Methane Deceptions By Paul Driessen

Deception, agenda and folly drive latest Obama EPA anti-hydrocarbon rules. Are farmers next?

First they came for the coal mining and power plant industry, and most people did not speak out because they didn’t rely on coal, accepted Environmental Protection Agency justifications at face value, or thought EPA’s war on coal would benefit them.

In fact, Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon gave the Sierra Club $26 million, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the Club $50 million, to help it wage a Beyond Coal campaign. The Sierra Club later claimed its efforts forced 142 U.S. coal-fired power plants to close, raising electricity rates, threatening grid reliability, and costing thousands of jobs in dozens of states.

Mr. McClendon apparently figured eliminating coal from America’s energy mix would improve his natural gas business. The mayor likes renewable energy and detests fossil fuels, which he blames for climate change that he tried to finger for the damages “Superstorm” Sandy inflicted on his city.

Now the Obama EPA is coming after the natural gas industry. Hopefully many will speak out this time, before more costly rules kill more jobs and damage the health and welfare of more middle class Americans. The war on coal, after all, is really a war on fossil fuels and affordable energy, and an integral component of President Obama’s determination to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

Proposed EPA regulations would compel drilling and fracking companies to reduce methane (natural gas or CH4) emissions by 40-45% by 2025, compared to 2012. Companies would have to install technologies that monitor operations and prevent inadvertent leaks. The rules would apply only to new or modified sites, not existing operations. However, Big Green activist groups are already campaigning to have EPA expand the rule to cover existing gas wells, fracking operations, gas processing facilities and pipelines.

But companies already control their emissions, to avoid polluting the air, and because natural gas is a valuable resource that they would much rather sell than waste. That’s why EPA data show methane emissions falling 17% even as gas production increased by 37% between 1990 and 2014, and why natural gas operations employing hydraulic fracturing reduced their methane emissions by 73% from 2011 to 2013. The rules are costly and unnecessary, and would bring few benefits.

The Obama Administration thus justifies them by claiming they will help prevent “dangerous manmade climate change.” Methane, EPA says, has a warming effect 50 times greater than carbon dioxide. This assertion is wildly inflated, by as much as a factor of 100, Dr. Fred Singer says. Atmospheric water vapor already absorbs nearly all the infrared radiation (heat) that methane could, and the same radiation cannot be absorbed twice. The physics of Earth’s surface infrared emission spectrum are also important.

More importantly, to borrow a favorite Obama phrase, let me make one thing perfectly clear. There is no dangerous manmade climate change, now or on the horizon. There is no evidence that methane or carbon dioxide emissions have replaced the complex, powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven warming, cooling, climate and weather fluctuations throughout Earth and human history. There is no evidence that recent extreme weather events are more frequent or severe than over the previous 100 years.

Indeed, planetary temperatures have not budged for more than 18 years, and we are amid the longest stretch since at least 1900 (more than nine years) without a Category 3-5 hurricane hitting the United States. If CO2 and CH4 are to be blamed for every temperature change or extreme weather event, then shouldn’t they also be credited for this lack of warming and deadly storms? But climate hype continues.

We are repeatedly told, “Climate change is real, and humans are partly to blame.” The statement is utterly meaningless. Earth’s climate fluctuates frequently, and human activities undoubtedly have some influences, at least on local (especially urban) temperatures. The question is, How much of an effect? Are the temperature and other effects harmful or beneficial, especially when carbon dioxide’s enormous role in improved plant growth is factored in? Would slashing U.S. CO2 and CH4 emissions mean one iota of difference, when China, India and other countries are doing nothing to reduce their emissions?

Nevertheless, the latest NASA press release asserts that 2014 was “the hottest since the modern instrumental record began,” and again blames mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions. This deliberately deceptive, fear-inducing claim was quickly retracted, but not before it got extensive front-page coverage.

Let me make another point perfectly clear. The alleged global temperature increase was 0.02 degrees C (0.04 degrees F). It is not even measurable by our most sensitive instruments. It is one-fifth the margin of error in these measurements. It ignores satellite data and is based on ground-level instruments that are contaminated by urban heat and cover less than 15% of Earth’s surface. Even NASA admitted it was only 38% confident of being correct – and 62% certain that it was wrong. Analyses by Dr. Tim Ball, Marc Morano, Anthony Watts and other experts provide more details eviscerating this bogus claim.

In the end, though, all these real-world facts are irrelevant. We are dealing with a catechism of climate cataclysm: near-religious zealotry by a scientific-industrial-

government- activist alliance that has built a financial, political and regulatory empire. They are not about to renounce any claims of climate catastrophe, no matter how much actual evidence debunks their far-fetched computer model scenarios.

Their EPA-IPCC “science” is actively supported by most of the “mainstream media” and by the World Bank, universities, renewable energy companies and even some churches. They will never willingly surrender the billions of dollars and political influence that CAGW claims bring them. They won’t even admit that wind and solar facilities butcher birds and bats by the millions, scar landscapes, impair human health, cannot exist without coal and natural gas, and are probably our least sustainable energy option. They want gas prices to rise again, so that heavily subsidized renewable energy is competitive once more.

