Twenty-nine states, more than half the stars on the American flag, have filed lawsuits against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for redefining the “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS. EPA rewrote the law, erasing “navigable” and usurping states’ rights by including local seasonal streams, farm irrigation ponds, roadside ditches, and even “connective” dry lands placed under authority of the Clean Water Act.
The WOTUS rule, published the morning of June 29, potentially subjects every food, energy, transportation and manufacturing industry in the nation to high-handed regulation by one of the most reviled and least trusted federal agencies, dreaded for its cadre of “revolving door” officials hired from anti-industry green groups.
The astonishing response began on the afternoon of June 29: states teamed up in clusters to file their lawsuits in U.S. District Courts. Utah and eight others filed with Georgia in Augusta’s U.S. District Court; Alaska and eleven others filed with North Dakota in Bismarck. Days later, Mississippi and Louisiana filed with Texas in Galveston; Michigan filed with Ohio in Columbus; Oklahoma filed alone in Oklahoma City.
The 3 July 2015 issue of Science features a remarkable editorial by Editor Marcia McNutt. Titled “The beyond-two-degree inferno,” it suggests that an anthropogenic greenhouse (GH) warming of more than 2 degrees C (global average) will literally cause hell on earth, unless we can all agree to reduce emissions of the “infernal” GH-gas carbon dioxide – preferably before or at a UN-sponsored mega-confab in Paris in December. This much-hyped event, to be attended by nearly 200 national delegations and thousands of hangers-on, has even been endorsed in a papal encyclical, referred to, somewhat irreverently, as a “Pope-sicle” by my Virginia colleague Dr Charles Battig.
McNutt’s editorial claims a “global threat to food supplies, health, ecosystem services, and the general viability of the planet.” Yet none of these threats are supported by any scientific evidence -- even from the usually alarmist UN-IPCC. She fails to remind us that atmospheric CO2 is the essential ingredient for sustaining carbon-based life on Earth. The low CO2 levels during the recent ice age severely limited the rate of photosynthesis; at slightly lower levels, we and almost all living things on the Earth’s surface would just starve and die. And she takes for granted that rising CO2 will cause significant Global Warming (GW), with all the usual calamities that are recited by climate alarmists -- in spite of overwhelming evidence for absence of 21st-century warming.
In her latest campaign video on renewable energy, Hillary Clinton mocks Republican candidates for not facing the "reality" of global warming and the need to fight it. But it's her own energy plan that defies reality.
Clinton says she has two big goals that she'll start working on "day one" to combat climate change. First is to expand solar energy supplies by 700% by installing half a billion solar panels by 2020. Second is to power "every home in America" with renewable energy by 2027.
She describes these as "bold national goals." The more appropriate label is "expensive pipe dream."
After years of suffering through the writings of global warming cultists I keep hoping that the overwhelming contradictory scientific evidence and thorough debunking of anthropogenic global warming alarmism would result in scientific truth and the scientific method winning out soon. I was certainly wrong in that belief. Once again a global warming diatribe by self-appointed expert, Jeffrey Bada, has proven conclusively the prophetic words (written by William M. Briggs, PhD):
"How long does it take for an expert who has, year upon year after year, made predictions of unrealized doom, an expert hailed heeded and hearkened to by the whole world, to admit error? Answer: forever. He never will, and neither will most of his admirers."
Mankind has gotten a really bad rep lately as environmentalists blame us for everything from blizzards to droughts to rising sea levels and the infinitesimal warming in the last 100 years. So it's refreshing to read today that when woolly mammoths disappeared 11,000 years ago, we had little, if anything, to do with it. That's according to a new study detailing how researchers set out to discover why these giant animals went extinct after the last glacial period.
Most theories put forth suggested their demise came from the over-eager predation and habitat intrusion of man. But these new findings showed that abrupt global warming helped kill off the woolly mammoth and that we had a small, secondary role. The study's lead author, professor Alan Cooper, who is the director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide, said "This abrupt warming had a profound impact on climate that caused marked shifts in global rainfall and vegetation patterns. Even without the presence of humans we saw mass extinctions."
The colossal, hugely expensive windfarms that are spread across huge areas of Europe's land and sea, which are projected to drive up household energy bills by more than 50 per cent in coming years, have achieved ... almost nothing in terms of reducing EU carbon emissions.
We here on the Reg energy desk only noticed this particularly this week because of a chirpy press release that flitted past us just the other day, claiming that "wind energy provides 8 per cent of Europe's electricity."
Hey, we thought, that sounds almost like it's getting somewhere! So we looked into it. The eight per cent figure comes from the latest Wind Status Report (pdf) from the EU Joint Research Centre, and sure enough, it's claimed therein that all those massive wind farms produced no less than 238 terawatt-hours of the 2,942 TWh of 'leccy used in the EU nations last year.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the climate change debate Sunday, setting ambitious goals to "decarbonize" America and blasting her Republican rivals for ignoring scientists who warn of a looming disaster from global warming.
Mrs. Clinton announced what she described as the first pillars of a comprehensive energy and climate agenda with a three-minute Web video that presented a montage of scenes of children on playgrounds, farmland and windmills juxtaposed with footage of wildfires, a blazing sun and flood damage.
LomborgEarlier this year, I reported how a handful of green activists at the University of Western Australia had nixed a $4 million policy centre just because it was vaguely associated with “Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg.
Now they’re at it again, this time at Flinders University in South Australia, where the student association’s general secretary Grace Hill has vowed to lead students in killing the project.
The University of Western Australia was to host the think tank, to be aligned with Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre and work in areas ranging from food security to social justice, but reversed its decision amid howls of protest from students and staff.
The Environmental Defense Fund raises money by lying about global warming. Here’s your guide to its latest fundraising letter.
Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions to get attention and raise money, but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may have set a new low. The only good thing about EDF’s preposterous mailer is that it can be used to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.
EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook. Each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make! Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmists’ playbook.
George Orwell's epic book, "1984," a nightmarish future is depicted in which government, largely through what's known as "Big Brother," engages in "doublespeak" to manipulate and deceive citizens. "Lies are Truth," and, "War is Peace." The government even manufactures an imaginary war as propaganda to justify misery inflicted upon citizens.
Orwell's parallels to modern global warming hysteria are self-evident.
Last month, I wrote about Marxist influences by providing actual quotes from world leaders boasting "climate science" provides their most powerful tool in their fight against free-market capitalism.
As expected, climateers shrilly responded with religious fervor, insisting man-made global warming is serious and there is a "scientific consensus."
Hillary Clinton was in Iowa, talking about the subject foremost on everyone's mind. No, not the tremendous national debt, or illegal immigration, or Iran getting nuclear weapons, but global warming.
She praised Iowa for its success with wind energy, which she said was an example of good environmental and economic policy. She said she favored a wind-production tax credit
How is it good economic policy when the championed energy source requires taxpayer subsidies? How is it good energy policy when the championed energy source stops working when the wind dies down?
Britain will go no faster than other countries in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the government has signalled. In a speech setting out the government’s position on climate change, Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, said that the need to cut emissions had to be balanced against the requirement to protect the economy and keep down energy bills. --Ben Webster, The Times, 24 July 2015
Amber Rudd also signalled that she would stop Britain’s policy of unilateral decarbonisation at a faster rate than other countries, as mandated in Mr Miliband’s Climate Change Act of 2008. Supposing the Paris conference produces its expected fudge, what should our energy policy look like? The Poles and other Eastern European countries are opposed to going it alone again, even before a non-binding agreement in Paris. That will give the British government the opportunity to revisit its own targets. According to part 1, section 2, of the Climate Change Act, the secretary of state has the power to amend the act’s CO2 targets if there is a significant change in international climate policy. She should grasp it. --Matt Ridley, The Times, 27 July 2015