WASHINGTON – Plunging into energy policy, President Barack Obama is poised to give states a freer hand in curbing emissions from cars, and to get his government moving on fuel-efficiency standards that could remake the auto industry.
Obama will announce his plans Monday at the White House, according to officials familiar with the details who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the president.
The attention to energy comes as Obama heads into his first full week as president, with an agenda dominated by economic woes and a push to get a huge stimulus plan through Congress.
In one key move, Obama is aiming to let California and other states set their own tailpipe emission standards, a tool for reducing the gases, principally carbon dioxide, that contribute to global warming.
And in the other, Obama will order the Transportation Department to enact short-term rules on how automakers can improve fuel efficiency of their new models based on a 2007 law.
On car emissions, the Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began regulating such pollution before the federal government did. But a federal waiver is still required; if the waiver is granted, other states can choose to adopt California's standards or the federal ones.
But in 2007 the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency denied California's request, gaining praise from the auto industry but touching off a storm of investigations and lawsuits from Democrats and environmental groups who contended the denial was based on political instead of scientific reasons.
California's proposed restrictions would force automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.
At least 13 other states — Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — have already adopted California's standards, and they have been under consideration elsewhere, too.
Last week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, sent a letter to Obama asking him to give California and other states permission to implement the tough tailpipe-emission standards. Schwarzenegger said Obama "has a unique opportunity to both support the pioneering leadership of these states and move America toward global leadership on addressing climate change."
Obama will direct EPA regulators to re-examine California's case. The formal process will take time but is expected to end up in the states' favor. The Bush administration had rejected the request on grounds that a national fuel-efficiency strategy would work better — the same position the auto industry took.
Automakers contended it would be unfeasible to have to design cars to what they termed "a patchwork" of different standards around the country.
As a candidate for president, Obama pledged to overturn the EPA's denial, which marked the first time the U.S. had fully denied California a pollution control waiver under the Clean Air Act, after many previous approvals.
"By beginning this process and directing EPA to review the Bush administration's lack of action, President Obama is turning the federal government into a force for positive change instead of a roadblock," said the Sierra Club's executive director, Carl Pope.
Obama is also expected to order new guidelines on fuel economy. The law requires that by 2020, new cars and trucks meet a standard of 35 miles per gallon, a 40 percent increase over the status quo. But the Bush administration did not set regulations in support of that law.
The president on Monday is also expected to tout proposals that he says would boost clean energy supplies while also producing badly needed jobs in so-called "green" industries.
WASHINGTON – Plunging into energy policy, President Barack Obama is poised to give states a freer hand in curbing emissions from cars, and to get his government moving on fuel-efficiency standards that could remake the auto industry.
The president on Monday is also expected to tout proposals that he says would boost clean energy supplies while also producing badly needed jobs in so-called "green" industries.
That means new taxes/regulations on the way. Most of the "green" job will be handling the taxes/regulations with a bigger beauracracy.
California's proposed restrictions would force automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.
Obama is also expected to order new guidelines on fuel economy. The law requires that by 2020, new cars and trucks meet a standard of 35 miles per gallon, a 40 percent increase over the status quo. But the Bush administration did not set regulations in support of that law.
.
Get ready for a new smog pump era, crappy running cars, and bigger fines for filed emission tests. ( IM skeptical O )
Get ready for a new smog pump era, crappy running cars, and bigger fines for filed emission tests. ( IM skeptical O )
Yup.
I recently heard that California is also considering INCREASING (or, making tougher) the standards on older cars (like Fieros). Never mind that would violate our most basic principles of law (ex post facto). I'll have to research this one.
Soon it may be the classic and collectible car / racing community that will need to protect themselves against cars being declared illegal, or crushed if this gets radical. Sure will suck.
yup...cuz these new fangled engines that last so damn long, and run so damn clean was such a huge mistake......
cant we go back to leaded gas, engines that are crap by 60k & 5-15 MPG?
I am saying it sucked. If they would have refined the engines as they did later to what we have now that would have been better than smog pumps and cat converters on cars that were not designed to have them.
I do still love the old simple engines though, of which some regularly got more mpgs than their modern cousins. The lack of longevity was due to poor oil quality and dumb owners IMO.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-26-2009).]
Ah, yes. Strong winds didn't exist before man-caused warming. Hurricanes, tornadoes, bad storms, hot, cold, drought, floods...NONE of that existed before AGW!
Don't worry, Ryan. Your side will win this war. Despite all evidence to the contrary about warming and CO2, Obama, the EPA and the state of California will implement their absurd GHG reductions. Within the next few years, kiss Fieros goodbye (too much pollution), kiss manufacturing jobs goodbye (Carbon trading will chase jobs overseas), kiss reasonably priced utility bills goodbye (if renewable energy were practical, the free-market would be all over it). Yup, kiss it all goodbye for a problem that doesn't exist...
Obama targets greenhouse gases, fuel efficiency WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama took aim Monday at the lofty but long elusive goal of making the nation more energy independent, ordering reviews that could lead to tougher auto emission standards in states and higher pressure on automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars.
Attacking a Bush administration policy, Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to re-examine whether California and other states should be allowed to have tougher auto emission standards to combat a build up of greenhouse gases.
Obama also directed his administration to get moving on new fuel-efficiency guidelines for the auto industry in time to cover 2011 model-year cars.
"For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change," Obama said in his first formal event in the ornate East Room of the White House.
"It will be the policy of my administration," he said, "to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."
California and at least a dozen other states have tried to come up with tougher emission standards than those imposed by the federal government, but Obama said that "Washington stood in their way." The president wants the EPA to take a second look at a decision denying California — and the other states that want to follow its model — permission to set tougher tailpipe emission standards.
More broadly, Obama sought to show he was not waiting to put his stamp on energy policy, which has both near-term implications on the sagging economy and long-range effects on pollution, climate change and national security.
"Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action," Obama said. "Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results — and our leaders raise their voices each time there's a spike on gas prices, only to grow quiet when the price falls at the pump."
The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began regulating such pollution before the federal government got into the act. But a federal waiver is still required; if the waiver is granted, other states can choose to adopt California's standards or the federal ones.
In 2007 the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency denied California's waiver request, gaining praise from the auto industry but touching off a storm of investigations and lawsuits from Democrats and environmental groups who contended the denial was based on political instead of scientific reasons.
Obama on Monday directed the EPA to re-examine the decision. That does not yet overturn anything. But still, the states' wanting their own power considered it a victory.
"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said. He added: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts; we will be guided by them."
California's proposed restrictions would force automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.
At least 13 other states — Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — have already adopted California's standards, and they have been under consideration elsewhere, too.
Under California's approach, car makers would need to boost fuel efficiency in new vehicles to about 36.8 miles per gallon in the states that chose to adopt the California standards.
Automakers, which sued to block the state regulations, argued that it could require dealerships in some states to limit sales of large trucks in order to meet the standards. They have pushed for a single national standard.
Requiring automakers to build cars that get more miles to the gallon will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipes of vehicles.
A law passed by Congress in 2007 requires that by 2020, new cars and trucks meet a standard of 35 miles per gallon, a 40 percent increase over the status quo. But the Bush administration did not set regulations in support of that law.
On Monday, Obama ordered new guidelines in place to start affecting cars sold in 2011.
He also promised a broader, bipartisan review with the auto industry.
Industry officials have also said they would face billions of dollars in new costs to meet the rules at a time when General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have received billions in federal loans to stay afloat.
The Bush administration estimated the federal fuel economy rules would cost the industry more than $100 billion to implement the changes by 2020.
"Let me be clear: Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry," Obama said. "It is to help America's automakers prepare for the future."
(...but we really don't care, we're going to do it anyway)
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday will appoint a special envoy for climate change as the Obama administration moves to restore America's credentials in environmental policy, said U.S. officials familiar with her decision.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants automakers to make greener cars at a time when General Motors and Chrysler are hanging by the thread of a massive government loan and auto sales have plummeted to their lowest levels in more than two decades.
Obama's plans could bring smaller cars, more hybrids and advanced fuel-saving technologies to showrooms, but car shoppers will probably pay more upfront because the new rules are expected to cost the hamstrung industry billions of dollars.
"The consumer needs to understand that they will see significant increases in the cost of vehicles," said Rebecca Lindland, an auto analyst for the consulting firm IHS Global Insight. Her firm estimated the upgrades could add $2,000 to $10,000 to the price of a vehicle.
Obama on Monday directed the Environmental Protection Agency to review whether California and more than a dozen states should be allowed to impose tougher auto emission standards on carmakers to fight greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush administration had blocked the efforts by the states, which account for about half of the nation's auto sales.
The new president also said his administration would issue new fuel-efficiency requirements to cover 2011 model year vehicles. The rules would be the first step toward a 2007 energy law that requires the auto industry to boost efficiency by 40 percent to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Obama set in motion a new regulatory process at a time when the nation is coping with an economic recession and auto sales have fallen to their lowest pace since 1982. Underscoring the hardships, GM said Monday it would slash 2,000 jobs at plants in Michigan and Ohio.
In December, the Bush administration signed off on $17.4 billion in loans to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC to keep the companies afloat. The automakers are undertaking intense efforts to restructure this spring or face potential bankruptcy.
David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., said he doesn't believe the EPA will approve all the waivers asked for by the states. To do so would be economically unworkable.
"If the industry is in total shambles, you can have any regulation you want — it's not doable," he said.
Cole said the additional regulations would have to be implemented "in a way that's achievable in the industry."
Environmental organizations said Obama's approach would help the companies in the long term, forcing them to produce fuel-efficient cars coveted by more consumers. Roland Hwang, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, estimated that a more efficient car would save its driver $1,000 to $2,000 in fuel costs over its lifetime, offsetting some of the upfront cost.
(awRIGHT! Let's spend $10,000 of our own money to save $2000! Where do I sign up???)
Even with the decline in gas prices from last summer's $4 per gallon, Hwang said, the regulatory programs would "push them in a direction that's going to make them more competitive, not less."
"Without California standards and without federal standards, there's a real danger of Detroit falling back in their old gas-guzzling ways," he said.
The industry embraced a green mantle at this month's North American International Auto Show in Detroit, outlining plans to ramp up production of gas-electric hybrids, develop plug-in electric cars and bring more fuel-efficient technologies to conventional models.
Carmakers including GM, Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. plan to sell electric cars that plug into a conventional wall outlet and let drivers bypass the gas station. By 2013, Ford Motor Co. is bringing its "EcoBoost" line of direct-injection turbocharged engines — and their 20 percent improvement in gas mileage — to 90 percent of its models.
The regulations may also push automakers to introduce more vehicles with diesel engines, which can go more miles and provide more power with less fuel, or add technologies like those that shut off some of an engine's cylinders when full power isn't needed.
But none of the changes will be cheap. The Bush administration issued a near-term proposal last year that would have required new cars and trucks to meet a fleet average of 31.6 mpg by 2015. At the time, the government estimated the regulations would cost the industry nearly $50 billion.
California, meanwhile, has battled with auto companies to impose even stiffer regulations that would force carmakers to achieve a fleetwide 35.7 mpg by 2016 and 42.5 mpg in 2020.
Industry officials anticipate the costs of the federal standards could surpass $100 billion by 2020 and California's rules could cost even more.
(So, HOW many jobs will this cost versus how many "new green jobs" created? Who CARES, we're going GREEEEEN!!!)
David Regan, vice president of legislative affairs for the National Automobile Dealers Association, said it could lead to a state-by-state "patchwork" that would burden the industry and force dealers to limit their sales of larger cars and trucks.
"We are in the midst of unprecedented economic challenges in our industry," said Regan, whose group ended a four-day convention in New Orleans on Monday. "All of these factors need to be weighed as the Obama administration goes forward."
Mike Stanton, president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Toyota, Honda Motor Co., and other foreign companies, said the Obama administration could "harmonize" the California and federal programs.
The tougher requirements could bring more calls for federal aid. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said the industry would need action on a $25 billion loan program that was Congress approved last year to help carmakers revamp their plants to build green cars.
Levin and other members of Michigan's congressional delegation issued a laundry list of requests last week, including an additional $25 billion for the loan program and funding to support up to $4.3 billion in grants and loan guarantees to develop advanced battery manufacturing.
Well hows everyone in 3/4 of the US enjoying their 'warming planet' this morning Enjoy next few days too. Massive snow and ice storm from Texas to Maine. Were supposed to end up with like 10" of snow with 1/2" of solid ice.....worse here in years.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 01-27-2009).]
Well hows everyone in 3/4 of the US enjoying their 'warming planet' this morning Enjoy next few days too. Massive snow and ice storm from Texas to Maine. Were supposed to end up with like 10" of snow with 1/2" of solid ice.....
Oh, don't worry, someone like Ryan Hess will show up with a record high in Patagonia and say "see!?! WARMING!!!!"
GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE Mon Jan 26 2009 17:59:26 ET
Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming.
But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.
A 'Winter Storm Watch' has been posted for the nation's capitol and there is a potential for significant snow... sleet... or ice accumulations.
"I can't imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside," a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. "And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel."
A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans.
Global warming advocates have suggested this year's wild winter spells are proof of climate change.
As Ed Craig notes below, the "muzzled" James Hansen is unloading today through the media and in Capitol Hill testimony about how people who disagree with him need to be tried for crimes against humanity.
First, this bodes ill for Gore producer Laurie David. Second, his legal counsel is proving as sound as his science advocacy.
Today's unhinged exhibition occurs in the context of commemorating Hansen's testimony 20 years ago, which kicked off the modern global-warming alarmist movement ten years into the warming spell — on the heels of 30 years of cooling — and ten years before that warming peaked.
And Ed is right to look to Hollywood for parallels, since the Left media has openly celebrated Hansen's dog-and-pony show as well-managed "stagecraft" — a story I chronicle in my forthcoming book, "Red Hot Lies" (a volume that surely guarantees my own trial for enviro-war crimes).
Specifically, the PBS series Frontline aired a special in April 2007 that lifted the curtain on the sort of illusions that politicians and their abettors employed to kick off the campaign.
Frontline interviewed key players in the June 1988 Senate hearing at which then-Senator Al Gore rolled out the official conversion from panic over “global cooling” to global warming alarmism. Frontline interviewed Gore’s colleague, then-Sen. Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner’s UN Foundation). Comforted by the friendly nature of the PBS program, Wirth freely admitted the clever scheming that went into getting the dramatic shot of scientist James Hansen mopping his brow amid a sweaty press corps. An admiring Frontline termed this “Stagecraft.”
Sen. TIMOTHY WIRTH (D-CO), 1987-1993: We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify.
DEBORAH AMOS: On Capitol Hill, Sen. Timothy Wirth was one of the few politicians already concerned about global warming, and he was not above using a little stagecraft for Hansen's testimony.
TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]
WIRTH: Dr. Hansen, if you’d start us off, we’d appreciate it. The wonderful Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving this remarkable testimony.[nice shot of a sweaty Hansen]
JAMES HANSEN: [June 1988 Senate hearing] Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.
There's a lot more on this and Hansen both in those pages, plus here, here, and especially here.
Here is an excellent article titled "Scare Watch: 'Arctic warming is unprecedented". It is too long and complex to reproduce here, including illustrations. It dispels many incorrect notions about alleged warming in the Arctic.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-27-2009).]
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?
The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.
The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son Ralph, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.
All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.
Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate.
In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet.
I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.
The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and voila, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.
May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.
Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.
So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.
So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.
To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From Y2K to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.
So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.
I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.D's. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position from Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.
In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.
I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.
The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughout the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.
So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.
So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.
I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.
If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.
My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global
On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.D's. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC.
Fully 97% of the climate scientists who regularly publish on climate change agreed with the statement, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
Yet 40% of the public disagrees... kind of funny.
There are a few good climate scientists (3%) that believe humans are not significantly impacting the climate. One tends to hear the beliefs of this tiny minority a disproportionate amount. This is primarily because the fossil fuel industry pumps millions of dollars into PR campaigns to make sure you hear these dissenting views. That's not to say that these scientists are paid lackeys of the fossil fuel industry--that is not the case. These scientists' point of view happens to coincide with arguments that would protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry, so naturally the industry spends a lot of money making sure you hear these points of view. The fossil fuel industry PR campaigns also emphasize the contrarian views of a handful of non-publishing scientists working for private think tanks, who provide a distorted, non-objective view of climate change science (e.g., the attempt to hide summertime Arctic sea ice loss by quoting irrelevant statistics about wintertime global sea ice). These efforts have been highly successful in casting doubt on what is an overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus among climate scientists. The fossil fuel industry PR campaigns are similar to the ones run by the cigarette industry to cast doubt on the harmfulness of smoking. "Doubt is our product," a cigarette executive once observed, "since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." I recommend a reading of the 2008 book, "Doubt is Their Product", which discusses the many efforts by industry over the years to cast doubt on established scientific facts in order to protect industry profits.
Fully 97% of the climate scientists who regularly publish on climate change agreed with the statement, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
Do you suppose that 97% (assuming that number is correct) are relying on funding to study global warming, and if there is no warming, there is no funding? More on this later.
89% of state climatologists said that current science is unable to prove man-made global warming (National Center for Policy Analysis) 80% of IPCC Scientists said that human activity is not the principal driver of climate change (PR Newswire) 68% of Alberta Earth Scientists and Engineers Do Not Believe the Science is Settled on Climate Change (Edmonton Journal) 65.9% of climate scientists disagreed rising CO2 is causing climate change (PDF) (The Heartland Institute) 55% of Peer-Reviewed Papers Do Not Endorse Global Warming Theory (DailyTech)
and
31,000 Scientists Prove No 'Consensus’ on "Man-Made" Global Warming (Petition Project) - Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM) - Art Robinson: A Scientist Finds Independence (American Spectator) - Qualifications of Signers (OISM) 4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project) 1500 Scholars, Policy Experts and Theologians sign the 'Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship' (Cornwall Allliance) 1100 Climate Realists sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' (ICSC) 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works) - Morano responds to attacks on 650 Scientist Report (PDF) 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (The Heartland Institute) 400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works) 170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign an open letter to the signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance) 105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project) 100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada) 60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada) 47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project) 41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK) 35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)
Enjoy next few days too. Massive snow and ice storm from Texas to Maine. Were supposed to end up with like 10" of snow with 1/2" of solid ice.....worse here in years.
