FIrst in a Series on the New Politics: Science

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

EPA Listening? At the EPA headquarters on Nov 7, EPA held one of its listening events on the need for rules to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at existing coal-fired power plants and other major emitters of CO2. The EPA web site, hand-outs, etc.; frequently used the term Carbon Pollution in discussing the event. No doubt, EPA will use these events to claim that the public demands regulation of existing plants.

Though he recognized that nothing he could say would change matters, Ken  (KAH) represented SEPP. He greeted those assembled as carbon-based life-forms and asked is life a pollutant? He asserted that human breathing increases carbon dioxide concentration of the air used by 100 times and asked does your breathing endanger human health? By this time, many in the audience were sitting up, listening; not necessarily with pleasure.

KAH reviewed the 3 major lines of evidence the EPA used for its endangerment finding: 1) a human fingerprint (hot spot), which does not exist; 2) recent unprecedented and dangerous warming, which stopped 16 years ago and was not unprecedented; 3) climate models are reliable, all of which failed to predict warming would stop and greatly overestimate warming. EPA is basing its policy on failing science and climate models that are wrong.

Then, he reviewed the Federal funding since 1993 and asked what has $165 Billion bought us? Some very good instruments to measure climate change, particularly from satellites. But, these are largely ignored. Much has been spent on failing science, failing climate models, and extreme exaggerations of the human influence on climate.

Why this failure? Because government-funded climate science tries to blame humanity for naturally occurring climate change. Based on its failing science, EPA is issuing economically destructive regulations on power plants

It is past time for the EPA to study the principles of empirical science and of model testing. Its credibility is at stake. In addition, the EPA should study the tremendous benefits to humanity and the environment from enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The comments were submitted to the EPA panel including references to the following documents, with links: Climate Change Reconsidered II, Physical Science; NIPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, Physical Science; and The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide.

Upon conclusion of the comments, a view of the audience revealed many nervous smiles. It is great to see smiling faces at EPA headquarters on a dreary fall morning.

Haapala is one of those guys who goes to meetings; curiously, he does not seem to be a Marxist tool.  His background here.   Still, he he was just using logic so you would think the  government could follow it; however, the EPA is not interested in what it has already decided as a path for state control of the masses by manipulating their stupidity (we are past ignorance.)  

Had a hard time finding fun graphics, here, as they were silly propaganda by all sides. Simpleton stuff.  So here is an image used by a school teacher. It is vaguely related, but that is good by today's journalism. 

November 8, 2010

I suppose the cartoon is not harmless as students leave with their mushy brains filled with mushy opinions and those "feelings" become part of the no information voter.

A glimpse of your future

Another easy rip off. Here is the Bluefiled Daily Telegraph giving some contra thoughts on our new green initiative. I will edit the article in order to spin it as I like. You have to love a "Smokey Shott."

Proposed federal legislation could spur higher energy costs, weaker economy

By JAM,ES H. "SMOKEY" SHOTT
Bluefield Daily Telegraph

West Virginia Democrat Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has proposed a plan to sharply increase the cost of drilling leases that the federal government sells to oil and gas companies...His plan would increase royalty rates by 50 percent and would cut the lease periods to five years from the current 10 years or more.

Mr. Rahall’s plan comes as crude oil prices rose from a recent low of $43 to nearly $70 a barrel as the summer...
His recommendation would be part of a massive overhaul ... And, according to Sharon Buccino, director of land and wildlife programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rahall proposal fits into the efforts of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats to drive energy production toward “green” sources and away from conventional sources. “This is a key part of moving that agenda forward,” she said...

An analysis by the Heritage Foundation notes that “the impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is $1,500 per year in higher energy costs, over $100,000 of additional federal debt ... a weaker economy, and more unemployment.”

Oil producers object, as well. American Petroleum Association (API) spokesperson Jane Van Ryan said, “We’re particularly concerned...only two percent of emissions allowances to refiners, but it holds them responsible for 44 percent of carbon emissions. Under the bill, U.S. refiners would have to pay for the carbon emissions from their own facilities as well as all of the cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, etc. that operate in the United States. Utilities get nearly 44 percent of all allowances, select ‘energy-intensive’ industries get 15 percent, and local natural gas distributors receive nine percent,” she said. “This isn’t an equitable way to parcel out the emissions allowances.”

Ms. Van Ryan went on to say that under Waxman-Markey overseas refiners will have a competitive advantage “making the U.S. less energy secure and more reliant on imports.”

API President Jack Gerard said in a statement that an “independent study projects ... up to 2.7 million net jobs lost annually, even with new green jobs created. According to one of these reports, an average family will pay ... 74 percent more for gasoline. Today, that would mean gasoline prices above $4.00 a gallon, an increase nearly equivalent to a ten-fold rise in the federal gasoline tax.”

... Waxman-Markey raises energy prices by 55-90 percent. These higher energy prices push unemployment up by 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peaks over 2,479,000. In aggregate, GDP drops by over $9.6 trillion. The next generation will inherit a federal debt pumped up by $29,150 per person. All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.”...

And, apparently neither the Obama administration, the Congress nor the environmentalists give two hoots how much it will cost average Americans, or how much damage is done to the nation’s economy in the process.

They follow this course despite the desire of most Americans to increase domestic energy exploration, not reduce it. A poll conducted by Harris Interactive found that 61 percent of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election support access to offshore oil and natural gas resources, while only 26 percent opposed it.

bla bla....

Get a bicycle and a house in Ecuador.

Actually, upon, unfortunately, sober thought, this could kill New England which is already losing ATM machines, I mean tax payers. I can't see people staying when there is an huge increase in oil and gas prices.