Global Warming Questions I Would Like To See Resolved
1. Is global warming, in fact, occurring?
2. If it is occurring, is it significant? Do we truly understand the phenomenon?
3. If global warming is occurring, and if it is significant, does human activity account for a significant portion of it?
4. Can anything be done about it?
5. What are the cost/benefit factors in the proposed solutions? How many jobs may be lost due to increased governmental regulations? How certain can we be that we can predict the unintended consequences of such interventions?
6. If the United States were to force additional costly changes on its citizens, will it have any real impact as long as China, India & Russia failed to take similar measures?
1. What's the perfect global temp?— Aaron Tuttle (@AaronTuttleOK) November 9, 2018
2. What's the perfect CO2 level?
3. Assuming both are met, will that end all natural disasters and the weather be a global utopia?
4. How much will this cost you?
5. What governing org can be trusted with trillions of dollars?#GlobalWarming
June 3, 2017
Exiting the Paris climate agreement will not hurt the climate but it will help the poor. President Trump announced on Thursday that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. That’s the right decision, explains Marlo Lewis:
“Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement overturns Obama’s end run around the Constitution’s treaty process, safeguards American democracy from foreign interference, dispels the Agreement’s long shadow over the U.S. energy and manufacturing sectors, foils corporate schemes to enrich special interests at consumers and taxpayers’ expense, and helps ensure developing countries will have the access to affordable energy they need to lift people out of poverty.”
Lewis goes on to elaborate on the bad risk/reward ratio for the United States as well as developing countries.
May 6, 2017
If the United States continues to participate in the Paris Climate Agreement, it will suffer significant damage to its constitutional system and to its economic well being, write Christopher Horner and Marlo Lewis:
“To claim he properly committed the U.S. to the Paris Agreement, President Obama pretended that way back in 1992, when the Senate consented to ratification of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, it also authorized unknown future executives to commit the United States to undertakings of far greater cost and risk. […] [I]t is inconceivable that when the Senate ratified the UNFCCC in 1992 it gave future presidents carte blanche to make costly and prescriptive legislative commitments without obtaining the Senate’s advice and consent.
“The Paris Agreement is no mere ‘update’ of the UNFCCC. Given its prescriptiveness, ambition, costs, risks, dependence on subsequent legislation by Congress, and intent to affect state laws, the Paris Agreement—no less than the Kyoto Protocol and in key respects more so—is a whole new treaty. Alternatively, the Paris Agreement amends the UNFCCC into a very different treaty from that which the United States ratified. Either way, it purports to commit the U.S. to treaty-like obligations without Senate approval.
“If allowed to stand as precedent, Obama’s end-run around the treaty making process, along with the implicit assertion that the executive can unilaterally decide whether or not an agreement is subject to Senate review, would undermine one of the Constitution’s most important checks and balances.
“Far from being toothless, the Paris Agreement would compel U.S. leaders to continually negotiate domestic energy policy with a coalition of foreign governments, multilateral agencies, and environmental pressure groups, all exaggerating climate change risks, and all demanding urgent action to restrict America and the world’s access to affordable, plentiful, reliable carbon-based energy. It is designed to do this in perpetuity […] .”
December 20, 2016
Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans
Investigation claims Obama admin retaliated against scientists, politicized DoE
May 4, 2016
What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?
Some of America’s most prominent politicians want national mandates for renewable electricity. In addition, over the past seven months, three states—California, New York, and Oregon—have instituted plans that will require utilities to produce 50 percent of the electricity that they sell to customers from renewables. The politicians backing these measures claim that such mandates will help reduce customers’ bills and create jobs.
April 25, 2016
Given Al Gore’s less than stellar record with predictions pertaining to “Global Warming,” should his predictions be taken seriously in the future ??
April 19, 2016
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
November 19, 2015
October 9, 2015
Will You Be Sent To Prison For Your Reservations Of Global Warming Propaganda. Is This The United States Of America Anymore ? (From Daily Signal - Hans von Spakovsky)
Apparently, these professors either don’t believe in the First Amendment or are profoundly ignorant of the basic rights it protects. They recently wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking for anyone who questions the climate-change dogma to be criminally prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act because they have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”
October 7, 2015
Documents Reveal Dem Efforts to Discredit EPA Critics
Emails and talking points memos detail ways to ‘sow doubts about our opponents’ motives
September 27, 2015
Approximately 92% (or 99%) of USHCN surface temperature data consists of estimated values (From Watts Up With That – John Goetz)
No warming means no money for those who profit from purported “global warming.” That is what fraud is always about in the end: money. Could someone please explain this to Pope Francis?
September 1, 2015
Obama Is Ignoring the Science on Climate Change (From Daily Signal – Katie Tubb)
The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Clean Power Plan, has testified before Congress that the Clean Power Plan isn’t about reducing global temperatures but “an investment opportunity” and “the tone and tenor” of international climate discussions.
August 5, 2015
Where is America's Spent Nuclear Fuel?
July 27, 2015
Gore Wrong Again on Global Warming and Arctic Ice
Arctic ice stops scientific expedition
July 22, 2015
Keystone XL - A Fiscal Win (From American Action Forum - Kimberly VanWyhe)
The Keystone XL pipeline has the potential to bring huge gains to the United States, including energy independence, increased security and jobs. The $8 billion, 1,179 mile line, to be operated by Canadian firm TransCanada, would run from Montana to Nebraska and deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels a day of crude to refineries located along the gulf coast. At today’s price of crude at $51.76, this would gross over $42 million dollars a day or roughly $15 billion per year. TransCanada has waited since September 2008 for authorization of the pipeline. With crude oil prices at a 10 year low, approximately $175 billion in economic activity has been unrealized due to the delay.
July 9, 2015
EPA Chief Gina McCarthy Doesn’t Know Percentage of CO2 in Atmosphere
Information is fundamental to EPA’s Regulations
July 07, 2015
The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations - A Primer (From Heritage Foundation – Nicolas Loris)
No matter one’s personal opinions on the climate effects of man-made greenhouse emissions, the Obama Administration’s proposed climate-change regulations will exact a high price on Americans and have a negligible impact—if any—on global temperatures. The EPA has already put into place several greenhouse-gas regulations; however, the most far-reaching regulations are set to be finalized this summer. Known as the Clean Power Plan, these regulations have garnered bipartisan concern at all levels of government due to the threats the Clean Power Plan poses to the economy, quality of life, reliability of the national power grid, and constitutional separation of powers. Congress and the states should intervene and reject these regulations entirely before the U.S. energy system is put on a costlier and less reliable path.
June 15, 2015
America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend
June 12, 2015
FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
June 5, 2015
EPA Report Shows Fracking Does Not Harm Drinking Water
May 25, 2015
Carly Fiorina OWNS Katie Couric on Climate Change
“I think it’s ridiculous for the Obama Administration to call ISIS a “strategic distraction,” and then go on to climate change is the single most pressing National Security issue of our time.”
May 18, 2015
A new study by University of Houston researchers could threaten to unravel scientific claims used to justify the Obama administration’s global warming agenda.
April 23, 2015
April 08, 2015
Fracking and Earthquakes
The United States has enjoyed record-shattering energy production in the past year. In 2014, U.S. production of crude oil increased by over one million barrels a day, a 14 percent growth over the course of the year. Yet as U.S. energy extraction increases, so have concerns about the safety of fracking. In January, the New York Times proclaimed that new scientific research had linked “scores of earthquakes” to fracking sites in Ohio. Environmental groups responded with cries for more regulation. However, research shows that the risk of earthquakes caused by fracking is minimal and sensible regulations and precautions can mitigate the risks associated with wastewater disposal. Given the importance of fracking to the U.S. economy, it’s essential to understand what the science is actually revealing about energy extraction and induced seismicity and to create balanced public policy that allows safe energy extraction to continue.
March 20, 2015
Five Myths of Cap-and-Trade
Many of the arguments in support of a cap-and-trade system rely on arguments that are either inaccurate or have been proven wrong where cap-and-trade systems have been tried. Despite the claim that a cap guarantees emissions reduction, political manipulation and the shifting of carbon emissions to other countries undermines the system, seriously limiting the effectiveness of carbon cap-and-trade systems in helping the environment. Increasing the price of gasoline is not a side effect of cap-and-trade, it is a goal. To reduce carbon emissions, cap-and-trade is designed to raise the price of gas so drivers modify their behavior, finding ways to use less gas. Additionally, based on past experience, cap-and-trade would cause some energy intensive companies simply to shift operations out of the state. In these instances, the governor’s system would be a lose-lose for the state economy and for the global environment.
March 18, 2015
Obama’s Climate Trick
In a rush to end the production of inexpensive electricity from coal—a policy that would hamstring the economy—the Obama administration is ignoring the constitutional requirements for international treaties. That’s because it sees the latest international agreement on Global Warming as a way to help defend its sweeping new regulations on generating electricity, which are themselves unlawful under the Clean Air Act. The administration is daring Congress to stop its unilateral actions on treaties and its blatant disregard of existing law.
March 12, 2015
Fracking Facts: The Science, Economics, and Legal Realities
The scientific evidence used to support fracking bans looks weak when viewed in context. When light is shed on the economic and legal facts surrounding fracking bans, the justification for continuing or pursuing them erodes entirely.
March 4, 2015
Stunning Video: EPA chief says she doesn’t know what the climate models say
Does EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposal Violate the States’ Sovereign Rights? (From Federalist Society – David Rivkin, Jr., Mark DeLaquil, Andrew Grossman)
The EPA is acting as if it has no constitutional limits on its authority. The best that can be said of the agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan is that, if finalized in anything like its current form, it will provide another valuable opportunity for the courts to advance the cause of federalism when they strike it down.
February 05, 2015
What Would Environmentalists Do If They Owned ANWR?
The debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge reemerged last week as the Obama administration announced new protections for the vast, oil-rich Alaskan landscape. The Department of Interior is placing the 30,000 square mile ANWR off-limits to drilling, and the president wants Congress to further designate the refuge as wilderness—the highest form of federal protection. Under public ownership, ANWR takes on excessive political symbolism: Should we save the Arctic or destroy it for short-term profit? Protect America's last great wilderness or drill, baby, drill? The Rainey Sanctuary demonstrates that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Private ownership gives environmental groups a strong incentive to balance conservation with resource development and resolve competing demands in a cooperative, mutually beneficial way. Property rights matter. When environmental groups bear the costs of managing their own lands, their behavior is often very different than what they advocate on publicly owned lands.
February 03, 2015
Fracknomics: The Economics Behind America’s Shale Revolution
The revitalization of the oil and natural gas sector in the United States can be attributed to a combination of technological innovation and private property rights. Fracking is often singled out as the key technological innovation. Fracking has been used since the 1940s, but is now being used for directional and horizontal drilling, which is helping unlock massive amounts of oil and gas. The environmental risks associated with fracking are still being studied, and progress is being made to address such risks with better management practices. Continuing work to identify and quantify negative impacts will aid future regulators. Unconventional resources have revitalized the oil and gas supply in the United States, and they are now having an impact on global markets. Close attention to the relevant property rights will improve the long-term prospects for oil and gas development in the United States.
February 02, 2015
The Liberal War on American Energy Independence
Since 2002, fracking has generated in Pennsylvania more than 24,000 drilling jobs and some 200,000 other support jobs. Wages in the gas field average $62,000 a year, $20,000 higher than the state average. To Pennsylvania, fracking has brought in $4 billion in investment, including a steady flow of income to local landowners and local governments leasing mineral rights to their land. Progressives who believe themselves to be on the side of science and the little guy at the same time are in fact defying both. This is a battle between the partisans of a discredited ideology from the past and those who see the fast-advancing future. Energy is the fuel of growth and of life itself. The environmentalists’ target is greater than the future prosperity of America’s least fortunate—it’s their survival.
January 23, 2015
The Misguided Rush to Climate Change Action
What should we conclude from the actions of the Obama Administration and the European Commission in calls for immediate action to reduce carbon use? One clear answer is that not much GHG emission mitigation is likely to take place globally in the near term. A second answer is that more attention ought to be placed on adaptation. Adaptation can be taken unilaterally to benefit local populations, and importantly the techniques can be shared without undermining economic competitive advantages. It can help moderate any effects of climate change. For those concerned about economic welfare and the condition of the environment, more adaption while we learn about costs and benefits makes more sense than an unsustainable rush on climate change regulation.
December 11, 2014
Managing the Risks of Hydraulic Fracturing
The literature on the risks of hydraulic fracturing, while voluminous, is not clear. The most authoritative studies by governmental academies and agencies suggest that more information needs to be gathered, but at present the risks are judged to be modest and manageable with existing technologies. The call for bans and moratoria are passionate, and no doubt heartfelt by those who fear the technology and/or oppose the product of that technology (hydrocarbons), but policymakers should ignore the siren song of the simplistic solution. Bans and moratoria may make it seem like one is taking action against risk, but they simply defer those risks to a later date, if and when activity resumes, which—given the vast economic potential of shale gas and oil—it most likely will.
December 02, 2014
A More Balanced Approach to Climate Change Policy
In the current political environment, we can divide the global warming controversy into three areas of debate: (1) the human contribution to global warming, climate change, and the state of climate science, (2) the expected social and economic impacts of global warming–induced climate change, and (3) what to do about it. Each important element is addressed below. In our view, however, the most promising path forward lies in recognizing that the position one takes on any one of these three elements need not actually dictate one’s views on the others. Despite today’s political difficulties then, and perhaps surprisingly, our Task Force on Energy Policy at the Hoover Institution finds good reason to be cautiously optimistic that progress is being made and that good technology and policy options still remain.
November 24, 2014
The Justice Department’s Green Raid on America
The Obama Justice Department’s attack on Gibson Guitar is part of a larger effort to punish the administration’s critics and reward its friends, while promoting environmental extremism. That effort includes the use of sweetheart deals known as “sue and settle.”
November 19, 2014
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline: Lessons for the Keystone XL Pipeline Debate
The Administration has cited environmental and economic objections to the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a $5.2 billion project that would carry 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada down to the Gulf of Mexico. The pipeline is expected to support over 42,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide. The Keystone XL debate is almost an exact replay of a similar policy clash during the 1970s over whether to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. By examining historical documents, studies, and analyses, this study shows environmental groups opposed to the Keystone XL Pipeline are repeating the discredited arguments against building the Alaska Pipeline. Nevertheless, the empirical evidence from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline demonstrates pipelines can be built and operated in ways that protect the environment and economically benefit the nation. Americans are prudent, yet not so risk averse as to refuse to meet the challenges of tomorrow with proven solutions.
November 17, 2014
The largest solar power plant of its type in the world - once promoted as a turning point in green energy - isn't producing as much energy as planned. (It seems like a lot of these alternative energy projects were promoted by the same people that promoted Obamacare!!)
October 31, 2014
Free Markets Supply Affordable Energy and a Clean Environment
America is in the midst of an energy boom and the United States is reaping tremendous economic benefits because of it. Businesses are hiring, incomes are growing, and the economy is stronger than it would otherwise be. In spite of all the positive developments, America’s energy sector remains full of inefficiencies because of government intervention. The Heritage Foundation’s Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow Nicolas Loris explains the problems with the federal government’s involvement in energy production and details how and why free markets supply affordable, reliable energy and a clean, healthy environment.
October 27, 2014 - Co-Founder of Weather Channel: Global Warming is Hoax
October 25, 2014
October 17, 2014
Climate Policy Implications of the Hiatus in Global Warming
Some might decide that the hiatus will continue and models will break down, leading to a downward revision in thinking about climate sensitivity and a flat or at most shallow rise in temperatures—and the carbon tax rate—over the coming decades. Others might decide that warming will come back with a vengeance shortly and the tax rate will soar along with it. The price of exemption certificates would indicate which view is predominant. Anyone who fundamentally disagrees with the price path could treat the basis of his disagreement as inside information and make profitable trades from it.
October 09, 2014
EPA as Overlord of U.S. Electric Power
By redefinition of a single word, EPA obliterates a fundamental statutory limit to its regulatory reach. The law authorizes EPA to establish emission standards that apply to the individual physical power plants which generate the emissions. And the maximal standard EPA can impose is limited by the following rubric in law: “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.”
September 19, 2014
According to King Obama’s own Undersecretary for Science in the Energy Department, Climate Science Is Not Settled !!
September 9, 2012
August 31, 2014
Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now
July 28, 2014
EPA’s Illegitimate Climate Rule
On June 2, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Power Plan, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. If finalized, the rule would constitute an unprecedented usurpation of power by the EPA from the states and fundamentally overhaul the electric industry. In fact, Congress never approved such a gross expansion of the regulatory state and President Obama never vetted this power grab with voters. Most troubling of all, the rule was written by powerful special interests that helped get the president elected. Given these realities, the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan is an illegitimate exercise in executive authority.
July 21, 2014
The United States Environmental Protection Agency can and should be replaced with a Committee of the Whole of the 50 state environmental protection agencies, utilizing a phased five-year transition period. Deep-rooted institutional and political incentives have systematically biased the EPA’s decision-making processes, leaving it an unfixable mess controlled by radical liberal activists. Incremental reform is simply not an option. States have a comparative advantage over the national government in responding to environmental problems because of the major role they play in the construction and protection of urban infrastructure, regulation of land use, enforcement of building codes, and certainly not least, natural disaster response. Eighty percent of what is now EPA’s budget could be eliminated, and the remaining 20 percent could be used to run the research labs and administer the Committee of the Whole of the 50 state environmental agencies.