The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have struggled to identify themselves with the success of the shale revolution, given the party’s reputation as anti-fossil fuels. If the Democratic Party loses its control of the U.S. Senate following the mid-term elections, a small but significant part of the reason will be because it has found itself on the wrong side of the energy revolution. --John Kemp, Reuters, 27 October 2014
Environmental groups are on track to spend more than $85 million on key races this year, more than ever before, according to an internal memo. The record spending comes as green groups are worried about the fate of the Senate and the future of President Obama’s climate agenda. “The era of climate science denial will soon come to a close, and voters will demand leadership from their elected officials on this pressing threat,” the document states. Whatever the outcome [of the elections] on November 4th, all of the momentum is on the side of climate groups and candidates who want to act. --Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, 27 October 2014
A recent Gallup poll which asked Americans to name "the most important problem" facing our country shows that pet Democrat issues, such as gun control, rank near the very bottom of the list.
Moreover, issues like global warming and the "war on women" didn't even make the list.
According to Gallup, the "economy in general" was the greatest concern at 17 percent, followed closely by "dissatisfaction with government" (16 percent) and "unemployment/jobs" (10 percent). These are problems for the Democrats because these things predominate under our current Democratic President.
A Republican-led Congress in 2015 would target for elimination a proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulation that would expand the federal government’s authority over the nation’s streams and wetlands.
Republicans, six seats away from winning the Senate, have been eager to introduce legislation that would stop the EPA from implementing new “Waters of the United States” guidelines that would further define which bodies of water the government can regulate.
But their efforts have been blocked by the Democratic majority.
Shouldn’t be we fighting a war on terrorism not on fossil fuels?
“You are responsible for President Obama’s re-election,” I told 150 folks from the oil and gas industry —most of whom were conservative Republicans. I spoke to them on October 15 in San Angelo, Texas. A reporter covering the event wrote that I “stunned the crowd by telling them they were largely responsible for getting the President re-elected, and asking them if they knew how they had helped.” He continued: “The room was very quiet for several moments as Noon waited to see if anyone would volunteer an answer.”
If educators scare students too much about the threat of climate change, they may "succumb to denial," a teachers' guide by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warns. In its guide, "Teaching Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness," NOAA presents seven "essential principles":
- Sun is primary energy
- Climate is complex
- Life affects climate; climate affects life
- Climate is variable
- Our understanding of climate
- Humans affect climate
- Climate change has consequences
Principle 7 - "Climate Change Will Have Consequences for the Earth System and Human Lives" - warns educators that scaring students can cause them to succumb to denial:
WiddecombeLaws forcing Britain to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 must be revoked to protect householders and businesses from rising energy costs, say the five MPs who defied an overwhelming majority to oppose the legislation. Only five Conservative MPs voted against the Climate Change Bill in 2008 even though it required Britain to meet the world’s toughest emissions targets. Since then, only Finland and Mexico have adopted similar targets. The Times, 29 October 2014
Aaron Copland’s 1942 concert piece “Fanfare for the Common Man” brings forth images of the nobility of the ordinary citizen. Recent actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and environmental extremists bring forth images of an “Energy Requiem for the Common Man.”
In the January 17, 2008 interview during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that he was not concerned to see the coal industry go bankrupt. Referencing a government-run, cap-and-trade emissions bargaining scheme he stated: “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted … Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
Although cap-and-trade failed to gain congressional approval, the war on coal was not over. It had just begun in earnest. During a November 3, 2010 press conference President Obama stated: “Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”
You blame colder weather patterns on global warming. Makes perfect sense when you've staked your entire reputation on a failed theory that even has the alarmists wondering where the heat's gone. Keep in mind that Arctic Sea Ice is not shrinking but growing and rebounding year after year according to satellite data. If you were alive 125 years ago, you'd be reading about how the Arctic had melted enough for sailing vessels to scuttle across this icy route. These are called cyclical patterns and have nothing to do with CO2:
Britain’s risk of experiencing harsh, freezing winters has doubled due to the effect that global warming is having in the Arctic, new research suggests.
The study, led by Professor Masato Mori at the University of Tokyo and published in Nature Geoscience, argues that the frozen winters we’ve had over the last decade are not the result of natural weather variations - but actually caused by global warming.
LatifGlobal warming? Maybe not anytime soon, according to a top United Nations scientist.
Dr. Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences told Bavarian Radio that the so-called “pause” in global warming could continue for another three decades.
Currently, satellite datasets show that the average global temperature has not warmed in more than 18 years. Latif told BR that temperatures would start accelerating between 2020 and 2025, meaning global warming could be on pause or slowed down for the next 6 to 11 years. This could put the total time of the pause between 24 and 29 years.
Latif, who is also a top scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the pause in warming was no surprise to him since he predicted the warming hiatus back in 2008.
Emergency measures to prevent blackouts this winter have been unveiled by National Grid after Britain’s spare power capacity fell to just 4 per cent. --Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 27 October 2014
The capacity crunch has been predicted for about seven years. Everyone seems to have seen this coming – except the people in charge. --Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 10 June 2014
National Grid has warned that there has been a significant increase in the risk of electricity shortages and brownouts this winter after fires and faults knocked out a large chunk of Britain’s shrinking power station coverage. The grid operator admitted that in the event of Britain experiencing the coldest snap in 20 years – a 5 per cent chance – then electricity supplies would not be able to meet demand during two weeks in January. --Tim Webb, The Times, 27 October 2014
The UK government will set out Second World War-style measures to keep the lights on and avert power cuts as a "last resort". The price to Britons will be high. Factories will be asked to "voluntarily" shut down to save energy at peak times for homes, while others will be paid to provide their own backup power should they have a spare generator or two lying around. --Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 10 June 2014
I write to concur with conclusions in Dr S Fred Singer’s recent essay: “The Climate Sensitivity Controversy”, by S. Fred Singer, American Thinker (October 15, 2014) and to solve the puzzles he posed.
In particular he concludes “climate sensitivity, CS, is close to zero”. This means any effect of CO2 on Earth’s temperature and climate is vanishingly small, hence unimportant. Singer leaves his warmist camp and joins the denier camp of skeptics.
I met Singer at his University of Houston lecture hosted by Prof Larry Bell on February 6, 2012 and his several talks at the latest Heartland Institute ICCC, Las Vegas, July 7-9, 2014. He has played an important role in disputing alarmist global warming claims for decades. He has received many awards.