Press Releases

 

Entries in Global Warming (284)

Tuesday
Apr152014

CEI - Bogus science claims from White House prompt CEI request for correction

The White House got it wrong. But the good news is they have a chance to set the record straight.

The trouble started when the White House put out a two-minute video that included claims that recent cold spells in the U.S. are linked to global warming. CEI attorneys Sam Kazman and Hans Bader today filed a formal request under the Information Quality Act for the White House to correct the erroneous claims in question:

"In reality, as we explain below, the evidence (including the conclusions of peer-reviewed scholarly articles) indicates that the kind of extreme cold experienced in the United States this past winter is not linked to global warming."

For example: "[White House Science Advisor John] Holdren’s claim of 'a growing body of evidence' is contradicted by recent peer-reviewed studies. These studies find that that global warming is not leading to increased atmospheric winter blocking, much less causing an increase in winter cold waves or cold weather."

View a write up of the matter on Globalwarming.org and posted below, along with a link to the request letter. Let me know if you would like to speak to one of the attorneys about this issue, or perhaps forward to a colleague?

Best,
Christine
CEI Communications Director
202.331.2258


Globalwarming.org

Will Cherry Blossoms Get Sucked into the Polar Vortex?
By Sam Kazman


DC’s cherry trees hit their official peak blossom date last Thursday, April 10th.  That’s the latest in the year that the Capital has experienced peak blossoming in over two decades.  (For you botanical historians, the last time that peak blossoming occurred this late or later was in 1993, when the event fell on April 11.)

In 2013 the blossoms were almost as late, hitting their peak on April 9.  That was a pretty dramatic change from 2012, when the date fell on March 20. This change was most disconcerting to two groups: tourists trying to plan their trips to DC in advance, and global warming alarmists who trumpeted every earlier-than-expected cherry blossom as yet further proof of global warming.  In fact, in a sizzling multi-part blog post series last year, followed by dozens of readers, we charted peak blossom dates against global warming data.  We even had graphs.  (See Adam Sandberg, Peak Bloom Is Here – DC’s Global Warming Canary Lands with Frost on its Feet, April 15, 2013.)

The past two years of unusually late blooms largely resulted from unusually cold weather.  But unusually cold weather, in the view of White House Science Advisor John Holdren, is actually yet another sign of global warming.  Holdren explained this to a freezing yet grateful nation in a two-minute video last January entitled The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes.

We suspect that Holdren’s agency, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), may now have a second video in the works in this Blame-Everything-On-Global-Warming series.  Perhaps they’ll call it Delayed Peak Blossoming Explained in 2 Minutes.

Regardless, we think Holdren’s first video is scientifically bogus, and so today we’re filing a formal Information Quality Act Correction Request with OSTP on that very issue.  Who knows—we may yet nip this video series in the bud.

Monday
Apr142014

CEI Today: Cherry blossoms + global warming, lawmakers v. EPA, and the WaPo on illegal carbon pollution standard 

Monday, April 14, 2014
In the News Today

CHERRY BLOSSOMS + GLOBAL WARMING - SAM KAZMAN


Globalwarming.org: Will Cherry Blossoms Get Sucked into the Polar Vortex?


DC’s cherry trees hit their official peak blossom date last Thursday, April 10th.  That’s the latest in the year that the Capital has experienced peak blossoming in over two decades.  

Unusually cold weather, in the view of White House Science Advisor John Holdren, is actually yet another sign of global warming.  Holdren explained this to a freezing yet grateful nation in a two-minute video. Today, CEI is filing a formal Information Quality Act Correction Request with OSTP on that very issue. 
> Read more

> Interview Sam Kazman

SENATORS VS EPA - MYRON EBELL

Globalwarming.org: Senators Sessions and Inhofe Come Out Swinging against EPA


Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) announced at an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing last week on the nomination of Janet McCabe to be assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for air and radiation that he couldn’t vote to confirm McCabe if she insists on denying the conclusion of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that there is no historic trend in the incidence and severity of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). 

Climate Progress, an especially deranged outpost of the ironically-named Center for American Progress’s Think Progress web site, immediately accused Sen. Sessions of opposing McCabe “because she accepts climate science.” > Read more

> Interview Myron Ebell

EPA'S CARBON POLLUTION STANDARD

Globalwarming.org: WaPo Wonkblog Makes Case that EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standard Is Illegal

 

On Friday, Washington Post Wonkblog published a notable article about “clean coal.” Reporter Max Ehrenfreund wrote that carbon capture and sequestration is “exorbitantly” costly. This modifier is supremely apt; it is the exact word chosen by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals* to describe an impermissible requirement pursuant to the provision of the Clean Air Act that authorizes the aforementioned Carbon Pollution Standard. As such, if the costs of carbon capture and sequestration are in fact “exorbitant,” then the regulation is illegal. > Read more


> Interview William Yeatman


Consumer’s Guide to
Chemical Risk


CEI‘s recently released booklet, A Consumer’s Guide to Chemical Risk: Deciphering the “Science” Behind Chemical Scares,” are tools designed reduce both the confusion and fear about chemicals. 
> Read more

CEI Podcast for April 9, 2014: A Consumer’s Guide to Chemical Risk

 

    

 

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org.  Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

 


CEI President Lawson Bader
@libertynkilts

The rising class-war chorus

Saturdays, 10am ET
Realclearradio.org


Tax Day Special


Guests: Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, and Robert Reich, University of California, Berkeley Professor and former Secretary of Labor

ANNOUNCING
CEI’s Iain Murray Wins Second Place at
Brexit Prize Competition in London

 




Saturday
Apr122014

Cooler Heads Digest 11 April 2014 

11 April 2014

In the News

Walton Jones on the Social Cost of Carbon
Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org, 10 April 2014

Let’s Do What We Do Best: Oil & Gas
Edward Cross, Hays Daily News, 10 April 2014

EPA’s Lack of Transparency Extends to States
Chris Horner, Open Market, 9 April 2014

If You Think Sky Is Falling, Check Out the Prophecies of the 1970s
Michael Barone, Washington Examiner, 9 April 2014

Let’s Talk about Energy Inequality
Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, 8 April 2014

How Climate Change Conquered the American Campus
Paul Tice, Wall Street Journal, 7 April 2014

The Game Is Up for Climate Change Zealots
Charles Moore, The Telegraph, 6 April 2014

The Spread of “Debate Is Over” Syndrome
Joel Kotkin, Orange County Register, 4 April 2014

News You Can Use
President Hindering Oil and Gas Development on Federal Lands

Despite the oil and gas boom unleashed by hydraulic fracturing, federally issued drilling permits last year dropped to their lowest level in more than a decade, according to new data from the Bureau of Land Management. Since President Obama took office, total federal oil production has declined 7.8 percent and federal natural gas production has declined 21 percent.

Inside the Beltway
Myron Ebell

Eleven Senate Democrats Urge Obama To Act on Keystone

Eleven Democratic Senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama this week urging him to make a final decision on whether to permit the Keystone XL Pipeline no later than 31st May.  Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana initiated the letter.  Other signers were Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana, John Walsh of Montana, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

Six of these Democrats—Landrieu, Begich, Pryor, Warner, Walsh, and Hagan— are running for re-election in November, and most of them face serious challenges from pro-energy Republicans.  Interestingly, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado did not sign the letter, even though he is running and his Republican opponent, Rep. Cory Gardner, is focusing on Keystone and other energy issues.

Asked about the letter at a White House press conference, Obama spokesman Jay Carney replied, “Our position on that process hasn’t changed, which is that it needs to run its appropriate course without interference from the White House or Congress.”  The process to which Carney refers is the State Department deliberation on whether the pipeline from Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf refineries is in the national interest.  State’s very lengthy environmental impact analysis concluded earlier this year that there were no major environmental issues.     

Sen. Landrieu, the new chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, responded to Carney’s brush-off by announcing that she may move a bill to permit Keystone. The House of Representatives has passed similar legislation several times. My guess is that President Obama will keep trying to delay the pipeline to death.  That’s because he’s more interested in his own interests than in the national interest, and his own interests are more in maintaining good relations with billionaire Democratic donors, such as Tom Steyer, than in maintaining good U. S.-Canada relations.      

EPA Releases Strategic Vision

The Environmental Protection Agency released its 2014-18 strategic plan on Thursday, 10th April.   EPA’s top priority is addressing climate change and improving air quality.  One possibly significant change is that the agency intends to focus more on the largest polluters (including emitters of carbon dioxide, which EPA defines as a pollutant, and producers of fossil fuels) in order to achieve the largest reductions in pollution levels. Otherwise, I see few changes or surprises in a relentlessly misguided and depressing document. 

Senators Sessions and Inhofe Come Out Swinging against EPA

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) announced at an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing this week on the nomination of Janet McCabe to be assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for air and radiation that he couldn’t vote to confirm McCabe if she insists on denying the conclusion of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that there is no historic trend in the incidence and severity of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons).  Here’s the video clip:

Climate Progress, an especially deranged outpost of the ironically-named Center for American Progress’s Think Progress web site, immediately accused Sen. Sessions of opposing McCabe “because she accepts climate science.” 

At the same hearing, Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), former chairman of the committee, announced that he will start offering resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act for every new EPA air regulation until the agency starts doing ongoing economic and employment assessments for all Clean Air Act regulations on an economy-wide basis.  Such assessments seem to be required by Section 321 (a) of the Clean Air Act, but the EPA has always (during previous Republican and Democratic administrations as well as the current administration) limited its analyses to the economic effects of only the facilities directly regulated. 

According to an article in Environment and Energy Daily, Sen. Inhofe’s intention in requiring CRA votes on the Senate floor is to put Senators on record as to whether they support economically-damaging rules.  He has also introduced a bill, S. 2161, along with 30 co-sponsors, to correct the EPA’s interpretation of Section 321(a).  Murray Energy has filed a suit in federal court to compel the EPA to analyze the economy-wide employment effects of Clean Air rules. 

Across the States
Marlo Lewis

California: Greens Reject Carbon Tax for Cap Swap

“California’s Senate majority leader is backing away from a controversial proposal to replace part of the state’s cap-and-trade system with a tax on greenhouse gases,” Climatewire (subscription required) reports.

In February, State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D) introduced legislation to impose a carbon tax on transportation fuels. The tax would start at $15 per ton and increase to $50 per ton by 2030. Steinberg claimed that a carbon tax would give Californians greater certainty about fuel prices than is possible under the State’s cap-and-trade program.

Environmental groups “immediately opposed” the plan. A Natural Resources Defense Council spokesman explained: "It's critical to keep our largest-emitting sectors subject to mandatory carbon pollution limits for the state to meet its near- and long-term climate goals.” Steinberg this week canceled a scheduled committee hearing on the bill.

More evidence of what should already be obvious: the green movement has no interest in swapping mandates, regulations, and cap-and-trade for a carbon tax.

Around the World
William Yeatman

Japan Bows to Reality, Turns to Coal

Nearly three years ago, in the immediate wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, the Japanese government announced a bold energy plan that would replace nuclear power with renewables. Notably, the plan failed to articulate how Japan would achieve this goal.

Nuclear, hydropower, and coal are reliable, which is why they serve as ‘base-load’ electricity generators. That is, they run 24 hours a day, and are taken offline only for maintenance. Renewable energy sources like wind and solar power are intermittent and expensive. As such, it would be a tall order for Japan to replace nuclear with renewables.

Yesterday, the Japanese government approved a new energy plan that recognizes that coal-fired electricity is “an important base-load source.” Renewable energy targets were conspicuously absent. Two weeks ago, Japanese utilities announced that they were certain to build 3,500 megawatts of coal-fired electricity capacity, and possibly 7,000 megawatts more.

Science Update
Marlo Lewis

Is Ocean Acidification a Crisis?

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D.-R.I.) once castigated “climate deniers” for ducking the issue of ocean acidification, claiming skeptics “ignore facts they cannot explain away.”

The term “acidification” is a bit loaded and rhetorical. Although ocean pH has declined from about 8.2 to 8.1 over the past 200 years, there’s no danger of it decreasing to below 7.0 – the pH of neutral water. “De-alkalization” might be a more accurate way of describing the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on ocean chemistry.

Be that as it may, in a rebuttal to Sen. Whitehouse, I noted that CO2Science.Org, one of the oldest and most prominent skeptic blogs, hosts an extensive (and growing) ocean acidification database, and regularly reviews new scientific research on the topic.

This week on CO2Science.Org, chief blogger Craig Idso posts a 5,700-word essay reviewing 17 field studies of changing ocean pH levels, coral calcification rates, and coral health.

Much of the alarm over ocean acidification is based on short-term laboratory exposure studies. Field studies, notes Idso, “more aptly represent conditions in the real world, many of which conditions are impossible or impractical to incorporate into a laboratory setting.” Here are results from three of the studies reviewed.

Bessat and Buigues (2001) found that, instead of the 6-14% decline in calcification rates predicted by a prominent laboratory study, calcification rates in massive Porites corals in French Polynesia increased during 1801-1990.

Meron et al. (2012) examined two coral species off the coast of Naples, Italy, where CO2 from underwater volcanic vents produces a natural decline in pH levels. The researchers found that the “corals present at the lower pH sites exhibited only minor physiological changes,” and that “no microbial pathogens were detected.”

Similarly, Noonan et al. (2013) examined six scleractinian coral species exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations from volcanic “seeps” near Papua New Guinea. Dissolved CO2 concentrations were 28%-88% higher than in adjacent control areas. Nonetheless, the six species “were all able to not only survive, but to function well throughout the full range of CO2-induced pH values to which they had been exposed throughout their entire life spans,” Idso writes.

For a more extensive review of the literature on acidification and impacts on marine plants and animals, Idso’s chapter on aquatic life in the just-released report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

Saturday
Apr052014

Cooler Heads Digest 4 April 2014 

4 April 2014

Announcement

Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast and scientists from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change will be in Washington, DC the week of April 7 for meetings with members of Congress, the press, and allies to announce the release of two new reports on why global warming is not a crisis: Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies. On Tuesday, April 8, 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m, they will participate on a panel at a luncheon event at the Cato Institute. To see RSVP, click here. To see the full schedule, click here.

In the News

How Green Policies Hurt the Poor
Bjorn Lomborg, The Spectator, 5 April 2014

End of Climate Exceptionalism
Judith Curry, Climate Etc., 4 April 2014

Adults Reject Climate Catastrophe, Alarmists Bring in the Kids
Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, 3 April 2014

Environmentalist Foundations Fund Anti-Fossil Fuel Echo Chamber
Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, 3 April 2014

IPCC Insider Rejects Alarmist Report
Alec Torres, National Review Online, 3 April 2014

Big Green “Sue & Settle” Strategy Draws Pushback from States, Congress
Ron Arnold, Washington Examiner, 1 April 2014

The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes and Misrepresents Important Climate Science
Joe Bast, Forbes, 31 March 2014

The Troubling Basis for EPA’s Cost/Benefits Analysis of the Clean Air Act
William Yeatman, GlobalWarming.org, 31 March 2014

News You Can Use
Auto Deaths and Regulation

GM is currently embroiled in an ongoing scandal over the company’s alleged cover-up of a design flaw that is responsible for the death of 13 motorists. By comparison, federal fuel economy regulations are responsible for up to 2,000 deaths per year, due to the fact that a primary means by which carmakers increase fuel efficiency is by decreasing vehicular mass, which renders the automobile less safe.

Inside the Beltway
Myron Ebell

Wind PTC Clears Senate Committee

The Senate Finance Committee marked up a big package of tax cut extenders on Thursday, 3rd April. A two-year extension of the wind energy production tax credit retroactive to 1st January 2014 was included.  The bill was voted out of committee on a voice vote.

Senator Pat Toomey (R-Penna.) offered an amendment to “eliminate crony capitalist energy tax credits.”  These included the wind PTC, biofuels, electric motorcycles and golf carts, fuel cell vehicles, energy efficient appliances, and alternative fuel infrastructure.  Senator Toomey’s amendment failed on a vote of 6 to 18.

The Senators voting in favor of the amendment in addition to Senator Toomey were: Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.), Pat Roberts (R-Ks.), Mike Enzi (R- Wyo.), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.).  Those voting against the amendment were: Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Sherrod Brown (D-Oh.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Casey (D-Penna.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.), Mike Crapo (R-Id.), John Cornyn (R-Tex.), John Thune (R-SD), and Rob Portman (R-Oh.).

Although the amendment only got six votes, Senator Toomey is to be commended for requesting a recorded vote.  The 18 Senators who voted against the amendment are now on record in favor of raising electric rates by encouraging the construction of more wind farms. 

White House Releases Methane Plan

The White House on 28th March released a plan to reduce methane emissions.    It includes new BLM regulations to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas production on federal lands; updated limits on emissions from new landfills; soliciting expert comments on updating limits on existing landfills; and putting out technical papers for expert review on how best to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector, including upstream and downstream.

The plan also includes several voluntary programs, most notably a “Biogas Roadmap” to be released in June by the dairy industry (and its federal partners—USDA, DOE, and EPA). It is designed to encourage the adoption of technologies to cut methane emissions from dairy farms 25% by 2020.

Methane (CH4) is the principal gas in natural gas and occurs in coal deposits.  Marshes and swamps produce methane as do cattle through belching, flatulence, and manure.  It has been estimated that over 15% of global annual methane emissions into the atmosphere come from cattle.  In the U. S., approximately 20% of bovine emissions come from dairy cattle. 

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the EPA’s proposed 2015 budget on 2nd April.  Representative Lee Terry (R-Neb.) asked her whether the administration was planning to regulate methane emissions from cattle.  According to a story by Erica Martinson in Politico, McCarthy replied: “No one that I know of at this point is talking about anything in a regulatory context.”

Rep. Terry replied, “Most farmers, when they hear ‘voluntary,’ they know it’s followed by ‘mandatory.’”

He and cattle farmers and ranchers have good reason to worry.  While serving as assistant EPA administrator, McCarthy testified at a House hearing that the EPA would not require fuel switching from coal to natural gas when it promulgated regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants, but then went ahead and proposed regulations that required fuel switching.

Across the States
Myron Ebell

Governor Pence Expresses Disappointment, Then Allows Efficiency Repeal Bill To Become Law

The bill passed by the Indiana legislature to eliminate the state’s energy efficiency program became law after Governor Mike Pence (R) declined either to sign or veto it.  In a statement, the Governor said, “I could not sign this bill because it does away with a worthwhile energy efficiency program. I could not veto this bill because doing so would increase the cost of utilities for Hoosier ratepayers and make Indiana less competitive by denying relief to large electricity consumers, including our state’s manufacturing base.”

The initial Senate Bill 340 was strengthened by an amendment offered by Rep. Heath VanNatter (R-Kokomo) on the House floor to eliminate the efficiency program entirely, and then passed by the Senate and sent to the Governor.  Special interests that benefit from efficiency mandates were caught unprepared by this quick legislative action, but mounted a last-minute effort to convince Pence to veto the bill.  A number of large corporations, including General Electric, Siemens, Johnson Controls, Ingersoll Rand, Honeywell, and United Technologies sent a letter to Pence that warned of job losses in the efficiency industry. 

Governor Pence also expressed “disappointment” that the legislature had ended the energy efficiency program without producing an alternative and asked the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to develop recommendations for a new program that would allow large electric consumers, such as manufacturers, to opt out. 

The Sierra Club noted that Indiana became the first State to roll back its energy efficiency programs.  This is not quite true.  For example, California has scaled back its ridiculous Zero Emission Vehicle mandate several times.   

States Move to Pre-empt EPA on Power Plant Regulation

Sometime this summer, EPA is expected to propose regulations for greenhouse gases from existing power plants. Although the section of the Clean Air Act that authorizes these regulations gives primacy to the States, there exists wide-spread concern that EPA will try to impose a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that effectively mandates a cap-and-trade energy-rationing scheme or fuel-switching from coal to natural gas.

With these fears in mind, a number of States are trying to get ahead of the curve by enacting laws that would pre-empt EPA’s measure. Yesterday, for example, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) signed into law HB 388, a bipartisan bill that forbids state regulators from fuel-switching to implement EPA’s power plant regulation. Last month, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin (D) signed into law a similar measure, HB 4346, which disallowed state regulators from “limiting the economic utilization of the unit.” Lawmakers in Missouri, Virginia, and Kansas are working on similar measures. As reported by InsideEPA, these bills were modeled on legislation crafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Around the World
Marlo Lewis

Dueling Assessments of Climate Change Impacts: IPCC vs. NIPCC

Late last week, Working Group II (WG2) of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a tentative draft of its climate change impacts report. This is a companion document to the IPCC WG1 report, published last year, on the physical science of climate change.

The actual WG2 report is less scary (or less silly?) than the media hype about it. For example, the Summary for Policymakers (SP) states that, “At present the world-wide burden of human ill-health from climate change is relatively small compared with effects of other stressors and is not well quantified” (p. 7).

But, as Institute for Energy Research economist Robert Murphy points out, the IPCC wants to have it both ways – offer what looks like a sober analysis yet scare people green. To accomplish this rhetorical feat, WG2 confronts readers with an overwhelming litany of allegedly probable climate change damages while invoking the risk of “catastrophic changes” and “tipping points” (SP, p. 19).

Vague language also plays a part, as in the projection of “more severe and/or frequent extreme weather events” (SP, p. 19), a category that readers may assume includes hurricanes. As Heritage Foundation economist David Kreutzer points out, however, the IPCC’s WG1 report pours cold water on the oft-asserted warming-hurricane link: “Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.”

The WG2 report’s alarmist tone was too shrill for economist Richard Tol, who last week withdrew his name from the long list of co-authors. “The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable,” Tol explained in a Financial Times column.

The good news is the Heartland Institute has just published the first half of a comprehensive, fully-referenced, skeptical alternative to the WG2 report. Authored by the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts clearly presents the scientific evidence for the following key findings:

  • Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
  • The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is causing a great greening of the Earth.
  • There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
  • Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2.
  • Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life.
  • A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

Friday
Apr042014

CEI Today: Senate votes on unemployment, wind energy, plus global warming impact on corn? 

Friday, April 4, 2014
In the News Today

SENATE VOTE ON JOBLESS BENEFITS - ALOYSIUS HOGAN

 

The Competitive Enterprise Institute will score the Senate votes on jobless benefits. A final vote on the bill is scheduled for Monday. But if Congress wants to actually help people get back to work, it should champion policies that remove all the red tape from job creation and economic growth.  Extending jobless benefits beyond the norm of 26 weeks is a disservice to America’s economy.

> Read the USAToday commentary


> Interview Aloysius Hogan

WIND ENERGY - MYRON EBELL


Wind Energy Boondoggle Gets Another Shot at Tax Subsidy


The Senate Finance Committee plans to mark-up legislation that includes a provision extending tax credits for certain special interests, including the wind energy production tax credit (PTC). Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered an amendment to add the wind PTC, which expired at the end of 2013. The tax credit amounts to a subsidy for well-connected government cronies to produce a product that cannot compete in the energy marketplace on either price or reliability.  > Read more

> Interview Myron Ebell

GLOBAL WARMING + CORN - MARLO LEWIS

 

Globalwarming.org: Will Climate Change Devastate U.S. Corn Yields?


Perhaps to appease political-correctness, a new study on corn yields begins with a warning that “past advances” in agriculture are “threatened by climate change,” and the authors say their research is significant because it provides benchmark data for “more reliable projections of climate impact on crop yields.”


Clearly, though, the finding is also significant for another reason. It doesn’t fit into the fear narrative promoted by the recently-released IPCC Working Group II (WG2) report on climate impacts.> Read more


> Interview Marlo Lewis




Consumer’s Guide to
Chemical Risk


CEI‘s recently released booklet, A Consumer’s Guide to Chemical Risk: Deciphering the “Science” Behind Chemical Scares,” are tools designed reduce both the confusion and fear about chemicals. 
> Read more



 

 

    

 

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org.  Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

 

Saturdays, 10am ET
Realclearradio.org


The Measure of Human Achievement with  Marian Tupy & Matt Ridley

CEI Podcast for April 3, 2014: Clean Air Act Costs and Benefits

Senior Fellow William Yeatman is skeptical of an EPA report claiming the Clean Air Act will have nearly $2 trillion in annual benefits by 2020.