Senator Inhofe's EPW press office is proud to announce a new resource page dedicated to the facts on Gas and Energy prices. The page, Get the Facts on Energy & Gas Prices, is dedicated to informing the public about the effort to bring back affordable energy prices and energy security. It contains some of Senator Inhofe’s solutions to help ease the burden of high energy prices on the average American family. Please check back since more information will be added and updated.
In Case You Missed It...
Drill bits: Distortions keep U.S. energy on shelf
The Oklahoman Editorial
June 27, 2008
Click Here to Read Editorial SEN. Barbara Boxer is one of Washington's most skilled close-in fighters, a tough scrapper unsurpassed in her zeal for bare-knuckled political brawl. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, knows this better than most, having served opposite Boxer on the Senate's environment committee for years. As that panel's chairwoman, Boxer has led the push for global warming legislation as well as attacks on efforts to boost American sources of oil.
She was fighting again this week, saying U.S. oil companies that favor new exploration in Alaska and off America's coasts already sit on 68 million acres of federal oil leases — suggesting big oil is trying to leverage new leases and greater profits. "I say they should use it or lose it," said Boxer, D-Calif.People who know oil know that Boxer and others don't know what they're talking about — or worse, that they're distorting facts to win a debate.
Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Red Cavaney of the American Petroleum Institute recently explained that offshore leases, especially, are a crapshoot. Until exploration occurs, a company can't know whether a lease will produce, Cavaney wrote. Many don't.If there isn't enough oil to justify drilling costs, a company will move to more promising leases."
All during this active exploration and evaluation phase, however, the lease is listed as ‘nonproducing.' ... Because a lease is not producing, critics cite it as ‘idle' when, in reality, it is typically being actively explored and developed."
Boxer probably knows better, but Washington is accustomed to debates that blur facts to win an argument. This one's too important for grandstanding.
As Cavaney noted, Congress has kept American energy sources locked up too long. If these sources had been developed years ago, "America would not be in the energy bind it finds itself in today," he wrote. True that.
Dems Energy Plans "Stumble" - Hollywood "Once Hailed Offshore Drilling" - Erase a Century? Climate Bill = 1910 Emission Levels -- Round Up
Sampling of articles in past week:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi hoped to send House Democrats home for the Fourth of July recess with a series of votes that would show they’re serious about easing the pain at the pump. [ . . . ] But nothing has gone according to plan. The price-gouging bill failed to garner the two-thirds support necessary to pass. An accounting issue forced leaders to put off for a day the so-called “use it or lose it” measure. And the legislation to curb speculation is now caught up in a member fight over the proper path forward — a fight that exposes the misgivings some Democrats have about this activist agenda. […] The Democrats’ stumbles come as congressional Republicans continue to push aggressively for more domestic oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as for an ambitious plan to turn coal shale beneath the High Plains into natural gas.
Excerpt: By 1953 Hollywood (no less!) was already hailing the pioneering wildcatters who moved major mountains – technological, logistical, psychological, cultural – to tap and reap this source that today provides a quarter of America's domestic petroleum, without causing a single major oil spill in the process. This record stands despite dozens of hurricanes – including the two most destructive in North American history, Camille and Katrina – repeatedly battering the drilling and production structures, along with the 20,000 miles of pipeline that transport the oil shoreward. This is the most extensive offshore pipeline network in the world. In the 1953 movie “Thunder Bay,” Jimmy Stewart plays the complicated protagonist, Steve Martin, the hard-bitten, ex-navy oil engineer who built the first offshore oil platform off Louisiana in 1947. "The brawling, mauling story of the biggest bonanza of them all!" says the Universal ad for the studio's first wide-screen movie. […] Half a century later, with 3203 of the 3,729 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico studding her coastal waters, Louisiana provides almost a third of North America's commercial fisheries. A study by LSU's sea grant college shows that 85 percent of Louisiana's offshore fishing trips involve fishing around these structures. The same study found 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding mud bottoms. That this proliferation of seafood might come because – rather than in spite – of the oil production rattled many environmental cages and provoked a legion of scoffers.
Excerpt: Back then, ‘40 million people in America and two-thirds of them lived on farms and the method of transportation was foot power or animal power’ - U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, issued the following statement today as part of an Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing entitled, “Legislative Proposals to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Overview:” […] The World Resources Institute says that Mr. Waxman’s bill, H.R. 1590, Mr. Inslee’s bill, H.R. 2809, and the Sanders-Boxer bill would reduce greenhouse emissions in the U.S. by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Where does that number come from? I don’t know. I’m told it is also Sen. Obama’s proposal. I do know if we reduce CO2 by 80 percent below the 1990 level, it’s going to take us back to an emission level that we last hit in 1910. 1910? When there were about 40 million people in America and two-thirds of them lived on farms and the method of transportation was foot power or animal power? In the state of Texas, the average per capita carbon emission today is 31 tons. In the great state of Vermont, it’s zero. I don’t quite understand that since each of us emits a third of a ton of CO2 a year just breathing. But whatever it is and whatever part of our great nation, going back to 1910 emission levels, in my opinion, makes no sense. In Texas alone, the National Association of Manufacturers said the Lieberman-Warner could cost the average household $8,000 per year.
Excerpt: There are many energy bills currently pending before Congress, and they fall into two general categories: those that seek to increase domestic energy supplies and those that seek scapegoats and diversions instead. Last week, the President gave a speech in favor of the former, spelling out four useful ideas for expanding American energy: Removing restrictions on oil drilling in American waters; Opening up a small portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling; Streamlining the regulations that hamper refinery capacity expansions; and Eliminating the federal barriers to development of oil shale.
Excerpt: The world can have carbon control or it can have food and energy security. The former means reduced energy supply while the latter requires greatly expanded energy supply, which in turn, for at least the next 3 or 4 decades, means substantially greater carbon expansion. A few rich nations, accustomed to energy and food security for about 50 years now, want carbon control to prevail. The rest of the world seeks food and energy security since billions of people today have little of either. Roughly about 600 million people live in societies or polities (not nations) where carbon control is politically fashionable and 6 billion is societies or polities where food and energy security are quotidian challenges. It is carbon versus bread. The emergent great divide in the world today, that threatens to widen even further all the other fractures and fissures and chasms that contribute to global disunity and conflict, is the one between the advocates of carbon control at all costs versus those pursuing energy and food security, irrespective of consequences.
BMI - NBC Uses Shaky Intelligence to Fan Flames of Global Warming Alarmism
Excerpt: Today marked a new low for the way congressional Democrats deal with national security. This morning, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a joint hearing on a "National Intelligence Assessment" on global climate change. This analysis was ordered by the Democratic Congress last year and was issued a few weeks ago. Some highlights (or low-lights) from the hearing:
Excerpt: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the bill, has called it "the world's most far-reaching program to fight global warming." It is indeed policy on a grand scale. It would slow American economic growth by trillions of dollars over the next half-century. But in terms of temperature, the result will be negligible if China and India don't also commit to reducing their emissions, and it will be only slightly more significant if they do. By itself, Lieberman-Warner would postpone the temperature increase projected for 2050 by about two years.
Excerpt: Sen. Elizabeth Dole said North Carolina should have the option of allowing oil exploration off the state's coast, backing away from her long-held support of a federal moratorium on Atlantic drilling.In a statement Wednesday to The Associated Press, Dole said she supports lifting a 27-year-old moratorium that has prohibited exploration off the North Carolina coast. "Now, more than ever, responsible and practical steps are needed to increase our energy independence and strengthen economic and national security," Dole said.
Excerpt: Fishing fleets have gone on strike across Europe against ultra-high diesel prices, while the Greens demand that fuel become even more scarce and expensive * Truckers are staging fuel-protest slowdowns in major European cities. * Protesting French farmers have blockaded fuel stations. * More than 70 percent of Britons now say they will not pay any extra taxes to “save the planet.” Meanwhile, the Vatican, widely flung governments, and dozens of universities have scheduled conferences on the global food shortage. Guess whose advice we took on shifting much of our cropland from food to biofuels? The advice of the same Greens who told us not to burn coal or oil. We shifted too much of our scarce cropland into corn ethanol and palm oil biodiesel. We forgot that the world’s food and feed demand was in the process of doubling due to 1) the last surge in human population growth; 2) rising Third World incomes and expectations; and 3) millions more beloved cats and dogs as households have fewer children and more affluence Assuming society is not yet ready to starve the poor or euthanize their pets, we must feed them. That means at least twice as much global food and feed per year by 2040. Nor do we want to clear the forests or drain the wetlands to grow more crops. That means there is no “spare” cropland for corn ethanol Unless the planet starts warming again, quickly and significantly, the Green momentum for a low-carbon society will come to a screeching stop.
Excerpt: Governor Bob Riley is urging Congress to increase domestic energy production by authorizing the exploration of proven American energy reserves.
Excerpt: Auto manufacturers warn that ethanol can corrode fuel lines and damage hoses, seals and the fuel pump in cars not made to carry ethanol. That can lead to bad gas mileage, poor performance and may even affect the vehicle computers that warn of problems. The EPA says it can damage emission control devices.
Excerpt: Record energy prices and a relentless GOP push for wider oil drilling are creating problems for Capitol Hill Democrats and their allies, who find themselves on the defensive in the new world of $4-per-gallon gasoline. "Would we rather spend time on something else? That is an understatement," said Sierra Club lobbyist Athan Manuel. While Democrats hold power in Congress, they are scrambling to hold off proposals that would lift on- and offshore oil and gas drilling bans. At the same time, party leaders have also hit hurdles in pushing their own agenda. Yesterday, Democrats stumbled when a vote that would create new penalties for gasoline "price gouging" did not get the two-thirds support needed for passage under suspension of the rules.
Excerpt: "The bottom line is that the airline industry, as the [Lieberman-Warner bill was] drafted, is one of the loser industries," he said, adding that if enacted the bill would have cost US carriers a collective $5 billion in just its first year of implementation. "The suggestion that we could just pass this [cost] on is misplaced," he said.
Excerpt: By Richard Courtney, DipPhil, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.)
Courtney took up the NRDC challenge to skeptical scientists to 'let NRDC's real climate experts take them on'
Excerpt: Richard S Courtney says that the temperature is similar to 1940. […] The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.” [..] It is simply true. Please do not take my word for it but check it for yourself. I cite CRU data from: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
In that CRU data set the 1940 monthly values of temperature anomalies from the 30 year mean are presented in degrees Celsius. They range between -0.191 and +0.057 with an annual mean of +0.018. In that same data set the monthly 2008 anomalies to date are +0.053, +0.192, +0.430, +0.254 and +0.278. This is a mean value for the months in 2008 to date of +0.241. The ranges of the monthly values for these years overlap; i.e. the highest monthly value in 1940 (+0.057) was higher than the lowest monthly value in 2008 (+0.053). I think it very reasonable to say they are “similar” when their ranges overlap. However, my use of the word “similar” could be considered to an understatement because the mean values differ by only 0.223 degrees Celsius and the data has inherent error of +/- 0.2 degrees Celsius. So, within their inherent errors the mean values are not similar because THEY ARE THE SAME. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased by more than 30% since 1940 and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is supposed to induce "dangerous" global warming.
Wall Street Journal: FIRST IT WAS YELLOW JOURNALISM, NOW IT'S YELLOW SCIENCE – June 25, 2008 (By Mr. Kerian is a mechanical engineer and small business owner in Grafton, N.D.)
Excerpt: In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers. […] Over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested. The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure." […] Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge." Nevertheless, the acceptance of man-made global warming as scientific fact has become so prevalent that the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, recently declared: "The debate is over. It's time to discuss solutions." Leaving aside the question of the secretary-general's qualifications, that is certainly one of the most antiscientific statements ever made. […] Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe. Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."
# # #
WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented today on the introduction of the Senate Republicans’ “Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008.”
“The Senate Republicans have proposed a common sense energy plan to bring real relief to the American people,” Senator Inhofe said. “With recent polls showing overwhelming support for offshore drilling, I am hopeful that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in this effort. Unfortunately, Democrats and environmental activists have pursued a strategy to shift the focus from the real issue of increasing domestic supply to issues that won’t bring down the price of gas – nationalizing refineries, suing OPEC, price gouging, global warming and windfall profits taxes. The ‘Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008’ will help restore sanity to our national energy policy.”
A recent Rasmussen Poll shows that 67% of Americans support offshore drilling, while only 18% oppose. Democrats are blocking development of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), of which 85 percent is currently off limits. The Department of the Interior estimates that the OCS contains 19 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil. That equals 35 years of imports from Saudi Arabia. According to the government’s own Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, the U.S. imported over 543 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia in 2007. Using these 2007 figures, the potential of OCS American-based resources equals 35 years of imports from Saudi Arabia.
Democrats are blocking development of oil shales. Although commercial scale development is more than a decade away, Rand Corporation estimates up to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels of oil exist in the oil shales. Once again, using EIA data, that equals more than 2000 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. Despite its enormous potential, Democrats put a moratorium on the final regulations for development of this domestic resource.
Highlights of the Senate Republicans “GAS PRICE REDUCTION ACT OF 2008”:
The legislation is a result of efforts by Senate Republicans to intensify the legislative debate and provide a vehicle for bipartisan action addressing high gas prices.
Summary of Provisions:
TITLE I: DEEP SEA EXPLORATION (OCS) 14 Billion Barrels On Atlantic and Pacific OCS – More Than All US Imports From Persian Gulf Countries Over The Last 15 Years
• Allows State Option Nationwide (except Gulf of Mexico)
• Governor petitions to allow exploration, with concurrence of state legislature
• Exploration must be at least 50 miles from coast
• 50% of revenues to Federal Treasury, 37.5% to States, 12.5% to Land & Water Conservation Fund
TITLE II: WESTERN STATE OIL SHALE EXPLORATION More Than 3 Times The Oil Reserves Of Saudi Arabia
• 800 billion - 2 trillion potentially recoverable barrels in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming
• Democrat Congress put moratorium on final regulations for development of this resource
• Republican proposal would repeal the moratorium and allow exploration to move forward
TITLE III: PLUG-IN ELECTRIC CARS AND TRUCKS
• Increased R&D for advanced batteries
• Direct Loans for advanced battery manufacturing facilities
• Sense of Senate that the Federal Government should increase its purchases of these vehicles
TITLE IV: STRENGTHENING U.S. FUTURES MARKETS
• Authorizes increased funding/staff for Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
• Directs the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets to study the international regulation of commodities markets
• Codifies CFTC action on position limits and transparency for foreign boards of trade
• Requires the CFTC to gather information on index traders and swap dealers
# # #
For More information Please visit our "Get the Facts on Energy & Gas Prices" Page Here
WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, along with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), authored a June 20th bi-partisan letter signed by 65 other Senators that was sent to the Finance Committee and Leadership urging Congress to come up with a quick resolution to Highway Trust Fund shortfall. In the years following passage of the multi-year transportation bill, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, also known as SAFETEA-LU, high gas prices and a weaker economy have had a strong negative impact on gas tax receipts. As a result there will not be sufficient resources in the Highway Trust Fund to fund the program at the SAFETEA-LU guaranteed level in 2009. Without a fix, the highway program would have to be cut by about $14 billion, or 34%, in order to prevent running out of money.
“These cuts are dire,” Senator Inhofe said. “In my state of Oklahoma, this would translate into a cut in federal funding of over $172 million. This would result in a loss of over 6,000 jobs in Oklahoma, and 485,000 jobs nationally. It is absolutely critical that we fix this looming shortfall. Our infrastructure needs are far too great to risk such a large cut. It is essential that we solve this problem as soon as possible. I fully support the Finance Committee’s proposal to address the problem by returning money taken from the highway trust fund. ”
Full Text of Letter: Click here for PDF version with signatures:
Dear Senators Reid, McConnell, Baucus, and Grassley,
One of the lesser recognized effects of the recent economic downturn and rising energy prices has been a slowdown in projected revenues into the federal Highway Trust Fund. As a result, states are now facing the possibility of a $14 billion, or 34 percent, cut in federal highway funding in FY 2009. We believe there are a variety of ways to avert the pending crisis and urge you to work with us to resolve this as soon as possible.
The federal highway program provides almost 45 percent of the annual capital investment in U.S. highway and bridge improvements. A reduction in highway investment of the magnitude currently projected would have far-ranging consequences. According to newly released data from the Federal Highway Administration, the pending revenue shortfall in FY 2009, if left unaddressed, would cost over 485,000 American jobs. Furthermore, ongoing efforts to reduce traffic congestion, improve safety and enhance long-term economic productivity would be severely disrupted by a large cut in highway investment.
We urge you to support fixing this looming crisis this fiscal year.
Thank you for your ongoing leadership and we look forward to working with you to preserve critical investment in our nation’s highway infrastructure.
# # #
WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, applauded the passage of the bill renaming a Lock and Dam on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System after Colonel Charles D. Maynard.
“Colonel Maynard was a great asset to the Corps of Engineers, as well as to this country,” Senator Inhofe said of the legislation he supported. “Maynard led the planning, design, and construction of 13 locks and dams of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, which at the time was the largest civil works project ever undertaken by the Corps. This system serves many water resource purposes, including clean energy from hydroelectric power, navigation for all types of industries, recreation, and many others that are essential to Oklahoma and to our nation.”
Legislation (HR 781) passed in the Senate on June 24, 2008, after being passed in the House of Representatives on July 17, 2007, will rename Lock and Dam No. 5 of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System to the “Colonel Charles D. Maynard Lock and Dam” in honor of Colonel Maynard.
Colonel Charles D. Maynard was a graduate of West Point in 1941 and earned graduate degrees from Harvard University, Rensselaer Polytechnic University, the George Washington University, and Rutgers University. After graduating from West Point, Colonel Maynard spent time in the Coast Artillery before transferring to the Army Corps of Engineers. Colonel Maynard served in both New Guinea and the Philippines during World War II. He later served as District Engineer of the Little Rock District of the Corps of Engineers. It was in this position that he directed the planning, design, and construction of 13 locks and dams of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Colonel Maynard was also a proven leader in both professional and community organizations. He was the Chairman and President of the Water Resources Association of America, a 21-year member of the Arkansas Waterways Commission, U.S. Savings Bond Coordinator for Arkansas, President of the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and much more.
The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (‘MKARNS’) is a waterway system that is 445 miles long and runs from the Mississippi River to Catoosa, Oklahoma. It has a series of eighteen locks and dams, thirteen in Arkansas and five in Oklahoma, which allows vessels to change a total elevation of 420 feet. MKARNS provides navigation, hydroelectric power, flood control, water supply, sediment control, recreation, and fish and wild life propagation improvements to the Arkansas River Basin.
Lock and Dam No. 5, located at Navigation Mile 86.3, began operating in 1968. In fiscal year 2006, the number of lockages conducted totaled 2,110 and included movement of 8,852,422 tons of commodities. During the same period, public visitation exceeded 800,000 visitor hours at two developed parks along the pool.
# # #
‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ Trial for Climate Skeptics?
‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ Trial for Climate Skeptics?
NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fears.
[ See: UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]
Sampling of Key Information about NASA’s James Hansen (for full articles, see below):
1) Proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. The oil money's paltry contribution pales in comparison to the well funded alarmist industry. (LINK)
4) Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him -- did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews (LINK)
6) Hansen's Claim that his 1988 Hottest Day testimony was the result of being ‘lucky’ is refuted – ‘We were just lucky’ (LINK)
7) Reality Check: Senator Admits Hot Day and AC Failure during Hansen’s 1988 Testimony was ‘Stagecraft’ (LINK)
8) An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. (LINK)
9) Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 (LINK)
10) Media Darling Hansen Assailed by NASA Colleagues (LINK)
11) Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry (LINK)
12) Hansen conceded that use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” (LINK)
NASA’s James Hansen Information Sheet
Excerpt: Veteran climate scientist James Hansen is marking the twentieth anniversary of his seminal speech to the US Congress on global warming by calling for oil company execs to be locked up for denying global warming.
UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008
Excerpt: Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.
See how global temperatures have declined according to NASA satellites since Hansen’s first testimony in June of 1988. See temperature chart HERE.
Excerpt: Here is the plot of actual NASA satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note we are colder than in 1988. See larger image here His testimony will no doubt include reference to upcoming or ongoing dangerous rises in sea level and ignore the data. See larger image here He will also no doubt repeat his claim he is being muzzled. He confuses a muzzle with a megaphone as shown by this table of actual Hansen media references by year.
What Muzzling? Chart documenting James Hansen’s Massive Media Megaphone – By Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado.
Excerpt: Hansen in the News: 1996-1997 – Must See chart HERE.
June 23, 2008: Hansen’s Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis challenged by UN Scientist! – (By Richard Courtney, DipPhil, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.)
Excerpt: The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e. 1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature. 2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales. 3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. 4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940 and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. 5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent. The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions. The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data. But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are. United Kingdom
Hansen’s Science Claims Continue to be Challenged - June 20, 2008 - Ivy League Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack Challenges ‘Consensus’ View of CO2’s role in Climate Change (Giegengack is from the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Bio Link & Peer-Reviewed Research Link
Excerpt: Hansen Claims NASA Muzzled Him – But - A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out. But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced. "We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.
Media Ignores Skeptical NASA Scientist’s Claims of Censorship
See June 3, 2008 report: Media Double-Standard on Global Warming "Censorship" – (LINK)
Excerpt: A NOTE ON NASA'S JAMES HANSEN BEING MUZZLED BY NASA - I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media interviews he was involved in over the years. Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose. But I didn't complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen's boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn't do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville. There were no hard feelings, and I'm still active in a NASA satellite mission and fully supportive of its Earth observation programs. In stark contrast, Jim Hansen said whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to the press and congress during that time. He even campaigned for John Kerry, and received a $250,000 award from Theresa Heinz-Kerry's charitable foundation -- two events he maintains are unrelated. If I had done anything like this when I worked at NASA, I would have been crucified under the Hatch Act. Does anyone besides me see a double standard here?
Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression – March 6, 2008 Excerpt: Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. “Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK) [Note: See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]
Washington Post: Senator Inhofe: 'Alleged consensus over man-made climate fears continues to wane' – June 23, 2008
"Hansen, Gore, and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it," Inhofe said. "It's back to the drawing board for Hansen and company as the alleged 'consensus' over man-made climate fears continues to wane and more and more scientists declare their dissent."
Excerpt: Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
June 17, 2008: Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: ‘Worst scientific scandal in the history’
By Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer. Itoh, a former lecturer at the University of Tokyo, just released his new book Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs (currently in Japanese only). Itoh’s new book includes chapters calling man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.”
Excerpt: The Washington Post also commemorates astronomer James Hansen's testimony of 20 years ago that started the global-warming panic. They fall for the spin, big time. Here's how the drama opens: There have been hotter days on Capitol Hill, but few where the heat itself became a kind of congressional exhibit. It was 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, and the warmth leaked in through the three big windows in Dirksen 366, overpowered the air conditioner, and left the crowd sweating and in shirt sleeves. James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist, was testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He was planning to say something radical: Global warming was real, it was a threat, and it was already underway. Hansen had hoped for a sweltering day to underscore his message. "We were just lucky," Hansen said last week. Hmmm. As noted below, Hansen's cohort then-Sen. Tim Wirth has made clear that this was as close to orchestrated as they could make it — even attempting to time the temperature market (perhaps that's what Hansen meant by getting "lucky") — and the aforementioned "overpowered" air conditioner actually had just been turned off and the windows left open before hearing time.
Excerpt: Specifically, the PBS series Frontline aired a special in April 2007 that lifted the curtain on the sort of illusions that politicians and their abettors employed to kick off the campaign. Frontline interviewed key players in the June 1988 Senate hearing at which then-Senator Al Gore rolled out the official conversion from panic over “global cooling” to global warming alarmism. Frontline interviewed Gore’s colleague, then-Sen. Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner’s UN Foundation). Comforted by the friendly nature of the PBS program, Wirth freely admitted the clever scheming that went into getting the dramatic shot of scientist James Hansen mopping his brow amid a sweaty press corps. An admiring Frontline termed this “Stagecraft.” Sen. TIMOTHY WIRTH (D-CO), 1987-1993: We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. DEBORAH AMOS: On Capitol Hill, Sen. Timothy Wirth was one of the few politicians already concerned about global warming, and he was not above using a little stagecraft for Hansen's testimony. TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day? TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing] WIRTH: Dr. Hansen, if you’d start us off, we’d appreciate it. The wonderful Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving this remarkable testimony.[nice shot of a sweaty Hansen] JAMES HANSEN: [June 1988 Senate hearing] Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.
Excerpt: Revised data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930's while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade. Excerpt: "NASA has yet to own up fully to its historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to conform to the Global Warming hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org." (LINK) [EPW Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ]
Hansen calls skeptics of man-made climate fears ‘Court Jesters’ From August 20, 2007 EPW Report:
Meteorologist Anthony Watts: If Global Warming was a company decision, how would you vote? – June 22, 2008
Excerpt: Yet the one consultant that has been pushing this policy change gives an impassioned speech that his data set tells a story that the others do not. Some of the board members who are skeptical of this person and his data that supports the policy change do some research of their own. They discover that the dataset created by the consultant who advocates the policy change has been adjusted at many data points, almost without exception in favor of the policy change. Some board members also learn of some math errors in the data, point out the math errors, and also some of the questionable ways individual data points have been adjusted. the consultant shrugs and retorts “you’re just a bunch of court jesters”. Meanwhile, it has been discovered that one of the business friends of the consultant who has been lobbying board members and staff has a company that trades in air conditioner systems. That person has been traveling to all of the worldwide offices of the company and lobbying the employees to tell them that their work environment is indeed getting hotter, and that the data from his friend the consultant proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 - EPW Report on Hansen - July 11, 2006
Excerpt: NASA scientist James Hansen, profiled by the New York Times, "60 Minutes" and other media titans as a renowned scientist with unassailable credibility on the issue of "global warming" and a victim of White House censorship, is actually a loose cannon at NASA who lied about the alleged censorship, according to one of Hansen's former colleagues as well as a current co-worker. George Deutsch, a former NASA public relations employee who resigned his job in February, told Cybercast News Service that he was warned about Hansen shortly after joining the space agency. "The only thing I was ever told -- more so from civil servants and non political people -- is, 'You gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates,'" Deutsch said. Deutsch provided Cybercast News Service with agency internal documents and e-mails detailing the frustration among NASA public affairs officials over Hansen's refusal to follow protocol when it came to granting media interviews.
Excerpt: The scientist touted by CBS News' "60 Minutes" as arguably the "world's leading researcher on global warming" and spotlighted as a victim of the Bush administration's censorship on the issue, publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife. Scientist James Hansen has also admitted that he contributed to two recent Democratic presidential campaigns. Furthermore, he acted as a consultant in February to former Vice President Al Gore's slide show presentations on "global warming," which Gore presented around the country.
“60 Minutes” also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue. Why would “60 Minutes” ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of “Holocaust deniers.”
Excerpt: Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct? [...] Whatever motivations NASA had for picking the 1951-1980 baseline undoubtedly have some valid scientific basis. Yet, when the data is calibrated in lockstep with a very high-profile and public political philosophy, we should at least be willing to ask some hard questions. Dr. James Hansen at GISS is the person in charge of the NASA temperature data. He is also the world's leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming, and is Al Gore's primary climate advisor. The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can't help but make us consider Einstein's advice: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."The scientists at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Critiques James Hansen – June 6, 2007 Excerpt: As a result of our analysis of Hansen’s testimony, we find very little evidence to justify his policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls a “dangerous climate change,” but we find significant evidence for an impending world food supply-and-demand problem that may well prove even more devastating to the biosphere – including both humanity and “wild nature” – than what Hansen contends will occur in response to business-as-usual anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Excerpt: An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a “negative urban adjustment” to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper. The table below shows the number of negative and positive adjustments made to the station temperature trends. The urban adjustment is supposed to remove the effects of urbanization, but the NASA negative adjustments increases the urbanization effects. The result is that the surface temperature trend utilized by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is exaggerated.
Excerpt: If Global Warming were a stock, and you bought it in 1979 at zero (par) and decided to sell it this month to buy a house, 29 years later you aren't very happy with your investment. At it's peak in 1998, the temperature only went to a 0.8 increase, and in April it dipped to very nearly unchanged. Click on link to see temperature data.
Excerpt: Lately, we’ve seen the tech and housing bubbles burst, and now — at least as an urgent political issue — the global-warming bubble is getting pricked.
Excerpt: The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer. The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. [...] There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change. [...] 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.
Excerpt: CO2 hysteria fading fast in China FT.com - Less than half – 42 per cent – of people in the US think the rising temperature of the planet is a serious problem. In China, the figure is a mere 24 per cent.
# # #
NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fears.
[ See: UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]
Excerpt: Hansen has allegedly received hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to further politicize the issue of global warming. According to Investors Business Daily, "How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely ‘NASA whistleblower' standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by [George] Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI), which gave him ‘legal and media advice'? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship ‘philanthropy' by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's ‘politicization of science' program." Hansen denied any relationship with OSI, but Investor's Business Daily refused to back off on their story, "claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media." With that kind of cash allegedly lining his pockets, do you think that Hansen will ever allow the data that he is charged with maintaining to point to anything but disaster? […] As a NASA Director, his role should be collecting data and truthfully sharing results, not trying to influence policy and legislation. Congressman Darryl Issa (R-San Diego) called Hansen on his continual talking out of turn. During a hearing on Capitol Hill regarding his abuse of his government status, Issa said, "You're speaking on federal paid time. Your employer happens to be the American taxpayer." Issa went on to say that an internet search showed Hansen had had stated on more than 1,400 occasions in over a year's worth of interviews and appearances (15 interviews alone in the month that the congressional hearings were taking place) that the Bush Administration had censored him.
Excerpt: Hansen: Crushing dissent. Out of this has emerged a madness that has divided Westerners into "us," the believers, and "them," the skeptics who are looked down upon as socially irresponsible reprobates. That's not enough for Hansen, though. He now wants to ratchet his machine up a few notches. Put the oil men on trial, he says, because it's "a crime" for them to "have been putting out misinformation" that places doubt on his unproved — and unprovable — premise that man's use of fossil fuels is warming Earth. We wonder: Will it be up to NASA's secret police to make the arrests that will be necessary to drag these men before the tribunal? Al Gore, the most famous face of the global warming-industrial complex, has been saying for years that the debate is over, that science has declared humans are responsible for climate change. He, of course, is wrong. There are skeptics in the scientific community, literally thousands of them. Many are on the leash, however, afraid to speak out for fear of being bullied, denied research grants and ostracized for expressing politically incorrect doubt. For them, the debate is indeed over. Those who refuse to be browbeaten, though, are in danger of seeing their careers ruined or, perhaps someday, sharing a prison cell with the oil executives Hansen wants to try. Criminalize dissent: That's one way to ensure the debate is over. Hansen's comment is revealing. It's the sort of declaration made by a desperate man trying to hang on to his declining relevance. Hansen knows the climate of fear he has stoked is receding as more people start to see through his nonsense. He's just trying to stir up some storm clouds.
Excerpt: Mr. Hansen sounds like a member of Congress, or perhaps Al Gore - which, indeed, points to two of the legitimate options a vocal, caustic public advocate such as Mr. Hansen has in a representative democracy. High technocrat for global warming is not one of them. The question is: Would Mr. Hansen's blatant political advocacy be tolerated anywhere else in the federal government? Could a decorated general advocate an invasion of Iran or North Korea, calling his congressional opponents weak or traitorous, without violating his office? Of course not. The NASA climate-science chief should stop trading on the public trust of an unappointed federal scientific position and try running for one of the offices that possess the legitimate powers he seeks to usurp. Short of that, he could convince George Soros to fund a think tank. In some respects, we tilt at windmills to even make the suggestion, since certainly there is no political will to sack Mr. Hansen for violating the public trust. Mr. Hansen makes more media appearances than the average cabinet secretary. He knows how to get attention. Certainly no one should expect Mr. Hansen to act upon the merits of this argument on his own. A scientific institution such as the Goddard Institute for Space Studies is perhaps the ideal place for an ambitious empire-builder to push the limits of political advocacy while retaining the credibility of science. Housed in New York City's Columbia University and affiliated with its well-funded, well-connected Earth Institute, Mr. Hansen's operation is far removed from Washington's political tentacles at Goddard's main campus in Beltsville, Md. The United States is still a representative democracy. The sort of high-priest technocrat that Mr. Hansen presumes to be stands outside that tradition. An advocate is an advocate.
Excerpt: "I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question [of what is surface air temperature]. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location." He is also ambiguous when it comes to daily mean surface air temperatures: "Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day ? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results." (LINK)
Excerpt: Measurements by four major temperature tracking outlets reported that world temperatures dropped by about 0.65° C to 0.75° C during 2007, the fastest temperature changes ever recorded (either up or down). The cooling approached the total of all warming that occurred over the past 100 years, which is commonly estimated at about 1° C. Antarctic sea ice expanded by about 1 million square kilometers – more than the 28-year average since altimeter satellite monitoring began. But have these collective announcements ended the global warming debates? No, stay tuned for further developments. […] Based upon current solar data, the Russian Pulkovo Observatory concludes that Earth has passed its latest warming cycle, and predicts that a fairly cold period will set in by 2012. Temperatures may drop much lower by 2041, and remain very cold for 50 to 60 years. Kenneth Tapping at Canada’s National Research Council thinks we may be in for an even longer cold spell. He predicts that the sun’s unusually quiet current 11-year cycle might signal the beginning of a new “Maunder Minimum” cold period, which occurs every couple of centuries and can last a century or more.
Excerpt: The UK Telegraph reports on April 30: Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.
June 22, 2008: Global Cooling Predicted to Continue – By Lord Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a climate researcher
Excerpt: This projection of a prolonged solar cooling, to commence at the end of Solar Cycle 24 in about a decade and lasting for perhaps the remainder of this century, is consistent with Usoskin et al. (2003); Hathaway et al. (2004); Solanki et al. (2005); the proceedings of the 2004 Symposium of the International Astronomical Union; and the consensus of opinion among solar physicists (though we should be cautious about relying upon any "consensus" now that science has become so intensely politicized). The Sun's activity is now declining from the Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, that peaked in the early 1960s. During the Grand Maximum (which you won't hear much about in the media, but which has had a great deal of attention from solar physicists in the peer-reviewed literature), the Sun was more active, and for longer, than at almost any previous similar period in at least the past 11,400 years. It is only by some dubious prestidigitation that the UN manages to relegate the role of the Sun to a minuscule bit-part in recent warming.
Update: June 15, 2008: More Signs of the Sun Slowing Down - 'We continue to slide into a deeper than normal solar minima, one not seen in decades' By Meteorologist Anthony Watts:
Excerpt: It appears we continue to slide into a deeper than normal solar minima, one not seen in decades. Given the signs, I think we are about to embark upon a grand experiment, over which we have no control [...] I had noted that there was a curios step function in 2005, almost as if something had “switched off” [...] As you can see, the Ap Index has continued along at the low level (slightly above zero) that was established during the drop in October 2005. As of June 2008, we now have 32 months of the Ap hovering around a value just slightly above zero, with occasional blips of noise. [...] What is most striking is that since 1932, there have not been ANY years prior to 2007 that have zero data.
Excerpt: A year and a half ago, James Spann questioned the money and the so-called scientific consensus pushing the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Today, he says it’s losing steam. Two imminent surveys of meteorologists may further complicate the climate debate. […] “[Y]ou know, there was some great power in that movement back in January of 2007,” Spann said. “It’s pretty rapidly running out of gas and it just seems like every day more and more people are coming out with the fact that that’s pretty much a hoax. And these are Ph.D climatologists that are pretty much saying what I said all along.”
Icecap note: Note that sea levels are not accelerating up but appear to be falling in part due to ocean cooling and compression and perhaps part due to record extent of Antarctic ice. Certainly there is no signs of an alarming increase threatening coastal areas as Gore and Hansen have prophesized.
See Latest Sea Level Chart here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
More and more scientists declare dissent – March 2008
Excerpt: Since the release of the December 20 Senate minority report detailing the hundreds of skeptics, a steady stream of scientists from around the world have continued to declare themselves dissenters of the alleged “climate crisis.” Just days before the international climate conference began, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, Dr. Joanna Simpson, declared she was “skeptical” of catastrophic man-made warming. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” Simpson, formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies, wrote in a public letter on February 27. Simpson was described by former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. as “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” (LINK) “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts,” Simpson explained. “But as a scientist I remain skeptical,” she added.
Another Scientist Dissents: Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of Meteorology at Oregon State University, signed the 2008 Oregon Petition dissenting from man-made climate fears. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth,” the petition that Decker signed states. Decker also challenged temperature data. “One day the Gazette-Times told of a minimum temperature about 15 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas the radio station at the Marys River bridge into Avery Park reported much colder, a ‘minus’ reading, which agreed with home thermometers of some readers. Inquiring about locations, I learned the ‘official’ minimum came from the shelter atop the steam-heated agricultural building on campus. Moreover, the professor moved the instruments to the greenhouses to the west in the summers when he worked there. What poor practice!” Decker wrote on June 22, 2008. “I appealed to the agricultural dean upon learning of the imminent retirement of the professor responsible. I suggested a site near the KOAC towers if possible. The compromise site at Hyslop got selected, and Wheeler Calhoun’s data got quoted daily in the Gazette-Times,” Decker wrote. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)
Sampling of key inconvenient developments for promoters of a man-made climate “crisis” so far in 2008:
1) Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by “mystery of global warming's missing heat” (LINK)
2) New Data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is showing “greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.” (LINK )
3) Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, found not one peer-reviewed paper has 'ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth' (LINK)
4) UN IPCC in 'Panic Mode' as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist says (LINK )
5) UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri “to look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.” (LINK)
7) Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to .36 F rise in global temps (LINK)
8) Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds cold periods – not warm periods – see increase in floods, droughts, storms, famine (LINK)
9) New York Times Laments Media's incorrect hyping of frogs and global warming (LINK)
10) Prominent hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact (LINK)
11) MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”- (LINK)
12) An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to counter UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (LINK)
13) Emitting MORE CO2 may 'be good for life on Earth', says climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA in May 2008. (LINK)
14) New Report finds global sea ice GROWING: ‘World sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented’ for the month of April in over 25 years.’ (LINK)
Excerpt: There is no scientific justification for any of the energy or economic policies designed to reduce greenhouse gases or stop warming or climate change. CO2 from human or natural sources is not causing global warming or climate change. The IPCC and their computer models, an agency and approach set up to mislead the world, are the sole source of this belief. […] Global warming provided the perfect vehicle for environmentalists to spread their claim of human destruction of the planet. Previously they could only point at local or regional problems, but now they had a genuine “the sky is falling” cause that encompassed the entire globe. Now the demand was for global policies and Strong provided this at the Rio Conference in 1992 in the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC). This agency was to create the Kyoto Protocol that became the battleground. Interestingly, it encompassed what is wrong with the entire argument that CO2 is the problem. Only the industrialized countries Strong sought to “get rid of” were required to reduce CO2 emissions. Developing nations were excluded and were to receive the payments as penance from the sinful industrialized nations. It was the transfer of capitalist wealth the socialist Strong foresaw. Futility of the exercise was that if all nations participated and met their original targets no measurable difference in atmospheric CO2 would occur; yet that was the purported objective.