In The News
INHOFE TO GIVE SPEECH ON FWS DECISION WHETHER TO LIST POLAR BEAR AS THREATENED UNDER ESA
Thursday January 4, 2007
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL: POLAR BEAR POLITICS
Wednesday January 3, 2007
January 3, 2007; Page A12
"We are concerned," said Mr. Kempthorne, that "the polar bears' habitat may literally be melting" due to warmer Arctic temperatures. However, when we called Interior spokesman Hugh Vickery for some elaboration, he was a lot less categorical, even a tad defensive. The "endangered" designation is based less on the actual number of bears in Alaska than on "projections into the future," Mr. Vickery said, adding that these "projection models" are "tricky business."
Apparently so, because there are in fact more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago, as the nearby chart shows. The main threat to polar bears in recent decades has been from hunting, with estimates as low as 5,000 to 10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. But thanks to conservation efforts, and some cross-border cooperation among the U.S., Canada and Russia , the best estimate today is that the polar bear population is 20,000 to 25,000.
It also turns out that most of the alarm over the polar bear's future stems from a single, peer-reviewed study, which found that the bear population had declined by some 250, or 25%, in Western Hudson Bay in the last decade. But the polar bear's range is far more extensive than Hudson Bay . A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain concluded that the ice bear populations "may now be near historic highs." One of the leading experts on the polar bear, Mitchell Taylor, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory in Canada , has found that the Canadian polar bear population has actually increased by 25% -- to 15,000 from 12,000 over the past decade.
Mr. Taylor tells us that in many parts of Canada , "polar bears are very abundant and productive. In some areas, they are overly abundant. I understand that people not living in the North generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears, but those who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like." Those cuddly white bears are the Earth's largest land carnivores.
There is no doubt that higher temperatures threaten polar bear habitat by melting sea ice. Mr. Kempthorne also says he had little choice because the threshold for triggering a study under the Endangered Species Act is low. The Bush Administration was sued by the usual environmental suspects to make this decision, which means that Interior will now conduct a year-long review before any formal listing decision is made.
Nonetheless, the bears seem to have survived despite many other severe warming and cooling periods over the last few thousands of years. Polar bears are also protected from poaching and environmental damage by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, so there is little extra advantage to the bears themselves from an "endangered" classification.
All of which suggests that the real story here is a human one, namely about the politics of global warming. Once a plant or animal is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the government must also come up with an elaborate plan to protect its habitat. If the polar bear is endangered by warmer temperatures, then the environmentalist demand will be that the government do something to address that climate change. Faster than you can say Al Gore, this would lead to lawsuits and cries in Congress demanding federal mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Think we're exaggerating? No sooner had Mr. Kempthorne announced his study than Kassie Siegel of something called the Center for Biological Diversity told the New York Times that "even this Administration" would not be able to "write this proposal without acknowledging that the primary threat to polar bears is global warming and without acknowledging the science of global warming." Her outfit was one of those who had sued the feds in the first place over the polar bears, notwithstanding its location in the frozen tundra of Arizona . But no matter. For want of a few hundred polar bears, the entire U.S. economy could be vulnerable to judicial dictation.
With that much at stake, Mr. Kempthorne could have shown a stiffer backbone in resisting this political pressure. At the very least he now has an obligation to ensure that Interior's year-long study be based on real science and the actual polar bear population, rather than rely on computer projections. Any government decision to limit greenhouse gases deserves to be debated in the open, where the public can understand the consequences, not legislated by the back door via the Endangered Species Act.
URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116778985966865527.html
WELCOME TO THE NEW EPW GOP PRESS BLOG: YEAR OF VINDICATION FOR CLIMATE SKEPTICS
Friday December 22, 2006
Below is an oldie but a goodie. A press release from October 17 of this year from the Environment & Public Works (EPW) Majority details the new developments in climate change. The release titled ' Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics, ' surely contains information that the mainstream media, environmental alarmists and some of our elected leaders do not want the public to know.
Guardian Article
Thursday December 21, 2006
A damning study from Cambridge University today exposes Guardian readers as being worse than readers of the tabloids or the Telegraph when it comes to insulating their homes.
Asked about the most important issues facing the UK, Guardian (and Independent) readers put the environment at the top of their concerns, followed by energy. These responses are a stark contrast to those from readers of the Sun and the Star and the more conservative broadsheets, who are much more worried by asylum seekers, crime, healthcare and terrorism.
But when it comes to actually doing something about it, well ...
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...WHAT GREEN ACTIVISTS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW (The Wall Street Journal, Letters to the Editor, 12/18/06)
Monday December 18, 2006
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: WHAT GREEN ACTIVISTS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW - Page A17
By Senator Inhofe, (R., Okla.)
Chairman of the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
I write to applaud your Dec. 4 editorial "Global Warming Gag Order." I also read with interest the responses from your readers ("Senators' 'Chill Out' Letter to Exxon Creates a Heated Reaction," Letters to the Editor, Dec. 13). As chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for the past four years, I have held several hearings examining the fears of manmade catastrophic global warming, and I have spoken publicly on this issue more than any other senator.
Those who wish to quell opposing viewpoints on manmade global warming do so because of a number of inconvenient facts about both the science of climate change and the economic harm their proposed "solutions" would cause the American people.
What the activists and special interest groups don't want you to know is that 60 scientists wrote an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Harper this year stating, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."
They don't want you to know that Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist who is a member of both the U.S. and French National Academies of Sciences, recently defected from the alarmist camp, and now says the cause of global warming is "unknown." They don't want you to know that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is expected to revise downward significantly its estimate of man's contribution to global warming in its upcoming Fourth Assessment Report or that another U.N. report recently found that emissions from cows were more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars.
And they certainly don't want you to know that their favored solution, the Kyoto Protocol -- often referred to by supporters as merely a "first step" -- would cost the average American family more than $2,700 a year while having no measurable impact on global temperature.
Despite enjoying a huge advantage in funding over skeptics, liberal special interests groups have had almost no impact in convincing policymakers to pass economically destructive climate legislation in the U.S. Now it appears those same alarmists are panicking and adopting a new agenda: to silence those who disagree with their views. I find it troubling that two of my colleagues in the Senate would join the campaign to shut down the ongoing debate on the science of global warming.
Click Here for Link to the Letter to the Editor (Subscription Required):
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...GLOBAL WARMING LEAVES GUARDIAN READERS COLD (GUARDIAN, 12/14/06)
Saturday December 16, 2006
THE GUARDIAN
GLOBAL WARMING LEAVES GUARDIAN READERS COLD, STUDY FINDS
Oh dear - we ' ve been caught out. All that talk of climate change and we still haven ' t got round to insulating the loft.A damning study from Cambridge University today exposes Guardian readers as being worse than readers of the tabloids or the Telegraph when it comes to insulating their homes.
Asked about the most important issues facing the UK , Guardian (and Independent) readers put the environment at the top of their concerns, followed by energy. These responses are a stark contrast to those from readers of the Sun and the Star and the more conservative broadsheets, who are much more worried by asylum seekers, crime, healthcare and terrorism.
But when it comes to actually doing something about it, well ... The study by David Reiner, of the Judge Business School , comes up with the shaming statistic that only 42% of Guardian or Indy readers have installed insulation, compared to 72% of Express readers . Dr Reiner concludes: "They show a clear divergence between their views as citizens and their actions as consumers." Apart from a slight tendency to cycle more, Guardian readers are not cutting down on car use more than anyone else. The Electricity Policy Research Group (EPRG) at Cambridge commissioned YouGov to survey 1,000 UK residents on issues ranging from the future of the electricity supply to their current purchasing decisions. While climate change concerns are voiced most strongly among the young, Liberal Democrat voters and Guardian/Independent readers, these attitudes are not translated into personal action. Paradoxically, older people who are least concerned with climate change are also far more likely to have taken concrete action to save energy, including buying energy efficient light bulbs, insulating their homes and lowering their thermostats. The survey also revealed that while half of the respondents had changed electric or gas suppliers in the past five years, 90% cited reasons of price and just 4% claimed greener energy as the reason they switched. (His report mentions that consumers are more loyal to their electricity suppliers than they are to their spouses and partners.) The poll discovered significant support for investing in renewable energy, with over two-thirds of respondents saying they would support wind farms even if situated in their own locality. Roughly half of the people surveyed supported the building of new nuclear power stations, provided they were based on existing sites. Surprisingly, one-third supported the establishment of new sites around the country. Dr Reiner said: "There is a real engagement among the British public on questions of energy and environment, particularly over climate change. There is a willingness to support government policies, but even those groups that are the strongest supporters of policy action do not translate this support into their personal energy saving behaviour. They show a clear divergence between their views as citizens and their actions as consumers." The message for the politicians, he says, is that it is no good hoping people will alter their behaviour on a sufficient scale to tackle climate change unless they have clear financial incentives.
He concludes: "There is clearly a public appetite for policy actions to address global warming, but our survey offers a clear indication that relying on self-motivated behavioural change, even (or perhaps especially) among the most earnest and best intentioned, is inadequate to the task and that stronger incentives and clear price signals will be needed to effect tangible change."
So all you earnest and well-intentioned Guardian readers out there - stop talking about saving the planet and get on with it!
In Case You Missed It...EDITORIAL: KYOTO CANARD (The Wall Street Journal, 12/14/06)
Thursday December 14, 2006
Well, let's look at results in the real world, as opposed to this Kyoto spin. Recent data show that placing artificial limits on emissions not only fails to make the world cleaner, it is also counterproductive, even on the environmentalists ' own grounds. Contrary to caricature, the American approach offers more promise than the European one.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...EDITORIAL: THE DUPES OF HAZARD (INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, December 12, 2006)
Tuesday December 12, 2006
INVESTOR ' S BUSINESS DAILY
EDITORIAL: THE DUPES OF HAZARD Climate Change: Can you fight global warming by paying more for a plane ticket and still drive your Lexus to the airport? It seems that environmentalists and their money are soon parted. King Canute is said to be the poster child for futility, sitting on the seashore, as the legend goes, commanding that the waves retreat. Actually, he ' s the epitome of common sense, for, as Clint Eastwood would say, the man knew his limitations.
He knew he had no power over the waves and, being a religious man, was trying to prove a point: that the power of the mightiest kings pales in comparison to the power of nature and the God that rules over it. But there are modern-day Canutes who don ' t know their limitations and who overestimate their ability to affect what many scientists, contrary to news reports, consider a natural cycle — the historical warming and cooling of Earth. But rather than curtailing the activities they believe are contributing to imminent and disastrous climate change, they want to have their cake and eat it too, creating a cottage industry in the buying and selling of "emission credits," which may be more about feeling good than doing good. A recent Associated Press story details the conscience-easing of San Jose State University professor Jill Cody, who can continue to drive her Lexus 6,000 miles a year guilt-free because she made a contribution to a San Francisco company called TerraPass, which takes her money and invests in wind power and reducing farm pollution, giving her a sticker to put on her car.
Nice thought, but consider that after decades of investment and subsidies wind turbines are better at slicing and dicing endangered birds than producing a significant amount of power. And speaking of farms, a U.N. report has identified flatulent livestock as a source for 18% of the greenhouse gases said to cause global warming — more than cars, planes and other forms of transport put together. Putting a TerraPass sticker on a cow is a different proposition. TerraPass charges customers of Expedia.com $5.99 to offset the carbon generated from one seat on a 2,200-mile flight. A Virginia group, the Conservation Fund, lets consumers offset their emissions by paying to plant trees — another good intention, but one that seems to acknowledge the fact that carbon dioxide is the source of life on Earth and not a pollutant. Sharing these delusions of grandeur are 70 cities that last year reportedly reduced carbon dioxide emissions by an aggregate total of 23 million tons. To put this in perspective, legislation introduced this year in the California Legislature pledged to reduce California emissions by 145 million tons by 2020. Sounds like a lot. But as we ' ve noted before, it ' s only three-tenths of 1% of the 42.6 billion (with a "b") tons the world is expected to emit that year. The worst-case U.N. computer models project a 1.3-degree rise in Earth ' s temperature by then. So, by our math, knocking out California ' s 145 million tons would reduce this by four one-thousandths of a degree, an amount too small to measure.
There ' s something bizarre about the town of Meridian, Miss. — where nearly 30% of the people live in poverty — signing on to the Kyoto goals, which are a recipe for global poverty. Estimates by the Energy Information Administration estimated losses as high as 4.2% a year to U.S. GDP by 2010 if we had agreed to Kyoto ' a anti-growth agenda. Towns like Meridian have their work cut out for them, especially considering that many Kyoto signatories have not only missed their Kyoto targets, but also actually increased emission levels. Not all embrace Kyoto . Every seven to 10 days, another coal-fired plant opens somewhere in China that ' s big enough to serve all households in San Diego . China and India (whose population is expected to outstrip China ' s by 2030) are among the world ' s biggest markets for cars like professor Cody ' s Lexus.
King Canute, call your office.
UN DOWNGRADES MAN'S IMPACT AND COW 'EMISSIONS' MORE DAMAGING THAN CO2 FROM CARS
Monday December 11, 2006
***EPW Majority Note: To read Senator James Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) statement reacting to the UNs reported downgrading of Man’s climate impact, Go To: http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=266803
THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
UN DOWNGRADES MAN ' S IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE
Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
December 11, 2006
Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.
The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.
Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent.
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.
Click here for the full text of the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml
THE INDEPENDENT
COW ' EMISSIONS ' MORE DAMAGING TO PLANET THAN CO2 FROM CARS By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
December 10, 2006
Meet the world ' s top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.
A United Nations report has identified the world ' s rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.
The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock ' s Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world ' s 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world ' s emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.
Click here for the full text of the article: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
###
COW ' EMISSIONS ' MORE DAMAGING TO PLANET THAN CO2 FROM CARS By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
December 10, 2006
SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF "SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING"
Friday December 8, 2006
Contact: Marc Morano (Marc_Morano@epw.senate.gov ), Matt Dempsey (Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov )
Update: December 20, 2007: U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” - Click New For New Report:
Washington D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the outgoing Chairman of Environment & Public Works Committee, is pleased to announce the public release of the Senate Committee published booklet entitled “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists who Cover Global Warming.”
Click here to download the "Skeptic's Guide"
The color glossy 64 page booklet -- previously was only available in hardcopy to the media and policy makers -- includes speeches, graphs, press releases and scientific articles refuting catastrophe climate fears presented by the media, the United Nations, Hollywood and former Vice President turned-foreign-lobbyist Al Gore.
The “Skeptic’s Guide” includes a copy of Senator Inhofe’s 50 minute Senate floor speech delivered on September 25, 2006 challenging the media to improve its reporting.
The ‘Skeptic’s Guide’, which has received recognition by the LA Times and Congressional Quarterly, is now available free for international distribution on the Senate Environmental & Public Works Web site.
The book, which features web links to all supporting documentation, also serves as a handbook to identify the major players in media bias when it comes to poor climate science reporting. The guide presents a reporter’s virtual who’s-who’s of embarrassing and one-sided media coverage, with a focus on such reporters as CBS News “60 Minutes” Scott Pelley, ABC News reporter Bill Blakemore, CNN’s Miles O’Brien, and former NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw.
Senator Inhofe’s “Skeptic’s Guide” also includes hard hitting critiques of the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Associated Press, Reuters, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post.
Senator Inhofe has challenged the media in a series of speeches and hearings to stop the unfounded hype.
“The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific “consensus” that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a 'climate emergency' that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve,” Senator Inhofe said in October.
Skepticism that human C02 emissions are creating a “climate catastrophe” has grown in recent times. In September, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member Claude Allegre, converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics.
Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism. See: (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777)
Related Links:
12/06/2006 - Inhofe Says Global Warming Media Hearing Exposed Alarmist Media (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=266540)
10/17/2006 - Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777)
10/30/2006 - “I Don’t Like The Word ‘Balance’’- Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter (http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265464)
10/24/2006 - Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70's Predictions of Coming Ice Age - In Case You Missed It.... (http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265087 )
09/25/2006 – Senator Inhofe Speech: “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming” (http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759)
