Citing the potential for “financial harm,” the University of East Anglia last week denied a Freedom of Information request by “Hockey Stick” debunker Stephen McIntyre for the controversial Yamal temperature data. This is the third time he has been rebuffed by the University, which was scandalized by last year’s Climategate controversy over, among other things, inappropriate avoidance of FOI requests.
The University of Virginia last week said it will use “all available exemptions” to avoid having to turn over documents related to debunked “Hockey Stick” creator Michael Mann in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Tradition Institute. This stands in stark contrast to the University’s treatment of Dr. Patrick Michaels, a climate skeptic. When Greenpeace asked filed a FIOA for his records, the University was willing to comply readily.
High Court Offers Sense in Global Warming Battle
Bob Tippee, Oil & Gas Journal, 2 May 2011
The One “Big” You Can’t Escape
Eric Peters, American Spectator, 2 May 2011
Paul Krugman’s Convenient Lie about Global Warming
Joseph Klein, FavStocks.com, 30 April 2011
The Truth about Green Jobs: A Recruiter’s Perspective
Doug Thorner, Denver Post, 29 April 2011
Fear of Climate Change Falling Precipitously
Joe Wolverton, American Thinker, 29 April 2011
Natural Gas: A Better “Climate” Fuel?
Chip Knappenberger, MasterResource.org, 29 April 2011
Let’s Sunset the Ethanol Subsidy
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, RealClearMarkets.com, 28 April 2011
How Oil Profits Are Good for Americans
Nicolas Loris, The Foundry, 28 April 2011
Professor Cornpone, Inc.
Wall Street Journal editorial, 27 April 2011
The Climate Gospel According to Gore
Larry Bell, Forbes, 26 April 2011
In the wake of some of the deadliest storms in American history this week in the South, global warming alarmists have shamelessly tried to link the devastation wrought by tornadoes to climate change. According to Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University, such a conclusion would be a “terrible mistake.” He told a leading science website that, “If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it’s agreed upon by the tornado community that it’s not a real increase. It’s having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we’re seeing them more often.” The likelihood of a bad tornado season was predicted on the basis that there is currently a strong La Nina in the Pacific Ocean. It should be remembered that El Ninos bring warmer weather while La Ninas bring cooler weather.
I travelled to Denver twice in the last 7 days to testify before the Senate State Affairs Committee on HB 1291, Colorado’s State Implementation Plan to meet the Regional Haze provision of the federal Clean Air Act.
I told the Committee that HB 1291 is illegal. And I rebutted the distortions peddled by its proponents, who also testified. Illegality and disingenuousness are huge accusations, and I made them twice, in testimonies a week apart, so the bill’s proponents had time to conjure a response. But no one disputed my assertions. Because they were true.
Nonetheless, the Plan passed out of Committee, due to the fact that it enjoys the support of two of Colorado’s richest special interests, for which billions of dollars were at stake. Today, HB 1291 was enacted by the full Senate, by a 25-10 vote. Two weeks ago, by a 58-7 vote, it was passed by the House of Representatives. If there’s one thing a bipartisan, bicameral majority can agree on these days, it’s the importance of currying favor with the deepest pockets.
This is a long blog about the who, what, why, and when of Colorado’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, the most outrageous rip-off you’ve never heard of.
The Back Story
Colorado’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan originated not in the Centennial State, but in Oklahoma. It owes its form to Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas company headquartered in Oklahoma City.
[click to continue…]
I’ve written before about Obama’s tortuous logic when it comes to rising gas prices, and, this week, he again laid out “solutions” that don’t make any sense. Consider,
- Yesterday, the President implored Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. That is, he told the Saudis to “drill, baby, drill.” He did the same thing a month ago in Brazil. Meanwhile, U.S. production remains stunted by the Obama administration’s de facto moratorium on new oil and gas leases and permits. Why is “drill, baby, drill” appropriate for Saudi Arabia and Brazil, but not for the U.S.?
- Last Saturday, the President called for an end to tax breaks for the oil industry. He said, “They’re making record profits and you’re paying near record prices at the pump. It has to stop.” So, the President wants to end oil “subsidies” in order to relieve Americans pain at the pump. This doesn’t make any sense, because the effect of oil industry “subsidies” is to lower the price of oil. It’s a market distortion meant to lower the cost of producing oil. By removing these “subsidies,” the price of oil would better reflect the forces of supply and demand, and it would increase.
[N.B. To an extent, I agree with the President on this one—loopholes in the tax code are a form of corporate welfare that should be stopped. That said, these tax breaks aren’t unique to the oil industry, and singling it out only makes the tax code more complicated. A better way, as articulated by Rep. Paul Ryan, is eliminate ALL corporate welfare.]
- The President wants to take away oil industry “subsidies,” and turn them into green energy giveaways, because, he says, this will “reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” For starters, it’s unclear how investments in unreliable, expensive electricity produced by wind and solar would “reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” Moreover, in the past, Obama’s has dismissed “drill, baby, drill” on the grounds that it would take years to impact the global oil market. The President claims that expanded oil production would take too long to have an effect on the price of gas, but that increased taxpayer handouts to wind and solar would somehow “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” in a more reasonable time frame. This is nonsensical.
Yesterday, I participated on a panel discussion about the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program for low carbon energy sources. I’ve long been a fierce opponent of the DOE’s green bank—see here, here, here, and here for my take.
In a nutshell, I argue that investment banking is well outside the core competency of Energy Department bureaucrats, so there is no reason to believe that they could start a successful green bank from scratch. Even if they could, political concerns would trump economic reasoning, such that loan authorizations would get funneled to the well-connected, instead of the deserving.
Regarding this last point, consider this recent report by the Center for Public Integrity and ABC News, on the remarkable correlation between the success of DOE Loan Guarantee applications and the amount of money that the applicant raised for Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House.
In addition to the panel, we also organized a coalition letter to the House Appropriations Committee, on the need to excise the DOE’s green bank from the budget. Signatories included CEI, Taxpayers for Common Sense, George Marshall Institute, National Taxpayers Union, and the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Click here for a copy of the letter.
On Friday, April 8, in the Longworth House of Representatives office building, the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Professor Larry Bell, author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power behind the Global Warming Hoax,” for a Congressional briefing on his new book.
Video of Professor Bell’s excellent presentation is available here.
For a Washington Times review of Climate of Corruption by climate scientist Anthony J. Sadar, click here.
Some Comments about Larry Bell’s book:
“Larry Bell has cut through the heavily funded bad science of global warming advocates, the outrageous claims of politicians and scare threats from extreme environmentalists to explain the truth about Earth’s climate and the man-made and natural forces that change it … [H]e has done an amazing job of sorting it out and putting it in proper perspective.”
—John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel
“Larry Bell connects the dots between indisputable scientific frauds, carbon regulation and marketing scams, and bogus green energy charades. He makes a convincing case that alarmist climate crisis rhetoric is far more political than scientific.”
[click to continue…]
In the News
If Al Gore Can Outgrow the Ethanol Fad, Why Can’t Conservatives?
Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org, 7 April 2011
Greens Oppose Biomass in Pacific Northwest
Joel Millman, Wall Street Journal, 7 April 2011
Biofuels Raise Hunger Fears
Elisabeth Rosenthal, New York Times, 7 April 2011
Obama’s Energy Funny
Chris Horner, AmSpecBlog, 6 April 2011
The Longer the Delay, the More You Pay
Sen. John Barrasso, Politico, 6 April 2011
Government vs. Resourceship
John Bratland, MasterResource.org, 6 April 2011
China Sees Evil of Plastic Bags
Jonah Goldberg, USA Today, 6 April 2011
Obama-Backed Tesla Sues Its Critics
Henry Payne, Planet Gore, 6 April 2011
Should We Feed Hungry People, Even If It’s Bad for the Environment?
Alex Berezow, Forbes, 6 April 2011
UN IPCC: Analyst or Advocate?
Lee Lane, RealClearScience.com, 5 April 2011
GE’s Immelt: Jobs Czar from Hell
Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, 4 April 2011
New Energy Economy Drubbed in Debate
Vincent Carroll, Denver Post, 2 April 2011
Renewable Energy Standards Are Unconstitutional
Paul Chesser, Washington Times, 1 April 2011
Obama’s Energy Funny
Chris Horner, AmSpecBlog, 6 April 2011
Government vs. Resourceship
John Bratland, MasterResource.org, 6 April 2011
China Sees Evil of Plastic Bags
Jonah Goldberg, USA Today, 6 April 2011
Obama-Backed Tesla Sues Its Critics
Henry Payne, Planet Gore, 6 April 2011
Should We Feed Hungry People, Even If It’s Bad for the Environment?
Alex Berezow, Forbes, 6 April 2011
UN IPCC: Analyst or Advocate?
Lee Lane, RealClearScience.com, 5 April 2011
GE’s Immelt: Jobs Czar from Hell
Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, 4 April 2011
New Energy Economy Drubbed in Debate
Vincent Carroll, Denver Post, 2 April 2011
Renewable Energy Standards Are Unconstitutional
Paul Chesser, Washington Times, 1 April 2011
I’ve been an outspoken opponent of the EPA’s war on Appalachian coal production. See here, here, here, and here.
In particular, I’ve sought to shine a spotlight on the EPA’s outrageous crackdown on saline effluent from surface coal mines. The EPA argues that this salty discharge is an illegal violation of the Clean Water Act, because it harms an order of short-lived insects known as the mayfly. The science suggests that the total number of insect species doesn’t decrease downstream of surface mines, as hardier insects readily assume the niche vacated by the mayfly. Nonetheless, the EPA alleges that the loss of the mayfly alone is sufficient to violate the Clean Water Act’s narrative (qualitative) water quality standards. The mayfly is not an endangered species.
A year ago, the EPA issued guidance for quantitative salinity water quality standards, effective immediately. According to one mining engineer, they set the bar so low that you couldn’t wash a parking lot without violating the Clean Water Act. Remember, the President had campaigned on a promise to “bankrupt” coal; this was the fruition of that promise. Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson conceded that new surface coal mine permits in Appalachia were unlikely under the terms of the April guidance.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org