 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
|
-
Senate Passed Energy Bill Fails Oklahoma
-
EPW Fact of the Day: No Ethanol Ceiling
-
Senate Farm Bill Includes Key Inhofe Provisions Addressing Animal Waste
-
Opening Statement: The Clean Water Act following the recent Supreme Court decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County and Rapanos-Carabell
-
Inhofe: Federal Legislation Can Help Solve States Water Woes (In Case You Missed It...Op-Ed By Senator Inhofe, December 14, 2007)
-
Climate Bill Will Devastate American Families and Jobs (In Case You Missed It...Inhofe Op-Ed, Human Events)
-
Blog from Bali: Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference
-
Blog from Bali: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against Futile Climate Control Efforts
-
Blog from Bali: Skeptical Scientists Urge World To Have the Courage to Do Nothing At UN Conference
-
In Case You Missed It...Let the Debate End (Editorial, Investors Business Daily, December 14, 2007)
-
In Case You Missed It...The Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom (The Daily Mail, December 12, 2007)
Senate Passed Energy Bill Fails Oklahoma
Friday, December 13, 2007
Senator Inhofe commented on Friday on the passage of the Senate’s substitute amendment to H.R.6. The Senate passed the bill Thursday night by a vote of 86-8.
“I simply could not support an ‘energy bill’ that will further drive up the already high price of gas at the pump or the cost of energy in our homes,” Senator Inhofe said. “Absent from this ‘energy’ bill are domestic energy resources – such as oil, natural gas, nuclear and clean coal technologies – that are essential to securing an American energy supply that is stable, diverse, and affordable.
“Further, I am disappointed that this bill significantly increases the renewable fuels mandate in an irresponsible manner. Through my leadership position on the EPW Committee in 2005, I successfully worked with my colleagues to create a comprehensive program to increase the use of renewable fuels in a measured way that makes economic sense. This bill, however, contains a nearly five-fold expansion in the bio-fuels mandate. The fact is there are a growing number of questions surrounding ethanol’s effect on feed prices and our agricultural community, its economic sustainability, its transportation and infrastructure needs, and its water usage. As a result, I believe it’s just too early to significantly increase the mandate. The fuels industry needs more time to adapt and catch-up with the many developing challenges facing corn-based ethanol.
“Unfortunately, this bill raises $1.4 billion by extending the ‘temporary’ Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) surtax on businesses which was first established in 1976 to repay loans from the federal unemployment trust fund. Even though this money was fully repaid in 1987, Congress has extended this temporary tax five times, imposing an annual $1.4 billion tax burden on America's workers and employers.
“Further, this bill also includes some unrelated highway provisions that will result in reduced flexibility and provide a disincentive for states to make essential improvements to our nation’s bridges and interstates. These two provisions would undo the work done in the last three highway bills to increase the flexibility of States to spend their dollars where needed. Instead, this language will tell States how much and where highways dollars need to be spent.
“This bill could have been even worse. Fortunately, however, I was able to work with my Senate colleagues to ensure major sections of the bill were stripped out. Democrat attempts to include a tax increase of $21 billion dollars, mostly aimed at the oil and natural gas industry, were defeated, as well as the attempt to include a Renewable Portfolio Standard that would have significantly increased the cost of electricity in Oklahoma and across the country.
“One of the few bright spots is the inclusion of my bipartisan provision to incorporate the ‘Federal Buildings Energy Conservation Act’ into the bill. This provision encourages the use of geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) in Federal buildings. Geothermal heat pumps are a proven, effective, and efficient technology that can help meet heating and cooling needs at Federal facilities while conserving energy and saving taxpayer dollars."
EPW Fact of the Day: No Ethanol Ceiling
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
One United States Senator, in making his case for an increased ethanol mandate on the floor of the United States Senate yesterday, argued that that the ethanol mandate signed into law in 2005 created a “ceiling” and that the industry is now bumping up against that ceiling.
FACT: No such ceiling exists. Rather, as Senator Harkin (D-IA) noted during Senate consideration in 2005, the Senate established a “strong floor.” Senator Harkin stated:
“So what we are doing makes sense. With an 8-billion-gallon renewable fuels standard, we establish a strong floor for the time frame under consideration. The fact is, we will have no trouble whatsoever producing enough ethanol to meet this standard. As I said, the industry already has the capacity to produce nearly 4 billion gallons of ethanol a year.”
