That’s the conclusion made in a new report from the National Wildlife Federation (NWF).

The group predicts that the planet will continue to see more of this “odd weather,” which is caused by increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The group and many scientists don’t like the popular lingo, “global warming,” because the planet will still get hot and cold as GHG concentrations build up. The climate problem is that weather patterns change, for example, bringing even more rain to some areas and exacerbating droughts in others.

NWF climate scientist Amanda Staudt notes in the report that, “oddball winter weather is yet another sign of how uncontrolled carbon pollution amounts to an unchecked experiment on people and nature.”

The problem is that most people think of CO2 buildup as causing a general warming of the planet. But the NFW report emphasizes that global warming also changes existing weather patterns. For example, the Great Lakes area will likely experience more snow.

Reason: Slightly warmer temperatures during winter months will prevent the lakes from freezing over, which in turn will release more water vapor from the lakes to create more intense snowstorms.

The NWF report follows a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that 2009 was the second warmest year on record.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post also reports that in a recent public opinion survey, climate change is not a top-of-mind discussion item for Americans. Climate change came in dead last out of 21 issues facing the country today.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now admits that it was wrong about a prediction that some Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. The IPCC now admits that its 2007 prediction was “poorly substantiated” and that “well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly.”

The prediction of the early demise of Himalayan glaciers was made in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report on global warming. CNN reports that IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri came clean during an energy meeting in Dhabi.

The mistaken claim of the glacial melting in the Himalayan region was traced back to a 1999 article in the popular science magazine, The New Journal.

However, Pachauri also insisted that the mistake does not alter the IPCC’s claims that climate change is made worse by human activity. He said that although the IPCC “slipped on one number, I don’t think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what’s happening with the climate of this Earth.”

CNN reports that the World Glacier Monitoring Service says part of the problem is that there is very little data of any kind to measure if or how fast these glaciers are retreating.

The bombshell admission that at least one prediction in the IPCC’s document was fudged is sure to flame the opposition against cap-and-trade legislation in the U.S.

However, it’s unlikely to actually change the Obama administration’s commitment to put America on course to reduce GHG emissions.

Once newly elected Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) takes his Senate seat in Washington, D.C., EPA will be calling the shots on turning back the global warming phenomenon, not Congress.

Yes, Brown opposes healthcare legislation, and he’s also opposed to the cap-and-trade bills. The future for both controversial policies that are at the core of President Obama’s legislative agenda is shaky at best. Certainly they won’t survive in their current forms.

Even if the Democrats were able to somehow agree on a cap-and-trade bill and get it to the Senate floor for a vote, Brown represents the key vote needed to kill the bill. The Democrats now have only 59 of the 60 votes they’d need to break a GOP filibuster.

But this doesn’t mean there won’t be GHG regulations. Now, Obama will rely on EPA to do the dirty work of regulating, industry-by-industry, using the Clean Air Act.

What can be particularly troubling about the lack of Senate action on the cap-and-trade bill is that, at least in the Senate, industry lobbyists can greatly influence the final details of the bill. Senators and Representatives are pretty easy to sway when it comes to special interests.

EPA on the other hand has a much stiffer backbone than Congress when it comes to regulating industries.

Other countries certainly lamented Scott’s victory as a signal the U.S. won’t be adopting the tough climate change legislation the international community prefers. But they’re overlooking what EPA can and will do.

However, even when the Democrats held total sway in the Senate before Brown’s election, it seemed doubtful the Senate would act.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is the lone Republican trying to broker a cap-and-trade deal, and so far, he hasn’t won any GOP converts to the cause. He’s even been censured by the South Carolina legislature for his attempt to find a middle ground that would open the way for a resurgence of nuclear power plants in the U.S.

Nuclear power plants are clean in that they don’t release GHGs.

As you suspected, it’s the suppliers who are the ultimate targets of this latest GHG reduction effort.

But in this case, burger chain McDonald’s is putting its money down first — to fund a three-year project to find a way to reduce methane emissions from the 350,000 cattle that supply the U.K. chain with hamburger every year.

McDonald’s U.K. just announced that it will study cow flatulence on 350 of the 16,000 farms that supply the fast-food giant with beef in Britain and Ireland.

The food industry in Brittan is under pressure to find ways to reduce GHG emissions as part of a recently adopted and first-ever food strategy, Food 2030, that’s designed to improve the sustainability of all aspects of farming.

Cow emissions are big targets because methane from cows accounts for 4% of the U.K.’s total carbon emissions, and methane is 23 times more potent as a global warming gas that carbon dioxide (CO2).

Hamburgers are climate change culprits because producing a single cheeseburger releases nearly 3.1kg of CO2, according to a report in The Telegraph. Multiply that by the billions of burgers sold by McD’s a year.

The first results on cow methane emissions will be released this spring by energy audit consultants, the E-CO2 Project.

McDonald’s worldwide has found a wide variety of ways to reduce its corporate footprint with economically sound ideas that reduce energy use and cut electric bills.

Less than half of the general public in the U.K. thinks that climate change or global warming is caused by man-made activities. That’s the word according to a survey in London’s The Times newspaper.

The Times reports that only 41% of the British public believes that it’s a scientific fact that global warming has been caused by human activity. Other findings:

• 32% believe that the link between human activity and global warming is still unproven
• 15% don’t believe the planet is warming up, and
• 8% say that it’s “environmentalist propaganda” to blame global warming on human activity.

Driving Britons’ rising disbelieve is the prospect of a new round of green taxes intended to drive up the cost of using fossil fuels to make clean and renewable energy more competitive. The new taxes are coming because the U.K. has agreed to legally binding agreements to cut its carbon emissions by 34% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050.

The U.S. has yet to agree to any mandatory cuts, though Congress is considering bills that call for 20% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

The U.K.’s energy secretary dismisses the poll because “the overwhelming body of scientific information is stacked up against the [global warming] deniers and shows us that climate change is man-made and is happening now.” Political leaders in London admit they have more work to do to convince the public that the threat is real.

Meanwhile, The Times also reports that if climate change does lead to the catastrophe that many predict, the changes could happen in just a few months. It only took six months for the world to plunge into a deep freeze during the last major ice age 12,800 years ago, according to geological professor William Patterson with Canada’s University of Saskatchewan.

Will the Democrats ever line up enough votes to get climate change legislation out of the Senate?

It’s looking doubtful now because Sen. James Webb (D-VA) is speaking out against pending cap-and-trade legislation, and he says he won’t support it. That’ll make it tough to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to overcome Republican filibustering.

Webb announced this week he’s no fan of the bill from Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) that calls for a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Webb’s possible defection and “no” vote against the pending cap-and-trade bill seems to offset the Republican’s lone supporter of cap-and-trade, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The cap-and-trade idea is too complex, would create a costly government bureaucracy and eventually run the coal industry out of business, Webb says.

Plus, the Virginian predicts that the only winners in cap-and-trade will be all the middlemen in the trading game who will make all the money. Webb is not joining the global-warming denier crowd. He just seems to think the cap-and-trade bill won’t get the job done — the job meaning energy security.

Instead of spending all that cap-and-trade money on carbon reductions, Webb has a different idea. He wants the government to spend $10 billion to eventually $100 billion to help prop up the nuclear power industry. To do this, he and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have proposed their own Clean Energy Act of 2009. Their use of terms like “clean” and “carbon-free” are generally euphemisms for nuclear power.

The Webb/Alexander proposal would also direct taxpayer money to study:

• carbon capture technologies
• non-ethanol biofuels
• electric vehicles and electrical storage
• cost-competitive solar power, and
• technology to reduce nuclear waste generation.

Webb and Alexander do not address greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. They say they hope to get their bill passed separately from the Boxer/Kerry climate change bill.

Note: The Webb/Alexander push to emphasize a nuclear option is echoed in a Graham/Kerry plan to expand nuclear power in the U.S. in exchange for creating the GHG cap-and-trade law.

To be prepared, the industry’s partnering with scientists to study the risks that it’ll face due to climate change.

The industry’s think tank, the Willis Research Network (WRN), just partnered with Scripps Institution of Oceanography to study the risks posed by climate change to insurance and reinsurance companies.

The climate change initiative was prompted by the disclosure requirements ordered by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Starting in 2010, insurers with annual premiums of more than $500 million have to tell regulators and investors about the financial risks they’re facing due to climate change. They’ll also have to disclose what steps they’ll take to mitigate the risks.

The good news is that there are some opportunities for companies offering green products, materials and services.

The industry is developing various ways to prod, encourage or reward policy holders to invest in green products. Last year, California’s insurance department approved regulations to encourage the industry to offer green insurance policies. These cover the costs of environmentally friendly materials when rebuilding homes after a disaster. Items covered by these green insurance policies can include:

• lighting
• heating, cooling and plumbing supplies
• windows and insulation, and
• framing, roofing and siding materials that are energy efficient, more durable, sustainably produced or made from recycled materials.

There’s even a green angle to encourage less driving. California last month approved a pay-as-you-drive rule that lets insurance companies reduce premiums for those that cut back. However, the discount only applies to drivers logging less than 7,500 miles a year, so this seems like a limited green effect.

Peter Moraga with the Insurance Information Institute of California told the San Diego Union-Tribune that these green policies are all a “direct result of looking at climate change” and searching for ways to reduce the potential risks.

EPA says about 10,000 companies are covered by a new GHG reporting rule. This rule targets companies that release more than 25,000 metric tons a year of any mix of:

• carbon dioxide
• methane
• nitrous oxide
• hydrofluorocarbons
• perflyorocarbons, and
• fluorinated gases — sulfur hexafuloride, nitrogen trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers.

The actual cost is debatable. They’ll spend about $115 million in the first year. In subsequent years, EPA says it will cost $72 million a year in Clean Air Act compliance costs.

Industry reaction is mixed. Some say EPA understates the cost. However, one industrial operator tells GreenerWorking.com that the per-facility costs is minor. He’s treating this rule as “just an accounting exercise.” Other GHG rules will be much more worrisome, he says.

Who to believe? History shows that EPA’s estimates are closer to the mark. But until the rule’s been in place for a couple of years, the debate over costs will continue.

But what is clear is which companies will be hit by EPA’s GHG regulations.

The facilities that will have to report these releases are mostly fossil fuel suppliers and industrial gas suppliers, manufactures of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, power plants, and facilities that burn fossil fuels. And yes, livestock operations have to report if they release more than the 25,000 metric ton GHG threshold. Since most animal farms don’t, EPA downplays this impact.

To see if your company is regulated, EPA has an on-line tool to assess an operation based on its on-site fuel combustion.

There are several industrial categories that are NOT covered by this reporting rule:

• electronics manufacturers
• ethanol producers
• fluorinated gas producers
• food processors
• magnesium producers
• oil and natural gas systems
• sulfur hexafluoride released from electrical equipment
• underground coal mines
• industrial landfills
• wastewater treatment, and
• coal suppliers.

Companies covered by the GHG reporting rule must start tracking and keeping records of their GHG emissions January 1, 2010. First reports to EPA are due in 2011, and EPA will make these reports public.

But this is just the start. An even more extensive GHG regulation will be released by EPA soon. This one will regulate actual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants and large industrial facilities. Facilities that release more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 a year will have to control these releases through an EPA permitting process that regulates new and modified facilities.

Reason: Huge cracks are emerging in the once formidable industry opposition to creating a national cap-and-trade program to limit GHG emissions.

In recent weeks, three utilities have dropped out of industry trade groups due to the heated rhetoric the groups have adopted to downplay or dismiss the need to reduce GHG emissions.

California’s big utility, PG&E has dropped its membership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the Chamber’s proposal that EPA stage a trial to judge the science used to justify limiting GHG emissions. Chamber Vice President Bill Kovacsl asked EPA to model such a trial on the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial over whether evolution or creationism should be taught in school.

The monkey trial idea was the final straw for PG&E, which supports cap-and-trade legislation.

PG&E chief Peter Darbee says it’s “dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored.”

Other utilities exiting the Chamber include Exelon Corp. and PNM Resources Inc.

Apparel manufacturer Nike echoes the PG&E complaint, but has yet to drop its membership. In a memo released by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Nike says it’s time for action, not more heated debates.

Chamber member Johnson & Johnson has asked the trade group to tone down its rhetoric to reflect the reality that many Chamber members support climate change action.

In a related action, Duke Energy and Alstom Power recently withdrew from the anti-global warming campaign operating as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). A behind the scenes analysis is detailed by the National Journal.

These companies are part of the let’s-do-something-about global warming campaign sponsored by EPA in its United States Climate Action Partnership. Its corporate members are listed here. No word yet on whether more of these companies will exit their Washington-based lobbying organizations.

The big boys sure are. They see business opportunities, not just headaches in reporting and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

That’s the take-home gleaned in a new survey by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), a nonprofit that monitors corporate climate change activity. The survey found that 86% of companies responding saw business opportunities ahead.

There are certainly risks as 82% expect to deal with risks and challenges ahead. But these are regulatory compliance risks, something they’re used to dealing with.

For example, the number of companies that have already established their own GHG reduction targets has nearly doubled in the past year, to 52% of S&P 500 firms. Only 32% of companies had established GHG reduction targets in last year’s survey. So, they’re well prepared to meet EPA’s first-ever GHG reporting requirements.

Hardly any of the companies put climate change damages high on their worry lists.

CDP found that the best-run corporate managers say they’re ready to:

• take effective action to manage GHG regulation
• plan on capitalizing on new opportunities created by regulation
• develop verifiable GHG emission tracking, reporting and reduction programs, and
• develop compliance programs.

The companies facing the biggest risks are the carbon-intensive industries that rely heavily on fossil fuels for power, such as coal-fired power plants, cement and glass facilities and other larger operations.

These are the so-called “scope one” industries that generate significant levels of GHG emissions. In this group, 96% of utilities were anxious about the costs of operating in a GHG-regulated world.

The CDP’s press release about the survey is here.

The full report is here.