In one breathtaking stroke of close-minded prejudicial rhetoric and disinformation, Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, was able to lump any and all concerned about climate change as anti-capitalist, hysterical, and sick.

A pretty impressive feat, but made easier when your grasp of science is weak and you employ, as David Sassoon points out in SolveClimate.com, the psychological illusion of “projection”.

That Mr. Stephens bandies about terms and phrases that may suggest an air of knowledge, he is, in terms of his factual assertions, either ignorant or purposefully misleading (it’s gotta be one or the other); and in his fear-based dogma equating global warming “believers” as pro-socialist anti-capitalist neurotics participating in some form of “sick theology” he belies his own neurosis – his own sickness.

Stephens states numerous “scientific” facts but fails to actually cite any of them. Where does he get his statistics from in his assertions regarding ocean temperatures? Perhaps from data such as is discussed in SkepticalScience, but if so, he’s failed – again either through ignorance or willful deception – to state the whole picture. Typical cherry-picking.

In regard to NASA’s “begrudging” (really? or is this his own characterization?) confirmation of U.S. temperature extremes, well, they’re just that – U.S. temperatures. His point gets skewed when we’re reminded that we are talking of global climate – and haven’t we been through this already when NASA first made their correction (in tenths of a degree) last year? In any case, aside from the error of presenting localized data when talking of a global issue (and again, Stephens is either talking through ignorance or purposefully shoveling B.S.), he fails to cite a source.

It appears he doesn’t want to get too deep into the science, either because he simply isn’t that interested in it or, what I suspect is likely the case, the deeper he goes the more it flies in the face of his weak-minded argument (or perhaps both).

But science really isn’t the point for Stephens anyway – merely it’s fragile foundation. It seems that, in his mind, “global warming” is some form of religion (albeit a “sick” one) that requires of its adherents an essential anti-American, anti-capitalist, even anti-humanity fervor in order to belong.

This is where Stephens shows his true colors by projecting his own fear-based neurosis on his antagonist.

Where does he get this notion? In fact, the future of entrepreneurial America, its position as leader in business, technology, and innovation lie in visionary men and women all over the country ready and eager to do their part in moving the country – and the rest of the world  – into a new, sustainable energy economy. One that works. If only people like Bret Stephens would get out of the way.

I’ve had the pleasure of speaking with and meeting many of these people as the publisher of this blog and writer for TriplePundit.com. I’m just a blogger. Bret Stephens purports himself, I assume, as a full-fledged journalist, entitled to all honors, awards, rights, and privileges of his journalistic fraternity. Perhaps there’s even a plaque on his wall with the word “Journalist” boldly imprinted upon it.

All I can suggest for Mr. Stephens, writing for an allegedly premier business publication, is that he get out more.

But there’s the rub. He doesn’t want to read the science in-depth, and he doesn’t want to get out and see what’s really happening with entrepreneurs ready to lead the charge to a prosperous and sustainable future for America in the 21^st century.

He rather sit and accuse others of what he himself is guilty – and that is neurotic and sick.

Stephens would do well to look elsewhere for evidence of a “mass-neurosis”.

Sources and Further Reading:
Natural News
DeSmogBlog
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RealClimate.org – Antarctica Cold? Yeah, We Knew That
U.S. Climate Extremes Index
U.S. Climate Change Program
Earth: The Sequel
“Krupp and Horn have turned the doom and gloom of global warming on its head. Earth: The Sequel makes it crystal clear that we can build a low-carbon economy while unleashing American entrepreneurs to save the planet, putting optimism back into the environmental story.”

READ THE WHOLE STORY… - Cows On Diets? Scientists Study Ways To Reduce Bovine Flatulence

Construction of the $2 billion 120 megawatt Longleaf power plant was blocked yesterday by Fulton County Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore, overturning a ruling that would have allowed the first coal plant to be built in Georgia in 20 years.

Environmentalists cite Moore’s ruling as the first time a judge has applied the April 2007 ruling from the Supreme Court stating the greenhouse gas emissions are a pollutant and must be regulated.

I just posted more on the ruling, reactions from both the plants developers and environmentalists, as well as what this could mean for future coal-fired plants in the planning stages – for the full story go to my post at TriplePundit.com.

Not many people have heard of the Climate Extremes Index, but it was first introduced back in 1996 with the goal of

…summarizing and presenting a complex set of multivariate and multi-dimensional climate changes in the United States so that the results could be easily understood and used in policy decisions made by nonspecialists in the field.”

My guess is that those unfortunate enough to lose their homes, farms, and livelihoods from the recent flooding in the Midwest don’t care about the CEI right now – with an estimated $8 billion in losses (and rising) that’s to be expected. But the question remains: if the Climate Extremes Index is there to help us understand climate extremes and what they mean, why isn’t the mainstream press saying more about it?  As Joseph Romm originally reports in ClimateProgress.org, there isn’t even a mention of the data trends of the CEI, or the expectation of more extreme weather events as a consequence of climate change.

But in a way I can understand. Just wade through the comments on Romm’s post on ClimateProgress (linked above), or the reprint published on Grist.com, or how about the “world governments are controlling the weather” comment at SolveClimate.com – who’d want to put themselves in the middle of all that acrimony?

No single weather event can be directly linked to “global warming” as its cause – not the flooding in the U.S. Midwest or the killer Typhon in the Philippines – climate is not weather – ever. Lot’s of people misunderstand that, but in the process of researching this post and getting in the middle of all this “intelligent debate”, it seems more often than not its the deniers (few real skeptics seem to exist at all anymore, on any subject) that miss this point:

Remember Connecticut 1955 worst in History?”

 The 1965 Flood of the South Platte River…”

 The Mississippi Flood of 65…”

The flooding is historic — if your a 4th grader.You have to read the fine print — one article called the floods “historic” but then added it was the worst “in 15 years”!

(This last quote misunderstands a basic point. The flooding in 1993 and 2008 are both considered the kinds of floods you’d expect once every 500 years – and yet two have occurred only fifteen years apart.)

Okay, there have been disastrous floods in the past, what is everybody trying to prove by these endless comments of catastrophic weather of yore? If we all (tenuously) agree that no single weather event can be linked to climate – climate is not weather – then what’s the usefulness of bringing up any single weather event?

The point is that averages and extremes will change over time – as in climate change. So when there is a particularly extreme weather event it seems logical to take a look at things such as the Climate Extremes Index, consider the models (and increasing empirical data) calling for more extreme weather, and from there consider how we might prepare for the next flood, the next hurricane, continued drought, and whatever else might come our way in a changing world – and it is changing.

Government scientists warn of increased extreme weather events such as the recent flooding in the Midwest. Not that this particular flood is directly linked to global warming (though there is actually a case to made in that regard), but that this is the kind of thing we’ll need to deal with more often – just as two “500 year floods” within only 15 might point out.

Instead the mainstream media seems loath to even mention climate and possible adaption strategies they may be necessary, and all those commenters on the blogs – on all sides of the issue – just go on and on and on and on…

For the people in Iowa and the Midwest it might not much matter what caused the “Great Flood of ‘08”. What does matter, to them and to all of us, is how far we can pull our heads out of the sand, stop yelling at each other, and actually see the handwriting on the wall.

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) today released its latest study of global renewable energy investment.  2007 was another record-setting year for investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, according to UNEP’s “Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008.” 

More than $148 billion was raised and invested in these sectors during 2007 – 60% more than 2006 - even as the credit crunch spread, deepened and weakened the US and other economies. 

Though the bulk of investment capital flowed into Europe and the US, respectively, the share of total investment accounted for by China, India and Brazil increased 14-times in absolute terms – from $1.8 billion to $26 billion, and from 12% in 2004 to 22% in percentage terms last year, according to the UNEP study, which was prepared by New Energy Finance. 

Facts & Figures

“Sustainable energy transaction volume” as defined by UNEP totaled $204.9 billion globally in 2007.   Some $98.2 of the total flowed into new renewable energy generation; $50.1 billion went into technology development and scaling up manufacturing.  Mergers and acquisitions accounted for $56.6 of the total. 

Wind energy led the renewable energy field, attracting more than $50.2 billion of investment capital.  Solar power was the fastest growing segment of the market, attracting approximately $28.6 billion in 2007, which translates into an average annual growth rate since 2004 of 254%.

“The clean energy industry is maturing and its backers remain bullish.  These findings should empower governments - both North and South - to reach a deep and meaningful new agreement by the crucial climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009,” Achim Steiner,  UNEP’s executive director, commented in a media release.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency investment was subdued by the end of 2007 and into Q1 2008 with banks tightening credit and restructuring in the US ethanol industry as concerns over rising food prices and supply shortages took their toll. 

Investment flows rebounded in most sectors during Q2, however, even as economic and geopolitical concerns hung overhead.  Sustainable energy venture capital and private equity in rose 34% in Q2 2008, new asset finance was up 8% and public market investment was showing a strong recovery, as exhibited by Portuguese utility EDP’s spinning off its renewable energy business,  EDP Renovaveis, in an IPO, according to the study.

“Just as thousands were drawn to California and the Klondike in the late 1800s, the green energy gold rush is attracting legions of modern day prospectors in all parts of the globe,” said Steiner, who is also a UN Under-Secretary General.

Interested in listening in on an executive summary of the report’s findings?  You can download the full report, as well as listen to a podcast of Steiner doing just that in various languages here. 

The following is a guest post by Jen Boynton:

So, you’ve decided to take some responsibility for your carbon footprint and buy some carbon offsets to account for all your unavoidable driving and flying emissions. Congratulations on taking some responsibility for the massive situation we call “the climate crisis” Now you are wondering, which retailers are the most reliable? And how do you tell? It’s a complicated world out there, but I hope to make things a bit easier for you by recommending a few sellers and projects that are better than most and telling you why.

Before we get into the nitty gritty, let’s make sure we’re all clear on what a carbon offset actually is. In its most simplified form, a carbon offset is a commitment that 1 metric ton of C02 equivalent has been prevented from entering the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. Whew. Feel free to read that again if you need to. The offset can come about through dozens of different means like tradable credits from the Chicago Climate Exchange, or they can take the form of different carbon reduction projects which can be categorized into three main types: renewable (emissions free) energy generation, energy efficiency, and sequestration. We’ll discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each type of project a bit later. 

In addition to the type of offset, we also need to be concerned about quality. We want to buy offsets that are verifiable (the project actually happened), additional (it wouldn’t have happened without your money), leakage-free (the carbon you’ve sequestered isn’t going anywhere), permanent (those trees you paid for won’t be cut down and turned into paper napkins), and not double-counted-(the offset was sold only to you). By purchasing offsets that meet these criteria, you have the best chance of making sure that your purchase has the intended effect of ensuring that that green house gas does not make it into the atmosphere. I tell you all of this because I believe that in a Wild West marketplace, it’s very important to be an informed consumer.

But that’s just the background. You’ll be dealing with the retailers, folks who will sell a variety of offsets from different types of projects, so let’s focus on what you need to look for from your offset seller. The first thing you need to watch out for is that the offsets are verified through a third party verifier like Green-e, the Gold Standard or the  Voluntary Carbon Standard. These verification schemes will make sure that the quality of the offset is up to par. If you are curious about why those are my picks, take a look at a post I recently wrote on voluntary carbon offset regulation for TriplePundit.com.

As for where you can go to purchase your offsets, there are a variety of other retailers who sell a portfolio of projects verified by some or all of the verifiers I mentioned. My favorite catch all site for offset sellers is EcoBusinessLinks.com. They regularly update with new sellers, the types of projects they are offering, who verifies them, and the price at which they are selling. This site is an easy way to pick out retailers who have projects from the most trustworthy third party verifiers.

I also wanted to specifically call out the offset retailers that are verified through the Green-e certification, because Green-e is my personal favorite, due to the fact that my beloved UCS weighed in on the verification criteria.

Green-e verifies offsets that are sold by: 3 Degrees, Bonneville Energy Foundation, and Community Energy, which are all companies I would recommend buying from. 3 Degrees has some renewables and methane capture offsets that are verified through Green-e, while Bonneville and Community Energy offsets are renewable energy based. What is the difference between these types of offsets, pray tell? I am so glad you asked! These are two of the most common offset projects out there, and they are the two types of offset projects I would recommend buying if you are going to make an offsets purchase. Here’s how they work: (story continues, click on the link below…)

READ THE WHOLE STORY… - Window Shopping for Carbon Offsets