Category Archives: NGO’s eg Greenpeace/WWF

Did EPA Employees Weep Over The Job Losses In The Coal Business?


EPA employees do not want to cooperate with the Trump Administration.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Obama said during a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board. Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton also pledged that “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

“This Labor Day, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 coal mines than it did when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, showing that the president has followed through on his pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry.”

 

The paragraphs above are from the dailycaller 5 September 2016 posting “Obama kept his promise-83,000 coal jobs lost and 400 mines shuttered.

Who are the cheerleaders wanting the coal business to fail? The EPA !!  Who authored the Clean Power ACT?  The EPA  !!

Continue reading

Advertisements

What Do Scientist Say About Man-Made Global Warming?


 

Richard Lindzen, (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT) discusses the beliefs of three groups.  Group 1 are the IPCC scientist that believe that CO2 emissions are causing global warming.  Group 2 are scientist that are typical called skeptic and Group 3 are the politicians, media and environment groups plus some hangers-on’s.

Lindzen asks “where do we really stand on the issue of Global Warming”, and discusses this in the following video:

 

 

 cbdakota

For The Left, The NGOs and The Technical Societies, The Battle Over EPA Regulations Is All About Money


The EPA has been overstepping its authority. This has led to regulations that are unnecessary, burdensome and often not in concert with bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. At times, the EPA has been acting as a law making body, which is beyond their authority.  The current Administration intends to correct this situation.

gore-making-money

As the Administration undertakes this task, the Left will mount a campaign intended to defeat the Administrations objestives.  The Left will tell you that the Administration is going to poison your children, make all rivers a sewer, make the air you breathe toxic and Earth will be destroyed by catastrophic climate change. None of which is true.  The media of course will join in and support anything the Left says.  They will report about someone who is supposed to be suffering because of the actions of the Administration. They will ignore the many who are able now make a success of their business as the useless regulations are canceled. The left knows they will miss their opportunity to tax and regulate if the Administration is successful.

Continue reading

WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta’s Plot To Damage Scientist Roger Pielke’s Reputation


Roger Pielke, Jr is a professor at Colorado University.  He would probably would call himself a “lukewarmer” a label for those who believe that man has contributed to global warming but not necessarily leading to catastrophic climate in the near future.  He is for a carbon tax which most of we skeptics do not think necessary.

Pielke has said that there is no apparent connection between the rise of atmospheric CO2 and hurricanes, tornados, droughts, or other “weather extremes”’.  The IPCC ( the bible of the catastrophic global warming crowd) has said the same thing—although the warmers don’t like to spread that around.  Pielke has said that the increased cost of weather damage is the result of escalating cost of buildings, houses and the like and the increase of people siting facilities on the coastlines.  Insurance organizations have finally come to that same realization.  So why is it that he has been the subject of scurrilous attacks by people paid to do so by John Podesta’s Center for American Progress (CAP)?    Because he was publishing on sites where people were reading what he said.  He also has testified at Congressional hearings where he discussed his points about “extreme weather”.   Pielke was so severely attacked, including being investigated by a member of Congress, he quit doing his studies about climate. 

Continue reading

Bang Bang, FOI shot the NY Times Down


Using the Sonny Bono’s song title seems right because the Freedom Of Information Act (FOI) revealed the New York Times’ the manipulation efforts to get a really scary story about “Acidification of the Oceans”. And the FOI has shot it down.

Late last year, the Times posted an Op-Ed “Our Deadened, Carbon-Soaked Seas” timed to appear prior to the Second Ocean Conference where “ocean acidification (OA)” would be discussed. The authors of the piece were Richard W. Spinrad, a chief scientist of the U.S. NOAA and Ian Boyd, a chief scientific adviser to the British government.

The cartoon image accompanying the NY Times posting, shown below, is not too subtle.

NYTimesstorycartoon16spinrad-master675

(Art work by Alex Doherty)

After it was posted, Steve Milloy, proprietor of Junkscience.com, wanted to know more. This is what he did in his words:

Curious, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NOAA for the e-mail related to the development and publication of the op-ed. I received 443 pages of e-mail in return.

First, the op-ed was actually written by NOAA staff Madelyn Applebaum, not Spinrad or Boyd. The purpose was to tout NOAA not inform the public about ocean acidification.”

