Backbone is back, maybe (updated 23feb2010)

February 2010
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Backbone is back, maybe (updated 23feb2010)

21 February 2010

George Rebane

I have commiserated about corporations falling for the climate change hoax because they see themselves in favored positions with regard to cap n’ tax (Waxman – Markey) subsidies and suppressed competitors. Recall Rebane’s Rule of Corporations – the good part is that they will game the system, the bad part is that they will game the system. Well, here’s one corporation that’s gaming the system to all of our benefit.

Peabody Energy, a coal company, has finally concluded that coal is never going to be sufficiently clean for the greenies, and they might as well throw their weight on the side that would at least promote their survival. Climategate.com reports that Peabody has filed suit against the EPA in Obama’s effort to end run Congress with the now stalled cap n’ tax energy bill. The piece opens with –

The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.

The rest can be read here. H/T to RR reader.

[23feb2010 update] Well, it now turns out that eight Democrat senators are joining the challenge to EPA to justify its designation of CO2 as a toxic greenhouse gas as reported on Fox News. But, they in their wisdom are restricting this challenge only to the CO2 that comes out of the industries that reside in their states (and presumably contribute to their re-election coffers). Now there’s a new congressional twist on honor and science. Speaking of the science behind the AGW hysteria, European media are looking at the growing Climategate scandal and calling for a redo of the IPCC ‘science’ that started the whole mess. Of course, our balanced and unbiased media is totally silent on both counts so as to minimize exposure to past errors and omissions. Meanwhile, the AGW acolyte chorus is totally unfazed by any of this, and is still chanting ‘consensus!!’ where there is none, and ‘peer review!!’ where the peers are now in duck and cover mode.

Posted in Current Affairs, Our Country

11 responses to “Backbone is back, maybe (updated 23feb2010)”

Anna Haynes

21 February 2010

If only it were a hoax.
iPhone app pitches climate change science against scepticism
“If you’re only learning from deviant views, you’re probably going to be misled”
And – if you’re young, or if you’re a parent – you do have a stake in the future.

LikeLike
Tony

22 February 2010

From:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
The battle over global warming
In 1988, the fossil fuel industry realized it had a serious problem. The summer of 1988 had shattered century-old records for heat and drought in the U.S., and NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, testified before Congress that human-caused global warming was partially to blame. A swelling number of scientific studies were warning of the threat posed by human-cause climate change, and that consumption of fossil fuels needed to slow down. Naturally, the fossil fuel industry fought back. They launched a massive PR campaign that continues to this day, led by the same think tanks that worked to discredit the ozone depletion theory. The George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer’s SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been key players in both fights, and there are numerous other think tanks involved. Many of the same experts who had worked hard to discredit the science of the well-established link between cigarette smoke and cancer, the danger the CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and the dangers to health posed by a whole host of toxic chemicals, were now hard at work to discredit the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused climate change.
Let’s look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That’s five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):
Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America’s Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000
Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:
Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000
If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don’t even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

LikeLike
Tony

22 February 2010

My favorite are these guys at http://www.oism.org.
These are the wing nuts that put together the global warming petition project.
How much do you want to bet they’re collecting a little bit of that money from a think tank?
You could learn a lot from these guys.
http://www.oism.org/s32p1868.htm
http://www.oism.org/s32p903.htm
They’re address is a road just outside of Cave Junction, OR 97523

LikeLike
Chuck D

22 February 2010

Anna, Tony, and ALL global warming fanatics, buy some good walking shoes and ditch your cars. Or you are Hypocrites. Just don’t force your B.S. on the rest of us.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

22 February 2010

Way to go Peabody. Glad to see some “backbone”…. the nannies have not killed us yet!

LikeLike
Dixon Cruickshank

22 February 2010

Tony you forget Governments domestic and foriegn – its in the billions for 20 yrs so 36m for total lobbing which includes all oil and coal issues is a drop in the bucket. Energy companies have a mirade of issues to deal with, exploration-distribution-to sales, they are real business’es producing a real product and real jobs. How did you get to work today, assuming you have a job ??? bet you might have been a customer of one of these companies or you just boycott all of them, don’t drive and shut the lights and your computer off – simple

LikeLike
Tony

22 February 2010

ChuckyD
You guys are so ready to tell me what to do and read. Climate change (just to puff your skirt) is for all of us all over the globe. We have done as much as we can while keeping the lights on. Where you come from is “I won’t do jack to change MY life for the planet”. Yet you are so ready to tell others to, “change.
We can force it if there is enough to make a majority. It might not be till Florida loses 15 million acres to the sea or the summer in LA is hitting 120 degrees. Then it will happen. You might be dead ’cause you are an old white guy.
Dixon
I have forgot nothing, as I can only make a dif’ in the Gov of the USA I restrict my cares to it.
Again you tell me what to do but have no ability to force me. You just twitter here to have a “I told him” moment. As do I.
I work@home.
I don’t boycott, I challenge them through US government regulations and law to supply the product without killing people in Niger, or Kelso. Where I don’t believe you care. It the almighty profit for Exxon, right?
First rule of the Internet is:
Never argue with anyone.
My point is you buy the “It ‘aint happnin’ story.
I buy the It’s happnin’ and you don’t care.
Watch Fox?
Where are your comments on:
http://www.theunion.com/article/20100205/OPINION_NATIONAL/100209877/1024&parentprofile=1056
The Saudis own your network! They control what you hear and see!
Beck bends to them!
Alwaleed bin Talal has bin tell all you can see.
All your news is bin tell all us.
Arabs are the new Right.

LikeLike
Tony

22 February 2010

“Way to go Peabody. Glad to see some “backbone”…. the nannies have not killed us yet!”
OOOhhh…. petition for reconsideration! WOW that will show them.
You really have no idea how many of these are filed every year do you?
The East Anglia e-mails had references to a “trick” to “hide the [temperature] decline” and indicated skeptical scientists were being marginalized.
OK they are ragging on the temperature data.
The EPA is using Greenhouse data.
The EPA signed two findings regarding greenhouse gases Dec. 7 . The first said, “The administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) – in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”
Just Google “petition for reconsideration i” You will see just about everybody…
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
The Southeastern Legal Foundation filed on the GHG data.
17 Companies and Associations File Updated Amendment to EPA Petition for Reconsideration
the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, fired back on Dec. 30, 2008 with a Petition for Reconsideration under Section 307(d)
Petitioner, Selco Supply Company, seeks review of orders of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.
The EPA received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. One petition was filed by the American Petroleum Institute (API), the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association and the Western States Petroleum Association.

LikeLike
George Rebane

22 February 2010

The only network that even dares to talk about the current conflict as the war between the west and Islam is Fox. The rest keep referring to it as the war against terror. If that is so, then the Arab prince is not getting his money’s worth.
Perhaps the simplest explanation is worth considering, he just wants to invest in the most profitable broadcast conglomerate in the world and make more money. Of course, he can use that money to fund all kinds of other anti-western causes. But controlling the editorial content of Fox with a 5% stake in News Corp is a bit of a stretch. But I do encourage all continuing efforts to prove that, because, if true, it will sink Fox which will then deserve to be sunk. Go for it.

LikeLike
Tony

23 February 2010

http://www.aim.org/press-release/saudi-billionaire-boasts-of-manipulating-fox-news-coverage/
Liberal journalist Danny Schechter, a participant in the conference, reports that Al-waleed, who is a member of the Saudi Royal Family and investor in the Fox News parent company News Corporation, gave an interview boasting that he had called Fox to complain about coverage of the “Muslim riots” in France. He said he “called as a viewer” and “convinced them to change” the coverage because “they were not Muslim riots but riots against poverty and inequality.” And “they changed” the coverage, the Saudi reportedly said. Another report on the comments, carried by the Dubai-based newspaper the Khaleej Times, says that Al-waleed personally called Rupert Murdoch to complain. The Saudi said, “After a short while, there was a change” in the coverage.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1375

LikeLike
Tony

23 February 2010

Just showing some or that backbone:
In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia Attorneys General.
Oil and Coal Money in Politics
James M. Inhofe has accepted $311,800 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $160,800 of those dollars were from industry PACS. In total, Inhofe received $662,506 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil, Inhofe has received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress. $94,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS. See above for oil and energy voting record.[3]
James M. Inhofe has voted in favor of big oil companies on 100% of important oil-related bills from 2005-2007, according to Oil Change International. These bills include Iraq war funding, climate change studies, clean energy, and emissions.[1] See below for oil money in politics.

LikeLike