McCanarchy at its bestWhile millions of Americans were getting ready to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled stricter standards for ozone, or smog, levels — a rule that has been criticized as possibly the costliest the agency has ever promulgated.
“Yet again we’re seeing the Obama administration release an incredibly expensive regulation on the eve of a major national holiday,” said Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “The administration is clearly hoping to release this at a time when the vast majority of Americans are focused elsewhere, and that alone should tell us something about it.”
The EPA’s proposed standard lowers the acceptable amount of ozone in the air from 75 parts per billion to a range of 65-70 parts per billion. The agency says this new standard is based on more than 1,000 scientific studies published since 2008, and will prevent from 320,000 to 960,000 asthma attacks per year, along with “preventing more than 750 to 4,300 premature deaths; 1,400 to 4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits; and 65,000 to 180,000 missed workdays.”
Hurricane Sandy off the coast of FloridaOn the website of The Nature Conservancy is the kind of matter-of-fact conclusion based on “scientific research” that you can find repeated, echoed, and amplified by numerous groups promoting a government-driven climate change agenda.
Scientific research indicates that climate change will cause hurricanes and tropical storms to become more intense — lasting longer, unleashing stronger winds, and causing more damage to coastal ecosystems and communities.
A major “scientific” study issued in the summer of 2013 by a climate researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) warned of increased activity of killer hurricanes because of global warming/climate change.
As reported by USA Today in July of last year:
One of the biggest debates in the climate change research community in recent years has been the projected impact of global warming on hurricanes. Will it make them stronger? More frequent? Longer lasting?
American MartenWe have all heard dire predictions that global warming will cause species extinction. Such predictions are based on ecological niche models (ENMs) that study where animals live now and assume that they must have the same habitat conditions to survive.
A new study from the University of Oregon, based on fossil evidence shows that these studies fail. The researchers studied the fossil records of five ancient mammalian species that survived North America’s last glacial period. All the models said they should have lived much farther south than the fossil evidence shows.
The paper abstract reads:
Ecological niche models (ENMs) are crucial tools for anticipating range shifts driven by climate change. As hypotheses of future biotic change, they can be difficult to test using independent data. The fossil record is the best way to assess the ability of ENMs to correctly predict range shifts because it provides empirical ranges under novel climate conditions. We tested the performance of ENMs using fossil distributions from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ~21 000 yr ago). We compared hindcast ENM LGM distribution hypotheses for five species of small mammals, drawn from the published literature, to the known LGM fossil record for those species and found a consistent southern prediction bias in the ENMs. This bias urges caution in interpreting future range predictions, and we suggest that the Pleistocene and Holocene fossil record should be used as an additional resource for calibrating niche modeling for conservation planning.
A new briefing paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines the World Health Organisation’s recent report on climate change and finds that its estimates of future mortality from global warming are grossly exaggerated.
The WHO report predicted that climate change would bring about 250,000 extra deaths annually between 2030 and 2050, but relied upon absurd assumptions to reach this conclusion. For example, the report assumes that the people affected by climate change will forgo commonsense steps to protect themselves, including several that are already in the works in some developing countries.
Briefing paper author Dr Indur Goklany said:
Is it surprising that the Environmental Protection Agency continues to tell big fat lies about anything it wants to ban, but is reluctant to show the “science” on which the bans are based?
There is currently a piece of legislation under consideration by Congress, the Secret Science Reform Act, to force the EPA to disclose its scientific and technical information before proposing or finalizing any regulation.
This is what Nicolas Loris of The Heritage Foundation had to say regarding the mercury air and toxics rule that the EPA claims would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. “The two studies that represent the scientific foundation for 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly questionable and the data concealed, even though the studies were paid for by federal taxpayers and thus should be public property.”
Call it the Gruber-ing of America’s energy and environmental policies.
Former White House medical consultant Jonathan Gruber pocketed millions of taxpayer dollars before infamously explaining how ObamaCare was enacted. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he said. “It was really, really critical to getting the bill passed.” At least one key provision was a “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
Taxpayers beware! While you were sleeping, enjoying your family and eating turkey, Congress has been busy.
Congressional Republicans are negotiating with Senate Democrats to extend the infamous wind energy Production Tax Credit through to 2017, after which it will supposedly be phased out, just as was supposed to happen in the past. This sneaky, dark-of-night “lame duck” session tactic should be flatly rejected.
While you’ve been busy just trying to make ends meet, wondering why the cost of everything is going up, and agonizing over how your children and grandchildren will ever pay the mounting $18 TRILLION dollar national debt – the wind industry lobbyists’ group, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), just sent Congress a letter seeking to extend the federal, taxpayer-funded wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).
The list of signers to AWEA’s letter include rent-seeking industries and “green” groups who’ve all benefitted by tapping into taxpayers’ wallets via the Big Wind PTC (aka: Pork-To-Cronies). It certainly isn’t hard to figure out why these corporations pay many millions of dollars to hire lobbyists and run national TV advertising campaigns geared at convincing crony-politicians to vote to continue these TAXES and higher energy prices on American citizens.
It's Thanksgiving this week in the States so posting will be light. Please feel free to leave your comments to links and articles related to the climate change / global warming hoax.
Also, some of you may have noticed that we had some "linking" issues that, hopefully, have been resolved. Basically, software updated on the backend wreaked havoc on the frontend. If you find anything hinky, please use the contact us page and send a message! We can't fix it if we don't know it's broken.
Have a great Thanksgiving and enjoy the rest of your week!
I know that Thanksgiving is the day we are all supposed to review a list of all the things for which we should be thankful and surely each of us has a list, usually family and friends, and, patriotically, for being Americans.
What makes this Thanksgiving different from those that have proceeded it is the reminder from President Obama that, in his opinion, America is not exceptional and, presumably, that means neither are we.
I don’t think this nation has ever celebrated Thanksgiving when its President did not like America.
We’ve had six Thanksgivings with Obama and each one has given us less for which to be thankful in terms of the economy and our national security.
Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?
The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.
Sometimes you can't make this stuff up. The UK Government, using your tax money, is funding research projects that employ "radical" approaches to prevent non-existent global warming. Contrary to what the MSM would have you believe, there is money to be had in global-warming alarmism. Didn't any of these people see the flick Snowpiercer? From The Telegraph (naturally):
Radical, untested techniques to tackle global warming by reflecting the sun's rays could have "terrifying" consequences, yet may ultimately be needed to prevent catastrophic climate change, scientists have said.
Three Government-funded research projects released on Wednesday assessed the potential of controversial processes known as “geoengineering” – deliberately interfering with the earth’s climate to reverse global warming.
As this is being written, all fifty states have freezing weather and nearly a month before the winter solstice on December 21 some northeastern cities are buried in record-setting snowfalls.
At what point will the public conclude that virtually everything that we have been told about “global warming” and “climate change” by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) as well as U.S. government agencies we’re supposed to trust has been bogus, based on computer models, none of which have proven to be accurate?
At what point will the public conclude that climate, a perfectly natural phenomenon so vast and so powerful, is being exploited in order to transfer large amounts of money from wealthy nations to those who are not? It is redistribution of wealth on a global scale. That is the primary reason for the U.N. climate fund. A total of $9.3 billion has been pledged by several nations.