EPW Blog

U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today commented on the economic analysis of Waxman Markey by the Energy Information Administration.

“Once again, government economic analysis of a cap and trade tax bill shows Americans will pay more at the pump, in their homes, and in many cases, with their jobs - all for virtually no affect on the climate,” Senator Inhofe said. “It’s interesting that no matter what the costs, polls continue to show Americans unwilling to pay anything to fight global warming. 

“My colleagues who support cap-and-trade don’t need to listen to me. I suspect they will be hearing plenty from their constituents back home who outright reject costly cap and trade legislation.  The fact is, the more Americans learn about this bill, the more they oppose it.”

Key Excerpts from the EIA Analysis:

“ACESA increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services.” “Implementing the ACESA GHG cap and trade program will affect the economy through two key mechanisms.  First, the cost of using energy, particularly fossil fuels and electricity, will be increased by the requirement to submit allowances.”

“The higher delivered energy prices lead to lower real output for the economy.  They reduce energy consumption, but also indirectly reduce real consumer spending for other goods and services due to lower purchasing power.”

“Ultimately, consumers will also see the impact of higher energy prices directly through final prices paid for energy-related goods and services and higher prices for other goods and services using energy as an input, and, if the cost increases cannot be passed onto consumers, labor and capital stock may be reallocated.” See release here.

Also see Press Release “Carlin Investigation Continues: Inhofe, Barrasso Send Letter to EPA On Possible Manipulation of Endangerment Finding” here.

In a letter sent today to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator John Barrasso (R-Wy.) questioned the process used to evaluate the scientific basis for EPA’s proposed endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.  The letter continues an ongoing investigation by Senators Inhofe and Barrasso into alleged suppression of a climate report written by Dr. Alan Carlin, a PhD economist in EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation. 

Sen. Inhofe: “EPA’s process of determining endangerment appears to be marred by bias, and to some extent, political manipulation. I hope our investigation proves otherwise, yet it appears EPA deferred much of its own expertise and judgment to an international climate change tribunal, leaving the American people guessing as to whether the most consequential regulatory action of our time - the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases - is based on the most up-to-date scientific data and analysis.”

Sen. Barrasso: “American small business owners and workers expect transparency and good judgment from their government.  The EPA should be making decisions based on science, not politics. The EPA needs to level with the American people and support the scientific data they are relying on.” In a compelling analysis, Carlin questioned, in fine detail, the science underlying the agency’s proposed endangerment finding.  See letter here.

-------------------------

Aug 5, 2009: Chris Horner, of the Cooler Heads Coalition, debates and debunks alarmist Brenda Ekwurzel, a federal climate scientist, on America’s Newsroom.

Marc Morano, Climate Depot

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion.

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”

“More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.

“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote.

“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 - more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.

“The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added.

“Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

THE LETTER

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 - more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world’s best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Signed by 67 distinguished scientists and 189 other professionals

See more here.

By Dr. Roy Spencer

So, where are all of the news stories about the fact we’ve had no tropical storms yet this year? As can be seen in the following graphic, as of this date in 2005 we already had 8 named storms in the Atlantic basin. And tomorrow, August 4, that number will increase to 9. In 2005 we were even told to expect more active hurricane seasons from now on because of global warming.

Of course, even though it is interesting that the 2009 tropical season is off to such a slow start, it may well have no significance in terms of long-term trends. But the lack of news coverage on the subject does show the importance of unbiased reporting when it comes to global warming. Let me explain.

Let’s say we really were in a slow, long-term cooling trend. What if the media decided they would only do news stories when there are record high temperatures or heat waves, ignoring record cold, and would then attribute those events to human-caused global warming? This would end up making the public fearful of global warming, even if the real threat was from global cooling.

The public expects - or used to expect - the media to report on all sides of important issues, so that we can be better informed on the state of the world. There have always been high temperature records set, and there have always been heat waves. In some sense, unusual weather is normal. It might not happen every day, but you can be assured, it will happen. But reporting on heat-related events while ignoring cold temperature records or events that do not support the claims of global warming theorists, will lead to a bias in the way the public views climate change.

Of course, someone might come along and claim that global warming has disrupted tropical storm activity this year, and so an unusually quiet season will also be claimed as evidence of global warming. This has already happened to some extent with cold weather and more snow being blamed on global warming.

But when the natural climate cycle deniers reach that level of desperation, they only appear that much more ridiculous to those of us who have not yet lost our ability to reason. See Dr. Spencer’s blog here.

See Ryan Maue FSU’s graphic of the ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) Index at a 30 year low.

See larger image here.