Weekly Climate and Energy News


By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

On Wednesday, Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and Lynn Goldman, a former EPA Assistant Administrator, representing the American Public Health Association, stridently defended the global warming orthodoxy before a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power on the issue of removing from EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This may be the first of a number of public fights on this issue. The quotes cited above are but a few of a number of scientifically questionable assertions made during their testimony.

Many newly seated members of the US House of Representatives seem singularly unimpressed by the physical evidence, or lack thereof, substantiating EPA’s claim that it has the authority and the justification to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. If continued, this would be a significant departure from the last time Republicans controlled the House when many embraced the orthodoxy. The US House is the only Federal government body empowered to originate spending and taxing programs.

To briefly recap: in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Clean Air Act’s vague language, human carbon dioxide emissions are a pollutant and EPA has the authority to regulate them. But, the court also ruled to justify such regulations, EPA had to make a scientific determination that such emissions threaten public health and welfare. On December 7, 2009, Lisa Jackson announced such a determination. The scientific justification, which flowed directly from the IPCC reports, is currently subject to litigation – which Ms. Jackson ignored during her testimony. Had the Clean Air Act carefully stated definitions of a pollutant, it is doubtful if the issue would have ever arisen.

Ms. Goldman’s testimony is on based reports by the World Health Organization, which, in turn, are based on the IPCC reports. In published peer reviewed articles, Indur Goklany, an independent researcher, has demolished these assertions. To a large part, the findings assume global warming will intensify certain common illnesses. In general, public health has improved remarkably during the 20th century. There is little or no physical evidence that the 20th century warming adversely affected public health. One must ask: what would the World Health Organization think of global cooling, or the onset of a new ice age – a possibility which the IPCC totally ignores?

Researchers, as diverse as satellite measurement expert Roy Spencer, and palaeontologist Bob Carter, have stated this entire controversy stems from Western governments spending tens of billions of dollars pursuing an answer to the wrong question – what is the risk of human-induced (global warming) climate change? Given the nature of bureaucracy, the results amplify the question – the risks are considerable. The failure to ask the right question has created agenda driven (ideological) science. The Environmental Minister of India, Jairam Ramesh, calls it “group think.” Challenges to the orthodoxy are shouted down – certainly not an environment conducive to rigorous, innovative research.

The group think concludes that carbon dioxide is the principal driver of climate change and that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming. These conclusions can easily be rejected by examining ice core borings from Greenland and other empirical data which show that temperature change for the past 10,000 and 25,000 years is largely unrelated to atmospheric carbon dioxide and that 20th century warming is insignificant compared with many 100 year warming and cooling periods in the past.

The correct scientific question is: what are the causes of climate change, both natural and human? Once determined, the secondary question can be answered: globally, how significant are human influences compared with natural influences? Then the third question can be answered: how significant are human influences on local and regional climate change compared with natural influences?

Unfortunately, by failing to address the right question, massive government funding has locked scientific organizations into an ideological dispute whereby those who dare question the orthodoxy are frequently called anti-science. Such accusations serve no one except those who are truly anti-science. Examples of such accusations are already too prevalent.

The great danger to future, government-funded scientific research is the extent to which entrenched bureaucrats will appeal to authority or evoke speculative computer models, rather than physical evidence, to deflect serious scientific questions from skeptical members of the House of Representatives. Failure to address scientific questions by the defenders of the orthodoxy will ill serve science. Brought to an extreme, such actions by the orthodoxy will damage future inquiry in natural science, physical science, by making make it difficult for the Federal government to justify funding any scientific endeavors.

Please see the open letter under Article # 1 below and articles referenced under “Let the Games Begin.” For an interesting interview with new head of the House Science Committee’s panel on basic science research and education, 56 year old freshman Representative Mo Brooks, please see Article # 3 below.


Issues regarding the rolling blackouts in Texas during the recent freeze continue. Some commentators claim it was the failure of wind power that caused the blackouts, others claim wind power came through during this critical period. Early indications are that gas supplies failed because electrical power was cut off when it was needed to maintain pressure in gas pipelines. The Public Utility Commission of Texas is conducting an investigation. A rigorously conducted investigation is vital, because, under stress, the power grid is only as strong as its weakest link. Please see Article # 4 below and articles referenced under “What Happened?”


