Mississippi DOE to hold Public Hearing

Don’t Let It All Go Out Of State

Millions of Tons of Lignite to Power Kemper Plant

Sept. 12, 2011, 3 p.m. CDT Associated Press

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Once Mississippi Power Co.’s generating plant in Kemper County comes online, it will be supported by a large — and eventually, the largest — coal mining operation in the state.

Mississippi Power president/CEO Ed Day says there’s enough lignite coal in east Mississippi to keep the plant running for decades.

Liberty Fuels Co. LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corp. of Bismarck, N.D., will mine the lignite for Mississippi Power.

What a shame a good Mississippi business could not grab this contract.  I hope credible Mississippi businesses will attend the Oct 18 Meeting and get their portion of the Kemper Lignite Gold Rush.

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing in DeKalb on Oct. 18 on Liberty Fuels’ permit application.

MDEQ officials said as of Monday they have not received any filings by opponents to the mine. However, they said the opponents may be waiting until the public hearing to speak up. The public comment period began when the public notice began running in newspapers about two weeks and will continue until Oct. 21, the Friday after the public hearing.

The application calls for Liberty Fuels to mine 2 million tons of lignite per year during the first five-year permit. Thereafter, it will mine 4.1 million tons per year through 2052.

“We are pleased and excited about expanding our operations in Mississippi, as it is a great state to do business,” said Tres Tipton, vice president of operations for North American Coal in Mississippi and Louisiana.

The application provides that mining will be conducted on 31,000 acres over 40 years and will include 2,229 acres within the five-year permit area.

The Kemper County operation eventually will dwarf North American Coal’s other Mississippi lignite mining operation in Choctaw County. It was permitted in 1998 and the first coal was mined in late 1999. The Choctaw power plant began operation in 2002 and supplies power to the Tennessee Valley Authority.

“It was driven by TVA needing more electricity. They have a 30-year contract to buy all of the power produced,” said Stan Thieling, with MDEQ’s Office of Geology.

He said the Choctaw County operation mines 5,900 acres and produces about 3.5 million tons per year.

Kemper County, he said, “will be the biggest but it will take a few years.”

That’s of no matter to Mississippi Power’s Day.

“The fuel supply from Kemper will be stable and predictable over a 40-year period,” Day said. “We’ll burn four millions tons if lignite a year at full operation. That’s 160 million tons over 40 years. There are four billion tons of lignite in Mississippi. We’re not going to run out of lignite.”

The fuel supply may be stable but the “demonstration” technology may run into snags closing the entire plant down for costly repairs and parts. ( I read this happening to other plants) It is a logical expectation with brand new technology with limited small scale short duration testing .  But you just keep shoveling the positive lignite energy vibes, Mr. Day, because they will remember this article prediction when a filter system fails and everything is at a standstill But there will be a continuous fuel supply.

Mississippi’s deposits of lignite run from the northern counties near Memphis, Tenn., halfway across the border with Tennessee. The deposit area stretches down and curves through the central Hill counties to north Meridian and into Alabama.

Sounds like there may be some transporting fees involved after all, along with some crossing state line taxes and fees.

“It would take a lot of mine to use that up,” said state geologist Michael Bograd.

Bograd and Thieling said there’s lignite in other parts of Mississippi — Natchez, for example — that is located too deep in the ground to be financially viable too mine.

The mine in Choctaw County is a surface mine, as will be the one in Kemper County.

Day said Mississippi Power has located its power plant on the lignite seam.

“We can physically go out and see the lignite and touch it,” Day said.

The 582-megawatt plant near the Liberty community will use a process that converts the lignite coal into a synthetic gas and generates electricity with fewer emissions than existing pulverized coal power plants. The plant is expected to be in operation in 2014.

The mine and plant will employ 300 people.

ONLY 300 PEOPLE?

Day said the plant helps Mississippi Power diversify it fuel portfolio. He said such diversification would be attractive to industrial prospects looking for stable energy costs and prices.

Thieling said Mississippi might have more mines in its future.

“North American Coal has got lots of ideas for Mississippi. We wouldn’t be surprised to see several more mines in the next decade or two,” he said.

Bograd said the mining industry is very heavily regulated. He said the requirements are voluminous and comprehensive and MDEQ is responsible for the state permits the mines and power plants must have.

Mississippi Power Co., http://www.mississippipower.com

MDEQ, http://www.deq.state.ms.us

North American Coal Corp., http://www.nacoal.com

Mississippi Power Requests You Pay $900,000 Jet Expenses

PSC mulls limit on utilities’ travel repayment

by The Associated Press

JACKSON — The Mississippi Public Service Commission could vote this fall on a proposed rule designed to limit the corporate travel expenses that utility companies can pass along to customers.

The three-member commission took comments on the proposal Thursday in Jackson.

The rule would not prohibit utility companies from using private jets, but it would limit reimbursement to the equivalent cost of a coach rate on a commercial flight.

Southern District Commissioner Leonard Bentz told The Associated Press that the rule could come up for a vote in two months.

“We’ve got to come up with a good, sound, fair legal rule that will give them direction,” Bentz said, speaking of utility companies.

Northern District Commissioner Brandon Presley proposed the rule, saying companies should not pass along expenses to customers.

“What do they need a plane for in the first place? But if they’ve got one, let them pay for it. It shouldn’t be the guy or the gal on the street struggling to pay their power bill,” Presley told WLBT-TV on Thursday.

Presley said in July that Mississippi Power Co. had sought permission from the PSC to pass along $900,000 in corporate jet expenses to the company’s customers. The request was withdrawn.

“They should be ashamed for filing something at this commission asking to recover that kind of money for corporate jet expense,” Presley said Thursday. “It’s wrong, and they should pay for it out of their own pocket.”

Mississippi Power Co. spokeswoman Cindy Duvall said in a statement Thursday that state law allows all reasonable and prudent travel expenses to be recovered through public utility rates.

“Mississippi Power uses all modes of travel to conduct its business, including corporate aircraft, when necessary,” Duvall said. “The commission’s proposed rule unnecessarily assumes that commercial air is the most cost effective means of travel, that it is adequate to meet MPC’s needs and is available when needed.

“Reasonable and necessary travel expenses, regardless of the mode of transportation, are prudent and required to carry out public utility business and should be treated similar to any other operating expense.”

Mississippi Power Counting on EPA CO2 Regulations For Kemper County

Mississippi Power Needs the new CO2 regulations to justify the additional energy fees to ratepayers. Unfortunately Mississippi Power fails to consider the number of lost jobs from the closures related to the increased energy fees and burdensome regulations bankrupting Mississippi businesses. 

EPA CO2 Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion

FILE - In this June 15, 2011 file photo, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. President Barack Obama is sacking a controversial proposed regulation tightening health-based standards for smog, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders. In a statement Friday, Obama said he had ordered Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposal, in part because of the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)  Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-employees-21-billion/#ixzz1ZA5aEoPs

Lisa Jackson with the EPA Increasing regulations

FILE – In this June 15, 2011 file photo, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. President Barack Obama is sacking a controversial proposed regulation tightening health-based standards for smog, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders. In a statement Friday, Obama said he had ordered Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposal, in part because of the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

‘EPA has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be ‘absurd’ in application and ‘impossible to administer’ by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules’

The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.

The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.

The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.

These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. “While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance … may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds,” the EPA wrote in a September 16 court briefing.

The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves.

“Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.

The petitioner suing the EPA is the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, a trade group reportedly linked to domestic chemical companies.

The EPA is an ARM of the United Nations

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/the_un_states_envrio_protection_agency.pdf

THE UNITED NATIONS STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
by Dennis Ambler
SPPI ORIGINAL PAPER ♦ May 26, 2011

2

THE EPA STAKE IN THE IPCC ………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
THE BIG MYTH – THE EPA AS DEFENDERS OF THE PEOPLE …………………………………………………….. 5
EPA AS DEFENDER OF THE PLANET ……………………………………………………………………………. 6
MISSION CREEP …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
BUILDING STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL STRUCTURES ………………………….. 7
EPA FUNDING FOR IPCC CLIMATE MODELS ……………………………………………………………………… 8
STRATUS CONSULTING INC. …………………………………………………………………………………… 13
EPA – ENVIRONMENTAL PALS AGENCY ………………………………………………………………………….. 14
EPA FUNDING FOR OTHER IPCC SCIENTISTS ………………………………………………………………. 16
EPA AUTHORS OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT WHO ARE ALSO IPCC AUTHORS ……….. 18
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
THE UNITED NATIONS STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
by Dennis Ambler | May 26, 2011
THE EPA STAKE IN THE IPCC
In view of the rejection by the EPA of challenges to their endangerment finding, why would we be surprised to find that they have a long-term stake in the IPCC’s climate models and in the continuance of the IPCC itself.
The EPA mounted a solid defence of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia after the “Climategate” scandal that broke just before the UNFCC COP 15 at Copenhagen in 2009. Their main purpose was to defend the IPCC because of the major damage done to its credibility by the e-mail revelations, and thus in turn damaged the flawed justification for the EPA endangerment finding. The EPA has a web page purporting to show Myths and Facts relating to “climate science”, in defence of their rejection of petitions against the Endangerment finding.
They were adamant that the science was not flawed or that the scientific process had been compromised. They had “carefully reviewed the e-mails” and found “no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.” They insist that they have relied on “major scientific assessments, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available information to determine the state of climate change science and that this approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists.”
They were still promoting the scientific consensus in this EPA press release in July last year:
“America’s Climate Choices,” a report from the National Academy of Sciences and the most recent assessment of the full body of scientific literature on climate change, along with the recently released “State of the Climate” report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both fully support the conclusion that climate change is real and poses significant risk to human and natural systems. The consistency among these and previously issued assessments only serves to strengthen EPA’s conclusion.”
In view of the rejection by the EPA of challenges to their endangerment finding, why would we be surprised to find that they have a long-term stake in the IPCC’s climate models and in the continuance of the IPCC itself.
4
The consistency occurs because many of the same groups and often the same people are represented on these various panels and their task is to sell the IPCC reports. In fact the Panel for America’s Climate Choices contains remarkably few climate scientists, but does have many political activists, including the President of the Pew Centre and the CEO’s of WWF and Environmental Defense.
The small number of climate scientists on the panel are established IPCC authors who are also activists in support of carbon dioxide control. The “State of the Climate” report is critiqued here.
There is a long history of association between the Pew Centre and the EPA. The president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Eileen Claussen, is a former assistant secretary of state for Oceans, Environment, and Science and a former Special Assistant to President Clinton and Senior Director for Global Environmental Affairs at the National Security Council. She has also served as Chairman of the United Nations Multilateral Montreal Protocol Fund.
Ms. Claussen was Director of Atmospheric Programs at the EPA where she was responsible for activities related to the alleged depletion of the ozone layer and Title IV of the Clean Air Act. She is also a member of the Pew Oceans Commission.
Lisa Jackson is a great fan of the Pew Centre and these quotes are from a copy of a speech to them, which is on the EPA website:
“Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks at the Pew Center for Climate Change, As Prepared” 25/06/2009
“Our hosts at Pew have some of the most talented and committed people in the field, from President Claussen, to the Regional Policy Coordinators doing the work on the ground.”
“I speak for EPA when I say that we’re counting on your partnership to help us advance the urgent environmental issues of the day, particularly climate change.”
“But I speak for myself when I say I’m counting on your help – on your counsel, your hard work, and your understanding.”
“I can’t think of a higher calling than coming back here to work with you to address the urgent, ongoing and in many cases, long overdue environmental issues our nation faces.”
The consistency occurs because many of the same groups and often the same people are represented on these various panels and their task is to sell the IPCC reports.
There is a long history of association between the Pew Centre and the EPA.
5
She met with Eileen Claussen in closed session on October 20th 2010, in Washington, maybe looking for counsel on how to handle the challenges to her policies.
Jackson is a gung ho regulator and is well-practised in emissions legislation, as former Vice President of the Executive Board of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a program organized by northeast states to develop a regional cap-and-trade program.
She was hubristically bullish about her first year in office, on the EPA website:
“During my first year as Administrator, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, proposed the first national rules to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and initiated a national reporting system for greenhouse-gas emissions. All of these advances signaled historic progress in the fight against climate change.”
“Climate change must be considered and integrated into all aspects of our work. While the EPA stands ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that addresses the spectrum of issues, we will assess and develop regulatory tools as warranted under law using the authority of the Clean Air Act.”
THE BIG MYTH – THE EPA AS DEFENDERS OF THE PEOPLE
The EPA presents itself as a non-aligned body, working in the public interest and objectively taking on-board scientific reports, in order to protect the American people from the “air pollutant” CO2.
It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials, (non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding. Bizarrely, the EPA website says, “The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.”
They seem to forget the widespread integration into the IPCC reports of non-peer reviewed papers from NGO’s such as WWF and Greenpeace and the embedding of NGO’s into the IPCC process. They seem to forget the undue influence of a small core of scientists on the IPCC reports. The extensive reliance by the EPA on non-scientists flies in the face of their claims that the endangerment finding is based on the work of thousands of climate scientists.
It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials,
(non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding.
6
In a Time magazine interview on Friday April 2nd, Lisa Jackson was again “defending the science”:
“The biggest criticism that I’ve leveled – and I’ve done it in my hearing testimony – is that what the current efforts do is overrule scientists on a scientific finding. Congress is essentially passing a law that says, ‘We, a bunch of lawmakers, have decided what the science is on this issue,’” Jackson said.
The trouble is that the major input is not from climate scientists but from policy wonks and political science graduates, including some who publish “scientific” papers. Lisa Jackson is also pursuing an international agenda as she describes again on the EPA website.
EPA AS DEFENDER OF THE PLANET
Administrator Jackson is a woman on a mission; to save the planet. In a run of 150 speeches from 2009, she is protecting, saving or improving the planet, some 65 times. Her speeches are high on rhetoric but low on science, as in this hotch potch of familiar distortions in “Remarks on the Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases”, December 7th 2009: “Polar ice caps crumbling into the oceans, changing migratory patterns of animals and broader ranges for deadly diseases, historic droughts, more powerful storms, and disappearing coastlines.”
She seeks to imbue the EPA with the same sense of mission and this address for EPA employees sets out her international agenda:
TO: All EPA Employees
“Today our world faces unprecedented environmental challenges ranging from making sure our air, water and land are healthy to facing down the growing threat of climate change. At the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it is part of our mission to confront these challenges both at home and around the world.
While we have a long history of international collaboration on numerous global environmental issues, our bilateral and multilateral partnerships have taken on a renewed significance. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation is one of those vital partnerships. Since 1994, the Commission has been focused on developing innovative, collaborative solutions to reduce environmental impacts and promote mutual prosperity.
The extensive reliance by the EPA on non-scientists flies in the face of their claims that the endangerment finding is based on the work of thousands of climate scientists.
Lisa Jackson is also pursuing an international agenda as she describes again on the EPA website.
The Agency already has around 20,000 employees and an annual budget of $10 billion, but it seems Lisa Jackson wants to expand this burgeoning behemoth even more.
7
Today at the CEC’s annual meeting, I will publicly announce EPA’s international priorities.”
The Agency already has around 20,000 employees and an annual budget of $10 billion, but it seems Lisa Jackson wants to expand this burgeoning behemoth even more.
MISSION CREEP
“It is our vision that by working with global partners we can advance our shared priorities, including adapting to climate change, ensuring national security, facilitating commerce, promoting sustainable development, protecting vulnerable populations and engaging diplomatically around the world.
Aren’t those the tasks normally entrusted to elected representatives?
BUILDING STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL STRUCTURES
Countries need adequate governmental structures to enforce environmental protections.
The EPA will work with countries such as India, Ghana, Kenya and Brazil to develop and support the promotion of good governance, improve judicial and legal structures and design the regulatory systems necessary for effective environmental protection around the world.
She was of course warmly welcomed at the UNFCCC in Copenhagen 2009 where she grandstanded the new EPA Endangerment ruling on greenhouse-gas emissions. The EPA is seen by the UN and its supporters as the Trojan horse for controlling carbon dioxide emissions in the US, leaving the way open for global control via the UN. The Agency’s considerable involvement with the IPCC and the UNFCCC on many levels gives strong support to that agenda.
The EPA will work with countries such
as India, Ghana, Kenya and Brazil to develop and support the promotion of good governance, improve judicial and legal structures and design the regulatory systems necessary for effective environmental protection around the world.
The EPA is seen by the UN and its supporters as the Trojan horse for controlling carbon dioxide emissions in the US, leaving the way open for global control via the UN. The Agency’s considerable involvement with the IPCC and the UNFCCC on many levels gives strong support to that agenda.
8
EPA FUNDING FOR IPCC CLIMATE MODELS
The input of the EPA into the IPCC reports is demonstrated by the fact that they provide funding for one of the core climate models, MAGICC/SCENGEN, a coupled gas-cycle/climate model (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) that drives a spatial climate-change SCENario GENerator (SCENGEN). MAGICC version 6 is currently in use. The companion product, SCENGEN, is a global and regional climate change scenario generator.
The widely-used MAGICC model has been one of the primary models used by IPCC since 1990, to produce projections of future global-mean temperature and sea level rise. You can download a user’s manual for version 5.3, where they describe how they had to change the model to fit the AR4 conclusions. “Changes have been made to MAGICC to ensure, as nearly as possible, consistency with the IPCC AR4.”
The MAGICC manual says that “considerable input has come from the EPA, in that “Versions 4.1 and 5.3 (and intermediate versions) were funded largely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Stratus Consulting Company. In this regard, Jane Leggett (formerly EPA, now Library of Congress) and Joel Smith (formerly EPA and now Stratus) deserve special thanks for their enthusiastic support over many years.” Additionally it says that “the CMIP3/AR4 multi-model data set is supported by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy.”
Anything that doesn’t agree with their pre-determined conclusions is rejected:
“-1.8 forcing value as a lower bound (1.1 W/m2 below the best estimate) would lead to extremely low total historical anthropogenic forcing unless compensated by a large underestimate in some positive forcing term, and we consider this highly unlikely. We therefore retain +/-0.4 for the uncertainty range for indirect aerosol forcing.”
Some of the inputs are known to be false, yet they still use them, for example, they have always used a figure of 1% annual increase in CO2 levels, when they have actually been 0.5 to 0.7%.
You can download a user’s manual for version 5.3, where they describe how they had to change the model to fit the
AR4 conclusions.
Some of the inputs are known to be false, yet they still use them, for example, they have always used a figure of 1% annual increase in CO2 levels, when they have actually been 0.5 to 0.7%.
9
Notice the acknowledgement: “Development supported by: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency”. This was in May 2008.
Although four separate bodies are shown as contributors to the model, implying independent scientific agreement, in fact all are connected via the IPCC, and by current or former positions at CRU and UEA, including model originator, Tom Wigley, at NCAR, who is a former Director of CRU. At least five of those mentioned on the front page are significant names in the CRU e-mails, so it is to be expected that the EPA would seek to minimise the whole affair.
The CRU is of course the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shown separately above to imply two independent bodies. NCAR and Stratus Consulting are both located in Boulder, Colorado.
MAGICC and SCENGEN contain the templates that produce the colourful global pictures showing a heating planet. Anyone can obtain the program and use the pre-installed databases to produce “new research” for any region in the world.
Here are some slides from a UNFCCC Climate Model Training guide:
At least five of those mentioned on the front page are significant names in the CRU e-mails, so it is to be expected that the EPA would seek to minimise the whole affair.
10
Dr Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis at NCAR and a major figure in the IPCC, expressed his concerns about climate models in a Nature Science Blog post in June 2007:
 “There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”
 None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the
observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
 In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
 Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.
These are damning indictments by a leading light of the IPCC and the US climate community, throwing major doubts on the modelling claims of the IPCC.
These are damning indictments by a leading light of the IPCC and the US climate community, throwing major doubts on the modelling claims of the IPCC.
11
In 2007, Professor Lenny Smith, a statistician at the London School of Economics, warned about the “naïve realism” of current climate modelling. In a New Scientist interview he said, “Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted. Over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making. We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect.”
When we hear the familiar phrase, “new research shows” it means that someone has done another model run with different parameters and yet again “things are worse than we thought”.
Dial a Climate:
End result?
“Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted. Over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making. We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect.”
When we hear the familiar phrase, “new research shows” it means that someone has done another model run with different parameters and yet again “things are worse than we thought”.
12
Jane A. Leggett, who is mentioned in the MAGGIC manual, is currently a Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which serves Members of Congress and their staff. She coordinates “CRS expertise on climate change, and leads responses on climate change science, federal funding, international cooperation and other topics, including China’s policies and performance”.
Leggett worked for the EPA for more than 15 years, having been director of the Climate Change Division from 1995-2001 during Carol Browner’s tenure and senior advisor on climate change mitigation and risk analysis to the EPA from 2001-2006. She was a convening lead author of the 1992 IPCC special report on emissions scenarios to 2100, (SRES). At EPA, she represented the U.S. Government on climate change at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD).
Jane A. Leggett is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, with a Masters in City and Regional Planning (MCRP) and a B.A. in Political Science.
Jane A. Leggett, who is mentioned in the MAGGIC manual, is currently a Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which serves Members of Congress and their staff.
[She] is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, with a Masters in City and Regional Planning (MCRP) and a B.A. in Political Science.
13
STRATUS CONSULTING INC.
Also mentioned is Joel Smith, vice president at Stratus Consulting, who has been an IPCC author since 1998. Stratus claims Joel Smith is a Nobel Prize winner because of the award in 2007 to IPCC and Al Gore. He is in charge of their climate change division and is another example of non-scientists being portrayed as scientists, by those who present the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science, such as the EPA in reaching their endangerment finding. This is a list of his involvement in the climate change agenda.
 Coordinating Lead Author for the synthesis chapter on climate change impacts for the IPCC Third Assessment Report, TAR.
 Lead Author for IPCC AR4 WG II Ch. 19 Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change
 Contributing Author AR4 WG II Ch.17: Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity
 Lead Author on the Summary for the Policy Makers Report for both the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports
 Lead author for the U.S. National Assessment on climate change impacts and technical coordinator on vulnerability and adaptation for the U.S. Country Studies Program.
 Co-ordinator of the Pew Center Global Climate Change series.
Joel Smith is another political scientist, not a climate scientist; he has a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Public Policy. He put his name to the February 2011 “Scientists’ Statement on the Clean Air Act” carried on the Democrat website. The letter repeated the EPA statement about the scientific evidence, quoting the same sources:
“The scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that climate change poses a clear threat to public health. Numerous scientific studies, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2009 report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States and the National Academy of Sciences’ report, America’s Climate Choices, show that if heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, global warming is likely to cause more extreme heat in our cities, severe water shortages, loss of species, hazards to coasts
Stratus claims Joel Smith is a Nobel Prize winner because of the award in 2007 to IPCC and Al Gore. He is in charge of their climate change division and is another example of non-scientists being portrayed as scientists, by those who present the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science.
Joel Smith is another political scientist, not a climate scientist; he has a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Public Policy.
14
from sea level rise, and extreme weather. The economic and social costs of such impacts are potentially calamitous.
The EPA must be allowed to fulfill its responsibilities and take action to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. This science-based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 40 years since it was first passed—all without diminishing economic growth.”
Smith worked for the EPA from 1984 to 1992, where he was the deputy director of the Climate Change Division, an analyst for oceans and water regulations, and a special assistant to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
He was a co-editor of EPA’s Report to Congress: “The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States,” published in 1989. He has written on climate change impacts and adaptation issues for the U.S. Country Studies Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Office of Technology Assessment, the Electric Power Research Institute, the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. He has produced papers on Technology Transfer to Developing Nations for the UNFCCC.
Stratus has carried out work in Africa for USAID and the U.S. Country Studies Program “to assist West and Central African nations in the design and development of climate change assessments.”
Smith has co-published with scientists such as the late Stephen Schneider of Stanford and Tom Wigley of NCAR, including this poster presentation with Wigley in 2005 on the merits of MAGICC-SCENGEN, Using Climate Model Output to Understand and Adapt to Climate Change Joel B. Smith. Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder, Colorado, Tom M, L Wigley, National Canter for Atmospheric Research. Boulder, Colorado.
It was part of an assessment of the Aspen Ski and Snow Industry, co-ordinated by the Aspen Global Change Institute, which is funded by NASA, NOAA, The National Science Foundation (NSF), The Department of Energy (DOE), The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), a UN body.
EPA – ENVIRONMENTAL PALS AGENCY
Stratus Consulting Inc. has been built into a sizeable company on the back of extensive consultancy work for the EPA and other agencies, which must run into several hundred million dollars. “The company has been awarded 942 government contracts since 1999. Many, but not all, involved work for either NOAA, the EPA or the Justice Department. From 1999 to 2007, Stratus Consulting pulled in an average of 64 contracts per year. From 2008 to 2010, the average per year nearly doubled — to 121 per year. So far, the company has generated only
15
three contracts in 2011”. They received the second-largest amount of money, $22.73 million, from the contracts stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
In 2007, they picked up a five year contract worth $39.4 million. “Stratus Consulting has worked with EPA on climate change issues, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, since 1996, said Joel Smith, vice president at Stratus. “We’ve been looking at energy efficiency programs within a number of states,” he said. “We’ve also looked at consequences of climate change and done work on the science of climate change.”
But they are not climate scientists.
They describe themselves as assisting in crafting federal guidance and providing analytical support for regulatory development at the U.S. EPA for the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and global climate change. They have extensive input into the EPA web sites and into their data management processes:
 EPA home page
 EPA’s environmental education web sites
 EPA’s High School Environmental Center
 Data Quality Act/EPA Information Quality Guidelines
 Information Quality Guidelines
 Critical evaluation of EPA audit regimes
 EPA Data Quality Strategic Plan
 Business rules to support EPA’s Facility Registry System
 EPA’s Quality System
 EPA Integrated error correction process
 EPA Data Quality Strategic Plan.
It is no wonder that the website says so strongly that “the science is unequivocal,” As major content contributors to the website, Stratus are simply defending their EPA contracts.
Joel Smith and a Stratus colleague edited the Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document.
Some of the other Stratus staff who are also heavily involved with the EPA and other agencies are shown here, there are many more:
Charles N. Herrick, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Stratus Consulting, Inc. is a former Associate Director of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Assistant Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, (acid rain). He has also been a senior analyst with NOAA’s Office of the Chief Scientist,
It is no wonder that the website says so strongly that “the science is unequivocal,” As major content contributors to the website, Stratus are simply defending their EPA contracts.
16
a position recently revived by NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco, to bring in an “acid oceans” scientist.
Charles N. Herrick is another political scientist, not a climate scientist, he has a PhD in Public Policy, an MA in Political Theory and a BA in Political Science but he “serves as a peer reviewer on several NAS and USGCRP panels.”
Lauraine G. Chestnut is an economist and a contributing Pew Centre author with Joel Smith and David Mills to a 2010 paper “U.S. Market Consequences of Global Climate Change”. She has served on EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis.
Robert D. Rowe, Stratus Chairman, is an economist and has been a consultant member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.
Leland Deck, Managing economist. Economic benefits analyses for EPA air regulations, air pollution analyses for the IPCC, the California Air Resources Board, (CARB) and other government bodies. A former senior economist with the EPA, he has a PhD in economics, an MA in economics and a BS in geology.
EPA FUNDING FOR OTHER IPCC SCIENTISTS
Susanne Moser, is a former NCAR scientist, (Geography) and now a private consultant, she is a committed activist and is a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. She was a member in 2010, of the NAS/NRC panel, “Toward a New Era of Climate Change Science: America’s Climate Choices Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change”, with Pew’s Eileen Claussen, which EPA quotes as one of the validations for their rejection of petitions against Endangerment Finding.
She is currently involved in eight government programs, including this one funded by the EPA in conjunction with Stratus Consulting, entitled Impactful Communication of EPA’s Climate Change Research. She was an IPCC author for AR4 and was invited as Lead Author, Coastal Systems (Chapter 5) of WG2, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (withdrawn for personal reasons). Contributing Author, Coastal Systems chapter of WG2, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
She is the Review Editor 2009-2011, for Chapter 1 of the IPCC Special Report on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.”
Susanne Moser is not a climate scientist and has a PhD and an MA in Geography.
Charles N. Herrick is another political scientist, not a climate scientist, he has a PhD in Public Policy, an MA in Political Theory and a BA in Political Science but he “serves as a peer reviewer on several NAS and USGCRP panels.”
Susanne Moser, is a former NCAR scientist, (Geography) and now a private consultant, she is a committed activist and is a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
17
There is no way that the EPA is going to criticise the IPCC when so much of its output comes from IPCC authors working as consultants to the EPA, but still Lisa Jackson denies that the IPCC forms a major part of their endangerment finding:
“At a Senate hearing this morning, Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson defended her agency’s recent finding that carbon is a pollutant and minimized the role that data from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change played in that decision.
Jackson defended the IPCC data as still worthwhile, while also arguing that the EPA relied on other data, not just the IPCC’s, for the finding. She refused at one point to directly answer whether the IPCC still represented the best data in climate change science.”
Yet she is contradicted by her own documents:
Endangerment Findings Technical Support document
This document provides technical support for the endangerment analysis concerning greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may be addressed under the Clean Air Act.
The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.”
This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as this decision is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator.
The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management, although there are a couple of chemists, engineers and one meteorologist. Some are also IPCC authors and many are involved in the production of the proposed regulations, for example:
There is no way that the EPA is going to criticise the IPCC when so much of its output comes from IPCC authors working as consultants to the EPA, but still Lisa Jackson denies that the IPCC forms a major part of their endangerment finding.
The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management.
18
Melissa Weitz is an environmental protection specialist in EPA’s Climate Change Division, within the Office of Air and Radiation.
“Her areas of work include rulemaking for the proposed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule, offsets protocols and policy analysis, and the national greenhouse gas inventory.”
She has a B.S. in Animal Science and a Master’s degree in Energy and Environmental Policy.
David Chalmers has “managed research, analysis and communication efforts on adaptation and ocean acidification and provided technical, analytic and management support to coastal adaptation projects funded through EPA’s Climate Ready Estuaries program.” He has also “produced key elements of EPA’s Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. He has an MA in International Affairs and a B.A. in Environmental Science.
EPA AUTHORS OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT WHO ARE ALSO IPCC AUTHORS
Darrell Winner, who is acting Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment at EPA and a former National Program Director for Global Change Research at EPA. He was a member of IPCC Working Group II, AR4 Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Appendix III: Reviewer of the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report. He has a Ph.D in Environmental Engineering Science and a B.S in Chemical Engineering.
Leif Hockstad, another “environmental engineer” with EPA, was a COP-15 negotiator and a Lead author of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Bill Irving is Chief of the Program Integration Branch of EPA’s Climate Change Division and a “technical expert” on the United States delegations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He has been with the EPA since 1997 and was a co-ordinating Lead Author of the IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Mr. Irving holds a Bachelor’s degree from Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, and a Master’s degree in International Affairs from Columbia University.
Dina Kruger is the current Director of the Climate Change Division at EPA. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Washington, and a Master’s degree from the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. She was the presiding officer for the Proposed Rulemaking for EPA’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act, Monday, May 18, 2009. Kruger was a Review editor for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Lisa Hanle was another Lead Author for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, along with another eleven EPA employees.
In order to add gravitas, the document has Federal Reviewers, but again they are not all climate scientists, although they are IPCC authors. Some are members of the U.S. Global Change
19
Research Program and some are members of the panel on America’s Climate Choices, which are the bodies in which the EPA places so much faith and which, according to Lisa Jackson, form the basis of the science behind the EPA Endangerment finding. By acting as reviewers they are effectively validating their own work.
In particular we have these big hitters in the climate debate, as reviewers of the Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document.
Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. He has been quoted as saying:
“Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers.”
He was a member of the Committee on America’s Climate Choices until his new appointment.
Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA, and contributing editor of the RealClimate blog. IPCC Lead Author and modeller.
Susan Solomon, NOAA Senior Scientist, Co-chair, IPCC Working Group 1, 2002-2008. She was recently challenged about the Inspector General’s report relating to FOA requests concerning the IPCC. She is a member of America’s Climate Choices Panel.
CONCLUSION
It is plain to see that the claim by Lisa Jackson that the Endangerment finding is based on sound science is false, when in fact it is overtly political and the culmination of many years of manoeuvering by the EPA. We find that “thousands of climate scientists”, narrows down to the same familiar cohorts, supported by economists and political graduates, who then acquire the status of “climate scientists” and are often quoted as such.
The major involvement of IPCC authors in the process, the extensive use of contractors who are former EPA employees and IPCC authors, the use of reviewers who are also IPCC major players and members of the US scientific panels quoted by the EPA, all leads to an incestuous “group
By acting as reviewers they are effectively validating their own work.
It is plain to see that the claim by Lisa Jackson that the Endangerment finding is based on sound science is false, when in fact it is overtly political and the culmination of many years of manoeuvering by the EPA. We find that “thousands of climate scientists”, narrows down to the same familiar cohorts, supported by economists and political graduates, who then acquire the status of “climate scientists” and are often quoted as such.
20
think” situation, which has no place in the determination of public policy on energy and the
economy.
Cover photo of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announcing
that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to public health,
as posted on nydailynews.com. Background photo of the
United Nations flag from topnews.

Mississippi Power PAC Campaign Contribution Details ’12 Election Cycle

MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FEDERAL PAC A/K/A/ MS PWR CO EMP COMM FOR RESP FED GOV

Political Action Committee
Campaign Contribution Details
’12 Election Cycle

Financial Details in the ’12 Election Cycle for
MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FEDERAL PAC A/K/A/ MS PWR CO EMP COMM FOR RESP FED GOV
Through 06/30/2011

Category $ Dollar Amount
Total Receipts $21,981
Transfers From Affiliates $0
Contributions From Individuals $21,981
Contributions From Other Political Committees $0
Total Loans Received $0
Total Disbursements $15,241
Transfers To Affiliates $0
Refunds To Individuals $225
Refunds to Committees $0
Loan Repayments $0
Beginning Cash $43,415
Ending Cash $50,155
Debts Owed By $0
Nonfederal Transfers Received $0
Contributions Made To Other Committees $15,000
Independent Expenditures Made $0
Party Coordinated Expenditures Made $0
Nonfederal Share of Expenditures $0

 

 

Top 100 Donations/Contributions in the ’12 Election Cycle to
MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FEDERAL PAC A/K/A/ MS PWR CO EMP COMM FOR RESP FED GOV

Name/
Location
Employer/
Occupation
Contribution
$ Amount
Primary/
General
Date
McFarland, Jay
Gulfport,, MS
39502
Mississippi Power Company/System Pl $240 P 03/11/2011

 

Political Candidates Receiving Contributions/Support in the ’12 Election Cycle from
MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FEDERAL PAC A/K/A/ MS PWR CO EMP COMM FOR RESP FED GOV

Candidate Name Office Party State District Primary/
General
$ Dollar
Amount
Date
HARPER, GREGG House of Reps Republican MS 03 P $5,000 05/26/2011
THOMPSON, BENNIE G. House of Reps Democrat MS 02 P $1,000 03/16/2011
THOMPSON, BENNIE G. House of Reps Democrat MS 02 P $4,000 05/26/2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/committees/mississippi-power-company-federal-pac-a-k-a-ms-pwr-co-emp-comm-for-resp-fed-gov.asp?cycle=12

Southern Company Solutes Congressional Black Caucus

Southern Company supports the Congressional Black Caucus by hosting their conference.  Chris Womack, executive vice president of Southern Company is proud to honor Tom Joyner who endorses misogyny and the ‘N’ Word.  Southern Company honors a man who supports the good business sense to “sexually objectify and degrade women, use the “N” word, promote violence, drug use, and criminal activity, and portray Black and Latino men as pimps, gangsters, and thugs?”

Can we conclude Southern Company also agrees with recent comments from Congressional Black Caucus members through their sponsorship?

Researching Southern Company sure clarifies their goals and purposes for this country.

 

“It’s an honor to salute the people who take action in addressing the critical issues impacting our communities,” said Chris Womack, executive vice president and president, external affairs, Southern Company.  “Bringing change where change is needed is never easy, so paying tribute to those who have made that contribution is a privilege for our company, which itself has a long history of community involvement and of being a citizen in the truest sense.

Maxine Waters, a citizen in the truest sense?

Southern Company is the parent company of Mississippi Power who is charging Mississippians to build the new Lignite coal plant for Southern Company’s profit and to benefit other states.  Here is how they spend their profits.

ESSENCE & Southern Company, in partnership with Perennial Strategy Group, will host their 3rd annual Evening of Excellence-a special awards reception as part of the 2011 Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s (CBCF) 41st Annual Legislative Conference.

http://eurweb.com/2011/09/essence-southern-and-cbc-foundation-honor-tom-donna-richardson-joyner-at-3rd-annual-evening-of-excellence-friday-night/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/has-the-fly-jock-crashed-tom-joyner-sides-with-naacp-on-endorsing-misogyny-and-the-n-word-says-enough-is-enough-campaign-117639988.html

 

 

 

To Republicans Boyce Adams, Phil Bryant, and Leonard Bentz and Others

Obama, and Steven Chu, his Energy Czar, are in favor of the Kemper County Coal plant and so are you.
I love coal plants with good modern scrubbers to reduce pollutants with proven technology, they do a great job. Kemper County Coal plant is experimental and is the last door Cap and Trade in the USA. The false science behind man-made Global warming should cause us to question the validity of climate changes caused by Green House Gasses and how Carbon Dioxide should be treated. We have recently seen a list of respected independent scientists come forward and speak against man-made global warming and climate change.
Does it matter what political party affiliation you have? If you are in favor of carbon dioxide containment, transporting and storage from coal plants, then you believe Al Gore’s theory that people control the climate through their pollutants, NOT THE SUN. If you support the Kemper County Coal Plant to sell and trade CO2 at a HIGH HIGH expense to ratepayers then you agree with Ted Turner that there is to many people on this earth polluting it. Listen here to what he says  He Says “we are to many people” Ted Turner is crazy! Yet our very own Southern Co, parent Co of MS Power, is fully cooperating with Ted Turner. See here for yourself. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/03/southern-company-ted-turner-acquire-first-solar-project
Why would Southern Co do that? Because there is billions to be made and they want in on it and by cooperating they have a hand in the authoring the regulations. Please notice that Texas is now closing 2-3 Lignite plants, why? Why have most CO2 capturing coal plants closed? Please ask the questions. Not because they are cost-effective and efficient but for the opposite. Kemper will never close due to over-budgeting because the stockholders are not responsible for the added expenses, the rate payers are! We are a bottomless pocket.
So what is this Kemper County CO2 capturing Lignite Coal plant really about? There is a seminar to teach you more of the perspective of the movement. http://files.meetup.com/1404856/Environmental%20Law%20Conference%2C%20Oslo%20May%209-11%202012.pdf
Do you agree that nature and the environment should have a legal status? Does this blow your mind and make your eyes pop out? There is a religion behind this movement called GAIA and it worships the environment above people. But in Genesis (Bible) it says man will have dominion over the earth not the earth over the people. Gaia worships mother earth, environment, and nature.
I am excited to see so many people waking up to this agenda to destroy America for perhaps we can stop it before it is too late.
To be 100% clear, even though I love the idea of Mississippi having a Coal plant I am against the ratepayers paying for risky experimental technology and I am against ratepayers paying for CO2 capturing because it is nothing more than a way to redistribute America’s wealth to other countries.
CO2 is NOT a poisonous gas that needs to be contained or people will die because of global warming. CO2 helps plants grow, we breathe it. Remember 6th grade science and photosynthesis? Carbon Dioxide does not cause Global Warming! Any Doubts please read Cold Sun, by John Casey like many other Mississippians. http://www.spaceandscience.net/ Casey even has a letter that describes the criminality to trading in worthless stocks.
If you are AGAINST Obama’s, Ted Turners, and the United Nation’s Cap and Trade agenda to bankrupt all coal plants, than I support you no matter the Party affiliation.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming

Keep in mind as you read this article that if there is no current manmade global warming caused by Carbon Dioxide than CO2 capture coal plants are a fraud, a ruse, hoax, and a scam.  Can we call this into question since there are so many respected scientists calling the data on global warming to be concocted, skewed, and intentionally distorted to mislead?

 

Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

Wednesday, September 14, 2011By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

Climate Depot Exclusive

Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled “I resign from APS” to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears. He was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Giaever, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and won the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics.

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming: ‘We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated’

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared.I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

This is not the first climate induced headache for the American Physical Society. It’s strict adherence to man-made global warming beliefs has created a stir in the scientific community and let to an open revolt of its scientific members.

On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In October 2010, the APS suffered more scientific woes when another one of its prominent physicists resigned. The late Physicist Hal Lewis, who died in May of 2011, excoriated the APS leadership for its strict dogmatic like adherence to man-made global warming beliefs. See: Prominent Physicist Resigns: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’ & See: Prominent Physicist Resigns From American Physical Society: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ — APS President Curtis Callan ‘seems to have abandoned most ethical principles…APS has become a corrupt organization’ & see: APS responds to resignation of Dr. Hal Lewis — AND Dr. Lewis Responds Back To APS!

APS President has been under fire as well. See: ‘APS President Callan didn’t even bother to discuss the ClimateGate and the petition inspired by it with Will Happer and Robert Austin’

Below is the full text of Dr. Ivar Giaever’s full letter of resignation to the APS:

From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever@XXXX.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: kirby@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; ‘William Happer’; ‘Larry Gould’; ‘S. Fred Singer’; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

 

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.

********************************************************************************************************
Ivar Giaever
XXX XXX
XXX
USA
Phone XXX XXX XXX
Fax XXX XXX XXX

#

End Reprint of Giaever’s email.

#

Climate Depot Note: Other Nobel winners have declared their global warming skepticism as well.

One of the other signers of the APS skeptical petition was Nobel Prize winner in Physics E.O. Lawrence.

E. O. Lawrence, Award in Physics 1985 Oliver E. Buckley Prize (APS) 1986 Nobel Prize in Physics 1998 Member National Academy of Sciences; Fellow AAAS

Lawrence signed on the statement that read in part: “As current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned petition the APS Council to commission an independent, objective study and assessment of the science relating to the question of anthropogenic global warming.”

Other Nobel Prize-Winning scientists featured in Climate Depot’s more than 1000 international scientists who have declared their skepticism include:

Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rejected global warming orthodoxy in 2010. ―Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation,‖ Laughlin wrote in July 2010 in The American Scholar. Earth has suffered ―all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict. Yet, the Earth is still here. It’s a survivor…Earth doesn’t care whether you turn off your AC, refrigerator and TV. It doesn’t notice when you turn down your thermostat and drive a hybrid car,‖ Laughlin wrote. ―You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations,‖ he added. ―Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself,‖ Laughlin explained. He continued: ―Global warming forecasts have the further difficulty that you can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. In principle, changes in climate should show up in rainfall statistics, hurricane frequency, temperature records, and so forth. As a practical matter they don’t, because weather patterns are dominated by large multi-year events in the oceans, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation, which have nothing to do with climate change. In order to test the predictions, you’d have to separate these big effects from subtle, inexorable changes on scales of centuries, and nobody knows how to do that yet.

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the “Green Revolution” for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal. Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2007. “I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?” Borlaug asked, according to a September 21, 2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press. The article reported that Borlaug is “not sure, and he doesn’t think the science is, either.” Borlaug added, “How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it’s not a driving force?” We don’t even know how much.” [Note: Borlaug died in 2009]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming

BENTZ CHALLENGES EPA’S CROSS STATES AIR POLLUTION RULE

Mississippi Public Service Commission
LEONARD L. BENTZ, COMMISSIONER
1-800-356-6429
MEDIA ADVISORY September 15, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BENTZ CHALLENGES EPA’S CROSS STATES AIR POLLUTION RULE

Bentz Authorizes Legal Staff to File for Immediate Relief
Jackson, Mississippi – Today, Commissioner Leonard Bentz authorized the PSC legal staff to take immediate action against the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, asking the Public Service Commission legal staff to file for immediate legal relief before the EPA and The Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia no later than October 7, 2011.
Commissioner Bentz also instructed staff to work with all stakeholders, including all public utilities, the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office, MDEQ and other states.
“One way or another, this latest, unrealistic move by the EPA imposes significant financial costs onto the customer through their utility bill each month, or causes their electricity to be unreliable. Either is unacceptable, and I am adamantly opposed.” Bentz added.
In July, the EPA issued The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which will require Mississippi utility companies to limit their nitric oxide (NOx) emissions even further and even sooner, or face possible criminal penalties if the companies violate the rule knowingly or willingly. Under the new Rule, Mississippi utility companies must now reduce their emission by May 2012, moved up from 2014.
Options for the Utility companies include reducing emissions by upgrading equipment, purchasing credits or shutting down electric generating plants completely.
“Companies can install new and expensive controls that reduce emissions a little, but even if this were implemented, new equipment can’t even be built in that timeframe because the deadline have been moved up,” Bentz added.
“Another unworkable option allowed by the EPA, is buying allowances or “credits” on the market from other states. However, most states have had their allowances reduced and there are no allowances to purchase,” Bentz said. “The numbers don’t even remotely add up. The EPA’s fact finding is limited at best.”
If neither option is available, the utility company would have to shut down that power generating plant. Electricity would have to be bought from other sources and, causing possible periodic outages due to unreliability.
The EPA estimates that the proposed rule will cost about $800 million annually plus an additional $1.6 billion per year for new equipment.
“If utility companies can’t take on the burden that this Rule places on them, plants will shut down and the customer loses, and that is detrimental,” Bentz said.

LEONARD L. BENTZ, COMMISSIONER
1-800-356-6429
Page 2

The Rule is intended to improve air quality by reducing nitric oxide that is created when utility plants generate electricity, but will inevitably cost the customer.
Last week the five elected members of the Louisiana PSC voted unanimously to petition the EPA, asking to re-consider the particulars of the rules and file for legal relief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Background: The “Clean Air Transport Rule,” also once called the “The Clean Air Act,” was renamed the “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,” It replaces a set of 2005 Bush administration regulations that were struck down by the courts.
Anyone who has additional questions or comments about this or other utilities may Commissioner Bentz’s office at 1-800-356-6429.
Commissioner Bentz’s office may also be contacted via email to southern.district@psc.state.ms.us, or by mail to the following address:
Commissioner Leonard L. Bentz
Mississippi Public Service Commission
P.O. Box 1174 Jackson, MS 39215-1174

 

 

Bentz Challeneges EPAs Cross State Air Pollution Rule

 

Yes to the TRAIN ACT

The TRAIN ACT is expected to come before the full U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, September 22nd. This bill would push back against the EPA’s unconstitutional, outrageous rules and regulations that raise energy prices for consumers, destroy jobs and increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Please take a minute to talk with your congressman about why he or she should support the TRAIN ACT when it comes up for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The TRAIN ACT would:

– Fight back against EPA regulations that would raise energy prices for consumers and destroy jobs

– Reject the EPA’s attempt to shut down coal as one key source of our energy needs

– Ensure that America continues to be able to use its own natural resources for energy, as opposed to relying more on foreign sources of energy

Call NOW and tell your Representative to vote YES on the TRAIN ACT!

%d bloggers like this: