EPA authors, media, miss $31 million dollar potential conflict of interest

media biasSteve Milloy at JunkScience holds the media and EPA scientists up to the same standards they expect from skeptics like Willie Soon.

The Headlines are everywhere:

E.P.A. Carbon Emissions Plan Could Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds “— NY Times

And the media go out of their way to make sure everyone knows what independent angels they are:

Peer-reviewed, non-partisan academic study finds that the EPA emissions rule will save thousands of lives (Lindsay Abrams) — Salon

In most articles the study authors were just researchers from Harvard and Syracuse Uni, who declare “they have no competing financial interests”.

Milloy wonders if $31 million in EPA grants could be a competing interest?  Five of eight authors are paid grants by the EPA.

Below are listed the article’s authors and the dollar amounts of EPA grants with which they are associated as principal investigators”:

Now how could Schwartz’s $31,176,575 or Levy’s $9,514,361 or Driscoll’s $3,654,608 from EPA possibly be considered as a “competing financial interest” in an article they wrote in support of EPA’s flagship regulatory effort?

The NY Times headline, Feb. 21, 2015about Willie Soon: “Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher.”

Being good fair and balanced journalists, I expect the NY Times will rush to show it is not a one-eyed propaganda sheet pumping the political whims of its staff. I’m looking for the headline: Deep Ties to EPA cash for scientists that promote EPA policies. Though there are many alternatives, “Work of Prominent Scientists Supporting EPA exposed as funded by EPA.” How about “Could big-government grants buy “independent” scientists”? Perhaps we might see   “Documents spur investigation into conflict of interest declarations for scientists”?

And what about a full feature article: “Pro-government but paid by government? When independent scientists are not so independent.The full story on JunkScience

Of course, any scientist’s work stands or falls by the reasoning and evidence, not by its funding source. The point of this post is about hypocrisy of those who call themselves “independent” when they have million dollar dependencies,  and those who call themselves “investigative journalists” when they ignore the big stories that conflict with their personal religion. It’s about those who throw stones at Willie Soon.


9.7 out of 10 based on 95 ratings

54 comments to EPA authors, media, miss $31 million dollar potential conflict of interest

  • #

    Researchers calculated that the changes in the E.P.A. rule could prevent 3,500 premature deaths a year and more than 1,000 heart attacks and hospitalizations from air-pollution-related illness.

    Just like a global emissions calculator model from the UK that reckons by cutting urban car journeys by a third, the average size of homes by 15% and going vegetarian, we can make global CO2 emissions negative by 2050. 🙂


    • #
      Pat Frank

      Those numbers are almost certainly just extrapolations from some epidemiological correlation model. They have about as much scientific content as an extrapolation of stock-market correlations with solar flares.

      The correlation is there. But which way does it go? Shall we apply EPA scientific causality logic? Prevent damaging solar flares! Force disinvestment in the stock market!

      The spurious correlations website shows serious positive health consequences will follow from banning marriages in Kentucky. Evidently another area the EPA should regulate.

      Politcally-driven stupidity: another infinity not considered by Einstein.


    • #

      Yup…..back to grass huts and howling at the moon…..



    • #
      Alexander K

      Having lived and worked in the UK in the recent past, the Global emissions calculator is nonsense as…
      1 Their houses are already almost uncomfortably small and cramped by Kiwi and Aussie standards,
      2 We didn’t use our car much for urban transport, as the public transport sytem (within London at least)is very eficient and far cheaper than using one’s car.

      Must be nice to have a job in which one can produce nonsense and still be salarued.


  • #

    There was never any real response to the 1998 Oregon petition and updates, 32,000 qualified scientists who agreed man made Global Warming was rubbish. All with real signatures, real names and real addresses and real qualifications. There were questions raised about the occasional double entry and whether the scientists were ‘climate’ scientists but never any about Al Gore’s non existent qualifications. Not a single question about the late Edward Teller’s signature. It was just pushed aside and ignored and even President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry repeat the lie, 97% of scientists. Our own Government appointed Climate Commission had no one who was qualified in Climate, led by a paleoentologist with a BA.

    The scare has always been a purely leftist political device, not a real story and the anti Semitic New York Times has been one of the worst offenders. Always attack the man, not his science. Never attack your own side.

    It has always been a puzzle that the two platforms of the Greens and the communists (I repeat myself) have been man made Global Warming and anti-Semitism/anti Israel (Again with the repetition). I just cannot see what either has to do with being Green? More CO2 and the world is Greener.

