It was a surreal experience. As the Heartland Institute’s hugely successful Ninth International Conference on Climate Change ended, I agreed to let Greenpeace activist Connor Gibson interview me.
I’d just given a presentation on Big Green’s lethal agenda, describing how “dangerous manmade climate change” is just one of many mantras invoked by the Deep Ecology movement to advance an agenda that is anti-energy, anti-people, and opposed to modern economies, technologies and civilizations. As readers of my book and articles know, this unaccountable movement inflicts lethal consequences on millions of people every year – the result of malaria, malnutrition, lung and intestinal diseases, and other afflictions of rampant poverty imposed or perpetuated by unelected and unaccountable eco-imperialists.
Last Friday morning, the Energy and the Economy subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a fascinating hearing aptly titled “Constitutional Considerations: States vs. Federal Environmental Policy Implementation.”
Witnesses included law professors Jonathan Adler (Case Western University School of Law), Rena Steinzor (University of Maryland School of Law), and Richard Revesz (New York University School of Law), as well as the Congressional Research Service’s Robert Meltz. (testimonies hyperlinked). Click here for a background memo. Subcommittee chairman John Shimkus’s opening statement is available here. I’ve reposted video of the hearing at the bottom of this post.
In a clear slap in the face, the Virginia Supreme Court awarded Michael E. Mann and the University of Virginia a piddling $250 in damages in the email FOIA case. Showing the triviality of the manner, the court's order (shown here) didn't even specify the rationale for the derisory amount. From The Daily Reporter:
The court's recent order only states the amount of damages that the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute must pay. It doesn't provide details about the rationale behind the award.
The institute sued in 2011 after U.Va. refused to turn over emails requested by the nonprofit conservative group under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act. The Supreme Court rejected the group's attempt to obtain the emails in April, saying retired Arlington Circuit Court Judge Paul Sheridan was right when he ruled that Mann's emails were exempt from the law because they were proprietary records dealing with scholarly research.
For those who haven't seen the latest blockbuster movie, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes," it portrays a future with small colonies of humans fighting for survival against an Earth now ruled by monkeys, gorillas and other simians.
What mankind needs most to survive and restore a semblance of normal life is electricity — aka power. Without it, we have no light, no communications, no way to travel but on foot, no computer power, no heat, no stoves. The apes want to keep the humans poor, disoriented and in a hopeless state.
A turning point arrives with cheers in the theater when the humans return an electric power dam to operation and the entire city powers up again.
Which leads us to wonder if this movie is a metaphor for what we face in our real future. Not a future of apes, but a future without cheap and abundant power.
Is this where the radical green movement is guiding us with rolling brownouts and even complete blackouts in the years ahead as the Sierra Club, billionaire Tom Steyer and the Obama administration rage war against coal and other fossil fuel?
The apocalypse confronting America may not be "climate change," but the havoc and slow return to the Stone Age the left envisions for us to fight an alleged man-made effect on the weather.
Have a look at this recent BBC interview with Al Gore.
Then, once you've cleaned up the sick, consider what it tells us about the current debate on climate change. I'd suggest two things.
1. The mainstream media still isn't doing its due diligence in exposing the scam.
2. (And this is a consequence of 1.) Charlatans like Al Gore are getting away with murder.
"The science doesn't support that view" declares Gore airily. And instead of challenging Gore on what this "science" of which he claims to be the gatekeeper actually says, the journalist smiles indulgently and moves on to the next "So Mr Gore, would you say you are merely wonderful or totally fantastic?" softball question.
Climate models that simulate the airborne African dust that influences Atlantic Ocean hurricanes are not up to the task of accurately representing the characteristics of that dust.
In a new study, researchers led by Amato Evan, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, examined the performance of 23 state-of-the-art global climate models used in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The researchers found that none of them yielded accurate data on dust characteristics.
“The models systematically underestimate dust emission, transport and optical depth, and year-to-year changes in these properties bear little resemblance to observations,” the authors wrote. “These findings cast doubt on the ability of these models to simulate the regional climate and the response of African dust to future climate change.”
It's unusual to see this in Time magazine, which isn't exactly on the skeptical side of the global-warming debate, calling out The Guardian for it's implicit use of yellow journalism and climate porn. Michael Grunwald writes:
Help us! We’re drowning! It’s a catastrophe! DO SOMETHING!
Well, we’re not actually drowning. We do get damp every now and then, but it’s hard to see how some modest sunny-day flooding in my neighborhood at high tide justifies The Guardianheadline that’s been generating so much buzz: “Miami, the great world city, is drowning while the powers that be look away.” I’ve described South Beach as the canary in America’s coal mine for climate change, and the canary has started coughing a bit, but it isn’t dead or even very sick. I’m sorry to spoil the climate porn, but while the periodic puddles in my Whole Foods parking lot are harbingers of a potentially catastrophic future, they are not currently catastrophic. They are annoying. And so is this kind of yellow climate journalism.
The BBC must air the views of climate change sceptics even though they are in the minority, the editor of Radio 4’s Today programme has said after he was criticised for allowing Nigel Lawson to feature in a debate. Jamie Angus, editor of Today, said Lord Lawson deserved to be heard despite holding a minority view. “The BBC can’t say, ‘We aren’t going to put that point of view on air because scientists tell us it’s not right’,” Angus said. --Anita Singh, The Daily Telegraph, 14 July 2014
Appearing on the programme in February, Lord Lawson questioned whether extreme weather events – including flooding in the UK – had any link to climate change. Some listeners complained, and the BBC’s editorial complaints unit ruled that his views had been given undue prominence in the debate. Lord Lawson claims the “quasi-Stalinist” BBC has now banned him from appearing on the programme because his views clash with the corporation’s “own party line”. --Anita Singh, The Daily Telegraph, 14 July 2014
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt was one of the founders of the environmental movement in Germany. In the 1980s his bestseller Seveso ist überall (Seveso is everywhere) triggered a debate which led to a fundamental reorientation of the chemical industry towards sustainable development.
Dr Vahrenholt holds a PhD in chemistry and is Honorary Professor at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg. Since 1969 he has been a member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD). From 1976 until 1997 he served in several public positions with environmental agencies such as the Federal Environment Agency, the Hessian Ministry of Environment and as Deputy Environment Minister and Senator of the City of Hamburg. He then held top management positions in the renewable energy industry.
Vahrenholt is a member of the Germany Academy of Technical Sciences and the Senate of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. His 2012 book The Neglected Sun sparked a broad public discussion in Germany about the dogmatism in climate science. He is currently the Chairman of the German Wildlife Trust.
Climate change is nothing new, says News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, and is only slightly caused by human activity.
"Climate change has been going on as long as the planet is here, and there will always be a little bit of it," Murdoch said in a television interview on his own Sky News. "At the moment the North Pole is melting, but the South Pole is getting bigger. Things are happening. How much of it are we doing, with emissions and so on? As far as Australia goes? Nothing in the overall picture."
Murdoch's interview was reported in The Guardian.
A worst-case global warming scenario, he said, was that the earth's temperature would rise three degrees Celsius in the next century. Only one of those degrees, he said, would be because of human activity.
"What it means is if the sea level rises six inches it’s a big deal, the Maldives might disappear, but we can’t mitigate that, we can’t stop it, we just have to stop building vast houses on seashores," Murdoch said.
At the Heartland Institute's 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas, Nevada, this week, Dr. Roy Spencer wowed participants with his presentation titled "What Do We Really Know About Global Warming?" wherein he noted that claims of global warming have been greatly exaggerated.
Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream
Big Government: The EPA is now claiming the authority to bypass courts and, on its own, garnish the paychecks and attach the assets of those it accuses of violating its rules. And, as with the IRS, its hard drives also crash.
The Environmental Protection Agency's insatiable lust for power has now gone beyond being the pen and the phone for President Obama's climate change, bypassing both the Constitution and the Congress in enacting rules and regulations that the American people and their representatives did not enact or even support.
Through an announcement in the Federal Register, the agency is claiming that existing federal law allows it "to garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order." It claims such authority under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.