American Elephants

Republican Are Doing the Right Thing! by The Elephant's Child

House Republicans have passed a $30 billion spending bill to fund the Interior Department and the EPA. It is designed to block a whole bunch of looming regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency that clearly exceed the agency’s authority.

Republicans on the Appropriations Committee pushed through the Interior and environment funding bill over the objections of Democrats who said it was full of “veto bait” and handouts to big business. This is the seventh and last of 12 annual appropriations bills. If it is passed by the House, Harry Reid has not yet acted on a single appropriations bill and President Obama would most probably refuse to sign it.

The bill tackles the EPA’s twin  draft regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants— a proposal to reduce “carbon pollution”from power plants, and another for future plants offered earlier. It also targets the EPA’s “Waters of the United States” rule designed to grab authority over every trickle of water that might eventually run into  “navigable waters” over which they actually do have authority in the Clean Water Bill.

There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” The carbon dioxide that they chase so aggressively is simply a natural fertilizer for plants. It’s also what you exhale. It is not the cause of global warming and has kept climbing slightly even as there has been no warming for over 17 years. The climate is always changing. It has been far warmer in the past, and far cooler as well. If they shut down every coal-fired plant in the country, it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference.

Like so many other agencies of this administration, the EPA has lost documentation of the science behind their grope for more power. The climate is currently cooling. Perhaps you noticed the Great Lakes freezing over this last winter. Some claim we may be entering a new little ice age, but contrary to the IPCC, we can’t predict the future. In any case it seems remarkably stupid to work so aggressively to shut down the power plants that are burning the cheapest fuel, and keeping our energy costs down, while they keep people warm in winter.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) announced that “this bill was designed to protect nature, if not for nature’s sake, then for our sake.” So glad our politicians are so well-informed.

Rep Nita Lowey (D-NY) said the cuts would endanger communities at the behest of big business. Oh, and how does that work?

Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) accused the administration of being “hell-bent” on adding layer after layer of harmful red tape. No other agency has done more to inflict this type of pain than the EPA.”

The EPA has been shot down in the courts over and over for exceeding their authority. This bill will probably go nowhere, but if Republicans  can exercise the “power of the purse” to cut off their funding, it would be of great benefit to the people of the United States.

Another Misguided Commencement Speech. Obama Is On A Roll. by The Elephant's Child


President Obama spoke to the young graduates at the University of California, Irvine, in a commencement speech asking them to join his fight to control global warming and to welcome young illegal immigrants into the country.

One of the most significant long-term challenges that our country and our planet face (is) the growing threat of a rapidly changing climate,” the president said “The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that to rest. The question  is whether we have the will to act before it’s too late.”

He also said that denying climate change is like saying the moon is made of cheese.  Bad metaphor. He was speaking to a crowd of about 30,000 at the ceremony in Irvine, and said “I want to tell  you this to light a fire under you.” He keeps trying but the people just aren’t interested. They care about jobs and the economy.

Ice on the Great Lakes still around in May and June? Do you believe your eyes or what I tell you?  The West Point commencement speech on foreign policy, tepidly received by the graduating cadets, didn’t exactly fill the graduates with enthusiasm for the promise of their coming military service.

Will the graduates at Irvine rush to recycle, line up to enlist in the battle against any possible intrusion of the Keystone XL pipeline into the continental United States with all the jobs it has to offer? Poor kids are undoubtedly graduating with huge loans to pay back and not a lot of hope for the kind of jobs that will help to pay them off.

Obama has clearly swallowed all of the propaganda about global warming without ever making the effort to look into the science. He flunks Climate Science 101. James Dellingpole —who does look into the science — takes on some of his more outrageous statements.

As Anthony Watts says, there is a large and fast-growing body of evidence, well understood by many distinguished scientists and economists, that the catastrophic man-made global warming problem that Obama wants to solve as part of  his “legacy”simply does not exist. And for the American people it ranks at the very bottom of problems they worry about.

Republicans Don’t Believe in Science, and Reject the Theory of Relativity. by The Elephant's Child

[This piece from the archives, circa April 2012, seems necessary once again:]

A paper published on Friday in the  American Sociological Review states that just over 34 percent of conservatives had confidence in science as an institution, in 2010, representing a long-term decline from 48 percent in 1974.  In 1974, conservatives were more likely than liberals or moderates to express confidence in science.

Well, ho-hum.  Climate Gate I, ClimateGate II, (conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating data, falsification of data), FakeGate (Peter Gleick uses false identity, fakes documents), retreat of Himalayan Glaciers, IPCC (at least 16 claims of impending doom in 2007 report were based on work done by GreenPeace activists, not peer-reviewed science), Indian Ocean and  Pacific Ocean sea level data (came from computer models by people who had never visited the sites in question), Kevin Trenberth, (plagiarism, politicization). And more and more.

Over at Ace of Spades, Arthur K points out a recent story

During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 “landmark” publications – papers in top journals, from reputable labs- for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.

Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated.

And in the same article:

Scientists at Bayer did not have much more success. In a 2011 paper titled, “Believe it or not,” they analyzed in-house projects that built on “exciting published data” from basic science studies. “Often, key data could not be reproduced,” wrote Khusru Asadullah, vice president and head of target discovery at Bayer HealthCare in Berlin, and colleagues.

Of 47 cancer projects at Bayer during 2011, less than one-quarter could reproduce previously reported findings, despite the efforts of three or four scientists working full-time for up to a year. Bayer dropped the projects.

Bayer and Amgen found that the prestige of a journal was no guarantee a paper would be solid. “The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value,” Begley and Lee Ellis of MD Anderson Cancer Center wrote in Nature. It assumes, too, that “the main message of the paper can be relied on … Unfortunately, this is not always the case.”

Conservatives, you see, have a long history of being anti-science. They opposed embryonic stem-cell research when it might have helped Christopher Reeve to walk again, just because of their stupid hang up about embryos — just a clump of cells. And they don’t believe in manmade global warming, when Al Gore’s movie told us all what a danger it is. There’s someone named Chris Mooney, who seems to be an English major who is a true believer in global warming,and  writes regularly on how dumb Republicans are, and, unsurprisingly, has a new book out called The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Don’t Believe in Science. It may be entertaining.

It seems that Republicans get all their scientific information from something called “Conservapedia,” the right-wing counterpart to Wikipedia, which is anti-science and doubts Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. I never heard of it, but lefties seem to be the major contributors.

Liberals remain astonished that anyone could find anything unconstitutional in ObamaCare, and are looking for confirmation that we are indeed unusually stupid. This finding turns up regularly in one academic study after another. A favorite pastime in academe.

Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion addresses the differences between liberals and conservatives and their moral stereotypes. The authors surveyed two thousand people asking one-third to answer in their own voice, one-third to answer as “a typical liberal” and one-third to answer as “a typical conservative.”

The results were quite striking. Conservatives and moderates were adept at guessing how liberals would answer; but liberals, especially those who considered themselves as “very liberal” were very bad at guessing what conservatives would say about issues of care or fairness. For example, most thought that conservatives would disagree with statements like ‘One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal’ or ‘justice is the most important requirement for a society.’

Haidt, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, found that liberals and conservatives alike form their political beliefs according to three values: caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty.  Yet conservatives also hold to three other values: loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity.  This accounts in part for the liberal failure to understand conservative viewpoints. Conservatives can understand the morality of liberals, but much of conservative morality is alien to their opponents.  Haidt had been a liberal — but became a centrist after this study.

In an article entitled “Is the Tea Party Racist?“Dr. Timothy Dalrymple explains:

But the problem is not merely ignorance. Liberals are also alienated from core conservative values. Liberals are trained to believe that many of the traditional American ideals and values that conservatives inherit in their families and churches are cruel and intolerant, imperialistic, and implicitly racist, sexist, and classist. They are trained, for instance, not to be motivated by patriotism and American exceptionalism, but by an ideal of world citizenship and parity.

Liberals consistently misinterpret what motivates conservatives because they really cannot see the world from the conservative perspective. Liberals cannot imagine that Tea Partiers are really motivated by concern for their country, and by frustration with a White House hemorrhaging red ink and a government less concerned to represent the interests of the citizenry than to pay off the special interests that fund their campaigns.

“Liberals, Dr. Dalrymple says,” are unable to see a rational and noble motive at the center of the Tea Party movement, so they supply a darker and more convenient motive instead.” The problem is not that liberals dislike the principles promoted at Tea Party rallies: the problem is that liberals dislike the kind of people who go to Tea Party rallies.

So if you have been puzzled by the strange things liberals say, there you go.

The Truth Will Out. Obama Admits He Misspent His High School Years. by The Elephant's Child

“Earlier this year, Obama belittled art history, depicting it as a penniless career—which critics pointed out, is not even remotely true. Obama was then shamed into sending a handwritten apology to an outraged art history professor.” So reported the Free Beacon. But they missed the most important point.

Obama admitted that he was a humanities major, but said that came from his misspent high school years. “I actually loved math and science until I got into high school” he reminisced,”and then I misspent those years.”

Aha! He goofed off in Biology class, and never learned that when he breathed that balmy Hawaiian air, he exhaled — carbon dioxide — a natural fertilizer for plants, not “carbon pollution.”

Those “misspent” high school years are why he has fallen for the whole global warming nonsense and allows his EPA zealots to shut down the nation’s coal-fired power plants that produce around 40% of our electricity, and why he thinks that wind and solar (which require ordinary power plants for back-up 24/7), can replace regular power plants — if global warming skeptics would just cooperate and do what he tells them to. It pays to pay attention in high school.

They Call It “The Great Recession,” But Obama Is Going To Make It Worse, Again. by The Elephant's Child


We have been told that Obama does not change his mind. If he once believed something, he believes it today. (See Uncommon Knowledge starting at 20:40) He believes in global warming and he believes he can save the country from its ravages. Hence the Big EPA attack announced today on “carbon pollution.” Misinformation rules.

Obama could not get the Democrats’ cap-and-trade scheme through Congress, so he’s attempting to do an end run by turning the whole thing over to the EPA, and embarking on some very uncharted legal waters by so doing. It is far from obvious that the Obama administration has any legal authority for this, aside from the faulty internal logic of the program itself. Obama supposedly thinks we will set a good example for China, who will then follow in cutting back on emissions. Coal does not care where it is burned. Reducing demand here just makes it less expensive abroad, and they can use more of it.

The notion that “global warming” is caused by an increase in CO² in the atmosphere arose because they saw global temperatures going up and CO² increasing and assumed the latter was causing the former. Turned out that the increases in temperature were faulty because so many of the monitoring stations were placed in the middle of acres of concrete reflecting heat, or next to air-conditioner exhausts, so the readings reflected a much higher temperature than was accurate. Now the sun has gone quiet (no sunspots) and there has been no increase in temperature for 17 years and 9 months, but the CO² in the atmosphere keeps right on increasing. Ooops!

“Carbon pollution is ‘soot,’ which is not a problem. The EPA’s own data shows that it is well below EPA stated standards, and has declined by 50% since 1999. We are carbon life forms. Carbon is one of the building blocks of life—if you omitted carbon from the earth, you would omit life. You exhale carbon dioxide which is not a pollutant. And 97% of scientists do NOT agree about global warming. Hurricanes are not caused by climate change. Tornadoes, floods and hurricanes are weather, not climate change nor global warming.

The president does not learn from the experience of others. Countries in Europe went for green jobs, solar arrays and wind farms in a big way, and practically destroyed their nations in the process. Spain found that their economy lost 2½ jobs in the regular economy for every green job, due to the higher cost of energy. Mr. Obama has been warned that such an attempt to install cap-and-trade by restricting coal-fired power plants would create havoc throughout the economy with a climbing cost of power, a quarter of a million jobs a year lost due to the higher cost of energy— which means the higher cost of everything. He denies it.

EPA director Gina McCarthy, who apparently flunked high school biology, announced a draft rule seeking a 30% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 from existing power plants based on emission levels from 2005. This agency is ruling that the states must implement the rules and submit their compliance plans by June 2016. The only way a 30% reduction would be possible is by upgrading all combustion units, and the ultimate cost of the upgrades would make coal noncompetitive. The EPA’s own model estimates that its new policies would prevent a grand total of 0.018% in warming by 2100. The EPA’s inspector general says the agency may rely on faulty data.

Of course this may not be about global warming at all, but simply another tax—a very large one, used to underwrite favors for Democratic interest groups and creating corporate subsidies for politically connected businesses who have financial positions in so-called clean-energy technologies.

The vigor and innovation of the American economy has long depended on cheap, reliable power. So-called clean ‘renewable’ energy is only produced with fossil fuels, for both wind and solar require 24/7 backup from conventional power plants. The wind is highly intermittent, and power is only produced when the wind blows steadily at the right speed.  Solar energy is only produced when the sun shines, and it sinks beneath the horizon every night, and clouds block the sun. Wind turbines are made from carbon.

If you think your power bill is high now — just wait.


Is Technology Just Making Us Dumber? Or Is It the Schools? by The Elephant's Child

Michelle Fields of PJTV walks the Washington Mall to discover the deep ignorance of the American people about climate change — and ignorant they are. But they are simply repeating what they have been taught. It is becoming a national disgrace. Reporters with microphones ask ordinary Americans simple questions that people should have learned in grade school, and they have no clue. We laugh, but it is not funny. It is a deep reflection on the state of our schools which claim to be teaching “critical thinking” but this is not the case.

A recent video showed  a man-on-the-beach session with mostly young people on a lovely day. The young people did not know who George Washington was, “the second president after Lincoln?”, or “someone to do with horses.” They did not know who we fought in the Revolutionary War, “France?” The Civil War was as much a mystery, as was World War II, or who bombed Pearl Harbor. What are they learning in school — only gender, race, and political correctness?

Everything has been politicized. Speaking about the Founders, or the Revolution has become a Republican thing, to which Democrats are opposed. You have one house of Congress, the current Democrat controlled Senate, wanting to revise or repeal the First Amendment. The Citizens United decision which allows corporations to donate, under the rules, to political campaigns. Democrats’ goal is winning at all costs, control, being in charge and important, and anything that might give Republicans the slightest advantage must be stopped, especially including free speech.

The world climate is always cooling and warming. It is currently not warming, nor has it warmed at all in 17 years and 9 months. Things like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, rainstorms are weather, not climate and are not caused by climate.  Climate is a statistic of average temperatures. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists do not agree that the “crippling consequences of climate change are urgent.” (John Kerry) The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction, and is not supported by reliable research. And the polar bears are just fine.


The Truth About Polar Bears, Hidden in a Footnote! by The Elephant's Child


When you are trying to build an international movement, you need good publicity, big donations and lots of members. Environmental organizations went for the polar bear, understandably. Beautiful animals, baby polar bears are remarkably cute, and polar bears make great stuffed toys for children and iconic art work for everything from tee shirts to jewelery and Christmas tree ornaments.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature estimated in 1966 that there were 10,000 polar bears in the world. In 2006, the same source estimated the population had risen to 20,000 -25,000 bears. In places like Churchill, Manitoba, organizations like Polar Bears International use the imagined plight of the polar bear to raise money, push propaganda at young people about changing their lifestyles and those of their parents. An activist explained:

We’re empowered to teach these kids how to make a difference. It’s an enormous responsibility. Saving the polar bear is in their hands.

They count polar bears by flying over defined areas representing populations of bears,and photograph them and then count them on the photos. Can they see and photograph all the bears, white against white, swimming, sleeping. diving — who are not staying put? Probably not an accurate count, but perhaps an informed estimate.

Dr. Susan Crockford is an evolutionary biologist and an expert on polar bear evolution. She has been working for 35 years in archaeozoology, paleozoology and forensic zoology. She is an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. In a new paper, she offers ten good reasons not to worry about polar bears. She says:

Survival of polar bears over a  hundred thousand years (at least ) of highly variable sea ice coverage indicates that those biologists who portend a doomed  future for the polar bear have grossly underestimated its ability to survive vastly different conditions than those that existed in the late 1970s when Ian Stirling began his polar bear research.

Elsewhere, she says that she received an unsolicited email from Dr. Dag Vongraven, the current chairman of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). They wanted to clarify some of the , um, misunderstandings about polar bear global population estimates. They intend to place this footnote in their forthcoming Polar Bear Action Plan draft:

As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

S0 all that business about declining populations, not enough sea ice, threatened species, was merely “A guess to satisfy public demand” wrapped up in the useful “settled science” category (which means do not question). Along with all the other environmentalist claptrap, it should be placed in the “nevermind file.”

The polar bears have survived for over a hundred thousand years. They’re just fine.

The President Wants To Change The Subject. Please! by The Elephant's Child

The beleaguered Obama administration is anxious to change the national dialogue. Enough with the Benghazi, IRS, and Veterans Administration scandal talk. No more distractions about foreign policy and Russia, Crimea,
Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Israel, China.

Let’s change the subject to ‘The National Climate Assessment.’ If you are going to be scared, be scared about ‘Climate Change:’ “Due to Climate Change, THE WEATHER IS GETTING MORE EXTREME. Temperatures are rising across the United States. Temperatures from 2001 to 2012 were warmer than any previous decade in every region.”

Well, no it’s not. There has been no warming whatsoever in seventeen years and 9 months. None. The sun has gone quiet. It snowed this weekend in the Rockies with 5″ in Denver, and heat waves elsewhere. It’s called weather. Climate is a statistic about worldwide temperatures.

The president fulminates about carbon pollution, but carbon is not a pollutant but one of the building blocks of life. If you eliminated carbon, you would eliminate life. Those who object to the politicization of climate are referred to as ‘deniers,’ or the slightly better ‘skeptics,’ and regarded with horror by the true-believers. Here is the “Skeptic’s Case” — Climate Change in 12 minutes from Dr. David Evans.

and another is the 50 to 1 video:

Which examines the true cost of climate change. Can we stop it? What is the cost? Or can we just adapt to whatever change there is as untold generations have? And what is the right temperature anyway?

Or if you have  time for an hour-long movie, here is The Great Global Warming Swindle, aired on BBC in 2007 which is way more interesting, but longer:

Obama Wants to Change the Subject — To Climate Change. by The Elephant's Child

The U.S Government has released its National Climate Assessment, 840 pages summarizing a wide variety of normal climate occurrences which are causing everything awful. Droughts, floods, severe weather, heat waves, hurricanes tornadoes, more snow, lakes frozen over, less snow— it is all due to climate change.

“The report is an alarmist document designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and EPA regulatory mandates.”

Climate is a statistic of worldwide temperatures. Weather is what Mother Nature does outside. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and snow are weather.

Obama has a steadily declining approval rating, a sick economy, a disastrous foreign policy, and investigations digging into the multitude of administration scandals, and new ones pop up every day. No wonder he wants to change the subject.

Here’s Marlo Lewis from CEI, on Fox News: “Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom.”

Anthony Watts from “Houston, we have a dumbass problem’

Marc Morano at Climate Depot: “Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months.”

Climate Scientists from Cato Institute: “The Missing Science from the Draft National Assessment on Climate Change”

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer: “Climate Change Mass hysteria Grips the U.S.” Also see: “Top Ten Good Skeptical Arguments.”

From Juliet Eilperin, the Washington Post: “For Obama, a renewed focus on climate.”

Nevermind The Economy, The Real Issue Is Cow Flatulence. by The Elephant's Child


We grasp at any evidence of the slightest improvement in the economy. Everybody knows someone who is having a hard time. So when the Labor Department says that there was a 288,000 gain in payroll jobs in April, it seems like progress, but that just gets us back to where we were in the middle of the last recession—December 2007 – June 2009. The new payroll jobs number comes from surveying businesses, but the broader survey of households shows a decline of 73,000 jobs in April.

The broadest survey is the labor participation rate, the broadest gauge of demand for workers. That fell 0.4 percentage point to 62.8%, an all-time low. That’s because 806,000 people left the labor force last month.  When  you add this into the statistical mix, you get the U6 unemployment rate, which now stands at 12.3%, down from a high of 17.1% in 2010 and the lowest level since early in the last recession.

Even during the Bush recovery—the one Obama constantly claimed as the worst since the Great Depression—the U6 unemployment rate never got above 10.4%. For each person who is not in the labor force, just 1.3 people are working full time. This is Obama’s economy. And add in Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who famously claimed that unemployment insurance made the economy grow. That’s based on the Keynesian theory that any money you put into the economy has a multiplier effect, and a each dollar divides and increase. Pleasant idea, doesn’t work.

Why is this such a weak recovery? Economist John Makin at AEI points out investor uncertainty in the wake of the financial crisis and “substantial regulatory changes by the Obama administration.” The administration has been busily regulating anything that moves and anything that doesn’t. Convinced that the wise experts in Washington D.C. can fine-tune and improve the American economy, they’re going at it with a vengeance.

The perception is that the Obama administration may at any moment impose a new regulation that will cost a business millions, or they may descend on a business with a SWAT team for breaking some law that nobody ever heard of, or the IRS may audit and send in teams from other agencies to look into business practices. There is no confidence that this administration has any understanding of business and it’s needs. Very large corporations have lobbyists, but not every business can afford a full-time high-priced team to plead their problems. No confidence.

Then you have ObamaCare with all the uncertainty involved in that, and what is put off till after the election and what is not. The low cost of borrowing should normally boost investment, but everything about doing business is a risk, and there is no evidence that taking a risk will pay off. So there you are.

The public cares about jobs. The Obama administration does not know how to fix that, so they are going for a different distraction. Brilliant. Make yourself a laughingstock instead.

Obama adviser John Podesta told reporters today that “Congress could not derail the Obama administrations efforts to unilaterally enact policies to fight global warming.” The president wants to limit “carbon pollution” that he thinks causes global warming. Congress has urged the Obama administration to scale back the climate goals because of the adverse impact of new regulations on the coal industry. The administration’s “war on coal” has caused huge job losses in coal states like Kentucky and West Virginia— for no reason whatsoever. Any time there is the slightest uptick in economic statistics, Obama finds another way to put the brakes on the economy—his only real expertise.

The Obama administration’s most recent attempt to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is to target methane emissions. A major part of his plan will be to limit emissions from the dairy industry, which sees large amounts of emissions from cow flatulence and burps.

If Obama sees banning cow flatulence as the way to restore the public’s declining trust in his administration, he’s getting some pretty poor advice.

IPCC Author Claims Government Meddling in the Summary for Policymakers by The Elephant's Child

A lead author of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has publicly disassociated himself with the report after government officials forced him to change a highly influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own political interests.

Harvard professor Robert Stavins said that officials representing “all the main countries and regions of the world” insisted on changes to the report in a late night meeting at a Berlin conference center two weeks ago. Three quarters of the original version ended up being deleted.

Professor Stavins’ chapter of the 2,000 page document concerned ways countries can cooperate to reduce carbon emissions. He is a Harvard professor of Business and Government, and was one of two coordinating lead authors of a key report published by the IPCC’s Climate Change report earlier this month.

The theory is that IPCC reports are scrupulously independent and give scientific advice to governments around the world to help them shape policy.  The “Summary for Policymakers” is a condensed version that the world media and politicians rely on for evidence that what they want to do is actually a good idea. Governments of all sizes have enthusiastically embraced global warming as something which they can “fight” to impress their citizens, and the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ provides the evidence. It is the “consensus” that warmists embrace.

Professor Stavins told the Daily Mail that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group.’ Two Summary authors were surrounded by 45 or 50 government officials who made clear that “any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.” Many of these officials were themselves climate negotiators working on a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.

Professor Stavins said, “This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC. The process ought to be reformed.”

Two weeks earlier, Sussex University’s Professor Richard Tol demanded that his name be removed from the summary of an earlier volume of the full IPCC report. He said:

The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and ‘group think’ —Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick.

The IPCC has always been a political operation. It was founded to be a political operation. Look up Maurice Strong on Google. The IPCC does not do science themselves, but assembles reports from chosen scientists. It has been often criticized over the years, but the Summaries are over-relied on by policy makers.

Our own government has been involved in wind farms; solar arrays; deepwater drilling; offshore drilling; fracking;  pipelines; refineries; coal mining, processing, transportation and fueling power plants; electric cars; regulations on everything from lightbulbs to shower heads and toilets; gasoline additives, ethanol, biofuel; mpg regulations; solar cell manufacturing; and environmental battles over everything previously mentioned with endangered species thrown in as a bonus. The funding, grants, contracts, subsidies, tax credits involved add up to enormous unknown totals wasted on changes in climate that many consider a natural process not amenable to human control. And there has been no warming at all in 17 years and 8 months.

It’s Earth Day. Yawn. Zzzzzz-zzz… by The Elephant's Child

The Humor:


Fort Mason Park in San Francisco after last year’s Earth Day.

I was visited late yesterday by an earnest young woman representing WASHPIRG, which is the Washington State version of the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups. Every college student is required to pay a fee to this group, which seems a little odd since this is just another of Ralph Nader founded private activist groups. They send college students out every year to shill for donations to their cause of the moment. Ralph Nader, “consumer advocate” has formed dozens of “nonprofits” but somehow managed to become a multimillionaire in the process.

The WASHPIRG group this time is the Environment Washington Research and Policy Center. My visitor left a handy leaflet which says:

In Washington, extreme weather in hitting closer to home.

If you think we’ve seen more than our usual share of extreme weather in and around Washington lately, you’re right. Last year’s wildfires, which devastated eastern and central Washington and cost $67.5 million to fight, were a tragic example. Unfortunately it’s not just wildfires, In fact 98% of Washingtonians live in counties hit by at least one weather-related disaster between 2007 and 2012.

And it could get worse. Climate scientists warn that if we keep polluting the way we are now, the next generation is likely to see even more floods, more intense hurricanes, more drought, more heat waves and more dangerous smog pollution as the planet warms and the climate changes.

Sigh. Weather is not climate. Climate is average temperature and has nothing to do with weather. Warmer or colder climate does not cause wildfires, floods, hurricanes, drought or smog pollution. We had some forest fires last year, as we do most years, but it was a fairly low year for forest fires, which are most often caused by lightning strikes or human carelessness. Floods are usually caused by either snowmelt or heavy rain, not climate. This has been one of the quietest years for hurricanes in recent years, and 2012 was a record year for lowest number of tornadoes, until beaten by 2013. So far 2014 is matching 2013. California had a mild winter with light snowpack, but the devastation of the Central Valley drought can be laid in the laps of the environmentalists who have forced the state to cut off water to the breadbasket of the country because of a tiny bait fish which they think may be “endangered.” The planet is not warming, and has not warmed for 17 years and 8 months. There has been no warming, none, since August 1996.

The main culprit: Carbon pollution from fossil fuels

Sigh. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” We are carbon-based life forms. We breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide which rises from the oceans and is a natural fertilizer for plants. Trees grow and die and decay and release carbon dioxide. We have posted a video from Matt Ridley explaining the “greening of the planet” and the blessings that brings, like feeding hungry people.

What’s driving these changes? We know that carbon pollution from cars and trucks that run on gas and coal-fired power plants owned by utilities like Puget Sound Energy, plays a major role. And the more pollution we allow, the more likely our children will face the consequences of more extreme weather, more smog, rising sea levels and the extinction of certain animals and plants.

I may be mistaken, but I think Washington state had only one coal-fired power plant and I thought they shut that down a year or two ago. I remember my legislator voting to close it because he saw pollution (steam, water vapor) rising from the smokestacks. There’s the litany: “extreme weather, more smog, rising sea levels, and extinction of certain animals and plants.” Greens managed to decimate the logging industry in the state because we had to save the spotted owl, which could only live and breed in old growth forest. Then after massive unemployment, ruined lives and devastated communities, they learned that the spotted owl was perfectly happy in young forests, that its numbers were declining because it was being attacked by its larger, stronger cousin the barred owl. They’re planning to shoot barred owls.

I will spare you the rest of this silly leaflet. At the end, they announce that :

Environment Washington Research and Policy Center has already made a difference for your environment:
Our public education campaigns played a key role in passing plastic bag bans in seven Washington cities. Thanks to our research, outreach and education, Puget Sound wildlife is now better protected from the growing threat of plastic pollution.

Oh, bwa-ha-ha-ha. “the growing threat of plastic pollution.” Cities love banning plastic bags because they charge 10¢ a bag for a plastic bag, which goes to the city. You’re supposed to buy and use cloth bags which are dangerous, often contaminated with e-coli or other bacteria,  and have actually killed people.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,505 other followers

%d bloggers like this: