Category Archives: environment

President Obama on Gulf oil spill: “We will not rest”

President Obama on the Gulf oil spill:

“We will not rest until this well is shut, the environment is repaired and the cleanup is complete.”

Obama golf Obama Correspondents Dinner
Obama State Dinner Obama Boxer

Just Words.

Obama Administration Anti-Science, Anti-Environment

From The Washington Post:

A St. Louis scientist who was among a select group picked by the Obama administration to pursue solutions to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has been dropped because of controversial writings on his website.

So much for free speech.

What happened to President Obama’s pledge to separate ideology from science? These were evidently just more empty words.

obama - words are cheap

It looks like crushing any opposition to certain left-wing political views is a higher priority for some than stopping an ongoing environmental catastrophe (even, like here, when those political views have nothing at all to do with the issue at hand). And unlike “climate change”, the oil spill isn’t some theoretical future threat, it’s happening right now, and it needs to be cleaned up, right now. But the Obama administration would apparently rather cater to extremist ideologues than do everything to facilitate that cleanup. The Left’s war on science, reason, and freedom continues…

Cap-and-Tax cheerleading from the Associated Press

The opening line of an AP report on the ongoing attempt by House Democrats to shove through the Cap (our economic growth) and Trade Tax bill:

House Democrats have narrowly won an important test vote on legislation to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy.

Doesn’t that sound a lot more like a press release from the White House or Speaker Pelosi’s office than a straight news account? Another day, another instance of DeMSM bias.

Update: The Obama tax increase on 100% of Americans passed the House of Representatives, 219 to 212.

Some good news on global warming

A little good news on the global warming fight from

Chances dim for climate-change legislation

NEW YORK (Fortune) — An influential coalition of Fortune 500 companies and environmental groups that was formed to support climate-change legislation has splintered over the Lieberman-Warner bill that is headed next week to the Senate floor.


Without widespread corporate support, passage of the bill – already a long shot at best – becomes even more unlikely this year. President Bush remains opposed. House Democrats have been slow to act.

Besides that, a backdrop of rising gasoline prices and the sluggish economy makes it difficult to win votes for a regulatory scheme that will raise the prices of electricity and gasoline….

“Democrats ’08: Fighting for higher gas prices and a slower economy”

Earth Hour, Extreme Edition

In another meaningless symbolic gesture of the sort we expect from the left, people all over the world were encouraged yesterday to turn off their lights for an hour to “inspire people to take action on climate change”.

An hour? One measly hour? That’s nothing. We turned off all our lights all day yesterday. We plan on doing so all day today as well. Take that, enviro-weenies.

Global Cooling?

Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial outlining some research being done on the effects of sun cycles on Earth’s climate. Apparently these heretics didn’t get the word from High Priest of Global Warmism Al Gore that all scientific inquiry into the matter is now over.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.

Prediction: The Earth will enter a cooling cycle, and advocates of things like the Kyoto Protocol, carbon taxes, forcing everyone to use fluorescent light bulbs, etc., will take credit for the cooling, even though there will be no evidence that their efforts had anything to do with it – thereby escaping blame, and paying no price, for being so grossly wrong and hysterical.

California governor agrees to sign law that will have no effect on global warming

There are only two things to know about this silly law passed by the Marxists in the California state legislature, which unfortunately Governor Schwarzenegger has agreed to sign into law:

  1. It will cost California taxpayers a lot of money. (How much is debatable, but there will be costs.)
  2. It will change the average global temperature by zero degrees.

What do you call it when you spend a lot of money (other people’s money of course) and get nothing whatsoever in return?

And who’s going to build a gasoline refinery or a power plant in California now? Let’s not hear any complaints from now on from Californians about high gas prices or electricity brown-outs.

The law has three real goals – to make liberals feel good, to take more money away from corporations, and to help Schwarzenegger’s reelection prospects.

Outside the Beltway

The Left’s war on science continues

Read this article from Opinion Journal as you recall various liberal complaints about “the Republican war on science” or “scientists being silenced by the Bush Administration (according to some on the left today, being profiled on 60 Minutes equals “being silenced”):

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence


Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science–whether for AIDS, or space, or climate–where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

Exaggerating Dire ‘Scientific’ Warnings

President George W. Bush, Environmental Visionary

From the NY Times today:

In December 1997, representatives of most of the world’s nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate a binding agreement to cut emissions of “greenhouse” gases.


But in the years after the protocol was announced, developing countries, including the fast-growing giants China and India, have held firm on their insistence that they would accept no emissions cuts, even though they are likely to be the world’s dominant source of greenhouse gases in coming years.

Their refusal helped fuel strong opposition to the treaty in the United States Senate and its eventual rejection by President Bush.


Some veterans of climate diplomacy and science now say that perhaps the entire architecture of the climate treaty process might be flawed.


But our President, George W. Bush, was way ahead of all of them. He knew the Kyoto Treaty was flawed, and he stood by that position, even in the face of all the criticism from many of the same people who now admit the whole thing was flawed from the start. It’s the vision thing…

NY Times emits greenhouse gas

The NY Times reports:

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties,” tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

In other words, Mr. Cooney added some nuance, which we thought liberals valued. It is a fact that there are uncertainties and doubts in climate science, and specifically in regards to global warming. There’s nothing in the Times report that indicates Mr. Cooney altered any scientific data, it appears he only made minor changes to the narrative, such as changing “is” to “may”. The Times and those who agree with the Times just don’t want uncertainties about climate change science reported.

The Times adds:

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the “climate team leader” and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor’s degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

Note how the Times made sure to point out Mr. Cooney’s lack of “scientific training”, but they made no mention of Mr. Pultz’s scientific credentials.

The Times gives as another example of Mr. Cooney’s malfeasance:

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, “Our Changing Planet,” Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word “extremely” to this sentence: “The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.”

Again, there’s no indication that any data were changed here. Whether something is “difficult” or “extremely difficult” is an entirely subjective assessment either way. All the Times is demonstrating is that they prefer one subjective assessment over another.

The Times offers some balance:

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration’s 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for “consistency” in meshing programs with policy.

Note the ideological labeling of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Groups that agree with the Times are “non-partisan,” groups that disagree must be explicitly labeled.

Then after offering all these implorations to keep politics out of science, the Times notes:

Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying, “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.”

So right after presenting arguments that politics should be kept out of science, the Times reports on a group of scientists who released a political statement. Whether nations should take action and what sort of action they ought to take are political policy questions, not scientific questions. So does the NY times want to keep politics out of science, or only the politics they don’t agree with? The answer is obvious.