It’s 5 degrees Fahrenheit in Littleton, CO, sunless and snowing. Colorado isn’t the only state in the grip of a deep freeze. NBC reports that residents of Duluth, MN got two feet of snow yesterday and are bracing for another foot today. The real treat will be the expected minus 22 degree temperature Friday. Parts of Nevada and Arizona are experiencing snow and freezing temperatures. Ice has covered Dallas, TX, and cold temperatures in California’s Central Valley have citrus growers looking nervously at the tender fruit still ripening on the branch.
This isn’t quite how Chancellor George Osborne defended his decision yesterday but it is perhaps the way he should have. For he’s decided to abolish the “fuel duty escalator” and there’s an extremely good climate change related argument for his having done so. Indeed, if we take the scientific consensus on how to deal with climate change seriously then the UK has already done everything that is necessary: all we need to do now is see how the incentives work through the system and change it.
Here’s the actual announcement:
Motorists and rail passengers received some respite from expected extra costs on Thursday when the chancellor cancelled a planned rise in fuel duty and limited average train fare rises to inflation.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed greenhouse gas regulations for new power plants, and forthcoming regulations for existing plants, will inflict higher energy costs on American families and businesses.
by Nicolas Loris, Kevin Dayaratna and David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D.
The regulations, which will provide no meaningful environmental benefit, have a weak scientific underpinning and face much legal scrutiny. Three Heritage Foundation energy policy experts explain why Congress should remove the EPA’s and any other agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has re-proposed its desired regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for future power plants. The agency also plans to finalize standards for existing plants by summer 2015. If implemented and combined with other proposed and newly implemented regulations, these GHG regulations would significantly reduce the use of coal as a power-generating source in America.
Neil Stenhouse, lead author of a paper accepted for publication by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, trashed the ability of American Meteorological Society meteorologists to understand global warming after they failed to validate Stenhouse’s mythical global warming consensus. Stenhouse’s criticism of AMS meteorologists in the UK Guardian puts dues-paying AMS members in the odd position of supporting and publishing the work of a non-scientist who is bashing their credentials.
Stenhouse, a psychologist and doctoral student in communications at George Mason University, emailed all full members of the American Meteorological Society for whom he could find an email address and asked them to fill out an online survey on global warming. More than 1,800 AMS meteorologists filled out the survey.
An analysis released in October by the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative revealed that every day in 2012, $1 billion was spent across the world on ‘climate finance’. But that incredible sum is not nearly enough, according to delegates at the recent United Nations climate conference in Warsaw. Far greater funding is needed to save the world from what UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon calls the “greatest threat facing humanity.”
Consequently, delegates at last month’s UN Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to vastly increase the financial burden on taxpayers of developed countries to stop extreme weather and other problems they blame on anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. That climate science is highly immature and global warming actually stopped 17 years ago was never mentioned.
We are all of this Earth, and, save for an apocalyptic few, we all want to preserve it. Why, then, have the rational and pragmatic allowed the basic concept of caring for our planet to be hijacked by the functioning contradiction that is the Radical Opportunist?
One part hysteria, one part greed, with a liberal sprinkling of impracticality, the Radical Opportunist is a beast not to be underestimated. They are the crazy ex-girlfriend you don't remember dating. Anything they say can and will be used against you in their court of no appeals. Facts? No need. Opposing views? Who has the time? There is only enough space on their high horse for them to froth at the mouth and tell us all that we are all going to be under water in five...no, ten...wait...fifteen years!
And this is all our fault.
German scientists contend that two natural cycles will combine to lower global temperatures throughout the 21st Century. The scientists show that there is an approximate 200-year solar cycle, supported by historical temperature data and proxy data from stalagmites in caves. The 200-year solar cycle has just passed its maximum and will decline during the 21st Century. It is at least in part responsible for the warming of the last decades of the 20thCentury. The AMO/PDO cycle is also beginning its cool phase and will reach a minimum in 2035. The scientists conclude that “the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.” --Jonathan DuHamel, Tuscon Citizen, 4 December 2013
An Alaska scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement has retired as part of a settlement with a federal agency he says tried to silence him to protect its political goals.
Charles Monnett was briefly suspended in 2011 during an inspector general’s investigation into a polar bear research contract he managed while working with what is now known as the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM. An Interior Department employee had alleged Monnett wrongfully released government records and that he and another scientist intentionally omitted or used false data in an article on polar bears.
McCarthy, left, with ObamaThe Environmental Protection Agency chief says global warming is the most urgent threat to public health. Given that the whole climate change frightfest has fallen apart, how do people keep saying such things?
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says she has dedicated her life to protecting the environment. It's too bad she is not more dedicated to reality. If she were, her comments Monday before the left-wing Center for American Progress would have been different.
But McCarthy knew who she was speaking to and told the group what it wanted to hear when she said, "I really see no greater issue and no more urgent threat to public health than climate change."
In a 2010 editorial, the journal Nature told embattled climate scientists to wise up and “acknowledge that they are in street fight” with their nastiest detractors. At the time, this seemed like a reasonable admonition, since climate scientists were indeed under siege following an illicit disclosure of emails that put the climate science community in an unfavorable light. In truth, climate scientists were already grappling with how to deal with their harshest critics.
It’s probably safe to say that a few of these scientists are (understandably) embittered by this experience and that several have come to mirror their antagonists. You often see them trading rhetorical blows and insults on Twitter and in climate blogs. It’s quite a spectacle. At some point, you have to wonder if the endless sparring will exhaust all the combatants and perhaps run its course. For the sake of climate science, that can’t happen soon enough.
Back in 2006, around the time Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was released, I started a file labeled “What Climate Consensus?” Gore was insisting that “the debate among the scientists is over,” and only an ignoramus or a lackey for the fossil-fuel industry could doubt that human beings were headed for a climate catastrophe of their own making. But it didn’t take much sleuthing to discover that there was plenty of debate among scientists about the causes and consequences of global warming. Many experts were skeptical about the hyperbole of alarmists like Gore, and as I came across examples, I added them to my file.