In The News
Rasmussen: 69% Say It's Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
Friday August 5, 2011
The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it's at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don't think it's likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it's Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)
The number of adults who say it's likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009 .
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it's at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don't think it's likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it's Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)
The number of adults who say it's likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009 .
Politico Pro: Inhofe seeks probe of EPA science panels
Friday August 5, 2011
Sen. Jim Inhofe is attacking the credibility of the EPA's science advisory panels just as the agency prepares to issue contentious new air pollution rules based on their advice.
The Oklahoma Republican wrote on Thursday to EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins, asking him to conduct a wide-ranging probe of two panels tasked with advising EPA officials on clean air issues. Inhofe warned that the EPA has managed the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis "in ways that are inconsistent with applicable law and administration policy."
Inhofe said that the EPA's advisory panels lack impartiality because members have publicly taken sides on the issues in question, that the EPA failed to ensure that panels are balanced in terms of the viewpoints they present and that the agency has failed to rotate members.
Inhofe also accused panel members of having financial conflicts of interest because they were the recipients of EPA research grants. He cited several instances in which scientists had received individual grants; several others were grants that went to research centers where the scientists worked.
"Instead of providing forums for impartial, objective advice, the committees appear to be designed and operated in a manner largely to rubber-stamp EPA's analyses and decisions," said Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
It's no coincidence that Inhofe is seeking a probe of the panels as the EPA prepares to issue new national air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter.
The Oklahoma Republican wrote on Thursday to EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins, asking him to conduct a wide-ranging probe of two panels tasked with advising EPA officials on clean air issues. Inhofe warned that the EPA has managed the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis "in ways that are inconsistent with applicable law and administration policy."
Inhofe said that the EPA's advisory panels lack impartiality because members have publicly taken sides on the issues in question, that the EPA failed to ensure that panels are balanced in terms of the viewpoints they present and that the agency has failed to rotate members.
Inhofe also accused panel members of having financial conflicts of interest because they were the recipients of EPA research grants. He cited several instances in which scientists had received individual grants; several others were grants that went to research centers where the scientists worked.
"Instead of providing forums for impartial, objective advice, the committees appear to be designed and operated in a manner largely to rubber-stamp EPA's analyses and decisions," said Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
It's no coincidence that Inhofe is seeking a probe of the panels as the EPA prepares to issue new national air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter.
Detroit News Editorial: New ozone regulations should wait for science
Thursday August 4, 2011
In a rare, if temporary, victory of pragmatism over ideology, the Environmental Protection Agency decided not to press ahead with the release of new smog standards. At least for now.
The agency had indicated the new regulations would be issued recently, despite pleas from local communities and businesses to wait until the EPA completes its own scientific review of ozone emissions in 2013.
That seems a reasonable request. Mandates that threaten to choke the economy ought to at least be based on the most complete scientific analysis available. A deep assessment of the economic impact would be welcome as well.
But the EPA makes policies as much on assumption as it does on science, and has been oblivious to the cost and consequence of its regulations. It most recently pushed through tighter emissions standards for coal-fired power plants despite warnings that it would drive up energy costs and limit production capacity, and over the expressed objection of Congress.
The agency had indicated the new regulations would be issued recently, despite pleas from local communities and businesses to wait until the EPA completes its own scientific review of ozone emissions in 2013.
That seems a reasonable request. Mandates that threaten to choke the economy ought to at least be based on the most complete scientific analysis available. A deep assessment of the economic impact would be welcome as well.
But the EPA makes policies as much on assumption as it does on science, and has been oblivious to the cost and consequence of its regulations. It most recently pushed through tighter emissions standards for coal-fired power plants despite warnings that it would drive up energy costs and limit production capacity, and over the expressed objection of Congress.
WSJ Editorial: The Cost of Lisa Jackson
Wednesday August 3, 2011
The White House lookback on "excessive" regulation has concluded and-breaking news-there's more work left to do. So let's commend those in Congress trying to force the Administration to conduct a credible cost-benefit test.
Last month the House Energy Committee passed a bill that reforms the Environmental Protection Agency's process for creating new rules and mandates, which it has been doing with a special fervor under administrator Lisa Jackson. Known by the acronym the Train Act, the bill would help expose some of the true costs that the agency is trying to hide.
One major improvement is that the Train Act broadens the definition of costs. Under the status quo, the EPA can define almost anything as a benefit, and does. But the EPA rarely considers more tangible economic consequences, like its effects on employment, the price and reliability of energy, or the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
The Train Act would also require the EPA at least to gesture at the costs of its larger agenda. The agency is now tightening nearly every eco-regulation in existence, abusing in particular traditional air pollutant laws to shut down coal-fired power plants. This cluster of overlapping rules will cause far more cumulative damage than merely one or another rule would by itself.
Last month the House Energy Committee passed a bill that reforms the Environmental Protection Agency's process for creating new rules and mandates, which it has been doing with a special fervor under administrator Lisa Jackson. Known by the acronym the Train Act, the bill would help expose some of the true costs that the agency is trying to hide.
One major improvement is that the Train Act broadens the definition of costs. Under the status quo, the EPA can define almost anything as a benefit, and does. But the EPA rarely considers more tangible economic consequences, like its effects on employment, the price and reliability of energy, or the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
The Train Act would also require the EPA at least to gesture at the costs of its larger agenda. The agency is now tightening nearly every eco-regulation in existence, abusing in particular traditional air pollutant laws to shut down coal-fired power plants. This cluster of overlapping rules will cause far more cumulative damage than merely one or another rule would by itself.
Politico Pro: NRC commissioner: No need to 'panic' over Fukushima
Wednesday August 3, 2011
NRC Commissioner George Apostolakis on Wednesday rejected assertions that members of his panel are trying to slow-walk the implementation of post-Fukushima safety recommendations.
"All five commissioners felt that we should not panic," he said at an event with the Bipartisan Policy Center. "We should not start issuing regulations, one after the other, just to show that we're doing something. Some of that happened after Three Mile Island, and people regretted it later."
An NRC task force issued a suite of recommendations last month after reviewing the Japanese nuclear crisis, prompting agency Chairman Gregory Jaczko to urge the commission to decide on any new regulations within 90 days. He said the NRC should implement changes throughout the nation's nuclear power fleet by 2016.
But within two weeks of Jaczko's public push, a majority of NRC commissioners suggested a more thorough review of the findings.
Apostolakis said it's simply standard procedure and efficient to conduct the review through NRC technical committees and the office of the agency's executive director for operations.
"All five commissioners felt that we should not panic," he said at an event with the Bipartisan Policy Center. "We should not start issuing regulations, one after the other, just to show that we're doing something. Some of that happened after Three Mile Island, and people regretted it later."
An NRC task force issued a suite of recommendations last month after reviewing the Japanese nuclear crisis, prompting agency Chairman Gregory Jaczko to urge the commission to decide on any new regulations within 90 days. He said the NRC should implement changes throughout the nation's nuclear power fleet by 2016.
But within two weeks of Jaczko's public push, a majority of NRC commissioners suggested a more thorough review of the findings.
Apostolakis said it's simply standard procedure and efficient to conduct the review through NRC technical committees and the office of the agency's executive director for operations.
Politico Pro: Senate NRC hearing could produce fireworks
Tuesday August 2, 2011
Divisions within the NRC are expected to be on full display Tuesday when all five commissioners sit before senators to discuss the agency's new set of post-Fukushima safety regulations - and the fact that the majority of members oppose pushing them through the agency in 90 days.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing could be a forum for Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to poll each commissioner on their support for NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko's 90-day push and ask tough questions about why three of them prefer a longer review process.
At the same time, the hearing provides Republicans already critical of the Jaczko with the chance to prod at why he chose 90 days for the review and why he would make a speech before the National Press Club to push the issue if he didn't have the support of a majority of his colleagues.
"Given the lack of apparent comity that exists now between him and the other commissioners, it might've made sense to poll them to know where they're going before you go out a stake a position in the ground about what the commission should be doing," said Chris Guith, vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing could be a forum for Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to poll each commissioner on their support for NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko's 90-day push and ask tough questions about why three of them prefer a longer review process.
At the same time, the hearing provides Republicans already critical of the Jaczko with the chance to prod at why he chose 90 days for the review and why he would make a speech before the National Press Club to push the issue if he didn't have the support of a majority of his colleagues.
"Given the lack of apparent comity that exists now between him and the other commissioners, it might've made sense to poll them to know where they're going before you go out a stake a position in the ground about what the commission should be doing," said Chris Guith, vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy.
Fox News: Does NASA Data Show Global Warming Lost in Space?
Friday July 29, 2011
Has a central tenant of global warming just collapsed?
Climate change forecasts have for years predicted that carbon dioxide would trap heat on Earth, and increases in the gas would lead to a planetwide rise in temperatures, with devastating consequences for the environment.
But long-term data from NASA satellites seems to contradict the predictions dramatically, according to a new study.
"There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans," said Dr. Roy Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer -- basically a big thermometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he said. The planet isn't heating up, in other words.
Climate change forecasts have for years predicted that carbon dioxide would trap heat on Earth, and increases in the gas would lead to a planetwide rise in temperatures, with devastating consequences for the environment.
But long-term data from NASA satellites seems to contradict the predictions dramatically, according to a new study.
"There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans," said Dr. Roy Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer -- basically a big thermometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he said. The planet isn't heating up, in other words.
EPW Press Roundup: Polar Bear Scientist Suspended From Work
Friday July 29, 2011
Bloomberg: Scientist Who Reported Polar Bears Drowning Is Suspended by U.S. Agency (07/28/11) - A U.S. government wildlife biologist whose work contributed to the listing of polar bears as a threatened species has been suspended, according to a group that supports government scientists. Charles Monnett, a researcher in Anchorage with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, was placed on paid administrative leave July 18 while the Interior Department's inspector general investigates "integrity issues," according to a copy of the suspension order provided by Washington-based Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility or PEER. Monnett is overseeing several scientific studies that would affect decisions on permits for oil and gas development, according to PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. The group filed a misconduct complaint today against government officials on Monnett's behalf. "All of the scientific contracts previously managed by Mr. Monnett are being managed by the highly qualified scientists at BOEMRE," agency spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said today in an e-mail. Monnett's suspension was reported earlier today by the Associated Press. In 2006, Monnett and a colleague reported observations of polar bears drowning in open waters following a storm. The paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal Polar Biology,was cited by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its 2008 decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
APNewsBreak: Alaska Researcher Who Documented Polar Bears Demise in Arctic is Placed on Leave (07/28/11) - JUNEAU, Alaska - Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement. Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct. The federal agency where he works told him he was on leave pending the results of an investigation into "integrity issues." A watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear, but a source familiar with the investigation said late Thursday that placing Monnett on leave had nothing to with scientific integrity or the article. [...] In May 2008, the bear was classified as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming. According to a transcript, provided by Ruch's group, Ruch asked investigator Eric May, during questioning of Monnett in February, for specifics about the allegations. May replied: "well, scientific misconduct, basically, uh, wrong numbers, uh, miscalculations."
APNewsBreak: Alaska Researcher Who Documented Polar Bears Demise in Arctic is Placed on Leave (07/28/11) - JUNEAU, Alaska - Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement. Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct. The federal agency where he works told him he was on leave pending the results of an investigation into "integrity issues." A watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear, but a source familiar with the investigation said late Thursday that placing Monnett on leave had nothing to with scientific integrity or the article. [...] In May 2008, the bear was classified as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming. According to a transcript, provided by Ruch's group, Ruch asked investigator Eric May, during questioning of Monnett in February, for specifics about the allegations. May replied: "well, scientific misconduct, basically, uh, wrong numbers, uh, miscalculations."
AP: Arctic scientist under investigation
Thursday July 28, 2011
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.
Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
On Thursday, Ruch's watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett's behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have "actively persecuted" him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.
Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
On Thursday, Ruch's watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett's behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have "actively persecuted" him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.
WSJ Editorial: A Tale of Two Shale States
Tuesday July 26, 2011
Politicians wringing their hands over how to create more jobs might study the shale boom along the New York and Pennsylvania border. It's a case study in one state embracing economic opportunity, while the other has let environmental politics trump development.
The Marcellus shale formation-65 million acres running through Ohio, West Virginia, western Pennsylvania and southern New York-offers one of the biggest natural gas opportunities. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, recognized that potential and set up a regulatory framework to encourage and monitor natural gas drilling, a strategy continued by Republican Tom Corbett.
More than 2,000 wells have been drilled in the Keystone State since 2008, and gas production surged to 81 billion cubic feet in 2009 from five billion in 2007. A new Manhattan Institute report by University of Wyoming professor Timothy Considine estimates that a typical Marcellus well generates some $2.8 million in direct economic benefits from natural gas company purchases; $1.2 million in indirect benefits from companies engaged along the supply chain; another $1.5 million from workers spending their wages, or landowners spending their royalty payments; plus $2 million in federal, state and local taxes. Oh, and 62 jobs.
The Marcellus shale formation-65 million acres running through Ohio, West Virginia, western Pennsylvania and southern New York-offers one of the biggest natural gas opportunities. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, recognized that potential and set up a regulatory framework to encourage and monitor natural gas drilling, a strategy continued by Republican Tom Corbett.
More than 2,000 wells have been drilled in the Keystone State since 2008, and gas production surged to 81 billion cubic feet in 2009 from five billion in 2007. A new Manhattan Institute report by University of Wyoming professor Timothy Considine estimates that a typical Marcellus well generates some $2.8 million in direct economic benefits from natural gas company purchases; $1.2 million in indirect benefits from companies engaged along the supply chain; another $1.5 million from workers spending their wages, or landowners spending their royalty payments; plus $2 million in federal, state and local taxes. Oh, and 62 jobs.
