A news item in late June caught my eye. It was in the Washington Free Beacon and the headline was “EPA spends $1.6 million on hotel for ‘Environmental Justice’ conference.”
The event will occur in the fall and the location is the Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel.
By its own description, it is located “Just one mile from the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, this Arlington hotel features a chic lobby and indoor swimming pool. Rooms come with 37’’ HDTVs and plug-in connectivity panels.” A room for one night will cost approximately $349. The EPA is booking 195 of them for 24 nights!
The environmental movement began as the conservation movement. Its early leaders were concerned about preserving our great forests and other landmarks. President Teddy Roosevelt was enthusiastic about that and used his powers to initiate national parks and reserves. These days, however, Clinton and Obama used those same powers to close off access to vast energy reserves.
Once again, as H. L. Mencken warned, the Arizona Daily Star is trying to scare us with a front-page story saying that global warming will fry us. The story, by Tony Davis, is “Rising AZ temperatures make for hostile environment.” The lead line is “Thousands more Arizonans will likely die. Farmers’ crop yields will drop. Electricity bills will rise sharply, along with the use of air conditioning.”
This article is about a new report, “Risky Business” by a group of business leaders and politicians lead by former New York Mayor, Michael “Big Gulp” Bloomberg. The report is based upon a series of computer model projections about the climate. I have shown in a previous article “Global Temperature Continues Divergence from Model Predictions” that computer model projections diverge widely from reality.
The Coalition MP George Christensen has likened the “hysteria” of calls for action on climate change to a science fiction film, in a speech to a gathering of climate science sceptics in Las Vegas.
Christensen, the Liberal National party MP for the federal seat of Dawson, told the Heartland Institute conference that mainstream climate science was “a lot of fiction dressed up as science”.
Showing slides depicting scenes from Star Trek and the Kevin Costner film Waterworld, the MP said the climate change “major motion picture” was previously a “slasher-style horror flick as ever more graphic descriptions are used to scare people into submission”.
But now the plot had moved into a “farcical comedy as government and environmental terrorists make ridiculous suggestions about how mankind will control the planet”, Christensen said.
So I’m here in Las Vegas, in beautiful Mandalay Bay Hotel, at Heartland Institute’s 9th International Conference on Climate Change. This morning I gave a Power Point presentation titled “Carbon Tax: A Conservative Idea Whose Time Has Come?”
A ‘conservative’ carbon tax is so loopy that at times I half believe it must be a passing fad, a bad joke, or a piece of blackboard econometric foppery rather than a grimly-determined political agenda.
But shortly after my presentation, a colleague forwarded an email he received from MIT’s Climate CoLab. The message begins:
FRIDAY: U.S. Carbon Price Webinar with former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and former Members of Congress Bob Inglis and Phil Sharp. . . . The Webinar will consider “How could a national price on carbon be implemented in the United States?”
The BBC is getting itself in a huge hole over its coverage of climate change - and it does not seem to see the need to stop digging.
The controversy is best highlighted by the BBC's decision to uphold a complaint against the Today programme for the appearance of climate change sceptic Lord Lawson to discuss the impact of climate on the recent floods.
A complaint against the World at One has also been partially upheld after an interview with a sceptical scientist Professor Bob Carter, head of the department of earth science at James Cook University.
"Carbon pricing" is simply a euphemism for "carbon tax."
When a politician talks about establishing a price on carbon in the name of stopping global warming (as federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau frequently does), what he really means is he wants to tax oil production, manufacturing and private vehicle use in the hope that by punishing energy companies, manufacturers and drivers he can force them to reduce their emissions.
However, no market exists for carbon emissions except where governments force companies to buy or sell "carbon credits." Therefore, there is no such thing as a natural "carbon price." The concept is entirely artificial.
Sorry Galileo, according to the BBC you're a crank.In other news the BBC plans to ban Galileo since the consensus is that the sun revolves around the earth and anyone who disagrees with the consensus is just a crank who hates science.
The BBC Trust, which is the BBC’s governing body, published a new report on Thursday that says that Britain’s largest news organization has been giving “undue attention to marginal opinion” on certain controversial scientific issues, including man-made climate change.
To combat what it calls a “false balance” on the issue, the trust’s report called for more BBC staffers to attend courses and seminars to help them learn how to bring their programming in line with what the BBC Trust accepts as the consensus view.
You really do have to appreciate the irony in this story. Maybe someone should email Obama this story. From Contra Costa Times (emphasis added):
A top federal wildlife official said there's too much uncertainty about climate change to prove it threatens the snow-loving wolverine — overruling agency scientists who warned of impending habitat loss for the "mountain devil."
There's no doubt the high-elevation range of wolverines is getting warmer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Noreen Walsh said. But any assumption about how that will change snowfall patterns is "speculation," she said.
So far, so typical. Last week spectators at Wimbledon were being treated for sunstroke as temperatures soared into the 80s.
On Saturday the heavens opened, as they usually do after a heatwave, soaking the motor racing at Silverstone and Henley Regatta.
By the end of this week, the Met Office is predicting it will be Phew, What A Scorcher! time again. It’s called the British summer.
Not according to the Government, it isn’t. Officially, we don’t have weather any more.
We have ‘climate change’, a catch-all excuse for everything from raising taxes and refusing to empty the bins to exploding manhole covers.
That’s right, exploding manhole covers. The Health and Safety Executive has warned pedestrians to be on the alert after a series of manhole cover explosions in London’s West End.
There have been 64 such incidents already this year, compared with just nine in 2011. ‘Experts’ blame the ‘wettest winter on record’ for rainwater damaging underground electric cables.
Add this be-freckled item to the warming list: new research says red heads will be about as common as a dinosaur walking through Times Square. You can blame global warming, scientists say. Is there anything it can't do? From Handbag.com:
According to new research conducted by ScotlandsDNA, if the weather continues to get warmer, the population of red heads may decline.
Having an auburn 'do and porcelain skin has always been a beautiful look, but now it seems it'll become even more unique.
The research showed that the redhead gene came about due to an evolutionary response to lack of sunlight and Vitamin D in the northern isles of the UK.
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. --Albert Einstein
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill,On Liberty, 1859
Research that questioned the accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming was “censored” by climate scientists, it was alleged yesterday. One academic reviewer said that a section should not be published because it “would lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community”. Another wrote: “This entire discussion has to disappear.” --Ben Webster, The Times, 8 July 2014
Steyer, Steyer, Pants on fire!It’s interesting to see the New York Times finally getting around to telling a story that conservative bloggers have been left alone to tell, notably PowerLine, which is not credited by the Times, but broke the exact same story several months ago. This is a story that makes Democrat sugar daddy Tom Steyer – who bought the Party and its President lock, stock, and barrel this year, with a promise of $100 million in campaign contributions – look very bad. It also makes the Koch-obsessed left wing media look very bad, because they’ve been politely ignoring the incandescently obvious fact that Steyer is what they’ve been accusing the Koch Brothers of being: a self-interested moneybags looking to purchase control over the American political system for his own ends.
The New York Times begins its report by describing a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that’s going to spew eeeeeeeevil carbon dioxide – the Glenfidditch of greenhouse gases – into the atmosphere for decades to come. The project was opposed by some local environmentalists, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s been bankrolled by the biggest environmentalist of them all: