July 26, 2010
The Anti-Drilling Commission
By Jeffrey Folks
The commission appointed by President Obama to investigate the Gulf oil spill (the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling) does not include a single member with specialized knowledge of petroleum engineering. This is akin to performing a heart transplant with a surgical team that has never set foot in an operating room.
Of the seven members appointed to the commission, not one is a petroleum engineer, and all have long-standing ties to the environmental movement. This is certainly the case with Frances Beinecke, Donald Boesch, Terry Garcia, and Frances Ulmer, all of whom have close ties to environmentalist research and policy groups. Beinecke, in fact, is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, while Ulmer is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. How's that for an unbiased commission on drilling?
If the president's intention was to prevent future leaks, why would he appoint a commission with no knowledge of drilling? The answer, it would seem, is that this commission was never meant to perform the task it was officially charged with. It was never really intended to be a commission on drilling safety, but rather a group of environmental activists intent on regulating and taxing the oil and gas companies out of business. Its report is unlikely to focus on improved safely measures with the intent of increasing oil and gas exploration and production. It will more likely issue a blueprint on how to restrict drilling while extorting profits from oil companies by way of new fees and regulation.
Even as the commission hears impassioned testimony from Gulf Coast residents about the economic devastation of Obama's ban on deep-water drilling (his second ban, the first having been ruled illegal by a federal court), its members continue to register their opposition to drilling of any sort. Following recent testimony in New Orleans, during which prominent Gulf leaders pleaded for a resumption of offshore drilling, the commission's directors, William Reilly and Bob Graham, offered lip service to the resumption of drilling. But where were Ms. Beinecke and the commission's other environmental activists during these hearings? From all accounts, they have been silent about the economic damage caused by Obama's drilling ban.
There are two crucial lessons to be learned from the Deepwater Horizon accident, but it is doubtful whether the commission will comprehend either of them. The first is that "best practices" exist which, had they been strictly adhered to, may have prevented the Deepwater Horizon accident. It is for the commission to determine whether they were followed in that case, but it is incontrovertible that best practices have prevented significant accidents on all of the other 40,000 wells drilled in the Gulf. These practices, with continual improvement, should prevent spills in the future as well.
The second lesson, and one that no one in government or the mainstream media seems to have considered, is that the Deepwater Horizon, however flawed its management might have been, had the capacity to produce a great deal of oil and gas. Based on the enormous flow of oil from the Deepwater Horizon and others among the 33 deep-water rigs operating in the Gulf, it is clear that vast reserves of oil and gas exist off America's shores. These reserves are enough to make the United States energy-independent. They are enough to revive our flagging economy, enough to produce jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers and to create secondary and tertiary jobs for millions of others.
Estimates of oil flow from the Deepwater Horizon have come in at between 40,000 and 100,000 barrels. Taking a mean estimate of 70,000 barrels, the annual production from the well, not counting natural gas and condensates, would have amounted to 25,555,000 barrels per year. One hundred such deep-water wells in the Gulf, producing equal quantities of oil, would produce over 2.5 billion barrels per year, enough to supply one-third of the petroleum needs of the United States. This new production alone would add over $175 billion to annual GDP, and it would cut America's annual trade deficit by the same amount. Combined with increased onshore drilling, conservation measures, and increased production of natural gas made possible by advances in drilling technology, offshore drilling would render the United States energy-independent for the first time in a half-century.
Moreover, deep-water drilling has the potential to transform America from the slow-growth, high-unemployment welfare state that President Obama envisages into a prosperous, full-employment economy. This new economy would not only be energy independent, but it might well become an exporter of oil and gas -- as it is now an exporter of coal.
Expansion from the current 33 wells to 100 is a realistic goal, since it would not be necessary to drill 100 deep-water wells annually. Oil flow from wells such as the Deepwater Horizon continues for ten to thirty years, or even more (as it has in the North Sea). Ten additional deepwater wells per year, combined with fracking for natural gas on shore, would soon move the country toward energy independence.
For most Americans, new drilling and the energy independence that comes with it seem like a good thing, but that is the very reason why the president has appointed a commission hostile to increased drilling. The success of the free market in the United States depends to a great extent on the availability of cheap energy. By cutting off the supply of oil, natural gas, and coal, Obama ensures a continuation of high unemployment and an extended period of slow growth, and with these, the expansion of the socialist welfare state.
