Environmental policy may be divisive, yet Americans all want a clean environment. Nor is it contentious to ask that Washington accurately assess the economic costs of far-reaching environmental mandates.
After all, it would be an affront to the American people if powerful agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency acted without full knowledge of how its regulations affect the economy.
Apparently this is too much to ask.
The Government Accountability Office, an independent federal agency, has released an analysis of the EPA's regulatory review process. Turns out the agency doesn't primarily base its decisions on regulations' economic effects.
Al Gore goofed. Instead of talking up “climate extremes,” he should have spoken about the dangers of an increasingly mild climate. Washington is likely to wrap up the month (and the summer) with the mercury having topped 90 degrees only once or twice. This has been shown to lead to increased lounging in the backyard and heightened consumption of grilled hot dogs.
The error was apparent last month when Mr. Gore tried to give away ice cream from his “I’m too hot” truck at An Environmental Protection Agency field hearing in Denver. It was a clever idea for a July event, but at 58 degrees he had no takers. Gong-show liberals have ramped up alarmism, apparent over the past few days.
If you watch much mainstream TV, you’ve probably seen Siemens’ new multi-million-dollar advertising blitz to sell the American public on industrial wind. Why the sudden ad onslaught?
The wind business abroad has taken a huge hit of late. European countries have begun slashing renewable mandates, due to the ever-broadening realization that renewables cost far more than industrial wind proponents have led people to believe: economically, environmentally, technically, and civilly.
Siemens’ energy business took a €48m hit in the second quarter due to a bearings issue with onshore turbines, and a €23m charge due to ongoing offshore grid issues in Germany – on top of subsidy and feed-in tariff cutbacks, recent articles have pointed out.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.
Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."
MarohasyEARLIER this year Tim Flannery said “the pause” in global warming was a myth, leading medical scientists called for stronger action on climate change, and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology declared 2013 the hottest year on record. All of this was reported without any discussion of the actual temperature data. It has been assumed that there is basically one temperature series and that it’s genuine.
But I’m hoping that after today, with both a feature (page 20) and a news piece (page 9) in The Weekend Australia things have changed forever.
I’m hoping that next time Professor Flannery is interviewed he will be asked by journalists which data series he is relying on: the actual recorded temperatures or the homogenized remodeled series. Because as many skeptics have known for a long time, and as Graham Lloyd reports today for News Ltd, for any one site across this wide-brown land Australia, while the raw data may show a pause, or even cooling, the truncated and homogenized data often shows dramatic warming.
When raging floodwaters swept through Brisbane in January 2011 they submerged a much-loved red Corvette sports car in the basement car park of a unit in the riverside suburb of St Lucia.
On the scale of the billions of dollars worth of damage done to the nation’s third largest city in the man-made flood, the loss of a sports car may not seem like much.
But the loss has been the catalyst for an escalating row that raises questions about the competence and integrity of Australia’s premier weather agency, the Bureau of Meteorology, stretching well beyond the summer storms.
It goes to heart of the climate change debate — in particular, whether computer models are better than real data and whether temperature records are being manipulated in a bid to make each year hotter than the last.
The Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.
Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.
A Maryland company, Solar Wind Energy Inc., proposes to build a giant tower near San Luis, Arizona, located near the U.S.-Mexican border south of Yuma.
The proposed tower, essentially a hollow hyperbolic cylinder, is planned to be 2,250 feet tall, 1,200 feet wide at the top, and 1,500 feet wide at the bottom. It would be the second tallest structure on the planet. The project will cost $1.5 billion, apparently from private investors, and generate an average of 425 megawatts per hour.
This project has been described previously in Forbes (see here and here) and more recently by an August 8, 2014 story in Inside Tucson Business. Both sources contained some confusing ambiguities. Earlier this week (August18, 2014) I spoke by phone to Steven Sadle, COO, and to Ronald W. Pickett, president and chief executive officer of Solar Wind Energy Tower Inc. to get better information.
Leonardo DiCaprio’s new climate film titled ‘Carbon’, produced and narrated by DiCaprio, features environmental activist and talk show host Thom Hartmann touting a carbon tax and referring to carbon dioxide, (a trace essential gas in the atmosphere) as a “poison”.
“Finland and the Netherlands implemented a carbon tax back in 1990, both putting a price tag on each ton of CO2 poison,” Hartmann is featured as saying in the DiCaprio produced video. The new video released August 20, was produced by ‘Green World Rising’ and stars DiCaprio and is supported by the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation.
But scientists reject the notion that carbon dioxide is a “poison.”
"Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great Climate War?"
"Well, son. I voyaged up to the Arctic Circle in a nice big boat with a bunch of installation artists, mime practitioners, YouTube cat short specialists and climate scientists on an all-expenses trip to make a documentary called The Earth Is Weeping: Feel Her Pain. My contribution was a Concerto for Gamelan and Nose Flute entitled Swan Song Of The Melting Polar Bear."
"Gosh, Daddy, it sounds like you made a really important contribution to raising awareness of Climate Change!"
The Sierra Club is encouraging its supporters to go green and install solar panels on their homes. But the club’s solar push is not just a charitable act, as they are reaping financial rewards from members who install solar panels.
The environmental group has partnered with the company Sungevity to promote solar panel usage among its members in across the country. For every Sierra Club member that buys solar panels through Sungevity, the environmental group is given $750 that will go towards a local chapter.
Wells sunk as little as three years ago are being fracked again, the latest innovation in the technology-driven shale oil revolution. Thanks to the dual-deployment of horizontal well drilling and hydraulic fracturing, oil and gas firms have unlocked massive new reserves across the United States, completely transforming America’s energy fortunes in just a matter of years. It’s a common but very serious mistake to predict the future based on what holds true today. In this case, those who have predicted the demise of the shale revolution may soon be forced to eat their words. The pace of technological change is accelerating, redefining possibilities along the way. --Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, 20 August 2014