EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy gave a major speech at the National Academy of Science on Monday, 28th April in which she attacked those who question the EPA’s use of science.

She began by making some bold claims:

“In everything we do - EPA relies on transparency, on rigorous peer review, and on robust, meaningful public comment. The expert advice we get from our independent Science Advisory Board is a perfect example of that.”

Every one of these statements needs to be severely qualified to get within shouting distance of the truth.  Next McCarthy dismissed the extremely well-documented refusal of the EPA to share the data and methodology of the studies upon which their most outlandish health claims are made for Clean Air Act regulation of fine particulate matter:

“With science as our North Star - EPA has steered America away from health risks, and toward healthier communities and a higher overall quality of life. That’s why it’s worrisome that our science seems to be under constant assault by a small but vocal group of critics.  Those critics conjure up claims of ‘EPA secret science’ but its not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society. It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it - and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of “secret science” because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it - then so be it!”

While serving as assistant administrator for air and radiation in the first Obama term, McCarthy promised Congress that she would turn over the data from these two studies.  She made a similar promise during her Senate confirmation hearing last summer to Senator David Vitter (R-La.), ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.  Yet, McCarthy and the agency she heads continue to break their promises and defy the law.  McCarthy then warned:

“Those critics are playing a dangerous game by discrediting the sound science our families and our businesses depend on every day. I bet when those same critics get sick, they run to doctors and hospitals that rely on science from - guess who - Harvard and the American Cancer Society.”

There is much more in McCarthy’s disgraceful speech that is outrageously false, including ridiculous claims of the economic benefits of EPA regulations.  An inescapable inference from her claims is that a chief reason the economies of California and New York, to take only two examples, are lagging Texas is that they just don’t have enough environmental regulations.  The whole speech may be read here.

McCarthy was clueless since her days in Connecticut - a simple bureacrat on a mission. In testimony she admitted she did not know what the concentration pf carbon disoxide was that she wanted to regulate.  The EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows (see USCA Case #09-1322, Document #1332845, Filed: 09/30/2011):
“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments.The handbook provides examples of ‘independent experts from outside EPA,’ that include NAS, an established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency.”

It was end of one of the coldest months of March in United States history. Already cold cities like Burlington, Vermont, and Caribou, Maine, experienced their coldest March in recorded history. March 2014 also registered among the coldest ever in cities such as Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, and Green Bay.

For Chicago, it was the coldest December to March since records began in 1872. Chirp...chirp…

More than 2,000 record low temperatures were set this March, according to the National Climatic Data Center. By comparison, there were less than 300 record high temperatures.  Chirp....chirp

The Great Lakes challenged all-time record ice levels in March, with more than 90 percent of the Great Lakes frozen over in early March. Dozens of cities throughout the Northeast and Midwest broke or challenged all-time winter snow records.

The combination of extremely cold temperatures and high snowfall contradicted assertions by global warming alarmists that increasing snowfall in recent years is being triggered by warmer temperatures.

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

Here in April we still have 65.7% of the Great Lakes frozen. Chicago had the third snowiest winter, Detroit, second.

Enlarged

Enlarged

It is near 900% of normal ice coverage.

Enlarged

At the peak, 92.2% was ice covered second greatest peak behind only 1978/79.

Enlarged

Enlarged

And the pain goes on...big snows and ice for the northwest Lakes region fell this week with up the a foot and a half.

Enlarged

Chirp....chirp

Enlarged
Courtesy of Junk Science - shows administration spends over $20B/year pushing its radical green agenda

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee hearing today that the president must have fabricated two oft-repeated climate claims.

“Both statements are false,” Sen. Inhofe said of Obama’s global warming claims, since neither the EPA nor the U.N. IPCC climate group can provide any supporting statistics:

“On multiple occasions, and most recently on May 30th of last year, President Obama has said, and this is a quote he has used several times, he said that ‘the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago’ and that ‘the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’

“Both statements are false, and through letters to you, Ms. McCarthy, and on the record in this Committee, we’ve asked the EPA to provide us with the data backing up these two statements, the two statements made by the president, but they don’t have any data and referred us to the UN IPCC. And, their scientists, apparently, the EPA thought they were the source of this.

“Well, we went there and they had nothing to back it up, so apparently the president just made that up.

“And, I think that’s very important because, when you get statements that are made, they’re supposed to be logic and on truth, you have to check them out.

“Last week’s record cold temperature brought the global warming debate back to the public’s attention, but that’s only important to the extent that it’s bringing more awareness to the uncertainty of the science around the debate.”

