same commitment to developing alternative fuels that BP and Shell have shown, we may yet shake our oil addiction.

A report out of Russia today from Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, who says an increase in solar activity is to blame for global warming. Abdusamatov is one of a small number of scientists who dispute the view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I have a couple of gripes with Abdusamatov's claims in this article. First with this paragraph:

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age.

My second gripe stems from this paragraph:

However, Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The name, greenhouse effect is unfortunate, for a real greenhouse does not behave as the atmosphere does. The primary mechanism keeping the air warm in a real greenhouse is the suppression of convection (the exchange of air between the inside and outside). Thus, a real greenhouse does act like a blanket to prevent bubbles of warm air from being carried away from the surface. As we have seen, this is not how the atmosphere keeps the Earth's surface warm. Indeed, the atmosphere facilitates rather than suppresses convection.

I enjoyed a piece today from William Tucker in The American Spectator on global warming and nuclear power. Yes, The American Spectator. I can just imagine right now some of the regulars here are falling over in shock because I'm posting an article from that source. And others have their undies in a bunch for the same reason. The author of the piece wants to encourage the use of nuclear power and wants to use global warming as a "motivator" for environmentalists who would otherwise be against it.

The author then documents his research into global warming and the tactics which have come into play on both sides, which he refers to a guerilla warfare with both sides now at the point of trying to outlaw the other's opinion. Finally he decides perhaps both sides are right. Maybe there's a natural cycle which is being amplified by human activity. His final conclusion:

As far as I'm concerned, both sides have a point. Yes, there was a Medieval Warming and yes, the sun is the main agent of temperature change, but something is also happening with carbon emissions that is pushing us into unknown territory. It's worth doing something about it.

I hope this convinces both sides to take another look at nuclear power.

The Toronto Star published an interesting article on Canada's climate-change skeptics Sunday. Interesting for its content, but also for its tone, which is fairly clearly one of some disdain for those who remain skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. The author chooses to use the term "denier" throughout the article, a term which carries a strong negative connotation and which stifles an open discussion on the issue.

The skeptics face an uphill climb against a rising tide of opinion that humans are at least partly responsible for the current warming, but they remain committed to slowing public action. The article asks the fair question of who is funding skeptical organizations. At least some of the skeptics do have ties to fossil fuel industries, either directly or through industry-sponsored think tanks. Many of the skeptics claim they only want to delay action until there is adequate proof of human impact on climate.

The skeptics' critics say we have adequate proof now and any more delays in action are not justified. Sounds like things north of the border aren't so different from things here in the U.S.A.

I wrote an entry late last week about a California lawmaker pushing to ban incandescent light bulbs. I was going to post that today, but I happened upon an editorial by Canadian skeptic Dr. Timothy Ball that I thought would spark even more discussion. Dr. Ball is a consultant to Canadian lobby group Friends of Science, a group which has been criticized because a large portion of its funding comes from the oil and gas industry.

In some off-topic notes, I apologize that I've fallen behind on publishing comments - I will get to them tomorrow. I do want to say that I want the tone here to change. I'm drawing the line on the insults in the comments. Before people scream censorship, I want to state again I don't care what your opinion is. State it in a civil manner and I will publish it. Call someone else an idiot because they disagree with you and I will not. Period.

I'll publish that light bulb piece tomorrow, too....that's interesting stuff.

Roger Pielke, Sr posted a blog entry on the AMS Statement on Climate Change which readers here may find interesting.

While you're over there, read Dr. Pielke's complaint about the misrepresentation of his position in an article in the Rocky Mountain News. Very interesting and telling that - so often journalists have their own story to tell rather than reporting facts.

I've used the "skeptic" category here, but I don't really like it. Dr. Pielke's conclusions summarize his findings about climate science, and particularly the impact humans have had on the climate.

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response
that would occur.

It's getting tough to be a global warming skeptic within the public arena. Just ask Oregon state climatologist George Taylor, who may be fired by Gov. Ted Kulongoski for having views not in line with state policy on greenhouse gas reduction.

The article I linked refers to 3 other state climatologists (there are 47 all together) who hold skeptical views, Patrick Michaels of Virginia, David Legates of Delaware and John Christy (incorrectly spelled as Christie in the article) of Alabama (who was also a lead author on the 2001 IPCC Assessment and a contributing author on earlier IPCC reports).

A quick Google search for more information on Taylor led me to a response he wrote to an August, 2005 newspaper article in the Willamette Week in which Taylor addresses, point by point, the criticisms leveled at him in the article.

As an aside, I would encourage people to read the two page Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists. It covers the difficulty of climate prediction and, perhaps more importantly, the difficulty of verifying the accuracy of climate prediction and also addresses public policy on climate change in a sensible, practical manner.

The Boston Globe had an interesting article today on the state of skepticism in the wake of the recent IPCC report. The article makes some points which regular readers over here are already familiar with, such as the changing position of ExxonMobil on the issue of global warming.

Still, most of the skeptics featured in the article, Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Senator James Inhofe and Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics among them, have not changed their attitudes toward the issue of global warming. In fact, the title of the article, Debate over Global Warming is Shifting, seems a bit disingenuous. With the exception of ExxonMobil and the fact that the American Enterprise Insitute is showing signs of backing off its attempt to challenge the IPCC report, there is no other proof offered in this article that there has been any change in the amount of skepticism over global warming. It would be interesting to know if the release of the IPCC summary changed public perception of the issue at all, or if the public was even aware of it.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) has just been published by self-described "conservative publisher" Regnery. You'll mostly likely not be surprised to discover that:

a) the book has already been reader-reviewed more than 60 times in its first week of availability, and was ranked the 22nd most popular item on amazon.com (no mean feat!) when I visited the site (rankings are updated hourly).

b) as befits such a controversial topic, most readers give the book either one star (the lowest rating possible) or five stars (the highest). There's apparently little or no middle ground, which you could interpret as a microcosm of the global warming debate.

If you're not familiar with amazon.com product pages, you can "tag" books so that other site visitors can search for items with similar tags. I was amused to learn that the first tag provided by a reader for this book was "delusional raving."

I'm certainly not endorsing the book (I haven't read it), and Accuweather.com certainly makes no money from linking to the book, but I thought that it would make an interesting post.

Well, at least one. Seems that the Timothy Ball editorial I commented on here in early February got picked up by the Drudge Report, and the readership there combined with Ball's overall visibility as a skeptic has resulted in him receiving five death threats by e-mail.

All righty then! I wonder if people who go so far off the deep end in their support of whatever position it is they hold dear realize they do more damage to their cause than good.

Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist also appeared before the United States House of Representatives Wednesday. Lomborg is a skeptic, but perhaps not in the way some people here might expect. The first of four points he made in his testimony was that global warming is real and man-made.

Okay, so where's the skepticism? Lomborg is skeptical about claims of the effects of global warming, which he says are often wildly exaggerated, skeptical of many of the solutions being considered, including the Kyoto Protocol, and skeptical of the value of making climate change a global priority over other issues where, he says, we can do more good with less investment.

I'd encourage people to take the time to follow the link to the testimony - it's 19 pages (plus references), which may seem like a lot, but it's a fast, easy read. I'm really interested in what people think about Lomborg's ideas - especially what those firmly in the AGW camp think of them - and I'd rather people read his words rather than my interpretation of what he's saying.

Earlier this week, I read an article about "Alaska's best-known climate-change skeptic," Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute. Dr. Akasofu also served as director of the International Arctic Research Center. This short article left me with a lot of questions regarding Dr. Akasofu's position on climate change - beyond a general sense of scientific skepticism.

Still, I was interested to know if more of Dr. Akasofu's ideas were available on the Internet, and with a little research I was able to find a couple of interesting articles. Both of these links posit that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age; the first is quite brief, while the second is the complete paper.

A Possible Cause of Global Warming

Is the Earth Still Recovering from the "Little Ice Age"?

Anyone who has followed the issue of global warming for a significant period of time already knows that Dr. William Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and most likely the world's most famous hurricane season forecaster, is skeptical of global warming. To say the least. Following this year's National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, Gray was questioned about Al Gore and global warming. Gray responded with what seems to be his typical bluntness.

A few more articles about Gray's skepticism can be found at The Denver Post, Discover Magazine, and The Washington Post.

This week's edition of Newsweek (available on-line), features a large section on leadership and the environment. Lots of information here, and a surprise or two. The print issue features California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on the cover, and the cover story talks about the Republican's leadership role on green issues in the state and beyond California's borders. With California being the 6th largest economy in the world, the influences of changes made there spread far and wide.

I was surprised to see a column written by Richard Lindzen among the rest of the material in Newsweek. Lindzen argues that "The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week."

Also from the media files, The Discovery Channel, along with some of the other members of the Discovery family, notably Discovery Science and Discovery Times are heavily promoting their line-ups for next weekend, in celebration of Earth Day. Programming will include shows on alternative energy and global warming.

Katie's got some global warming headlines you may have missed, along with part two of her interview with author Chris Horner.

About a year ago, David Dilley, founder of a company called Global Weather Oscillations, made a presentation on his research on ENSO, seasonal temperatures and precipitation at AccuWeather.com headquarters in State College, Pennsylvania. I was not present for this presentation, however, several of our senior meteorologists were. Overall, Mr. Dilley's research made a positive impression, although those in attendance were not absolutely convinced by it.

