Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project


Quote of the Week:

“This is how science works,” the unsigned opinion said. “EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.” US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit June 26, 2012. Proving human caused dangerous global warming one time would be sufficient, but EPA has failed to do so.


Number of the Week: 910



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

Due to power outages not yet attributable to the EPA, TWTW will be shorter than usual.

US EPA- General: With the close of Rio+20 with little damage to the citizens of the developed world, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dominates the news in the US. Monday marked the final day for public comment on the EPA “carbon pollution standards.” That is the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) a new power plant can emit while generating electricity. The regulation is designed to prevent the construction of coal-fired power plants. There is an option, the use of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which is an unproven technology that may become a giant money trap such as permanent storage of nuclear wastes at Yucca Mountain. SEPP’s comments on the regulations appear later.

EPA Endangerment Finding: On Tuesday, the three-member panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit announced its opinion on the litigation challenging EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions endanger public health and welfare. GHG include three man-made gases which can easily be regulated separately and three naturally occurring gases, the major one being CO2. The other two naturally occurring gases Nitrous Oxide and Methane can be, and are, regulated separately. The objective of the entire exercise is to give EPA the power to regulate CO2 as it pleases – something Congress did not envision when passing the Clean Air Act (CAA)

In 2007, the Supreme Court decreed that GHGs are pollutants that EPA can regulate under the CAA if the EPA finds that GHGs endanger public health and welfare. On December 15, 2009, the EPA, under Lisa Jackson, published such a finding. A number of private groups and government entities sued on various grounds. SEPP’s litigation, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was based on the science. As stated in TWTW previously, if the finding is against the EPA, then it was expected to be on procedural grounds, not scientific ones. Tuesday’s finding was unanimous. The finding of the court dismisses any challenges to EPA science. It was not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless. Selected quotes (in italics) and comments follow:

Court expressing its bias for the EPA

… “we give an extreme degree of deference to the agency when it is evaluating scientific data within its technical expertise.” p. 29

Comment: To the court, EPA science is sacrosanct, no matter how biased or shoddy.

Three lines of evidence

Line of evidence number 1

The body of scientific evidence marshaled by EPA in support of the Endangerment Finding is substantial. EPA’s scientific evidence of record included support for the proposition … Linchpin finding – root cause of the recently observed climate change is “very likely” the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Comment: There is a weak correlation between late 20th century warming and CO2 emissions – this is scientific proof? Why has there been no warming trend for over a decade as CO2 emissions have increased?

Line of evidence number 2

“EPA further relied upon evidence of historical estimates of past climate change, supporting EPA’s conclusion that global temperatures over the last half-century are unusual.

Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,518. Scientific studies upon which EPA relied place high confidence in the assertion that global mean surface temperatures over the last few decades are higher than at any time in the last four centuries. Technical Support Document for the Endangerment Finding (TSD), at 31. These studies also show, albeit with significant uncertainty, that temperatures at many individual locations were higher over the last twenty-five years than during any period of comparable length since 900 A.D. Id.

Comment: Mr Mann’s hockey-stick in its full glory. No wonder the multi-billion global warming industry so adamantly attacks anyone who dares to question this work.


Line of evidence #3.

For its third line of evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases spurred the perceived warming trend, EPA turned to computer-based climate-model simulations. Scientists have used global climate models built on basic principles of physics and scientific knowledge about the climate to try to simulate the recent climate change. These models have only been able to replicate the observed warming by including anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases in the simulations. Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,523.

Comment: What about the current divergence between model results and atmospheric CO2? During the oral arguments an attorney for the EPA falsely claimed the models have been validated.

To recap, EPA had before it substantial record evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases “very likely” caused warming of the climate over the last several decades. EPA further had evidence of current and future effects of this warming on public health and welfare. Relying again upon substantial scientific evidence, EPA determined that anthropogenically induced climate change threatens both public health and public welfare. It found that extreme weather events, changes in air quality, increases in food- and water-borne pathogens, and increases in temperatures are likely to have adverse health effects. Id. at 66,497–98. The record also supports EPA’s conclusion that climate change endangers human welfare by creating risk to food production and agriculture, forestry, energy, infrastructure, ecosystems, and wildlife. Substantial evidence further supported EPA’s conclusion that the warming resulting from the greenhouse gas emissions could be expected to create risks to water resources and in general to coastal areas as a result of expected increase in sea level. Id. at 66,498.

Finally, EPA determined from substantial evidence that motor-vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and thus to the endangerment of public health and welfare.

Comment: The list of disasters of biblical proportions, many false.

The court dismissed the arguments that the EPA did not submit its findings to the Science Advisory Board by stating that it was not clear that it had to.

As to Climategate, the court said: [It] “Dismissed denial of reconsideration in light of Climategate — did not provide substantial evidence the endangerment should be reversed.”

“According to EPA, the petitioners’ claims based on the CRU documents were exaggerated, contradicted by other evidence, and not a material or reliable basis for questioning the credibility of the body of science at issue; two of the factual inaccuracies alleged in the petitions were in fact mistakes, but both were “tangential and minor” and did not change the key IPCC conclusions; and the new scientific studies raised by some petitions were either already considered by EPA, misinterpreted or misrepresented by petitioners, or put forth without acknowledging other new studies. Id. at 49,557–58.”


Comment: The melting of the Himalayas is tangential and minor in the science of climate change.

Without question, the courts will not hold the EPA accountable for misleading, biased science, no matter how shoddy.

Where does this decision leave those who believe the courts and the EPA are using false science to greatly expand governmental powers over energy use, thereby over the economy? No doubt the decision will be appealed to the full court, which will probably not consider it. Then a request will be made to the Supreme Court hear the case, but it is doubtful the Supreme Court will reverse a 2007 decision.

Perhaps the Appeals Court best said what needs to be done:

“We have serious doubts as to whether … it is ever `likely’ that Congress will enact [contradicting] legislation at all.” To those who find the EPA and the Court’s expansion of its powers arrogant, this statement may be Marching Orders. Two simple sentences may be sufficient: Carbon dioxide is a non-toxic, colorless, odorless, trace gas that is essential to human life. Its regulation is reserved for Congress, only, and it is not to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Please see links under Litigation Issues.


EPA Carbon Pollution Rules: Given the Circuit Court decision on June 26 that did not surprise SEPP, some may ask why did SEPP bother filing comments on the proposed EPA Carbon Pollution Rules on June 25. The answer is it is not over yet, and it is critical to build a record that EPA science is biased and shoddy.

In its findings, EPA relies on separate reports from institutions: the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and a report from the National Research Council (NRC).

As linked in last week’s TWTW, Patrick Michaels prepared a devastating critique of the USGCRP report. Since the NRC report is built on both the IPCC and the USGCRP reports, the SEPP filing focused on the IPPC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) with major emphasis on AR4 and it’s Summary for Policymakers. These comments are far too late for inclusion in the litigation against the EPA finding that GHGs, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare [Endangerment Finding (EF)].

At best, the EF was premature, and was based on faulty science, which subsequent research is discrediting. For that reason, SEPP continues to build the public record against the EPA’s EF that science does not support its finding that atmospheric CO2 emissions endanger public health and welfare. The other five gases included in the finding are a logical red herring – designed to distract others from the true goal – control of energy from carbon based fuels.

SEPP Comments included:

Scope of Comments:


The proposed rule is focused on carbon dioxide emissions, as will . the comments. Discussion of other greenhouse gases is secondary. They can be regulated selectively.

Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic, trace gas that is a building block of life on this planet as we generally recognize it. It is essential for all green plants and, subsequently, for other life that requires the food that green plants create. Without carbon dioxide most life, including humans, and the environment, as we generally recognize them, would not exist.

General Comment:


The above referenced rule is premature, is based on deficient scientific reports, embodies ignorance of climate history, faulty methodology, requires acceptance of predictions from computer models that have never undergone requisite scientific testing and that are failing, and ignores the enormous benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Specific Comment:

The comments covered in brief the following subjects:

· Gross error in methodology: The assumption that the natural causes of global warming / climate change are known

· Data Contamination – including findings by Ross McKitrick

· Uncertainty in Inputs of the Models: Eleven of the identified 16 forcing inputs have high to very high levels of uncertainty.

· Uncertainty in the outputs: Nonlinear chaotic models do not produce consistent results. Each model must be run multiple times to give an idea of the general result. Averaging a number of models is without scientific value. All may exhibit the same bias that cannot be determined.

· False Certainty in AR4 and the EPA: Based on the uncertainty given above, there is no scientific basis for claiming 90 to 99 percent certainty that human emissions of CO2 cause late 20th century warming.

· Failure to Validate: The models used in the projections / predictions of global warming have never been verified and validated.

· Prediction the Ultimate Test: Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, atmospheric concentrations are increasing; yet there is no corresponding increase in global temperatures. The models that are the foundation of the EPA / EF are failing.

· Ignoring Benefits: Carbon dioxide emissions create more food for humanity and a more vibrant environment.


In its rule making, the EPA has failed to follow proper administrative procedures in creating regulations that will destroy an industry that has served Americans for 130 years (the current price of natural gas which is promoting gas-fired power plants is a red herring).

The proposed rules, and the EF, are based on an ignorance of climate history and faulty methodology. The models used to justify these rules as benefiting future generations include faulty data, great uncertainty in inputs, great uncertainty in results, and a scientifically unsubstantiated belief in their accuracy. The models fail to predict accurately and are little more than artifacts, ignoring significant, natural causes of global warming / climate change.

The EPA should desist from such rule-making until a robust, independent review of all relevant science is conducted. Otherwise the EPA will continue to give the American public the impression that it can control global warming / climate change by controlling carbon dioxide emissions – something it surely cannot.

Of course, the EPA will not address its deficient science as long as the Federal Courts protect it.


Number of the Week: 910 According to a June 18, 2012 report by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Majority Staff to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce about $8 Billion in subsidies given to solar and wind industry under Section 1603 directly produced about 910 jobs on an annual basis for the life of the systems. This is far below that promised. Please see link under Subsidies and Mandates Forever.



For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

1. Expanded Oil Drilling Helps U.S.Wean Itself From Mideast

By Angel Gonzalez, WSJ, Jun 26, 2012


2. For Energy Producers, Natural Gas May Not Be the Only Source of a Glut

By Tom Fowler and Ben Lefebre, WSJ, Jun 26, 2012


3. Helping the Poorest, Climate Change and Capitalism

Letters, WSJ, Jun 27, 2012


[SEPP Comment: Dramatically opposing views.]

4. How Cuba Became a ‘Happy’ Country

Citizens flee on rafts. But environmentalists know better.

By Matthew Sinclair, WSJ, Jun 26, 2012





Climategate Continued

The fall of Forest 2006?

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jun 25, 2012


British science journalists on Climategate

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jun 24, 2012


Challenging the Orthodoxy

World’s Lakes Show Global Temperature Standstill

By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Jun 26, 2012


Settled Science? No Such Thing

By Bob Carter, The Australian, from GWPF, Jun 27, 2012


Defending the Orthodoxy

UN panel rejects political claim by ‘New Scientist’

By Frank McDonald, Irish Times, Jun 25, 2012 [H/t GWPF]


Climate Change: Waiting for a Catastrophic Wake-Up Call

By Mario Osava, Tierramérica, Jun 22, 2012 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Searching for a humanitarian disaster to blame on global warming.]

Greenland ice may exaggerate magnitude of 13,000-year-old deep freeze

By Chris Barncard, Madison WI (SPX), Jun 27, 2012


[SEPP Comment: Trying to find a carbon dioxide component to the cooling and warming of the Younger Dryas.]


Questioning the Orthodoxy

World cooling to global warming

By Lorne Gunter, Toronto Sun, Jun 26, 2012 [H/t GWPF]


Whatever Happened To Climate Change Crisis?

By Andrew McKillop, GWPF, Jun 28, 2012


Green ‘drivel’ exposed

The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun, Jun 23, 2012


Questioning European Green

German Pols Now Demanding Energy Welfare For Its Citizens – 800,000 Have Had Their Electricity Cut Off!

By P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jun 26, 2012


MPs have no idea how to meet the ‘carbon’ target they voted for

When readers asked their MPs to explain how the UK would cut CO2 emissions by 80 per cent, the answers made worrying reading

By Christopher Booker, Telegraph, UK, Jun 23, 2012 [By Anne Debeil]


Coalition’s plans to fuel UK with green energy at ‘high risk’ of failing, says watchdog

The Coalition’s plans to keep Britain’s lights on with green electricity have a “high risk” of failing, the Major Projects Authority has warned.

By Rowena Mason, Telegraph, UK, Jun 27, 2012 [H/t GWPF]


Energy reforms ‘threaten beauty of country’ with pylons, says CPRE

The Coalition’s energy reforms threaten the “beauty and tranquillity” of the countryside because they encourage National Grid to cover Britain with pylons, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has warned.

By Rowena Mason, Telegraph, UK, Jun 25, 2012


Questioning Green Elsewhere

Economists Without Calculators

Be wary of op-eds in the New York Times that tout an “environmental revolution.”

By Robert Bryce, National Review, Jun 27, 2012


Rio + 20 – World Control?

U.N. moves decisively against the Green message to end Capitalism

The U.N. conference on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro decisively rejected calls by green activists to shrink the world economy.

By Alan Oxley, UPI, Jun 26, 2012


Rio +20 Earth Summit: The End of International Environmentalism

Watching green ideology crash and burn

By Ronald Bailey, Reason, Jun 26, 2012


After Rio – what next?

By Kelvin Kemm, WUWT, Jun 28, 2012


[SEPP Comments: The Rio conference was more about control of humans than actual concern for humans or the environment.]

Post Rio+20 Sustainable Development: RIP?

Executive at IISD writes devastating, almost despairing critique of Rio+20. “We have come to a sorry pass,” says Mark Halle in a commentary on last week’s conference

By Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, Jun 25, 2012


Seeking a Common Ground

UK Conference of Science Journalists

By Doug Keenan, Bishop Hill, Jun 28, 2012


We have known for millennia that prerequisites for integrity in human affairs include things like transparency and accountability. Those things should be in all scientific research.

Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?

Significant sea-level rise in a two degree warming world

By Staff Writers, Potsdam, Germany (SPX), Jun 27, 2012


Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M: Climate scientist, science communicator

By Staff Writers, Texas Climate News, Jun 28, 2012


[SEPP Comment: A Google Science Communication Fellow. The interview conducted in 2011 in which he complained against the “denial machine.”]

Melting Sea Ice Threatens Emperor Penguins

By Staff Writers, Woods Hole MA (SPX), Jun 25, 2012


[SEPP Comment: Movie stars are threatened.]

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

How is Creating Green Jobs is Like Banning Tractors to Create Farm Jobs?

By Todd Myers, NCPA, Jun 25, 2012 [H/t John Droz]


[SEPP Comment: A bit of humor in the green jobs issue – more jobs will be created by investing in generating electricity from human driven stationary bicycles than by solar.]

Models v. Observations

Climate change and the South Asian summer monsoon

By Staff Writers, Manoa HI (SPX), Jun 27, 2012


[SEPP Comment: The disastrous changes in the monsoons projected in the models are not happening.]

Changing Weather

Current Global Weather Patterns Normal Despite Government and Media Distortions

By Tim Ball, A Different Perspective, Jun 28, 2012


Changing Climate

Chemical analysis of pottery reveals first dairying in Saharan Africa in the fifth millennium BC

By Staff Writers, Bristol UK (SPX), Jun 26, 2012


[SEPP Comment: Additional research supporting the writings of HH Lamb. The Holocene Climate Optimum, a period warmer than today, the Sahara was a wetter, greener place. Climate change is real, significant, and natural.]

Changing Seas

Rising sea level puts US Atlantic coast at risk: report

By Staff Writers, AFP, Jun 24, 2012


[SEPP Comment: From 20 to 37 cm (8 to 15 inches) per century. This is alarming?]

Rising Tides Of Terror: Will Melting Glaciers Flood Al Gore’s Coastal Home?

By Larry Bell, Forbes, Jun 26, 2012


Changing Sea Ice

Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show

Crafty boffins got elephant seals to survey for them

By Lewis Page, A Register, Jun 25, 2012 [H/t Gordon Fulks]


Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

Food security and climate change

By Staff Writers, Washington DC (SPX), Jun 26, 2012


Litigation Issues

Attorney Peter Glaser’s “Morning After” Reflections on the D.C. Circuit Court GHG Decision

By Marlo Lewis, CEI, Jun 27, 2012


Federal Court Upholds EPA’s Global Warming Rules

By Dina Cappiello, AP, Jun 26, 2012 [H/t Timothy Wise]


A Court Rules for the Planet

Editorial, NYT, Jun 27, 2012


Court Gives A Green Light To The Imperial EPA

Editorial, IBD, Jun 27, 2012


Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

Turning Carbon Into Gold: UK Court Liquidates CO2 Broker

A UK court has wound up a company it says misled private investors by comparing near worthless carbon credits to gold, the latest in a string of firms found to market poor quality offsets to the general public in a practice that financial regulators say has grown exponentially in the past 18 months.

By John McGarrity and Susanna Twidale, Point Carbon, Jun 27, 2012 [H/t GWPF]


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Where Are the Jobs?

Committee on Energy and Commerce Memorandum

By Staff Members, June, 18, 2012


EPA and other Regulators on the March

EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standard — One Step Closer to Policy Disaster

By Marlo Lewis, Global Warming.org, Jun 25, 2012


EPA’s new CAFÉ mileage standards kill

By Deroy Murdock, SPPI, Jun 27, 2012


Energy Issues – Non-US

Fracking should go ahead in Britain, report says

Fracking should be permitted in Britain because the risk of earthquakes and water contamination is minimal, a government-ordered report has found.

By Nick Collins, Telegraph, UK, Jun 29, 2012


Mega history lessons for the oil sands

The global economy may throw a few curve balls, just as it did in the 1980s

By Peter Foster, Financial Post, Jun 26, 2012


Australia to be ranked second for LNG?

By Staff Writers, Canberra, Australia (UPI), Jun 25, 2012


Canadian pipelines targeted by U.S. funds

Vivian Krause, Financial Post, Jun 26, 2012


Energy Issues — US

Annual Energy Outlook, 2012

By Staff Writers, US Energy Information Administration, Jun 25, 2012

[SEPP Comment: The standard for energy information for the US.]

Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Shale gas extraction in the UK:: a review of hydraulic fracturing

The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, Jun , 2012


The Next Oil Revolution

By Al Fin, from GWPF, Jun 28, 2012


Professors argue against fracking

By Yue Wang, Medill News Service, Washington (UPI), Jun 25, 2012


[SEPP Comment: The professors have produced questionable studies against hydraulic fracturing.]

No peak oil in sight: We’ve got an unprecedented upsurge in global oil production underway

By Mark J. Perry, Carpe Diem, Jun 29, 2012


Does Energy-Related Drilling Trigger Earthquakes?

By Geoffrey Styles, Energy Tribune, Jun 27, 2012


Washington’s Control of Oil and Gas

Will President Obama’s Re-election Doom Fracking?

Editorial, IBD, Jun 26, 2012 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Return of King Coal?

Coal: Likely Fuel for a World in Decline

By Gregor MacDonald, Resource Investor, Jun 29, 2012


India grapples with coal shortages

By Staff Writers, New Delhi (UPI), Jun 28, 2012


Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences

BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill exacerbated existing environmental problems in Louisiana marshes

By Staff Writers, Gainesville FL (SPX), Jun 27, 2012


[SEPP Comment: No doubt it did but the impact on the loss of wetlands was slight. The main problem is that to prevent major flooding of urban areas by the Mississippi, the river has been channeled and diverted.]

Waves of Berkeley Lab responders deploy [gen]omics to track Deepwater Horizon cleanup microbes

By Staff Writers, Berkeley CA (SPX), Jun 25, 2012


Only 43.7 Percent of Gulf ‘Oil Spill’ Was Actually Oil

By Bruce Thompson, American Thinker, Jun 29, 2012


Nuclear Energy and Fears

U.S. partners with China on new nuclear

By Mark Halper, Smart Planet, Jun 26, 2012 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Speculating on what may be an exciting collaboration.]

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Wind energy jobs: Are the numbers pulled from thin air

By Staff Writers, IWAG, Jun 27, 2012


[SEPP Comment: Job creation numbers do not consider the job losses due to higher energy prices.]

Solar firm that got DOE loan to declare bankruptcy

By Matthew Daly, AP, Jun 28, 2012


[SEPP Comment: Although the recession and the competition from China hurt, the failure is a failed idea.]

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles

A Two-Gallon Compact Car

By David Kreutzer, The Foundry, Jun 29, 2012


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC

For a full list of articles see www.NIPCCreport.org

Terrestrial “Greening” and “Browning” in Time and Space

Reference: De Jong, R., Verbesselt, J., Schaepman, M.E. and De Bruin, S. 2012. Trend changes in global greening and browning: contribution of short-term trends to longer-term change. Global Change Biology 18: 642-655.


[SEPP Comment: A major trend: world is getting greener. Don’t tell the EPA.]

Update on Remotely-Sensed Antarctic Sea Ice Extent

Reference: Pezza, A.B., Rashid, H.A. and Simmonds, I. 2012. Climate links and recent extremes in Antarctic sea ice, high-latitude cyclones, Southern Annular Mode and ENSO. Climate Dynamics 38: 57-73.


More Phytoplankton Under Arctic Sea Ice than Previously Thought

Reference: Arrigo, K.R., Perovich, D.K., Pickart, R.S., Brown, Z.W., van Dijken, G.L., Lowry, K.E., Mills, M.M., Palmer, M.A., Balch, W.M., Bahr, F., Bates, N.R., Benitez-Nelson, C., Bowler, B., Brownlee, E., Ehn, J.K., Frey, K.E., Garley, R., Laney, S.R., Lubelczyk, L., Mathis, J., Matsuoka, A., Mitchell, B.G., Moore, G.W.K., Ortega-Retuerta, E., Pal, S., Polashenski, C.M., Reynolds, R.A., Schieber, B., Sosik, H.M., Stephens, M. and Swift, J.H. 2012 Massive Phytoplankton Blooms Under Arctic Sea Ice. Science 336: 1408.


[SEPP Comment: Challenging yet another assumption in the claim that the polar bear is threatened.]

Millennial-Scale Climate Variability: It’s the Norm!

Reference: Harada, N., Takahashi, K., Timmermann, A. and Sakamoto, T. 2012a. Climate change dynamics of present and past in the North Pacific and its northern marginal seas. Deep-Sea Research II 61-64: 1-3.


Taken together, these new studies, plus a host of other studies we have reviewed on our website (see Millennial-Scale Oscillations of Temperature in our Topical Archive), clearly demonstrate that the warming experienced over the past century or so is in no way unusual, unnatural or unprecedented, nor that it need to have been driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Acidified Seawater: Does It Always Depress Calcification?

Reference: Findlay, H.S., Wood, H.L., Kendall, M.A., Spicer, J.I., Twitchett, R.J. and Widdicombe, S. 2011. Comparing the impact of high CO2 on calcium carbonate structures in different marine organisms. Marine Biology Research 7: 565-575.


[SEPP Comment: Decreasing the pH of sea water by bubbling CO2, rather than the EPA approved adding HCL, may actually benefit marine organisms.]


Environmental Industry

People Matter

Robert Zubrin’s powerful critique of antihumanism

By Bruce Thornton, City Journal, Jun 22, 2012 [H/t GWPF]


The truth rolls in on green charities

You can sleep your way to a green economy

By Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, Jun 27, 2012


Greenpeace sabotages Australia-bound super-trawler

By Staff Writers, Sydney (AFP), June 28, 2012


Other Scientific News

Above and below, Chinese science soars

By Zhao Yanrong, Beijing (XNA), Jun 25, 2012


China’s Space Program Accelerates

By Morris Jones for Space Daily, Sydney, Australia (SPX), Jun 29, 2012


A group of fungi marked the end of the coal age 300 million years ago

By Staff Writers, Madrid, Spain (SPX), Jun 29, 2012


[SEPP Comment: The ability to break down lignin changed the chemistry of sediments.]

Other News that May Be of Interest

Focusing on water for Central Everglades essential to reversing whole ecosystem’s continuing decline

By Staff Writers, Washington DC (SPX), Jun 26, 2012




The Sky Isn’t Falling!

And regulators are worried.

By James Taranto, Best of the Web, Jun 27, 2012


[SEPP Comment: waiting for planes to crash so regulators can improve safety? May be behind a paywall.]

Risks and rewards of quantifying nature’s ‘ecosystem services’

By Staff Writers, Washington DC (SPX), Jun 27, 2012



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kevin Kilty
July 1, 2012 3:37 pm

If coal fired plants must use carbon sequestration, then why don’t gas fired turbines? I’m sure environmentalists will head this direction upon adoption of these regulations. And carbon sequestration will never do anything but devour research money. It is such a dopey idea. At a minimum it requires that one burn an additional 1/3 energy to accomplish. Nuclear is not an option because it is very easy for activists to organize protests and litigants against nuclear. Hydro-electric? On, please. People in the northwest want to breech all the dams. Bad on the fish, you know.
A very small segment of the population has enough technical education to think rationally about energy, too small I’m afraid. Here is a question. Right now, with cheap energy available, it is possible to build wind turbines and solar cells such that the energy they produce is only 2 to three times the cost of coal. When we have to make solar cells using solar power, or use solar energy to smelt steel and kiln Portland cement for wind turbines, then what will green energy cost?

July 1, 2012 3:40 pm

Japan Restarts a Nuclear Reactor – NYTimes.com
In Tokyo, Thousands Protest the Restarting of a Nuclear Power Plant
You know, Sir John Templeton plunged into Japanese stocks when they began to emerge from the rubble of WW2.

Svend Ferdinandsen
July 1, 2012 3:43 pm

It is like a perpetuum mobile. The injuries people could suffer from the CO2 danger is now cowered by the Obamacare. Is’nt that wonderfull.

Mac the Knife
July 1, 2012 6:43 pm

Regulation of CO2 as a pollutant is being used to destroy our inexpensive coal based electrical power production capacity. It can equally be used to regulate and destroy energy production from petroleum and natural gas. It can also further be used to regulate and constrain gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and propane powered vehicles usage. If you control energy supply and virtually all transportation methods for people, materials, and manufacture goods, you have complete control of the economy and the Country. The EPA tail wags the entire Government dog!
As we have seen with Hg, CO, NO, S, and other declared pollutants, the EPA sets initial low levels for regulatory purposes…. and then keeps dropping them lower and lower yet to further constrain emissions. The same will be true for CO2….. and anything that emits CO2, including exhalations from all humans and animals on the planet. Woe unto you, oh planet killing polluter, should you be emitting CO2 from one end…. and CH4 from the other!!!

July 1, 2012 7:10 pm

One argument that ought to be made against the EPA is that its regulation will not actually reduce CO2, unless most other nations follow suit, which is unlikely. Look at how they haven’t, despite Kyoto.

July 1, 2012 7:39 pm

A few days ago, Reason’s Hit&Run blog had the Register’s story on Antarctic ice shelves not melting in their PM links. I thought this would be a big story on climate blogs. I suppose it has been a busy week.

July 1, 2012 7:52 pm

““the EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.””
No, but it would be nice if they had to prove the science in question ONCE!

Old Construction Worker
July 2, 2012 3:10 am

It looks like our Courts system just slapped the Data Quality Act in the Face.

Jim G
July 2, 2012 10:29 am

Sorry, but the Supreme Court ain’t so supreme when it comes to science or anything else for that matter. A “fine” becomes a “tax” to maintain politically correctness for Obamacare and firearms possession can be “regulated” in spite of the prohibition against “infringement” in the second ammendment. Look that word up.

Svend Ferdinandsen
July 2, 2012 11:03 am

Wonder how it goes if/when the global temperature starts dropping. The same regulation could then prescribe increased use of coal to keep the temperature stand still.
Normally you are concideret a crackpot if you suggest you can change the weather.

Kevin Schurig
July 2, 2012 3:19 pm

The biggest problem with that quote is that the EPA never proved it from the beginning, nor has any one that spews forth this man-made catastrophe known as AGW/Climate Change/Global Warming. Just one more nail in the coffin for what was once a great nation.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights