‘Clean Power Plan’ relies on dirty climate science

The only thing this program will clean out is our pocketbooks

changeDraconian energy regulatory policies are being premised upon tax-funded climate alarmism promulgated by government agencies we are supposed to trust. The latest and arguably most dangerous example is the Obama Administration’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” (CPP).

CPP enactment is currently subject to a pending District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision following a Supreme Court stay on constitutional challenges.

If allowed to proceed, sweeping new EPA rules will effectively nationalize control over all power generation and consumption, thereby usurping authority previously exercised by individual states.

Compliance will require state legislatures to pass new laws or regulations to shift energy mixes from fossil fuels to heavily subsidized wind and solar, impose costly and useless carbon cap-and-trade programs, or both.

Putting vitally important constitutional issues aside, what about the underpinning scientific foundations that framed the CPP in the first place?

Most of us grew up with the idea that science is supposed to be objective . . . impartial . . . challenging uncertainties . . . critically checking and retesting facts. And of course, who better to assure this than our government experts that finance and conduct lots of it?

Like the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for example.

One might imagine that if any organization can be trusted for

R UMAX     PL-II            X1.3

R UMAX PL-II X1.3

objective climate information, it would be an organization named after Dr. Robert H. Goddard, widely recognized as the “father of American rocketry.”

Well perhaps also consider that up until three years ago GISS was headed by another famous fellow. NASA’s much chronicled “top climate scientist” James Hansen had been arrested four times for noncompliance with police orders during public anti-fossil-fuel energy demonstrations.

hansen-arrestedOn the most recent February 13, 2013 occasion the $180,000 yearly taxpayer-paid civil service employee was handcuffed in front of the White House alongside actress Daryl Hannah, Sierra Club founder Adam Werbach, 350.org founder Bill McKibben, former NAACP president Julian Bond, and a few dozen other eco-activists protesting to block the Keystone XL pipeline.

Hansen’s long-time retention in a high profile scientific position is particularly noteworthy given the fact that GISS, a small climate modeling shop located in a Midtown Manhattan office building, is virtually always the source of media trumpeted claims that “NASA reports this or that day, month or year the hottest since.  . . . ”

And then there’s NOAA.

Last January, NOAA and GISS rolled out a “hottest year ever” (a major El Nino year) press briefing to report a supposedly dramatic warming trend purportedly based upon 57 years of radiosonde (balloon) records.

Strangely, their presentation graph only showed the last 37 years dating back to 1979. Data going back another 22 years to 1957 would have revealed a very different trend line, with no overall warming since the late 1950s.

GISS and NOAA both have histories of tweaking global surface scamtemperature measurement data and abbreviating recorded timelines to make the past colder in order to have recent temperatures appear remarkably warmer. NOAA accomplished this by throwing out global-coverage satellite-sensed sea surface measurements taken since the late 1970s — the best data available — and upwardly adjusting spotty and unreliable hit-and-miss temperature readings taken from oceangoing vessels.

Even the EPA admits that if such global temperature data were to be trusted, CPP regulatory mandates which force shifts from coal-fired plants to expand natural gas/renewables will have no detectable impact on climate whatsoever.

Nevertheless, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy recently estimated that those non-climate-impacting rules will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the CPP will cost about 500,000 lost jobs, close to $100 billion annually in lost GDP output, and more than $1,000 per year in higher household energy expenditures.

NERA Economic Consulting estimates that the plan will cost $366 billion through 2031 and bring double-digit electricity rate increases to 43 states.

Compliance with this unnecessary regulatory pain will bankrupt industries and businesses, imposing disproportionate stresses upon the poorest households. Prices of everything manufactured, grown, eaten or needed to keep lights on and buildings air conditioned will be adversely impacted.

lenaAnd don’t expect climate alarm-premised fossil industry carnage to end there. The politicallypowerful Sierra Club’s “Beyond Dirty Fuels” campaign leader Lena Moffitt told S&P Global Market Intelligence, “We are doing everything we can to bring the same expertise that we brought to taking down the coal industry and coal-fired power in this country to taking on gas in the same way.”

While previously touting natural gas as a lower carbon emission bridge fuel to renewables, Moffitt emphasizes that the Sierra Club’s current policy is working towards “ . . . getting us to 100% clean energy, which, of course, would include no new gas.”

Congress never intended that the 1970 Clean Air Act authorize the EPA to regulate “climate pollution” by CO2, a natural fertilizer essential for plant growth.

Yes, we should all support responsible rules to ensure clean air, water, and land. While we’re at it, let’s demand clean taxpayer-funded science as well.

NOTE:  A version of this article also appears at:
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/daryl-hannah-epa-nasa/2016/10/24/id/754981/#ixzz4O1m287FH

Categories

About the Author: Larry Bell

Larry Bell

CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."

  • Dano2
    • Brin Jenkins

      Dis information fibbing again with no explanation? Are you unable to convince any but the easily led now?

  • Dano2

    More hilarity from poor hapless Larry: tweaking global surface temperature measurement data and abbreviating recorded timelines to make the past colder [emphasis added]

    My, my. The shameless dishonesty is something.

    Best,

    D
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/40a692d6adb989e2d06be34ef37df151e32cd49fcf6f07b4b7f26c5882b95982.png
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5ac03237ab2db914507c8eb4bcbcd3177918b4435a66a21742950186b54c4f67.png
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86145d550fafb719dca46aeb88929d84a4aef3a1a849f3085003418e846234da.png

  • Dano2

    More derptastic: global-coverage satellite-sensed sea surface measurements taken since the late 1970s — the best data available

    Not according to scientists.

    Best,

    D

  • Apr 21, 2016 Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy

    To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected–oil, coal and natural gas.

    https://youtu.be/BJWq1FeGpCw

  • 11 October 2016 IEA releases Oil Market Report for October

    Demand growth continues to slow due to vanishing OECD growth and a marked deceleration in China Global oil supply rose by 0.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) in September, the newly released IEA Oil Market Report (OMR) for October informs subscribers. Non-OPEC supply was up nearly 0.5 mb/d on higher Russian and Kazakh flows and OPEC supply was at an all-time high. World oil output of 97.2 mb/d was up 0.2 mb/d from last year due to strong OPEC growth. Non-OPEC supply is forecast to drop by 0.9 mb/d in 2016 before rebounding by 0.4 mb/d in 2017.

    https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/october/iea-releases-oil-market-report-for-october.html

  • wally12

    Good article by Larry Bell. Obama and the environmentalists have and continue to force higher costs of fossil fuels to levels that will make the green energies competitive and the major fuel under the false claim that the earth will become cooler and the health of its citizens will be greatly improved. If they succeed to push their agenda forward, the US citizen along with world citizens poorer and less healthy. In Obama’s first term, his energy secretary held the opinion that gas and oil should be $10 per gallon. Of course, that statement was denied and stopped being used. However, that same goal of increasing fossil fuel costs remained as Obama’s goal. It still is his goal. He stated that the cost of coal would be increased to a point that coal would be a thing of the past. He used the EPA to implement his plan. He attempted to raise the cost of gas and oil by setting roadblocks for drilling off shore and the building of pipe lines. He almost succeeded in that gas and oil reached the high point of $4 per gallon and the middle east oil producers were all in for the extra profits. Obama didn’t have the power to stop the fracking and drilling of oil on private lands. When the world discovered that oil and gas were not in danger of depletion, the price of gas reached the present price of about $2 per gallon. When gas was $4 per gallon, I observed many people who could only afford a few gallons since a full tank would exhaust their food and other necessities budget. That $4 per gallon increased the cost of food production and transportation along with industry and business increases in costs. Travel and the tourist industry suffered a slow down. Thus, all sectors of the economy slowed down. That $2 per gas difference cost the economy $387 billion per year based on the total US consumption during that time. Conversely that reduction of gas price to $2 per gallon resulted in saving $387 billion per year. That $287 billion can be viewed as a private enterprise stimulus and not governmental stimulus. It can be stated that it has helped the economy to improve during this recession. The sad part is that Obama took credit for the lower fuel costs which he had no part of. In other words, his famous words that “You didn’t build that is true.” He had no part of it.