“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
—Daniel J. Boorstin

The EPA’s Political Futility

EPA buildingOn June 2, the Environmental Protection Agency is going to announce new rules for existing coal-fired power plants, most likely a 20 percent reduction in allowable carbon dioxide emissions. The only way this will be possible will be by upgrading almost all combustion units, and the ultimate cost of the upgrades will make coal noncompetitive with much-less-expensive natural gas–fired facilities.

EPA’s proposed new greenhouse-gas regulations are a campaign promise come true. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama announced that, if elected, his climate policies would “necessarily bankrupt” anyone who wanted to build a new coal-fired power plant.

Public comments on EPA’s proposal to do just that closed on May 9, and there is no chance that the president will renege — or that this policy will have any detectable effect on global temperature.

‘Get at the truth, and not fool yourself’

einsteinJohn Cook’s 97% is, quite frankly, bullshit. A simple statistic by, for and on behalf of, the simple minded, to be bandied about as often as possible, hoping that no-one actually bothers to enquire what it means. And relying on the old adage that a lie, repeated often enough, will eventually become the truth. “97% of climate scientists agree that… [insert assertion here]” is a big heavy weapon used to beat dissenters around the head. As always, however, the reality is vastly different. What do they agree on?

  1. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
  2. That emissions have increased since the Industrial Revolution?
  3. That temperatures have increased in the same period? If that’s the case, then I’m in the 97%.
  4. Is it also that man has caused some proportion of that warming? If yes, then I’m still in. It’s only when you get to the next level that things fall apart.
  5. Has man caused the majority of the warming since the 19th Century? Probably out on this one
  6. Is the warming dangerous? I’m definitely out here.

The Bengtsson Affair & The GWPF

LeaSpectWhat’s most disturbing about the treatment of Prof. Bengtsson is the people acting like common or garden thugs were supposedly men of science rather than outraged clerics stamping down on a heretic. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of how much collateral damage mainstream science is going to take with the crash of climate science. --The Pointman, 22 May 2014

As one who has been closely associated with the GWPF from the outset, as chairman of the Academic Advisory Council that Professor Bengtsson was invited to join, I offer here a brief personal perspective on the issues thus raised… It was specifically to give more effective expression to ‘different views’, in an area ‘so important and complex and still insufficiently known’ and so permeated by over-presumption, bias and pressures to conform, that Nigel Lawson decided to launch the GWPF. The Bengtsson affair is further and disturbing evidence of a situation which his new venture was designed to rectify. -- David Henderson, Global Warming Policy Foundation, 30 May 2014

Global Cooling, Not Global Warming, Doomed the Ancients

Ancient ruinsGlobal cooling rather than global warming or “climate change” doomed ancient societies, despite the New York Times’ latest efforts to invent a new global warming alarm. The Times published an article Tuesday claiming “climate change” doomed ancient societies to famine and collapse, but those societies thrived while temperatures were significantly warmer than today. It was only when temperatures cooled that shorter growing seasons and less favorable climate conditions doomed crop production and the food supplies of ancient civilizations.

The Times noted an extreme and prolonged drought lasting up to 300 years decimated crop production in Greece, Israel, Lebanon and Syria. According to the Times, around 1,200 B.C. “A centuries-long drought in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean regions, contributed to — if not caused — widespread famine, unrest and ultimately the destruction of many once prosperous cities.”

AG: EPA’s ‘Cap-and-trade Scheme’ Would Violate The Clean Air Act

Get ready to pay for EPA's new CO2 regsGet ready to pay for EPA's new CO2 regs.The Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming climate rule that would push policies like cap and trade violates the Clean Air Act and will be challenged in court by the states, said Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

News reports have said the EPA’s carbon dioxide regulations would force states to significantly lower their emissions from existing power plants. The agency will reportedly give the states a menu of options to choose from to lower emissions, including cap-and-trade schemes.

But cajoling the states into imposing cap-and-trade on their energy sectors would be in violation of the Clean Air Act and almost certainly face numerous legal challenges from states and the coal industry, said Pruitt.

Ahead of power-plant regs, new report from the White House: Basically everything good that’s happened in the energy sector is because of us. You’re welcome.

frackattackSpare us, please. Via the AP:

Setting the stage for upcoming restrictions on coal-fired power plants, the Obama administration is making a concerted effort to cast its energy policy as an economic success that is creating jobs, securing the nation against international upheavals and shifting energy use to cleaner sources.

In a 42-page report to be released Thursday, the White House argues that significant increases in the domestic production of natural gas and reductions in oil consumption have better positioned the United States to advance its economic and environmental goals.