Number of The Week: 8. Eight states have filed litigation against public utilities (privately owned) generating electricity from coal by claiming these utilities a public nuisance. The states are Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The states are joined by the City of New York, three land trusts: Open Space Institute, Inc.; Open Space Conservancy, Inc.; and Audubon Society of New Hampshire. The litigation is reaching the Supreme Court. If successful, is the next step claiming all electricity generation by privately owned utilities, be they solar, wind, hydro, natural gas, and nuclear, are public nuisances? Will government owned utilities do better? See articles referenced under “Is Electrical Generation from Coal a Public Nuisance?”


TWTW Corrections and Amplifications:

On Feb 8, SEPP sent out a TWTW supplement highlighting an open letter signed by thirty-six eminent scientists, highly knowledgeable in climate change research, and thirty-three others. The letter was submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate contesting the false assertions contained in January 23 letter by 18 scientists, discussed in last week’s TWTW.

The supplement gave a few readers the incorrect impression that SEPP was the originator of the Feb 8 letter. Sherwood, Craig, and Keith Idso of CO2 Science.org originated the letter, fully supported by many. SEPP was more a letter carrier than an originator.

The supplement and the full letter can be found at: Supplement Readers pointed out that the Feb 5 TWTW misidentified Sir Joseph Banks as past president of the Royal Academy. Actually he was past president of the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge. The Royal Society is focused on science; the Royal Academy of Arts is focused on art.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The year 2010 was dominated by the subject of global warming. Although SEPP scientists also dealt with other topics (e.g., nuclear radiation, regulation at EPA, energy policy), climate change occupied the main stage, in terms of university seminars, presentations at scientific conferences, briefings both here and abroad, interviews for TV and radio, as well as, publications in scientific and popular journals. In all instances, we promoted the results of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change), which differ sharply from those of the UN-IPCC. [See NIPCC summary report Nature, not human activity, rules the climate and full report Climate Reconsidered, http://www.nipccreport.org]

Seminars, Talks, Debates

In two major trips overseas, Fred Singer presented seminar talks on aspects of climate change and geophysics. The locations included: Erice (Sicily) Conference; Technion (Haifa), India (India Int’l Center – New Delhi; Meteorological Institute – Pune; Mumbai; Santhigiri Ashram – Trivandrum), Singapore (Nat’l University of Singapore and Nat’l Technical University).

Other talks were seminars and/or less formal talks to groups in Rome, Munich, Dusseldorf, Berlin, and Paris.

A highlight was a briefing for members of the German Bundestag. It produced a widely reported flap when a leading politician (the spokesperson on environment for the ruling CDU party) afterwards declared herself somewhat skeptical about Global Warming.

Debates (with large attendances) at Princeton and Purdue University (handled by Ken Haapala and Fred Singer)

Invited Talks at Rockefeller University (NY City), at Heartland’s Climate Skeptics Conference in Chicago, at DDP Conference in Orlando, at Statistics Conference in Seattle, and at Santa Marta (Colombia, South America)


SEPP does not lobby on behalf of political candidates or legislation. We do provide scientific information upon request in testimony to Congress or to other groups.

In response to EPA’s request for public comments on its Endangerment Finding (that CO2 emissions constitute a ‘pollutant harmful to human health and welfare’) SEPP filed scientific objections, based on the evidence assembled in the NIPCC reports. After the revelations of Climategate, SEPP, together with CEI, filed a Petition to the Federal Courts to set aside the Endangerment Finding, since it was based largely on the conclusions of the severely compromised IPCC reports.

We updated and expanded our web site . Readers, including students, journalists, and lawmakers, find it a good source of sound scientific information. Our weekly bulletin “The Week That Was” goes to some 5000 addressees: scientists, policymakers, the media, and reaches many more within the public. TWTW is now edited by SEPP Exec VP Kenneth Haapala, who also pens the column “This Week.”


Fred Singer published a book review, a technical conference paper, and submitted to peer-reviewed journals three scientific papers that deal with disparities between climate models and observations – a hotly contested topic but vital for establishing the cause of climate change.

