News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

UK government and BBC employee Roger Harrabin can't tell the truth about increased coal use by UK and Europe, that coal use was encouraged by Europe's failed Emissions Trading System. Harrabin's 'reporting' consists of blaming the US for everything

5/29/13, "Cheap coal 'threatens UK pollution targets'," BBC,

Coal on the global market is so cheap that it threatens government attempts to tackle climate change, the chairman of the Environment Agency has warned.

Lord Smith says the UK’s share of electricity generated by coal is up to a third – the highest since 1996. Unless this trend is curbed, he says, the UK will miss its targets on curbing climate change and sulphur pollution. 

The price of coal has been driven down by the dash for shale gas in the US.

Gas is much less polluting than coal, so carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have fallen in the US. But European power generators have gobbled up the resulting cheap coal, driving carbon emissions up in several nations."...


First 2 sources below, increased coal use in Europe is largely due to mechanisms of Europe's now failed Emissions Trading System (ETS). UK has additional problem that an ancillary political deal has caused higher natural gas prices (source 2 below):


New coal plant building was encouraged by EU's now failed cap and trade system:

2/27/12, “Beyond Cap and Trade: A New Path to Clean Energy” Yale 360, by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

"And yet, the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which has been in place for almost a decade now and has established carbon prices well above those that would have been established by the proposed U.S. system, has had no discernible impact on European emissions.

The carbon intensity of the European economy has not declined at all since the imposition of the ETS. Meanwhile
 green paragon Germany has embarked upon a coal-building binge under the auspices of the ETS, one that has accelerated since the Germans shut down their nuclear power plants."...


Price of EU's now failed 'carbon permits' encouraged coal use, and countries need something to power them 'when wind isn't blowing and sun doesn't shine':

11/29/12, "Countries Worldwide Propose to Build 1,200 New Coal Plants," Institute for Energy Research

"In the United Kingdom, for example, coal consumption increased by nearly a quarter between the second quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2012. Germany is encouraging the construction of 10 gigawatts of coal-fired generation to replace its nuclear plants and provide back-up power for its wind and solar units, which require backup 

when the wind isn’t blowing or when the sun does not shine.

Europe overall burned more coal in the past year than any time since it pledged cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. Besides coal’s low cost, the price of carbon permits in Europe is also very low due to their large supply and low demand, making coal an economic choice for electricity generation.[iii] Natural gas prices in Europe are high because of politically expedient deals that coupled the price of Russian gas imports to the price of oil.  In contrast, the shale gas boom in the United States decoupled oil and gas prices, driving natural gas down to near record levels.[iv]...

According to Milton Catelin, chief executive of the World Coal Association, global coal use is likely to continue to increase, and could help to lift people out of poverty. China and India are planning to use coal to do just that. According to the International Energy Agency, coal consumption has increased by 8.4 percent in the developing countries. Other countries see coal as an economic choice with both Germany and the United Kingdom increasing its use. Unfortunately, for Americans – with the largest supplies of coal in the world — new and onerous regulations are forcing the coal industry to lose share in the U.S. electric generation sector, reduce its consumption, and force many Americans into unemployment.  

Other countries are using coal to lift their citizens out of poverty, while the United States is impoverishing its people by criminalizing the use of coal." 


China's massive CO2 increases render the rest of the world's reductions meaningless. Global CO2 increased from 2005-2011 because China was up 60%, North America and Europe lowered CO2:

5/8/13, "Jack Mintz: Canada unfairly Gored," Financial Post opinion  

"It makes little sense for advanced countries to take on policies that hurt their own economic growth if environmental benefits are unattainable.

Such failure seems to be the case with China, Russia and others where carbon emissions are sharply on the rise. It is almost as if the Western countries are digging ditches, only to see them filled up by emerging countries following up from behind."


1/29/13, "China Uses Nearly as Much Coal as Rest of World Combined, EIA Says," Wall St. Journal, Cassandra Sweet

"China's use of coal has grown quickly over the last decade and now rivals the amount of coal consumed by the rest of the world combined, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said Tuesday....

China was also the world's largest coal producer in 2011, producing more than 3.5 billion metric tons, or nearly 46% of global coal production that year, according to data published by the International Energy Agency. China was also the world's largest net importer of coal in 2011, importing about 177 million metric tons of coal, according to the IEA.

The U.S. produced a little more than one billion metric tons of coal in 2011, or nearly 13% of the world supply, according to the IEA.

Global demand for coal has grown by about 2.9 billion short tons, or 2.6 billion metric tons, since 2000, with 82% of that demand growth in China, the EIA said."... 

May 2012 Washington Post on China CO2:
"China was the biggest contributor (in 2011), with carbon dioxide output growing 9.3 percent." (3rd parag.)

5/25/12, "U.S. cut its carbon emissions in 2011 — but China erased the gains," Washington Post,
Brad Plumer


More on China emissions:
April 2011, "Air Pollution in China, Facts and Details," Jeffrey Hays

"The Japanese professor Fumitaka Yanagisawa said that when he presented a paper at a Chinese university that suggested some pollution in Japan originated in China he was booed by the audience and said “even now it’s sort of taboo to mention cross-border pollution when I’m invited to give a speech in China.” Reiko Sodeno, of the Japanese environmental ministry, told AFP, “It will have adverse affects if we push China too much on cross-border pollution...Blaming other countries wouldn’t help to solve the problem, as it only hurts national pride.”"...(see sub-heading, 'Chinese air pollution goes abroad')

"Soot, dust and chemical pollutants from China have been captured in a weather observation stations on the summit of Mount Bachelor in Cascade Range in Oregon. Soot, dust, ozone and nitrous oxides can be detected by satellites moving across the Pacific." (see sub-head, 'Chinese air pollution reaches the United States')

"Electricity prices in China are half of those in developed countries."...(under sub-head, 'Cleaning up air pollution in China').

"Even if China increased the efficiency of its coal burning power plants, it wouldn't make much of difference because so many small industries and households burn coal for heating, cooking and power."...(sub-head, 'Success and limitations in cleaning up air pollution in China')."...
Europe's carbon trading system didn't cut CO2:
11/23/11, "Europe's $287 billion carbon 'waste': UBS report," The Australian, by Sid Maher

"SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union's emissions trading scheme has cost the continent's consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact" on cutting carbon emissions."...EU CO2 trading provided "windfall profits" to participants paid for by "electricity customers.""


100% of world’s top climate models, 44 in all, projected a rise in global temperatures over last 15 years, and all were wrong. NOAA 2008 report said a 15 yr. pause in warming would invalidate model methods

"Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years." 134 scientists
5/29/13, "Is it a failure to communicate, or faulty climate science?" Washington Times, Communities, Steve Goreham

"Earlier this month, a New York Times article by Andy Revkin voiced concern over a gap between “the consensus” of climate scientists and public acceptance of the theory of human-caused global warming. Revkin pointed to a study published in April by Dr. John Cook and other researchers, which claimed that 97 percent of scientific papers over the last decade “endorsed the consensus” of man-made warming. But is it a failure to communicate the science to the public, or a case of bad science?

A 2010 paper from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University recommended that advocates for activist climate policies emphasize the dangers to the health of citizens: “Successfully reframing the climate debate in the United States from one based on environmental values to one based on health values…holds great promise to help American society better understand and appreciate the risks of climate change…”

So, if Americans fear for their health, then they’ll more readily accept that humans are causing dangerous climate change?

Climate science has smelled for some time. The 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced “new evidence” claiming that “the increase in temperature in the twentieth century was likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years.” This was the famous “Hockey Stick Curve” of Dr. Michael Mann, which became an icon for Climatism, trumpeted to the world and taught in schools across the globe.

But the tree-ring data used by Mann and his research team did not show a temperature rise at the end of the twentieth century, so they pasted
the thermometer record for the last 50 years onto the 1,000-year curve to provide the alarming hockey stick temperature rise. Later analysis by Stephen McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick found that the Mann algorithm would also produce a hockey stick from input of random noise. The IPCC dropped the Mann Curve from their 2007 Fourth Assessment Report
without any explanation.

Then in November 2009 came Climategate, the release of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University. An unidentified hacker or whistle-blower downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails and posted them on a server in Russia. The CRU is the recognized leading keeper of global temperature data, and CRU scientists wrote and edited the core of the IPCC reports.

The Climategate emails showed CRU practices that were seriously at odds with accepted scientific procedure. Evidence of bias, data manipulation, deliberate deletion of emails to avoid sharing of information, evasion of freedom of information requests, and attempts to subvert the peer-review literature process were all used to further the cause of human-made global warming.

