Our guest blogger is Luke Cole, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was confronted at the University of Virginia for targeting one of its scientists in his crusade against the science of global warming. Despite the over $350,000 incurred by the University of Virginia to defend climate scientist Michael Mann and the university’s Department of Environmental Sciences from Cuccinelli’s global warming witch hunt, the UVA College Republicans invited Cuccinelli to an informal speaking engagement last week. Over 25 students protesting the AG’s actions greeted Cuccinelli with signs including “God Hates Data,” “Skeptical of Cuccinelli,” and “Science: Not Determined By Popular Vote.” Cuccinelli was also confronted by a UVA environmental policy professor during the Q&A. The following day, Cuccinelli wrote on his Twitter account:

Awesome day in central Virginia – gorgeous in the fall! Lively discussion at UVA – only rude person was a prof, students were great.

Cuccinelli spoke briefly of his civil investigative demands against the university, claiming that the university continues to support Mann despite the accepted view that his findings were falsified and have been disproved — neither of which are true.

During the question and answer section of the visit, Professor Vivian Thomson, an environmental policy expert who is on the faculty of the Department of Environmental Sciences and the Department of Politics at UVA and who regulated air quality in Virginia for eight years as a member (and Vice Chair) of the State Air Pollution Control Board, questioned Mr. Cuccinelli’s claims about the science of climate change and the actions undertaken by the US EPA to date, which I captured on my smartphone:

Thomson asked if he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusions in Massachusetts v EPA (2007) that “the harms associated with climate change are serious and well-recognized?”

Cuccinelli responded that Massachusetts v EPA was all about legal standing.

Mr. Cuccinelli also implied that EPA is undertaking a costly cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases. Professor Thomson observed that the Agency is not undertaking a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. EPA’s regulations to date have included (a) clean vehicle standards that will increase fuel efficiency and enhance energy security that should save motorists thousands of dollars over the life of their vehicles, and whose economic benefits far outweigh their costs; and, (b) a regulatory relief rule that exempts many small and medium-sized businesses from regulation for their greenhouse gas emissions.

“The costs that I am talking about are analogous to cap-and-trade, not that they are cap-and-trade,” Cuccinelli admitted. Professor Thomson asked Cuccinelli if he could share the cost studies that formed the basis for his claims about the costs of EPA’s actions to date. He had no such cost studies to offer. Read more

In a front-page NY Times article , John Broder noted that opposition to the science of global warming has become “an article of faith” among Tea Party conservative activists.  Brad Johnson has the story.

In addition to libertarians who believe “efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth,” others “” prodded by the “preaching” of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and others “” use their Biblical faith to justify their denial of the destructive power of coal and oil pollution. Tea Party organizers in Rep. Baron Hill’s (D-IN) district told Broder their denial of pollution was consistent with the Bible’s teachings:

Read more

Meanwhile, Colorado State University is named a DOI “Climate Science Center”

Colorado GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck, like his endorser Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), believes “global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated.”  Brad Johnson has the story:

Read more

In a front-page article in the New York Times, John Broder noted that opposition to the science of global warming has become “an article of faith” among Tea Party conservative activists. In addition to libertarians who believe “efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth,” others — prodded by the “preaching” of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and others — use their Biblical faith to justify their denial of the destructive power of coal and oil pollution. Tea Party organizers in Rep. Baron Hill’s (D-IN) district told Broder their denial of pollution was consistent with the Bible’s teachings:

“I read my Bible. He made this earth for us to utilize.” — Norman Dennison, founder of the Corydon Tea Party

“Being a strong Christian, I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it’s not there to destroy us.” — Lisa Deaton, founder of We the People Indiana

Of course, the Bible teaches not only that earth’s bounty is a gift to humanity, but also that we must be its shepherds:

The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. Lev. 25:23-24

I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable. Jer. 2:7

“These Tea Party people represent a fringe view not only in politics, but also in religion,” Rev. Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Politics, tells the Wonk Room. “The majority of Christians and other people of faith are supportive of protecting the environment precisely because of their religious beliefs, including the belief in God as creator.”

Many Christians, across the spectrum from evangelical to mainline to progressive, as well as scientists, celebrated when a group of evangelicals issued a statement in 2006 called “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.” This “biblically based moral witness” sets its theological claim for the urgency of climate change action in the biblical view of God as creator, and that damaging the creation is “an offense against God himself.”

“The world is less than it might be so long as human beings are less than they might be, since the capacity of human beings to shape the material environment into a sign of justice and generosity is blocked by human selfishness,” Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said in 2009. “In the doomsday scenarios we are so often invited to contemplate, the ultimate tragedy is that a material world capable of being a manifestation in human hands of divine love is left to itself, as humanity is gradually choked, drowned or starved by its own stupidity.”

Religious leaders from Christian and other faiths are also mobilizing to fight big oil’s Proposition 23 effort kill California’s climate protection law. “My Christian faith calls me to care for my neighbor and all that God has created,” explained Rev. Dean W. Nelson, Bishop, Southwest California Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in a press announcement today. “Proposition 23 calls us to look back, not forward, and to cast a blind eye to the urgent consequences of our addiction to fossil fuels. These consequences include affects on human health, human-caused climate change and its threat to food and water supplies and densely populated coastal areas, and our economic vulnerability to global energy politics and prices.”

Supporters of Proposition 26 “” a California ballot measure that could undermine  implementation of the state’s landmark climate law “” are attempting to distance themselves from the unpopular Prop 23 effort to block the legislation. Brad Johnson has the story.

California oil companies and the Chamber of Commerce, who have sat out of the Proposition 23 fight to suspend AB32, have been quietly funneling millions of dollars to support Prop 26, which would “require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature anytime a government agency tries to assess a fee on a company that is not then used to regulate that entity”:

Read more

Today, Feedburner identified more than 40,000 “readers” of ClimateProgress.

That figure, which is near the top of the right hand column, is updated by Feedburner daily.  You may have noticed that while it has been growing steadily month by month, it can fluctuate wildly on a daily basis (and it will no doubt drop down below 40,000 this weekend).  In 2007, Rick Klau, Feedburner’s Vice President of Publisher Services, explained why that happens here.

Read more

Supporters of Proposition 26 — a California ballot measure that could cripple implementation of the state’s landmark climate law — are attempting to distance themselves from the unpopular effort to block the legislation. California oil companies and the Chamber of Commerce, who have sat out of the Proposition 23 fight to suspend AB32, have been quietly funneling millions of dollars to support Prop 26, which would “require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature anytime a government agency tries to assess a fee on a company that is not then used to regulate that entity”:

Unlike Prop 23, which has seen many of the big donors sit out, Prop 26 has received multimillion-dollar contributions from the likes of the California Chamber of Commerce, Chevron Corp., Philip Morris USA Inc. and Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc. Also contributing are ConocoPhillips and Occidental Petroleum, according to data available through the California Secretary of State.

The California Chamber of Commerce has pumped at least $3.3 million into Prop 26, and California’s Chevron has spent $2.5 million.

The language of Prop 26 would open the implementation of AB32 to new avenues of legal challenges and obstruction based on a “hidden taxes” argument, and is a fall-back defense for opponents of clean energy if Prop 23 fails. The oil-fueled Tea Party effort to kill California’s climate law is foundering, as the state’s voters turn against the idea that pollution is good business. A new poll finds that support for Prop 23, which would suspend the clean energy law AB32, has collapsed, despite the millions of dollars pumped into the state by Midwest oil companies Tesoro, Valero, and Koch Industries, and the AstroTurf efforts of Koch’s Americans for Prosperity.

“Rules under the global warming law, which would require companies to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, take effect in January and could be vulnerable to legislative gridlock over fees” if Prop 26 passes, the Los Angeles Times explains.

“Prop. 26 would eviscerate the funding of all air- and water-pollution programs, even oil-spill cleanup,” Warner Chabot, chief executive of the California League of Conservation Voters, told the Times.

“If 26 passes, it is a Christmas present to the oil industry, the tobacco industry and every other polluting industry. The cost of regulation will shift from the industry to taxpayers.”

Hidden costs of coal generation

Pollution from Chicago‘s two coal-fired power plants costs neighboring communities $127 million a year in hidden health damages, according to a report released Wednesday that relied on research from the nation’s leading scientific organization.

Read more

Here’s a great spoof Obama video, especially for all you Gilbert and Sullivan fans:
Read more

In yet another demonstration of the success of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, new research finds that the U.S. renewable energy industry created 40,000 jobs because of a Treasury Department cash grant program created to provide incentives for clean energy project development. This important Recovery Act program could create another 100,000 more jobs if Congress extends the so called 1603 cash grants when it returns to Washington next month.

Unfortunately, the program is wrongly and disingenuously attacked by political opportunists who charge that Recovery Act funds went to projects that would have been built even without the program and, further, that the projects have not significantly contributed to job growth.

Read more

Should they recuse themselves from climate cases?

This week, ThinkProgress’ Lee Fang revealed several documents outlining the details of one of right-wing billionaire Charles Koch’s secret convenings of corporate political donors. As Koch revealed to the Wall Street Journal in 2006, the purpose of these meetings is to recruit “captains of industry” to fund the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks and media outlets. Buried in this document, however, is a surprising revelation about the role two supposedly impartial jurists have played in these extended fundraising solicitations: “Past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.”

TP looks closer at the implications of this revelation in this cross post.

Read more