We spent much time replying to comments and questions from readers and were guests at some dozen radio talk shows, TV interviews on CNN Headline News, Fox News, and BBC. The BBC’s Horizon program recorded an interview of Fred Singer, conducted by Sir Paul Nurse, president of Rockefeller University and now president of the Royal Society in London.

For a group of essays see: http://www.americanthinker.com

Governance: With the passing of SEPP chairman Prof Frederick Seitz, we reconstituted the Board of Directors:

Chairman: S. Fred Singer (and President)

Vice Chairman: Kenneth A. Haapala (and Exec VP)


Donna Fitzpatrick Bethell, former Under Secretary, US Dept of Energy

Mark Brandsdorfer, Esq

Thomas Sheahen, PhD (MIT, Physics)


Respectfully submitted

S. Fred Singer, President, SEPP

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


For the numbered articles below please see:


1. An Open Letter to Board of Directors of the American Chemical Society

By Steven J. Welcenbach, Jan 22, 2011

2. Blame Global Warming? No, Blame Global Warmism.

By James Taranto, Best of the Web, Feb 9, 2011


3. ‘Healthy Skeptic’ on Climate Change Promises Hearings by Science subcommittee

By Jeffrey Mervis, Science Insider, Feb 9, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


4. Texas to Probe Rolling Blackouts

By Rebeccca Smith, WSJ, Feb 7, 2011


5. The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder

The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme

By Anne Jolis, WSJ, Feb 10, 2011



– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


Climategate Continued

RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’

By James Delingpole, Telegraph, UK, Feb 8, 2011 [H/t Joe Bast]


Challenging the Orthodoxy

The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment

By Craig and Sherwood Idso

Press release By SPPI, Feb 8, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]


[SEPP Comment: A systematic presentation of decades of important research.]

No Arctic “Tipping Point”

By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Feb 10, 2011 [H/t Cooler Heads Digest]


The Urban Heat Island effect: Could Africa be more affected than the US

By JoNova, Feb 10, 2011


Defenders of the Orthodoxy

European Commissioner: Space Is a Must To Tackle Climate Change

By Staff Writers, Terra Daily, Feb 7, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Bordeaux Wines Face Climate Threat

Higher temperatures mean that grapes in Bordeaux may ripen earlier and become vulnerable to malnutrition.

By Suzanne Mustcich, AFP, Feb 9, 2011


[Will great châteaux move north to the Loire Valley? Will Britain, which is undergoing a Medieval resurgence in white wines, have great success in noble reds? The researcher totally ignores that carbon dioxide enrichment makes vines more resistant to stress such as drought. If you are wondering, 2005, which NOAA and NASA-GISS declared to be the other hottest year ever, produced an exceptional, landmark vintage – one of the best ever. Is it time to buy 2010 futures?]

Seeking a Common Ground

Professor Counters Global Warming Myths With Data

By Claire Perlman, Daily Californian, Feb 11, 2011 [H/t WUWT]


[SEPP Comment: A welcomed proposal for an independent tabulation of surface data. Will it suffer from some of the biases in the findings of NOAA and NASA-GISS as exposed by Anthony Watts and others such as failure to maintain proper siting of measuring stations? Let us hope not.]

Extreme Weather

World of two halves! Map shows most of Northern Hemisphere is covered in snow and ice

By Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail, Feb 3, 2011 [H/t Bud Bromley]


Gradual Trends and Extreme Events

By Paul Krugman, NYT, Feb 8, 2011 [H/t WUWT]


[SEPP Comment: See Indur Goklany’s comments below.]

Extreme Nonsense by Krugman

By Indur Goklany, WUWT, Feb 9, 2011


[SEPP Comment: See Krugman’s article above.]

35 zoo animals freeze to death in northern Mexico

By AP, Feb 5, 2011 [H/t Joe D’Aleo]


BP Oil Spill and Aftermath

White House’s Contemptible Drilling Ban

Editorial, IBD, Feb 4, 2011


Natural resources hold the key to economy, creating jobs

By Rep. Doug Lamborn, Washington Examiner, Feb 7, 2011


Let the Games Begin

EPA and APHA testimony to Congress about global warming health treat – a critical review

By Joseph D’Aleo, ICECAP, Feb 11, 2011


House Republicans Take E.P.A. Chief to Task

By John Broder, NYT, Feb 9, 2011 [H/t Bud Bromley]


Cap-and-Trade or Clean Energy Standards, It Doesn’t Matter

Clean Energy Standard: Cap-and-Trade Only Less Efficient

By Marlo Lewis, Global Warming.org, Feb 7, 2011


EPA and other Regulators on the March

Stop EPA’s Energy Tax

Editorial, IBD, Feb 10, 2011


AGs Band Together on Climate, Too

By Paul Chesser, American Spectator, Feb 9, 2011 [H/t Joe Bast]


Will Congress Stop EPA’s End Run around Democracy

By Marlo Lewis, Big Government, Feb 9, 2011


Bipartisan uprising against EPA overreach

Editorial, Orange County Register, Feb 3, 2011


Clean Air Under Siege

Editorial, NYT, Feb 5, 2011 [H/t David Manuta]


[SEPP Comment: The New York Times considers carbon dioxide a pollutant and fails to state that EPA was required to make a scientific finding that carbon dioxide emissions threaten public health and welfare. The science in EPA’s finding was lacking.]

Don’t weaken EPA

Editorial, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feb 10, 2011 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Orwell is back: Bulb ban is freedom

By Henry Payne, Detroit News, The Michigan View, Feb 2, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]


Energy Issues

‘Sustainability’: Some Free Market Reflections

By Marlo Lewis, Master Resource, Feb 11, 2011


[SEPP Comment: Schemes promoting sustainability are often unsustainable. The estimated costs of various electrical power generation facilities stated in the article have been updated by the US EIA.]

The Unseen Consequences of “Green Jobs”

Will investing in clean energy harm the economy?

By Ronald Bailey, Reason, Feb 8, 2011 [H/t Dale Petzold]


The Range Fuels Fiasco

A case study in the folly of politically directed investment

Editorial, WSJ, Feb 10, 2011


[SEPP Comment: In spite of headlines, subsidies, bold government predictions, and venture capital; cellulose to ethanol has failed. Article may be behind a paywall.]

DOE Details Initiative to Reduce PV Costs by 75% by 2020

By Staff Writers, Power News, Feb 9, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


[SEPP Comment: A clear illustration of the extent to which photovoltaic is non-competitive with traditional sources of electricity. What is required to create the necessary battery storage?]

Oil – the Future or the Past?

Oil; The Energy Of The Future

By Robert Samuelson, IBD, Feb 8, 2011


Oil has joined the Past … NG is the future

By Jack Barnes, Business Insider, Feb 5, 2011


Oil-Drilling Boom Under Way

Rig Count Doubles in U.S. as Companies, Landowners Tap New Crude Sources

By Ryan Dezember and Matt Day, WSJ, Feb 10, 2011


[SEPP Comment: Article may be behind a pay wall.]

What Failed?

No Coal, No Power, No Gas

By Jeffrey Folks, American Thinker, Feb 11, 2011


When Wind Is Reliable: Turbines Help Texans Avoid the Dark

By Eli Kintisch, Science Insider, Feb 8, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Whistling in the Wind

Our Don Quixote Energy Policy

Editorial, IBD, Feb 8, 2011


Lack of wind raises fears for future of green energy

Credit: Robert Lea, The Times, Feb 2, 2011


Is Electrical Generation from Coal a Public Nuisance?

DOJ, Power Companies File Briefs in High-Profile Public Nuisance Case

By Staff Writers, Power News, Feb 9, 2011


Greens With Envy

Editorial, Feb 8, 2011


California Dreaming

California’s environmental regulations cause economic blackout

By Mark Hemingway, Washington Examiner, Feb 9, 2011


CARB Before Horse

Editorial, IBD, Feb 7, 2011


[SEPP Comment: Environmental group claims that CARB is too business friendly!]

Oh Mann!

Is the University of Virginia biased against professors that challenge the idea of global warming?

By Amanda Carey, The Daily Caller, Feb 2, 2011


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC

For a full list of articles see http://www.NIPCCreport.org

Ocean Acidification and Marine Diatoms

Reference: Wu, Y., Gao, K. and Riebesell, U. 2010. CO2-induced seawater acidification affects physiological performance of the marine diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Biogeosciences 7: 2915-2923.


The Struggle to Curtail Global Warming

Reference: Sherman, D.J., Li, B., Quiring, S.M. and Farrell, E.J. 2010. Benchmarking the war against global warming. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100: 1013-1024.


Medieval Droughts of Northern Europe and Beyond

Reference: Helama, S., Merilainen, J. and Tuomenvirta, H. 2009. Multicentennial megadrought in northern Europe coincided with a global El Niño-Southern Oscillation drought pattern during the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Geology 37: 175-178.


The Impact of Global Warming on Viral Diseases

Reference: Zell, R., Krumbholz, A. and Wutzler, P. 2008. Impact of global warming on viral diseases: what is the evidence? Current Opinion in Biotechnology 19: 652-660.


The Changing Climate

Tropical Atlantic sees weaker trade winds and more rainfall: study

By Staff Writers, Physorg.com, Feb 6, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Arctic climate variation under ancient greenhouse conditions

Press Release, National Oceanography Centre (UK), Feb 11, 2011


[“Based on our findings, it seems unlikely that man-made global warming would cause a permanent El Niño state.” El Niños have a warming influence. Some alarmists have suggested the warming from carbon dioxide emissions will be amplified by more frequent El Niños.]

Food for Fuel

How biofuels contribute to the food crisis

By Tim Searchinger, Washington Post, Feb 11, 2011 [H/t David Manuta]


[Biofuels have grown rapidly, from consuming 2 percent of world grain and virtually no vegetable oil in 2004 to more than 6.5 percent of grain and 8 percent of vegetable oil last year. Governments worldwide seek to triple production of biofuels by 2020, and that implies more moderately high prices after good growing years and soaring prices after bad ones.]

Other Scientific Issues

Science Accounts Hit Hard by Planned House Budget Cuts

By Jeffrey Mervis, Science Insider, Feb 3, 2011


[SEPP Comment: See This Week above.]

Antarctic Drilling Plan Raises Concerns

By Eric Niiler, Discovery News, Feb 9, 2011


– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


Speaking of the Weather

Letter by Béla Lipták, NYT, Feb 4, 2011


[COMMENTS FROM BEST OF THE WEB: Wow, it’s so simple! Meanwhile, London’s Daily Telegraph reports that the Bombay High Court in India has ruled that “astrology . . . is a credible science.” That explains why global warmism is central to President Obama’s WTF campaign to keep America competitive. We have to make absolutely certain that we embrace the very latest superstitions and call them science.]

Astrology is a science, court rules

Astrology, the study of interplanetary alignments as the explanation for everything, is a credible science, an Indian court has ruled.

By Dean Nelson, Telegraph, UK, Feb 7, 2011 [H/t Best on the Web]


[SEPP Comment: Will the IPCC use astrology to justify the projections from its computer models?]

Prince Charles: Climate skeptics gamble with the future

By Staff Writers, BBC, Feb 9, 2011


PLEASE NOTE: The complete TWTW, including the full text of the articles, can be downloaded in an easily printable form at this web site: http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 13, 2011 8:19 am

Global Panic as Green Sector Collapses and Investors Face Ruin
Governments, investors and even the World Bank are rushing for the exits in the Great Escape from the green energy bubble.
Solar energy appears to be the worst affected sector so far. Dow Jones reports on a startling U-turn by Britain’s ultra-green government has caught investors off guard and shock waves across the markets will likely precipitate the further rush from green energy projects to shale gas.
The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change made the shock announcement as it revealed a comprehensive review of its Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program. Indications from data provider, Prequin are that over $1bn in earmarked funds may be lost as Britain now promises it will only hold tariffs until April 2012.

February 13, 2011 8:20 am

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Check regular safety handbooks on chemicals.
Safe working limit is set at 0.75%. Up to concentrations as high as 65% CO2, animals were found to have rather died as a result of lack of oxygen.

February 13, 2011 8:25 am

“Ms. Goldman’s testimony is on based reports by the World Health Organization, which, in turn, are based on the IPCC reports.”
Corrected: Ms. Goldman’s testimony is based on reports by the World Health Organization, which, in turn, are based on the IPCC reports.

John Peter
February 13, 2011 8:59 am

I like the attitude of freshman Representative Mr Mo Brooks (R-AL).
“3. ‘Healthy Skeptic’ on Climate Change Promises Hearings by Science subcommittee
By Jeffrey Mervis, Science Insider, Feb 9, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
as interviewed here. A lot of sensible answers to basically good questions. This is going to be fun when his public hearings get going. What a change from the Waxman and Perlosi types.

February 13, 2011 9:15 am

A small point but an important one, I think: what, exactly, is unnatural about humans? We evolved along with the rest of life on the planet, didn’t we? In short, I object to the rest of everything being called natural and humans not being included. From this habit of separating ourselves from nature come many of our hubris-based problems.

R. Shearer
February 13, 2011 9:26 am

The definition of pollute and pollutant is critically important. As pointed out above, CO2 is naturally occuring, in some instances is beneficial (especially for plant and animal life) and even at levels 10 times higher does not “foul or render unfit” the air to which it is emitted.

David S
February 13, 2011 9:59 am

Article I Section 1 of the US Constitution says:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Nowhere does it say federal agancies other than congress have legislative authority. Once we allow the alphabet soup of federal agencies to begin passing laws then we will no longer have a representative form of government. We will live in a pure bureaucracy and no longer will we be a free people. Unelected bureaucrats will rule our lives. Congress should completely defund the EPA or they will abdicate their power, and the American form of government, forever.
The EPA is entirely free to propose rules but those rules should not become law unless enacted through the legislative process.

February 13, 2011 10:21 am

Would recommend the following clarification regarding the statement that “Ms. Goldman’s testimony is on based reports by the World Health Organization, which, in turn, are based on the IPCC reports.”
Actually, it’s the IPCC AR5 report’s Human Health chapter that cites the WHO reports — I believe it devotes a good part of a page on it (which is quite substantial). The WHO report is cited heavily in review articles in Nature, Lancet and elsewhere, and multiple other derivative WHO studies. The estimate of climate change the original WHO report relies on is generated using the HadCM2 model (from the Hadley Center) driven by IPCC emission scenarios, similar to what is done for many studies cited in the IPCC’s reports.

February 13, 2011 10:28 am

In Ontario, Canada a moratorium has been placed on Off Shore development of turbines in the many fresh water lakes in the province.
This story can be followed at Wind Concerns Ontario.
This decision affects wind power development in the Great Lakes so the story should be of interest to readers in the USA as it affects lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Lake Superior.
The Ontario Government has vowed to resolve this within two years and install hundreds (perhaps thousands) of wind turbines near bird flyways and marine traffic routes. Preliminary approval was granted for many large installations. This approval is temporarily on hold.
You may wish to comment from an American perspective if you are affected by the decisions. Links to government sites where comments may be made are posted at Wind Concerns.
Wind Concerns voices very vocal opposition to wind turbines in Ontario regardless of where they are placed.

February 13, 2011 10:28 am

Something to watch for in the Energy/Climate news is the nexus focused on drilling and natural gas. We have a congress hostile to the EPA’s control over hydrocarbons–due to the scandalous politicization of science; and we have a growing threat in the Middle East thanks to the “revolutionary” times there. Not only will drilling increase due to the former, but it might increase massively due to implications of the latter.
Why? One of the best strategies for stifling the ability of terror groups to wage war is to cut-off their source of funds, much of which depends on petrodollars being funneled from oil-producing states in the Middle East. By merely pushing for an expansion of oil and gas production (and increased refinery capacity), congress can begin to slow the flow of dollars to terror groups rather quickly.
Look for supporters of the anti-American groups who will be most threatened by such events to press the case of AGW even harder, in an attempt to slow these developments.

February 13, 2011 10:31 am

Fooling masses are easy. Like pyramidhoax, you can cheat money while there is allways “stupid man” who pays it. Promise A Lot of money or make them scare to death and voila!

February 13, 2011 11:00 am

I forgot: Osama Bin Ladin has already begun calls to help those afflicted by AGW.
The Independent: Bin Laden goes green to exploit Pakistan flood aid frustrations

February 13, 2011 11:29 am

The quotes cited above are but a few of a number of scientifically questionable assertions made during their testimony.
Is there something missing from the post? I don’t see any “quotes cited above” up there.

February 13, 2011 4:42 pm

No link for “An Open Letter to Board of Directors of the American Chemical Society”
By Steven J. Welcenbach, Jan 22, 2011

%d bloggers like this: