News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Rainout in Cincinnati v Cubs, lack of drought could continue thru Tuesday meaning possible split doubleheader on Wednesday

4/28/14, "Cubs, Reds Postponed; No Makeup Date Set,", photo USA Today Sports

"Making up this rainout is problematic, because the weather forecast for tomorrow isn't any better. That means we could have two postponements in this series, and although the Cubs have an off day Thursday, the Reds don't. So we could be looking at a split doubleheader Wednesday if they want to get two of these three games in, with the other one made up when the Cubs return to Cincinnati in the middle of July. When, presumably, the weather will be warmer."...


4/28/14, "Cubs at Reds game postponed because of rain,", AP photo

4/28/14, "Reds game postponed due to rain," wxix tv,


Sunday, April 27, 2014

Rainout for Detroit Tigers at Minnesota Twins, rain expected thru Tuesday placing game v visiting LA Dodgers in doubt

Tarp on Target Field via Minnesota Twins, bringmethenews twitter pic, 4/27/14

4/27/14, "Tigers, Twins Have Differing Views Of Rainout," AP via WCCO, minnesota.

"Detroit Tigers ace Justin Verlander isn’t thrilled that he got Sunday off, but he had no choice.

Verlander was scheduled to start for the Tigers against Minnesota before the game was postponed because of heavy rain. No makeup date has been announced....

The dominating right-hander is now scheduled to pitch Tuesday’s night series opener in Chicago against the White Sox after a week off....

4/27/14, AP
We’ve had so many off-days, we’ve had a plethora of six-day rests and I absolutely don’t want it,” [Verlander said].

Neither does Detroit manager Brad Ausmus.

The off-days and the rain days has killed our rotation,” Ausmus said. The Tigers have had three postponed games and three off-days in the season’s first month.

“No one can get any type of rhythm,” he added. “Guys are going on five days’ rest, four days’ rest, six days’ rest. … Rhythm gets you in a comfort zone mentally.”

On the plus side, Detroit’s bullpen got a much-needed rest....
“It’s good in a sense that in the last couple days our bullpen has been taxed and now everyone gets two days off. … We have enough guys that could use rest,” Ausmus said, citing Phil Coke, Jose Ortega and Al Alburquerque as examples....

Scheduled Minnesota starter Kyle Gibson (3-1) has been pushed back to Tuesday, when the Twins are to open a three-game set against the visiting Los Angeles Dodgers. That game could be in doubt, however, because the forecast calls for rain in the Twin Cities through Tuesday....

NOTES: This is the 10th rainout in Target Field history and second this season." ...Second image: "Rain falls in the stands and into the concourses as the Minnesota Twins baseball game against the Detroit Tigers in Minneapolis, Sunday, April 27, 2014, is postponed due to the weather," AP 


Desperately seeking some global warming in Minnesota, snow expected in Duluth thru May 3, per National Weather Service

4/27/14, "Duluth, Minnesota 7 day forecast," National Weather Service, 

Ice Storm Warning in effect from April 27, 09:00 PM CDT until April 28, 02:00 PM CDT Hazardous Weather Outlook

"Detailed Forecast

Late Afternoon A 40 percent chance of rain. Cloudy, with a high near 34. Windy, with an east wind around 30 mph, with gusts as high as 45 mph. 
Tonight Rain or freezing rain before 11pm, then freezing rain between 11pm and 4am, then freezing rain, possibly mixed with rain after 4am. Low around 32. Windy, with an east wind around 30 mph, with gusts as high as 45 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%. New ice accumulation of 0.1 to 0.2 of an inch possible.

  • Monday Freezing rain before 10am, then freezing rain, possibly mixed with rain between 10am and 1pm, then rain after 1pm. High near 36. Windy, with an east wind around 30 mph, with gusts as high as 45 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%. New ice accumulation of around a 0.1 of an inch possible.
  • Monday Night Rain, snow, and freezing rain likely before 1am, then rain and snow likely. Cloudy, with a low around 32. Windy, with a northeast wind 30 to 35 mph, with gusts as high as 45 mph. Chance of precipitation is 60%.
  • Tuesday Rain, snow, and sleet likely. Cloudy, with a high near 38. Windy, with a northeast wind 20 to 30 mph, with gusts as high as 40 mph. Chance of precipitation is 70%.
  • Tuesday Night Rain and snow likely before 1am, then rain, snow, and freezing rain likely. Cloudy, with a low around 34. Chance of precipitation is 60%.
  • Wednesday Rain and sleet likely before 1pm, then snow and sleet likely. Cloudy, with a high near 40.
  • Wednesday Night A chance of rain and snow. Cloudy, with a low around 36.
  • Thursday [May 1] A chance of rain and snow. Cloudy, with a high near 41.
  • Thursday Night A chance of rain and snow. Cloudy, with a low around 36.
  • Friday [May 2] A chance of rain and snow. Cloudy, with a high near 45.
  • Friday Night A slight chance of rain and snow. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 35.
  • Saturday [May 3] A chance of rain and snow. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 48.
  • Saturday Night A slight chance of snow. Partly cloudy, with a low around 34.
  • Sunday Partly sunny, with a high near 52."... 