In the year since that presentation, Mr. Dilley believes he has found a connection between the cycles he's studied in regards to ENSO and hurricanes and periods of global warming. Mr. Dilley, whose work is currently unfunded, will be available to respond to comments.

Who is Reid Bryson? Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences), identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world, the "father of the science of modern climatology."

Bryson was one of the first climatologists to suggest a connection between human activity and climate change, 40 years ago. At the time, his ideas were laughed at. Bryson wasn't talking about carbon dioxide as a means of changing climate, but rather land use changes. Doctor Bryson doesn't believe CO₂ is driving climate change. He believes that the data fed into computer models overemphasizes carbon dioxide and handles water vapor poorly. Is he right? Certainly he's not in line with the "consensus." That's okay. The science of AGW can withstand challenges if it's accurate, and if it's not, it needs to be challenged.

Katie Fehlinger has an interview with hurricane expert and global warming skeptic Dr. William Gray this week. Katie also hits some headlines we haven't talked about here. One of them relates to a question Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) asks on Yahoo Answers. I thought I would include a link here for anyone interested.

David Evans, who spent six years working on carbon accounting for the Australian government, has turned from anthropogenic global warming believer to skeptic. I've linked an article by Mr. Evans in which he explains his change of heart. Evans is willing to put his money where his mouth is, he recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming will slow in the next 20 years.

Evans' opinions are interesting. He doesn't deny carbon dioxide is playing a role in global warming, but believes it may be far smaller than climate scientists believe it is. The alternative he offers, Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray/clouds theory, is not accepted by mainstream climate science.

A couple of blogs exist already with Evans' opinions, which have inspired lots of comments. Backseatdriving has the original entry, complete with wager. Mises.org has another entry. The comments on both blogs are civil, and the discussions interesting.

Katie Fehlinger has the second part of her interview with Dr. William Gray in this week's edition of Headline: Earth. In this week's segment, Dr. Gray talks about why he doesn't trust computer climate models and his own climate theory. This is the theory that RealClimate has criticized. Watch Dr. Gray, read RealClimate and make up your own mind.

Professor R Timothy Patterson of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre stated in an article from The Financial Post on Canada.com that his research into the mud layers on the bottom of certain fjords in British Columbia reveals that solar output is a stronger player in climate change than CO2 and that global cooling is on the way. Patterson found a direct correlation between the changes in mud layers over 5000 years and the solar cycle.

The article states that solar scientists predict that by the year 2020 the sun will be going into its weakest Schwabe Solar Sunspot Cycle in the past two centuries, leading to global cooling.

Make sure to check out the sunspot graph in the middle of the article. Click on it to make it larger.

This week's video features Katie Fehlinger's interview with author and noted global warming Skeptic, Dr. Fred Singer. Ok, you caught me. This was actually last week's video, but because of technical difficulties, it's now this week's video.

Dr. Singer, who is founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, believes that the current warming is related to a natural cycle.

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature claims that more than 500 scientists have published evidence that refutes at least one element of the current man-made global warming predictions. Of that 500, more than 300 scientists found evidence that a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warnings similar to ours since the last Ice Age or that our modern global warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. In the press release from PRnewswire, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author Dennis Avery states "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850."

Two questions I have is what were the total number of peer-reviewed literature that Avery/Singer analyzed and how recent is the literature?

Avery also notes, "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics, but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see." In their new book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, the specialties of the scientists in the peer-reviewed analysis included tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

"....we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (+/- 500 years) running through the last million years of history," said co-author and climate physicist S. Fred Singer.

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery.

I suggest reading the press release in its entirety, since I did not include all of the quotes. It is just one page.

Back to the New York Times once again, but I suspect some of the skeptics will be pleasantly surprised by this piece from Science Times columnist John Tierney. In his article, John questions the critics of the recent International Conference on Climate Change, and their accusations that the sponser of the conference, the Heartland Institute, is just a front for the fossil fuel industry.

From Tierney's article..........

Here's a response from Joseph Bast, Heartland's president: "Donations from energy companies have never amounted to more than 5 percent of our budget in any year, and there is no corporate sponsor underwriting any of this conference. These criticisms are just a standard left-swing smear."

The skeptics in the minority start off with a disadvantage in getting their message heard simply because of the media's bias for bad news and horror stories. When there's a well-financed majority dominating the public debate, I find it odd to hear its members objecting to anyone else receiving money or attention, says Tierney.

Tierney is basically tired of this talk about the money and wants more focus on substance.What do you think?

Large thunderstorm anvil

Results from two surveys that focused on the opinions of TV meteorologists in regards to climate change will be released by the American Meteorological Society (AMS) at their 36th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology on June 25-29 in Denver, Colorado. An interesting article by Bill Dawson of The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media offers a variety of opinions on why there appears to be a large percentage of TV meteorologists that are skeptical about global warming and the idea that man is largely responsible..............

--Many TV weathercasters have no background in climate science or degrees in meteorology.

--There is little discussion between TV weathercasters and climatologists.

--Many TV weathercasters were not satisfied by answers to some of their questions when climate scients presented data in last year's AMS meeting.

--Since most TV weathercasters have very little time preparing their own short term forecasts
they just do not have time to learn about the latest scientific developments in regards to long-term climate.

--Some TV weathercasters think that climate change policies will hurt the economy and a
a few are putting fundamentalist religious beliefs first.

--There is a disdain from TV weathercasters who are predicting the weather for those who pontificate about what their climate models show.

--Some TV weathercasters are skeptical only because they feel they have asked questions and raised issues then told to be quiet and this is the truth.

By the way,

The main article has a lot more information to read and related links.

Also, from what I personally see, there are also a number of current and retired TV meteorologists with a good deal of atmospheric science eduaction/professional background that are also skeptical about man-made global warming.

Dr. Roy Spencer.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist from the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Dr. James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies were both in Kansas earlier last week, but at different venues. Spencer is a noted man-made global warming skeptic while Hansen has been warning the public of the dangers of human induced climate change for years.

I have talked about Dr. Hansen on a number of occasions and just recently about his actions in the UK in regards to a proposed coal power plant, so I will focus this blog on Dr. Spencer, who is the author of Climate Confusion.

Dr. Spencer was invited to the Kansas Chamber of Commerce Business and Energy Summit. Spencer acknowledges that the planet is warming, but it is natural, and not due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. According to Spencer, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be absorbed by the environment and can increase agricultural production.

Many scientists, including Dr. Hansen disagree with Spencer, but Spencer said there is scientific reason to doubt the majority of his colleagues. He said scientists ignore earlier climatic changes that had nothing to do with humans, and fail to understand how cloud cover and other factors regulate the atmosphere, according to the Wichita Eagle article.

Spencer also advised the several hundred people in attendance not to trust the mainstream media on the topic of carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. “You will be misled on what is out there in the scientific literature," he said. From the Lawrence Journal and World News.

-----------------------

Note: The Kansas Chamber of Commerce has urged the construction of two coal-fired power plants in southwestern Kansas, but governor Kathleen Sebelius has rejected the proposed project. A day later Dr. James Hansen had dire warnings for the Kansas Wind and Renewable Energy Conference about climate change if humans don't act.

Many of the statements in this posting are excerpts from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change's (NIPCC) 2008 summary for policymakers, which is titled 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate'.

According to the NIPCC, there is clear and compelling evidence that higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), even if accompanied by higher temperatures and changes in precipitation, would, on balance, be more beneficial than harmful.

Highlights from the NIPCC report..............

1. The IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) estimate of future man-made CO2 emissions are too high.

---There are basic errors in economics and the handling of economic statistics in the IPCC modeling.
---The IPCC grossly exaggerates the long-term increase in emissions from poor countries, and the idea that poor countries would grow so fast is implausible.

2. Higher concentrations of CO2 would be beneficial to plant and animal life.

--Higher CO2 concentrations allow plants to grow bigger and produce more flowers and fruit.
--Higher CO2 concentrations lead to reduced rates of water loss by transpiration, thus, plants are able to better withstand drought.
--Higher CO2 concentrations allow plants to better cope with a variety of environmental stresses.
--The NIPCC claims that increases in CO2 does not harm coral reefs, in fact, in the Great Barrier Reef the "20th century witnessed the second highest period of above-average calcification in the past 237 years.

3. Higher CO2 concentrations are not responsible for weather extremes, storms or hurricanes.

--The report shows that there is no evidence, at least in the U.S., that extreme high temperatures are on the increase.
--Recent European heatwaves have been caused by circulation anomalies.
--A warmer climate would lead to increased vertical wind shear, which would impede the development of hurricanes.
--In regards to mid-latitude storms, global warming will lead to a lessening of temperature gradients between the equator and the poles. The result would be fewer and less intense storms.

So, based on these conclusions from the NIPCC, should we have nothing to worry about in terms of increasing CO2 emissions?

--------
The NIPCC's full 2009 report, which is titled 'Climate Change Reconsidered' was published by the Heartland Institute, and co-authored by Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer.