In The News
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Tuesday May 15, 2007
Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. Below is just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.
The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.
In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” ) The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )
Once Believers, Now Skeptics
The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.
In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” ) The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )
Once Believers, Now Skeptics
PRESS RELEASE: INHOFE STATEMENT ON KERRY’S CLIMATE AMENDMENT TO WRDA
Tuesday May 15, 2007
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, today commented on the failed Floor vote on Senator John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) climate amendment #1094 to Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) which would consider the impact of climate change in designing water resources projects. The amenmdent failed 51-42.
"Today’s vote was even more meaningless than Senator Bingaman’s Sense of the Senate vote in 2005 which was supported 53-44. Today’s amendment was nothing more than a free vote to make a political statement that ‘I care’ without having to vote on something substantive that will have any effect. It was a vote for an amendment that was clearly not going to pass and would not have granted the Army Corps of Engineers any additional authorities that is does not already possess," Senator Inhofe said.
"Today’s vote was even more meaningless than Senator Bingaman’s Sense of the Senate vote in 2005 which was supported 53-44. Today’s amendment was nothing more than a free vote to make a political statement that ‘I care’ without having to vote on something substantive that will have any effect. It was a vote for an amendment that was clearly not going to pass and would not have granted the Army Corps of Engineers any additional authorities that is does not already possess," Senator Inhofe said.
Inhofe Opening Statement: Hearing on "Green Buildings: Benefits to Health, the Environment, and the Bottom Line"
Tuesday May 15, 2007
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing today to discuss some of the issues relating to green buildings.
Today we will hear from our panel of five green building experts about some of the benefits that can be realized through following the principles of so-called “green building.” Two of the goals of green building that are of particular merit are increased energy efficiency and improved water management.
Increased energy efficiency – along with developing new domestic sources of energy and ensuring a diverse energy supply – is a key component of improving our nation’s energy security. Just a few weeks ago, Madam Chairman, we unanimously passed a bill out of this committee – the Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act – that is a sensible, effective step toward improving energy efficiency in public buildings at both the Federal and local levels.
Today we will hear from our panel of five green building experts about some of the benefits that can be realized through following the principles of so-called “green building.” Two of the goals of green building that are of particular merit are increased energy efficiency and improved water management.
Increased energy efficiency – along with developing new domestic sources of energy and ensuring a diverse energy supply – is a key component of improving our nation’s energy security. Just a few weeks ago, Madam Chairman, we unanimously passed a bill out of this committee – the Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act – that is a sensible, effective step toward improving energy efficiency in public buildings at both the Federal and local levels.
INHOFE STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON CAFE AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Monday May 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, today commented on President Bush’s Executive Order to begin the process of implementing new CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards and increasing the use of alternative fuels in response to the recent Supreme Court decision.
"This action taken today by President Bush is premature. As I made clear during an April 24th EPW hearing on the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA case, the next step is for the EPA to make an endangerment determination, not rush to regulate. The Administration is putting the cart before the horse and should have waited for the EPA’s findings before deciding if any action was even necessary," Senator Inhofe said.
"I have additional concerns about the regulation’s effect on livestock. Recently the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) opposed all new mandates on corn based ethanol. The NCBA said increasing feed-grains based ethanol mandates could deliver ‘a serious blow to cattle producers.’ The agricultural community is already suffering the unintended consequences of federal policies.
"We should be aware of how environmental regulations influence our fuel choices. Regulations that have promoted natural gas as the environmentally preferable fuel source have increased the price of natural gas, hurt domestic agriculture, sent chemical and manufacturing jobs overseas and practically killed our domestic fertilizer production," Senator Inhofe added.
Bob Drake, the vice president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau testified at a March 25, 2004 EPW hearing about the devastating impact of high natural gas prices on the agricultural community.
"Our domestic fertilizer production capacity has already experienced a permanent loss of 25 percent over the past four years and an additional 20 percent is currently shutdown due to high natural gas prices. The current price volatility threatens the existence of what remains of our domestic fertilizer industry and will exacerbate America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy and fertilizer," Drake testified. ( Link )
Senator Inhofe concluded: "New mandates and regulations do not happen in a vacuum. I look forward to the Administration’s public comment period for implementing the rules and encourage affected industries and the public at large to weigh in on these new proposals."
"This action taken today by President Bush is premature. As I made clear during an April 24th EPW hearing on the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA case, the next step is for the EPA to make an endangerment determination, not rush to regulate. The Administration is putting the cart before the horse and should have waited for the EPA’s findings before deciding if any action was even necessary," Senator Inhofe said.
"I have additional concerns about the regulation’s effect on livestock. Recently the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) opposed all new mandates on corn based ethanol. The NCBA said increasing feed-grains based ethanol mandates could deliver ‘a serious blow to cattle producers.’ The agricultural community is already suffering the unintended consequences of federal policies.
"We should be aware of how environmental regulations influence our fuel choices. Regulations that have promoted natural gas as the environmentally preferable fuel source have increased the price of natural gas, hurt domestic agriculture, sent chemical and manufacturing jobs overseas and practically killed our domestic fertilizer production," Senator Inhofe added.
Bob Drake, the vice president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau testified at a March 25, 2004 EPW hearing about the devastating impact of high natural gas prices on the agricultural community.
"Our domestic fertilizer production capacity has already experienced a permanent loss of 25 percent over the past four years and an additional 20 percent is currently shutdown due to high natural gas prices. The current price volatility threatens the existence of what remains of our domestic fertilizer industry and will exacerbate America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy and fertilizer," Drake testified. ( Link )
Senator Inhofe concluded: "New mandates and regulations do not happen in a vacuum. I look forward to the Administration’s public comment period for implementing the rules and encourage affected industries and the public at large to weigh in on these new proposals."
New Study Shows Environmental and Health Advantages of Coal-to-Liquids
Thursday May 10, 2007
A new study released yesterday, May 9, 2007, conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL), shows the environmental and public health advantages of coal-to liquids (CTL). The study looked at Baard Energy’s Ohio River Clean Fuels project currently under development in Wellsville, Ohio. Baard Energy’s project will produce ultra-clean liquid transportation fuels through the gasification and processing of domestic coal.
While CTL enjoys bi-partisan support in Congress for energy security reasons, the new study highlights additional reasons for supporting CTL – environmental and public health benefits. According to the study, CTL will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide by more than 80 percent and cut nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 20 percent. In addition, INL found that Baard’s CTL fuel will reduce particulate matter emissions by nearly 20 percent, slash emissions of volatile organic compounds by close to 20 percent and also reduce emissions of carbon monoxide.
While CTL enjoys bi-partisan support in Congress for energy security reasons, the new study highlights additional reasons for supporting CTL – environmental and public health benefits. According to the study, CTL will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide by more than 80 percent and cut nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 20 percent. In addition, INL found that Baard’s CTL fuel will reduce particulate matter emissions by nearly 20 percent, slash emissions of volatile organic compounds by close to 20 percent and also reduce emissions of carbon monoxide.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY CORRECTLY IDENTIFIES SOURCE OF HIGH GAS PRICES
Thursday May 10, 2007
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
EDITORIAL: Supply And Demagogues
Posted 5/9/2007
Charles Schumer wants to investigate gas prices. Look in the mirror, Chuck. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That's the Democrats' energy policy.
Considering that nothing much has changed on the supply side while demand continues to increase worldwide, it would be a mystery if gas prices did not reach record heights — especially in the face of continued boutique fuel mandates, NIMBY refinery bans, greenie restrictions on domestic energy development, etc.
On Monday, gas prices surged to a nationwide record average of $3.07 per gallon, according to the Lundberg Survey, breaking the previous record of $3.03. Sen. Schumer, like most Democrats, thinks it's the oil companies' fault. "The looming question is, are they putting money into maintenance and keeping up refineries as they should?" Schumer asked.
Our refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling and no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4 billion, not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance with ever new and stringent environmental rules. That's where those allegedly excessive profits go.
In 2006, the blending of ethanol into gasoline reached a new high of more than five billion gallons and production if new clean-burning ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel topped a record 2.6 million barrels a day at the end of last year.
The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a year for the past decade — the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2 million barrels a day. This is a remarkable achievement in the face of environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur requirements.
But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in 1976 and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're maintained. Fifty out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004. There is no slack in the system. Like the cars they fuel, periodic maintenance us required.
At least we build new cars.
Earlier this year, AAA of Northern California reported a 45-cent-a-gallon jump in price at the pump in one month. But gasoline production in California was off 6% for the week ended March 2 as refineries shut down for the very maintenance Schumer demands.
Lundberg cites at least a dozen additional partial shutdowns in the U.S. and internationally that have cut refining capacity. One of the nation's largest refineries, a BP plant in Indiana that processes more than 400,000 barrels of oil daily, will not be operating at full capacity for several months for unexpected repairs.
Schumer has asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate if rising gas prices are the result of oil company malfeasance or even a conspiracy. Last year, he wrote a letter to ask the Federal Trade Commission to investigate. In its response, the FTC said two previous investigations into unfair business practices by the oil industry found no evidence of wrongdoing.
But there's plenty of wrongdoing in the Senate, which has done nothing to increase domestic energy supplies or refining capacity. In 2005, Sen. James Inhofe introduced the Gas PRICE Act, which would have streamlined permitting procedures, reduced boutique fuel mandates and offered closed U.S. military bases as sites for new refineries. Where was Sen. Schumer's support?
The only thing we we'd like to hear from Sen. Schumer is just where in New York state he'd like a new refinery to be built and what incentives he is prepared to offer.
For Investor’s Business Daily editorial go to:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=263601990515635
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY CORRECTLY IDENTIFIES SOURCE OF HIGH GAS PRICES
Thursday May 10, 2007
A May 9 editorial from Investor’s Business daily clearly lays out several of the reasons gas prices have recently increased. The editorial notes that Senator Inhofe’s 2005 Gas Price Act would have helped alleviate the gas supply problems we currently face. The Gas Price Act would have improved and expanded domestic refining capacity in the United States. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats rejected this legislation, opting instead to offer an alternative that would have essentially socialized gas production in the US by placing the Environmental Protection Agency in charge of designing, building and operating refineries at taxpayer expense. This Democratic alternative was wisely defeated.
Floor Statement on the Consideration of the Water Resource Development Act of 2007
Thursday May 10, 2007
The Senate today is considering the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. As the world's leading maritime and trading nation, the United States relies on an efficient Maritime Transportation System to maintain its role as a global power. The bill we debate today is the cornerstone of that system.
Before I get into the particulars of the pending committee substitute, I want to clarify that the bill as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee has been adjusted to make it no larger than the House passed bill of $15 billion. Chairwoman Boxer and I agreed that any bill considered by the Senate should be no larger than the House passed bill.
With that said, I would like to briefly describe for members the bill we are considering. Water Resources Development Act or WRDA sets out the federal policy and procedure for the United States Army Corps of Engineers to maintain and build our inland and intracoastal waterway system, which carries one-sixth of the Nation’s volume of intercity cargo. In addition, the Corps is responsible for maintaining appropriate channel depths in ports along our coasts and the Great Lakes to handle significant portions of foreign trade into and out of the country. In fact, more than 67% of all consumer goods pass through harbors maintained by the Corps of Engineers.
Before I get into the particulars of the pending committee substitute, I want to clarify that the bill as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee has been adjusted to make it no larger than the House passed bill of $15 billion. Chairwoman Boxer and I agreed that any bill considered by the Senate should be no larger than the House passed bill.
With that said, I would like to briefly describe for members the bill we are considering. Water Resources Development Act or WRDA sets out the federal policy and procedure for the United States Army Corps of Engineers to maintain and build our inland and intracoastal waterway system, which carries one-sixth of the Nation’s volume of intercity cargo. In addition, the Corps is responsible for maintaining appropriate channel depths in ports along our coasts and the Great Lakes to handle significant portions of foreign trade into and out of the country. In fact, more than 67% of all consumer goods pass through harbors maintained by the Corps of Engineers.
EPW Fact of the Day: Clinton, Obama Sign Onto to Boxer’s $4,500 Climate Tax on American Families
Wednesday May 9, 2007
Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have proposed the "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" aimed at combating climate change. The proposed partisan bill (S.309) is supported by another 15 senators, including: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY); Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT); Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE); Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA); Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI); Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), and Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD).
FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. [Read full MIT study]
The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. In addition to the MIT study, a new Congressional Budget Office study released recently, details how a carbon cap-and-trade system would result in massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. [Read more on CBO study]
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), EPW Ranking Member, said today: "Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on the people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any Senator could support such a proposal."
FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. [Read full MIT study]
The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. In addition to the MIT study, a new Congressional Budget Office study released recently, details how a carbon cap-and-trade system would result in massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. [Read more on CBO study]
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), EPW Ranking Member, said today: "Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on the people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any Senator could support such a proposal."
Clinton, Obama Sign Onto to Boxer’s $4500 Climate Tax on American Families
Wednesday May 9, 2007
Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have proposed the "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" aimed at combating climate change. The proposed partisan bill (S.309) is supported by another 15 senators, including: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY); Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT); Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE); Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA); Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI); Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), and Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD).
FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. [Read full MIT study]
The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. In addition to the MIT study, a new Congressional Budget Office study released recently, details how a carbon cap-and-trade system would result in massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. [Read more on CBO study]
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), EPW Ranking Member, said today: "Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on the people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any Senator could support such a proposal."
Read Senator Inhofe's full opening statement from today's EPW subcommittee hearing [Link]# # #
