Wry Heat

Scamming the Media

Last week we read or heard stories that said “Arizona’s global warming pollution increased by 61 percent since 1990, according to a new analysis of government data released today by Environment Arizona.” The “pollution” referred to is carbon dioxide.

Those stories are a good example of Mark Twain’s observation: “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”

The press release by Environment Arizona spun their findings to maximize sensationalism. It is clear from the media stories, that most reporters either did not read the full study, or chose to report only the headline-grabbing, but misleading statistic.

The study itself says that Arizona per capita carbon dioxide emissions are below the national average. It also says that Arizona per capita emissions have decreased by 6% since 1990. Why didn’t that last statistic make the headlines?

Along with statistics gleaned from the EPA, Environment Arizona spouts the tired propaganda of global warming alarmists such as: “Temperature increases of only 3.6° F higher than pre-industrial levels could have catastrophic consequences—and 1.4° F of warming has already occurred.” Regular readers of this blog will know that we are currently in an interglacial period of an ice age that the “normal” temperature of this planet is about 18 F warmer than it is now, and that atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for most of the planet’s history has been 3- to 10 times higher than now. (See chart below, see also my seven-part series on geological history, Natural Climate Cycles, and other blogs in the climate change category.)

Environmental Arizona claims that carbon dioxide is the “leading global warming pollutant.” But carbon dioxide is insignificant compared to water vapor as a greenhouse gas. The term “pollutant” is both emotive and erroneous. The dictionary defines a pollutant as “a harmful chemical or waste material discharged into the water or atmosphere.” Carbon dioxide, however, is vital to life. Without it, there would be no life on this planet, and geological history shows that life is more abundant and robust at concentrations above 1,000 ppm, three times the current concentration.

Environment Arizona is one of the many branches of Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG), founded by Ralph Nader in the 1970’s as a consumer advocacy organization. PIRG seems to have morphed beyond that cause.

In researching this article, I found some stories which show that PIRG has been less than honest in its fund raising and advocacy.

A Boston Globe story (http://www.jeffjacoby.com/4818/stopping-pirgs-scam ) says: PIRGs collect huge amounts of money through a dishonest scheme called a “negative checkoff.” Each semester, students are automatically charged for a “donation” to PIRG of several dollars; the charge is included in their tuition. It isn’t mandatory, but a student who is unwilling to finance PIRG’s left-wing political agenda must affirmatively refuse to pay. PIRG figures that many students — and many parents — won’t realize the fee is optional or even notice it on the bill. Sure enough, amid the tumult of each new semester, most students just pay up — and PIRG grows ever richer. In New Jersey last year, NJPIRG used the negative checkoff to milk students for an estimated $200,000. In Florida, the take was about $320,000. In Massachusetts, $400,000. (In some states, the PIRG “donation” is mandatory. New York students were euchered out of $800,000 — forced to subsidize NYPIRG’s political objectives whether they agreed with them or not.)

A recent report by the Reason Foundation (a libertarian think tank) accuses PIRG of issuing misleading reports on transportation: “The always anti-privatization Public Interest Research Group has just released its second report criticizing the growing trend of state governments turning to long-term public-private partnership (PPP) deals to attract private investment into their ailing highway systems. The worst distortion of what’s going on is the way the PIRG report blurs the distinction between leases of existing toll roads and similar long-term deals that create brand new (and much-needed) toll roads via private capital investment.” (http://reason.org/blog/show/pirgs-misleading-report-on-pub)

The Competitive Enterprise Institute today (April 6, 2000 ) accused the U.S. Public Interest Research Group of misleading the American public about the ramifications of global warming. U.S. PIRG’s new report, Storm Warning: Global Warming and the Rising Costs of Extreme Weather, is yet another attempt to link global warming to events where there is no link to be made. http://cei.org/gencon/003,02595.cfm

Yes, I realize that stories detrimental to PIRG come mainly from more conservative sources, perhaps because more liberal publications don’t usually print the stories.

The conclusion I draw from this affair is that many news organizations publish by press release without checking the full story and the potential biases of its source.

The greatest danger we face from global warming is that politicians think they can do something about it.

On December 6, negotiations will begin in Copenhagen for a new agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The hope is these talks will produce commitments from each nation that, collectively, would keep temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. That will require deep cuts in emissions, as much as 80 percent among industrialized nations, by mid-century.

In his Sep. 22 speech to the UN’s Global Warming Summit, President Obama said:

“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it – boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

Reality check: Global temperatures have been steady or falling since 2000, and the lack of activity on the sun portends further cooling. Also civilizations flourished in previous warm cycles. Where is the empirical evidence that climate change is ” serious, urgent, and growing?”

See the “WryHeat” blogs:

Your Carbon Footprint Doesn’t matter And Natural Climate Cycles

Obama: “Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.”

Reality check: Sea levels have been rising on and off since the end of the last glacial epoch13,000 years ago. The rate of sea level rise has not increased in recent decades over the nineteenth and twentieth century average. See: Sea Level Rising?

Obama: “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”

Reality Check: There is no upward global trend in storms or floods. Besides, increased storminess is associated with colder climates. Clarke, M.L. and Rendell, H.M. 2009. The impact of North Atlantic storminess on western European coasts: a review. Quaternary International 195: 31-41.

Obama: “More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”

Reality Check: The geologic record and other proxies show that in North America, droughts equal or greater in magnitude to those of the Dust Bowl period were a common occurrence during the last 2000 years. Studies in other parts of the world show no evidence that warming increases the frequency or severity of droughts. (CO2Science.org database)

It seems that President Obama is long on flowery rhetoric and short on facts. And he seems to be ignoring the costs.

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report “The Economic Effects of Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions” ( http://tinyurl.com/mou685 ), shows just how weak the case for the proposed cap-and-trade plan really is. In fact, the CBO demonstrates that the theoretical benefits of Waxman-Markey to the United States fall far short of its costs. Also, the CBO report reveals that the costs borne by the U.S. may exceed the benefits to the entire world. The CBO estimates that even a pessimistic estimate of the danger posed by climate change is 3 percent of GDP, which won’t occur until 2100. At the same time, CBO estimates the hit to the U.S. economy from H.R. 2454 is in the range of 1.1 to 3.4 percent of GDP by the year 2050.

By the logic of the climate bill, we will be spending current dollars in the hope of saving future discounted dollars. The effect of carbon restrictions in the U.S. will be further discounted if other countries don’t go along with their own restrictions. See

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15010 for an analysis of the CBO report.

Of course, if Congress fails with Cap & Trade, the EPA is set to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant based on some fantasy data, mainly from the IPCC.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

Why are many politicians pushing for carbon control? Some may be doing it through ignorance or hope of political gain, but others realize the controlling carbon controls energy, the life-blood of industry. With government control of energy, governments will control the means of production, and that is the definition of socialism.

It is time to ask all our senators and representatives: “where is the evidence.” I’ve asked that question in letters to President Obama several times so far, but he must be too busy to respond, or maybe John Holdren is still looking for it.

In his inaugural speech, President Obama said that “We will restore science to its rightful place…” I took that to mean that policy would be based on good science. In April, he declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” But instead of the professed ideal, Obama appointed ideologues. His science advisors seem to be large on radical ideology and short on objective science.

 Science Czar, physicist John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, favors some radical cures for global warming and advocated population control. Holdren has proposed, “organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government” (Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977). Also in that book, the authors proposed putting chemicals in the water supply to make women infertile and engineering society by taking away babies from undesirables and subjecting them to government-mandated abortions.

On climate change, Holdren’s long term goal is “equal per-capita emissions rights,” meaning that a country may emit only an amount of carbon commensurate to the number of its persons, not on the basis of its production. For example, the U.S. would be allowed to release only about 20 times as much carbon as Ecuador, although the U.S. produces 144 times the goods and services. (IBD)

More recently, Holdren said that global warming is so dire, that the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air. He is considering shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. “It’s got to be looked at,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” (AP) For the past 30 years we have spent billions cleaning up the air. Holdren’s proposal of once again polluting the air logically implies that removing the pollution itself was responsible for global warming, not CO₂.

Physicist Steven Chu, Energy Secretary, said, “It is now clear that if we continue on our current path, we run the risk of dramatic, disruptive changes to our climate in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren,” adding, “at the same time, we face immediate threats to our economy and our national security that stem from our dependence on oil.” (New York Times) See: Your Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter for a rebuttal. For more on energy policy see here and here.

Chu recently told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California’s snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean “no more agriculture in California,” the nation’s leading food producer. Chu added: “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.”

And on a Fox News report, April 18, Chu said that Caribbean nations face “very, very scary” rises in sea level and intensifying hurricanes, and Florida, Louisiana and even northern California could be overrun with rising water levels due to global warming triggered by carbon-based greenhouse gases. Note that last December the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, in a country that is very concerned with sea level, reported: There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.

Astronomer James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA (and a hold over from previous administrations), said, “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” Last June, Hansen called for coal and oil company CEOs to be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Lisa Jackson, head of EPA, is a chemical engineer. In her first move as EPA chief, Jackson pledged to make science “the backbone for EPA programs.” Really? Why then did the EPA just declare that CO₂, a substance vital to all life on Earth, is a dangerous pollutant hazardous to human life and the environment? Where is the evidence? This move is the EPA’s most stupid, and most political; one that will trigger a regulatory maze unlike we’ve ever seen before.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s science advisor, Nina Fedoroff, biologist, (also advisor to Condoleezza Rice) told the BBC that, “humans had exceeded the Earth’s limits of sustainability… We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people… There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

To round out Obama’s science team, Carol M. Browner, a lawyer, not a scientist, became Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change (Energy Czar). According to a Michelle Malkin article, Browner is a neon green radical who until recently was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. Browner was head of the EPA from 1993-2000. On her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records. Early in her first term as EPA head, Browner got caught by a congressional subcommittee using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying material to over 100 grassroots environmental lobbying organizations. Browner exploited her office to orchestrate a political campaign by left-wing groups, who turned around and attacked Republican lawmakers for supporting regulatory reform.

It seems to me that President Obama is not getting the best of advice. These advisors, while they may have good credentials, seem to have let zealotry overcome sound science.

By 1787, just four years after the conclusion of the War for Independence, the American states and their fledgling union were in trouble. The British still menaced from their lair in Canada; Spain was encroaching on the southwest and threatened to prohibit use of the Mississippi River for trade. American states were blocked from lucrative markets in the British-controlled West Indies. Individual states set up their own tariffs and treaties. The union under the Articles of Confederation was failing because the federal government had no power to enforce its laws. But the chief problem was money. The only hard currency was foreign, and it was scarce.

Both the national government and individual states had outstanding IOUs for expenses accrued during the war. Individual states issued paper money which soon became devalued. Many people were thrown into debtors prison because they didn’t have the hard currency to pay taxes and other expenses. Things came to a head when Massachusetts imposed a harsh tax to pay its debts. People were hard pressed to pay these taxes. Bands of farmers under the leadership of Daniel Shays closed courts, prohibited sheriffs from collecting taxes, and, when the Massachusetts militia came after them, attacked the arsenal at Springfield. Shays’ insurgents lost that battle, but latter gained much through more lawful methods. The incident, however, had a profound effect on people and the nation. As a result, the Continental Congress called for a constitutional convention to convene in Philadelphia on May 14^th.

Fifty-five delegates from 12 of the 13 states met during that sultry summer of 1787. (Rhode Island refused to participate.) Most delegates were veterans of the revolution, members of state legislatures or the Continental Congress. Most were wealthy businessmen, lawyers, judges or politicians, who had considerable experience in writing laws and constitutions within their own states. Most were well educated in the classics at colleges or through self-study, but there were some scoundrels as well.

Small states were fearful they would not have adequate representation in a new government. Large states were resentful that under the Articles of Confederation, each state had just one vote, a situation which was unfair to the population of big states. Some wanted a very strong central government; while others fought passionately for states’ rights. Western interests were at odds with the eastern establishment; rural interests competed with the large population centers; and the North and South were divided over both business and slavery. Given these contrary views, it is remarkable that anything was accomplished in Philadelphia, and several times the convention almost failed. But the delegates had an overriding common concern, the absolute necessity “to form a more perfect union,” and James Madison of Virginia had a plan.

Madison was a “Nationalist”, a supporter of a strong central government, but not as strong as envisioned by Alexander Hamilton. Madison wound up mediating between Hamilton and the strong states rights position such as that held by Thomas Jefferson. Although many of Madison’s specific proposals for the new constitution were not adopted, he did provide the philosophical basis which eventually carried the convention. Madison believed that government should be instituted to protect property, property in the broad sense. He was concerned about government power. He wrote “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” The government must be powerful enough to govern effectively, but not so powerful as to interfere with the legitimate liberties of the people. Madison envisioned a “national principle” wherein the government would act upon people directly rather than through the states. He promoted a “separation of powers” that would provide checks and balances within the government so that no one branch could, theoretically, gain too much power.

We all know how this story turns out, but how it got to the conclusion it did is a fascinating story. We owe James Madison for this knowledge because he is the only one who kept complete notes. Throughout that long summer, the delegates debated each point, came to conclusions, revisited and revised those conclusions, made and broke alliances and deals.

One of these deals makes an interesting sidelight. The original charters of many states had their territories running all the way to the Mississippi River. Many states ceded their western territories to the national government. But of vital interest was how these lands would be carved up into new states and how these states would be admitted to the union, because new states could upset the balance of power. As it happened, the Continental Congress was meeting in New York at the same time as the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. In New York, Congress was considering the Northwest Ordinance which would determine how states carved from the Northwest Territory would be admitted to the union. In Philadelphia, delegates were debating how black slaves would be counted for the purposes of taxation of their owners, and how they would be counted for purposes of a state’s representation in the new Congress. Three southern delegates disappeared from Philadelphia for several days. When they returned, it was reported that southern states agreed that new states carved out of the Northwest Territory would be admitted as “free” states. In Philadelphia, the delegates made a concession favorable to southern states on the questions mentioned.

Finally it was done. On September 17^th, the delegates read through the new Constitution one last time and 40 of the 55 delegates affixed their signatures. When ratified by nine states, it would become law of the land. Now all they had to do was sell it to the states.

And they forgot a bill of rights! Most delegates thought a bill of rights was unnecessary because state constitutions contained such safeguards. But it was this issue that almost sank the Constitution; citizens of the states considered a bill of rights of paramount importance.

To help sell the new constitution, two New York lawyers, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (later the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and a Virginia scholar and politician, James Madison, wrote a series of essays which became known as the Federalist Papers. These essays endeavored to justify the decision at Philadelphia and provide a primer to those who would debate ratification in the several states.

Delaware became the first state to ratify the new Constitution on Dec. 7, 1787; New Hampshire became the ninth on June 21, 1788, followed soon by New York and Virginia. North Carolina and Rhode Island refused until a bill of rights was added during the first administration of George Washington.

Our Bill of Rights was modeled after the Virginia Declaration of Rights crafted by George Mason. James Madison led the new Congress in proposing 12 amendments, ten of which became our Bill of Rights, the other two were not adopted. At last, we had a contract with America.

Just after the convention in Philadelphia, Ben Franklin was asked by an observer whether we now had a republic or a monarchy. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”