  • ==================================

    Added: 4/16/14, Toronto Blue Jays pitcher and fan favorite Munenori Kawasaki says it's colder in Minnesota than it is in Buffalo


    Irreconcilable conflicts of interest in 2014 UN IPCC Climate Report Summary for Policy Makers says lead author Stavins in letter to UN IPCC Co-Chair Ottmar Edenhofer. Governments were free to make detailed changes for purely political reasons, 75% of text was deleted in International Cooperation chapter

    4/25/14, "Is the IPCC Government Approval Process Broken?"

    "Over the past 5 years, I have dedicated an immense amount of time and effort to serving as the Co-Coordinating Lead Author (CLA) of Chapter 13, “International Cooperation:  Agreements and Instruments,” of Working Group III (Mitigation) of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)....Two weeks ago, immediately after returning from Berlin, I sent a letter to the Co-Chairs of Working Group III — Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramon Pichs-Madruga, and Youba Sokona — expressing my disappointment with the government approval process and its outcome in regard to the part of the assessment for which I had primary responsibility, SPM.5.2, International Cooperation. At the time, I did not release my letter publically....
    I believe it makes most sense simply to reproduce it, and let it stand – or fall – as originally written. It follows below.

    From: Stavins, Robert Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:06 PM

    TO: Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, Working Group III, AR5, IPCC

    Ramon Pichs-Madruga, Co-Chair, Working Group III, AR5, IPCC

    Youba Sokona, Co-Chair, Working Group III, AR5, IPCC

     CC:  Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman, IPCC

    Jan Minx, Head of Technical Support Unit, Working Group III

    FROM:   Robert Stavins

    SUBJECT:    Thoughts on the Government Approval Process for SPM.5.2 (International Cooperation) of the Summary for Policymakers of Working Group 3, Fifth Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    Dear Ottmar, Ramon, and Youba:

    I am writing to you today to express my disappointment and frustration with the process and outcome of the government approval meetings in Berlin this past week, at which the assembled representatives from the world’s governments, considered and, in effect, fundamentally revised or rejected parts of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of IPCC Working Group 3 over a period of five long days (and nights).  My focus in this letter is exclusively on one section of the SPM, namely SPM.5.2, International Cooperation. I am not representing nor referring to any other parts of the SPM.

    Also, none of what I have to say should be taken as reflecting negatively on you (the Co-Chairs of Working Group 3), the WG 3 Technical Support Unit (TSU), nor the overall leadership of the IPCC....

    The problems I seek to identify are structural, not personal....

    In this letter, I will not comment on the government review and revision process that affected other parts of the SPM, other than to note that as the week progressed, I was surprised by the degree to which governments felt free to recommend and sometimes insist on detailed changes to the SPM text on purely political, as opposed to scientific bases.


    The general motivations for government revisions – from most (but not all) participating delegations – appeared to be quite clear in the plenary sessions. These motivations were made explicit in the “contact groups,” which met behind closed doors in small groups with the lead authors on particularly challenging sections of the SPM. In these contact groups, government representatives worked to suppress text that might jeopardize their negotiating stances in international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

    I fully understand that the government representatives were seeking to meet their own responsibilities toward their respective governments by upholding their countries’ interests, but in some cases this turned out to be problematic for the scientific integrity of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.  Such involvement — and sometimes interference — with the scientific process of the IPCC was particularly severe in section SPM.5.2 on international cooperation. It is to that section of the SPM that I now turn.

    In the early morning of Monday, April 7, 2014, a draft of SPM.5.2 was completed and approved by the assembled team of CLAs in Berlin.  The draft, a copy of which is attached as Item A, had been extensively revised over the preceding months in response to comments received from governments around the world (to whom multiple drafts had been sent as part of the normal IPCC process). The draft in Item A was sent to governments on April 7th through the IPCC’s PaperSmart system.

    The plenary session of government representatives turned their attention to SPM.5.2 at approximately 10:00 pm on Friday, April 11th When it became clear that the country delegates were unwilling to move forward with the consideration of the text in plenary, you established a contact group to work on acceptable text. You gave the group 2 hours to come up with acceptable text. That group began its work at approximately 11:00 pm (and continued past 1:00 am on Saturday, April 12th).

    The contact group included representatives from of a diverse set of countries, ranging from small to large, and from poor to rich.  Hence, I do not believe that the responsibility for the problems that arose are attributable to any specific country or even set of countries. On the contrary, nearly all delegates in the meeting demonstrated the same perspective and approach, namely that any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.  In fact, several (perhaps the majority) of the country representatives in the SPM.5.2 contact group identified themselves as negotiators in the UNFCCC negotiations. To ask these experienced UNFCCC negotiators to approve text that critically assessed the scholarly literature on which they themselves are the interested parties, created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Thus, the country representatives were placed in an awkward and problematic position by the nature of the process.

    Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations, it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all “controversial” text (that is, text that was uncomfortable for any one individual government), which meant deleting almost 75% of the text, including nearly all explications and examples under the bolded headings. In more than one instance, specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries, because under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased.

    I understand that country representatives were only doing their job, so I do not implicate them personally; however, the process the IPCC followed resulted in a process that built political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity. The final version of SPM.5.2, as agreed to by the contact group, and subsequently approved in plenary (at approximately 3:00 am, April 12th), is attached to this letter as Item B.

    No institution can be all things for all people, and this includes the IPCC. In particular, in the case of the IPCC’s review of research findings on international cooperation, there may be an inescapable conflict between scientific integrity and political credibility If the IPCC is to continue to survey scholarship on international cooperation in future assessment reports, it should not put country representatives in the uncomfortable and fundamentally untenable position of reviewing text in order to give it their unanimous approval. Likewise, the IPCC should not ask lead authors to volunteer enormous amounts of their time over multi-year periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected by governments in the Summary for Policymakers.

    I hope I have made it clear that my purpose is not to condemn the country representatives, the IPCC leadership, the TSU, the Lead Authors, or the Coordinating Lead Authors. The problem is structural, not personal. In my view, with the current structure and norms, it will be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to produce a scientifically sound and complete version of text for the SPM on international cooperation that can survive the country approval process.
    More broadly, I urge the IPCC to direct public attention to the documents produced by the lead authors that were subject to government (and expert) comment, but not subject to government approval. I believe that tremendous public good would arise from publicizing the key findings of the Technical Summary and the individual chapter Executive Summaries, instead of the Summary for Policymakers....

    Best wishes,


    Robert N. Stavins, Albert Pratt Professor of Business & Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

    Director, Harvard Environmental Economics Program

    Director of Graduate Studies, Ph.D. Programs in Public Policy and Political Economy and Government

    Co-Chair, Harvard Business School-Kennedy School Joint Degree Programs

    Director, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements

    Blog: An Economic View of the Environment          SSRN Paper Downloads
    Mail: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 JFK St., Room L-306, Box 11, Cambridge, MA 02138"...via Climate Depot
    Added: UN climate official Ottmar Edenhofer referenced above has already said UN Climate conferences aren't about climate but a means to "distribute" money away from those who have it. It's great for US politicians since it mandates another stream of trillions of US taxpayer dollars to be funneled through them:
    Edenhofer, 11/14/10: ""But one must say clearly: We distribute by climate policy de facto the world's wealth around. ...This has to do with environmental policy... almost nothing....The climate summit in Cancun end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War."...
    Ottmar Edenhofer
    11/14/10, "Climate policy distributes the assets new world," NZZamSontag, Bernard Potter 

    "Climate protection has hardly anything to do with environmental protection, says the economist Ottmar Edenhofer. The next 
    world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which it relates to the distribution of resources."...

    In 2012 $1 billion a day was invested in the notion of "global warming. 

    Friday, April 25, 2014

    No other conclusion can be drawn but the Bush family and its GOP Ruling Class cronies are dedicated to destroying the Republican Party and the country, their sabotage of 2012 Missouri GOP primary just one of many examples

    Bush crony sabotage of 2012 Missouri Republican primary detailed below following erroneous Washington Examiner claim to the contrary:

    4/24/14, "GOP rallies behind Thom Tillis but the hits keep coming," Washington Examiner, Rebecca Berg

    "The national Republican Party and its network of supportive third-party groups have aggressively worked to correct their mistakes from the last election cycle.

