Andrew Revkin 10/28/12 post about Sandy Storm includes response from NOAA scientist Dr. Martin Hoerling stating that Sandy was likely due to natural causes and not excess CO2:
10/28/12, "The #Frankenstorm in Climate Context," Dot Earth, NY Times, Andrew Revkin
"8:11pm Update"
"Martin Hoerling, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration focused on the forces influencing extreme weather, sent this note:
"Great
events can have little causes. In this case, the immediate cause is
most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical
storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in
October…nothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is
such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event
along the eastern seaboard. As to underlying causes, neither the
frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic
are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have
there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over
this region in recent decades (see IPCC 2012 SREX report).""
.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Who are the '14 prominent climate scientists' who joined the 2007 Supreme Court case that allowed CO2 to be regulated and who remained silent about errors in Obama's June 2013 CO2 speech?
"Massachusetts vs. EPA—Timeline, Legal Questions, and Case Details," sierraclub.org, Allowing the EPA to regulate CO2
"On April 2, 2007, in a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Sierra Club, 12 states, 3 cities, and other petitioners by agreeing that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the Clean Air Act....
p. 2, "Filing as “amici” for the petitioners:
Fourteen prominent climate scientists, two electric power companies (Entergy and Calpine), four former EPA administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, six states (Arizona, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Council of Churches, Aspen Ski Company, North Coast Rivers Alliance, National Wildlife Federation, Alaska Natives, and ocean and coastal groups....
Petitioners in the case:
Entergy stock soared to its then all time high, $107.52 (Source: "On Monday, when the EPA decision came down, Entergy stock jumped to an all-time high of $107.52 per share."...Washington Examiner editorial, "Ruling on EPA favors Big Energy," April 6, 2007, link now inactive). The decision was also a boon for organized crime involved in the carbon trading industry.
.
The "US Conference of Mayors" was among petitioners in the 2007 Supreme Court Case, p.2.
"On April 2, 2007, in a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Sierra Club, 12 states, 3 cities, and other petitioners by agreeing that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the Clean Air Act....
p. 2, "Filing as “amici” for the petitioners:
Fourteen prominent climate scientists, two electric power companies (Entergy and Calpine), four former EPA administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, six states (Arizona, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Council of Churches, Aspen Ski Company, North Coast Rivers Alliance, National Wildlife Federation, Alaska Natives, and ocean and coastal groups....
.
Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Washington, the District of Columbia, American Samoa Government, New
York City, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Center for
Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law
Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense,
Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technology
Assessment, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public
Interest Research Group."...
.
.
=====================
Big money was made on the 2007 Supreme Court decision, for example petitioner Entergy's stock peaked on news of the ruling. Entergy stock chart 2003-2013, Marketwatch:
.
.
.
========================
.
.
Question: Who were the "14 prominent climate scientists" who joined the 2007 lawsuit?
.
5/16/13, "John Dernbach, a law professor at Widener University in Pennsylvania...represented climate scientists in the 2007 case." parag. 7. ("Could Supreme Court stall climate change regulations?" Reuters)
.
Who paid legal fees for the 14 climate scientists who stood to gain financially and professionally from the ruling?
.
received a $2.8 billion grant from the 2009 Obama stimulus. .
Twitter / RogerPielkeJr: Hurricanes make the list in ...
6/30/13, “A Climate Demagogue,” Boston Herald Editorial
“Even those who believe that emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unacceptable warming of the earth–and frankly the evidence for that is thus far less than convincing--should be ashamed of President Obama’s demagogic arguments for action.
The fact sheet on the president’s speech this week said carbon “pollution” is “contributing to higher rates of asthma attacks and more frequent and severe floods and heat waves.” His measures “would protect the health of our children.”
“For the children” usually means the orator has run out of good arguments.
It’s the first assertion we’ve seen that carbon dioxide produces or worsens asthma. The Environmental Protection Agency has never asserted that. The only way a child could be hurt by carbon dioxide, essential for plant life and produced in human breath, would be by being hit in the head with a block of dry ice—frozen carbon dioxide.
In a second badly misnamed “fact sheet”--this one specifically for Massachusetts–the White House seeks to blame “climate change” for tropical storm Irene, emergency room visits due to heat stress in 2009 (it did not include “facts” on whether that was up or down from previous years or even since 2009) and 2380 cases of Lyme disease.
Yes, to hear the Obama administration tell it, we are indeed simply doomed.
However most international and national agencies have found no increase in storm activity. Warming? The alarmist British Meteorological Office finds no warming since 1998 while the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 7.4%.
Doomsday scenarios depend largely on unreliable computer models whose builders have no explanation for such conflicts….
Without believable computer models, it’s senseless to follow Obama down the road of economic self-mutilation.”
===============================
Signers to the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
Hurricanes make the list in Obama's weekly address: "more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes" http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/29/weekly-address-confronting-growing-threat-climate-change …Twitter / RogerPielkeJr: Fact: It has been 2,811 days ...
Fact: It has been 2,811 days since the US was last hit by a Cat3+ hurricane, the longest such period since at least 1900.Twitter / RogerPielkeJr: Fact: On climate time scales ...
Fact: On climate time scales there's been no increase in US hurricanes, normalized US hurricane damage or tropical cyclone landfalls globallyTwitter / RogerPielkeJr: What does it say about the ...
What does it say about the climate science community that the Prez says something easily shown false and no one says a peep? #climatesilence. via Tom NelsonTwitter / RogerPielkeJr: IPCC: "Observations to date ...
IPCC: "Observations to date provide no conclusive and general proof as to how climate change affects flood behavior" http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/01/extreme-misrepresentation-usgcrp-and.html …======================================
6/30/13, “A Climate Demagogue,” Boston Herald Editorial
“Even those who believe that emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unacceptable warming of the earth–and frankly the evidence for that is thus far less than convincing--should be ashamed of President Obama’s demagogic arguments for action.
The fact sheet on the president’s speech this week said carbon “pollution” is “contributing to higher rates of asthma attacks and more frequent and severe floods and heat waves.” His measures “would protect the health of our children.”
“For the children” usually means the orator has run out of good arguments.
It’s the first assertion we’ve seen that carbon dioxide produces or worsens asthma. The Environmental Protection Agency has never asserted that. The only way a child could be hurt by carbon dioxide, essential for plant life and produced in human breath, would be by being hit in the head with a block of dry ice—frozen carbon dioxide.
In a second badly misnamed “fact sheet”--this one specifically for Massachusetts–the White House seeks to blame “climate change” for tropical storm Irene, emergency room visits due to heat stress in 2009 (it did not include “facts” on whether that was up or down from previous years or even since 2009) and 2380 cases of Lyme disease.
Yes, to hear the Obama administration tell it, we are indeed simply doomed.
However most international and national agencies have found no increase in storm activity. Warming? The alarmist British Meteorological Office finds no warming since 1998 while the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 7.4%.
Doomsday scenarios depend largely on unreliable computer models whose builders have no explanation for such conflicts….
Without believable computer models, it’s senseless to follow Obama down the road of economic self-mutilation.”
===============================
Signers to the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
The "US Conference of Mayors" was among petitioners in the 2007 Supreme Court Case, p.2.
“A Climate Demagogue,” Boston Herald Editorial. Obama’s “badly misnamed ‘fact sheets’” disagree with national and international agencies. Updated
Update, 7/1/13, Perhaps in response to Boston Herald editorial, "EPA Research" puts out a tweet saying oh yes, CO2 causes asthma, but they present no science for this claim, just link back to Obama White House claims: "Climate change means increased severe weather and asthma attacks. See what it means for your state: http://1.usa.gov/17A24lp"
----------------------------
“Most international and national agencies have found no increase in storm activity. Warming? The alarmist British Meteorological Office finds no warming since 1998.”
6/30/13, “A Climate Demagogue,” Boston Herald Editorial
“Even those who believe that emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unacceptable warming of the earth–and frankly the evidence for that is thus far less than convincing--should be ashamed of President Obama’s demagogic arguments for action.
The fact sheet on the president’s speech this week said carbon “pollution” is “contributing to higher rates of asthma attacks and more frequent and severe floods and heat waves.” His measures “would protect the health of our children.”
“For the children” usually means the orator has run out of good arguments.
It’s the first assertion we’ve seen that carbon dioxide produces or worsens asthma. The Environmental Protection Agency has never asserted that. The only way a child could be hurt by carbon dioxide, essential for plant life and produced in human breath, would be by being hit in the head with a block of dry ice—frozen carbon dioxide.
In a second badly misnamed “fact sheet”--this one specifically for Massachusetts–the White House seeks to blame “climate change” for tropical storm Irene, emergency room visits due to heat stress in 2009 (it did not include “facts” on whether that was up or down from previous years or even since 2009) and 2380 cases of Lyme disease.
Yes, to hear the Obama administration tell it, we are indeed simply doomed.
However most international and national agencies have found no increase in storm activity. Warming? The alarmist British Meteorological Office finds no warming since 1998 while the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 7.4%.
Doomsday scenarios depend largely on unreliable computer models whose builders have no explanation for such conflicts….
Without believable computer models, it’s senseless to follow Obama down the road of economic self-mutilation.” via Lucianne
.
----------------------------
“Most international and national agencies have found no increase in storm activity. Warming? The alarmist British Meteorological Office finds no warming since 1998.”
6/30/13, “A Climate Demagogue,” Boston Herald Editorial
“Even those who believe that emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unacceptable warming of the earth–and frankly the evidence for that is thus far less than convincing--should be ashamed of President Obama’s demagogic arguments for action.
The fact sheet on the president’s speech this week said carbon “pollution” is “contributing to higher rates of asthma attacks and more frequent and severe floods and heat waves.” His measures “would protect the health of our children.”
“For the children” usually means the orator has run out of good arguments.
It’s the first assertion we’ve seen that carbon dioxide produces or worsens asthma. The Environmental Protection Agency has never asserted that. The only way a child could be hurt by carbon dioxide, essential for plant life and produced in human breath, would be by being hit in the head with a block of dry ice—frozen carbon dioxide.
In a second badly misnamed “fact sheet”--this one specifically for Massachusetts–the White House seeks to blame “climate change” for tropical storm Irene, emergency room visits due to heat stress in 2009 (it did not include “facts” on whether that was up or down from previous years or even since 2009) and 2380 cases of Lyme disease.
Yes, to hear the Obama administration tell it, we are indeed simply doomed.
However most international and national agencies have found no increase in storm activity. Warming? The alarmist British Meteorological Office finds no warming since 1998 while the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 7.4%.
Doomsday scenarios depend largely on unreliable computer models whose builders have no explanation for such conflicts….
Without believable computer models, it’s senseless to follow Obama down the road of economic self-mutilation.” via Lucianne
.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Climate blogger 'was on a call with senior administration officials the day before' Obama announced his June 2013 CO2 plan. Heavy.
6/28/13, "Philosophy major David "Climate Nuremberg" Roberts regarding Obama's
climate hoax speech this week: "I was on a call with senior
administration officials the day before the plan," Tom Nelson
.
FLATOW: ....That's a pretty bold prediction to say that this country, which does not have a reputation for being number one at any of the climate control meetings....
ROBERTS: Well, it's interesting, I was on a call with senior administration officials the day before the plan. They were previewing the plan and the speech, and there was nothing said about Keystone. As a matter of fact, they were asked about Keystone, and they said specifically no, he won't say anything about that."
.
$650 million taxpayer dollars meant for EU water projects in Africa wasted, misspent, British Lords hear. Eurocrat reaction to their complicity in fraud and human misery, 'a yawn'-BBC
6/27/13, "EU aid to Africa badly spent, British inquiry hears," BBC
The House of Lords Committee on External Affairs is looking
into about $1.3bn worth of water projects in sub-Saharan Africa during
the past decade.
Fewer than half of a sample of 23 projects met poor people's needs, the committee heard from EU auditors. The problems ranged from the planning stages to the projects' implementation."...
---------------------------------
BBC analyst Mark Doyle: News of squandered taxpayer money was "a yawn" to elites:
"In the hallowed atmosphere of the House of Lords - all oak-panelled walls and leather seats - the questioning was of course polite.
Their Lordships had, after all, invited the EU watchdogs - the auditors who had spilled the beans - not those who had wasted the money.
But I still expected a bit of outrage - after all, EU money is partly UK taxpayers' cash.
But there was none - more a series of rather vague questions.
Lord Jopling asked the most revealing question, and got the most revealing answer.
He asked Mr Bostock if the reaction of Eurocrats to his revelations could be characterised by "a grimace and a yawn".
Mr Bostock replied, in a roundabout way: "Yes"."
.
.
"A British parliamentary
inquiry has heard that more than $650m ( £420m) worth of European Union
aid to Africa may have been badly spent.
Fewer than half of a sample of 23 projects met poor people's needs, the committee heard from EU auditors. The problems ranged from the planning stages to the projects' implementation."...
---------------------------------
BBC analyst Mark Doyle: News of squandered taxpayer money was "a yawn" to elites:
"In the hallowed atmosphere of the House of Lords - all oak-panelled walls and leather seats - the questioning was of course polite.
Their Lordships had, after all, invited the EU watchdogs - the auditors who had spilled the beans - not those who had wasted the money.
But I still expected a bit of outrage - after all, EU money is partly UK taxpayers' cash.
But there was none - more a series of rather vague questions.
Lord Jopling asked the most revealing question, and got the most revealing answer.
He asked Mr Bostock if the reaction of Eurocrats to his revelations could be characterised by "a grimace and a yawn".
Mr Bostock replied, in a roundabout way: "Yes"."
.
.
Arctic Sea Ice Extent at ten year high as of June 25, 2013
6/26/13, "Arctic Gains 16,600 Manhattans Of Sea Ice Since 2010 – At Ten Year High," Real Science, Steven Goddard
www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Leading government experts say the ice will be gone in a few weeks, and may be gone already....
12/12/2007, "Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'," BBC, John Amos, US scientists say Arctic to be ice free by 2013, per BBC:
.
www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Leading government experts say the ice will be gone in a few weeks, and may be gone already....
12/12/2007, "Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'," BBC, John Amos, US scientists say Arctic to be ice free by 2013, per BBC:
.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
UK shale gas reserves 'greater than thought,' Lancashire and Yorkshire cited-BBC
6/27/13, "UK shale gas reserves 'greater than thought'," BBC
The British Geological Survey was asked to estimate how much gas is trapped in rocks beneath Lancashire and Yorkshire.
It said there could be 1,300 trillion cubic feet at one site alone, but it is unclear how much could be extracted.
Ministers are set to announce financial benefits for communities where fracking - the controversial extraction technique - takes place....
The report for the government comes as energy regulator Ofgem is expected to warn that the risks of power blackouts has increased because excess capacity in the power industry has fallen in the UK.
In his Spending Review on Wednesday, Chancellor George Osborne said the government would "make the tax and planning changes which will put Britain at the forefront of exploiting shale gas".
BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin says fracking is revolutionising energy markets in the US and the UK hopes to follow suit."...
.
"UK shale gas reserves may be far greater than previously thought, a report for the government says.
The British Geological Survey was asked to estimate how much gas is trapped in rocks beneath Lancashire and Yorkshire.
It said there could be 1,300 trillion cubic feet at one site alone, but it is unclear how much could be extracted.
Ministers are set to announce financial benefits for communities where fracking - the controversial extraction technique - takes place....
The report for the government comes as energy regulator Ofgem is expected to warn that the risks of power blackouts has increased because excess capacity in the power industry has fallen in the UK.
In his Spending Review on Wednesday, Chancellor George Osborne said the government would "make the tax and planning changes which will put Britain at the forefront of exploiting shale gas".
BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin says fracking is revolutionising energy markets in the US and the UK hopes to follow suit."...
.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
UK monarchy business interests see record profits, monarchy owns UK seabeds, is 'heavily involved in offshore wind farms,' which coincidentally benefit from 'UK's growing reliance on green energy'
6/26/13, "Queen's income set to rise for second year running," BBC
"Because it owns and manages the seabed around the UK out to the 12-mile limit, the Crown Estate is heavily involved in offshore wind farms, where it saw an extra 1GW of power come on
stream, with around 300 new turbines erected offshore.
The Crown Estate also made £13.1m from cables and pipelines that cross its land.
As part of its overall property portfolio, it also owns the foreshore of almost half of the UK's coastline, although much of it is leased out to third parties.
It holds around 144,000 hectares (356,000 acres) of the country's agricultural land and forests, as well as residential and commercial property outside urban areas."
============================
6/26/13, "Queen scores record profit from booming London property," Reuters
"Crown Estate - owned by Queen Elizabeth - on Thursday said it made record profit in the year to March, thanks to the strong performance of its central London properties.
Crown Estate's 5.2 percent rise in profits to 252.6 million pounds gives the queen a 38 million pounds 2014/15 payout, pegged at 15 percent of the total by a 2012 law designed to link her income to the UK's economic health....
Owner of wind
farms and most of Britain's sea bed along with
its Regent Street properties, the company has outperformed the wider economy due to strong overseas interest in London property and the UK's growing reliance on green energy....
The Queen - whose payout rose 20 percent to 36 million this year - was previously paid by taxpayers through an allowance set by parliament and other government grants....
In May, it signed a 320 million pound deal with Oxford Properties, owned by one of Canada's largest pension funds, to redevelop London's upmarket St James's Market district."...
.
"Because it owns and manages the seabed around the UK out to the 12-mile limit, the Crown Estate is heavily involved in offshore wind farms, where it saw an extra 1GW of power come on
stream, with around 300 new turbines erected offshore.
The Crown Estate also made £13.1m from cables and pipelines that cross its land.
As part of its overall property portfolio, it also owns the foreshore of almost half of the UK's coastline, although much of it is leased out to third parties.
It holds around 144,000 hectares (356,000 acres) of the country's agricultural land and forests, as well as residential and commercial property outside urban areas."
============================
6/26/13, "Queen scores record profit from booming London property," Reuters
"Crown Estate - owned by Queen Elizabeth - on Thursday said it made record profit in the year to March, thanks to the strong performance of its central London properties.
Crown Estate's 5.2 percent rise in profits to 252.6 million pounds gives the queen a 38 million pounds 2014/15 payout, pegged at 15 percent of the total by a 2012 law designed to link her income to the UK's economic health....
Owner of wind
farms and most of Britain's sea bed along with its Regent Street properties, the company has outperformed the wider economy due to strong overseas interest in London property and the UK's growing reliance on green energy....
The Queen - whose payout rose 20 percent to 36 million this year - was previously paid by taxpayers through an allowance set by parliament and other government grants....
In May, it signed a 320 million pound deal with Oxford Properties, owned by one of Canada's largest pension funds, to redevelop London's upmarket St James's Market district."...
.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Obama team in 2009 said his cap and trade program to prevent US children from being injured or killed by US CO2 would cost 1% of US GDP annually-CBS News, FOIA docs.
"A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team
after the November election, says this about climate change policies:
"Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP."
9/15/2009, "Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year," CBSNews, Declan McCullagh
"The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.
A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."
The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.
Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.
One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX."
The Treasury Department redacted
the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.
The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices).
"Update 9/17/2009: I've written a followup article to respond to erroneous claims from the Center for American Progress."
=============================
For its CO2 endangerment finding the EPA relied on data at least 3 years out of date, failed to include latest research, including that global temperatures "have declined for 11 years:" (6/2009)
6/26/2009, "EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming," CBS News, Declan McCullagh
"Fig. 1. Monthly global atmospheric CO2
Comment: Why is this crime still going on?
.
9/15/2009, "Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year," CBSNews, Declan McCullagh
"The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.
A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."
The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.
Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.
One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX."
The Treasury Department redacted
the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.
The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices).
"Update 9/17/2009: I've written a followup article to respond to erroneous claims from the Center for American Progress."
=============================
For its CO2 endangerment finding the EPA relied on data at least 3 years out of date, failed to include latest research, including that global temperatures "have declined for 11 years:" (6/2009)
6/26/2009, "EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming," CBS News, Declan McCullagh
"The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal
report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including
whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal
government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."
E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."
E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years
exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the
EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him
to update a grants database instead.
For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years, that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.
For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years, that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.
If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures,
Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective
than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.
The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.
"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.
Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.
The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."
The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.
"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.
Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.
The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."
That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who
said to Carlin, the report's primary author: "I decided not to forward
your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where
we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our
office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct
communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There
should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."
One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.
"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)...
One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.
"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)...
The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said
in January: "I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental
crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based
policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming
transparency."
Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed
that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To
undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is
contrary to our way of life.""...
========================
Peer reviewed science says the 2009 EPA decision was erroneous. CO2 lags temperatures, it doesn't precede them. Thirty-year span, Jan. 1980-Dec. 2011:
Jan. 2013, "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature," Global and Planetary Change, Ole Humluma, b,
, 
,Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd
Jan. 2013, "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature," Global and Planetary Change, Ole Humluma, b,
, ,Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd
"Fig. 1. Monthly global atmospheric CO2
(NOOA; [NOAA] green), monthly global sea surface temperature (HadSST2; blue
stippled) and monthly global surface air temperature (HadCRUT3; red),
since January 1980. Last month shown is December 2011."
"For the period January 1980 to December 2011...Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale....
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. ...
"For the period January 1980 to December 2011...Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale....
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. ...
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.
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."
==============================
==============================
US leads world in CO2 reduction:
6/10/13, "US Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fall as Global Emissions Rise," Cato.org, Paul C. 'Chip' Knappenberger
"Notice that the U.S. is far and away the leader in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while China primarily is responsible for pushing global CO2 emissions higher. In fact, CO2 emissions growth in China more than offsets all the CO2 savings that we have achieved in the U.S."
Chart from IEA report, p. 2
"Notice that the U.S. is far and away the leader in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while China primarily is responsible for pushing global CO2 emissions higher. In fact, CO2 emissions growth in China more than offsets all the CO2 savings that we have achieved in the U.S."
Chart from IEA report, p. 2
==============================
Comment: Why is this crime still going on?
Too big to fail, the US
no longer has a two party system providing checks and balances, all the money in the world, and a way to finally silence the annoying American middle class.
Soho art space lost to Bloomberg bike scam faces home of Citibank exec who was big wheel in putting bike deal together and is a former deputy mayor
6/24/13, "Bike rack for Citi’s big wheel," NY Post, by C. Giove and E. Hagen
"Controversial Soho station has a powerful neighbor."
"The Citi Bike rack at Petrosino Square in Soho that the community has been fighting to remove is right outside the Lafayette Street home of a Citibank executive and former deputy mayor, The Post has learned.
Residents collected 600 petition signatures and 132 letters to the Department of Transportation, demanding the rack be relocated so the tiny park can be returned to its use as an art space. Some politicians and the community board also want to move the station — but the DOT hasn’t budged.
Now residents say they think the DOT is reluctant because Ed Skyler, Citibank’s global vice president of public affairs and a champion of the bike-share program, lives right across the street....
Geoffrey Croft, of NYC Park Advocates, said: “It’s obviously ironic that the city’s most controversial bike-share site is mere feet from [Skyler].
“It’s too bad that his neighbors have to be tortured.”
Skyler has been a major player in the bike-share program and has said he recommended Citibank sponsor the program after DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan reached out to him.
When asked yesterday whether the rack should be moved, Skyler said there is no right answer. “You can’t make everybody happy, and that’s just unfortunately the way it is,” he said.
“It’s really up to the DOT or through people in the neighborhood, who have different ideas for where it should go.”
Residents, who have filed an injunction against the city over the rack, said they had used the square as an art space....
Citigroup, which owns Citibank, also said it had no say in the Soho rack’s placement. “Citi has no authority to make decisions on station locations,” said Andrew Brent, senior vice president of consumer public affairs.
“The Department of Transportation selected the location after a public process, and we understand they are actively reviewing the additional community feedback on it.”"
.
"Controversial Soho station has a powerful neighbor."
"The Citi Bike rack at Petrosino Square in Soho that the community has been fighting to remove is right outside the Lafayette Street home of a Citibank executive and former deputy mayor, The Post has learned.
Residents collected 600 petition signatures and 132 letters to the Department of Transportation, demanding the rack be relocated so the tiny park can be returned to its use as an art space. Some politicians and the community board also want to move the station — but the DOT hasn’t budged.
Now residents say they think the DOT is reluctant because Ed Skyler, Citibank’s global vice president of public affairs and a champion of the bike-share program, lives right across the street....
Geoffrey Croft, of NYC Park Advocates, said: “It’s obviously ironic that the city’s most controversial bike-share site is mere feet from [Skyler].
“It’s too bad that his neighbors have to be tortured.”
Skyler has been a major player in the bike-share program and has said he recommended Citibank sponsor the program after DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan reached out to him.
When asked yesterday whether the rack should be moved, Skyler said there is no right answer. “You can’t make everybody happy, and that’s just unfortunately the way it is,” he said.
“It’s really up to the DOT or through people in the neighborhood, who have different ideas for where it should go.”
Residents, who have filed an injunction against the city over the rack, said they had used the square as an art space....
Citigroup, which owns Citibank, also said it had no say in the Soho rack’s placement. “Citi has no authority to make decisions on station locations,” said Andrew Brent, senior vice president of consumer public affairs.
“The Department of Transportation selected the location after a public process, and we understand they are actively reviewing the additional community feedback on it.”"
.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Obama administration freely admits new regulation on power generating units won't effect US greenhouse gas emissions, but will 'send a strong signal' internationally, stimulate investment in green tech-US News
3/27/12, "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," EPA, Carbon Pollution Standard, Fed. Register, draft, epa.gov
p. 49, "While this proposed rule also will not have direct impact on U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases under expected economic conditions, it provides assurance that emission rates from new fossil fuel-fired generation will not exceed the level of the standard and will send a strong signal both domestically and
internationally.
Domestically, this proposed rule can further stimulate investment in CCS and other clean coal technologies,
p. 49, "While this proposed rule also will not have direct impact on U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases under expected economic conditions, it provides assurance that emission rates from new fossil fuel-fired generation will not exceed the level of the standard and will send a strong signal both domestically and
internationally.
Domestically, this proposed rule can further stimulate investment in CCS and other clean coal technologies,
by making it clear that such technologies do provide a clear path forward for new coal-fired generating capacity.
Internationally,
to consider less GHG-intensive forms of power generation."...via USNews.com
Does the EPA not really care about global warming
or are they working to end America's use of coal?
----------------------------------
.
.
4/12/12, "The Illogic of EPA Carbon Regulations," USNews.com, by
Daniel Simmons
Does the EPA not really care about global warming
or are they working to end America's use of coal?
Does the EPA only want to increase the price of energy by
making it harder to build low-cost electricity generation?
What explains the EPA's actions? And why are taxpayers paying for this nonsense?
The only thing we know for sure is that the EPA claims that global warming is a problem and
What explains the EPA's actions? And why are taxpayers paying for this nonsense?
The only thing we know for sure is that the EPA claims that global warming is a problem and
Aggrieved English pool-owners may have class action case against global warming prophets and meteorologists who said it was getting warmer, no more snow. It's been the reverse. It's been cooler and now they say 10 cool years ahead-Boris Johnson
6/23/13, "The weather prophets should be chucked in the deep end," UK Telegraph, Boris Johnson
"Homeowners lumbered with useless swimming pools know precisely who they should blame."
"The great thing about flying into London is that you get bags of time to see
the countryside below. The congestion at Heathrow is so bad that many
passengers circle above the Home Counties for half an hour, allowing
themselves to be penetrated by the splendours of Surrey while their planes
spew thousands of tons of CO2 into the upper air....
Look down on southern England, and you see the little winking ultramarine oblongs of the swimming pools – perhaps the greatest triumph of hope over experience in the history of English domestic architecture. ...
They imagined the poolside parties they would have when the warming really kicked in: the barbecues; the bikinis; the pina coladas. They saw themselves on their lilos talking to their brokers on their mobile phones or getting up early on a glorious summer day and diving in unclothed when no one else was around. They thought they were doing the sensible thing and getting ready for a Californian lifestyle – and they were fools! Fools who believed that the global warming soothsayers really meant what they said or that they had a clue what the weather would be in the next 10 years.
I hope I don’t need to tell you that we have not experienced a Mediterranean climate – not since they started to tell us to expect it. On the contrary, we have had some pretty long and miserable winters – including the last one, in which I saw snow settle in London on four separate occasions – and our summer is at risk of becoming a bit of a farce....They now think that we won’t have 10 years of blistering summer heat; on the contrary, it is apparently going to be 10 years of cold and wet.
It is outrageous. Think of all those honest hard-working folk who have sunk their resources into a pool, only to find they use it only a couple of times a summer, and even then the wind-chill is so bad that the swimmers get goosebumps as soon as they emerge. I am generally against the compensation culture, but in my mind’s eye I see a class action: aggrieved English pool-owners against the global warming prophets and the erroneous meteorologists who have, frankly, been taking the piscine." via Lucianne
"Homeowners lumbered with useless swimming pools know precisely who they should blame."
"The great thing about flying into London is that you get bags of time to see
the countryside below. The congestion at Heathrow is so bad that many
passengers circle above the Home Counties for half an hour, allowing
themselves to be penetrated by the splendours of Surrey while their planes
spew thousands of tons of CO2 into the upper air.... Look down on southern England, and you see the little winking ultramarine oblongs of the swimming pools – perhaps the greatest triumph of hope over experience in the history of English domestic architecture. ...
.
In the past 10 years there have been plenty of
middle-class punters who have decided that they want a touch of Beverly
Hills about their homes....
Omigod, they said to themselves, we are all going to
fry. The only answer was to build a source of permanent refreshment – and so
they did. They saved up, and they remortgaged, and they got in the diggers....They filled these holes with
thousands of gallons of water that circulated endlessly by an unintelligible
process known only to the people who had installed it but who seemed
unfortunately to have gone bust. ...
But then there was an extra spur – the new and unanswerable imperative to find
a way of keeping wet and cool. For more than 20 years now, we have been told
that this country was going to get hotter and hotter and hotter, and that
global warming was going to change our climate in a fundamental way. Do you
remember that? We were told that Britain was going to have short, wet
winters and long, roasting summers. ...
They said we were never going to have snow again, and that we should prepare
for southern England to turn gradually into a Mediterranean world. There
were going to be olive groves in the Weald of Kent, and the whole place was
going to be so generally broiling in summer that no one would be able to
move between noon and 4pm....
That’s what they said: the BBC, and all the respectable meteorologists – and I reckon there were tens of thousands of people who took these prophecies entirely seriously.
That’s what they said: the BBC, and all the respectable meteorologists – and I reckon there were tens of thousands of people who took these prophecies entirely seriously.
They imagined the poolside parties they would have when the warming really kicked in: the barbecues; the bikinis; the pina coladas. They saw themselves on their lilos talking to their brokers on their mobile phones or getting up early on a glorious summer day and diving in unclothed when no one else was around. They thought they were doing the sensible thing and getting ready for a Californian lifestyle – and they were fools! Fools who believed that the global warming soothsayers really meant what they said or that they had a clue what the weather would be in the next 10 years.
I hope I don’t need to tell you that we have not experienced a Mediterranean climate – not since they started to tell us to expect it. On the contrary, we have had some pretty long and miserable winters – including the last one, in which I saw snow settle in London on four separate occasions – and our summer is at risk of becoming a bit of a farce....They now think that we won’t have 10 years of blistering summer heat; on the contrary, it is apparently going to be 10 years of cold and wet.
It is outrageous. Think of all those honest hard-working folk who have sunk their resources into a pool, only to find they use it only a couple of times a summer, and even then the wind-chill is so bad that the swimmers get goosebumps as soon as they emerge. I am generally against the compensation culture, but in my mind’s eye I see a class action: aggrieved English pool-owners against the global warming prophets and the erroneous meteorologists who have, frankly, been taking the piscine." via Lucianne
.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
James Milkey put the term "climate change on America's legal map," led a team of 50 mostly taxpayer paid attorneys in suing the US EPA to force it to regulate emissions from "new motors," allegedly because tailpipe-created CO2 caused simultaneous rise of global temperatures
9/30/10, "Mr. Mass v. EPA: An Interview with the Man Who Put Climate Change on America’s Legal Map," yaleclimatemediaforum.org, James Wihbey
"And tucked away on the third floor of the John Adams Courthouse on Beacon Hill in Massachusetts, the man who set in motion this chain of events will be observing,' from the sidelines.
As the one-time top environmental lawyer in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, (James) Milkey formulated and first pushed the idea of suing EPA to contest its decision that it could not regulate greenhouse gases. With a team of some 50 other attorneys representing other states and environmental groups backing him, he argued and won the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case before the Supreme Court.
That 5-4 ruling in 2007 opened the door for EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding and its imminent regulation of carbon dioxide-emitting industries.
Now a sitting Associate Justice on the Massachusetts Appeals Court, Milkey still takes a keen interest in how the climate debate is playing out. The 53-year-old justice sat at his desk in his courthouse office for a recent interview, holding forth on everything from Clean Air Act legal intricacies to climate change media coverage and public opinion shifts. A large artist’s sketch of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Mass v. EPA case loomed behind him on the wall."...
==========================
The "Massachusetts v EPA," Supreme Court decision written by Justice Stevens cites the UN and UN IPCC as an authority on the idea that human CO2 and world temperatures rise together, and that the former causes the latter. Of interest, the April 2007 US Supreme Court 5-4 decision specifically only authorizes the EPA to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and engines. Nothing was said about coal plants, power stations, industry, or anything else.
4/2/2007, "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
.
"And tucked away on the third floor of the John Adams Courthouse on Beacon Hill in Massachusetts, the man who set in motion this chain of events will be observing,' from the sidelines.
As the one-time top environmental lawyer in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, (James) Milkey formulated and first pushed the idea of suing EPA to contest its decision that it could not regulate greenhouse gases. With a team of some 50 other attorneys representing other states and environmental groups backing him, he argued and won the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case before the Supreme Court.
That 5-4 ruling in 2007 opened the door for EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding and its imminent regulation of carbon dioxide-emitting industries.
Now a sitting Associate Justice on the Massachusetts Appeals Court, Milkey still takes a keen interest in how the climate debate is playing out. The 53-year-old justice sat at his desk in his courthouse office for a recent interview, holding forth on everything from Clean Air Act legal intricacies to climate change media coverage and public opinion shifts. A large artist’s sketch of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Mass v. EPA case loomed behind him on the wall."...
==========================
The "Massachusetts v EPA," Supreme Court decision written by Justice Stevens cites the UN and UN IPCC as an authority on the idea that human CO2 and world temperatures rise together, and that the former causes the latter. Of interest, the April 2007 US Supreme Court 5-4 decision specifically only authorizes the EPA to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and engines. Nothing was said about coal plants, power stations, industry, or anything else.
4/2/2007, "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
.
Russian oil co. Rosneft doubles oil suppies to China in $270 billion deal as European markets wane-Reuters
6/22/13, "Rosneft to double oil flows to China in $ 270 bn deal," Reuters via Arab News
"Russia's Rosneft agreed a $ 270 billion deal to double oil supplies to China yesterday, as the Kremlin energy champion shifts its focus to Asia from saturated and crisis-hit European markets.
The deal, one of the biggest ever in the history of the global oil industry, will bring Rosneft $ 60-70 billion in upfront pre-payment from China, the holders of the world's largest foreign exchange reserves.
It will also allow Rosneft, the world's biggest publicly listed oil firm, to steeply cut its heavy debts and develop new remote Arctic fields....
The agreement highlights a growing partnership between China, the globe's top energy consumer, and Russia, the largest oil producer, and comes despite previously uneasy relations between Rosneft and Beijing over energy pricing.
Rosneft's boss Igor Sechin, a close ally of Putin, said his firm will supply China with 300,000 barrels per day over 25 years starting in the second half of the decade, on top of the 300,000 bpd it already ships to the world's No. 2 oil consumer. Putin later said total supplies could amount to as much as 900,000 bpd.
The speed of change in Russian export patterns has been dramatic — switching huge volumes from Europe in only five years."...