Nothing could be further from the interests of the modern-day Democratic Party than the transformation of the American economy into a flourishing free-market economy powered by cheap and reliable fossil fuels. The fight over drilling, in this sense, is nothing less than a struggle for the future of capitalism in America.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Opinion: We're looking more like France - Frank J. Donatelli - POLITICO.com
We're looking more like France
By FRANK J. DONATELLI | 7/1/10 4:50 AM EDT
POLITICO 44
Republicans can barely contain their glee at their electoral prospects for this year.
There is reason for this optimism. The Obama administration’s poll numbers continue to sink, and history tells us that things could get worse before they get better. Republicans are poised to have one of our best elections ever in November.
But what the GOP will find if and when it wins one or two houses of Congress is not pretty.
President Barack Obama’s Democrats have set out to alter fundamentally the nature of the U.S. political system. The changes they’ve wrought will not be easily undone.
Obama has sought to remake America into a social democracy — like Germany or France — with a larger public sector, expanded entitlements, stronger labor unions and a changed political structure. He’s doing quite well so far.
Size of government. Are we really still a government of limited powers at the federal level? It’s hard to make that case.
The feds are running auto companies. They fired the General Motors board of directors and forced Chrysler bondholders into a settlement far less attractive than that given the United Auto Workers, strong allies of Obama.
The Bush administration devised the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but the Obama administration has extended it once already, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has proposed keeping the $700 billion open as a line of credit to fund expanded government programs.
Obama’s stimulus plan, combined with his amended 2009 budget and his 2010 and 2011 spending plans, have pushed annual deficits to more than $1 trillion per year.
Entitlement expansion. Obamacare has passed and is lurking in our federal and states’ budget futures. When the program is fully operational in 2014, federal spending for health care is expected to rise sharply. Many businesses could drop their coverage and force workers into the public “exchanges” created by the legislation. Millions more could be eligible for federal subsidies.
This adds up to millions more advocates for even more generous benefits and higher federal spending. Democratic politicians should be only too happy to oblige.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39234.html#ixzz0srMmeZTr
By FRANK J. DONATELLI | 7/1/10 4:50 AM EDT
POLITICO 44
Republicans can barely contain their glee at their electoral prospects for this year.
There is reason for this optimism. The Obama administration’s poll numbers continue to sink, and history tells us that things could get worse before they get better. Republicans are poised to have one of our best elections ever in November.
But what the GOP will find if and when it wins one or two houses of Congress is not pretty.
President Barack Obama’s Democrats have set out to alter fundamentally the nature of the U.S. political system. The changes they’ve wrought will not be easily undone.
Obama has sought to remake America into a social democracy — like Germany or France — with a larger public sector, expanded entitlements, stronger labor unions and a changed political structure. He’s doing quite well so far.
Size of government. Are we really still a government of limited powers at the federal level? It’s hard to make that case.
The feds are running auto companies. They fired the General Motors board of directors and forced Chrysler bondholders into a settlement far less attractive than that given the United Auto Workers, strong allies of Obama.
The Bush administration devised the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but the Obama administration has extended it once already, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has proposed keeping the $700 billion open as a line of credit to fund expanded government programs.
Obama’s stimulus plan, combined with his amended 2009 budget and his 2010 and 2011 spending plans, have pushed annual deficits to more than $1 trillion per year.
Entitlement expansion. Obamacare has passed and is lurking in our federal and states’ budget futures. When the program is fully operational in 2014, federal spending for health care is expected to rise sharply. Many businesses could drop their coverage and force workers into the public “exchanges” created by the legislation. Millions more could be eligible for federal subsidies.
This adds up to millions more advocates for even more generous benefits and higher federal spending. Democratic politicians should be only too happy to oblige.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39234.html#ixzz0srMmeZTr
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Politics aside, litigation to stop ObamaCare could have real legs | Face the State
Politics aside, litigation to stop ObamaCare could have real legs
May 13, 2010
By Peter Blake
The lawsuit filed in March against ObamaCare was widely dismissed in the media as a no-hoper, a mere political stunt promoted by a baker’s dozen Republican attorneys general seeking higher office, or at least re-election.
Not so fast. The number of states suing has grown from 13 to 20, and the amended complaint to be filed Friday in the northern district of Florida will include significant new plaintiffs.
The states’ biggest challenge may be establishing their right to sue. If they can get over the hurdle of standing, they could win on the merits, considering the current conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Elena Kagan’s confirmation wouldn’t change that.
As Colorado Attorney General John Suthers put it, “The federal government does not want this to reach the Supreme Court.”
The additional plaintiffs will include the National Federation of Independent Business and some of its individual members. Their claim: We can afford to be self-insured and do not want to buy insurance or pay the penalty required by the law.
This is the key element in the constitutional challenge. The federal government has never before required anyone to buy specific goods or services as a condition of legal residence in the nation.
Yes, it can tax your income, but that was established by a separate constitutional amendment. Yes, it can draft you, but that comes under its power to “provide for the common defense.”
Suthers, in an interview this week, said his main reason for joining the suit (he was one of the original 13) was his “strong belief” that the Constitution’s commerce clause should never be expanded “to allow Congress to punish an individual American’s economic inactivity, for sitting on his butt on the couch.”
If we are forced to buy health insurance, then Congress has “total control over our independent economic decisions; they can force us to buy the fuel-efficient car they want; they can force us to buy healthy food.”
There’s nothing magical about health care, Suthers continued. “It just happens to be the vehicle they’re pursuing at the present time.”
Heretofore, Congress has regulated actual economic activity. “Here, they’re saying because you‘re a citizen and you’re not doing what we want you to do ... we’re going to fine you 2 percent of your adjusted gross income,” Suthers said.
He noted that starting in 1994, during the Clinton health care debate, the Congressional Budget Office has warned Congress regularly that “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
The states have another concern more important to them than mere individual liberty: The explosion of their Medicaid budgets because of ObamaCare’s mandates. Currently, Medicaid covers those whose incomes are equal to the designated federal poverty level. Under the bill, the coverage would rise to 133 percent. And the federal government won’t provide the dollars.
In Colorado, said Suthers, that means the state will have to extract an extra billion dollars from taxpayers between 2014 and 2020.
So why can’t states that don’t like the bill simply drop out of the Medicaid program? That’s not so simple, Suthers said. The way ObamaCare works, even if your state doesn’t participate, you still have to pay for everyone else. “It’s so coercive you don’t have a choice.”
As it says in the complaint, the new health care law “converts what had been a voluntary federal-state partnership into a compulsory top-down federal program in which the discretion of the plaintiffs and their sister states is removed.”
Suthers joined the lawsuit on behalf of Colorado despite the unhappiness of the legislature. Most of the majority Democrats signed a letter urging him to withdraw, but they took no further action since he is empowered by the state constitution to act independently.
Is Suthers, who is running for re-election in November, just pandering to his Republican base? If so, he has an odd style. At a speech the other day, after his GOP audience applauded his stand against ObamaCare, he told them that Arizona had gone too far with its new law turning illegal immigration into a state crime. The audience didn’t like his objections, the Arizona law being very popular with most conservatives.
“You loved me when I said there’s no enumerated [federal] power over health care,” he told the crowd, “but there happens to be an enumerated power over immigration. You gotta live with that.”
A successful suit wouldn’t nullify the entire health care bill, but it would require Congress to do a major overhaul. If the plaintiffs are successful, he said, Congress would have to “incentivize” state cooperation instead of mandating it.
That’s how it got states to pass seat-belt laws and minimum DUI standards. Establish them, or surrender federal highway cash. Still nasty, but not as bad as what ObamaCare demands.
Peter Blake writes Thursdays on Face The State. E-mail him at peterblake@facethestate.com.
May 13, 2010
By Peter Blake
The lawsuit filed in March against ObamaCare was widely dismissed in the media as a no-hoper, a mere political stunt promoted by a baker’s dozen Republican attorneys general seeking higher office, or at least re-election.
Not so fast. The number of states suing has grown from 13 to 20, and the amended complaint to be filed Friday in the northern district of Florida will include significant new plaintiffs.
The states’ biggest challenge may be establishing their right to sue. If they can get over the hurdle of standing, they could win on the merits, considering the current conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Elena Kagan’s confirmation wouldn’t change that.
As Colorado Attorney General John Suthers put it, “The federal government does not want this to reach the Supreme Court.”
The additional plaintiffs will include the National Federation of Independent Business and some of its individual members. Their claim: We can afford to be self-insured and do not want to buy insurance or pay the penalty required by the law.
This is the key element in the constitutional challenge. The federal government has never before required anyone to buy specific goods or services as a condition of legal residence in the nation.
Yes, it can tax your income, but that was established by a separate constitutional amendment. Yes, it can draft you, but that comes under its power to “provide for the common defense.”
Suthers, in an interview this week, said his main reason for joining the suit (he was one of the original 13) was his “strong belief” that the Constitution’s commerce clause should never be expanded “to allow Congress to punish an individual American’s economic inactivity, for sitting on his butt on the couch.”
If we are forced to buy health insurance, then Congress has “total control over our independent economic decisions; they can force us to buy the fuel-efficient car they want; they can force us to buy healthy food.”
There’s nothing magical about health care, Suthers continued. “It just happens to be the vehicle they’re pursuing at the present time.”
Heretofore, Congress has regulated actual economic activity. “Here, they’re saying because you‘re a citizen and you’re not doing what we want you to do ... we’re going to fine you 2 percent of your adjusted gross income,” Suthers said.
He noted that starting in 1994, during the Clinton health care debate, the Congressional Budget Office has warned Congress regularly that “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
The states have another concern more important to them than mere individual liberty: The explosion of their Medicaid budgets because of ObamaCare’s mandates. Currently, Medicaid covers those whose incomes are equal to the designated federal poverty level. Under the bill, the coverage would rise to 133 percent. And the federal government won’t provide the dollars.
In Colorado, said Suthers, that means the state will have to extract an extra billion dollars from taxpayers between 2014 and 2020.
So why can’t states that don’t like the bill simply drop out of the Medicaid program? That’s not so simple, Suthers said. The way ObamaCare works, even if your state doesn’t participate, you still have to pay for everyone else. “It’s so coercive you don’t have a choice.”
As it says in the complaint, the new health care law “converts what had been a voluntary federal-state partnership into a compulsory top-down federal program in which the discretion of the plaintiffs and their sister states is removed.”
Suthers joined the lawsuit on behalf of Colorado despite the unhappiness of the legislature. Most of the majority Democrats signed a letter urging him to withdraw, but they took no further action since he is empowered by the state constitution to act independently.
Is Suthers, who is running for re-election in November, just pandering to his Republican base? If so, he has an odd style. At a speech the other day, after his GOP audience applauded his stand against ObamaCare, he told them that Arizona had gone too far with its new law turning illegal immigration into a state crime. The audience didn’t like his objections, the Arizona law being very popular with most conservatives.
“You loved me when I said there’s no enumerated [federal] power over health care,” he told the crowd, “but there happens to be an enumerated power over immigration. You gotta live with that.”
A successful suit wouldn’t nullify the entire health care bill, but it would require Congress to do a major overhaul. If the plaintiffs are successful, he said, Congress would have to “incentivize” state cooperation instead of mandating it.
That’s how it got states to pass seat-belt laws and minimum DUI standards. Establish them, or surrender federal highway cash. Still nasty, but not as bad as what ObamaCare demands.
Peter Blake writes Thursdays on Face The State. E-mail him at peterblake@facethestate.com.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Al Gore's Nine Lies
Al Gore's Nine Lies
Posted 02/23/2010 06:54 PM ET
A lot has happened since Newsweek's Nov. 9 cover story -- most recently the retraction of Al Gore's rising-seas scenario.
Climate Fraud: The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up.
We've not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses.
Perhaps he's off reading how scientists were forced to withdraw a study on a projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding two "technical" mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, allegedly confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sea levels would rise due to climate change. The IPCC put the rise at 59 centimeters by 2100. The Nature Geoscience study put it at up to 82 centimeters.
Many considered the study and the IPCC's estimates too conservative in their warnings. After all, Al Gore, in his award-winning opus, "An Inconvenient Truth," laughingly called a documentary, foretold an apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a 20-foot rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice caps "in the near future."
Now Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at England's University of Bristol, has formally retracted the study. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years," he said.
According to Siddall, "People make mistakes, and mistakes happen in science." They seem to be happening a lot lately, and more than just mistakes. We are talking about outright fraud, the deliberate manipulation and destruction of data.
Last November, Al Gore was hailed by Newsweek as "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man."
Since then we and he have been given much to think about, starting with the damning e-mails from researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. The e-mails revealed an organized attempt to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, to manipulate data to fit preconceived conclusions, and to discredit and shun reputable skeptics.
A key finding of the IPCC, which along with Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, was revealed last month to be utterly bogus. The IPCC claimed glaciers in the Himalayas would likely disappear by 2035. The only thing they had to back it up was a 1999 non-peer reviewed article in an Indian mass-market science magazine.
Posted 02/23/2010 06:54 PM ET
A lot has happened since Newsweek's Nov. 9 cover story -- most recently the retraction of Al Gore's rising-seas scenario.
Climate Fraud: The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up.
We've not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses.
Perhaps he's off reading how scientists were forced to withdraw a study on a projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding two "technical" mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, allegedly confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sea levels would rise due to climate change. The IPCC put the rise at 59 centimeters by 2100. The Nature Geoscience study put it at up to 82 centimeters.
Many considered the study and the IPCC's estimates too conservative in their warnings. After all, Al Gore, in his award-winning opus, "An Inconvenient Truth," laughingly called a documentary, foretold an apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a 20-foot rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice caps "in the near future."
Now Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at England's University of Bristol, has formally retracted the study. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years," he said.
According to Siddall, "People make mistakes, and mistakes happen in science." They seem to be happening a lot lately, and more than just mistakes. We are talking about outright fraud, the deliberate manipulation and destruction of data.
Last November, Al Gore was hailed by Newsweek as "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man."
Since then we and he have been given much to think about, starting with the damning e-mails from researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. The e-mails revealed an organized attempt to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, to manipulate data to fit preconceived conclusions, and to discredit and shun reputable skeptics.
A key finding of the IPCC, which along with Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, was revealed last month to be utterly bogus. The IPCC claimed glaciers in the Himalayas would likely disappear by 2035. The only thing they had to back it up was a 1999 non-peer reviewed article in an Indian mass-market science magazine.
Investors.com - Al Gore's Nine Lies
Al Gore's Nine Lies
Posted 02/23/2010 06:54 PM ET
A lot has happened since Newsweek's Nov. 9 cover story -- most recently the retraction of Al Gore's rising-seas scenario.
Climate Fraud: The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up.
We've not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses.
Perhaps he's off reading how scientists were forced to withdraw a study on a projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding two "technical" mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, allegedly confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sea levels would rise due to climate change. The IPCC put the rise at 59 centimeters by 2100. The Nature Geoscience study put it at up to 82 centimeters.
Many considered the study and the IPCC's estimates too conservative in their warnings. After all, Al Gore, in his award-winning opus, "An Inconvenient Truth," laughingly called a documentary, foretold an apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a 20-foot rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice caps "in the near future."
Now Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at England's University of Bristol, has formally retracted the study. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years," he said.
According to Siddall, "People make mistakes, and mistakes happen in science." They seem to be happening a lot lately, and more than just mistakes. We are talking about outright fraud, the deliberate manipulation and destruction of data.
Last November, Al Gore was hailed by Newsweek as "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man."
Since then we and he have been given much to think about, starting with the damning e-mails from researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. The e-mails revealed an organized attempt to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, to manipulate data to fit preconceived conclusions, and to discredit and shun reputable skeptics.
A key finding of the IPCC, which along with Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, was revealed last month to be utterly bogus. The IPCC claimed glaciers in the Himalayas would likely disappear by 2035. The only thing they had to back it up was a 1999 non-peer reviewed article in an Indian mass-market science magazine.
Posted 02/23/2010 06:54 PM ET
A lot has happened since Newsweek's Nov. 9 cover story -- most recently the retraction of Al Gore's rising-seas scenario.
Climate Fraud: The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up.
We've not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses.
Perhaps he's off reading how scientists were forced to withdraw a study on a projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding two "technical" mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, allegedly confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sea levels would rise due to climate change. The IPCC put the rise at 59 centimeters by 2100. The Nature Geoscience study put it at up to 82 centimeters.
Many considered the study and the IPCC's estimates too conservative in their warnings. After all, Al Gore, in his award-winning opus, "An Inconvenient Truth," laughingly called a documentary, foretold an apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a 20-foot rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice caps "in the near future."
Now Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at England's University of Bristol, has formally retracted the study. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years," he said.
According to Siddall, "People make mistakes, and mistakes happen in science." They seem to be happening a lot lately, and more than just mistakes. We are talking about outright fraud, the deliberate manipulation and destruction of data.
Last November, Al Gore was hailed by Newsweek as "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man."
Since then we and he have been given much to think about, starting with the damning e-mails from researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. The e-mails revealed an organized attempt to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, to manipulate data to fit preconceived conclusions, and to discredit and shun reputable skeptics.
A key finding of the IPCC, which along with Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, was revealed last month to be utterly bogus. The IPCC claimed glaciers in the Himalayas would likely disappear by 2035. The only thing they had to back it up was a 1999 non-peer reviewed article in an Indian mass-market science magazine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