The Regulatory Death of Energy in America

cartoonBefore President Obama took office in 2009, the amount of electricity being produced by coal-fired utilities was approximately fifty percent of the total. Today it is approximately forty percent and, when the Environmental Protection Agency regulations take effect as of June 2, more such utilities are likely to close their doors. The basis for the regulations is utterly devoid of any scientific facts.

Environmentalism, as expressed by many of the organizations that advocate it is, in fact, an attack on America, its economic system of capitalism, and its need for energy to maintain and grow its business and industrial base. Electricity, of course, is also the energy we all use daily for a multitude of tasks ranging from heating or cooling our homes to the use of our computers and every other appliance.

Cosmos Host Tyson Proclaims Global Warming Theory as Fact

The blue line is weather on a leash. The red line is climate.The blue line is weather on a leash. The red line is climate taking a beach-side stroll.National Geographic just released a clip from an episode of Cosmos airing this Sunday. In it, host Neil deGrasse Tyson takes climate change head on. Sadly, he fails miserably from start to finish. Even from the short snippet that NatGeo released, it's clear that Tyson has thrown out the scientific method and continues pushing the radical left-wing Hollywood-esque agenda.

In what can only be described as the most inexplicable explanation of weather versus climate, Cosmos' host Neil deGrasse Tyson explains that weather is like a dog on a leash. And Tyson, who is walking in a straight line with the aforementioned dog on leash, is climate. This is known as similes on steroids.

Carbon rules threaten coal plants in West Virginia

coal-warAt the heart of the Mountaineer power plant in West Virginia is a fireball of pulverised coal. It turns water into steam to drive thundering turbines, but just one-third of the plant is devoted to electricity generation. The rest of its buildings, tacked on in stages, control pollution.

As such, the plant offers a concrete-and-steel history of regulations on coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels. Next week, a new chapter will begin when the Obama administration unveils the US’s first proposed limits on power plant emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

Which Study Has The Right Conclusion On Obama Climate Rule?

harbertKaren Harbert, CEO U.S. Chamber of CommerceTwo studies addressing the White House's plan to cut carbon emissions are being released this week. One says the new climate rule is a job killer. The other says the opposite. Which is right?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce put out a report Wednesday that says the EPA's coming proposal to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is an economy wrecker.

The EPA rule, which is expected to be released soon, will eventually kill 224,000 jobs and cause $50 billion in economic losses a year, according to the Chamber.

On Thursday, the Natural Resources Defense Council will produce its own report taking the opposite view. It will say the administration's rule will create thousands of new green jobs, save consumers billions on utility bills and of course decrease pollution.

Global Warming Insanity Has Gone Beyond Satire

Train wrecksIt is now obvious that the Warmist movement will go to any lengths to try to frighten and intimidate the public as their cause goes slowly down the drain.  I can scarcely believe what I have just read in the respected climate blog, climatecentral.org.

Last August, I wrote a satire article for AT, titled  “Global Warming Responsible for Epidemic of Rail Disasters?”  Although the article was clearly labelled “Satire”, several left-leaning blogs reposted it as fact, including Time-Warner Cable (until they realized it was a joke).  My post was obviously an over-the-top analysis of rail disasters linked to global warming, making fun of the apocalyptic predictions of global warming alarmists:

U.S. industry gears up to fight Obama's climate rules

power-linesThis summer is likely to see a series of attacks by industry opponents of a U.S. plan to curb carbon emissions from power plants in a bid to stir voter anger ahead of elections in November, when voters in states such as Kentucky and West Virginia may determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate.

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to propose new rules to crack down on power plant emissions, part of President Barack Obama's efforts to combat global climate change.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report Wednesday that predicted the yet-to-be-announced regulations will cost consumers $289 billion more for electricity through 2030, and crimp the economy by $50 billion a year.

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents: Environmental physicist Dr. Jean-Louis Pinault

Pinault's book coverThe theory of anthropogenic climate warming, i.e. resulting from the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide in particular, has produced the economic and political media frenzy we know, unprecedented in the history of science. On the other hand, there are those who oppose who are skeptical about this hypothesis. Arguing natural climate variability observed in the past, including the recent past regarding the Little Ice Age, they refute alarmist predictions that are becoming harder to sustain as the temperature of the planet has no longer increased over the last fifteen years, while the concentration of carbon dioxide is soaring.

This confrontation between the proponents of global warming due to human activity, supported by the IPCC, and skeptics reflects a misunderstanding of the mechanisms involved in climate variability. Computers of the former allow a “bad model to be accurately wrong”, I quote William Gray, whereas the latter challenge the working methods and the scientific integrity of the IPCC members who cling tenaciously to the theory of greenhouse gases liable for global warming, which is the raison d’être of the IPCC.

This Week
Last Week
This Month
Last Month
All days
Your IP:
Server Time: 07-24-2014 16:00:44
Visitors Counter