.
"Russia's Rosneft agreed a $ 270 billion deal to double oil supplies to China yesterday, as the Kremlin energy champion shifts its focus to Asia from saturated and crisis-hit European markets.
The deal, one of the biggest ever in the history of the global oil industry, will bring Rosneft $ 60-70 billion in upfront pre-payment from China, the holders of the world's largest foreign exchange reserves.
It will also allow Rosneft, the world's biggest publicly listed oil firm, to steeply cut its heavy debts and develop new remote Arctic fields....
The agreement highlights a growing partnership between China, the globe's top energy consumer, and Russia, the largest oil producer, and comes despite previously uneasy relations between Rosneft and Beijing over energy pricing.
Rosneft's boss Igor Sechin, a close ally of Putin, said his firm will supply China with 300,000 barrels per day over 25 years starting in the second half of the decade, on top of the 300,000 bpd it already ships to the world's No. 2 oil consumer. Putin later said total supplies could amount to as much as 900,000 bpd.
The speed of change in Russian export patterns has been dramatic — switching huge volumes from Europe in only five years."...
.
Friday, June 21, 2013
New article in The Economist on global warming ‘pause:’ "If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal."
6/20/13, "The Economist on The New Republic on the ‘pause’," Dr. Judith Curry, JudithCurry.com
"The Economist has a new article on the ‘pause’, entitled A cooling consensus, that responds to the recent article by Nate Cohn of the New Republic. Excerpts from the new article in the Economist:
"Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.
Given the so-far unfathomed complexity of global climate and the tenuousness of our grasp on the full set of relevant physical mechanisms, I have favoured waiting a decade or two in order to test and improve the empirical reliability of our climate models, while also allowing the economies of the less-developed parts of the world to grow unhindered, improving their position to adapt to whatever heavy weather may come their way. I have been told repeatedly that “we cannot afford to wait”. More distressingly, my brand of sceptical empiricism has been often met with a bludgeoning dogmatism about the authority of scientific consensus....
The authority of expert consensus obviously strengthens as the quality of expertise improves, which is why it’s quite sensible, as matter of science-based policy-making, to wait for a callow science to improve before taking grand measures on the basis of it’s predictions.
As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn’t. This isn’t a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus.
But [Cohn's] attempt to minimise the political relevance of [the pause] is unconvincing. He writes:
"But the “consensus” never extended to the intricacies of the climate system, just the core belief that additional greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet."
If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which is now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all.
We have not been awash in arguments for adaptation precisely because the consensus pertained to now-troubled estimates of climate sensitivity. The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal."
JC comment: Houston’s article hits the nail on the head re the policy implications of the pause for policy and for the consensus. This statement struck me in particular:
"Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all."
This statement reflects the folly of the ‘speaking consensus to power’ approach of climate change policy making, and danger of a manufactured consensus on climate change to the healthy evolution of climate science. We’ve lost decades in climate science by failing to pay adequate attention to natural climate variability. By failing to pay adequate attention to uncertainty and natural climate variability, the climate community is facing the following prospect:
"If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal."" via Climate Depot
.
==============================
6/18/13, "The New Republic on the ‘pause’," Dr. Judith Curry
==========================
6/20/13, "A Cooling Consensus," The Economist, W.W. Houston
.
"The Economist has a new article on the ‘pause’, entitled A cooling consensus, that responds to the recent article by Nate Cohn of the New Republic. Excerpts from the new article in the Economist:
"Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.
Given the so-far unfathomed complexity of global climate and the tenuousness of our grasp on the full set of relevant physical mechanisms, I have favoured waiting a decade or two in order to test and improve the empirical reliability of our climate models, while also allowing the economies of the less-developed parts of the world to grow unhindered, improving their position to adapt to whatever heavy weather may come their way. I have been told repeatedly that “we cannot afford to wait”. More distressingly, my brand of sceptical empiricism has been often met with a bludgeoning dogmatism about the authority of scientific consensus....
The authority of expert consensus obviously strengthens as the quality of expertise improves, which is why it’s quite sensible, as matter of science-based policy-making, to wait for a callow science to improve before taking grand measures on the basis of it’s predictions.
As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn’t. This isn’t a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus.
But [Cohn's] attempt to minimise the political relevance of [the pause] is unconvincing. He writes:
"But the “consensus” never extended to the intricacies of the climate system, just the core belief that additional greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet."
If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which is now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all.
We have not been awash in arguments for adaptation precisely because the consensus pertained to now-troubled estimates of climate sensitivity. The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal."
JC comment: Houston’s article hits the nail on the head re the policy implications of the pause for policy and for the consensus. This statement struck me in particular:
"Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all."
This statement reflects the folly of the ‘speaking consensus to power’ approach of climate change policy making, and danger of a manufactured consensus on climate change to the healthy evolution of climate science. We’ve lost decades in climate science by failing to pay adequate attention to natural climate variability. By failing to pay adequate attention to uncertainty and natural climate variability, the climate community is facing the following prospect:
"If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal."" via Climate Depot
.
==============================
6/18/13, "The New Republic on the ‘pause’," Dr. Judith Curry
==========================
6/20/13, "A Cooling Consensus," The Economist, W.W. Houston
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- susan
- I'm the daughter of a World War II Air Force pilot and outdoorsman who settled in New Jersey.