The IPCC was set up by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. It has enlisted thousands of scientists to contribute to its scare campaign, but as Joseph Bast, the president of The Heartland Institute, noted in a recent Forbes article regarding the vast difference in the assertions of the IPCC scientists and those of its puckishly named Nonintergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NPCC), “What is a non-scientist to make of these dueling reports? Indeed, what is a scientist to make of this?”
Consumers considering installing solar panels on their rooftops have far more to think through than the initial decision to “go solar.”
They may search for the best price, only to discover, as customers in central Florida did, that after paying $20,000-40,000 for their systems, they are stuck with installations that may be unusable or unsafe. BlueChip Energy—which also operated as Advanced Solar Photonics (ASP) and SunHouse Solar—sold its systems at environmental festivals and home shows. Buyers thought they were getting a good deal and doing the right thing for the environment. Instead, they were duped.
Legislators in Harrisburg are considering a proposal from state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Wayne, that would make Pennsylvania the first state to impose a statewide tax on the use of plastic bags.
As the pumped-up spectre of climatic catastrophe continues to deflate, Ruper Darwall’s new book makes a handy guide to the conceits, careerism, delusions and blatant misrepresentations that debased the good name of science and set the stage for economic ruin.
The recent typhoon that hit the Philippines- Typhoon Haiyan- has caused an uproar from the global warming alarmists. One such alarmist, Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post on Tuesday in which she identified global warming skeptics as “morally evil”.
Scientists at the forefront of global warming activism published an open letter encouraging their fellow warmists to embrace safe nuclear power as a means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. If environmental activist groups honestly believe humans are causing a global warming crisis, they will eagerly join in support.
The U.S. Department of Energy has a plan to reduce the cost of solar power by a factor of 4 by 2020 with the hope that solar would increase from .05% of our power to 14% by 2030. The motivation is, of course, to reduce emissions of CO2. This is Climate Realism, very similar to Socialist Realism.
People who believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming do so because psychologically they want to believe in it! There are two fundamental reasons for that desire, or need to believe: money and power.
President Obama’s speech last week that re-emphasized his commitment to reduce US carbon dioxide emissions brought dismay to those who appreciate affordable energy, but it sparked a celebration among corporate types who have long sought caps and taxes on CO2.
The fact that natural gas is only given cursory mention, rather than being an integral part of Obama’s National Climate Action Plan, exposes his true motives—which, I believe, are not really about carbon emission reductions, but rather furthering America’s declining international status. Why else would he emphasize what has proven to not to work and eschew what we know to be effective?
Yes, the United States of America is being run by a man who believes that transferring $25 from every man, woman, and child in America to third world countries in the name of “climate assistance” is progress — and is just the beginning.
You can be sure that the 2014 legislative sessions will be filled with additional attempts to repeal or reform existing Renewable Portfolio Standards that could bring about renewable energy’s reversal of fortune—and add to yours, as cost-effective coal-fueled power allows you to pay less, and your tax dollars won’t be going to green energy schemes that line the pockets of political cronies.