Archive for the ‘EPA’ Category

Global warming fraud. That’s what it is. It’s gone beyond scam. It’s charlatan.
Piss off ecotards.

Here’s the money quote (emphasis mine):

This comes from Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists

The climate models, Fitzpatrick said, will likely be correct over long periods of time. But there are too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over two decades.

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds

By Maxim Lott

Measuring Global Warming

Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990’s to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.”It’s a real problem … it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models,” climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

via Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds | Fox News.

The typical hysteria and predictions of enviromMENTALists continues to get traction despite the fact that not one of their doomsday predictions has come to fruition.

You would think the nursery rhyme Chicken Little would have sunk in by now.

What a miserable failure.

Here’s Walter Williams’ take on it.

Environmental Fear-Mongering Isn’t Just Silly, It Kills People

By WALTER E. WILLIAMS

Dr. Henry Miller, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Gregory Conko, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in a Forbes article “Rachel Carson’s Deadly Fantasies” (9/5/2012), wrote that her 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” led to a world ban on DDT use.

The DDT ban was responsible for the loss of “tens of millions of human lives — mostly children in poor, tropical countries — have been traded for the possibility of slightly improved fertility in raptors (birds). This remains one of the monumental human tragedies of the last century.”

DDT presents no harm to humans and, when used properly, poses no environmental threat.

In 1970, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote: “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. . .. In a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.”

Prior to the DDT ban, malaria was on the verge of extinction in some countries.

via Environmental Fear-Mongering Isn’t Just Silly, It Kills People – Investors.com.

…an essential gas for life on earth.

This comes from the Wall Street Journal.

In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.
By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPER

Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a “pollutant” in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.

via Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide – WSJ.com.

…up front. I’m easily amused.

…that President Obama is a moron.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago and here he is promoting global warming. The EPA must be coming out with something so onerous to the economy that he has to jump out in front of it to dull the senses of the morons that voted for him.

There has been no aggregate warming since 1997. Once again, the MSM is AWOL.

Elections have consequences.

President Obama: ‘I am a firm believer that climate change is real’

President Barack Obama held his first postelection press conference today, Nov. 14, 2012, in the East room at the White House. The president took eight questions from the White House press corps; one of those questions was on the subject of Global Climate Change, and the President’s plan to “tackle the issue of climate change”.

Mark Landler, part of the White House press corps and a journalist for the New York Times, asked the President the following question on Global Climate Change.

“Mr. President. In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent. Tomorrow you’re going up to New York City, where you’re going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of how a warming globe is changing our weather. What specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change? And do you think the political will exists in Washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of a tax on carbon?”

The president did not shy away from the question, saying, “I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions.”

More

Report: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago’…

…is poised to destroy American jobs and force energy prices through the roof. If he is reelected, he’ll unleash the full list of job killing, energy spiking regulations that the EPA has held in check until after the election. You haven’t wondered why he hasn’t promised that global warming will end in his next term?
The EPA has got to be stopped! If Obama is reelected, then there is no hope for America’s future energy independence.

Obama’s EPA Plans for 2013
By S. Fred Singer

The November elections will determine the direction of US climate policy — and therefore also energy policy and the pace of economic growth: jobs, standards of living, budget deficits and inflation.  Obama has already promised to make climate change the centerpiece of his concern — with all that implies: “Green” energy policy, linked to loss of jobs (Keystone pipeline disapproval), rising gas prices (ethanol mandates), and crony capitalism (Solyndra).

By contrast, Romney is a climate skeptic — and Ryan has been quite outspoken: the perfect anti-Gore.  The science supports Romney-Ryan — notwithstanding the UN-IPCC, and the bulk of the climate scientists living high on the hog on government grants.

All of this emerged from campaign rhetoric — but it needs to be spelled out more clearly.  Note that Obama no longer promises to “heal the Earth and stop the rise of the oceans.”  He has also been uncharacteristically quiet about his efforts to “make electricity prices skyrocket.”  But there is more in store if he is re-elected and unleashes the full regulatory apparatus of the EPA.

…shielding their emails from public disclosure? What are they hiding?

They have created personal accounts and use then in lieu of the government’s email accounts to avoid FOIA. This is the most corrupt Administration in American history. It permeates throughout the government in every office that has an Obama appointee at the helm.

When is the MSM going to get their lips the hell off Obama’s ass and do what they are supposed to do.
The downfall of America will be directly laid at the feet of the MSM.

The CEI is trying to get access now:

CEI Sues For EPA Administrator’s Secret Email Account, Related Records
Existence of “Secondary” Accounts for High Level Officials Revealed in EPA Memo
By Nicole Ciandella

Washington, D.C., October 1, 2012—The Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the Environmental Protection Agency, challenging its refusal to disclose information discussing the creation and use of “secondary” email accounts created for top level officials by EPA’s Office of Electronic Information. CEI also seeks certain emails from current Administrator Lisa Jackson’s account addressing the administration’s well-known ‘War on Coal’.

CEI first learned of these non-public accounts from a previous Freedom of Information Act request that it filed earlier in the year after reading of it in a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). That request turned up a 2008 EPA memo to the National Archives and Records Administration revealing the existence of these little-known secondary email accounts created under Clinton-Gore administrator, and later Obama ‘energy and environment czar’ Carol Browner. The memo acknowledged that “[f]ew EPA staff members, usually only high-level senior staff, even know that these accounts exist,” and that it is unable to recreate most of the accounts’ usage histories.

More

…and their American soul crushing regulatory schemes that will only get worse if Obama is reelected and will likely not even get a shoulder shrug from Romney?

The liberals are winning this battle. They continue to win because the liberal media doesn’t expose them for what they really are. It’s all about control. They want to control you and will do anything that they can get away with, to do just that.

There hasn’t been one word spoken about the EPA by the Republicans. One should not only find that curious, but dangerous as well.

Milloy: GOP needs to start talking about EPA reform now
By Steve Milloy

Washington Times

One issue that has been noticeably absent from the Republican platform this election season is any discussion of the Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It didn’t even come up at the Republican National Convention a couple of weeks ago. If the omission was an oversight, it was a big one. If it was intentional, it’s cause for concern.

The EPA has spent the better part of its 42-year existence trying to put America out of business, but especially under the Obama administration. You don’t believe me? Ask anyone in the coal industry, which has been victimized by the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, proposed greenhouse-gas-emission rules and usurpation of the Army Corps of Engineers’ permit-writing authority, to name just a few EPA abuses of power.

Even though the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was vaporized recently by a federal appellate court, the rule was in existence long enough to cause electric utilities to start planning for a coal-less future.

More

…that’s the title I would have chosen, but I suppose I can be rather crass.

This is a most excellent essay on the EPA and how it has been the ruin of many and is bound and determined to ruin America’s prosperity.
If it weren’t for the EPA, gas would be $1.50 a gallon or even less.
They exert an authority that is totally contravening to the Constitution and the principles of freedom.
Read on.

Dethrone the EPA
By Robert Zubrin

The current presidential campaign hinges on jobs and the economy. Yet most of the debate has centered on peripheral issues such as the Bush tax cut, when there is a Tyrannosaurus in the room that is being virtually ignored. That monster is the EPA.

The EPA is today the primary enemy of economic growth in the United States, and through it the world. The damage that it has done, is doing, and threatens to do in the future is immense. Virtually since its birth in 1970, the agency has committed one atrocity after another. As one of its first acts after coming into existence, the EPA banned the vital pesticide DDT. (This was done is direct defiance of the investigatory court findings of federal judge Edmund Sweeney, which showed that DDT was not a danger to humans or wildlife.) As a result, large regions of Africa and Asia were given over to malaria-spreading mosquitoes, killing tens of millions of people and aborting economic development.

From 1859 to 1971, the U.S. oil industry grew virtually continuously, in the process serving mightily to drive our economy and win our wars. But that growth was stopped dead in 1971, and sent into decline thereafter as the advent of the EPA and the accompanying National Environmental Policy Act made it increasingly difficult to drill. The global economic and strategic catastrophe this has caused can be seen in the graph below, where I show U.S. oil production, OPEC oil production, and non-U.S., non-OPEC oil production from 1960 to the present. The graph shows that U.S. oil production grew at an average rate of 3.2 percent per year during the 1960s, peaking at 9.6 million barrels per day (mpd) in 1970. The growth of OPEC production, meanwhile, which had been extremely rapid during the 1960s, came to a screeching halt in 1973, when the OPEC powers replaced the previously dominant Seven Sisters’ policy of expanding production to fuel the world economy with an alternative policy of constricting production to loot the world economy. As a result, OPEC production, after plummeting and then slowly rebounding, is still where it was in 1973. Thus the entirety of the increase of world oil production over the past four decades — during which time the world economy has doubled in size — has come from non-OPEC, non-U.S. sources. As the graph shows, this has increased at a rate of 3.4 percent per year since 1970, essentially the same as the average U.S. growth rate from 1960 to 1970. With the green line on the graph, I show how U.S. production would have developed had it matched other non-OPEC sources and continued to grow at its pre-EPA rate. In that case, instead of producing 5.7 mpd today, we would now be producing 35 mpd. Together with other non-OPEC production, this would have totally marginalized OPEC and constrained oil prices below $30 a barrel today, with associated gasoline prices of $1 to $1.50 per gallon. Just as they did in the 1950s and 1960s, such low oil prices would fuel dramatic U.S. and global economic growth.

Instead, however, because of the de facto collusion of the EPA — which has sabotaged America’s oil industry and prevented the use of clean-burning methanol fuel, which we could readily and cheaply make from abundant natural gas or coal — OPEC has been able to operate as a highly effective cartel, imposing a massive and extremely regressive tax not only on America, but on the entire world economy, and using the proceeds to fund the promotion of terrorist movements and the development of nuclear weapons intended for our annihilation.

More

How’s that “hope and change” working out for you?

Not so well eh? Yeah, I thought so too.

It’s time to stop the government’s subsidizing of green energy. If that shit was viable, private enterprise would have been all over it a long time ago.

This is just another avenue for government to control you. Don’t believe their hype.

$9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs — $9.8 Million Per Job

By Michael W. Chapman and Fred Lucas

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs — annual operation and maintenance positions — meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.

At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs — which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).

Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.

More