EPA Lisa Jackson joins with International Socialists at Energy Action Coalitions Power Shift

On Saturday, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson will be giving the keynote speech at the Energy Action Coalition's Power Shift 2011 conference, a meeting of potentially 10,000 green youth activists in Washington, D.C.
According to the schedule, President Obama's former green jobs czar Van Jones will be speaking Friday evening, and members of the International Socialists Organization will be hosting a panel discussion Saturday:

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/13/epa-administrator-speak-youth-climate-conference-van-jones-and-intern#ixzz1JUVc5MX0

Dr. David Evans, Carbon Modeler, Says, "You've been had"

Few would have the credibility of this man on this topic. Dr. Evans was the leading modeler of climate change for the Australian Greenhouse Office.

The full text of his speech can be found here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

Global warming and the Carbon Tax Scam.

Joanne Nova's speech March 2011 "Carbon Tax" Protest in Perth

Scathing satire meets intelligent investigative analysis. Joanne Nova's speech at the 23 March 2011 "Carbon Tax" Protest in Perth is a must-watch.

Enjoy...!

The text of Jo's speech can be found on her excellent website here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/we-are-being-deceived/#more-14004

Senate rejects attempt to control the EPA on climate regulation

On April 6 the senate shot down attempts to control the EPA from destroying the US economy. This is unfortunate news for those looking for work in this economy.

There is some good news in this vote in the fact that a majority of Senators voted to restrain the EPA in some form. Several bills were voted on that would block the EPA's goals to regulate carbon emissions, in total 16 Democrats voted to block the EPA in its global warming goals.

Looks like there starting to get the message.

March Coolest Globally in 15 Years

More bad news for the global warming believers. La Nina is having a far greater impact on global temperatures then green house gases produce by us pesky humans. More information here from AccuWeather.com

 

Patrick Moore on the Anti-Human Mindset of Environmentalists

Patrick Moore on the Anti-Human Mindset of Environmentalists

 

Patrick Moore at TEDxVancouver 2009

This is another good video of Patrick Moore. He gives some background on his past and how he has become a supporter of nuclear energy.

Patrick Moore “Global warming is obviously a natural phenomenon”

Check it out it give a different view of the politics of the green movement.

EPA’s mercury-heart disease claim debunked

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine today debunks the EPA-claimed link between exposure to mercury and cardiovascular disease.

The study abstract can be found here. 

This study is important as it debunks part of the EPA’s rationale for its recently proposed clamp down on mercury and other emissions from power plants.

Click here for the proposed rule excerpt in which the EPA discusses its view of the methymercury-heart disease data.

Herman Cain: Media Scared A "Real Black Man" May Run Against Obama

Can we trust the EPA?

Is the EPA pretending air pollution is worse than it is? The people at JunkScience.com think so. Take a look at there responce to the EPA's claim that they are saving money and lives with the Clean Air act. Below is Junk Science executive summary this is the link to there full report.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to tighten air quality standards at considerable societal expense under the guise that new standards are necessary to protect public health. Focusing on the EPA’s proposed Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR), this analysis shows that:

• America’s air is already safe to breathe and it is much better than the EPA would have the public believe; and that
• The EPA relies on health studies that exaggerate harm and economic studies that understate regulatory costs in order to maintain the fiction that its ever-more stringent regulations are providing meaningful public health benefits.

Some of this analysis’ notable points include:

• Among the 32 Midwest and Eastern states that would be covered by the CATR, the daily air quality standard for fine particulate matter (i.e., soot) was violated less than one-tenth of a percent of the time (0.096%) in 2009.
• According to the most recent data for ground-level ozone (i.e., smog), the 8-hour ozone standard was violated only 1.3 percent of the time in the 32 CATR states.
• There is no tangible scientific evidence that current air quality standards are not already more than sufficiently protective of public health. Data has been hidden from the public by the agency and by a clique of EPA-funded researchers. The EPA’s scientific research has not been systematic or comprehensive despite the availability of data to the agency. Purported links between exposures to particulate matter and ground-level ozone, and health effects range from the entirely hypothetical to the subclinical (i.e., temporary changes that are physiologically detectable, but not otherwise meaningful).
• EPA’s economic analysis of its air quality rules is utterly fantastic. The EPA claims, for example, that the estimated $7 billion in one-time costs of the CATR may produce economic benefits that equate to as much as $840 billion annually or 5.7 percent of U.S. GDP for 2009. The EPA claims that its implementation of the Clean Air Act produces monetized health benefits amounting to $1.3 trillion annually, or about 9 percent of 2009 U.S. GDP.
• There is no meaningful or independent oversight of the EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act by Congress or the courts.

Congress should amend the Clean Air Act to better manage the current state of U.S. air quality, instead of allowing the EPA to pretend that it is still 1970 and air quality is poor and emissions are unregulated.

Gas Shock

The price of Gas is now higher then in 1981 when adjusted for inflation. Well the interesting thing is will this reduce demand, if the recent high prices do not curb demand what price will it take. $4, $5 or $10 a gallon how much will the government have to tax Gasoline to reduce demand enough that it will have an effect on CO2 emissions.

Why Al Gore will not run for President

Here is an interesting opinion on why Mr. Gore, it is pure financially motivated.

Because he is making MILLIONS on the Global Warming scam. He will NOT be able to continue to do that as President. He also would not have the freedom to go and do whatever he wants that he enjoys now. His wife actually came right out and said it in the Time interview. Time -The Last Temptation of Al Gore

His wife is more blunt. "He's got access to every leader in every country, the business community, people of every political stripe," says Tipper. "He can do this his way, all over the world, for as long as he wants. That's freedom. Why would anyone give that up?"