    No longer is the party content to sit idly by and let the primary play out as it will, as it did in states such as Missouri in 2012, to disastrous effect in the general election."...

    For Washington Examiner's information:

    In March 2012 former US Senator John Danforth along with a Bush family cousin among others engaged in a last minute sabotage attack against a slate of three Republican primary candidates running for the US Senate nomination from Missouri 5 months before the August 7, 2012 primary election.

    Danforth and his group had a 4th prospective candidate in mind, Danforth friend and former Bush administration State Dept. official Thomas Schweich. 

    2012 was Danforth’s second attempt to trash incipient normal functioning of a Missouri US Senate GOP primary by promoting his friend Schweich, the first being in 2009.
    The three candidates in 2012 had been running for months, one was a sitting congressman who’d been re-elected 5 times, one had won statewide election before, and one was self-financed and strongly endorsed by the US Chamber of Commerce. The Danforth group’s open letter” was provided to the media and promoted a prospective fourth candidate they said would have the best chance to win (“nothing against anyone else”). Obviously a 4th candidate  would further splinter the vote. Danforth’s clear implication was the 3 GOP candidates were so bad he needed to interrupt their campaign and momentum. In the meantime, his candidate just needs a couple weeks to decide for sure if he’ll run. The Danforth group could’ve worked behind the scenes lining up donors, preparing their potential candidate, and when all was in place announce his addition before the March 27 filing deadline. As it turned out, Danforth candidate Tom Schweich, ended up announcing on March 20 that

    • he wouldn’t be running after all.
    The result of Danforth’s action was to take two weeks of momentum away from the existing GOP slate, humiliate them, interrupt and diminish their fundraising, make the GOP look like an unprincipled collection of mental cases, deter good people from attempting to become GOP candidates, and harm the entire country. Clearly this isn’t Mr. Danforth’s preoccupation, but harming the GOP harms America. The Republican Party is the only vehicle available to turn back the radical left in the US. The candidate who was a sitting Congressman said of Danforth’s purported rescue of the GOP from allegedly weak candidates

    The candidate, Todd Akin also said he considered Danforth a friend. (Contrary to media headlines, Akin wasn’t a “Tea Party candidate.“ Tea Party groups and Sarah Palin supported his two opponents, Steelman and Brunner. The GOP establishment actually gave Akin his start in politics in 1987. In 2010 he was re-elected for the 5th time with 67.9% of the vote. The House ‘Tea Party Caucus‘ didn’t exist until July 19, 2010). Publicly sabotaging  entire slates of GOP candidates late in campaigns obviously weakens all the candidates and increases likelihood of a democrat winning. Which is likely what you have in mind when you publicly announce that today’s GOP
      calling for push back against Republican and Conservative Christians. (p. 5).

      Danforth’s book, Faith and Politics asks, “Are Christians reconcilers or dividers? I guess he’s talking about pesky Christians who weren’t slaughtered by Islamic terrorists on 9/11/2001. 

      Some say the GOP wants polished candidates but their actions say otherwise. They let many months go by in which they could’ve coached any of the 2012 Missouri US Senate primary candidates. Instead they tried to make GOP candidates much weaker. This doesn’t even get into Danforth’s disrespect for the time and money invested by candidates, their staffs, families, and donors. Citizens concerned about Missouri and the country may have sacrificed to donate to one of the GOP candidates Danforth smeared. He threw an entire election into disarray. Thanks to Danforth, the idea of  weak GOP candidates” was pounded into the electorate’s mind for 2 weeks. Then Danforth and his establishment cronies were gone leaving Missourians with the knowledge that the United States has only one functioning political party, the radical left democrats.

      • ============================
      In the 2010 US Senate race Missouri Republican Roy Blunt defeated “household Democrat name” Robin Carnahan by 14 points. This was despite a May 2009 sabotage attempt by Danforth. Rep. Roy Blunt had already announced his candidacy and sitting Missouri Senator Kit Bond had endorsed him. Danforth hit town and directly rebuked Congressman Roy Blunt’s candidacy and the endorsement given him only days earlier by current Missouri US Senator Kit Bond, presenting his friend and former Bush administration State Dept. official Thomas Schweich as “an alternative” to beat Democrat Carnahan. Despite Danforth’s efforts, Roy Blunt beat Democrat Carnahan by 14 points:

      5/11/2009, “Danforth Lends Credibility to Schweich,”

      "Former Senator John Danforth’s endorsement of St. Louis law professor Thomas Schweich for U.S. Senate gives the little known former U.S. ambassador an initial jolt of credibility among

      • top tier Republicans who remain uneasy about next year’s election prospects.
      Schweich is not well known outside of St. Louis political circles, but Danforth’s strong backing of his former chief of staff is

      • grabbing the attention of GOP leaders, donors and consultants across the state….
      It’s a direct rebuke of Congressman Roy Blunt’s candidacy and a clear separation from the current incumbent, Sen. Kit Bond, who just tossed his official blessing to Blunt on Friday. If there was any doubt that

      about how to best defeat Robin Carnahan next year, Monday’s news should rest the case. “I think we have a better chance at keeping Senator Bond’s seat with Tom Schweich than anyone else I can think of,” Danforth said.”…

      • ================================
      Danforth’s 2009 and 2012 sabotage attempts naturally elicited negative publicity about the GOP:

      Danforth on behalf of “his” party, makes excellent use of his high profile to attack Republicans and conservative Christians (“I’m counting on nausea.”) in such venues as the NY Times, the Washington Post, a radio broadcast, and even a 2006 book timed to negatively effect Republicans (p. 5)  in the midterm elections.

      The GOP as exemplified by Danforth is determined to destroy the US two party system. Following is a partial Danforth career chronology:

      Thursday, April 24, 2014

      Still no drought in Boston requiring evil Americans to turn over more of their wages to unelected, unaccountable UN profiteers and their lazy relatives

      4/23/14, Tarp on the field in rainy Boston prior to Yankee-Red Sox game Wednesday night. Rain ended in time for game to be played, final 5-1 Red Sox over Yankees. Erik Boland twitter pic: "Steady rain at Fenway, supposed to clear by 6 or so."...In 2012 $1 billion a day was invested in the notion of "global warming.
      UN climate official Edenhofer freely admits global warming movement is only about redistribution of wealth:  

      11/14/10: ""But one must say clearly: We distribute by climate policy de facto the world's wealth around. ...This has to do with environmental policy... almost nothing....The climate summit in Cancun end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War."...

      Ottmar Edenhofer
      11/14/10, "Climate policy distributes the assets new world," NZZamSontag, Bernard Potter 

      "Climate protection has hardly anything to do with environmental protection, says the economist Ottmar Edenhofer. The next 
      world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which it relates to the distribution of resources."
      Grist author says no one cheers about plunging US CO2 emissions because reasons for it are seen as negative for Obama in some circles such as natural gas fracking, the recession, and harsh EPA regulations:

      7/17/12, "U.S. leads the world in cutting CO2 emissions — so why aren’t we talking about it?" Grist, David Roberts

      "Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is making progress on climate change.

      We have cut our carbon emissions more than any other country in the world in recent years — 7.7 percent since 2006. U.S. emissions fell 1.9 percent last year and are projected to fall 1.9 percent again this year...

      Why isn’t this extraordinary story a bigger deal in U.S. politics? You’d think Obama would be boasting about it! Turns out, though, it’s a little awkward for him, since several of the drivers responsible are things for which

      he can’t (or might not want to) take credit....

      Awkward: that whole recession thing

      First off there’s the Great Recession, which flattened electricity demand in 2008. It has never recovered — in fact, in part due to 2011′s mild winter, it has even declined slightly....

      For obvious reasons, boasting about the environmental benefits of the recession is not something Obama’s eager to do.

      Awkward: frack-o-mania

      The second big driver is the glut of cheap natural gas, which is currently trading at the 10-year low of about $3 per million British thermal units. This is absolutely crushing coal, the biggest source of CO2 in the electric sector....

      A less significant driver of the switch from coal to natural gas is the EPA’s long overdue rollout of new or tightened clean-air rules on mercury, SO2 and NOx, and CO2. Those rules may do more work later on down the line when/if natural gas prices rise again, but for now the best analysis [PDF] shows that natural gas is doing most of the work killing coal....

      Thus: silence in the political world."...

      US CO2 emissions are expected to decline even further:

      "Why [CO2] Emissions Are Declining in the U.S. But Not in Europe," by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus,

      "As we note
      below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade."  


      Added: CO2 doesn't cause global warming to begin with per 30 year peer reviewed published study, Jan. 1980-Dec. 2011. CO2 significantly lags global air and water temperatures, ie, doesn't cause warming:
      Jan. 2013, “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature,“ Global and Planetary Change, Ole Humluma, b, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd

      "Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011....

      “Fig. 1. Monthly global atmospheric CO2

      In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets:  

      1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data,
      2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data,
      3) GISS surface air temperature data,
      4) NCDC surface air temperature data,
      5) HadSST2 sea surface data,
      6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series,
      7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and
      8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions....

      Changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for  

      CO2 lagging

      11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 

      9.5–10 months
      to global surface air temperature, and

      about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. 

      The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes." 

      Note: The CO2 graph above from the 30 year peer reviewed study originally appeared on the website but isn't there as of 4/24/14. Perhaps it's only accessible for a fee now. As to the US CO2 industry, both political parties have been in on it since the beginning. George HW Bush even hired a former WWF executive to head the US EPA. Before most people had heard of climate scientists, Bush established the imaginary CO2 danger industry by proclamation (Sec. 204, #4 below) which incites hatred against allegedly greedy Americans and permanently attaches US taxpayer earnings to no-strings global warming endeavors around the world. George HW Bush institutionalized global warming ‘action’ via the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990."Human causes" are mentioned throughout (Introduction, Sec. 2, Sec. 101, Sec. 204) as part of the "problem" for which endless US taxpayer cash must flow around the world and for which "international protocols" should be established. Bush ordered 13 federal agencies to tackle climate "change" (Sec. 102). The "threat" of "global climate change" is cited in Sec. 108, subhead c:
      "An Act To require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions toward international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes."...  

      "Sect. 2, Definitions:

      4. "Global change research" means study, monitoring, assessment, prediction, and information management activities to describe and understand--

      A. the interactive physical, chemical, and biological processes that regulate the total Earth system;

      B. the unique environment that the Earth provides for life;

      C. changes that are occurring in the Earth system; and 

      D. the manner in which such system, environment, and changes are influenced by human actions;"...


      (a) FINDINGS.--The Congress makes the following findings:
      1. Industrial, agricultural, and other human activities, coupled with an expanding world population, are contributing to processes of global change
      that may significantly alter the Earth habitat within a few human generations.

    • Such human-induced changes, in conjunction with natural fluctuations, may lead to significant global warming and thus alter world climate patterns and increase global sea levels. Over the next century, these consequences could adversely affect world agricultural and marine production, coastal habitability, biological diversity, human health, and global economic and social well-being.
    • The release of chlorofluorocarbons and other stratospheric ozone-depleting substances is rapidly reducing the ability of the atmosphere to screen out harmful ultraviolet radiation, which could adversely affect human health and ecological systems.
    • Development of effective policies to abate, mitigate, and cope with global change will rely on greatly improved scientific understanding of global environmental processes and on our ability to distinguish human-induced from natural global change.... 
    • (b) PURPOSE.--The purpose of this title is to provide for development and coordination of a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change....
      Sec. 108, Relation to other authorities...

      c) EFFECT ON FEDERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS.--Nothing in this title shall be construed, interpreted, or applied to preclude or delay the planning or implementation of any Federal action designed, in whole or in part, to address the threats of
      stratospheric ozone depletion or global climate change.... 

      4. Promoting the conservation of forest resources which help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;"... 


      George HW Bush EPA Administrator William Reilly  returned to WWF after Bush was replaced by Clinton. In 2007, Reilly was involved in the "largest leveraged buyout in history." Scroll to section 4.5, about 1/3 down page:

      "4.5, "State Actions That Would Have Increased GHG Emissions: Texas"

      "On February 26, 2007, in a deal endorsed by NRDC and Environmental Defense, TXU Energy’s board of directors approved a bid to sell the company to private equity firms in the largest leveraged buyout in history. The projected power plants will be cut to 3 from 11, which “will prevent 56 million tons of annual carbon emissions,” TXU said. William Reilly, chairman emeritus of WWF and former EPA Administrator, will join the TXU board"...via


      Bush EPA chief William Reilly represented the US at the 1992 Rio climate summit. Following from transcript of 1992 Bush press conference in Rio after signing UN Agenda 21:

      6/13/1992, President George H. W. Bush News Conference after signing UN Agenda 21 agreement in Rio De Janeiro at UN Earth Summit,

      "The President. Well, let me first express my thanks and congratulations to President Collor and the Brazilian people and to all responsible for this Conference for their hospitality, for their tremendous success in hosting the Earth summit....

      We've signed a climate convention. We've asked others to join us in presenting action plans for the implementation of the climate convention. We've won agreement on forest principles. We found a warm reception among the G - 7 and many developing countries to our Forests for the Future initiative. Many U.S. proposals on oceans and public participation on the importance of economic instruments and free markets were included in this mammoth Agenda 21 document and the Rio Declaration. 

      Let me be clear on one fundamental point. The United States fully intends to be the world's preeminent leader in protecting the global environment. We have been that for many years. We will remain so....

      So with no further ado, I believe, Tom [Tom Raum, Associated Press], you have the first question, sir....

      Q. Mr. set a January 1st target for another meeting of the Conference to discuss global warming. You've set a lot of deadlines for Congress that haven't been heeded. Your proposal yesterday wasn't particularly well-received by the other nations. Why do you think that that January 1st deadline will be heeded any more than your congressional deadlines? 

      The President. I don't think there's any comparison because I think the G - 7 nations and the developed nations want to meet the commitments that they've signed up for. So I've not found that it wasn't received well at all. In fact, Bill Reilly told me it was well-received. And we will be there with specific plans....

      I think the Third World and others are entitled to know that the commitments made are going to be commitments kept.


      [Brit Hume, ABC News].

      Q. Mr. President, you and members of your administration feel that you came here with a good record on the environment and a good case to make for the positions you've taken. If that's so, sir, how is it that the words, remarks of your critics seem to so dominate the atmosphere? 

      The President. Well, I don't know. I guess it's because all the banks that weren't robbed today don't make news. When Americans criticize America outside of America, that seems to make news. The positive accomplishments I think should make the news, and I maintain that we have the best environmental record in the world. And I think the people I talked to yesterday certainly would concede that we have been world leaders....

      What dominates is the protest, not the fact that there was a great, warm reception along the way.

      Q. Well, if I could follow up, sir -- --

      The President. Yes.

      Q. -- -- you, in one remark you made, and members of your administration have indicated that there are other nations here, some of whose officials were critical of your positions, who are in no position themselves, or their countries are in no position, to meet the terms of the climate change treaty, for example, and yet they were privately critical of you. And you suggested that that was so. Would you care to elaborate on who they were and what they -- --

      The President. No, I don't think I suggested that at all. What I'm saying is let's go forward.

      Q. Do you think they're glad that you had taken the position that you have taken?

      The President. Well, I think most are. I think most people are glad that we've taken this position to go forward. I was very pleased, incidentally, with the remarks by Chancellor Kohl, by Brian Mulroney; had a good talk with the Prime Minister of Japan before getting here; I'm most appreciative of John Major for what he said. So I think there's not only understanding but support for American positions....

      Developing Nations

      Q. Yes, Patricia Walsh, United Press International, a slightly little bit longer question for you, Mr. President. Some respected environmentalists here at the Earth summit say that poverty leads to many of the environmental problems and that poverty in developing nations is perpetuated by unending foreign debt and an unfair trade balance that funnels money from the south to the north. They criticize the Earth summit and wealthy nations like the United States for not focusing on these issues here. How would you respond to that criticism, please?

      The President. I would take great credit for the fact that the United States has taken the leadership role, a unique one that's been well-received, in debt-for-equity swaps or forgiveness of debt or debt-for-environmental swaps. And I think that shows that we are sensitive to the problems of the Third World in terms of the economy....

      Yes, John [John Cochran, NBC News].

      Environmental Policy

      Q. A couple of questions about your wish back in the '88 campaign to be the environmental President....Given the opposition of environmental groups, can you still campaign as the environmental President, and will you? 

      The President. Well, I think so -- and for the very reasons that the man standing next to me, who has superb environmental credentials, has made over and over again here. You cannot go to the extreme. And yes, I do have to be concerned about the American worker, about taxes, about a lot of things like that; a President must be concerned. But I think we have an outstanding environmental record.
      Let me just click off some of it for you: The Clean Air Act, and that was ours. We did it. We needed the Democrats' support, and we got it done. It is the most forward-looking piece of legislation that any country has in place. 

      We've got a national energy strategy that emphasizes alternate fuels and conservation and all of this part of it. We've got a forestation program that is second to none. I'd like to see the Congress move forward with my plan to plant a billion trees a year, and we're going to keep pushing on that. 

      We've done what's right environmentally on drilling, putting the sensitive, environmentally sensitive areas off bounds. We've done that in the Florida Keys, for example, and off of Big Sur.
      We have over a billion dollars in new lands, and our parks, forests, wildlife refuges, have all been added to. So we have a good stewardship of the land. 

      We took the leadership in phasing out CFC's, and I think that is a very important environmental leadership role by the United States. Our budget for EPA is up considerably, our Environmental Protection Agency. 

      So I think along the lines we've done very, very well. And I think that's a case I will be proud to take to the American people.

      Q. Can I follow up with one, sir?

      The President. Yes, please.

      Q. Sir, you talk about not wanting to jeopardize jobs by being overly conscious of environmental concerns, but you've never really been very specific about which jobs you would save with your policies, for example, on global warming and the biodiversity treaty. 

      The President. I will give you an example, and that was on the owl decision. There what was clearly at stake was some 30,000 jobs in the Northwest. That decision was met with some opposition by certain environmentalists, but it was a good decision. Some people regrettably will still be put out of work, but not near as many as if that arrangement had not been achieved....

      Environmental Policy

      Q. Mr. President, on the way back home today you will be flying for some two to three hours over the Amazon forests. Do you believe your 200-something U.S. million dollars of your Forests for the Future initiative will make a difference?

      The President. Well, I certainly think it will, and most people here seem to think it will, yes. I salute President Collor for the steps he is taking in terms of preservation of that great forest. You see, we've got a good record in terms of forest policy. We're doing something about below-cost timber sales in 10 national forests. We've signed this Tongass Timber Reform Act, which is in a very sensitive -- below-cost timber sales in an extraordinarily sensitive American rain forest.

      So I think we've got a good record. I'm very pleased with the way that forestry initiative has been received here. I noticed that it was singled out by several of the leaders in their speech yesterday. And it's those positive things that I think just emphasize once again the U.S. role of leadership in the environment....

      U.N. Conference on Environment 

      Q. Mr. President, in following up this Conference, what do you think you'll be doing in the way of supporting an international organization to oversee the work that has come out of this Conference?

      The President. I think one of the main things we're going to do is go forward with this January 1st date in order to present detailed plans to meet the climate change commitments. We're pretty far along on that, and we're prepared to share with others.
      Bill Reilly will be actively involved in that. Any commitment we make here will be kept, and so we have a broad agenda to follow through on. 

      We forget that there are many, many commitments, some involving funds, some not, being made here at this Conference. 

      And the EPA leadership will be extraordinarily busy in getting specific now to follow them up. I'm excited about that because I think our leadership is up to it, and I think others will welcome it....

      Thank you all very much." via Democrats Against UN Agenda 21


      Bush EPA Chief Reilly writes about 1992 Rio climate agreement and Agenda 21:

      Sept.-Oct. 1992, "The Road from Rio: The success of the Earth Summit depends on how well we follow through on its principles and programs," EPA Journal, by William K. Reilly,
      "Agenda 21. This was perhaps the most remarkable achievement of the conference: an ambitious, 900-page action plan for protecting the atmosphere, oceans, and other global resources. Many of the ideas--community right-to-know, compiling information about toxic releases, environmental impact statements--originated in the United States. Agenda 21 represents an extraordinary new global consensus on standards against which to measure the environmental performance of governments. No doubt the press, non-governmental groups, and the business community will mine these documents for years to come. The human rights commitments of the 1970s and 1980s, the Helsinki Accords, and others, offer a model for how committed nongovernmental interests can confer authority on moral obligations and translate them into new policies."

      In 1995, Bush EPA Chief William Reilly says Bush didn't get credit he deserved from the environmental community. Greens weren't going to give him credit anyway, but he couldn't sell his accomplishments too much for fear of losing the business community in 1992 election:

      "The White House, particularly, was highly ineffective in its public relations in dealing with the environment. It was as though they were ambivalent about wanting credit. On the one hand they resented when the Administration was criticized by environmentalists, but on the other hand they didn't want to claim too much for our environmental initiatives lest they upset the business community and the more conservative elements of the constituency. The White House simply never resolved how it wished to present itself on the environment." (Subhead, "EPA and governmental groups," 4th parag. in Reilly remarks)


      The "climate industry" is about 3 things, none of which are climate, per Obama-Biden climate adviser Nigel Purvis:

      1/13/12, "US Republicans stir transatlantic tensions over climate change," EurActiv

      "Ironically the 'cap and trade' idea that underwrites the global carbon market was originally the brainchild of US Republicans [via George Bush #1]. But this changed because of what one senior US climate negotiator at Kyoto described as a collection of “toxic” ingredients.


      There are three issues:
      that are inflammatory in their own right,” Nigel Purvis, a State Department official under the Clinton and Bush administrations, said on the phone from Washington."...

      Nigel Purvis, is with Climate Advisers consultancy in Washington."...



      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.