Sen. Inhofe turns tables on global warming ambushers and gets it on video! – NOAA Refutes Gore’s Claim Recent Snowstorms Caused By Global Warming – New Soros investment fund, profiting off Obama’s ‘green energy’ push, hires top Obama energy aide – EPA making rules as they go, picking winners and losers –
Posted by iusbvision on February 26, 2011
Oh they thought that they were so smart……
Global Warming alarmists, cultists, and hoaxers, Senator Inhofe is smarter than you:
Transcript Via The Daily Caller:
Mark Hertsgaard (MH): Why does your party continue to deny what the National Academy of Sciences and virtually every scientific organization…
Sen. James Inhofe (JI): You know you ask the same question over and over again. Did you happen six days ago to be at the hearing at the House where I testified?
MH: I was not, sir.
JI: See I answered all those questions in detail. The science is mixed. We all know the science is mixed. The economy is not mixed because the economics are pretty well established.
MH: How is the science mixed when the National Academy of Sciences and every…
JI: We have reports all you have to do is go back and look, I have given numerous talks on the floor…We started off with a list, I believe, of maybe 40 scientists who had different views, then it went up to 2- or 300, then it went to 900 or so. So there are a lot of scientists who don’t agree. I don’t take as gospel everything that comes from any particular scientific group.
MH: When every scientific organization in the world says this, sir.
JI: That is not true.
A Woman from ACP, identified by Solve Climate News as Allie Carter, a recent Michigan State University graduate (AC): I don’t understand why my generation has to suffer because it sounds like you’re not liking what you are hearing from these scientists you’re cherry picking.
JI: So your generation — Now who are you with?
AC: I’m with the Alliance for Climate Protection and I am here speaking on behalf young people.
JI: …No you’re not!
AC: I absolutely am.
JI: I have twenty kids and grand kids. You want to see a picture of them? [pulls out pictures]. Okay that’s good.
Inhofe then proceeded to calmly explain that the United States cannot sink its economy to satisfy the unproven hypotheses of a mixed group of scientists and activists.
JI: When you ask that question “what if you’re wrong?” Stop and think about it. What if you are wrong and we pass the largest tax increase in the history of America to do something that is not justified. I remember, and I use this in testimony. In 1993, you weren’t around in 1993… the Clinton/Gore tax increase was the largest tax increase at that point in history. All marginal rates, gasoline, everything went up. That was a total of a $30 billion tax increase. This would be ten times that great. This would be somewhere between $300 and $400 billion tax increase. That admittedly, now listen to this very carefully, according to the director at the EPA would not have any effect on emissions because that would only be in the United States. As jobs went to places like India and China and Mexico and maybe places that they don’t have any emissions requirements and actually increase emissions. So should we do that when we know and you know and everyone out here knows that it would not reduce worldwide emissions? Period. We all know this.
The ambush ended with Hertsgaard asking Inhofe if he would apologize to his children, to which Inhofe asked Hertsgaard if he would apologize to his 20 children and grandchildren.
Of course as we have reported IPCC scientists are backing away from that IPCC report fast as its claims are discovered to be unsourced, fraudulent, or well intentioned but just plain wrong. As far as literal conspiracies among academics and administrators to shut people up, force conformity, drive professors and students out, suppress research etc. please see our Academic Misconduct category as it has many of literally thousands of examples of just that. We start that category with this post right HERE. Of course the most famous proven conspiracy among academics was ClimateGate as the climate hoax scientists were busted by their own internal emails. So not only do literal conspiracies happen, we learn of new proven examples of them on a regular basis. If anyone is foolish enough to attempt to argue the point with me below, please have it it. Good luck because you are going to need it.
NOAA Refutes Gore’s Claim Recent Snowstorms Caused By Global Warming
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration somewhat under the radar a few weeks ago rebutted Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s claim that January’s heavy snowstorms across the country were caused by global warming.
As readers might remember, the man that has been made rich advancing the myth that carbon dioxide is destroying the planet weighed in on the inclement weather at his blog on February 1:
Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.
As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:
“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”
“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”
This is the second consecutive very wintry winter in the eastern United States. Last year, NOAA climate scientists concluded the record-breaking snowstorms most likely resulted from the combination of two natural climate patterns: El Niño and the Arctic Oscillation.
So what about this year? Last winter’s El Niño has flipped to La Niña, as temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific have been cooler than normal. But the Arctic Oscillation seems to be in a repeat pattern, with conditions this December and January very similar to last winter, according to Deke Arndt, Chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
.…..Hence, and not at all surprisingly, the man that just this past Friday accused Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal of being part of a conspiracy to mislead people about the dangers of manmade global warming was once again guilty of it himself.
Read the rest HERE.
New Soros investment fund, profiting off Obama’s ‘green energy’ push, hires top Obama energy aide.
George Soros — whom we’re always told is not serving his own economic interests at all by promoting liberal politicians and big-government policies — is launching a new investment fund that plans to profit off of the “green energy” boom, which is entirely dependent on government subsidies supported by the groups Soros funds.
As the press release puts it, this fund will “leverage technology and business model innovation to improve energy efficiency, reduce waste and emissions, harness renewable energy, and more efficiently use natural resources, among other applications.” As Soros puts it in the same release: “Developing alternative sources of energy and achieving greater energy efficiency is both a significant global investment opportunity and an environmental imperative.” Cadie Thompson at CNBC’s NetNet flagged this.
So, yeah. The big-government policies advanced by the liberal outfits he funds — like Center for American Progress — will enrich the companies in which Soros is investing.
But this story gets better.
The press release casually mentions whom Soros is hiring to run this new fund: Cathy Zoi. As Cadie Thompson at CNBC’s NetNet (edited by my brother John Carney), puts it,
Zoi was Barack Obama’s “Acting Under Secretary for Energy and Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.” An Al Gore acolyte, Zoi was Obama’s point-woman on subsidizing green tech. Now she’s going to work for George Soros to profit off of subsidized green tech.
If you remember Zoi’s name, it’s because of another green-tech conflict of interest: Zoi’s husband is an executive at a window company, Serious Windows, which the White House regularly held up as a “poster child of green industry.”
The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota put it this way:
“Ms. Zoi is married to Robin Roy, a top executive at Serious Materials, a privately held manufacturer of ‘sustainable green building materials’ located in California. On the Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure submitted by Ms. Zoi to the White House Ethics office as part of her confirmation, Ms. Zoi disclosed ownership with her spouse of 120,000 vested and unvested stock options in Serious Materials, a company her office regulates and that she may profit from.”Oh yeah, Serious Materials pocketed federal stimulus money, too.But as NetNet’s Thompson puts it:But we can put all that behind us, because now Zoi has left the Obama Administration and will go back to work making an honest living in the private sector, where she can put all the knowledge she gained from working for the Department of Energy to work for the private equity firms. Thata girl Zoi!
EPA making rules as they go, picking winners and losers
Welcome to Chicago!
Congress isn’t the only entity that knows how to pick winners and losers for energy sources and technologies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing its best to follow suit by imposing new rules on the natural gas industry and providing exemptions to the biomass industry.
For natural gas, the EPA evasively posted a new rule on hydraulic fracturing, requiring a company to obtain permits if the company uses diesel when fracking. Hydraulic fracturing, a long-proven process by which pressurized water and other substances are injected into wells to extract natural gas, has been the subject of much debate between environmentalists and industry because of those “other substances.”
An exemption in the 2005 Safe Drinking Water Act protects natural gas companies from disclosing proprietary information regarding the chemicals they use to when fracking. Environmentalists are pushing for full disclosure because of the concern that hydraulic fracturing is a threat to America’s drinking water. But in this instance, with the EPA’s new rule on diesel disclosure, perhaps more unsettling than the new rule is the way in which the EPA issued the rule. Mike Soraghan of Greenwire reports:
Federal agencies usually change policies with a multistep process that begins with the Federal Register and does not end for a year or more. But the fracturing permit change happened without so much as a press release. It was quietly posted amid an increasingly noisy debate about fracturing, a process in which chemical-laced water is injected underground at high pressure to crack rock formations and release oil or gas.
EPA has launched a multiyear study of the safety of fracturing. Hundreds of people showed up last summer at EPA hearings about the practice in New York and Pennsylvania. It has been the subject of a piece on “60 Minutes,” an HBO documentary called “Gasland” and even an episode of “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.”
The casual nature of the posting, and the lack of any date, left oil and gas industry attorneys puzzling over what the change applied to and whether it applied only for the future, or retroactively. Of particular concern was that companies had been ordered to give documentation to Congress about their fracturing practices, and EPA was ordering disclosure, as well.
If they had disclosed that they had used diesel—legally—but did not get a specific permit, could they be penalized? Was there any way to get such a permit? What should states, who administer the program, do about regulating fracturing?
The story gets more complicated from there, mostly because of a series of loopholes with regards to the EPA regulating the use of diesel for fracking. Having the EPA close the loophole and create a clear definition with regards to diesel use isn’t necessarily bad, but it sets a dangerous precedent for the EPA quickly changing the rules of the game for industry with no consideration for debate and public comment.
Reining in the EPA’s regulatory overreach and unilateral decision making should be a priority for the 112th Congress. Congress should thoroughly evaluate and question the EPA’s newly implemented rules and have EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson justify her agency’s decision not just when it comes to hydraulic fracturing but other rules as well, most notably the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Speaking of which, Congress should ask Jackson why the EPA exempted biofuel refineries from obtaining permit requirements for CO2 emissions. This year the EPA will start regulating emissions from new power plants and major expansions of large greenhouse-gas-emitting plants (more than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year) and will finalize regulations for existing refineries and fossil fuel electric utilities by November 2012. But not biofuel plants. The reason given is that the science clearly shows that biofuel production is net neutral when it comes to CO2 emissions.
Right. Just like the science clearly shows increased CO2 emissions will result in sea level rises, stressed water resources, increased size and quantity of wildfires, insect outbreaks, threats to ecosystems and national security, and other catastrophic events.
New studies, however, are showing that biofuel production is not carbon-neutral. A report from Rice Universitynotes that when you account for land use conversion, the use of fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides (which emit much more potent methane and nitrous oxide), as well as the fossil fuels used for production and distribution, biofuel production becomes quite carbon-intensive. For an industry that built its business model around subsidies, tariffs, and federal protection, it’s no surprise that the EPA threw the biofuel industry another bone. Now it’s time for Congress to put the EPA on the stand and ask why.