    There are not a lot of green trees in Israel. Australian desert gum trees at best. As for the “River Jordan is deep and wide, Hallelujah”, you could at points jump this slime covered awful drain, except someone would shoot you for crossing the border. Completely free of milk and honey too. The New York Times is also a complete puzzle as the publishers are the famous Jewish Sulzberger family. There are many aspects of the man made Global Warming campaign which beggar any understanding, not least the total lack of evidence.


    • #
      Leonard Lane

      TdeF. Great comment “The scare has always been a purely leftist political device, not a real story and the anti Semitic New York Times has been one of the worst offenders. Always attack the man, not his science. Never attack your own side.”
      The NYT has been an anti-Semitic, anti-American, radical leftist paper for 50 years or longer (I suspect they have had communist philosophies back to WWI days when Lenin led the communist revolution in Russia). Like most leftist newspapers in the USA they are dying and losing money on their newspaper.


  • #
  • #
    Leonard Lane

    EPA seems to have many high-dollar scientists in their pocket to spread the propaganda.


    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      But the scientists are only the tip of the iceberg. The EPA bureaucrats out number the scientists by three, or more, orders of magnitude.

      It is a Federal Agency that solely, and totally, exists for one reason: Regulation of the environment, in all of its manifestations.

      Management status, and hence salary scale, in Government Service, is dependent upon a) the size of the budget you are responsible for; b) the number of direct reports you have, and c) the total number of indirect reports in your area of responsibility.

      To increase your status, within the EPA, you are therefore incentivized, to find new areas of the environment that are not yet regulated; and regulate them, and by doing so, increase the number of your direct and indirect reports. At some point, this meta-process turns critical. And yes, I deliberately use that word in exactly same sense that it applies in Nuclear Physics.

      Once an organisation reaches critical mass, as the EPA now appears to be close to doing, it can no longer be controlled within the Government oversight and assessment processes, and we get a run-away reaction. This will not stop, until the EPA ends up controlling every other facet of Government, and has regulations to mandate every aspect of private and public life.

      There are precedents for this, if you study Soviet Government, around the time that Yeltsin appeared to be in power.

      HG Wells was about forty years two early, in setting the timeframe for his story.


  • #

    Well, if Australia’s finest and brightest astrophysicists considered for seventeen years that these radio signals emanated from another galaxy, then we’ve nothing to be concerned about have we?
    CAGW is a cinch. The rest, as the EPA demonstrated, is pure marketing designed to manufacture the appropriate gravitas required by klimate skientists to deliberately manufacture of the same stunt their Australian astrophysicist colleagues achieved with a trifling fraction of the money.


    • #

      Very funny. At least someone had the sense to check to see if the signals were possibly from another source. The same needs to be done with the sudden warming which occurred when the IPCC started in 1988.


    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…thought to be from space but were also known – somewhat unusually – to be detected only during business hours.’

      Much amusement.


    • #
      Peter C

      Not only is that a very amusing story, but it also shows how big science works,these days.

      After writing who knows how many learned articles about the dreaded Perytons, the supervisor gives the new PHD student Emily Petrof the project of investigating the Perytons.

      Emily goes about her task in a systematic way, initially setting up a monitoring system and collecting some data. She notices some interesting and unusual,features about the signals, such as the temporal distribution and that the signals are all very much the same and the frequency.

      These unusual features give her the idea,that the signals might be coming,from a microwave source here on earth and from that she develops her hypothesis. The tricky part may have been identifying the exact microwave oven involved. As it turns out she did not have to look very far away. The final,step,of testing the hypothesis by opening the oven door a few times ans checking for,the accompanying Perytons radiation was quite trivial.

      But here is the interesting part about contemporary science.

      1. The youngest and least trained member of the team makes the discovery.

      2. It takes one person to make the discovery but 15 authors to write the paper


    • #

      While it took less time than 18 years, I came across a few examples like this when I was a scientist.

      One colleague had oscillations that tourned out to be due to the window being slighltly open. This flapped the venetian blinds that threw an oscillating shadow on the experiment.

      Another noticed that his experimental results dependend on the colour of his T-shirt. Luckily, he only wore white or black T-shirts or he wouldn’t have spotted it.

      Myself. I had a 30 min oscillation in my data and was pondering it for 30 minutes until the airconditioner switched back on again.


  • #
    Doug Proctor

    A few grand in grant money isn’t anything. It is RECEIVING the grant that counts: socio-political recognition that what one does reflects well on the grant-giver.

    If more than 10 or 20% of your income come from one place, then keeping that place happy for financial reasons is a motivator. Less than 10%, I’d say not much, especially since either/or taxes or the institutes cut comes from it. The recognition is what is corrupting here.

    I’m in the oil and gas business. More years ago than now, favours had huge impact on decisions made. But what really counted was the stroking: there is nothing as validating as someone throwing a prize at you for being a “good guy”, which is actually code for “one of us”.

    Whether it is a bottle of wine or tickets to a game, what’s important is that an external moment of one’s important has occurred. The spirit of reciprocity takes over from there.


  • #

    President Obama was just down in South Florida, giving a speech in the Everglades on the hazards of global warming climate change …

    “The world’s top climate scientists are warning that a changing climate already affects the air that our children are breathing.

    The Surgeon General and I recently met with doctors and nurses and parents who see patients and kids grappling with the health impacts.”

    How come Obama and the Surgeon General are seeing “patients and kids grappling with the health impacts” from the “air that our children are breathing,” when the EPA’s own data indicates that U.S. air quality has improved markedly since 1980?
    (via instapundit)


  • #
    Peter Miller

    On WUWT recently there was a tedious video by some super-bureaucrat about how his ‘research’ was only for the glory of advancing ‘climate science.’ I think his name was Ben Santer and he was clearly revelling in the fame and fortune, which being an ‘expert’ on ‘climate science’ had brought him.

    His wandering rant was on how wonderful it was to be part of the global ‘climate science’ team, all dedicated to understanding the mysteries of climate, while simultaneously rubbishing those sceptics who have pointed out “the emperor is wearing no clothes.”

    Sceptics are out funded by alarmists by at least 1,000 to 1 and subject to every smear tactic the Green Blob can think of, because that blob has become a cancerous industry, intent on devouring its host (our economies) and growing exponentially, just for the sheer sake of it.

    These green grants need to be outed, for only in the wacky world of ‘climate science’ could the EPA be considered a neutral observer or funder.

    Amazingly, despite the relentless propaganda of the left wing media, the percentage of sceptics is growing, helped by the fact that Mother Nature clearly also thinks CAGW theory is a complete crock, by not co-operating in providing rising temperatures for the past 18 years or so.

    Science is supposed to be about integrity of research, while ‘climate science’ is all about making up stuff, or manipulating observations/facts to fit a dodgy theory. Yet, this is widely accepted as being a good thing – truly, we live in a world gone mad.


    • #

      I would agree witrh you about the world gone mad – it seems the planet has been infected with the lunacy of Soviet mindset descision making….


  • #

    Follow the money.


  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Another thing that goes on besides EPA Dependency Grants is the “sue and settle” collusion between EPA and other federal agencies infiltrated by radical leftists with the radical leftist Non-Profits. It goes something like this. The leftist agency leaders let a leftist environmental non-profit know what policy they would like established on public lands (private too in the case of several regulatory agencies). The non-profit then sues the federal agency. The federal agency then “settles” rather than going through a full trial. The results: the agency agrees to adopt the policy for which they are supposedly violating, and the non-profit is granted a large cash settlement. This settlement fuels the next lawsuit as well as huge non-profit salaries. Thus, public policy is established, laws are amended, and on-the-ground actions are made and enacted with taxpayer money. All this takes place without the US Congress or any state legislature being involved.
    Now, when the new policy costs the agency and the taxpayers huge sums, the agencies ask for more money to administer the “Public Policies” that the public “demands” and the Congress and/or state legislatures provide additional funding to the regulators.
    A neat swindle scheme that uses federal money to provide non-profits funds to sue the federal agency so the federal agency can get what it wants without asking the legislature for more money, suing anyone themselves, or following the national laws and procedures that they are subject to by the legislatures.
    These collusion lawsuits may net the non-profits millions, net the federal agencies billions, and all this is done behind the taxpayers back. Clever devils these conspiring leftists!


  • #

    The New York Times serves a demographic, shared with Salon and HuffPo, called Our Kind Of People, or OKOP. (We don’t really need all this diversity of the Posh Left in Oz because we have a massive government-funded organ called the ABC to cater to OKOP. It is slowly swallowing private OKOP enterprises like Fairfax, who are strangely unaware they are being eaten by their OKOP ally.)

    OKOP can be trusted to think right and do right. They are like a slavish herd, only cool, if you know what I mean. And if you don’t know what I mean, you’re not OKOP…so just go away.


  • #

    Very interesting Jo…
    I find it strange that this revelation comes so soon after the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on April 29, voted 11-9 to approve the “Secret Science Reform Act,” a bill to prohibit the EPA from using ‘science’ that is only held at the EPA offices. (It is sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY).)The bill has been pushed strongly by House Republicans but now it has been advanced by the Senate.

    That is the Republican are pushing forward a bill that will stop the EPA using ‘secret science’ research ‘products’ and reports in framing their newly gained (Obama ordained) powers to close down what they decide are polluting industries. And how would they decide an industry’s pollution is so detrimental to the public good — well by secret science of course.

    Even stranger is a document sent by 50 ‘independent’ institutions and companies that wish this bill to be stopped. How many of the got money from the EPA, either directly or indirectly?

    Obama has already stated that he will veto this bill if it lands on his desk.

    So, ‘the most transparent government’ is advocating enabling the EPA to find industries guilty by the use of ‘secret science’.
    Unbelievable! EPA’s new powers of Kafkaesque witch hunting?

    EPA keeping you safe by keeping you unemployed.


    • #

      Oops a few things wrong –
      1. Attribution – from amongst others http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/233714-gop-attacks-epa-on-secret-science
      2. “That is the Republican are pushing forward…” should be “That is the Republicans are pushing forward…”
      3. “How many of the got money from the EPA, either directly or indirectly?”, should be ” How many of them, got money from the EPA, either directly or indirectly?


      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        We knew what you meant tomo.

        I never let the little things, like spelling and grammar, get in the way of my creativity. Sometimes, even the truth gets a little bruised in that process – well, it shouldn’t try to get in the way – then it wouldn’t get hurt.


  • #

    Those in media, willing to pander,
    To warmists,and skeptics to slander,
    By their verbal abuse,
    May give sauce to the goose,
    But sure don’t give sauce to the gander.


  • #

    O/T to the UN …

    Christina Figueres is in Sydney, Australia, addressing a religious girls school May 5, 2015:

    Addressing next generation of #climate leaders at St Catherine’s Girls School #M4C @UNFCCC_Momentum (twitter)
    ~ ~ ~
    Did she, Christina Figueres, inform these girls that she is advocating:

    1. that they shouldn’t have any children –


    2. actively working to “intentionally transform” the world’s economic development model –

    Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. (climatescepticsparty.blogspot)
    . . .
    St Catherine’s Girl School should be proud of itself. Not.


    • #

      Hmm…shall have to distribute this to many people so they can hear it in the UNs own words.



  • #

    Lord Monckton defends Willie Soon

    I note that Lord Monckton has now joined the fray and issued a strong public letter alleging frauds at Harvard University involving the EPA, and defending Professor Willie Soon behavior in the affair.

    Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary?
    Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate skeptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not in fact possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist, when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?
    Would the School please tell His Lordship, who has standing as Dr Soon’s lead author, how to lodge a complaint of research misconduct in respect of the massive, direct and undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of its researcher Mr Schwartz, and of the School’s misrepresentation of the commentary as “independent”?
    Yours truly,
    James Rowlatt
    Clerk to Lord Monckton

    Time for popcorn I think…


  • #

    What I cannot understand in all this is here you have Scientists, you know, people who have expertise far and away beyond the knowledge of the average person, having done many years of deep and intense study to gain their qualifications and Doctorates, and yet they are totally lacking in logic and common sense.

    They are in the pay of the EPA, so, naturally, they will parrot the party line, for fear of losing that gravy train of huge amounts of money. Now, admitted, they don’t get all of it, but this huge amount of money does enable them to live a really high quality life style.

    Their boss, the EPA, produces a Report of more than one thousand pages, and they, as Scientists, just blindly accept it as what is needed to save the World, by having the U.S. do what is required as a result of this report.

    Here’s the link to that Report and if you scroll down to the heading Full Report, you’ll see the many parts to it, totalling out at the thousand pages plus.

    The upshot is that all these Scientists just blindly support all of this, saying that what is required to keep within this so called 2C temperature range is that ….. ALL EMISSIONS ….. need to be reduced by a (now remaining) total of 22%.

    These scientists all seriously nod their heads and say that the Science backs all this up, and because they are Scientists (who should actually KNOW all of this) then the average person will believe with certainty, because they have been told by the experts.

    Now enter logic and common sense.

    A FULL 22% REDUCTION OF ALL EMISSIONS. Never mind here that the target date is 2025, only ten years away now.

    At that link, look at the blue pie chart on the right. (mid screen and titled ‘Sources of Greenhouse Emissions’)

    So, all of these have to be reduced by 22%.

    There are three very large sources, totalling out at 79% of all emissions.

    (MY) analysis shows that to achieve that in the electricity generating sector, they will need to close one in three of all the large scale coal fired power plants. Now forget that there is no (currently favoured) way to replace that scale of electrical power.

    The aim to reduce 22% of emissions from Industry means shutting down 22% of all industry.

    Now, just forget those two monsters, and look in isolation at that Transportation Sector, which makes up 27% of all emissions. Here they have to reduce that by the similar 22%, or almost one in four of ever form of transportation.

    In the U.S. all transportation is made up of passenger cars (42.7 percent), freight trucks (22.1 percent), light duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans (18.0 percent), commercial aircraft (6.2 percent), rail (2.6 percent), pipelines (2.6 percent), and ships and boats (2.2 percent). (This is taken directly from their own EPA documents)

    So here they need to take one in four of all of those out of use, completely.

    Logic and common sense alone tells you that, in the U.S. this is problematic, to put it politely.

    If the Scientists who blindly support the hand that feeds them cannot see that, simple common sense, then we can be exhorted to bow down in front of the god of Science all we like, but we do it with a smile on our faces ….. well, some of us anyway.

    Something like this will drive the U.S. back into the dark ages, quite literally really.

    Shut down power plants. Maybe.

    Shut down Industry. Maybe.

    Take one in four of every type of transport out of use. Yeah! Right!



  • #

    this was a Northern Territory Times’ article on ABC’s “What the Headlines Say” segment of Tony Delroy’s program last nite. i can find it nowhere on the NT Times homepage & it doesn’t show up as a result in searches. can’t be bothered searching the paper’s website.

    how much did it cost for this?

    5 May: The Conversation: Extreme heat poses a billion-dollar threat to Australia’s economy
    by Kerstin Zander, Senior Research Fellow at Charles Darwin University,
    Elspeth Oppermann, Post-doctoral researcher, the Northern Institute at Charles Darwin University &
    Stephen Garnett, Professor of Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods at Charles Darwin University
    Disclosure Statement
    Elspeth Oppermann has received funding from the NT department of health for research on heat stress, but not for the current study.
    Stephen Garnett has received funding from the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and the Australian Research Council
    Kerstin Zander does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
    In a paper published today in Nature Climate Change, we and colleagues show that heat stress probably cost the Australian economy nearly A$7 billion in 2013-2014 through productivity losses such as those we’ve mentioned above…
    That bodes ill for the future, with heatwaves forecast to get hotter and more common thanks to climate change…
    Regardless of the reason, productivity loss from heat was a major cost to the Australian economy in 2014. Of 1,726 respondents sampled randomly from the Australian population, 7% did not go to work on at least one day in the previous 12 months because of heat stress…
    Ten times that number (70%) went to work but thought they were less efficient…
    This figure is conservative. It does not include productivity loss among those younger than 18 or older than 65, nor does not include the effects of heat on voluntary work or home duties…

    4 May: New Scientist: Michael Slezak: Severe heat costs the Australian economy US$6.2 billion a year
    Journal reference: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2623

    ABC Science: Dani Cooper: Heat stress costs Australian economy billions
    Zander says employers and governments in the southern regions of Australia, in particular, need to look at this issue.
    She says the hotter regions of Australia, such as the Northern Territory, already have done a lot of work in heat management, “but down south they haven’t thought this through”.
    The authors note that workplaces will need to adopt strategies to reduce workplace heat exposure and improve access to drinking water and fitness programs to mitigate against the effects of increased heat wave frequency.
    Related: Warming ‘increases heatwaves and heavy rain’


  • #
    el gordo

    ‘…and those who call themselves “investigative journalists” when they ignore the big stories that conflict with their personal religion.’

    Yes indeed.

    ‘Scientists working in the field in Antarctica are united in their conclusions that anthropogenic climate change is real and a cause for international concern.’

    Eric Campbell (ABC) after a recent cold junket.


  • #

    Climate change fans have gotta eat … your lunch too … it’s only fair.

    As for alleged journalism, it reminds me of that absurd Stephen Long ABC 4 corners report last year into Solar and wind power ‘renewables’, where he’s an actual economics and finance corresponded employed in that role by the ABC. But so one-eyed and ideologically gah-gah is he that not once did he even go into any detailed analysis of the very evident and completely untenable public funding and unrepayable economics of such an economy crippling and thoroughly retarded energy generation network proposal.

    Hence Stephen Long implicitly destroyed any potential for future credibility on any topic that he ever ‘reports’ on, until the end of time, no matter how the ABC would like to pretend he’s not just an ideological kook, who shirks the fundamentals of both economics and reporting, and wastes the taxpayers questionable ‘investment’ in people like him, while he studiously ignored his actual job or reporting the facts and just the facts, minus ideological starry-eyed spin and balderdash, to the Australian public, about these appalling economic white-elephants and assured bankruptcy-enablers.

    Such unprofessional behavior might have some connection with having the taxpayer always paying his wage, to not do his job. … see the first sentence.


  • #

    take a moment to celebrate the exit of a “legend”:

    6 May: ABC: Jane Norman: Christine Milne resigns as leader of Australian Greens
    Senator Milne made the shock announcement on social media, tweeting “feeling optimistic, proud & sad to announce I’m not contesting 2016 election, and so I resign as leader of Australian Greens”…
    Greens Senator Richard di Natale has announced he will contest the leadership.
    The party room is currently meeting to elect a new leader…
    Former Greens leader Bob Brown said Senator Milne was a “big loss” for the party and that her resignation had come as a “big surprise” to him.
    “She’s just a legend, she’s a fantastic Tasmanian, fantastic Australian and an international player,” he said.
    “But that said, the Greens have a talent pool now that has been built up for a number of years and a very good leader will emerge out of that pack.”
    Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey also expressed surprise but said he hoped Senator Milne’s replacement would be able work more effectively with the Coalition…

    6 May: 9News: Aust Greens to vote for a new leader
    Adam Bandt and Richard Di Natale are expected to fight out a party room ballot to decide who replaces Christine Milne as federal leader of the Australian Greens…
    The ballot for leadership positions was due to be held at 11.30am (AEST) in Canberra.
    Victorian senator Richard Di Natale was the first to put his hand up as a candidate, announcing his decision via Twitter…
    Bookmakers were quick off the mark to peg deputy leader Adam Bandt as Senator Milne’s most likely replacement.
    High-profile South Australian senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Senator Scott Ludlam from Western Australia could also be candidates…


    • #

      Oh dear … so sad … the ABC will be waffling and wringing their hands of welling tears for most of a week now … and we’ll be piteously exposed and assaulted by it the guff … it’s quite distressing.


  • #

    I read recently that the U.S. senate has signed a bill to reduce government spending by 5 trillion. It will not survive in its current form before it goes to the House. But we can almost guarantee that the EPA will be on the list.


  • #

    Breaking news headline at Guardian:

    Richard di Natale elected Greens leader after Christine Milne resigns.


  • #

    Milne defintely a legend at the Guardian.

    Live: Richard Di Natale elected unopposed as new Greens leader after Christine Milne resigns
    Key events:
    5 mins ago: Breaking: Richard Di Natale elected unopposed as leader. Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam are co-deputy leaders…
    Adam Bandt – who was earlier said to be one of the contenders – is no longer even the deputy leader. The new co-deputy leaders are Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam. Ludlam will also have the job of chair of the party room.
    Siewert, who will also continue as party whip, would not give any insight into Di Natale’s pitch to the party room…
    Siewert said the deputy leaders were also elected unopposed, but would not comment on Bandt’s reasons for not contesting the posts..
    Earlier: Should grassroots members be involved in the leadership vote?
    Lee Rhiannon – one of the 11 Greens parliamentarians who are currently in the meeting deciding on the vote – certainly thinks so…etc


    • #

      Adam Bandt – who was earlier said to be one of the contenders – is no longer even the deputy leader.

      I think it was the earring that was putting people off … it was just too much … maybe a tear-drop tattoo instead Adam? … all the freaks will go for that … a sort of sad-clown image.


  • #

    The EPA disgusts me.
    The NYT disgusts me.
    For all the reasons Jo so eloquently states.


  • #

    from Carbon Brief, re Guardian’s sister paper:

    Observer Tech Monthly climate change special
    The Observer published a 22-page “climate change special” on Sunday, which included a wide range of content. It began with a comment piece by Lord Stern mulling over the findings of specially commissioned Opinium survey. The special also included an opinion piece by climate scientist Tamsin Edwards looking at “lukewarmer” climate sceptics and a piece by Hannah Devlin “exploding” the “big myths” of climate change. Observer

    plenty of non-climate scientist celebrities:

    Cheap solar lamps help villagers keep their HEALTH, and cut emissions
    Polar meltdown sees us on an icy road to disaster
    Kofi Annan: We must challenge climate-change sceptics who deny the facts
    Jane Goodall: Why I fear for the apes as climate change intensifies
    Lily Cole (former Supermodel) on climate change: why does money trump long-term thinking?
    David Harewood (The Homeland star & Catholic Agency For Overseas Development ambassador) on the shocking results of drought in Kenya
    The lukewarmers don’t deny climate change. But they say the outlook’s fine
    Extreme weather and rising seas are already global threats. This will only intensify

    Observer Tech Monthly climate change special


  • #
    el gordo

    “The future of climate change is that we’re going to see more storms, greater intensity and more frequency. There’s no doubt about that.”

    Di Natale (new Greens leader)


  • #

    CAFOD ambassador Dave Harewood must be thrilled about the following but there’s still word to do to get the other 800 million on board!

    simply making a “statement” is enough to change 400 million lives out of 1.2 billion Catholics, according to 33 percent of 1,049 in a poll of English & Welsh Catholics carried out by YouGov pollsters for the Catholic Agency For Overseas Development ?

    6 May: Independent: A third of Catholics would go green if Pope Francis makes statement on climate change
    A third of Catholics say they will make their lifestyle greener if Pope Francis makes an official statement on climate change, ahead of a significant publication from the Vatican on the environment.
    A poll of 1,049 Catholics in England and Wales found more than seven out 10 (72 per cent) were concerned that the world’s poorest people were being hit by climate change and more than three-quarters (76 per cent) said they felt a moral obligation to help them.
    Four-fifths (80 per cent) of those quizzed in the YouGov survey for aid agency Cafod said that as Catholics they felt a duty to care for God’s creation, the Earth…


  • #

    Pierre Gosselin @notrickszone was onto this a couple days ago …

    151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate History

    JOHN HINDERAKER @powerline now ask the question:

    Would someone please try to explain why this isn’t the biggest scandal in the history of science?



  • #

    4 May: Guardian: Julia Kollewe: Global hopes for renewable energy fading, patents data show
    Falling number of patents for renewable energy products risks governments missing carbon reduction targets
    The number of patents for renewable energy products filed worldwide has fallen by 42% over the last three years,which could suggest that global investment in green energy is stalling.
    Research from commercial law firm EMW shows that 20,655 green energy patents were filed globally in 2014, for solar power, wind energy, biofuels and waste-generated energy – down from 35,590 in 2012.
    EMW said this sharp decline has been mainly caused by oversupply in the solar panel market, with Chinese mass production hitting profit margins of other companies. Solar-related patents accounted for 65% of the total (13,551 patents) last year.
    This has been exacerbated by subsidy cuts for renewables in many countries, including the UK, as well as the dramatic fall in oil prices that has widened the price gap between low carbon and conventional energy…
    ***In the UK, the current subsidy scheme, called renewable obligation, is being replaced by a new system, in which subsidies will be capped at £200m. Spain and Germany have also scaled back their renewable energy subsidies in the past few years…

    5 May: BusinessSpectator: John Conroy: Solar Council hostile to Labor compromise; more Lib MPs urge deal
    The Australian Solar Council has called a potential 33,000GWh renewable target for 2020 a “disaster” saying shovel-ready wind projects will meet the remaining capacity required, leaving big solar projects missing out.
    Labor yesterday followed the leading business lobbies in calling for a 33,000GWh compromise on the 41,000GWh RET, which the Coalition wants to cut to 32,000GWh. Labor was previously at 33,500GWh alongside the peak renewables industry body, the Clean Energy Council. Cabinet is expected to discuss the RET when it meets on Thursday…
    ASC president John Grimes said utility-scale solar projects will miss out even moreso under Labor’s latest offer.
    “The slashed target will quickly be taken up by wind alone By 2017-18 when ‘big solar’ is competing at scale there will be little space left,” Mr Grimes said…
    Meanwhile, The Australian reports that three more Liberal backbenchers have joined colleagues Dan Tehan and Sarah Henderson in urging Cabinet to accept the 33,000GWh target, with Queensland’s Wyatt Roy, Tasmania’s Andrew Nikolic and NSW’s Craig Laundy onboard, according to the report…
    Mr Grimes said the wind industry had been forced into a desperate situation.
    “By delivering maximum uncertainty they [the Abbott Government] have forced the wind industry to accept peace at any price, as large-scale investment plummets by more than 90% since last year,” he said.
    Mr Grimes said the new target would “double the amount of wind generation and deliver nothing for big solar.” Currently, Australia is generating about 18,000GWh of renewable energy, Fairfax Media reports.
    *CORRECTION: This article originally stated the CEC was “mainly supported by wind developers”. The CEC says that statement is incorrect, saying “the majority of [CEC’s] support comes from solar companies”.


  • #

    ***just what the world needs – another CENTRAL BANK:

    5 May: WSJ: Gabriele Steinhauser: EU Agrees to Overhaul Carbon-Trading System
    Bloc to create market-stability reserve in effort to stabilize price of emitting carbon dioxide
    National EU governments and the European Parliament agreed to create a “market stability reserve” from 2019, which will act as a kind of ***central bank that can remove superfluous allowances from the carbon market. Analyst estimate that there is currently an excess of around 2 billion allowances, each permitting the emission of 1 ton of CO2. Crucially, the deal mandates that 900 allowances that were temporarily removed from the market last year will go straight into the reserve, avoiding a sudden supply shock in 2020.
    Environmental and renewable-energy groups welcomed Tuesday’s deal, but said, even with the reserve, prices were unlikely to rise far enough to trigger large-scale investment in low-carbon technologies. Energy research firm Platts has said that even if prices double to reach €15 per ton of CO2, it would likely not suffice to move energy generation from coal to gas on a large scale, one of the quickest ways to reduce emissions in the EU.
    More sophisticated technologies, such as electricity generation from renewable sources such as solar or wind or carbon-capture storage, would require much higher carbon prices…

    every little bit helps! Council taking care of important business, as usual:

    6 May: ABC: Nick McLaren: Shellharbour Council to try again to trade carbon credits under new federal program
    Shellharbour City Council has vowed to try again to trade carbon credits after missing out on picking up a contract at the federal government’s first carbon auction.
    The government’s Clean Energy Regulator last month purchased 47-million tonnes of carbon abatement for $660 million…
    Council’s Waste Officer, Rylan Loemkey, says this time around the price they offered wasn’t right, but they have still managed to sell carbon credits on a secondary market to a council in Victoria.
    “A council approached us because they had some offsetting to do and it was just that we had those credits for sale,” he said…
    “We sold those credits on to Wyndam City Council for a unit price of about $18.75 per unit which is a total value of about $180,000”.


  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    Hmmm — I would be willing to bet that those three who did not receive direct funding
    from the EPA — were sub-contractors to those who did. Anybody want to bet?

    Eugene WR Gallun


  • #
    Dave in the states

    As the graphic so rightly puts it: “The Media is the Problem.” The Media is not doing their job. It is more than just hypocrisy. It is essential that media expose the actions of such entities as the EPA in an unbiased fashion in a free society. However, they are too busy advocating for an agenda.

    Moreover,I kept watching to see if Judith Curry’s recent testimony before Congress would receive any coverage in the main stream media. It did not. At least I couldn’t find any.

    The tactics being employed on this issue are straight out of Saul Alinsky’s hand book. The main stream media is nothing more than a propaganda bureau.


  • #

    Whilst this particular thread is more to do with financial conflicts of interest, I thought that I would follow the link “EPA Carbon Emissions Plan” to see what lies underneath.

    I have to say that it is very unsettling to read just a little ways into the report, only to discover yet another study group (the EPA) basing their recommendations on the results from a “Computer model”.
    Does everyone now have a computer model and as a result is using the output from them to recommend action ?
    It certainly seems so 😮

    It is interesting to note that despite what Gavin Schmidt tells us about the differences between weather and climate computer models.
    Global Climate Models (GCMs) have evolved from the Atmospheric General Circulation Models (AGCMs) (used for daily weather prediction).

    So at the core of every GCM is an AGCM, and every AGCM has what is called a 15 day limit of predictability known as the forecasting “wall.”


  • #

    It’s my “Computer Model” and i’ll do what I want to

    The Scientific community has used computers and computer models with great benefits over the years and certainly as more computing power has become available Scientists have been able to visualize concepts and ideas that were not possible in decades past.

    Most governments in the industrialized nations already have computer models that serve to publish economic data (e.g. GDP RPI etc), but also , they are often used to predict the behavior of the economy and we have all seen how successful these have been in recent years.

    Here in America we use computers for everything , specifically to observe people’s behavior and most importantly to collect taxes.

    Therefore , I think that we should all be concerned when computers are used by our politicians to affect our lives , or in the case of the IPCC when all the governments are using the same computer to affect everyone’s lives.


  • #

    Last Year 2014 In the House, Republicans voted to strip the EPA of its authority to regulate GHGs. That measure died in the Senate because of Democratic opposition.
    We are in 2015 and heading to Paris with a GOP controlling both the Senate and the House. But with a Democratic administration.
    Obama as President is allowed to unilaterally make promises (Treaties) to the International Community as regards Limitations on GHGs.
    But the funding for such promises comes ONLY from congress.

    We lose a little and we win a little..