In the Pipeline: 5/20/13

We’re not surprised, but that doesn’t make this any less unsettling. Washington Examiner (5/17/13) reports: “Two powerful congressional Republicans want to know more – a lot more – about why and how Environmental Protection Agency officials have for several years erected multiple obstacles to conservative think tanks, media outlets and non-profit activists filing Freedom of Information Act requests with the agency… ‘According to documents obtained by the Committees, EPA readily granted FOIA fee waivers for liberal environmental groups – effectively subsidizing them – while denying fee waivers and making the FOIA process more difficult for states and conservative groups,’ said Sen. David Vitter and Rep. Darrell Issa in a letter today to EPA’s acting administrator, Bob Perciasepe.”

As a refresher, the “environmental” movement is about control and monopoly of power, not about saving the environment. We also hope to see the RFS repealed and the environmental gains that would consequently follow. The American Interest (5/16/13) reports: “The environmental cost of shuttling these barrels back and forth across the globe makes this more than just an absurd story of misguided government policy. The fact that this program is effectively subsidizing needless voyages by high-emitting ships makes a mockery of biofuel’s dubious status as a “green” program… Fortunately, there are two bills wending their way through Congress at the moment, one to completely repeal the renewable fuels standard and the other to reform it. Both of these bills would fix this senseless trade circle. Let’s hope they pass, and soon.”

What does “post-carbon” mean? The people who thump their chests in the name of science sure seem to enjoy twisting words around. But oddly enough, the bad guys reveal their true goals with this green-speak, in that a “post-carbon” world is a world without you and me, my friend. We happen to think people are Earth’s greatest resource, so for now we’ll enjoy the molecular composition of carbon and all that it has to offer. The Globe and Mail(5/17/13) reports: “Canada and Alberta need to begin now to prepare for the post-carbon world – a world that will be largely powered by some combination of hydro, wind, solar, and biomass energy – all of which are or could be produced in abundance in Canada. More importantly, the post-carbon world requires that we make energy efficiency our number one priority, because only in that way will our overall demand for energy be small enough that it can be reliably met by renewable, but sustainable, energy sources.”

Three things. 1.) Coral Davenport is starting to see ghosts. 2.) Until Kevin McCarthy gets a new pollster (we know a good one), the GOP rank and file would be wise not to listen to their esteemed Whip on this issue. 3.) John Feehery is a shill for the wind industry. National Journal (5/19/13) reports: “Each January, when Congress gavels a new session to order, the party in charge rolls out a series of bills laying out its political agenda—and often they’re predictable variations on well-worn themes. So it was when House Republicans launched the year with a bill that demanded President Obama present a plan to wipe out the federal deficit, one that slashed pay for federal workers, and one that sought to increase renewable energy. (Record scratch.) Wait, what?”

You are probably going to hear a lot about the paper from Cook.  So you should probably be armed with some skepticism. JoNova(5/17/13) reports: “What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process. John Cook, a blogger who runs the site with the ambush title “SkepticalScience” (which unskeptically defends the mainstream position), has tried to revive the put-down and smear strategy against the thousands of scientists who disagree. The new paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed. Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable.”

Well, the good news is that at least this Secretary of State seems to understand that there are life and death issues.  Although his choice of those issues is ridiculous. Weekly Standard (5/14/13) reports: “Speaking today in Stockholm, Sweden, John Kerry called “climate change” a “life and death” issue. And the secretary of state apologized on behalf of the United States for not doing enough to fight climate change.”