Meanwhile, polls reveal that regular, hard-working, middle-income Americans care most about terrorism, the economy, jobs, healthcare costs, education and job opportunities after graduation; climate change is always dead last on any list. Regular Europeans want to end the “energy poverty” that has killed countless jobs, and each winter kills thousands of elderly people who can no longer afford to eat their homes properly. The world’s poorest citizens want affordable electricity, higher living standards, and an end to the lung infections, severe diarrhea, malaria and other diseases of poverty that kill millions of children and parents year after year – largely because alarmists oppose nuclear, coal and gas-fired power plants.

But federal regulators, climate chaos “ethicists” and “progressives” who loudly profess they care deeply about the poor and middle classes – all ignore these realities. They focus on methane, because they view it as a clever way to inject federal oversight and control into an energy sector that had been largely free of such interference, because the fracking revolution has thus far taken place mostly on state and private lands governed effectively by state and local regulators. (Federal lands are mostly off limits.)

The proposed methane rules would generate more delays, paperwork, costs and job losses, to comply with more federal regulations that will bring no detectable benefits – and much harm, at a time when plunging oil and gas prices are forcing drillers to reduce operations and lay people off.

President Obama devoted 15 lines of his 2015 State of the Union speech to climate fables and propaganda. His goal is steadily greater control over our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties, with little or no transparency or accountability for regulators, pseudo-scientists or activists.

It won’t be long before EPA and Big Green come for farmers and ranchers – to curtail “climate-wrecking” methane emissions from cattle, pig and sheep flatulence and dung, and exert greater control over agricultural water, dust and carbon dioxide. By then, there may be no one left to speak out.

Paul Driessen is a senior fellow with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, nonprofit public policy institutes that focus on energy, the environment, economic development and international affairs. Paul Driessen is author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power, Black death

2014 as the mildest year: Why you are being misled on global temperatures By Roy Spencer

OR: Why I should have been an engineer rather than a climate scientist

I’ve been inundated with requests this past week to comment on the NOAA and NASA reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record. Since I was busy with a Japan space agency meeting in Tokyo, it has been difficult for me to formulate a quick response.

Of course, I’ve addressed the “hottest year” claim before it ever came out, both here on October 21, and here on December 4.

In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the UN’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat; that was a given.)

I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.

I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.

We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.

What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.

What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.

Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.

Read more at CFact

SideBear: Dr. Roy Spencer is the number 1 climate scientist and if anyone knows, he knows.

Note this line from the article: we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?

SideBear: 97% of the CO2 comes from the oceans, it is a natural gas the Mother Nature gave to us, a gas that keeps all plant life green and growing.

Energy Rhetoric vs. Action by Mark Green

In a State of the Union address that mostly skimmed over energy issues – remarkable, given the generational opportunities stemming from America’s ongoing energy revolution – President Obama still underscored the yawning disconnect between his all-of-the-above energy rhetoric and his administration’s failure to put that rhetoric into action.

Talking about the need for infrastructure investment, the president said:

“Democrats and Republicans used to agree on this. So let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let’s pass a bipartisan … infrastructure plan that could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year and make this country stronger for decades to come. Let’s do it. Let’s get it done.”

We agree. America’s infrastructure needs are greater than a single oil pipeline – the political football known as the Keystone XL – which the president has been punting around for more than six years.

But there’s no good reason, no good excuse, for not making the Keystone XL pipeline Job No. 1 in a procession of infrastructure projects. President Obama hasn’t offered any beyond calling “temporary” the 42,100 jobs the U.S. State Department has said Keystone XL would support. Yet, those jobs are no more temporary than the ones that would be supported by building bridges, roads and other projects the president routinely cites.

That’s the disconnect between what President Obama peddles in speeches to Congress and around the country – and what his administration is doing. You can’t beat the drum for infrastructure investment while blocking it. For more than six years the Obama administration has blocked a shovel-ready project worth about $5.4 billion in private investment, which the State Department says would add approximately $3.4 billion to U.S. GDP.

The president’s performance – or the lack of it – on Keystone XL has impacts.

API President and CEO Jack Gerard addressed some of these in a speech at the U.S. Energy Association’s 11th Annual State of the Energy Industry Forum: “…

if we can’t make a decision on a single pipeline, how can we expect to ever convince the market we can accomplish comprehensive infrastructure improvement? Indecision has consequences. The fact is that if all other infrastructure projects are held to the same standard as Keystone XL, we are years away from approving or improving anything.”

Gerard said the Obama administration’s handling of Keystone XL is a strike against American workers and a deterrent to the investment the president says he wants:

“The needlessly protracted fight over the Keystone XL pipeline only serves to deprive tens of thousands of hardworking Americans of well-paying jobs and our nation of a safe and efficient means of transporting much needed North American energy resources. Furthermore it has a chilling effect on infrastructure investment, generally, reminding all that government’s indecision must be a part of a risk calculus when deciding whether to invest in infrastructure. Deciding to improve our nation’s electrical grid, roads, pipelines and rail freight lines, particularly those built by the private sector, should not be reduced to a partisan talking point.”

Gerard noted an IHS study that found essential infrastructure improvements in just the oil and natural gas sector could spur as much as $1.15 trillion in new private capital investment over the next 10 years, while supporting 1.15 million new jobs and adding $120 billion on average per year to GDP.

Gerard:

“This level of infrastructure investment eclipses the pending highway bill, and taken together they could mean thousands of well-paying jobs and improve our nation’s economic competiveness. So, we agree with the president on the talking points.

However, we strongly disagree with the administration’s actions.” Beyond Keystone XL, we’re talking about declining energy development on federal lands – at a time when energy activity is booming on private and state lands. It includes an ideologically driven environmental agenda that could undercut the energy revolution.

Gerard: These “aren’t just prime examples of getting our nation’s energy policy exactly wrong; they stand in stark contradiction to the president’s professed all-of-the above national energy strategy.”

As the new Congress gets into full gear, there’s a dynamic energy agenda to be pursued – and it can begin by holding President Obama to his own “all-of-the-above” rhetoric and his continued call for infrastructure investment.

Gerard: “… the president has an historic opportunity to foster this unique American moment and to help set our nation on a course for enduring energy abundance and global energy leadership. Together, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to show the world how energy abundance can be used as a positive force rather than as a tool to harm or to control other nations as some still use their energy abundance. What we want and what the American people deserve are elected leaders at all levels of government who act with a sense of urgency and spirit of collaboration to convert this unique American energy moment into an enduring legacy of American energy abundance so that future generations will only know the United States as a global energy leader.”

The EPA Uses Children (and Adults) as Guinea Pigs By John Dale Dunn MD JD

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has been involved in a scandalous, unethical, and illegal human exposure experimental research program for two decades.

The Agency has sponsored, encouraged and funded research that exposes children and adults to air pollution, which it has told the congress and announced to the public is toxic, lethal, even cancer causing.

During the 2000s, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-funded researchers at Southern California Medical Schools sprayed high doses of diesel exhaust particles up the noses of 10-15 year old children in a ‘scientific’ experiment to see what would happen. Federal and California State laws prohibit such immoral and unethical experiments with children or even adults. Does the EPA disregard and disrespect law and ethics in a mindless crusade to regulate air?

Although specifically required to do so by federal regulations and the Nuremberg Code-based California state law — if not basic morality — the University of Southern California (USC) and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) researchers failed to disclose to the children and parents of those children that the EPA, at the time had concluded that diesel exhaust emissions contained particles that are toxic, dangerous, deadly and cause cancer.

Since 1997, the EPA has regulated the small airborne particles (dust, called PM2.5) that are 95% of diesel engine emissions. The theory was that the exhaust could cause death, even in a short-term exposure.

1998, the California Air Resources Board determined that any exposure to diesel exhaust could cause cancer.

In 2004, the US EPA determined that any exposure to PM2.5 could cause death within hours of inhalation. EPA’s official characterization of PM2.5 essentially renders it one of the most toxic, lethal and cancer causing air pollution substances known to man.

After evidence of these illegal human exposures to small particle air pollution experiments in Southern California Medical Research facilities was discovered in 2012 by Steve Milloy of Junk Science.com, the EPA tried to delete the evidence from its publicly available Internet archives. Then it appears that they terminated the research program on children as too sensitive.

Read more at the American Thinker

SideBear: When considering the potential for scandal considering the history of Nazi and other human experiments, you might ask why a United States Federal Agency like the US EPA is sponsoring and even conducting these experiments in the first place.

Americans Understand The Obama EPA Is A Jobs Killer

Public Opinion: The EPA is supposed to be about what everyone favors: keeping our water clean and our air healthy. But under President Obama, the agency has been an instrument of the climate change fanatics.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s mission has been to shut down fossil-fuel development and the jobs that go with it.

Now a new Rasmussen poll finds that fewer than one in three Americans (32%) has a positive view of the EPA under Obama. Four of 10 voters believe the agency hinders job creation and growth.

In previous times, Americans have had a generally positive attitude toward the EPA and have resisted any cuts in its budget.

The public aversion to the recent activities of the EPA couldn’t come at a worse time for the Obama administration and the oft-embattled environmental agency. The White House announced at least a half-dozen new regulations aimed at handcuffing America’s domestic oil, gas and coal industries.

The new rules have come under intense criticism, especially given the tough times ahead for the oil and gas producers that are facing a 46% fall in prices since the summer months. To many American workers, this is a blatant attempt to slay the goose that for the U.S. economy over the last decade has been laying golden eggs.

The EPA has also come under fire in recent weeks for proposing a so-called Clean Power Plant rule that would require electric utilities to chop their carbon emissions by 30% by 2030. This plan would require utilities to move away from coal and eventually switch to more expensive and unreliable electric power plants.

By some estimates, electric utility bills could rise in some areas by up to 50% to meet the mandates.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: