In a recent appearance before a congressional committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told them that the agency’s proposed sweeping carbon-regulation plan was “really an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control.”
If the plan isn’t about pollution, the primary reason for the EPA’s existence, why bother with yet more regulation of something that is not a pollutant—carbon dioxide—despite the Supreme Court’s idiotic decision that it is. Yes, even the Court gets things wrong.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is vital to all life on Earth, but most particularly to every piece of vegetation that grows on it. Top climatologists tell me that it plays a very small role, if any, in the Earth’s climate or weather. Why would anyone expect a gas that represents 400 parts per million of all atmospheric gases, barely 0.04% of all atmospheric gases to have the capacity to affect something as huge and dynamic as the weather or climate?
The impact of carbon dioxide on climate change may have been overstated, with solar activity giving a better explanation of changes in the Earth's temperature, according to Chinese scientists.
A new paper published in the Chinese Science Bulletin has found a "high correlation between solar activity and the Earth's averaged surface temperature over centuries," suggesting that climate change is intimately linked with solar cycles rather than human activity.
The paper, written in Chinese, says that there is also a "significant correlation" between solar activity over the past century and an increase in Earth's surface temperatures over the same period. The correlation between solar activity and water temperature is even higher than the correlation between solar activity and land temperature.
In the same way Americans are discovering that the Cold War that was waged from the end of World War Two until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is not over, Americans continue to be subjected to the endless, massive, global campaign to foist the hoax of global warming--now called climate change—on everyone.
The campaign’s purpose to convince everyone that it is humans, not the sun, oceans, and other natural phenomenon, and that requires abandoning fossil fuels in favor of “renewable” wind and solar energy.
“It is not surprising that climate alarmists, who desire above all else blind allegiance to their cause, would demand all school teachers toe the ‘official party line’ and quash any dissent on the subject of man-made global warming in their classroom,” says Craig Rucker, the Executive Director of co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). “What is absurd is that any teacher or free-thinking person for that matter would listen to them.”
Gina begins climate McCarthyist hearings on America's latest villain: Carbon DioxideGina McCarthy, head of the EPA, continues her fervent campaign that carbon dioxide is a pollutant based on the minuscule quantities in the atmosphere. Does anyone actually believe she cares what the public really thinks? From the Plain Dealer:
The EPA cares what you've got to say.
At least, that's what top Environmental Protection Agency officials told reporters during a Monday phone call to tout public hearings they'll conduct this week on a plan unveiled in June to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
"We want to leave no stone unturned and no good idea should be off the table," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said as she described the hearings the agency will host in Pittsburgh, Washington, D.C, Atlanta, and Denver to solicit public views on its ideas.
Graham Stringer, MPThe UK Parliamentary climate change committee has issued a written endorsement of the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. However two MPs - the two most scientifically qualified on the committee - have strongly disagreed with this position.
The IPCC's latest AR5 report takes a firmly alarmist position on carbon and climate change, predicting massively accelerated global warming and attendant sea level rises, crop failures and other global disasters unless human emissions of greenhouse gases - particularly carbon dioxide - are sharply curbed. The UK parliamentary committee report just out now firmly endorses this.
But not all the committee's members are convinced.
Prof Michael MannLeft-leaning environmentalists, media and academics have long railed against the alleged conservative “war on science.” They augment this vitriol with substantial money, books, documentaries and conference sessions devoted to “protecting” global warming alarmists from supposed “harassment” by climate chaos skeptics, whom they accuse of wanting to conduct “fishing expeditions” of alarmist emails and “rifle” their file cabinets in search of juicy material (which might expose collusion or manipulated science).
A primary target of this “unjustified harassment” has been Penn State University professor Dr. Michael Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” temperature graph that purported to show a sudden spike in average planetary temperatures in recent decades, following centuries of supposedly stable climate. But at a recent AGU meeting a number of other “persecuted” scientists were trotted out to tell their story of how they have been “attacked” or had their research, policy demands or integrity questioned.
Roger Pielke, Jr.Earlier in the year, Roger Pielke Jr. was named as a contributing writer for Nate Silver’s newly re-launched FiveThirtyEight site. Shortly after that, Pielke, a climate policy scholar and political scientist at the University of Colorado, in Boulder, published an article at FiveThirtyEight headlined, “Disasters Cost More Than Ever–But Not Because of Climate Change.”
Written by James Delingpole, Breitbart London on .
"Fracking" was the second most popular UK search term in the "what is?" category on Google in 2014.
(The top ten were: Love; Fracking; Gluten; FGM; Lupus; Anxiety; Twerking; Instagram; Gout; Bitcoin).
What this tells you is that capitalism in general and the fracking industry in particular is losing the argument.
How does it tell you this?
Because what it instantly suggests is that "fracking" is a controversial process.
And indeed fracking is a controversial process. But only because it has been tarred that way as a result of several years of very successful propagandising by the green movement, which the fracking industry and its allies in government have proved hopelessly inadequate at countering.
If wood-burning power stations are less eco-friendly than coal, we are getting the search for clean energy all wrong.
On Saturday my train was diverted by engineering works near Doncaster. We trundled past some shiny new freight wagons decorated with a slogan: “Drax — powering tomorrow: carrying sustainable biomass for cost-effective renewable power”. Serendipitously, I was at that moment reading a report by the chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change on the burning of wood in Yorkshire power stations such as Drax. And I was feeling vindicated.
A year ago I wrote in these pages that it made no sense for the consumer to subsidise the burning of American wood in place of coal, since wood produces more carbon dioxide for each kilowatt-hour of electricity. The forests being harvested would take four to ten decades to regrow, and this is the precise period over which we are supposed to expect dangerous global warming to emerge. It makes no sense to steal beetles’ lunch, transport it halfway round the world, burning diesel as you do so, and charge hard-pressed consumers double the price for the power it generates.
If there is a sound more pitiable than the whine of a pious environmental activist, it is the wail of a financier about to do his dough.
The mournful chorus now wafting from Greg Hunt’s waiting room is the sound of the two in unison, pleading with the Environment Minister to save the life of their misshapen bastard child, the renewable energy target.
You have to hand it to Hunt, who either has nerves of steel or is stone deaf, for he has retained both his cool and his fortitude.
The RET review by Dick Warburton on the government’s behalf has brought the rent-seekers out in force, for billions of dollars of corporate welfare is resting on its outcome.