Mark Steyn: What's so hot about fickle science?

Chicago Sun Times ^ | February 4, 2007 | Mark Steyn

[Tom D.]

What's so Hot About Fickle Science?

February 4, 2007

BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist

From the "Environmental News Network": "Science Is Solid on Climate Change, Congress Told." "The science is solid," says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.

"The science is solid," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

"The science is really solid," says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. "The science is very solid."

And at that point, on "Larry King Live" last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: "Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about."

Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed's heart at an Al Gore lecture.

Alas, the science isn't so solid. In the '70s, it was predicting a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers "climate change." If it's hot, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's cold, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because "climate change" is accelerating out of control.

The silliest argument is the anecdotal one: "You only have to look outside your window to see that climate change is happening." Outside my window in northern New England last week, it was minus 20 Fahrenheit. Very cold. Must be the old climate change kicking in, right? After all, December was very mild. Which was itself a sign of climate change. A few years ago, the little old lady who served as my town's historian for many decades combed over the farmers' diaries from two centuries ago that various neighbors had donated to her: From the daily records of 15 Januarys, she concluded that three were what we'd now regard as classic New Hampshire winters, ideal for lumbering or winter sports; eight had January thaws, and four had no snow at all. This was in the pre-industrial 18th century.

Today, faced with eight thaws and four entirely snowless Januarys, we'd all be running around shrieking that the great Gaia is displeased. Wake up and smell the CO2, people! We need to toss another virgin into the volcano. A virgin SUV, that is. Brand-new model, straight off the assembly line, cupholders never been used. And as the upholstery howls in agony, we natives will stand around chanting along with High Priestess Natalie Cole's classic recording: ''Unsustainable, that's what you are.''

As we say in the north country, if you don't like the weather, wait five minutes. And if you don't like the global weather, wait three decades. For the last century or so, the planet has gone through very teensy-weensy warming trends followed by very teensy-weensy cooling trends followed by very teensy-weensy warming trends, every 30 years or so. And, even when we're in a pattern of "global warming" or "global cooling," the phenomenon is not universally observed -- i.e., it's not "global," or even very local. In the Antarctic, the small Palmer peninsula has got a little warmer but the main continent is colder. Up north, the western Arctic's a little warmer but the eastern Arctic's colder. So, if you're an eastern polar bear, you're in clover -- metaphorically, I hasten to add. If you're a western polar bear, you'll be in clover literally in a year or two, according to Al Gore.

And, if you really don't like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, "Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?" So they started farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries. Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died. A terrible warning to us all about "unsustainable development": If a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards' new house must be wreaking.

The question is whether what's happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town's early settlers understood it. Or whether it's something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings. To the eco-chondriacs that's a no-brainer. As Mark Fenn of the Worldwide Fund for Nature says in the new documentary ''Mine Your Own Business'':

''In Madagascar, the indicators of quality of life are not housing. They're not nutrition, specifically. They're not health in a lot of cases. It's not education. A lot of children in Fort Dauphin do not go to school because the parents don't consider that to be important. . . . People have no jobs, but if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day that that family smiles. Then I put you with a family well off, in New York or London, and you count how many times people smile. . . . You tell me who is rich and who is poor."

Well, if smiles are the measure of quality of life, I'm Bill Gates; I'm laughing my head off. Male life expectancy in Madagascar is 52.5 years. But Mark Fenn is right: Those l'il malnourished villagers sure look awful cute dancing up and down when the big environmentalist activist flies in to shoot the fund-raising video.

If "global warming" is real and if man is responsible, why then do so many "experts" need to rely on obviously fraudulent data? The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the planet's climate history as basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end. Completely false. In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing power: As a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than Americans. That's why the climate-change computer models look scary. That's how "solid" the science is: It's predicated on the North Korean economy overtaking the United States.

Could happen. Who knows?

But that's the point: Who knows? You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in 2050.

However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the "climate change" jet set. Which is why, even before latest new IPCC doomsday scenario was released, the Associated Press was running stories like: "New Climate Report Too Rosy, Experts Say." The AP's "science writer" warns that even this "dire report" is the "sugarcoated version." It's insufficiently hysterical, in every sense.

© Mark Steyn 2007

[Tom D.]

Mr. Steyn is particularly sharp this morning.

I don't know what its been like elsewhere, but it's been pretty chilly around Eastern North Carolina lately.

[sig226]

Excellent. Thanmks for posting it.

[indylindy]

You would think most could see right through all this hysteria. Everyday we see the pushy hard sell tactics of the left. Steyn nails this one.

[kanawa]

Globull Warming Bump

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.

[Lurker]

And as the upholstery howls in agony, we natives will stand around chanting along with High Priestess Natalie Cole's classic recording: ''Unsustainable, that's what you are.''

Man he's funny.

L

[I-ambush]

Yes, there's frost on the ground here in Laurinburg.

[Condor51]

There's 'climate change' alright.

I'm approx 26 miles SW of downtown Chicago and right now, it's -7^oF with a wind chill of -18 F. Over night it hit -10.8^oF. And last night about 6:00pm the wind chill was -24^oF. (One independent 'weather station' two mile from the house (Lisle, IL) says it's -11^oF as of now)

So Al and Heidi et-la, take your 'climate change' and global warming crap and shove it.

[arthurus]

The problem is even GW is officially taking it serious now.

[SIDENET]

Steyn is great, as usual.

If anyone has a Mark Steyn ping list, please add me. Thanks.

[Treeless Branch]

EASILY the worst winter in Dallas since we moved here 6 years ago.

[SIDENET]

You see?...

CLIMATE CHANGE! ;-)

The Global Warmists really hit pay dirt with that phrase. Everything and anything gets lumped into "climate change", and it never ends. How convenient.

[KeepUSfree]

I have been arguing about this with some "believers" over on a catus forum I am a member of. I posted the following diatribe the other day. I am very proud that my dissertation touches on many of the points Mark makes in his. I am also consistanly amazed at how much better MArk says it (sigh). Here it is: "The sky is falling - The sky is falling" - Chicken Little circa 1955 I have no "political agenda". I don't let political or emotional "feelings" get in the way of "the truth". I neither love nor hate George Bush. I neither Love nor hate Bill Clinton. I do have an opinion on which was a better president - which I won't discuss here. However, I do have alot of common sense, long-term historical perspective and a keen sense of observation of nature. I keep reading and seeing and being bombarded with all these doom and gloom scenarios - which are identical to the untrue doom and gloom scenarios I've heard all my life (as I said in a previous post, I have a big stack of National Geographic "Weekly Readers" here I saved from 1969-1973 - many of which have the predictions of:

Overpopulation will kill everybody.
Man-made Pollution is going to kill us - and all wildlife.
Fish stocks in the ocean will be gone by 2000.
We'll be out of oil sometime in the 1990s.
My personal favorite:"The Next Ice Age".

Since then, we've had Ozone holes, AID's epidemics, Bird Flu.... the list goes on.

The only thing all of these "problems" have in common is this:

NONE of them happened - Not one.

Now, add to that a study of Climate history and one will find that, since the earth cooled, The climate has been changing. I have Palm Tree Fossils from the Mountains of West Virginia - there's no palm trees there now.
We've had anywhere from 5-20 "mass extinction events" on this planet - depending on your school of thought. We have had at least 6 Ice Ages.
In between the Ice Ages - which is where we are now - we have had periods of much higher temperatures.

None of this was man-made.

Everyday, we have a warming and cooling cycle - we call it a "day & night".

Every year, we have a warming and cooling cycle - we call it "summer & winter".

Now, suddenly we happen to live in a time where we can "notice" the 1500 year long heating and cooling cycle - and we're doomed.

And, not only are we doomed - it's also "our fault"

No, we're not doomed.

And no it's not "our fault".

It is no more "our fault" than the daily and yearly cycles are "our fault". And, even if this bigger cycle would kill us (which it won't), we can no more stop it than we could stop summer from arriving.

Nor would we want to.

Could you imagine the devastation that would occur if we could stop the tilt of the earth on it's axis in order to prevent winter??? It would be 10 times worse than the effects of winter itself. Back in the old days, before science learned a few things, a comet would appear in the sky or a volcano would explode and the natives would think "we made the Gods angry" and they would go and cut out the hearts of a few perfectly good virgins or burn them alive on the altar.
Now, we know that the natives didn't have the power "to make the gods angry", and what was happening was a natural occurrence.

Not surprisingly, most of the time, the leaders of these people knew that the sacrifices actually did nothing to appease the Gods either - but it sure helped them keep hold of thier power-base.

Fast forward 2000 or so years and just look at new sophistication. Oh, sorry, there IS no new sophistication. The natives are doing the same thing!!
The climate is changing. We don't "understand it". Our leaders tell us it is because "the Gods are angry at our evil SUV's and our evil indulgent lifestyles".
Our only "new sophistication" comes from knowing that sacrifing virgins won't do anything. Instead, we'll install new laws to tax and cripple the best economies in the world - while, once again, cementing the hold on power by those in charge.

Same ploys, same tactics, slightly different parameters - and the natives STILL fall for it. Amazing.

The only thing that would cause me to worry is if the climate ever stopped changing.

Mars is undergoing "global warming". Experts believe Pluto is also undergoing "Global warming". Hmm.... what's the common thread.
Could it be this:

As I have said many times, look around. Think for yourself. Follow the money. When one has a car inspected to get tags and registration, they ALWAYS find something wrong. Why, there's no money in not finding anything wrong. Same thing holds true in Climatology - only the dollar amounts are much, much bigger. So relax, enjoy the warmer weather. Grow more tropical plants. I myself, have 6 palm trees in my yard in Maryland. They're doing great! And, call me vile, but I am smugly happy about it.

[xcamel]

We'll give this a try - most likely will be a high-volume pinglist:

FReepmail me to get on or off

[leilani]

Steynping. Also see #10. Sidenet would like to be added to the list. Thanks!

[libertylover]

IF, repeat, IF there's climate change, here's the equation:
CLIMATE CHANGE = NATURAL FACTORS + MAN-MADE FACTORS.

Even though we know from the geological record that periods of warming and cooling have occurred in the past (long before Algore's hot air came into play), I've never seen any attempt to define how much of this alleged change is being caused by NATURAL FACTORS.

[non-anonymous]

to... deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings.

This is the effect of it. Let's assume for a second that the worst case scenarios are true; what's the best course of action? Do we put a huge drag on the world economy for the sake of a few fractions of a degree C, leaving the poorest where they are to weather whatever storms and floods are in store for them? Or do we instead allow them reach a level of prosperity to where dealing with changes in the weather isn't such a hardship?

You're not going to see Kyoto-burdened economies driving the creation of third-world wealth. It's going to be the US, China, and India, among others. Sadly though, it's going to be these nations who are blamed by the environmentalists for turning the third world into a bunch of consumer critters - out of their 'equilibrium' with nature (that's how they would prefer it - nature getting its fair shot), and onto their couches listening to Tunak Tunak Tun on their iPods.

[Sam Cree]

*

[Corey Ohlis]

"Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get."

I haven't heard that one since I worked in WX research at the University of Chicago!

[BibChr]

...melting faster than a coed's heart at an Al Gore lecture

This is what makes Steyn fun.

[capitalist229]

It is only 150-200 years since the 'Little Ice Age' ended. Of course it's getting warmer !

I'll start taking it seriusly when Babs turns in the keys to her jet.

BUMP

[Puckster]

It was -21 degrees without wind chill in Pine City, MN, this morning. Yes, we had a mild December and most of January, however, September and October were some of the coolest on recored.

[dblshot]

"these people knew that the sacrifices actually did nothing to appease the Gods either - but it sure helped them keep hold of their power-base."

Like good ole Al-pocaylpto Gore!

[NonValueAdded]

If anything, we should be taking steps to hasten Global Warming. After all, it is inoculation against Nuclear Winter and some states are surely taking steps to make that a reality.

[ClaireSolt]

I like his term, eco-chondriacs.

[Tribune7]

ping

[chiller]

I don't think W is taking it seriously despite some bromides from his office.

Worse are the captains of industry that seem to be buckling. I can't figure their angle, since a Kyoto type agreement would tend to cripple our economy....unless they think US taxpayers can foot the bill to clean up something they'd have to pay for later.

[StACase]

I've never seen any attempt to define how much of this alleged change is being caused by NATURAL FACTORS.

There is, you just have to look for it. The "Mainstream Media" certainly isn't going to tell you about it.

Here:

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective

[Reaganesque]

Bookmarked for later reading.

[COUNTrecount]

So does this mean that Mark won't be voting for Algore to get the Oscar or the Nobel? Just askin'.

[Tax-chick]

It's mighty cold in my house!

[thinking]

As I understand things...the earth's annual inclination, is responsible for the seasonal changes that we, in the higher latitudes, experience....in turn, the moon's position, relative to earth, moderates the inclination, if the moon wasn't in the precise position, that it is presently, the earth would experience greater or less than the 23.45 degrees of inclination, and as a result, the seasonal temperature variation would be greater, or less, dependent on weather the inclination angle increased or decreased....if the angle increased, the northern latitudes, would experience longer, and warmer summers, followed by longer and colder winters....conversely, if the angle decreased, then it would result in long winters, and virtually no summer.....

Laser measurements of the distance between the earth and our moon indicate that Moon, is slowly moving away from earth; as the distance increases, the stabilizing influence of the Moon on earth's annual inclination, will decline, and this decline will result in greater weather fluctuations here on earth

[kellynla]

"And, if you really don't like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium."

Nuff said.

Now we're off to the beach...
Gotta take advantage of this beautiful Southern Cali 80 degree weather before Al Bore predicts a "Global Freeze!" LMAO

GO COLTS!

[Beowulf]

bttt

[dufekin]

The "captains of industry" foresee regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to create barriers to entry for potential competitors. These enormous transnational mega-corporations tend to use their leverage in the deeply corrupt corridors of power to quash competition against their oligopoly. The government might forbid any new carbon dioxide emissions unless the proposed new emitter finds a way to eliminate some offsetting existing emissions, paying whatsoever the existing companies demand. In a more extreme version, the oligopolists profit immensely because the regulation creates insatiable scarcity of their product, enabling them to raise prices without worrying about the potential of competitors or new supply.

[Savage Beast]

Kinda makes you long for the days when Y2K occupied the minds--Oops!--of the mindless "do-gooders".

This is the crux of the matter:

"The question is whether...we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings."

Yes.

My wife and I owned a large tract of gorgeous, pristine wilderness, teeming with wildlife.

We wanted to keep it in its pristine beauty, permitted no hunting or fishing. We loved the animals. We loved the forest.

We're both vegetarians. We also recycle faithfully, are very conscious of avoiding environmental pollution.

The elite "Environmentalist" bureaucracy got into the act. They wouldn't leave us alone. We fought them for years. I told them that if they didn't leave us alone, we would have to sell the property, and the only person who would buy it would be a developer.

They didn't care. The bureaurocrats wanted CONTROL! They wanted POWER!

We sold it to a group of developers. They razed the forest.

I don't blame them.

The entire blame rests solely on the bureaucrats and the "Environmentalists" who delivered POWER and CONTROL to them!

The wilderness is now destroyed. The forest has been clear cut. The wildlife has been dispersed.

A lovely housing development has replaced the gorgeous, pristine wilderness, teeming with wildlife.

On the bright side, we made lots of money!

However, I said to my wife: "Here we are with all this money, and we are hearbroken." I have still not recovered from my grief over this. I wonder what happened to the animals.

This tale is completely true. It is also a parable. This is what elite "Environmentalists" and bureaucrats will do to the world if we are foolish enough to allow them to seize sufficient POWER and CONTROL.

[bjc]

Yesterday I worked out that we could invite everybody in the world, all 6.5 billion, to RI (approx 2,000 sq miles) to sit and watch the Super Bowl!! Think about it. Makes you wonder exactly how big a problem we are or could possibly be.

This was posted on Drudge:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

Seems as though the Sun may be behind these temperature fluctuations - cosmic rays and all that. What we need to do is start countering all these messages about man-made climate change with observable facts. Otherwise we are in danger of falling into the giant maw of UN control of our economy and, ergo, our lives.

[nuconvert]

Bump

[bjc]

I love this graphic. Can you provide the source?

[Moonman62]

Well, if smiles are the measure of quality of life, I'm Bill Gates; I'm laughing my head off.

And why is Bono asking Americans to be taxed to send money to them, yet sending none of his own?

[Moonman62]

Yesterday I worked out that we could invite everybody in the world, all 6.5 billion, to RI (approx 2,000 sq miles) to sit and watch the Super Bowl!! Think about it.

I am thinking about it, and I don't won't to be there if it happens.

[Rummyfan]

on "Larry King Live" last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: "Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about."

LOL! Bunch of Chicken Littles yelling the sky is falling. Madness is overtaking the elites.....

[tioga]

If a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards' new house must be wreaking.

he, he, he, he........

[headsonpikes]

The "captains of industry" foresee regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to create barriers to entry for potential competitors. These enormous transnational mega-corporations tend to use their leverage in the deeply corrupt corridors of power to quash competition against their oligopoly. The government might forbid any new carbon dioxide emissions unless the proposed new emitter finds a way to eliminate some offsetting existing emissions, paying whatsoever the existing companies demand. In a more extreme version, the oligopolists profit immensely because the regulation creates insatiable scarcity of their product, enabling them to raise prices without worrying about the potential of competitors or new supply.

Bingo! The enviro-activists are merely the new recruits to the role of Judas Goats for the abattoir of socialism.

[Matchett-PI]

"The problem is even GW is officially taking it serious now."

I think that's just for public consumption, I don't think he's changed his potition at all. He has his ways" of blocking what they're trying to do. Read on:

"It does a body good to see Republican capitalist beliefs come screaming across the front pages of the NYT. The first president of the United States with a degree in business has just installed by executive order a gatekeeper in every federal agency to evaluate the cost/benefit of regulations issued by Democrat-infested agencies of the Federal government. This is a major blow to Hillary's village people who want to take over the operation of the free market in order to run it out of the editorial offices of the NYT in New York.

I have reproduced the article below. ...This is big time folks; a major blow to creeping socialism and an "A" for President Bush. May capitalism rear its beautiful head in other areas also. Please note the restraint the article exhibits; believe me the seething hatred is just below the surface." ~ Dick McDonald www.dickmcdonald.blogspot.com

Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
by ROBERT PEAR NYT, Page 1

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy. In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable.”

Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush.

Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public.

Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.

The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention.

Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued.

The Office of Management and Budget already has an elaborate process for the review of proposed rules. But in recent years, many agencies have circumvented this process by issuing guidance documents, which explain how they will enforce federal laws and contractual requirements.

Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.”

“Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.”

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said: “The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.”

Business groups hailed the initiative.

“This is the most serious attempt by any chief executive to get control over the regulatory process, which spews out thousands of regulations a year,” said William L. Kovacs, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce. “Because of the executive order, regulations will be less onerous and more reasonable. Federal officials will have to pay more attention to the costs imposed on business, state and local governments, and society.”

Under the executive order, each federal agency must estimate “the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all its regulations” each year. Until now, agencies often tallied the costs and the benefits of major rules one by one, without measuring the cumulative effects.

Gary D. Bass, executive director of O.M.B. Watch, a liberal-leaning consumer group that monitors the Office of Management and Budget, criticized Mr. Bush’s order, saying, “It will result in more delay and more White House control over the day-to-day work of federal agencies.”

“By requiring agencies to show a ‘market failure,’ ” Dr. Bass said, “President Bush has created another hurdle for agencies to clear before they can issue rules protecting public health and safety.”

Wesley P. Warren, program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who worked at the White House for seven years under President Bill Clinton, said, “The executive order is a backdoor attempt to prevent E.P.A. from being able to enforce environmental safeguards that keep cancer-causing chemicals and other pollutants out of the air and water.”

Business groups have complained about the proliferation of guidance documents. David W. Beier, a senior vice president of Amgen, the biotechnology company, said Medicare officials had issued such documents “with little or no public input.”

Hugh M. O’Neill, a vice president of the pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis, said guidance documents sometimes undermined or negated the effects of formal regulations.

In theory, guidance documents do not have the force of law. But the White House said the documents needed closer scrutiny because they “can have coercive effects” and “can impose significant costs” on the public. Many guidance documents are made available to regulated industries but not to the public.

Paul R. Noe, who worked on regulatory policy at the White House from 2001 to 2006, said such aberrations would soon end. “In the past, guidance documents were often issued in the dark,” Mr. Noe said. “The executive order will ensure they are issued in the sunshine, with more opportunity for public comment.”

Under the new White House policy, any guidance document expected to have an economic effect of $100 million a year or more must be posted on the Internet, and agencies must invite public comment, except in emergencies in which the White House grants an exemption.

The White House told agencies that in writing guidance documents, they could not impose new legal obligations on anyone and could not use “mandatory language such as ‘shall,’ ‘must,’ ‘required’ or ‘requirement.’ ”

The executive order was issued as White House aides were preparing for a battle over the nomination of Susan E. Dudley to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.

President Bush first nominated Ms. Dudley last August. The nomination died in the Senate, under a barrage of criticism from environmental and consumer groups, which said she had been hostile to government regulation. Mr. Bush nominated her again on Jan. 9.

With Democrats in control, the Senate appears unlikely to confirm Ms. Dudley. But under the Constitution, the president could appoint her while the Senate is in recess, allowing her to serve through next year.

Some of Ms. Dudley’s views are reflected in the executive order. In a primer on regulation written in 2005, while she was at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Northern Virginia, Ms. Dudley said that government regulation was generally not warranted “in the absence of a significant market failure.”

She did not return calls seeking comment on Monday. bttt

[KeepUSfree]

You can just right click to download that photo. I have a larger version. You could go to

www.thenaturedepot.com/personal and get it from there (sunearth-1280.jpg)

[doingwhatican]

The problem is these ecoloons are writing public policy based on their myth. And these policies will have real effects on the world.

Climate change is part of the looney Left's religion and they're good at convincing some of the people and better at imposing their views on the rest.

As always, Steyn delivers.

[Gritty]

You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in 2050.

However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the "climate change" jet set.

Exposed!

If Steyn sets his laser sights on you, you are going to end up with no clothes, no matter how much ermine you are wearing!.

[AFPhys]

Incredible article by Steyn showing just what buffoons the global warming alarmists are.

[Matchett-PI]

"Up north, the western Arctic's a little warmer but the eastern Arctic's colder. So, if you're an eastern polar bear, you're in clover -- metaphorically, I hasten to add. If you're a western polar bear, you'll be in clover literally in a year or two, according to AlGore.