In The News
Science Fiction
Monday May 24, 2004
For some of us, we will make out way with our family and our friends to the local movie theater to enjoy a movie. Unfortunately this Memorial Day Weekend we will be joined at the theater with our favorite liberal special interest groups such as Moveon.org, Environmental Defense, Rainforest Action Network, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Worldwatch Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council trying to help “educate” us about global warming.
These groups will hand out flyers at theaters touting "how Bush's environmental policies could lead us into a real-life climate crisis." They are using the movie's depiction of catastrophic effects of climate change to push enactment of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act (S. 139) by urging voters to send e-mail letters to their Senators.
FACT: The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act will have severe negative consequences to our economy.
For example, a study by six African-American and Hispanic groups found that minorities would suffer disproportionate job loss from such draconian increases in energy costs with 864,000 African-Americans and 511,000 Hispanics losing their jobs.
Under McCain-Lieberman, Energy Information Agency found, the coal industry would be devastated with a cut in production of 78 percent and the loss of 50,000 jobs.
The price of natural gas, which is already increasing dramatically due to short supply, would skyrocket another 46 percent by 2025, under McCain-Lieberman, according to the EIA.
Finally, the film at its best will be a great science fiction movie with great special effects and at its worse just another big budget bust. No one is claiming the science behind this movie is true. Scientists who have previewed the film say it is a gross exaggeration and not based on scientific facts at all! Let’s all enjoy our Memorial Day weekend and for those of us who make out way to the theater hopefully we will enjoy some entertaining science fiction.
Sierra Club Distorts United States Environmental Progress…again.
Friday May 14, 2004
FACT: The Sierra Club is nothing more than a liberal special interest group of the Democratic Party. Once again, this organization places politics before the environment and in doing so threatens environmental progress. The email sent out to members makes the following claims:
Claim #1: “…without the additional help of Mother Nature, we're not likely to see additional decrease in ozone levels in 2004. And if the administration succeeds in its plan to dismantle clean air protections, the number of unhealthy smog days is likely to increase.”
THE TRUTH: The EPA report states, “Over the next 10 to 15 years, scheduled regional emission reductions are expected to result in significantly fewer areas with unhealthy ozone.”
Claim #2 “…the cold, hard truth is that most Americans simply don't know the extent of the Bush Administration's unprecedented assault on the environment.”
THE TRUTH: “Trends show that [in 2003] VOCs and NOx, the pollutants that contribute to ozone formation, were at their lowest levels since 1970.”
Claim #3: In truth, the "favorable weather conditions" deserve the bulk of the credit.
THE TRUTH: “Nationally, 2003 was one of the cleanest years on record, due in part to meteorology." The report also says of emission control programs, "Ozone levels have decreased over the past 10 to 25 years, and these reductions resulted from emission control programs." The report further states ozone levels are expected to continue to decrease in the future.
The Sierra Club will stop at nothing to defeat President Bush, even if it means distorting information and misleading the American public as to the great environmental progress that has been made under his leadership.
Climate Change Hearing
Friday May 7, 2004
At the hearing the Chairman of the committee asked one of the witnesses if he believed anyone could possibly disagree with his testimony. The witness replied, “There are always going to be groups like that.”
FACT: The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, also known as McCain- Lieberman, was soundly defeated by the United States Senate by a vote of 55-43. The Senate also sent a clear message against the Kyoto Accords with a 95-0 vote against implementing the treaty. It appears at least one group, the United States Senate, does disagree.
Why?
Scare tactics do not sell to the American public.
As Senator Inhofe said from the floor of the Senate during the debate over McCain-Lieberman, “Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science. Global warming alarmists see a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, war, terrorism, economic dislocations, droughts, crop failures, mosquito-borne diseases, and harsh weather-all caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
Not surprisingly, alarmist claims were exactly the claims presented at the recent hearing. Dr. Epstein argued the effects of climate change are already being felt as the American West suffers through a serious drought. But if the committee heard from a variety of opinions perhaps a different view would have presented -- much like what was reported in a New York Times article just this past week:
“Continuing research into drought cycles over the last 800 years bears this out, strongly suggesting that the relatively wet weather across much of the West during the 20th century was a fluke. In other words, scientists who study tree rings and ocean temperatures say, the development of the modern urbanized West — one of the biggest growth spurts in the nation's history — may have been based on a colossal miscalculation.” - New York Times
In addition, both Dr. Epstein and Senator Lautenberg discussed a recent climate change paper from the Pentagon. Senator Lautenberg went as far as to ask the panel if they knew of anyone who questioned the findings of the Pentagon Report. Again, if the committee would have asked those with differing opinions to testify, they might have heard this about the Pentagon Report:
“They got it all wrong.” In fact Peter Schwartz -- one of the authors of the controversial report said Tuesday that, “the report’s scary-sounding projections are highly improbable and extremely unlikely.” -San Francisco Chronicle
Unfortunately the Senate Commerce Committee has closed the door to open debate on the facts of climate change from all sides of the issue. It is unfortunate that those critical of climate change science have not been allowed to present their case before the Committee. Members and the American public should relish the opportunity for spirited debate – not stifle it.
Malaria and Global Warming
Wednesday May 5, 2004
For example, take the question of the relationship between malaria and global warming. Posted on the Grist website is an article discussing the benefits and faults of the movie. The article emphasizes much of the movie is factices, but claims increasing danger of outbreak of malaria is one of the realities of global warming. The article states:
“When, in fact, the more likely horror stories happen a little more slowly -- and a little farther away from the Hollywood hills and the Manhattan canyons. For instance: The World Health Organization estimates that the spread of mosquitoes in a warmer, wetter world will cause malaria and dengue fever to explode. The deaths won't come all at the same time, and they won't involve people who look like Dennis Quaid, but they'll be plenty real.”
Or an article entitled “Apocalypse soon” in the Guardian, which links the catastrophe of September 11 with global warming:
“This is no rhetorical exaggeration. About 2,900 died in the Twin Towers on September 11 2001, and just over 200 died in Madrid. But the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has estimated that 160,000 people are dying each year from the consequences of climate change - malaria, dysentery and malnutrition. And even that excludes some of the most extreme storm disasters plausibly linked to climate change, notably the tropical cyclone in Bangladesh in 1991, which killed 138,000, as well as Hurricanes Mitch and Andrew in the Caribbean, both hyper-intense category-five typhoons.”
FACT: The scientific claims made in these articles are nothing more than a politically charged campaign of disinformation. The articles are based on scientific reports made by scientists well outside the field of infectious diseases. Those scientists who do specialize in infectious diseases dismiss such conclusions. One such specialist is Dr. Peter Reiter.
Who is Paul Reiter? Paul Reiter is Professor at the Institute Pasteur in Paris, where he is in charge of setting up a new Insects and Infectious Disease unit. A British-born scientist, Professor Reiter spent 22 years in the Division of Vector-borne Infectious Diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. He has conducted field research for numerous national and international organizations, including the World Health Organization, in twelve South American, African, North American, and Asian countries and is considered one of the world’s leading authorities on the transmission of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever.
Specifically, Reiter questions the research by one of the most referred to documents by environmental extremists, the Second Assessment Report on the Impacts of Global Change published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). Reiter was disappointed to discover “Neither the nine lead authors nor the sources they cited were specialists in the field.” But Reiter clearly understands the importance of the findings stating, “Nevertheless, their authoritative pronouncements gave authenticity to a new crop of erroneous articles, many with inventive explanations of new situations.”
Reiter is clearly frustrated and would like for nothing more to get the science right and solve the real problems of infectious diseases when he says “The sad fact is that there is little we scientists can do to challenge this campaign of disinformation. None of us denies that temperature is a factor in the transmission of mosquito-borne diseases, and that transmission may be affected if the world's climate continues to warm. But it is immoral for the political activists to mislead the public by attributing the recent resurgence of these diseases to climate change, particularly in Africa. The true reasons are far more complex, and the principal determinants are politics, economics, and human activities. A creative and organized application of resources to change the situation is urgently needed, regardless of future climate.”
Reiter is right, let’s get the science straight and get to work.
KERRY AND CAFE STANDARDS
Tuesday May 4, 2004
RUSSERT: “That was your legislation. You stand by that?” KERRY: “Well, we tried to do that that year but both McCain and I said at the time, you can go back and look at the quote -- we said we're not fixed in stone as to the number or how we do this. We're ready to negotiate. The problem is nobody wanted to negotiate because they had the votes.” (NBC's "Meet The Press," 4/18/04)
FACT: Senator Kerry flip-flopped positions on CAFÉ in just three weeks. The New York Times on March 26, 2004 reported, “In the face of rising gasoline prices and stagnating fuel efficiency, Senator John Kerry is sticking with a plan he backed in the Senate to increase the nation's fuel economy standards 50 percent by 2015. That would be the largest increase, by far, since automotive fuel economy standards were first imposed after the oil shocks of the 1970's.” (Danny Hakim, "Kerry Is Sticking With Plan To Raise Auto Fuel Efficiency," The New York Times, 3/26/04)
Less than two weeks before Senator Kerry made his appearance on Meet the Press, Greenwire published an article suggesting Kerry was already on his way to the CAFÉ flip-flop just not sure how far he would go writing, “An automotive industry source said that, while Kerry might not back down from the 36 mpg target, there could be room for compromise on other aspects of a fuel economy hike. "He's apparently not wanting to back down on the raw number," the source said about Kerry's 36 mpg proposal. "I don't think they want to give the appearance he's changed positions."” Greenwire 4/5/04
Climate change and the drought in the West
Tuesday May 4, 2004
FACT: The science behind climate change and global warming is anything but certain. The example this time can be found in the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Washington Post, “Warm Climate's Effects Striking in West,”
“Forget talk of global warming and speculation of what it might do in 50 years, or 100. Here and across the West, climate change already is happening. Temperatures are warmer, ocean levels are rising, the snowpack is dwindling and melting earlier, flowers bloom earlier, mountain glaciers are disappearing and a six-year drought is killing trees by the millions.”
New York Times: “Drought Settles In, Lake Shrinks and West's Worries Grow”
“Those who worry most about the future of the West - politicians, scientists, business leaders, city planners and environmentalists - are increasingly realizing that a world of eternally blue skies and meager mountain snowpacks may not be a passing phenomenon but rather the return of a harsh climatic norm.”
“Continuing research into drought cycles over the last 800 years bears this out, strongly suggesting that the relatively wet weather across much of the West during the 20th century was a fluke. In other words, scientists who study tree rings and ocean temperatures say, the development of the modern urbanized West - one of the biggest growth spurts in the nation's history - may have been based on a colossal miscalculation.”
Sierra Club Money
Tuesday April 27, 2004
Take the Sierra Club for example: as long time supporters of campaign finance reform and demanding full disclosure from candidates campaign contributions, shouldn’t we know where they get their money?
The Sierra Club website states, “The financial support for The Sierra Club Foundation comes from individual donors and foundations who recognize that The Sierra Club Foundation is the most effective organization to sponsor important environmental work.”
But who are these individual donors and foundations?
FACT: We don’t know, and not many do know because groups like the Sierra Club are not required to disclose names. As a result, only a small select group of people knows the answer. In fact, even the executive director of the Sierra Club is left out in the dark. According to the Los Angeles Times, “As president of the board, Fahn said, he is supposed to be told the identities of the anonymous donors, as is the board's treasurer. ‘But I don't know the names of these donors,’ Fahn said. ‘I'm not dying to know.’”
The Los Angeles Times checked the Sierra Clubs IRS records and found some astounding numbers, but no names. The paper states, “Tax forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service show that the Sierra Club Foundation received two enormous windfalls from anonymous donors: $47.9 million in 2000 and $53.6 million in 2001. Each of these donations was more than double the amount of all funds raised in each of the previous four years.”
With well over $100 million dollars anonymously donated to a political active group, -- a group that supported campaign finance reform -- shouldn’t we expect full disclosure?
Kyoto and Kerry
Tuesday April 13, 2004
The letter published in last week’s paper states, “The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of important international initiatives, from the Kyoto Accords to the Biological Weapons Convention, have alienated much of the world and squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11.”
FACT: Senator Kerry voted against implementing the Kyoto Accord. On July 25, 1997, the U.S. Senate sent then President Clinton a clear message in passing the Byrd/Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95 to 0.
At that time the presumptive democratic presidential candidate said, “It’s just common sense that if you are really going to do something to effect global climate change and you are going to do it in a fair-minded way…we need to have an agreement that does not leave enormous components of the world's contributors and future contributors of this problem out of the solution.”
The resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should not be a signatory to any treaty that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States" or that would impose new greenhouse gas emissions reductions on the economically developed countries unless it "also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period."
And that’s exactly what European countries that signed the Kyoto Accords now face. A recent article in the Economist says, “EUROPE is not finding it easy to enter the brave green world of carbon constraints.” The article further states, “Some industry lobbies have been screaming that the economic costs of action will be ruinous. Those representing the EU power industry claim that tackling carbon could cost €2 billion ($2.4 billion) a year. The Confederation of British Industry talks of “the sacrifice of UK jobs on the altar of green credentials.” Another article in Greenwire also highlights economic trouble for Europe saying, “The companies surveyed also predicted a major increase in electricity costs as they shift to natural gas-fired power generation and away from coal-fired and nuclear power plants, PWC said.” Two-thirds of companies in the E.U. expect wholesale electricity prices to rise by up to 20 percent, and a fifth of companies expect increases of 20 to 40 percent," PWC said.” And that’s not all. The Economist article also points out, “And, for all their green bluster, most European countries are not on target to meet Kyoto commitments. The March 31st deadline has proved largely meaningless. Germany barely finished its emissions plan in time. Most other EU countries did not. Spain, France and Greece blamed this on recent elections. Britain backed off at the last minute for no obvious reason.”
Perhaps it’s Senator Kerry with the credibility problem. The junior Senator from Mass. has been for Kyoto and against Kyoto. While Europe struggles with the economic burden of Kyoto he promises to do the same to the United States. Finally, there remains this simple question: why is the Junior Senator from Mass. Senate office sending letters to Iranian papers about credibility or Kyoto in the first place?
John Kerry’s Record: Putting windmills out of business?
Monday April 5, 2004
FACT: Sen. John Kerry failed to show up for a crucial vote on last year’s energy bill, which included a tax credit for wind and solar energy, a credit that expired on Dec. 31st. “If the energy bill dies, extension of the wind production tax credit will also die for any time in the foreseeable future.” [Randall Swisher, American Wind Energy Association, NPR, Dec. 31, 2003]
FACT: Kerry’s opposition to the energy bill is obstructing progress on new, clean, wind and solar power projects. “Vestas Group, the world's leading maker of wind turbines, had planned a new plant in Oregon with a thousand employees. Now that's up in the air. Wind farms proposed for Minnesota and Iowa are stalled, and Swisher says layoffs are coming.” [NPR, Dec. 31, 2003]
FACT: Senator Kerry helped kill the energy bill with PTC extension, putting wind power companies in serious financial jeopardy. “The credit that is the foundation of our industry was going to expire and with it our industry would expire. So, yes, it was important for us to see that the energy bill moved forward.” Randall Swisher of the American Wind Energy Association, NPR, Dec. 31, 2003]
FACT: Refused to take a position in support of the Cape Wind Farm, helped kill energy bill with PTC extension. “Last week, the Wind Energy Association announced the loss of more than 2,000 jobs in recent months because of the expiration of the wind energy production tax credit. One project delayed until S. 2095 passes is a 310-megawatt wind farm in north-central Iowa. This $323 million wind farm will be one of the world's largest land-based wind projects.” (Senate Energy Committee, March 3, 2004)
Equivocating on Cape Wind Associates wind farm project, which has 420 megawatts of capacity, enough to power more than half a million homes. “I don’t think it is appropriate for me (to weigh in). I think it is most appropriate thing to do is listen to the people of on the Cape, listen to the people who have concerns, weigh the arguments,” Kerry said. [Kevin Landrigan, “Kerry Offers Ways to Fight Pollution, The Telegraph [Nashua, N.H.] 4/23/03]
FACT: Failed to receive distinction for his “leadership” on wind power: "Gaining the PTC extension became a reality through the cooperative leadership of Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Harry Reid (D-NV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Max Baucus (D-MT), Gordon Smith (R-OR) and many others.” (AWEA News Release 2002).
Fishy Scare Tactics from Liberal Special Interests
Thursday April 1, 2004
The financially loaded liberal special interest group Moveon.org, the Sierra Club and many other liberal special interest groups well known for their “Anyone but Bush” smear campaign are reaching deep into their bag of dirty tricks to defeat President Bush this fall.
Their claim this time? President Bush is poisoning pregnant women and their unborn child with mercury found in fish.
FACT:
This message is a disservice and irresponsible because it encourages limiting the publics fish consumption. The health benefits are too well established to forgive any political group attempting to scare the public into abandoning fish consumption, but especially true for pregnant women and their unborn child. These lies used for political gain significantly hurt those they allege to help.
What health benefits make fish so great? Omega-3 fatty acids.
Katherine Tallmadge a Washington nutritionist and author of "Diet Simple" (Lifeline Press, 2002) discusses the benefits of Omega-3fatty acids, writes in a Washington Post article:
"Omega-3s favorably affect a number of risk factors for cardiovascular disease and at the top of the list is reducing the risk of sudden death from heart attack," says Penny Kris-Etherton, a nutrition professor at Pennsylvania State University.
“Study after study has confirmed that omega-3 fatty acids, a type of polyunsaturated fat found primarily in fish, have a potent and positive effect on heart disease patients. Omega-3s prevent irregular heart beat, reduce plaque inside artery walls and decrease blood clotting, triglycerides (blood fat), blood pressure and inflammation.”
“But the healing powers of omega-3s don't stop there. Research suggests they may reduce the risk of diabetes, reduce insulin resistance in people with diabetes, enhance bone density and inhibit proliferation of cancer cells in the breast, prostate and colon and improve skin condition by curbing psoriasis. Inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease seem to improve with more omega-3s. In infants, it improves cognition and visual acuity. And emerging research indicates omega-3s may boost levels of the brain chemicals serotonin and dopamine, decreasing depression and violent behavior.”
As for the pregnant and nursing mothers, Joyce Nettleton in the Christensen Washington Post article, who has a doctorate in nutrition from Harvard School of Public Health and a consulting practice in Denver called ScienceVoice, writes, “strongly recommends that pregnant and nursing women eat at least two meals (12 ounces), of fatty fish, such as troll-caught albacore, per week, to obtain the omega-3s”.
The EPA and FDA echoed the importance of seafood in maintaining a healthy diet in a recent advisory on March 19, 2004:
“Fish and shellfish are an important part of a healthy diet. Fish and shellfish contain high-quality protein and other essential nutrients, are low in saturated fat, and contain omega-3 fatty acids. A well-balanced diet that includes a variety of fish and shellfish can contribute to heart health and children's proper growth and development. So, women and young children in particular should include fish or shellfish in their diets due to the many nutritional benefits.”
While mercury has existed in fish for millennia and U.S. man-made contributions account for only a small portion of global emissions, President Bush is going forward, for the first time in our nation’s history, to establish new EPA procedures to significantly reduce mercury. Responsible and well thought out action makes more sense than irresponsible rhetoric that threatens public health.