In the 109th Congress, Senator Inhofe, then-chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, successfully worked with his colleagues to create a comprehensive program to increase the use of renewable fuels in the United States in a measured way that makes economic sense. The Reliable Fuels Act, ultimately incorporated into the Energy Policy Act of 2005, encourages the production and use of bio-fuels. Today, some in Congress argue in favor of increasing the RFS, but Senator Inhofe and many others believe we should maintain the current standard and take a closer look at the impact on related industries. Growing bodies of interested parties are speaking out against increasing the corn ethanol mandate, ranging from a coalition of groups including Coke, Pepsi, the National Pork Producers Council, and Turkey Federation to Ducks Unlimited. We should take the time to hear them out.
RELATED LINKS
Bi-Partisan Letter Urges President To Consider Health And Safety Issues That Could Result From Increased Use Of Ethanol As “General Purpose” Transportation Fuel (Blog From Friday, December 7, 2007)
In Case You Missed It: "Ethanol's Water Shortage," The Wall Street Journal (October 17, 2007)
Top Ten Democrat Energy Bill Failures (Press Release From Thursday, June 28, 2007)
America’s Energy Future Needs To Be Stable, Diverse And Affordable (Senator Inhofe, The Hill, June 27, 2007) Inhofe: Senate Passed Energy Bill Will Increase Costs To Consumers (Press Release From Friday, June 22, 2007)
Daily Oklahoman: Lacking Energy: Democrats' Bill Doesn't Address Needs (Editorial, June 19, 2007)
Inhofe Statement On President’s Executive Order On Cafe And Alternative Fuels (Press Release From Monday, May 14, 2007)
Senate Farm Bill Includes Key Inhofe Provisions Addressing Animal Waste
Friday, December 14, 2007
Senator Inhofe today welcomed the inclusion in the Senate passed Farm Bill of two key Inhofe provisions addressing poultry waste, one of the most pressing issues facing Oklahoma agriculture. The Senate Farm Bill passed today by a vote of 79-14.
“Specifically, the Senate Farm bill includes my amendment authorizing the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to establish a ‘Poultry Sustainability Research Council’ aimed at identifying new ways to address poultry waste. The Council will focus on the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of the industry. The bill also includes a provision, at my request, that designates the Illinois River Watershed as one of the priority areas for regional water programs. Such a designation makes the watershed eligible for coordinating various United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation initiatives to work together to address the needs of northeastern Oklahoma.”
Related Links:
Opening Statement: The Clean Water Act following the recent Supreme Court decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County and Rapanos-Carabell
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Today's oversight hearing on the federal definition of waters of the U.S. is very important given the over 35 years of debate that has surrounded it. There has been considerable litigation and confusion over the question of where exactly federal jurisdiction ends under the Clean Water Act since the Act's passage. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to clarify the record that in fact the regulated community has never understood where federal jurisdiction ends and that the Agencies have in fact gradually expanded the scope without going through the necessary processes to increase federal reach into local land use decisions.
Many argue that if we just return to the regulatory definition prior to the Supreme Court's landmark SWANCC case all of the confusion would end. However, those who take such a position fail to acknowledge the 29 years of litigation and expanded reach that preceded the SWANCC decision. I would like to enter into the record a letter to Chairman Oberstar from the Waters Advocacy Coalition that explains in great detail the regulatory history prior to the Supreme Court's 2001 decision.
I am very pleased that today we will hear from one of the attorneys who represented SWANCC in the lead up to the Supreme Court case. We will also hear from an attorney with the National Association of Home Builders whose members are frequent applicants for federal permits. I would also like to call the Committee's attention to testimony heard before the Committee in June of 2003 by Robert Pierce. We were unable to fit him in this time but his testimony as a former employee of the Corps of Engineers' regulatory branch is still very much relevant and I urge my colleagues to give it another look.
There was a SWANCC decision because there was uncertainty. The regulated community believed that the Corps had overstepped its authority under the statute. Importantly, the Supreme Court agreed, striking down the Corps' use of the Migratory Bird Rule to exert jurisdiction over isolated, nonnavigable, intrastate waters that clearly did not support interstate commerce, the basis for the Clean Water Act's regulatory authority.
We can balance environmental protection with the rights of private property owners. I very much support the goal of protecting and preserving our wetlands. I have in fact championed wetlands protection through programs like the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act and the North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act. The Partners program delivers habitat improvement projects on private land through voluntary agreements with private landowners. Through the Partners program, from 1987 to 2006, 800,000 acres of wetlands were restored. The North American Wetlands Conservation program leverages federal dollars with state and private dollars to conserve wetlands as habitat for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife.
While these programs hold the rights of the property owner sacred and work with landowners to protect our environment, the 404 permitting program is a federal regulatory program with the ability to impose often burdensome requirements that may devalue an individual's property. Certainly there is an important role for the regulatory program but because it often comes with significant economic costs and time delays, it is critical that the program be clear and makes sense to your average property owner. For instance, the pictures to my right show areas declared jurisdictional by the Corps. Your average landowner is not going to know that these dry patches of land would be considered wetlands and require a permit from the federal government. Further, if the Clean Water Restoration Act that is currently pending before our Committee passes, every homeowner in the country is unlikely to realize that their storm gutters could be designated point sources for which they will need federal Clean Water Act permits.
This incredible expansion of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Restoration Act directly contradicts not just SWANCC but also Carabell/Rapanos in which a majority of the Court ruled that there are limitations to Congress' power under the Clean Water Act.
The federal government owes it to the American public and individual property owners, including the millions of homeowners across the country, to have a clear, concise and Constitutional definition of "waters of the United States." The Clean Water Restoration Act does not meet any of these goals and will simply result in more lawsuits and more confusion. I would like to note for the record that this is not a legislative hearing on that legislation and I will insist on a hearing specifically on that bill before any attempt is made to move it. I look forward to today's testimony and setting the record straight with regard to the history of 35 years of confusion regarding what "waters of the U.S." really means and the Constitutional limits of the Clean Water Act and the Commerce Clause.
# # #
Inhofe: Federal Legislation Can Help Solve States Water Woes (In Case You Missed It...Op-Ed By Senator Inhofe, December 14, 2007)
Friday, December 14, 2007
CNHI News Service
Federal Legislation Can Help Solve State’s Water Woes
By Sen. James M. Inhofe
Link to Column
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As Oklahoma continues to develop solutions to address its ever increasing demand for quality water supplies, I am convinced that there are practical and economical solutions to these issues.
As former chairman and now ranking Republican member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have worked to advance legislation to provide state and localities the resources they require to address their water needs.An example is the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, enacted Nov. 8. This critically important bill not only authorizes and modifies critical projects for waterways navigation, reduction of hurricane, storm and flood damage, and environmental restoration nationwide; it has a real and important impact here in Oklahoma. Communities across the state can benefit from authorizations such as those improving our lakes and waterways, for sewer improvements and for water-related infrastructure.
In Oklahoma alone, the new law will result in savings of more than $10 million for the city of Edmond and $1.5 million for the communities surrounding the Waurika Conservancy District by clarifying disputes with the Corps of Engineers over water use. It will also continue projects at the Red River, which will enhance drinking water supply and agricultural irrigation in southwestern Oklahoma.In addition to the water development act, Congress should have reauthorized the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act Revolving Loan Funds legislation I co-authored last year. It contained several provisions aimed at promoting water efficiency and new approaches to addressing supply shortages.
The clean water bill would have made water conservation and efficiency measures explicitly eligible for the loan programs. Further, it created both a research and demonstration program to look into ways to conserve and reuse water and promote new water efficiency technologies. It also provided grants to research technologies to assist treatment works and water systems in conserving and more efficiently using water.I am hopeful that a bipartisan group of my colleagues and I will soon reintroduce this legislation and that it will be promptly be considered by the full Senate.
We face tragic consequences by ignoring or shortchanging our nation’s water needs, and investments in water infrastructure prior to disasters can even save us money.An example of this occurred during this past summer’s flooding in the Oklahoma-Texas-Arkansas region. The Corps of Engineers levees, channels and reservoirs prevented an estimated over $5 billion in further damages.
The clean water provisions have proven to be an innovative tool that extends the life of every federal dollar and state match dollar. Since the act’s inception, the federal government has provided $24 billion to the program. In 2006, over $60 billion was available in loans to states and localities.The safe drinking provision has also proven equally successful.
We must be willing to responsibly invest sufficient funds to properly develop, maintain, repair and replace America’s critical water supply infrastructure. I intend to continue to work to see that our state and local governments have the tools they require to meet their ever increasing needs.Climate Bill Will Devastate American Families and Jobs (In Case You Missed It...Inhofe Op-Ed, Human Events)
Human Events
Climate Bill Will Devastate American Families and Jobs
By Senator James Inhofe
For the first time in history, a fatally flawed global-warming cap-and-trade bill passed out of the United States Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. Democrats, led by Chairman Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), approved the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 (S 2191) by a vote of 11 to 8 on December 5. Serious Flaws
While the outcome of the vote in committee was never in question -- since Democrats hold the majority -- it did provide Republicans the opportunity to expose many of the serious flaws of this bill. The fact is this bill is simply all economic pain for no climate gain: Numerous analyses have placed the costs at trillions of dollars. Even if one accepts the dire claims of man-made global warming, this bill will not have a measurable impact on the climate.
First, this bill will force energy prices even higher. Supporters of this bill are going to be asking the American people to pay even more for energy at the pump and in their homes at a time when energy prices are already on the rise. If this bill passes, electricity prices are estimated to skyrocket 35% to 65% within just seven years, forcing a huge economic hit on American households. Additionally, the poor will be the hit the hardest as they pay about five times more per month, as a percentage of their monthly expenditures, compared to wealthier Americans. The consequences of higher fuel bills for poor Americans can be devastating. High energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons for homelessness, according to a 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children.
Further, the Lieberman-Warner bill would mean the loss of millions of American jobs. The respected consulting firm Charles River Associates International testified before the EPW Committee last month that by 2020 this bill will cause a net loss of between 1.5 and 3.4 million jobs. I am particularly concerned about the impact of this bill on our domestic automobile industry, which has endured significant job cuts over the last few years. The economies of several Midwestern states -- including Missouri, Ohio and Michigan, to name a few—are directly tied to the prosperity of this industry. To help protect American jobs, I introduced an amendment that would have required the secretary of Commerce, a year after the bill becomes law and every year thereafter, to report on whether this bill will cut 10,000 jobs in the automobile industry during the following calendar year. In other words, it would give us the ability to look ahead and see how people would be impacted. Democrats, however, killed the amendment.
Recent analysis from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of a less stringent cap-and-trade bill shows energy costs for consumers and employers will be even more expensive -- and burdens on hardworking Americans, the elderly and the poor will be even more severe -- if Congress adopts carbon mandates but fails to enact policies to increase domestic energy supplies. Therefore, clean technologies must be pursued and available if we are going to impose emissions limits.
Yet Democrats failed to even mention the word “nuclear” in drafting their bill. Any credible attempt to drastically reduce carbon emissions must include nuclear energy. You simply cannot ignore the world’s largest source of emission-free energy if you plan to cut carbon emissions and still keep the lights on. Recent EIA analysis of the less-stringent bill included a “No Nuclear” scenario that showed that carbon emissions actually increase by 3%.
Natural gas must also be part of this energy mix. Demand for natural gas is outstripping supply, and the bill makes it worse. December 2007 natural gas futures are already priced 23.75% above today’s level, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is forecasting electricity prices to rise across the country from 19% to as high as 32% because of high natural-gas prices. The adoption of carbon caps in the near-term will exacerbate this problem greatly by causing fuel shifting from coal -- currently about half of U.S. electric generating capacity -- to natural gas resources.
Democrats were able to sidestep these major issues in committee. That will not happen on the Senate floor, where I promise an enormous fight awaits next year. Because this bill will strike a devastating blow to American families, American jobs and the American way of life, I vow to lead the charge in the Senate against this bill and work closely with my Senate colleagues to ensure this bill never becomes law.
Blog from Bali: Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference
Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – December 13, 2007
[Note: Senator Inhofe's EPW Communications Director, Marc Morano, blogged from Bali, Indonesia this week, site of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change]
BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told the Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm
Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”
The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”
The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”
The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.
Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”
'Diminish future prosperity'
However, ideas like a global tax and the overall UN climate agenda met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."
The scientists wrote, “The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General. (See: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts – LINK)
‘Redistribution of wealth’
The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. (LINK)
Calls for global regulations and taxes are not new at the UN. Former Vice President Al Gore, who arrived Thursday at the Bali conference, reiterated this week his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions. (LINK)
In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.” (LINK)
'A bureaucrat's dream'
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. (LINK)
In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.
Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said in 1990, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." (LINK)
# # #
Related Links:
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
INHOFE SLAMS NEW CAP-AND-TRADE BILL AS ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN'
Debunking The So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming
New UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids (11-13-2006)
Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'
Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism
Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt
EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic
Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"
Blog from Bali: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against Futile Climate Control Efforts
Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - Thursday, December 13, 2007
BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."
"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK)
The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote.
"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added.
[EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ]
The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."
"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added.
[EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ]
# # #
Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada's National Post on December 13, 2007:
The National Post
Don't Fight, Adapt; We Should Give Up Futile Attempts to Combat Climate ChangeDec. 13, 2007
Key Quote from Scientists’ Letter to UN: “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.”
His Excellency
Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General,
United Nations New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]:
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of OttawaRichard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology
Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Related Links:
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
Debunking The So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming
New UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids (11-13-2006)
Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'
Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism
Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt
EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic
Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"
Blog from Bali: Skeptical Scientists Urge World To Have the Courage to Do Nothing At UN Conference
Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - December 11, 2007
BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.
"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)
Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.
"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.
"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.
"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)
Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)
"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)
Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)
"Most of the people here [at the UN conference] have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.
[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ]
‘IPCC is unsound'
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.
"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)
"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.
"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.
‘Dangerous time for science'
Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.
"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.
"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of casualties and a lot of time in between," he concluded.
Carbon trading ‘fraud?'
New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.
"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.
"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.
‘Simply not work'
Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.
"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)
"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.
"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.
‘Nothing happening at this conference'
Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.
"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)
"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.
Related Links:
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference
UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids (11-13-2006)
Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears
Debunking The So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'
Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism
Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt
EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic
Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"
In Case You Missed It...Let the Debate End (Editorial, Investors Business Daily, December 14, 2007)
Friday, December 14, 2007
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Editorial: Let The Debate End
Environment: While Al Gore trashes the United States for the stalled climate-change talks at the U.N. conference in Bali, science that contradicts his global warming theory continues to roll out.
'My own country, the United States," Gore hissed as delegates wrestled in the Indonesia resort with a "road map" for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, "is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali."
As usual, Gore has it backward. The obstruction of progress is the goal of the global warming alarmists. The mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide emissions they support would choke economic development worldwide and take prosperity back decades.
But that's another story for another time. Today we're here to talk about how science is refuting fearmongers' claims that man's burning of fossil fuels is warming Earth in a cataclysmic way.
At the top of our list is a study found in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology.
Researchers found that many of the computer models used to predict global warming can't even predict the past. Instead of forecasting the actual small temperature rises in the troposphere, an atmospheric layer 1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface, these computer models anticipated a sharp warming trend over the past 30 years.
The 22 models the researchers looked at are the very ones the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to make its fright-filled predictions of imminent global warming disaster.
Next is yet another report discrediting the global-warming-makes-hurricanes-worse theory. Two oceanographers, whose findings will be published this week in Nature, say warmer oceans might even decrease hurricane activity.Finally, we note a letter sent this week to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon saying it's "not possible to stop climate change," as it's "a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages."
The letter, signed by more than 100 scientists worldwide, also revived an earlier complaint — ignored by the media — that IPCC report summaries are political, not scientific, documents. They "are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives."
"The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents," the letter says. "The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts."
It's possible that delegates will leave the 11-day IPCC Bali conference Friday without reaching a consensus about what should be in the report's summary — more evidence that politics, not science, drives the global warming debate. That alone strongly argues for this foolish debate to be ended now, and for good.
In Case You Missed It...The Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom (The Daily Mail, December 12, 2007)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
THE DAILY MAIL
The Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.
The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.
The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.
His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.
The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.
"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace".
"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.
"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.