MAFIA ALERT RAISED OVER WIND FARMS
WATCHDOG WARNING ON WIND FARM CORRUPTION
par Ken Seaton
Some Honesty from Climate Scientists….How Refreshing!
PETER LILLEY & GRAHAM STRINGER VOTE AGAINST CLIMATE COMMITTEE’S IPCC REPORT
Peter Lilley and Graham Stringer voted against the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee’s report on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Report because “we believe the role of the Select Committee is to hold public institutions critically to account not to act as their cheer leaders”.
They added: “As scientists by training, we do not dispute the science of the greenhouse effect – nor did any of our witnesses. However, there remain great uncertainties about how much warming a given increase in greenhouse gases will cause, how much damage any temperature increase will cause and the best balance between adaptation to versus prevention of global warming.
The bulk of the main IPCC technical report recognises these uncertainties and is simply a useful compilation of the research in the field.
However, the Summary for Policy Makers is far less balanced than the report it purports to summarise.
Its headline conclusion was that “evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”. It is hard to justify that increase in confidence that CO2 emissions are dominant given that: about one third of all the CO2 omitted by mankind since the industrial revolution has been put into the atmosphere since 1997; yet there has been no statistically significant increase in the mean global temperature since then. By definition, a period with record emissions but no warming cannot provide evidence that emissions are the dominant cause of warming!
The pause in surface warming does not invalidate the greenhouse effect. But it does mean that other factors – natural variations – can be of the same magnitude as the greenhouse effect over at least a decade and a half. Since such variations are presumed to cancel out over the long term variations in the opposite direction may have contributed a significant portion of the surface warming over the previous two and a half decades.
The IPCC’s conclusion flies in the face of the Inter Academy Council Review on the previous IPCC report which criticised its “authors [who] reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence” and recommended that “Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs)”. No such basis for assigning this enhanced probability was given even though it is the headline conclusion of this report.
Moreover, the Summary for Policy Makers systematically omits mentioning or plays down key information in the main report which might suggest that the problem of global warming may be less acute or less certain than previously suggested. Notably it omits to alert Policy Makers to the following facts:
1. The IPCC’s medium term forecast for temperature to 2035 is below that given by the climate models since the experts believe these to be “overheating”. However, the forecast to the end of the century assumes the temperature will revert to following the projections of the models with no allowance for their tendency to exaggerate warming.
2. New estimates of the impact of aerosols based on satellite observations are both more certain and suggest a smaller cooling effect than previously assumed. However, there was not time to rerun the models using these latest aerosol figures. They will, however, inevitably mean that the models are even more out of line with temperature data than previously thought. This was described by one of our witnesses as ““the most significant thing in AR5because if aerosol cooling is lower and … we know how much warming there has been, then it must follow … a much lower figure [is] attributable to carbon dioxide”.
3. For the first time the IPCC authors cannot agree on a best estimate for climate sensitivity even though they did in previous reports. There is only a cryptic reference to this in a footnote in the SPM. It is hard to square this unprecedented disagreement between the experts with the stated increase in their confidence in the scale of global warming.
4. Most recent empirically based studies suggest that the sensitivity of the climate to increases in CO2 is probably lower than assumed in the climate models.
5. The pause in global warming since 1997 may well be the result of natural variations offsetting the warming effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere. But if that is the case it follows that natural variations may have contributed a sizeable proportion of the warming in the 25 years prior to 1997.
6. Over the last 35 years (not just during the hiatus) the composite of models followed by the IPCC have collectively run 15% too high.
7. Forecasts of global warming generated by climate models have progressively converged on each other but diverged from actual observations of mean global surface temperature.
These issues were raised during the Committee’s inquiry. It is unfortunate that they were not dealt with in the Committee’s report. The Committee’s report would have been more balanced if it had drawn a distinction between the largely technical main Report and the much more politicised Summary for Policy Makers.
Graham Stringer MP and Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP
Members of Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change
Bill Weir, from CNN, Proves that “Emotion, not Logic”, rules Climate Alarmists!
The ‘Gore effect’ turns ugly – CNN climate bias revealed
You know of the “Gore effect“, Wikipedia describes it as “…an informal and satirical term which alleges a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and global warming activism”, so it was appropriate to apply to the situation where the Gore’s Climate Reality Project group tried a political ploys that looked stupid: “I’m Too Hot” trucks and offers of free ice cream to this week’s Environmental Protection Agency hearings on power-plant emissions…when it was 58 degrees and raining. Obviously, CNN’s Bill Weir doesn’t understand satire, much less how to be a professional journalist.
From Mediaite:
It’s safe to say CNN anchor Bill Weir is not a fan of climate change deniers.
On Thursday, the Twitter account for Fox Nation, a blog run by Fox News, tweeted a link to a post headlined, “Climate Doesn’t Cooperate With Al Gore’s Group’s Visit to Denver EPA Hearings.”
The story, aggregated from the Washington Times, relates to a Denver visit by former Vice President Al Gore‘s “Climate Reality Project” for EPA hearings on power plant emissions.
The group showed up to hand out ice cream even though it was 58 degrees.
Weir retweeted the link, with his own comment: “Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks.”
[ Twitter: https://twitter.com/BillWeirCNN/status/494670062092296192 ]
==============================================================
One wonders why he didn’t say same the same thing about Gore and his ice-cream trucks to treat the “I’m too hot” weather that never materialized. Oh, yeah, bias.
This is probably the best reason ever to tune out CNN, when they hire emotional children like this instead of journalistic professionals, it’s pretty much pointless to watch any longer.
After what I experienced recently, I’m beginning to think that most climate alarmists are nothing more than emotional children disguising themselves as professionals.
UPDATE: I posted this short message, twice. It was deleted both times, but the second time I saved a screen cap. Apparently Bill Weir has an ego that is easily bruised, or there’s somebody at CNN running interference.
You can look here as see that it is now missing.
[ Twitter: https://twitter.com/BillWeirCNN/status/494670062092296192 ]
Class act, guys. No bias there at CNN.
Hoosac Wind Turbines, Consistently Out of Compliance, & Using Unscrupulous Testing Methods
Hoosac Wind Fails Noise Test
Ribbon cutting ceremony December 201UPDATE 7-31-14:
WAMC Radio reporter Jim Levulis describes the reaction of the MassDEP to Iberdrola’s mitigation plans for the Hoosac project “Report Finds Hoosac Turbines Out of Compliance.”
Impacted resident Michael Fairneny is not impressed with the plans:
“Forget this mitigation,” Fairneny said. “I would want curtailment…these things shut down. If they’re found to out of compliance then I want something real done about it. I don’t see them ever being in compliance. I mean they are quiet a few days here and there. But the majority of the days when they’re not tested, if I’m not getting pounded the people on Tilda Hill are getting pounded.”
Hoosac Wind is loud. It’s too loud to comply with Massachusetts noise limits. That’s why an April 28, 2014 letter to the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection offers remedies for the loud sounds. Iberdrola lists the exceedences measured in tests performed in January and February 2014 at monitoring stations at Tilda Hill Road and Moores Road:
• January 9, 2014 measurements were 42.4 dBA average Lmax at Tilda Hill South and 37.5 dBA average Lmax at Moores Road North. Ambient at those locations was 32.2 DBA and 26.7 dBA, respectively.
• February 20, 2014 measurements were 44.8 dBA average Lmax at Tilda Hill South and 44.4 dBA average Lmax at Moores Road North. Ambient at those locations was 27.8 DBA and 27.5 dBA, respectively. These unusual sound levels are attributed to a blade icing condition.
Too bad the company has not informed residents in Florida and Monroe, as it says in its letter it will do:
In addition to these technical modifications, New England Wind [Iberdrola Renewables] will be contacting neighboring residents inviting them to an information session. In that session New England Wind will listen to the concerns of landowners, discuss the sound test results, and detail our technical modifications. In addition, New England Wind will be offering scheduled tours of the site.
This report confirms what several acousticians noted after reviewing the original noise testing results from April 2013. Rob Rand analysed the initial acoustic report, and Stephen Ambrose illustrated the issues in “Back to the Future II” for a Townsend, Vermont presentation in November 2013.
The large increase in noise above what is a quiet rural background turns this sparsely populated rural area into an industrial zone. But because wind turbines are not regulated like normal industries, the noise continues through the night.
Among numerous issues raised about the initial testing in 2013 were:
- The turbines were run at a reduced power, which means that the turbines were producing less electricity and emitting lower noise. Iberdrola hired the acoustician (RSG of Vermont) to do the test and therefore was completely aware of the date and time of the testing. This was true in the April 2013 testing and again in the latest January and February 2014 testing. Even though the turbines were run at reduced power they still exceeded the Massachusetts noise pollution regulations.
- Much of the original April 2013 testing was unattended when the MassDEP guidance says the testing should be “attended,” which means the noise is monitored by a person with a sound meter.
- The test microphones were inappropriately placed near trees, raising the background level.
Independent acousticians also found raw data tables in the April 2013 test report that indicated noise violations, but the company rejected the data on those sampling occasions because they were assumed to be anomalies.
Before the project was ever built, the original modeled noise assessment indicated to acousticians that there would be “widespread complaints” and “strong appeals to stop the noise.” This modeling was performed on a computer in California, without any background noise measurements done in Florida or Monroe MA.
People whose lives have been impacted by the Hoosac project should have a chance to be heard. They will have ideas for mitigation that allow them to have a good night’s sleep.
Faux-green Enviro-fanatics Hide Their Sins…A Diesel Spill, no less!
| Week-end Humour! Green Group Dumps Oil on Great Barrier Reef
Posted: 01 Aug 2014 12:38 AM PDT  It may not be Australia’s Exxon Valdez, but when a ship dumps 500 litres of diesel into the pristine Trinity Inlet at the Great Barrier Reef, there would be headlines around the world, wouldn’t there? Well, wouldn’t there? And wouldn’t the Greens led by Christine Moan and the “Sea Patrol” Devotee Sarah Hanson-Bling be screaming to the high heavens? Well, it happened. And they didn’t raise a murmur. In fact it happen five months ago. Do you remember the headlines in all the Main stream Media (MSM)? Did you see ANY headlines in the MSM? If the answer is no; obviously you do not read the Cairns Post. (LINK) diesel spill that dropped up to 500 litresof diesel into the Trinity InletAnd why, you pry, didn’t we hear a cry? Shouldn’t they fry? Who was the bad guy? Was it Captain Bligh? No, according to Moan and Hanson-Bling it was a good guy!
 It was the New Atlantis under the Captainship of the Green’s Fellow Earthling Bob Brown, Sea Shepherd extraordinaire.
Surely you heard about it, didn’t you? You would have heard about it
Did the crew of the Sea Shepherd discover the dreadful leak? NO.
Well, even if the Greens, the MSM and the TV channels didn’t think to mention it, the Magistrate thought that it was significant.
Hhmmmmm……. |
Agenda 21 Rears It’s Ugly Head! Do Not Let These People On Your Property!
The Curious Story of the MNR and the University of Waterloo by Shirley Dolan
Last month Donna Burns wrote about a scheme cooked up by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) that involved a company called Thunderhouse Forest Services (TFS) from Hearst Ontario whereby TFS, with the support of MNR, were studying trees and species habitat on private property – without the permission of the property owner. See the full story here. The study seemed to be taking place mostly in Renfrew County. We now have a similar story coming from Landowners in the Niagara Region – and it is very bizarre!
The MNR administers two programs for eligible landowners: Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP) and Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP). These two voluntary programs are available to landowners and offer 100% tax exception in the case of the CLTIP and 25% of the municipal tax rate for the MFTIP if the property owner is eligible and complies with the program’s land use restrictions.
Landowners in Ontario have been receiving letters from the University of Waterloo School of Planning, requesting their participation in a research project investigating landowners’ views on these two programs. According to a letter sent to the sampled landowners, the study has the support of the MNR, and according to information about the study, the participants’ names and addresses were drawn from the MNR’s database of CLTIP and MFTIP eligible landowners. Eligible appears to mean “could qualify for the program but not necessarily in the program”. Did you know the MNR keeps a list of landowners who might be eligible for these two programs?
The information sheet goes on to say that “It is anticipated that the results from the study will in time assist decision-making as well as design and administration of programs in order to promote successful environmental stewardship on private lands in Ontario”. This statement combined with the fact that the survey director is from the University of Waterloo School of Planning should set off warning bells with anyone who has received a request to participate in the study.
The story gets even more twisted. The study is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Ever heard of them? I hadn’t, so I had a look at their website where it says: leading initiatives that reflect a commitment to ensuring a better future for Canada and the world.
Created by an act of Canada’s Parliament in 1977, SSHRC reports to Parliament through the Minister of Industry.”
Curiouser and curiouser! I’m not sure how the University of Waterloo’s study fits with this mandate, but part of the funding provided by SSHRC was distributed in the form of $5 bills included in the letter sent to the 1200 landowners selected to participate in the study. If this wasn’t bizarre enough, the letter goes on to say that “… because of the rules of the Revenue Canada Agency, we have to let you know that the amount received is taxable and that it is your responsibility to report this amount for income tax purposes.”
So let me get this straight: the University of Waterloo School of Planning is conducting a survey, with the support of the MNR, funded by a federal agency SSHRC, and part of the incentive to participate is an unsolicited gift of $5 of our tax money. And the objective is to learn how to better promote control of private property (my interpretation). Further, the landowner has to remember to claim that $5 bill on his income tax.
Stay tuned! This story warrants more research.
Climate Alarmists are Terrified that Their Faux-Green Subsidies Will Dry Up!
Climate alarmists never quit
In the same way Americans are discovering that the Cold War that was waged from the end of World War Two until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is not over, Americans continue to be subjected to the endless, massive, global campaign to foist the hoax of global warming–now called climate change—on everyone.
The campaign’s purpose to convince everyone that it is humans, not the sun, oceans, and other natural phenomenon, and that requires abandoning fossil fuels in favor of “renewable” wind and solar energy.
It is not surprising that climate alarmists, who desire above all else blind allegiance to their cause, would demand all school teachers toe the ‘official party line’ and quash any dissent on the subject of man-made global warming in their classroom,” says Craig Rucker, the Executive Director of co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). “What is absurd is that any teacher or free-thinking person for that matter would listen to them.”
These days when I am challenged regarding my views about global warming, climate change or energy I send the individual to www.climatedepot.com and www.energydepot.com, two constantly updated websites filled with links to information on these topics. Both are maintained by CFACT.
It’s not just our classrooms where Green indoctrination goes on. It is also our news media that continue to distort every weather event to advance the hoax. Guiding and feeding them is a massive complex of organizations led by the United Nations—the International Panel on Climate Change—that maintains the hoax to frighten people worldwide in order to achieve “one world order.”
On September 23, heads of state, including President Obama, will gather in New York City for what the Sierra Club calls “a historic summit on climate change. With our future on the line, we will take a weekend and use it to bend the course of history” to save the world from “the ravages of climate change.” Does the Left truly believe it can tax, redistribute and regulate the world to an ideal temperature? This is absurd.
One of the leading Leftist organizations, the Center for American Progress, focused on the July 14 Major Economics Forum in Paris, offered four items for its agenda. Claiming that “the Arctic is warming two times faster than any other region on earth”, they wanted policy changes based on this falsehood. They blamed climate change for “global poverty” and wanted further reductions in so-called greenhouse gas emissions from energy use. The enemy, as far as they were concerned was energy use.
Mary Hutzler, a senior research fellow of the Institute for Energy Research, testified before a July 22nd meeting of the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, that due to Europe’s green energy (wind and solar) policies, industrial electricity prices are two-to-five times higher than in the U.S. and that, by 2020, 1.4 million European households will be added to those experiencing energy poverty.
There are lessons to be learned, for example, from Spain’s investment in wind energy that caused the loss of four jobs for the electricity it produced and 13 jobs for every megawatt of solar energy. In Germany, the cost of electricity is three times higher than average U.S. residential prices. Little wonder that European nations are now slashing wind and solar programs.
Billions Wasted to Combat Global Warming
In the U.S., the Obama administration used its “stimulus” to fund Solyndra—$500 million dollars—and fifty other Green energy projects that have failed or are on their way to failure. Undeterred with this appalling record, on July 3 the Energy Department announced $4 billion for “projects that fight global warming.”
But there is no global warming. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for seventeen years and it shows no indication of ending anytime soon. This is the same administration that has waged a war on coal, forcing the closure of many plants that produced electricity efficiently and affordably, and had throughout the last century.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2014 weather highlights showed that, from January to June, the temperature in the U.S. has risen by a miniscule 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit compared with the average temperature for the 20th century. NOAA also noted that recorded temperatures for the first half of 2014 are the coldest since 1993 when the cooling cycle began. The exception to this has been California.
Brainwashed for decades about global warming, 20% of likely voters, according to a July Rasmussen poll, still believe that global warming is not over, colder weather or not, 17% were not sure, but fully 63% disagreed!
The results of a Pew Research Center poll in June revealed that 35% of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to suggest mankind is warming the Earth while another 18% says the world has warmed due to “natural patterns”, not human activity. Pew found that liberals remain convinced that humans are to blame, but the bottom line is that 53% disputed the President’s claims.
That means that a growing numbers of Americans are now skeptics.
In the months to come we will see marches and meetings intended to further the global warming hype. The good news is that fewer Americans are being influenced by such efforts.
Stormy Seas Ahead, For Offshore Wind!
Centrica and Dong Energy ditch Irish Sea offshore wind farm plans
British Gas owner confirms £40m writedown from Celtic Array project, following warnings last week that UK should slow development of offshore wind farms
By Jessica Shankleman
The UK’s offshore wind industry has suffered a fresh setback today, after Centrica and DONG Energy confirmed they have shelved plans for the giant Celtic Array offshore wind farm in the Irish Sea.
Announcing the news in its interim results, Centrica said the project had proved uneconomic and would lead to a writedown of around £40m.
Since winning the rights to develop the Irish Sea zone in the Crown Estate’s Round 3 licensing round in 2010, Centrica has repeatedly raised doubts about the economics of the proposed Celtic Array and last week the company issued an energy “manifesto” calling on the UK government to slow the development of offshore wind farms on the grounds that they are too expensive.
“We have reviewed the economic viability of our Round 3 Irish Sea Zone project, Celtic Array, and following discussions with The Crown Estate and our partners in the project, Dong Energy, development activity has now stopped,” the British Gas owner said in a statement.
“We have recognised a charge of £40m, principally in respect of writing off the total book value of the project, and as a result the renewables business reported an operating loss.”
The Crown Estate this morning confirmed that one of the main reasons for the shelving of the Celtic Array was the discovery of “challenging seabed conditions”, and as such the organisation has no plans to reoffer the zone to other developers.
The decision echoes that of RWE over the Atlantic Array in the Bristol Channel, plans for which were also shelved as a result of seabed conditions.
However, the news is likely to come as a blow to the offshore wind industry, which has experienced a turbulent 12 months, with a number of other projects halted, including the second phase of London Array and the Argyll Array, as well as the Atlantic Array Round 3 zone.
However, RenewableUK director of offshore renewables, Nick Medic, maintained that the sector still had a healthy pipeline of projects under various stages of development.
“Although it’s disappointing that this particular project isn’t going ahead, the reasons are understandable – conditions on the seabed would make the project economically unviable at this stage,” he said. “Overall we still have over 37GW of offshore wind capacity in the UK’s project pipeline, so we’re set to maintain our huge global lead in offshore wind, creating tens of thousands of jobs in the decades ahead to add to the 13,000 we have already.”
He added that the offshore wind industry was still well positioned to play an increasingly influential role in the UK’s energy mix. “Offshore wind is already powering the equivalent of two and a half million British homes and that’s set to more than treble by the end of the decade, providing a secure supply of clean energy at a cost which is reducing constantly through economies of scale,” he said.
RenewableUK said there were currently 62 offshore wind farm projects planned in UK waters, 22 of which are already operational, and a further five are under construction.
Another 11 projects have been consented and nine are in the planning system. A further 15 projects are being developed but have not yet entered the planning system.
The news came as British Gas sparked a fresh row over energy companies’ prices and profits, after it confirmed profits fell as a result of the mild winter and rejected calls for it to cut prices further as a result of falling wholesale gas prices, insisting forward-purchasing practices make rapid changes to prices unviable.
You can’t Play Nice, With Liars and Crooks!
Understanding The Divergence Problem
An amazing story of scientific fraud. Probably the biggest scientific fraud in history.
As of 1975, both the instrumental and the tree ring data showed sharp cooling from 1940 to 1970
1975 National Academy of Sciences
Briffa’s Trees
The next graph overlays Briffa’s trees on the 1975 National Academy of Sciences graph. Almost a perfect match.
NOAA radiosonde data from the 1070’s also showed the sharp cooling
There was a unanimous consensus of scientists for global cooling
None of this fit the global warming agenda, so they simply changed the temperature record to “remove the 1940’s blip” and eliminate the post-1940 cooling.
After massively altering the temperature record, they were then able to delete Briffa’s trees – by claiming that they didn’t match the massively altered surface record. Deleting Briffa’s trees opened the door for Mikey to make his Hokey Stick, and an even larger bonus was that it gave the team an excuse to turn the US cooling trend into a warming trend – because it didn’t match their massively altered global temperature trend.
Some skeptics believe they are being good citizens, by playing nicely with the crooks behind this fraud.
The Faux-green Pyramid Scheme… Digging Up the Evidence!
HOW TO GET INFORMATION OUT OF THE EPA
In January 2012, I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Environmental Protection Agency asking for copies of correspondence between the EPA and various green groups active in the Marcellus Shale region. The request was filed on behalf of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the parent company of Watchdog.org. The FOIA asked the agency to provide us with “any discussion and correspondence with outside groups that concerns potential regulatory action that would impact the fracking process.”
This was not an open-ended request. By design, it was limited since the Marcellus Shale cuts across Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. The request was also limited to the green groups most active in the region. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Union of Concerned Scientists, EarthJustice, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, and Earthworks are among the groups named in the request. We also asked for communication between the EPA and the Park Foundation, based in Ithaca, New York, which is largely responsible for funding green activism in the region.
After going through the usual fee-waiver request, denial, and appeal process, the EPA finally said it would comply a few months later. Finally, in December 2013, Frederick No, a FOIA officer in the EPA, was kind enough to offer some material. It was very heavy on EPA research into the process of hydraulic fracturing used to extract natural gas, but very light on the actual correspondence that was requested. Still, it was at least a response, and I thank Mr. No for making the effort. Studies continue to show that the fracking process is safe and effective, but this has not dissuaded groups like the NRDC working to keep a moratorium in effect in New York, which could use the jobs that would be created with natural gas production. Meanwhile, the EPA has found a way to keep a lid on the input green groups have had in pursuing anti-energy regulations.
But there is some good news. At a time when the EPA is suffocating the American economy with regulations built on top of unsubstantiated scientific claims, a savvy team of attorneys has seized upon an “obscure, but potentially” powerful federal law that could force the agency to disclose its concealed data.
The non-profit Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), based in Princeton, New Jersey, has filed a new 145-page Freedom of Information Act request with the EPA that asks the agency to release reports and records the agency has that were used to justify its 2009 greenhouse gas (GHG) endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, the FOIA asks the agency to detail, step-by-step, how it complied with “highest and most rigorous standards applicable to what are called highly influential scientific assessments, or HISAs, imposed by the Information Quality Act (IQA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).”
“ITSSD research findings clearly show that EPA had systematically failed to comply with the Information Quality Act’s most rigorous and least discretionary peer review standards which governed how it should have validated and not merely reviewed the many highly influential science assessments that supported its controversial 2009 Clean Air Act GHG endangerment findings,” Lawrence Kogan, president and CEO of the ITSSD, said in an interview.
While Kogan’s efforts involve highly technical, legalistic maneuverings, he is making a valuable contribution to the restoration of constitutional limited government. There has been no appreciable global warming since the turn of the century, and in fact a growing body of research shows the planet may be cooling. So, it is certainly worth probing into what kind of scientific data the EPA is using to advance regulations that raise energy prices and burden consumers. Up until now, the IQA has been a largely unexploited feature of federal law. We’ll see what Kogan and his team can dig out.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 