How will democrats explain this?
The Daily Mail reported:
More than 5,000 documents have been leaked online purporting to be the correspondence of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia who were previously accused of ‘massaging’ evidence of man-made climate change.
Following on from the original ‘climategate’ emails of 2009, the new package appears to show systematic suppression of evidence, and even publication of reports that scientists knew to to be based on flawed approaches.
And not only do the emails paint a picture of scientists manipulating data, government employees at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are also implicated.
One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.
The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.
‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.
‘They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’
Read the whole thing.
- Climategate Scientists DID Collude with Government Officials to Hide Research That Didn’t Fit Their Apocalyptic Global Warming (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
- Science Colludes With Government To Mis-Represent Global Warming – It’s All About The Grant Money Train (tarpon.wordpress.com)
- Climategate II Emails Show US/British Govs Colluded W/Scientists to Suppress Anti-Warming (usapartisan.com)
- Climategate 2..new emails released..WSJ: The real peril comes from the economically catastrophic policies being pushed in its name (seeker401.wordpress.com)
- Latest Climategate Emails: BBC ‘In Cahoots With Climategate Scientists’ (papundits.wordpress.com)
The documents, due to be presented to the G20 finance ministers in November, also suggest that countries redirect “climate aid” money already pledged, towards the propping up ailing carbon markets.
The Mobilizing Climate Finance paper, seen in draft form by the Guardian, has been prepared at the request of the world’s leading economies. It is likely to provide a template for action in the UN climate talks that resume in Panama next week, in preparation for a major meeting of 194 countries in Durban in November.
According to the confidential paper, there is little likelihood that in the current economic climate, public money will be available for raising the $30bn rich countries have pledged for the 2010-2012 period, and the $100bn a year that must be found by 2020. Instead, says the paper, “the large financial flows required for climate stabilization and adaptation will, in the long run, be mainly private in composition”.
It says: “A starting point should be the removal of subsidies on fossil fuel use. New OECD estimates indicate that reported fossil fuel production and consumption supports in Annex II countries [24 OECD countries] amounted to about $40-$60bn per year in 2005-2010 … if reforms resulted in 20% of the current level of support being redirected to public climate finance, this could yield $10bn per year.
“Reform of fossil fuel subsidies in developed countries is a promising near-term option because of its potential to improve economic efficiency and raise revenue in addition to environmental benefits.”
New analysis, says the paper, suggests that half the $50bn-a-year fossil fuel subsidies go to the oil industry, and around a quarter to coal and natural gas. It says: “About two-thirds of total fossil fuel support in 2010 was estimated to be for consumer support, with a little over 20% being producer support.”
Developing countries are increasingly frustrated by the refusal of rich countries to meet their climate finance pledges. But they are unlikely to approve of the bank’s innovative proposal that some of the money pledged to them should be used to prop up struggling carbon markets.
The report proposes: “Governments could make innovative uses of climate finance to sustain momentum in the market while new initiatives are being developed. They could, for example, dedicate a fraction of their international climate finance pledges to procure carbon credits for testing and showcasing new approaches, such as country programme concepts, new methodologies, CDM reforms and new mechanisms.
“This would be a cost-efficient use of climate finance as it would target least cost-options and would be performance-based. It would also help build up a supply pipeline for a future scaled-up market, preventing future supply shortages and price pressures.”
It also appears to back a levy on aviation and maritime fuels. “Increasing from zero a tax on an activity that causes environmental damage is likely to be a more efficient way to raise revenue than would be increasing a tax that already causes significant distortion.”
“A globally implemented carbon charge of $25/tonne CO2 on fuel used could raise around $13bn from international aviation and around $26bn from international maritime transport in 2020, while reducing CO2 emissions from each industry by around 5 to 10%. Compensating developing countries for the economic harm they might suffer from such charges … seems unlikely to require more than 40% of global revenues. This would leave about $24bn or more for climate finance or other uses,” says the paper.
Last month, the UK shipping industry’s trade body roundly rejected calls to be brought into the EU’s carbon trading scheme, saying that any solution to reducing the industry’s emissions must be global.
- Paper on climate financing targets fuel subsidies (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- India Said to Consider Doubling ONGC’s Fuel Subsidy Bill (businessweek.com)
- China, India, Brazil Doing More to Cut Carbon Emissions Cuts Than USA, Canada, Australia (stephenleahy.net)
- James Hansen On the Easter Bunny Myth of Renewables and His Plan for a Carbon Tax (bigthink.com)
Obama’s ideologically driven energy policy is in tatters, and the media can’t seem to help this time. It is time that he pursues a policy that will truly get America off of Middle Eastern oil, bolster the economy, and right the American ship of state.
By Roger Aronoff
One of the more important issues raised during the budget battle that nearly shut down the Federal government in April was over power given to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by President Barack Obama to regulate greenhouse gases that they claim can contribute to global warming. This has led to renewed discussion on the validity of concerns about global warming, and the related issue of America’s future energy sources.
We have addressed the issue of global warming many times over the years at Accuracy in Media (AIM). In the mid 1970s, the big concern among so-called environmentalists was that we were heading toward a new Ice Age. The essence of that point of view was carried in a Newsweek article in its April 28, 1975 edition headlined “The Cooling World.” Here was the money quote: “The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”
It wasn’t too long, 1988 to be specific, when that “almost unanimous” view shifted, and the problem had become catastrophic global warming. Larry Bell is a space architect and professor at the University of Houston, and author of the new book Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. Bell has worked with NASA on all aspects of mission planning for lunar programs, Mars programs, and orbital programs, including the international space station. He says that “politics is responsible for the global warming hoax, and, in reality, of course the climate warms and cools all the time—Climate changes all the time.”
In an interview earlier this year with AIM, Bell said that “Change is what climate does. It’s measured, typically, in three-decade periods, although it didn’t take three decades from the time of the ’70s, when The New York Times and other organizations were reporting the next Ice Age coming, until Al Gore had his famous hearings in 1988, which declared not only that global warming was a crisis, but that we caused it.”
Bell argues that the ways the temperature is measured are hardly reliable, but that even if the earth is warming, that might not be so bad. “Do [I] believe in global warming? I say, ‘Yeah, sure I do. I think it’s great! I think it makes plants grow, and it’s good for the rainforest—lots of carbon dioxide they can breathe! The Earth isn’t frozen! We can grow plants! Trade flourishes! Pyramids get built!’ Sure, I believe in global warming.”
When asked if he accepts that there is a consensus among scientists that global warming exists and is caused by humans, he said that “everything affects everything, so to say that human activity doesn’t affect climate would be nonsensical. The question is, which activities, and how much? Can you even measure them? Can you separate them from other factors? I don’t think anybody can—I would maintain that nobody can.”
The media were complicit in pushing the global warming hoax, calling skeptics “deniers,” as in “Holocaust deniers.” Newsweek used some form of the term “denier” 20 times in one 2007 cover story on global warming about those who don’t buy into the theory. They argued that people who doubted the Al Gore apocalyptic view of a coming age of massive flooding, unbearable heat, the extinction of polar bears and the melting of ice caps and glaciers, all as a result of mankind’s overuse of carbon-based energy and the carbon dioxide it generates, were somehow the moral equivalents of people who believe that the Nazi genocide of millions of Jews in Europe was exaggerated or did not even occur.
A Scientific Consensus?
There was much more. The idea of the consensus of scientists was long since shattered. Thousands of advanced-degree scientists publicly refuted both the science and the fear mongering behind global warming, which has in recent years come to be known instead as climate change. It’s an easier concept to sell, and it doesn’t matter if the earth’s temperature is rising or cooling, it is still climate change, and who can disagree with that?
Marc Morano and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (cfact.org) have put together ClimateDepot.com, a repository for everything related to the global warming movement, including documentation of those who were one time believers, and had become skeptics, non-believers, and yes, in many cases, deniers. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of the environmental group GreenPeace, said earlier this year, as quoted in the Glenn Beck blog, The Blaze, that global warming is a “natural phenomenon,” that there’s no proof of man-made global warming, and that “alarmism” is leading to bad environmental policies. He told Stuart Varney on the The Fox Business Network that “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”
When asked who is promoting man-made climate fears and what are their motives, he said that it is “a powerful convergent of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.” He said: “There are many thousands of scientists’ who reject man-made global warming fears…It’s all based on computer models and predictions. We do not actually have a crystal ball, it is a mythical object.”
What about the accusations that the skeptics were being financed by oil and industrial companies? When we wrote about this in 2007, those skeptical of the man-made global warming theory were estimated to have received tens of millions of dollars in funding, including some $19 million from ExxonMobil, but the other side, the side promoting global warming as an apocalyptic nightmare, had received some $50 billion, much of it from American taxpayers and channeled through federal and global agencies. This figure, of course, doesn’t include the dollar value of all of the media coverage in support of the theory. NBC and some affiliated networks turned over nearly 75 hours of air time to Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts. How’s that for an endorsement?
There are some excellent websites to help sort through the politics, the propaganda and the science of global warming. I recommend ClimateDepot.com, sepp.org, JunkScience.com, and Larry Bell’s book, Climate of Corruption.
The Obama energy policy has been upended by a series of events, and missteps: The ClimateGate scandal exposed the dishonesty and manipulation of data by key scientists who are among the leading proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW); the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill halted, or severely slowed down, offshore drilling; the Japanese earthquake and tsunami have caused us to re-visit the expansion of nuclear power; and the House changed hands, after the Pelosi-led 111th Congress passed Cap & Trade, a costly energy tax that died in the Senate.
As The New York Times put it in a March 31st special section on Energy, Obama’s energy plan was a “complex structure [that] depended on an expansion of offshore oil drilling and nuclear power generation, creation of a trillion-dollar market in carbon pollution credits, billions of dollars of new government spending on breakthrough technologies and a tolerance for higher energy prices by consumers and businesses, all in the service of a healthier atmosphere and a more stable climate in future decades.”
The Times noted that “one after another the pillars of the plan came crashing down. The financial crisis undercut public faith in markets. The Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill set back plans for offshore drilling by several years. The Japanese earthquake and tsunami, which led to a major release of radioactivity at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor complex, raised fears about nuclear power.”
The Times continued, “Huge Republican gains in the midterm elections also dashed hopes for big new spending programs for energy technology. The upheaval in the Middle East has led to higher fuel prices and opposition to costly new regulations for the oil industry. And continuing high unemployment and sluggish economic growth have made raising energy costs for any reason a political nonstarter. “
In fact, the day Obama took office in 2009, oil was at just over $38 a barrel, and on April 7 of this year, it was at $108.
Failing to get his Cap & Trade legislation through the Senate, Obama turned to the EPA to implement the policy through the back door. He had shown his hand early in his administration when he chose as his “Green Energy Czar,” Van Jones, a self-described communist, who hinted at his plans for America: “the green economy will start off as a small subset. And we are going to push it and push it and push it… until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.” Only when it was revealed that he had also signed a petition indicating his support for the so-called “9/11 Truth movement,” was he booted out of the administration.
And remember what Obama said while campaigning for president in 2008: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” He added: “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”
Congress and the EPA
Last year, for the first time since the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), failed to pass a budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year. As a result, the new Republican-led House had to take the lead in passing a budget for the remainder of 2011, after a series of Continuing Resolutions had kept the government operating. They attempted to add “riders” (amendments not specifically related to the primary bill) to the budget, including one that would have limited the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases to address climate change.
The rider didn’t survive the final negotiations, but a bill did pass the House by a vote of 255-172, including 19 Democrats, that would have taken that power from the EPA. It then failed in the Senate, going down 50-50 (60 votes were required—remember when Democrats wanted to change the filibuster rule?). According to Science and Environmental Policy Project (Sepp.org), the organization founded by Fred Singer, a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, “Many advocates of the orthodoxy, including legislative commentators in the press, stated opposition to the bill by falsely claiming it would severely limit the EPA to regulate harmful emissions under the Clean Air Act. Actually, the bill clearly addressed regulation of greenhouse gases (naming them) for climate change only. If the gases are poisonous, they can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. EPA has not established that carbon dioxide is poisonous.”
Four Democratic senators voted with the Republicans to strip the EPA of its power, fearing that such power exercised by the EPA would be harmful to the economy, and to their re-election chances.
“So what is left,” asked the Times, “of the Obama administration’s energy ambitions?”
“Cap and trade has morphed into a ‘clean energy standard,’ under which 80 percent of electricity in the United States would be generated from clean sources by 2035. Mr. Obama laid out the goal in this year’s State of the Union address and has promoted it at several events since.”
According to Mario Loyola, writing on The Weekly Standard blog, based on “EPA’s own estimates, the number of businesses subject to onerous new requirements would increase from 12,000 to 6.1 million, including millions of restaurants and apartment buildings, most of which would simply have to shut down. EPA estimated the cost to governments and business at more than $100 billion just in the first few years.”
Another setback to Obama occurred when his administration finally decided in early April that it was giving up on helping to build an international structure, or treaty, like Kyoto, Copenhagen, or Cancun, to combat global warming, and instead would work to just accomplish his goals in the U.S.
According to a Bloomberg News report, “The U.S. government’s lead envoy on climate change said the United Nations talks aimed at negotiating a binding treaty to curb global warming are based on ‘unrealistic’ expectations that are ‘not doable.’”
It said that “Todd Stern, the State Department official who heads the U.S. delegation at the 192-nation discussions, said that a meeting this week in Bangkok was ‘marked by struggles over the agenda’ similar to ‘bickering over the shape of the negotiating table.’”
“The comments were the strongest criticism yet from the U.S. of the process aimed at capping greenhouse gases.”
The other issue is drilling for oil and gas. One of Obama’s stated goals, as has been every president’s, is ending our dependency on Middle East oil. But at the same time, he has severely restricted new drilling in this country, using the BP oil spill in April 2010 as the justification. At the same time the Obama team started up the 2012 re-election campaign in April, they claimed to be offering up new licenses for the rights to drill for oil by certain companies. But what they were really getting for the most part was the right to apply for licenses, and in some cases to resume drilling at old projects.
In March, Obama said that “Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high.” But the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that production in the Gulf is in decline, forecasting a decline of 250,000 barrels a day from Gulf production.
There was also confusion and outrage expressed when President Obama, during his trip to Brazil in March, announced that he wanted the U.S. to assist the Brazilian government “with technology and support” to help develop its oil reserves, and that “we want to be one of your best customers.” This at a time when we are limiting our own drilling and pledging to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
In the meantime, natural gas could become a big part of the solution. A recent report by the EIA says that “The development of shale gas has become a ‘game changer’ for the U.S. natural gas market.” It says that the U.S. has “technically recoverable” shale gas resources estimated at 862 trillion cubic feet. Already, many trucks and buses in this country operate on natural gas, but the infrastructure to use them in cars is not there. A shift to natural gas could end our dependence on Middle East oil, which would stop our funding of terrorists around the world. Plus, it burns clean, thus having the added advantage of comforting the global warming alarmists.
In addition, there is an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil locked up in shale in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. These shale reserves are triple the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, showing Obama’s press-conference claim that the U.S. has only 2% of the world’s oil to be blatantly false.
Obama’s ideologically driven energy policy is in tatters, and the media can’t seem to help this time. It is time that he pursues a policy that will truly get America off of Middle Eastern oil, bolster the economy, and right the American ship of state.•
Monday, May 2, 2011
“What the heck went wrong?” That, apparently, is the question roiling the environmental community as it realizes that the fight against climate change has fizzled.
As Brad Plumer writes in the New Republic, everything was looking great in 2008 for a sweeping effort to make good on candidate Barack Obama’s pledge to start turning back the rising oceans. The Democrats held Congress. Both John McCain and Obama had promised to push for capping carbon emissions. Corporations had gotten on board. Al Gore and “An Inconvenient Truth” had seemingly softened up the public to the point where it might go along with whatever a popular president promised.
“Instead, the climate push was … a total flop,” laments Plumer.
And, of course, Plumer’s right, though not entirely for the reasons he claims.
Climate change is dead as a major political issue for the foreseeable future. Don’t believe me? Check out Obama’s remarks in his weekly radio address last weekend. It was all about energy policy, and yet not once did he talk about climate change.
In one sense that’s odd, given that without global warming, his energy policy goes from merely misguided to outright bonkers. After all, if you wanted to create non-exportable jobs, wean America off foreign oil or pursue energy independence from the Middle East, absent any concerns about climate change or releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, you would unleash America’s massive energy reserves in coal, gas and oil. According to the Congressional Research Service, hardly a mouthpiece for Big Oil, the U.S. has the largest energy resources of any country, Saudi Arabia and Russia included.
But in another sense it’s not odd, because telling voters that they have to pay high gas prices in order to ineffectually fight climate change would be honest but incalculably dumb, politically. Recent polling shows that Americans care about the economy more — a lot more — than global warming. Skepticism about the existence of a problem or its scope has been rising in the U.S. and Europe. When a Pew poll in January asked voters what their biggest priorities were, climate changed ranked second to last. Only obesity was deemed less of a priority. (Don’t tell Michelle Obama.)
Even Madison Avenue has noticed. The New York Times reports that increasingly budget-conscious consumers are no longer willing to shell out extra for self-described “green products.” As a result, the number of new Earth-friendly products has plummeted. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart has largely abandoned its failed experiment with becoming a proletarian purveyor of green goods no one wants to buy.
Why has climate change lost its oomph? Plumer lays out some of the reasons, though he minimizes the damage greens have inflicted on their own credibility thanks to the 2009 Climategate e-mail scandal and wildly overstated predictions. For instance, the United Nations predicted there would be 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010. Notably, the islands of the Caribbean would see massive population losses as denizens fled for their lives. Never happened. (Meanwhile, the UN Environment Program has removed the map of predicted devastation from its website.)
No wonder Obama constantly insists that switching to vastly more expensive and less-efficient energy sources will create jobs. No wonder he promises that if we all get on board the high-speed rail bandwagon, we’ll win the future. No wonder he’s trying to change the subject to as-of-yet-nonexistent gas station price gouging and allegedly outrageous subsidies for the oil industry.
Obama’s claims are dubious at best. In supposedly pioneering China, high-speed rail has been a boondoggle of biblical proportions. Green jobs destroy more jobs than they create, and pay less. In Spain, Obama’s favorite clean-energy innovator, one study found that 2.2 jobs were destroyed for every one that was created. Indeed, across Europe, massive investments in wind and solar simply haven’t paid off.
One suspects that Obama would dearly love to drill a lot for more oil and gas, simply for the political windfall in jobs and economic growth. But after he flipped on offshore drilling, then flopped after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he cannot flip again without infuriating his base. So he brags about how much more drilling there is today, even though that’s the result of policies already in the pipeline.
Obama and the greens are in an exquisite bind. Without economic recovery, Americans won’t support Obama’s “investments,” but Obama’s investments are a hindrance to recovery.