|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 1, 2016 17:42:17 GMT
ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-2050-land-climate-change-extremes-current-emissions-093011821.html?nhp=1EDMONTON - Canada is a land of extremes, from car-freezing cold to crop-searing heat and drenching rains to drought. But you ain't seen nothin' yet. By 2050 — within the life expectancy of most Canadians — scientists say that if current emissions levels remain unchanged, climate change will be well established. It will be warmer: a cross-country summertime average of about two degrees. It will be wetter, mostly, by about five per cent. MY, my. Am I just getting brain dead? Seems to me I remember AGW pronouncements coming along with drought warnings. So ... soon they will be growing wheat at the Arctic Circle? Condos on Hudson Bay? Palm trees in Columbia, Missouri? Ordovician seas in Florida? And the trilobites will be back? Nice!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 1, 2016 20:17:29 GMT
I see a future with a large coconut portion included in our diet. Unless we get an Arctic Vortex.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 2, 2016 2:47:01 GMT
I see a future with a large coconut portion included in our diet. Unless we get an Arctic Vortex. Then we can have 'snowy coconut freezes'! With the little umbrella.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 5, 2016 17:19:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 8, 2016 16:08:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 8, 2016 23:13:11 GMT
Isn't it interesting how the 'fifth estate' becomes experts on everything. His smugness seems quite evident. Seems like he was kinda pissed off that Warren wasn't beating his head against the ground in despair. For our English friends, that doesn't mean he was drunk.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 9, 2016 17:41:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 9, 2016 21:32:19 GMT
Good old Forbes wants me to turn off my ad blocker ... or no go. I choose no go. We noticed you still have ad blocker enabled. By turning it off or whitelisting Forbes.com, you can continue to our site and receive the Forbes ad-light experience. I never liked Bud light ... so I doubt that Forbes-light will impress me.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 9, 2016 22:49:01 GMT
EPA Remains A Paragon Of Government Waste, Fraud And Abuse
Henry I. Miller
Contributor
I debunk junk science and flawed public policy..
Follow on Forbes (225)
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Tweet This
This time it’s violations of federal law by engaging in “covert propaganda” and “grassroots lobbying.” The EPA has long been scientifically, intellectually and ethically bankrupt, arguably the worst regulatory agency in the history of the world. But perhaps I understate.
Just when you think you’ve seen every manifestation of incompetence, corruption and dishonesty that’s possible in a government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency comes up with something new and different. This time it’s violations of federal law by engaging in “covert propaganda” and “grassroots lobbying.”
Government Accountability Office investigators found that the EPA illegally used Thunderclap, a social media site, “to correct what [EPA] viewed as misinformation.” Government use of social media is not unlawful per se; many agencies use it to communicate their actions and policies to the public. But the EPA crossed the line when it asked members of the public to share EPA-composed propaganda on Facebook or Twitter without attributing it to the government. Neglecting to reveal the source was the basis of the “covert propaganda” violation, because the law says that citizens must know when messages presented to them were created by their government.
Federal agencies are supposed to be apolitical, and federal law prohibits lobbying for or against proposed legislation, but an EPA blog post contained links to websites that encouraged members of the public to, for example, “urge your senators to defend Clean Water Act safeguards for critical streams and wetlands.” This “grassroots lobbying” was a violation of federal law because at the time, Congress was considering a number of pieces of legislation to derail the EPA’s “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulation.
The combination of EPA’s “covert propaganda” and “grassroots lobbying” and the agency’s ideological efforts to achieve “environmental justice”–which it defines as “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies”–is a prescription for more of the zealotry and malfeasance for which EPA is renowned. ADVERTISING
EPA has a long history of actions that are illegal, unethical and incompetent. Various national and state policy groups in January raised objections and concerns about Obama administration plans to impose cap-and-trade style emissions restrictions nationwide. A coalition coordinated by William Yeatman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute compiled and submitted comments from more than 20 groups that questioned the legitimacy of EPA’s implementation of the president’s Clean Power Plan. Specifically, its Model Federal Implementation Plan appears to be a cap-and-trade scheme that is the product of a defective political process, and thereby raises concerns under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (In early February the Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which directed the EPA to cease implementation until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court itself renders a final decision on litigation to overturn the rule.)
An EPA legal stratagem that has received attention from Sen. David Vitter and other Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee is the “sue and settle” maneuver that federal agencies, including the EPA, use to advance their radical environmental agenda in a way that substitutes a judicial mechanism for the customary interface of legislation and agency rulemaking. The way this works is that extremist environmental groups (some of which receive government grants) sue the federal government on the grounds that agencies are failing to meet their regulatory obligations, and then, behind closed doors, the activists and Obama administration officials concoct a settlement agreement that furthers activists’ (and regulators’) radical goals. Recommended by Forbes
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2016 22:09:12 GMT
uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/drive-diesel-car-next-budget-093900464.htmlEnvironmentalists have long raged against the pollution caused by cars with diesel engines, and now a prominent think-tank has taken their side. Policy Exchange, an influential educational charity, has proposed an £800 ($1144) increase on vehicle excise duty (VED) for new diesel cars. The tax rise is aimed at discouraging new car buyers from taking the diesel option, and could be part of UK Chancellor George Osborne's Budget on March 16th. The move would also raise an additional £500 million a year which could be used to fund a new diesel scrappage scheme. Richard Howard, the head of the policy exchange, said that many UK cities faced an "air pollution crisis" which is unhealthy for residents, and illegal. "If we are to clean up air pollution, then Government needs to recognise that diesel is the primary cause of the problem, and to promote a shift to alternatives. This needs to be done in a way which does not unduly penalise existing diesel drivers, who bought their vehicle in good faith, and gives motorists sufficient time to respond. The government should look to increase taxes on new diesel cars and offer scrappage grants to take old polluting diesels off the road," he said.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2016 23:07:38 GMT
www.vox.com/2016/3/12/11210818/denmark-energy-policiesThe history of Denmark's energy policy, briefly Back in the early 1970s, Denmark got almost all its energy from imported oil. Then came the oil crisis, which, naturally, had a big impact. Political discussions throughout the '80s resulted in two big strategic decisions. One, Denmark would develop its own North Sea oil and gas resources. Two, it would implement a green energy transition, or grøn omstilling, to get off fossil fuels entirely. Both strategies meant it would never again suffer at the mercy of international oil markets.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 14, 2016 2:20:43 GMT
Despite having had a heart transplant three years before, Lonnie Thompson ascended to 22,000 feet and braved -35 degree F temperatures on a mountain peak in far western China in 2015 to do his job as an ice-core paleoclimatologist. The renowned professor from the Ohio State University has extracted and examined ice cores from around the world since 1974. He testified before the U.S. Senate about global warming in 1992, detailing the havoc climate change is wreaking on the planet. ecowatch.com/2016/03/13/climate-change-tipping-point/
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 14, 2016 19:24:55 GMT
www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2016/03/14/experts-final-clean-power-plan-is-a-trojan-horse-for-american-natural-gas/#62460ca56af7It was widely acknowledged that the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the Obama administration’s program to cut greenhouse emissions, was hard on coal. Now, upon closer examination, more experts say the plan could seriously undermine the country’s natural gas industry. For now, the CPP is on ice. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed the plan on Feb. 9, sending it to a lower court for a ruling and undermining Obama’s signature environmental policy after critics had argued it was federal overreach. It was the first time the Supreme Court halted a regulation even before the lower court ruled. If courts eventually judge that the White House overstepped its authority, that may be good news for the natural gas industry. Like many observers, my initial view of the CPP was that the coal industry was the big loser. That much is indisputable; but when the final plan was first unveiled, many observers, including myself, overlooked the punch in the nose that the CPP is on natural gas, too. But it has become clear to many experts, and to me, that the final CPP was quite a Trojan Horse to natural gas power generation.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 15, 2016 1:35:22 GMT
cnsnews.com/commentary/kim-holmes/left-goes-after-climate-deniers-embraces-orwellian-policies-harass-and-stifleJust when we thought liberalism couldn’t get any more authoritarian, the Obama administration reminds us that it can. Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently confirmed that she had “referred” the “matter” of whether climate change “deniers” should be brought to court on racketeering charges to the FBI. Yes, that’s right. If you happen to disagree with the administration’s views of global warming, you could face a civil suit accusing you of fraud and corruption.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 15, 2016 3:07:39 GMT
Perhaps we're headed back to the 17th Century when the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo. Wikipedia Galileo's initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.[3] In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642. Just in time for the Maunder Minimum.
|
|