Based on model projections, the IPCC First Assessment Report of 1990 told the world to expect a “best estimate” rise of 0.3oC per decade in global temperatures, leading to 2025 temperatures that would be 1oC higher than 1990 temperatures. The IPCC also projected a “high estimate” and a “low estimate” rise. Today, global temperatures remain well below the IPCC’s low estimate.  

Contrary to model projections, temperatures have been flat for the last 15 years.

It doesn’t matter if 97 percent or even 100 percent of published papers endorse the consensus of man-made warming. One hundred percent of the world’s top climate models, 44 models in all, projected a rise in global surface temperatures over the last 15 years. And 100 percent of the climate models were wrong. The empirical data does not support the theory of dangerous man-made climate change.

Since global temperatures are not rising, proponents of man-made climate change are now reduced to weather scaremongering. 

In the best tradition of ambulance chasing, the recent severe tornado in Oklahoma, Hurricane Sandy, and other weather events are blamed on mankind’s relatively small contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide, a trace gas.

But any citizen who can read can learn that today’s weather is not abnormal. Hurricane Sandy was a Category 1 hurricane that made a direct hit on New York City. But according to the National Climatic Data Center, 170 hurricanes made US landfall during the 20th century. Fifty-nine of these were Category 3 or better, with wind speeds much stronger than those of Sandy. So how is a single Category 1 hurricane “evidence” of dangerous climate change? Historical data also shows that the US experienced more strong tornados in the 1960s and 1970s than today.

The reason for lukewarm public acceptance of the theory of man-made warming is not a failure to communicate, but that the science is rotten."

"Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism:  Mankind and Climate Change Mania." via Climate Depot

134 scientists wrote to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon disputing his claims about climate warming and asking him to desist from his alarmist statements. Included in the letter was a citation from a NOAA 2008 report: 
"The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion."...
The "State of the Climate in 2008," report cited in the scientists' letter also notes global temperatures had remained flat in recent years despite rising CO2, pages S22 and S23 of report:

page S22 (blue page) headline: "Do global temperature trends
over the last decade falsify climate
Following is NOAA reference that a
models have failed: 

p. S23, blue page, middle column:
"The simulations rule out (at the
95% level) zero trends for intervals
of 15 yr or more, suggesting that
this duration is needed to create
a discrepancy with the expected
present-day warming rate."
This is further confirmation, if needed, that scientists
have long known temperatures
haven't increased in many years, while CO2
has increased. 


Ed. note: Please excuse white patches on this page. They were put there by my longtime hacker who dislikes free speech.

Rain cancels game in Texas, Arizona Diamondbacks v Texas Rangers. Pass the kleenex to Goldman Sachs, Coral Davenport and National Journal, no drought in Texas

5/29/13, Rain drenches field before Texas Rangers game v Arizona Diamondbacks in Arlington, Texas, photo Dallas Morning News Texas Rangers Blog.

5/29/13, Texas Rangers crew battles with tarp, Fox Sports photo, via Huffington Post

5/29/13, Texas Rangers baseball team Security personnel removes items during rain storm delaying game v Arizona Diamondbacks, AP, via CBS Sports MLB photos


German journalist organization stands up for climate skeptic member who was 'blacklisted' by the all powerful German government

"Well it looks like journalists are willing to go only so far when it comes to carrying water for Germany’s powerful Church Ministry of Environment, which oversees the Umweltbundesamt (UBA)....

The UBA under Angela Merkel’s Ministry of Environment, which is directed by Peter Altmaier, recently published a highly controversial pamphlet that black-listed climate-science dissident German and US journalists and scientists. Now the German Association of Journalists (DJV) has responded and issued a press release:

"Ministry Brands Critics

The German Association of Journalists DJV rejects Ministry of Environment’s recent criticism of individual journalists, calling it excessive and unfounded."... via Tom Nelson


Tuesday, May 28, 2013

No drought in Chicago either, tarp on the field on the South Side, Cubs v White Sox

5/28/13, Tarp on the field in the third, Chicago White Sox US Cellular Field v Chicago Cubs, getty


No drought in the Beltway, Baltimore Orioles at Washington Nationals rain delay

5/28/13, "A member of the grounds crew for the Washington Nationals pulls the tarp onto the field before the start of an interleague game at between the Baltimore Orioles and Washington Nationals at Nationals Park in Washington, DC," getty

5/28/13, "Washington Nationals second baseman Stephen Lombardozzi warms up before the Nationals' interleague baseball game against the Baltimore Orioles at Nationals Park in Washington," ap


US coal production continues to decline, Jan-Feb. 2013 total lower than Jan-Feb 2012 and Jan-Feb 2011, US DOE/ EIA report

May 2013, "Monthly Energy Review," US DOE/EIA,

page 5, Table 1.2, "Primary Energy Production by Source"


US coal production in first two months of 2013 lower than same period in both 2012 and 2011:

Jan 2013, 1.702
Feb 2013, 1.554
Two month total, 3.256


Two month total 2012, 3.664
Two month total 2011, 3.590


Tea Party ratings up 14% per Rasmussen. This is why the GOP chose not to have hearings on IRS harassment of the Tea Party in 2011 or 2012. More Tea Party candidates would have won in 2012 and maybe even Romney, and the GOP needed Obama to win, 1st priority was defeating Tea Party

5/24/13, "Favorable Views of Tea Party Up 14 Points Since January," Rasmussen Reports

"Favorables for the Tea Party have jumped since news broke that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting the grassroots movement and other conservative groups.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party. That's up 14 points from January  but still down from April 2009's high of 51% when the Tea Party protests against President Obama’s spending policies first erupted.

Forty-four percent (44%) also now view the Tea Party unfavorably, although that's down five points from earlier this year. The latest findings include 18% with a Very Favorable opinion of the movement and 25% with a Very Unfavorable one. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on May 21-22, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology."
via Red Eye Radio


5/23/13, "60% Say It’s Likely Other Agencies Targeted Conservatives, Too," Rasmussen Reports

"Most voters think the Internal Revenue Service’s decision to target conservative groups was made in Washington, D.C. and that it wasn’t the only government agency going after these groups.

Just 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the IRS’ explanation thus far that low-level employees at its Cincinnati office made the decision to target the conservative groups. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% think the orders came from Washington, with 26% who think the decision was made by someone at IRS headquarters and 39% who believe someone who works at the White House made the call. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on May 20-21, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology."


Nov. 2010, GOP insider Trent Lott said it was imperative to stop the Tea Party:

11/20/10, "Revolutionary Do-Over," Wall St. Journal, John Fund

Former GOP Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, now a big-time Washington lobbyist, has already told the Washington Post that

it's imperative for his tribe to "co-opt" the tea partiers arriving in D.C."...


In Nov. 2010, Rush Limbaugh said the GOP establishment will fight more viciously to defeat conservatives than it will to defeat democrats. Before Nov. 2010, the GOP was practically extinct, deservedly so, weren't bothered about it, and were fine with ObamaCare. What they despised and went to war against was the Tea Party:

11/4/10, "Ruling Class GOP Declare War on Country Class Conservatives,"

"The ruling class of the Republican Party doesn't want conservatives having any kind of a foothold, any success or any leadership in the party. ...(item half way down page)....So it appears to me they're (GOP) perfectly happy being in the minority if it means not supporting conservatives. (2/3 down page).

Apparently the establishment Republicans will fight harder and more viciously to stop conservatives than to stop Obama and the left. "...(2/3 down page). 


2/20/13, "As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned," Angelo Codevilla, Forbes


10/20/11, "The lost decade," Angelo M. Codevilla, Claremont Inst.

"America's current ruling class, the people who lost the War on Terror, monopolizes the upper reaches of American public life, the ranks of those who make foreign and domestic policy, including the leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties. It is more or less homogeneous socially and intellectually."...


Obama re-election helped GOP House Speaker Boehner:

12/8/12, "Once Boxed-In, Boehner May Finally Be Master Of The House," NPR, Frank James

"In a paradoxical way, Obama's re-election victory coupled with congressional Democrats adding to their numbers may have helped Boehner. Some of those wins came at the expense of the Tea Party, the conservative movement whose affiliated House members have been very willing to stand up to Boehner.

In recent weeks, Boehner...has gotten his entire leadership team to sign his tax-raising, fiscal-cliff counteroffer....

Despite complaints from conservative activists and bloggers, however, Boehner remains the most powerful Republican in Washington.". 

3/27/13, "Is the Republican Party America's Achilles Heel?" American Thinker, Steve McCann

"There is a war going on in the United States -- as survivor of World War II I do not say that lightly. It is being waged by the current incarnation of the Democratic Party in order to transform the most successful nation in the history of mankind into another secular socialist state permanently ruled by an oligarchy made up of the establishment in their party.
The bulk of the conservative movement, and thus the base of the Republican Party, recognizes this reality. They have become increasingly alarmed at the fate awaiting the country if these radicals are not purged from the mainstream of American governance in the 2014 and 2016 election cycles. But when they look to the leadership of the Republican Party they see a nauseating deference to the party in power and the media -- in other words business as usual in Washington....

The Republican Party stood idly by and allowed themselves to be defined as the party of intolerance and inequity. The combined 12 years of George H.W. and George W. Bush, and their obsession with civility as well their refusal to forcefully respond to the most egregious of personal attacks combined with the Party's incoherent set of principles, validated and cemented in the public's mind the accusations hurled at the Republican Party by the Democrats and their sycophants in the media."...



Everyone knew the pathetic GOP didn't deserve the people we gave them in Nov. 2010, hence the above cartoon published just after Nov. 2010 elections. It shows a tiny GOP being delivered a large gift by voters who had nowhere else to go with their votes and rightly viewed the GOP as not trustworthy. The GOP exemplified by John Boehner has bitched about the majority we gave them every day since Nov. 2010.


5/15/13, "57% Want IRS Offenders Jailed or Fired," Rasmussen Reports

"Most voters believe the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups was politically motivated and think most of those involved should be severely punished.

Just 16% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the IRS investigations of these groups were a coincidence, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think the investigations were politically motivated. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Fifty-five percent (55%) think it is at least somewhat likely that President Obama or his top aides were aware that Tea Party and other conservative groups were targeted by the IRS. Thirty-four percent (34%) consider that unlikely. This includes 36% who believe it is Very Likely the president or his top aides knew of the investigations and 13% who feel it is Not At All Likely. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided. 

Only seven percent (7%) of voters believe no disciplinary action should be taken against the IRS employees involved in the investigations. Twenty-nine percent (29%) feel they should be formally reprimanded. But most (57%) think those involved should be jailed or fired, with 16% who say they should be put in jail and 41% who believe they should be fired. 

While 86% of Republicans and 60% of voters not affiliated with either major party think the IRS investigations were politically motivated, just 33% of Democrats agree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of GOP voters, not surprisingly, think it is Very Likely the president or his top aides were aware of the investigations. However, only 13% of Democrats and 34% of unaffiliated voters share that view.

As for punishment, 82% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliateds think the IRS employees involved should be jailed or fired. Only 34% of voters in the president’s party agree. The plurality (44%) of Democrats believes those involved should be formally reprimanded instead....

Forty-two percent (42%) of the Political Class has a favorable opinion of the IRS, while 76% of Mainstream voters now view it unfavorably....

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of voters who think the IRS investigations were politically motivated believe the employees involved should be jailed or fired. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of these voters think it’s Very Likely the president or his top aides were aware of the IRS actions. 

Eighty-five percent (85%) of voters who say they are members of the Tea Party think the IRS investigations of their groups and other conservative organizations were politically motivated. Ninety-two percent (92%) of these voters think the IRS employees involved should be jailed or fired, a view shared by just 52% of non-Tea Party voters.

Mainstream voters are nearly three times as likely as those in the Political Class to think the IRS investigations were politically motivated. Political Class voters overwhelmingly believe the IRS employees involved should be fired or reprimanded. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Mainstream voters think they should be fired or jailed.

Only 40% of voters who are union members think those involved should be jailed or fired, compared to 60% of those who don’t belong to a union. Twenty percent (20%) of union members feel that no action should be taken against these employees."...


Monday, May 27, 2013

Snowfall on Memorial Day weekend reported in Vermont, New Hampshire, Upstate New York and Northwest Maine. Sorry, no drought.

5/26/13, "Ski resort reports THREE FEET of snow during freak Memorial Day storm that blanketed the northeast," UK Daily Mail

"Whiteface Lake Placid ski resort in Wilmington, New York, reported nearly three feet of snow on Sunday. The ski resort posted remarkable pictures on its Twitter page showing employees in a heavy winter coats and four-wheel drive trucks frolicking in massive snow drifts.

The resort sits atop Whiteface Mountain, one of the highest peaks in the Adirondack Mountains. Even given the elevation of the mountain, the 34 inches of snow in late May was a remarkable sight.

Communities at higher elevations in Vermont, New Hampshire, Upstate New York and northwest Maine all reported snowfall on Sunday.

Most of the snow was little more than a dusting of large wet flakes. Above 2,800 feet of elevation, though, the snow was more substantial." twitter Whiteface, Lake Placid, via UK Daily Mail. (Ed. note: The white patch behind the text you're reading was put there by my longtime hackers who dislike free speech).

Bad news for the lucrative drought terror industry, rain expected in much of US in next 48 hours, May 26-28, 2013.

5/26/13, "Ski resort reports THREE FEET of snow during freak Memorial Day storm that blanketed the northeast," UK Daily Mail

Sunday, May 26, 2013

US weather satellite malfunctions for second time in less than a year, NOAA has notified Congress, disruption may compromise future satellites in the mission-Aviation Week

5/23/13, "Boeing-built Weather Satellite Goes Dark Over East Coast,", Amy Butler

"The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is activating an in-orbit Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) spare as experts try to rescue a primary spacecraft that has failed to deliver basic weather data for a second time in less than a year, according to officials in the satellite community..

The Boeing GOES-13, originally known as GOES-N, was launched in 2006. The first indication of a failure came at 11:38 p.m. EDT May 21, says George Jungbluth, a NOAA spokesman. GOES-13 failed to deliver its basic imagery and weather data, including imaging and sounding information. 

The satellite is now in a safe-hold mode, which allows operators to communicate with it in an attempt to diagnose and solve the problem. But it is no longer conducting its mission owing to attitude control problems, according to government officials.

NOAA, which operates the GOES system, has notified Congress of the problem. Communications officials at Boeing did not reply to queries on this issue in time for publication.

GOES-13, the first of a three-satellite series, is parked 22,000 mi. over the Eastern U.S. and is designed to help with weather forecasting; it is instrumental, for example, in predicting hurricane activity.

It apparently experienced a problem last fall that was corrected with a software upload. At that time, GOES-14 was shifted from a safe parking orbit, reserved for spares, into an operational position to pick up the slack. It was later moved back once the primary GOES-13 was remedied.

NOAA officials have not yet opted to again move GOES-14 from its orbit at 105 deg. west. GOES-13 is at 75 deg. west, giving it a better ability to peer into the Eastern Atlantic. Jungbluth, however, says that for now GOES-14 can provide the necessary information about the Eastern Continental U.S. and, if needed, the agency can work with colleagues in Europe to fill in gaps in the short term.

Moving GOES-14 in and out of orbit, however, can compromise its operational life. So the GOES-13 failures could have a ripple effect on the string of successor satellites planned for this mission.

Experts at NOAA’s Command and Acquisition Data Station at Wallops Island, Va., are communicating with the spacecraft to try to figure out the problem. A government official said the attitude control issues could point to a possible problem with the star tracker." via Behind the Black, Robert Zimmerman


Lord Stern, famous for 2006 CO2 terror Stern Report, now says global warming has been flat for the last decade-UK Telegraph

5/26/13, "Hay Festival 2013: global warming is 'fairly flat', admits Lord Stern," UK Telegraph, Louise Gray

"Lord Stern, who originally warned the Government about climate change, has admitted that global warming has been “fairly flat” for the last decade."

"The peer, who first warned the Government of the cost of climate change in his 2006 Stern Report, said that for the last decade global warming has remained stable. 

“I note this last decade or so has been fairly flat,” he told the Telegraph Hay Festival audience. 
He said the reasons were because of quieter solar activity, aerosol pollution in certain parts of the world blocking sunshine and heat being absorbed by the deep oceans.
Lord Stern pointed out that all these effects run in cycles or are random so warming could accelerate again soon. “In the next five to ten years it is likely we will see the acceleration because these things go in cycles,” he warned.

He also pointed out that 1998 was an extremely hot year because of the El Nino weather pattern and that this decade is still hotter relatively than previous decades. Lord Stern said that carbon emissions are rising faster than ever and that global temperatures are more likely to rise by 4C over the long term than 2C, meaning floods and droughts.

He said it was an “illusion” to claim that the short term flat line in global warming means that global warming is no longer a threat. “It is a dangerous extrapolation of the short term phenomenon into a long term trend when the underlying responses for long term trends in terms of rising greenhouse gases are well understood and clear.”

Lord Stern also said he has written to the Prime Minister urging him to introduce a target to decarbonise electricity by 2030 as part of the Energy Bill, currently going through Parliament.

He said investors need the policy clarity in order to build the infrastructure Britain needs in future.
He also said green electricity will be a key part of meeting emissions targets by running cars, heating and other power generation instead of fossil fuels. "We desperately need clarity. People making big investments need as much clarity as possible. Government induced policy risk deters investment.”

His comments come as Ed Davey, the Climate Change Secretary, said Europe should commit to a tough new target to halve emissions by 2030. He wants Brussels to set an emissions reduction target of 50 per cent on 1990 levels by 2030 within an international deal, or go it alone with a 40 per cent goal if an agreement cannot be struck.

This will mean the UK making its own contribution by cutting emissions by 50 per cent by 2025.
But Mr Davey said each country should be able to cut their own emissions how they choose, for example nuclear, rather than having to do it all through switching to renewables.

As a consequence he was against a European Union wide renewable energy target because it is "inflexible and unnecessary," he added. 

We want to maintain flexibility for member states in how they meet this ambitious emissions target. There are a variety of options to decarbonise any country's economy. 

"In the UK, our approach is technology neutral and our reforms will rely on the market and competition to determine the low carbon electricity mix. We will therefore oppose a renewable energy target at an EU level as inflexible and unnecessary."" via Junk Science

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Bloomberg true nature is just your average billionaire without a conscience, doesn't want his already dangerous city bike program to require helmets, might 'discourage biking'

 5/25/13, "Head case," NY Post, Editorial

"New York’s ambitious bike-share program launches this Memorial Day weekend. It’s a joyrider’s dream...but one thing’s missing: There are 6,000 bicycles for rent but no bike helmets at the rental kiosks.

Looks like a public-health crisis in the making, and one perfect for Mayor Bloomberg. But Mike’s not interested in forcing bikers to wear helmets. To the contrary, he opposes legislation requiring riders to use that all-important safety gear.

What happened to our nanny-in-chief? Bloomberg will shoot the gun out of your hand, slap the soda from your mouth, wash the salt from your food and steal formula from a baby.

He’ll do anything he darn well pleases in his pro-health crusade — except make bikers wear helmets.

It’s an interesting exception. According to one of those city studies he’s so fond of, 97 percent of the New York bike accidents that prove fatal involve bikers who are without helmets. But Bloomberg worries that a safety upgrade would “discourage biking.”

And there’s the rub. Inside the mayor’s soul, there’s a nanny-state war going on, pitting green living against red asphalt.

Helmets save lives, but if the city starts ticketing riders for helmet infractions, bikers won’t ride nearly as often.

They’d drive gas-guzzlers instead. They’d pollute Mike’s city. They’d make Mike mad.

So in the interest of what he sees as an improvement in the quality of life, he’s willing to let bikers put their lives at risk.

We may not have the public-health credentials of Dr. Bloomberg, but it looks as if the wheels are already coming off."


In 2012 $18 billion was taken out of US economy via so-called climate regulations, per OMB data. UPDATE: Turley, Washington Post, 'Regulations' the 4th branch of gov., now more powerful 'than all other branches of gov. combined'

(Updated link for 4/22/2013 pdf report: 

"Costs of New Regulations issued in 2012 dwarf those of previous years, according to OMB report"

2012 regulations added about $19 billion in costs to the taxpayer. 96% of the costs (55%+41%), $18.24 billion, were 'climate' related via emissions restrictions or forcing changes in consumer purchases.


Updated link for this report: 

4/22/2013, "Costs of New Regulations issued in 2012 dwarf those of previous years, according to OMB report"

4/22/13, "Costs of New Regulations issued in 2012 Dwarf those of Previous Years, according to
OMB Report," Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University (pdf of article contains numerous links)


"The Office of Management and Budget quietly released its draft 2013 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Regulations on Friday, April 19, covering regulatory activity through the end (September 30) of fiscal year 2012. Recall that, as the presidential election approached, the White House was widely reported to be restraining the regulatory agencies out of concern for the state of the economy. Now that the results are tallied, however, there is little evidence of restraint.

By the administration’s own estimates, the rules it issued in FY2012 alone imposed more costs on the economy than all the rules issued during the entire first terms of Presidents Bush and Clinton, combined. The report does not highlight this fact, but instead points to the enormous regulatory benefits that it claims will flow from these rules. The benefits are very different in character from the costs, however. Of the reported benefits of regulations issued in FY 2012, over 95% derive from two assumptions that many scholars find questionable:
1) that reductions in emissions of fine particles will cause large reductions in premature mortality (55% of total benefits); and
2) that depriving consumers of their preferred choices in purchasing appliances and cars will ultimately make them better off, because the fuel savings are worth more–to the consumers themselves–than consumers realize (contributing 41% of the total benefits).

In making comparisons of net benefits across different administrations, the OMB report uses another questionable technique. If a court has vacated a rule issued by a previous administration, the report removes the net benefits from that administration’s tally. Yet it continues to include in the Obama administration’s tally the cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR) vacated in August 2012. With claimed net benefits of almost $40 billion per year, selectively taking credit for the vacated CSAPR clearly affects the net benefits comparison.

This seems particularly inappropriate because, as a result of the vacatur, the EPA is actually enforcing the Bush administration’s (also overturned, but not vacated) clean air interstate rule (CAIR)."

Chart above, US gov. data through 2012, "Source: OMB 2013 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations Appendix tables D-1–D-3. OMB reports data by fiscal years except the first year of each president’s term, which begins on January 20th of that year." Via Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University.


Added: Regulations that cause "income transfers" are called "transfer rules:" 

from p. 22 of US Gov. report: "Twenty-two of the rules were “transfer rulesrules that primarily caused income transfers, usually from taxpayers to program beneficiaries....

We recognize that markets embed distortions and that the transfers are not lump-sum. Hence, transfer rules may create social benefits or costs; for example, they may impose real costs on society to the extent that they cause people to change behavior,
either by directly prohibiting or mandating certain activities, or, more often, by altering prices and costs."...


4/23/13, "Obama’s Regulatory Burden," Washington Free Beacon

"President Barack Obama has claimed to reduce the regulatory burden on Americans. Obama said during the 2012 State of the Union Address he had ”approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.”

Obama also claimed in 2011:  
  • What I have done—and this is unprecedented … is I’ve said to each agency don’t just look at current regulations—or don’t just look at future regulations … let’s go backwards and look at regulation that are already on the books, and if they don’t make sense, let’s get rid of them. 
As the 2013 draft of the regulatory burden makes clear, 2009 was the only year during the Obama administration that the costs of regulation were less than under Bush or Clinton."


Regulations have replaced laws:

"The vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats....The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined."

5/24/13, "The rise of the fourth branch of government," Washington Post, Jonathan Turley, opinion

"The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.

This exponential growth has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.

For much of our nation’s history, the federal government was quite small. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies.

The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.

This rulemaking comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions. And the threat of cutting funds is a blunt instrument to control a massive administrative state — like running a locomotive with an on/off switch.

The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”

The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.

These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency. And agencies increasingly seem to chafe at being denied their judicial authority. Just ask John E. Brennan. Brennan, a 50-year-old technology consultant, was charged with disorderly conduct and indecent exposure when he stripped at Portland International Airport last year in protest of invasive security measures by the Transportation Security Administration. He was cleared by a federal judge, who ruled that his stripping was a form of free speech. The TSA was undeterred. After the ruling, it pulled Brennan into its own agency courts under administrative charges.

The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.

Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.
Some agencies have gone so far as to refuse to comply with presidential orders. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a lawsuit against the Postal Rate Commission, and he threatened to sack members of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors who denied him. The courts ruled in favor of the independence of the agency....

The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined. The marginalization Congress feels is magnified for citizens, who are routinely pulled into the vortex of an administrative state that allows little challenge or appeal. The IRS scandal is the rare case in which internal agency priorities are forced into the public eye. Most of the time, such internal policies are hidden from public view and congressional oversight. While public participation in the promulgation of new regulations is allowed, and often required, the process is generally perfunctory and dismissive.

In the new regulatory age, presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion. The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding.

We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government." via Mark Levin twitter


Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.