NEWSCLIMATE SKEPTICISM

Clean air shouldn't be a contentious issue: Everyone can rally around the fact that its nice to take a breath of air that hasn't been polluted with toxins and other harmful material.  Because having clean air to breathe is so important, our largest legislative body in America would be head-over-heels about protecting the air right?

Actually, some members of Congress—including and most especially West Virginia's own Jay Rockefeller—want to do the exact opposite.

Rockefeller, a Democrat, is one of the primary sponsors of efforts that would take a scalpel to the Clean Air Act and begin slicing and dicing the aspects that allow U.S. EPA to protect West Virginians from greenhouse gas pollution (West Virginia ranks near the top in the nation in terms of the intensity of its emissions). 

“Unfortunately, [The Interior Department] seems profoundly confused about whether to actually protect polar bear critical habitat or sacrifice it to oil companies,” said Rebecca Noblin, Alaska Director of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in a recent press release.

And so is everyone else, especially up here in Alaska.

Whether it's the Resource Development Council claiming that the polar bears are actually growing in numbers, the CBD and Greenpeace claiming that their habitat is actively being destroyed, or the oil and gas companies claiming that development will not harm the plethora of endangered and threatened species that live in the Arctic at all—no one can seem to agree about the reality of climate change in the Arctic. All eyes turn instead to the Department of the Interior to sort out the mess. Lawsuit after lawsuit, everyone believes they have the answer, and no one is willing to compromise.

When it comes to the research of climate scientist Michael Mann, the old adage “stop beating a dead horse” immediately springs to mind.

The latest challenge to Mann’s studies comes from the American Tradition Institute, which has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to cull information on climate science research Mann did while at the University of Virginia. Like others before them, the group is after Mann, who now works for Penn State University, because of his involvement in the hacked e-mails at the heart of the bloated “Climategate” scandal from more than a year ago.

Not surprisingly, like Mann’s other adversaries, the group also has a clear global warming bias.

Its director, for example, was plucked from the Heartland Institute, an Exxon-backed organization that puts on an annual conference hosting hucksters who deny manmade climate change. And the head of its duplicitously titled Environmental Law Center is the author of such tomes as Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed and Power Grab: How Obama's 'Green' Policies Steal Will Your Freedom and Bankrupt America.

Last month, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) finally concluded its study on the proposed status of the Ringed Seal under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which was originally instigated by a petition through the Center for Biological Diversity in 2008.

After more than a year, pages upon pages of research, and a court mandate to finalize the findings, due to a lawsuit, also by the Center for Biological Diversity, the definitive answer is in:  These seals are threatened by climate change.  But it's not that easy, and, unfortunately, the ringed seals aren't being listed just yet.

If NOAA listed the ringed seal,  it would become the second species declared threatened because of climate change. This means not only that the administration would have to admit to the serious realities of a warming planet, but also impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emitting development, a mandate that's gotten politicians and corporations a bit uncomfortable.

They may study cow waste, however their research is anything but.

A team of University of New Hampshire environmental scientists is speaking out against Senator Tom Coburn's claim that their $700,000 research grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture is an example of needlessly frittered taxpayer dollars. ($700,000 is .00007% of the $1 trillion federal deficit. The tax cuts for the rich Coburn championed? Don't ask).

Last week, the conservative Oklahoma Republican, a self-acknowledged fiscal alarmist, released the "Wastebook" report, his annually disingenuous catalog of 100 'wasteful' federally-funded projects. He later went on Fox News to complain the U.S. is headed for "apocalyptic pain" if it doesn't rein in the deficit. Coburn cited the New Hampshire researchers' work as Number 58 on the list for its wasteful goal of examining “greenhouse gas emission from organic dairies, which are cause by cow burps, among other things.”

In a world of strongly-worded letters and blustering statements for the press, last week was pretty dramatic as Obama's EPA prepares to regulate greenhouse gases in 2011. Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator to EPA chief Lisa Jackson, wrote to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's Chairman, Bryan Shaw, and stated that the EPA was poised to take over the permitting of power plants, refineries, and other sources of greenhouse gases in Texas, since the TCEQ clearly has no plans to obey federal law and implement the climate regulations. 

"Officials in Texas have made clear ... that they have no intention of implementing this portion of the federal air permitting program," McCarthy wrote. "The unwillingness of Texas state officials to implement this portion of the federal program leaves EPA no choice but to resume its role as the permitting authority, in order to assure that businesses in Texas are not subject to delays or potential legal challenges and are able to move forward with planned construction and expansion projects that will create jobs and otherwise benefit the state's and the nation's economy."

Just because something isn’t surprising doesn’t mean it can’t be maddening.

Exhibit A: The latest Fox News flap, which reveals more than ever just how much damage the network’s “fair and balanced” reporting is doing to environmental stewardship. According to a Media Matters leak, Fox News’ managing editor Bill Sammon sent a missive to his staff last year in which he wrote:

"...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

The motivation for the CAPPED FOR EMPHASIS directive? Earlier, Fox correspondent Wendell Goler had the gall to report, completely accurately, that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization said 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record.”

British environmentalists have recently found themselves in the strange position of funding an advertising billboard campaign that reads: "'Green' Climate Policies: Probably Unnecessary, Certainly Ineffectual, and Ruinously Expensive."

Did someone forget to tell me it was 'opposite day'?

Not exactly.

The situation actually has come about because Roger Helmer, a conservative member of parliament representing the East Midlands region, is using £9,000 ($14,000) of U.K. taxpayer money to promote his pet views about climate change, according to The Guardian. (Hat tip from Treehugger) The ads are running for 2 weeks in Derby, Leicester, Northampton, Lincoln and Nottingham, and are only the latest in Helmer's long track record of denial that humans are causing the earth to warm at unprecedented rates, as evidenced by his website: www.rogerhelmer.com.

Think slowing climate change will cost a lot of money? Think again. As most economists will tell you, the costs of not acting to slow climate change are far scarier.

Unfortunately, you might not realize that if you are a college economics major. In fact, you might not even believe that climate change is happening at all. At least that's true if you are studying from one of five popular college economics textbooks that recently received a "Not Recommended " grade in The Sightline Institute's review of 16 major texts used on college campuses nationwide.

The think tank's climate economics "report card," written by Dr. Yoram Bauman, a University of Washington environmental economist, turns the tables on academic textbook authors, grading their efforts to introduce crucial climate questions to the budding business and finance leaders who sit in their classrooms.

The results are not heartening. According to the report, these five books—all recent editions— contain either misleading or flat-out wrong information about climate science and policy. One, “Economics, 18th ed.” by Campbell McConnell, Stanley Brue, and Sean Flynn," a book that commands 20 percent of the college economics textbook market, received a "C-" grade for its use of climate science dated 15 years ago, back when its current readers were in elementary school.

Let the climate monkey trials begin.

Yesterday morning, from his perch as the top minority member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) was merely President Obama's relatively impotent "annoyer-in-chief."  This morning, with the GOP takeover of the House, he is poised to take over the committee, giving him power to issue subpoenas and set the committee's hearing agenda. In other words, he will now play Lex Luther to Obama's Clark Kent.

What does this mean for climate science?

A whole lot. From his new position, the former car-alarm company owner plans to raise false alarm about climate conspiracy theories. As Nikki Gloudeman wrote, just a few weeks ago Issa vowed to make investigating "Climategate"—the climate pseudo-scandal that's already died 1,000 deaths—a top oversight priority should he win the committee.