Continue reading

COP 21 “…make-or-break Paris conference on climate change”


Beginning 30 November through 11 December, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) will hold the 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) in COP21imagesParis. As usual this one like the preceding annual COP meeting is being described as the last chance to save planet Earth from the ravages of carbon dioxide (CO2).

COP attendees from all over the world will attempt, once again, to agree on the reduction of the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and settle on compensation payments to the 3rd world countries that have emitted little CO2. Each of the 146 nations that emit 90% of the global CO2 emissions are being asked to submit the amount of CO2 emissions they will reduce by 2030 based away from the amount emitted in 2005 by that nation. They believe this is necessary to keep global temperature growth to two degrees Celsius.

The compensation side is contentious as those getting the compensation want more than those expected to provide it are willing to part with. For example, India says they will reduce their emissions by 33 to 35% but they need $2.5 trillion to accomplish that goal. Even China, the world’s largest emitter of CO2 is one of the nations expecting compensation.   What a deal—-they have recently achieved an agreement with President Obama that lets them continue increasing their emissions until 2030 at which time their emissions should be three times those of the US.

Of course the concept of emission reductions and compensation that the COP wishes to accomplish ignores the data that shows that this is probably not necessary.   CO2 is the life blood of the plant world. Without it there would be no plant life and that means of the end of humankind. Studies show that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere have had a beneficial effect on food production world-wide.   Further the CO2 effect on the global temperatures appears to be secondary to natural forces.  And fossil fuel use by the underpowered nations is a better answer to their needs than sending compensation to some dictator who will just pocket it and the people will receive no benefit.  Subsequent postings will enlarge on these observations.

Continue reading

Tom Steyer Will Give Money To Any Politicians Promising To Push For A 50% Clean-Energy Economy by 2030.


Tom Steyer, the billionaire climate-change activist, wants to push the U.S, into a windmillfireimage4250/50 split of “clean energy with fossil fuel energy by 2030 and 100% by 2050. To accomplish his objective he promises to give money to any politician that promises to act on Steyer’s behalf.

This is not his first dip into the pool of buying politicians. He spent $73 million trying to get Democrat candidates elected in last year’s mid-term election.   His investment was almost a total loss. He was the biggest funder that year. The following data comes from a table used in the Sunlight Foundation’s posting “The Political One Percent of the One Percent: Megadonors fuel rising cost of elections in 2014”. Copying a saying that Glen Beck used to use, WARNING, warmers should wrap their heads with duct tape before they look at the list.

Rank Name Election Expenditures
1 Steyer, Tom $73,884.467
2 Bloomberg, Michael $28,474,729
3 Singer, Paul $11.193,474
4 Mercer, Robert $9,501,999
5 Eychaner, Fred $8,679,400
6 Simons, James $7,439,300
7 Ricketts, John Joe $6,168,273
8 Adelson, Sheldon $5,815,118
9 Koch, Charles $5,176,400

 

Charles Koch (I probably need to say THE EVIL CHARLES KOCH or they will not recognize the name) came in 9th, way below Steyer who dominated everyone with $73million. He was not even followed closely by No. 2, Michael Bloomberg, also a contributor to Democrats.

The concept of clean energy reaching half share or complete dominance is delusional in that time frame.

In the realm of vastly wealthy men, Bill Gates tops them all. From a June 25, 2015, posting by the Washington Times “Multibillionaire Bill Gates rejects calls to divest from fossil fuels” here is what Gates has to say about this:

“I don’t see a direct path between divesting and solving climate change,” Mr. Gates said, as reported in the Financial Times. “I think it’s wonderful that students care and now the Pope cares. But that energy of caring, I think you need to direct it towards something that solves the problem.”

But Mr. Gates told the Financial Times that the focus should be on increasing research and development in renewables, saying that the current technology could only reduce carbon dioxide emissions at a “beyond astronomical” cost.

“There’s no battery technology that’s even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables and be able to use battery storage in order to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it’s cloudy and you don’t have sun or you don’t have wind,” Mr. Gates said.

“Power is about reliability. We need to get something that works reliably,” he said.

Gates is a man who has made his fortune dealing with electronics and science.

Steyer’s backgound is as a coal hedge funds manager. Is he is trying to atone for his “sin” of making billions from coal?

cbdakota