One of the most fascinating revelations from the internal docs leaked from the Heartland Institute is about the business journal Forbes, which recently has begun publishing real honest-to-God climate science news. Unlike the Wall Street Journal.
Wrote Heartland in its "Climate Strategy" doc:
Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high profile climate scientists (such as [Peter] Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.
'Reliably anti-climate" — truer words have rarely been spoke. It's fascinating — but what has happened to Forbes? Today they published a long, thoughtful look at a Harvard conference that not only endorsed[pdf] the concept of cap-and-trade, but said this innovative emissions control method was much cheaper than expected, and would work even better with carbon dioxide than it did with acid rain.
Justin Gerdes wrote for the business journal:
1) Cap and trade works:
The goal of Title IV of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the Acid Rain Program, was to slash annual SO2 [sulphur dioxide] emissions by 10 million tons from the 1980 baseline (26 million tons). The source of much of the SO2 emitted in the United States was the nation’s fleet of coal-fired power plants. In a departure from convention, the legislation did not prescribe how power plants should slash SO2; instead, beginning in 2000, the statute capped aggregate SO2emissions at the nation’s 3,200 coal plants at 8.95 million tons annually, a reduction of nearly 50% from 1980 levels.
In other words, it's not only more effective than expected, it's cheaper too. Forbes still publishes plenty of deniers, but apparently their blacklisting of climate scientists is over. Amazing.
Kit Stolz 