“The truth completely contradicts the president’s statements,” Sen. Inhofe said, noting that temperatures have “flat-lined” over the last 15 years - something no climate model used to promote global warming theory ever predicted:

“When you go back and look at the at look at the temperature projections from climate models and compare them to actual temperatures, two that two things are readily evident: first, temperatures have flat-lined over the last fifteen years; and second, an average of over 100 climate models from the last decade shows that the scientific community did not predict this would happen.  And to my knowledge, not a single climate model ever predicted that a pause in global warming would ever occur. Senator Sessions is going to go deeper into this.

“The truth completely contradicts the president’s statements and begs the question why he and the EPA not only continue to deny the truth but why it has raced to stop this information from disseminating into the scientific record.”

--------

Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.

-----------

See also Dr Craig Loehle’s analysis on WUWT Climate Change Impacts In The USA is Already [NOT] Happening.

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

See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

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

See John Coleman’s excellent video summary ”There is NO Significant Global Warming” on KUSI Coleman’s corner. No one communicates better to the public.

----------

See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.

-----------

From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge

--------

Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

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

See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.

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

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.

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

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.

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

Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

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

See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

See sister sites:

WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

Coleman’s Corner here.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)

New polling data show the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of an asserted climate crisis. Alarmists have responded by claiming Americans are not smart enough to make proper decisions on climate policy.

The Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication released a survey showing only 15 percent of Americans are “very worried” about global warming, compared to 23 percent who believe global warming is not happening at all. A plurality of Americans - 38 percent- believe global warming is happening but are only “somewhat worried” about it.

Most Americans don’t expect to be personally affected by global warming. Only 38 percent of Americans believe they will personally be harmed a “great deal” or even a “moderate amount” by global warming.

Survey author Edward Maibach bemoaned the results and claimed Americans do not understand global warming issues.

“Our findings show that the public’s understanding of global warming’s reality, causes, and risks has not improved and has, in at least one important respect, gone in the wrong direction over the past year,” said Maibach.

Meanwhile, Christiana Figueres, executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, blamed America’s democratic institutions for blocking progress on global warming. Figueres said political gridlock in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to reducing America’s carbon dioxide emissions. On the other hand, Figueres praised China and its totalitarian regime as “doing it right” to address global warming.

According to the U.S. Energy Information administration, Chinese carbon dioxide emissions have tripled since 2000. U.S. emissions, by contrast, have declined by nearly 10 percent since 2000.

Fanciful predictions of all the deaths that will result from climate change, decades into the future, are regularly thrown into public debate. Less attention has been given to a real statistic from the here and now, released by the Office of National Statistics this week, which shows the effects of one of the policies designed to tackle climate change: high energy prices. It emerged this week that there were 31,000 ‘excess’ deaths in England and Wales last winter, almost a third more than the previous year. Almost all were, in effect, British pensioners who died of the cold.

It’s odd: Britain is a rich country with a massive welfare state - and we know how to heat and insulate houses. We also send millions away in overseas aid. Yet somehow we have failed to find a way to stop our own people dying of the cold. Each winter, we tolerate a death toll which runs into the tens of thousands. Worse, we seem to have become inured to it.

The 2003 heatwave was blamed for 2,000 deaths, and treated as a national emergency. Sir David King, then chief scientific officer, declared that this meant climate change was ‘more serious even than the threat of terrorism’.

Since then, some 280,000 Brits have died from the cold and barely 10,000 from the heat. We have been focusing on the wrong enemy.

Yet still the government seems little bothered by the link between green levies, which are already jacking up our heating bills, and rising winter deaths. Whenever the Climate Change Secretary is presented with the charge that climate levies are hurting the poor he always makes the same claim: that one of the main roles of the levies is to subsidise home insulation schemes for low-earners, and that by doing so their energy bills will actually fall. This is a dubious assertion in that it relies on the elderly and the poor all being able to access subsidised insulation schemes. Many cannot.

The green schemes always look better on paper. The proposed ‘Green Deal’ was supposed to have led to the installation of insulation in 10,000 homes by the end of the year. It emerged this week that barely a tenth of this figure, 1,170 households, have been helped. Little wonder - the IPPR think tank (below) has shown that Green Deal repayments on the extra insulation will add back whatever is saved in energy payments. People are no better off, which is why so few have signed up.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that by adding the cost of levies onto fuel bills (rather than paying them out of general taxation) the Blair and Brown governments hoped to deflect blame to the energy companies. And the Tories signed up to this
agenda by voting for Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act.

Enlarged

Far from helping the poor, a remarkable amount of money raised in green taxes seems to land at the feet of the rich: wealthy landowners who rent their land to subsidised wind farms, and well-off homeowners who can afford to fit solar panels to their roofs or to invest in ‘green’ central heating systems such as ground-source heat pumps and woodchip boilers. This, in itself, is a scandal. But we are in a situation where people are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes. That fact that most of the 31,000 who perished last year are over 75 years of age seems to take the political sting out of this scandal. It is as if elderly lives are somehow less valuable.

Reports that David Cameron now refers to such initiatives as ‘green crap’ suggest that he has finally come round to appreciating the potential political cost of green stealth taxes on the poor. The failure of his famous wind turbine on his house in Ladbroke Grove ought to have alerted him to the false claims made of green energy. But it is no credit to him that he previously subscribed to such measures with enthusiasm. The price of ‘green crap’ is reflected not just in higher energy bills, but in the fate of pensioners who dare not turn on the radiator after having faced punitive hikes in their heating bill.

For years the Prime Minister has stuck to the conceit that the Climate Change Act would cut energy bills in the longer run by bringing forward investment in renewable energy which, though it might be more expensive now, will steadily fall in price while the cost of fossil fuels soars. It is becoming more apparent by the day that this assumption is deeply flawed. Fossil fuel prices are no longer soaring; on the contrary, in the US they are falling as fracking reduces the cost of extracting unconventional reserves. Global temperatures, too, have declined to follow the predicted path on which the Climate Change Act was justified. While other countries loosen their carbon reduction targets Britain remains legally bound to targets which threaten to render industry chronically uncompetitive.

It is highly desirable that carbon emissions fall as indeed they have in the US as gas pushes out coal as the main form of electricity generation. But it shouldn’t come at the cost of economic growth or the welfare of the old and poor. If David Cameron really wants to tackle ‘green crap’, sooner or later he is going to have to tear up the Climate Change Act and replace it with a policy aimed at lowering bills and saving lives.
--------------

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic
zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the
report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are
being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90+ years ago.

--------

Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.

-----------

See also Dr Craig Loehle’s analysis on WUWT Climate Change Impacts In The USA is Already [NOT] Happening.

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

See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

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

See John Coleman’s excellent video summary ”There is NO Significant Global Warming” on KUSI Coleman’s corner. No one communicates better to the public.

----------

See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.

-----------

From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge

--------

Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

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

See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.

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

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.

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

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.

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

Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

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

See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

Also available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap):

See full size display here.

And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here

See sister sites:

WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here.

Coleman’s Corner here.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)

CO2 is a trace gas. It accounts for just 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume. It increase about 1.5 ppm/year. Man’s activities account for 4% of that (0.06ppm).

To put that in perspective, the US population is 319 million. 0.06ppm would be 0.06 * 319 or 19 people. For the 57 states that Obama hopes to visit only 1 of 3 would have CO2 ‘people’. For New England that would be 2 of the 6 states. The idea that we need to shut down industry and all fossil fuel and ride bicycles to save the planet from such a small amount of anything is lunacy.

They argue it stays there for 1000 years but many dozens of papers shows the lifetime to be less than 10 years (more like 5).

In any event we are near the low end of the historical range of CO2, barely above the level which plants starve.

Enlarged

Plants would love more CO2.

Enlarged

Enviro wackos like McKibben want us to roll it back to 350ppm. He has 350.org paid for with millions from the political and enviro lefties. I am thinking of starting an org called 1000.org. What do you think?

Next, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman on April 21 thought he had the perfect argument for his longstanding quest for a prosperity-suffocating tax on fossil fuels:

“Until we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger and healthier so it remains a vibrant counterexample to whatever bigoted ideology may have gripped these young men...And the best place to start is with a carbon tax.”

He qualifies now for working at MSNBC or even The Weather Channel.

Marc Morano, founder and editor of CFACT’s award-winning Climate Depot news and information service, took on the Sierra Club last night in a debate on CNN’s the 11th Hour.

If you’ve been following Marc, you know he always holds a vast arsenal of solid facts at the ready.

The warming left just isn’t prepared for him.

All they’ve got are appeals to emotion and authority.  When those logical fallacies fail they try and censor their opposition.

Imagine Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune’s surprise when after pompously trying to accuse Marc of being controlled by energy companies, Marc responded that Sierra Club received $26 million dollars from gas companies who wanted to shut down the coal industry!

News Busters loved it and did a nice write up.

The growth of America’s natural gas industry has been of tremendous benefit to the nation.  Let’s do all we can to ensure they keep going.  Yet it seems no industry can resist the temptation to use government to take a cheap shot at their competition. 

When it comes to a big-time radical pressure group like the Sierra Club, what they lack in substance, they are more than willing to make up in hypocrisy.

Say what you want, Sierra Club, but be prepared: Marc Morano, Climate Depot and CFACT aren’t going anywhere, and the facts are on our side.

For nature and people too,