11 Feb 2010, 2:52pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

EDITORIAL: Global warming snow job

Climate-change pseudoscience is fraught with fraud

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Feb 11, 2010 [here]

Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science.

The fundamental problems exposed about climate-change theory undermine the very basis of scientific inquiry. Huge numbers of researchers refuse to provide their data to other scientists. Some referenced data is found not to have existed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report that global warming activists continually cite invented a large number of purported facts. Consider a few of the problems with the U.N. report that came to light over the past few weeks.

• The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to disappear as soon as 2035. The United Nations didn’t base this hysteria on an academic study. Instead, it relied on a news story that interviewed a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist in question, says he was misquoted and provided no date to the reporter. The doomsday account was simply made up, and the United Nations never bothered to confirm the claim.

• Because of purported global warming, the world supposedly “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s.” The U.N. cited one unpublished study to prove this. When the research eventually was published in 2008 after the IPCC report was released, the authors backpedaled: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

• Up to 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest was said to be at risk because of rising global temperatures. Again, the U.N. didn’t cite any academic studies but merely one non-refereed report authored by two non-scientists, one of whom worked for the World Wildlife Fund, an activist organization.

• The U.N. dramatically claimed that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the accurate portion is 26 percent. …

Man-made global warming theory isn’t backed up by science; it’s a hoax. The fact that the world has been asked to spend tens of trillions of dollars on global warming solutions without being able to evaluate the data upon which the claims were made should have been the first warning that something was seriously wrong. The public and world leaders have been sold expensive snake oil by charlatans like Mr. Pachauri. It’s time to admit it’s all baloney and move on. … [more]

10 Feb 2010, 6:30pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
1 comment

Taking EPA global warming rules to court

By Shannon L. Goessling, Washington Examiner, February 10, 2010 [here]

Acting as the “bad cop” in the Obama administration’s unprecedented move to put the entire nation under an internationally mandated regime, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated a so-called “Endangerment Finding” that carbon dioxide is a pollutant harmful to humans and the environment. The resulting regulatory mandates, reported to be more than 600 pages long, will stagger the imagination and cripple American commerce and industry.

The “good cop,” by the way, is the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade (read, cap-and-tax) bill and its kindred making their way through Congress. If you don’t like cap and trade, so goes the cynical strategy of the administration, then you’ll really hate the EPA.

Enter the courts. Southeastern Legal Foundation, which has never shied away from controversial constitutional matters (the 2000 census, McCain-Feingold and President Clinton’s law license), has filed both a Petition for Reconsideration with the EPA and, this week, a Petition for Judicial Review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, challenging EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s effort to “regulate” carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act.

More than a dozen U.S. representatives and nearly two dozen associations and companies represented by our group share the view that the EPA failed to properly consider relevant science before making its Endangerment Finding. The group will argue that the EPA’s reliance on flawed and questionable science was arbitrary and capricious and that the administrator did not exercise proper and independent judgment in making the Endangerment Finding. … [more]

PLF challenges EPA’s sweeping global warming ruling

Pacific Legal Foundation, February 10, 2010 [here]

Late last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency laid the foundation for assuming breathtaking power to issue command-and-control dictates for the American economy. The agency ruled that “greenhouse gas” emissions endanger public health and welfare because of their alleged impacts on climate change or global warming, and that EPA has Clean Air Act authority to regulate their output. …

Through its greenhouse gas “endangerment finding,” the EPA bureaucracy has set itself up as the potential overseer for all economic activity that relies on fossil fuels—from agriculture to energy development to transportation, manufacturing, and industrial production.

PLF now is challenging this EPA ruling. In an administrative petition to the agency, PLF argues that the process that yielded the endangerment finding has been called into question by what is popularly known as “Climategate.” Therefore, EPA’s own rules require reassessment by the agency’s Scientific Advisory Board.

Significant revelations suggest that the scientific data that was used to arrive at the endangerment finding may be unreliable. For this reason, as PLF’s petition argues, a formal reconsideration of the endangerment finding must be undertaken.

8 Feb 2010, 2:49pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

NOAA reorganization would provide more info on global warming

By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, February 8, 2010 [here]

The Obama administration proposed a new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Service on Monday, reorganizing the agency so it can provide Americans with predictions on how global warming will affect everything from drought to sea levels.

The initiative, modeled loosely on the 140-year-old National Weather Service, will provide forecasts to farmers, regional water managers and business operators affected by changing climate conditions. But it comes at a time when climate skeptics have become increasingly effective in attacking the credibility of global warming forecasts.

NOAA, along with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, ranks as one of the federal government’s key agencies for monitoring the climate and conducting climate research.

“We currently respond to millions of annual requests for climate information, and we expect those requests to grow exponentially,” said NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco in an interview, adding that in light of recent scientific advances, “the models will continue to improve, and we will be able to provide more and more information.”

The move does not come with a designated boost in funding, but it will bring NOAA’s climate research arm together with its more consumer-oriented services so they can operate, in Lubchenco’s words, “cheek by jowl.”

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in an interview the service will be able to provide advice on everything from where ski operators might want to refocus their activities in light of changing snowfall patterns to what farm crops will need increased irrigation. In the same way businesses such as the Weather Channel and AccuWeather.com have taken advantage of the National Weather Service’s predictions, Locke said, “You’ll see much of the private sector will want to build on this one-stop shop of climate services.”

The agency launched a new web portal Monday at www.climate.gov to provide a single entry point for access to NOAA’s climate information, data, products and services.

In order to formally launch the reorganization, Locke said, the House and Senate appropriations committees with jurisdiction over NOAA will have to concur with the move, which is planned for Oct. 1. “Ultimately we need to have approval from Congress, but not through legislation,” he said. …

Thomas R. Karl, who directs NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., will serve as transitional director of the NOAA Climate Service. … [more]

7 Feb 2010, 7:09pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks

By Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, Feb. 4, 2010 [here]

Unquestionably the world’s final authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings and recommendations have formed the bedrock of literally every climate-related initiative worldwide for more than a decade. Likewise, virtually all such future endeavors — be they Kyoto II, domestic cap-and-tax, or EPA carbon regulation, would inexorably be built upon the credibility of the same U.N. panel’s “expert” counsel. But a glut of ongoing recent discoveries of systemic fraud has rocked that foundation, and the entire man-made global warming house of cards is now teetering on the verge of complete collapse.

Simply stated, we’ve been swindled. We’ve been set up as marks by a gang of opportunistic hucksters who have exploited the naïvely altruistic intentions of the environmental movement in an effort to control international energy consumption while redistributing global wealth and (in many cases) greedily lining their own pockets in the process.

Perhaps now, more people will finally understand what many have known for years: Man-made climate change was never really a problem — but rather, a solution.

For just as the science of the IPCC has been exposed as fraudulent, so have its apparent motives. The true ones became strikingly evident when the negotiating text for the “last chance to save the planet” International Climate Accord [PDF], put forth in Copenhagen in December, was found to contain as many paragraphs outlining the payment of “climate debt” reparations by Western nations under the watchful eye of a U.N.-controlled global government as it did emission reduction schemes.

Then again, neither stratagem should come as any real surprise to those who’ve paid attention. Here’s a recap for those who have, and a long-overdue wake-up call for those who haven’t. … [more]

7 Feb 2010, 2:19pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

At Least 2 Dead, 7 Hurt in Connecticut Blast

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and JOSEPH BERGER, NY Times, February 7, 2010 [here]

A massive gas explosion Sunday rocked a power plant under construction in Middletown, Conn., where more than 50 people were working, setting off tremors that were felt miles away. Early reports indicated that at least two people were killed and 12 injured, according to authorities.

Al Santostefano, the Middletown deputy fire marshal, said the explosion, at about 11:25 a.,m., occurred as workers at the nearly completed Kleen Energy Systems generating plant were trying to suck natural gas out of the plant’s pipes, a procedure known as a “blow down.” He said the explosion and the resulting fire was contained to a single building known as the Power Block. …

State Representative Matt Lesser, who represents a district adjacent to the plant site and lives a little over a mile from it , said he was enjoying a morning cup of coffee when he felt his apartment building shake. …

The 620-megawatt plant on the Connecticut River was to have been both gas- and oil-fired. According to a report about the project’s financing, construction began in February 2008 and was scheduled to be completed this November.

Mr. Lesser said the project was being built on the top of a hill on an old feldspar quarry. He said that the facility was due to go into operation this spring and that tests were being conducted in preparation for that. Mr. Lesser added that the cost of the project — which he said had been delayed “due to a number of regulatory hurdles” — was about $1 billion. … [more]

RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC

By David Freddoso, Washington Examiner, 12/21/09 [here]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

… [more, with a snowstorm of comments]

6 Feb 2010, 11:59pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

The global warming guerrillas

by Matt Ridley, The Spectator, Wednesday, 3rd February 2010 [here]

Journalists are wont to moan that the slow death of newspapers will mean a disastrous loss of investigative reporting. The web is all very well, they say, but who will pay for the tenacious sniffing newshounds to flush out the real story? ‘Climategate’ proves the opposite to be true. It was amateur bloggers who scented the exaggerations, distortions and corruptions in the climate establishment; whereas newspaper reporters, even after the scandal broke, played poodle to their sources.

It was not Private Eye, or the BBC or the News of the World, but a retired electrical engineer in Northampton, David Holland, whose freedom-of-information requests caused the Climategate scientists to break the law, according to the Information Commissioner. By contrast, it has so far attracted little attention that the leaked emails of Climategate include messages from reporters obsequiously seeking ammunition against the sceptics. Other emails have shown reporters meekly changing headlines to suit green activists, or being threatened with ostracism for even reporting the existence of a sceptical angle: ‘Your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists,’ one normally alarmist reporter was told last year when he slipped briefly off message. ‘I sense that you are about to experience the “Big Cutoff” from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.’

So used are greens to sycophancy in the television studios that when they occasionally encounter even slightly hard questions they are outraged. Peter Sissons of the BBC: ‘I pointed out to [Caroline Lucas of the Green party] that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment. We were having a particularly cold winter, even though carbon emissions were increasing. Indeed, there had been no warming for ten years, contradicting all the alarming computer predictions… Miss Lucas told me angrily that it was disgraceful that the BBC — the BBC! — should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views.’ …

Contrast [that] with wattsupwiththat.com, a site founded in November 2006 by a former Californian television weather forecaster named Anthony Watts. Dedicated at first to getting people to photograph weather stations to discover how poorly sited many of them are, the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians. … [more]

6 Feb 2010, 3:57pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

And now for Africagate

by Dr. Richard North, EU Referendum, February 07, 2010 [here]

Following an investigation by this blog (and with the story also told in The Sunday Times), another major “mistake” in the IPCC’s benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.

Similar in effect to the erroneous “2035″ claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.

At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.

Unlike the glacier claim, which was confined to a section of the technical Working Group II report, this “50 percent by 2020″ claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri. It has been repeated by him in many public fora. He, therefore, bears a personal responsibility for the error.

In this lengthy post, we examine the nature and background of this latest debacle, which is now under investigation by IPCC scientists and officials. … [more]

For a view on the alleged effects of alleged global warming on the Sahara at complete odds with the IPCC, see:

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

James Owen, National Geographic News, July 31, 2009 [here]

Desertification, drought, and despair—that’s what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.

Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.

Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.

This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago. … [more]

6 Feb 2010, 1:47pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Systemic Failure: Invasion of the Drama Queens

by Donna Laframboise, No Frakking Consensus, Feb. 6, 2010 [here]

I love the boys over at Climate-Resistance.org because they’re big-picture thinkers. Their analysis emphasizes the ethical, philosophical, and political aspects of the climate discussion.

This week they’ve been saying that replacing Rajendra Pachauri as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) won’t solve our problems. Personally, I think he needs to go. But it’s true we’d be having a totally different discussion had numerous parties not failed us.

You have to be a bit of a drama queen to interpret a few degrees increase in temperature over the span of a century as a catastrophe. The fact that this mindset has been adopted by so many people means the failure has been systemic.

Let’s look at those who are now tainted by their support for the outrageously flawed 2007 IPCC climate report:

The United Nations, the wicked stepmother of this sad story. The IPCC is a United Nations creation. But it has no conflict-of-interest guidelines. It has no checks-and-balances to prevent its hijacking by special interests. It is also exempt from the sort of Freedom of Information provisions now commonplace in democratic nations. In other words, it lacks accountability and is structurally a disaster.

The Nobel Peace Prize committee, which devalued its most precious resource. The Nobel committee bestowed its seal of approval jointly on the IPCC and Al Gore - even though there are significant discrepancies between what the IPCC says will happen and what Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, dramatically implies. Now that the government of India has established its own climate body, and the government of the Netherlands says the IPCC got basic facts wrong (regarding the percentage of its country that falls below sea level), the Nobel prize has never seemed more tarnished.

NASA, supposedly a purveyor of scientifically-sound info. Until late January of this year, NASA parroted on its website the absurd IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by the 2030s. According to Jeffrey Kargel, at the University of Arizona, this statement “was just so wrong it wasn’t worth discussing.” Surely the question needs to be asked: if NASA is clueless about such matters, why should we pay attention to anything it says about climate change going forward? … [more]

6 Feb 2010, 1:13am
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Disclosing the Real Risks on Climate Change

by Paul Driessen. Townhall.com, February 6, 2010 [here]

We are not weighing in on the climate debate. We are not opining on whether the world’s climate is changing, at what pace or due to what causes, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Shapiro insisted on announcing the SEC’s new “interpretive guidance” on climate change.

The Commission’s two Republican members objected that the Obama Administration was using the Commission to promote its global warming and renewable energy agenda (along with the EPA, NASA, Defense and Interior Departments and others). It’s true, but irrelevant. …

Investors certainly do have a “fundamental right to know” which companies are well positioned to address future crises and opportunities, and which are not – as we are frequently reminded by activist investor groups like Institutional Shareholder Services and CALPERS. However, these groups want to use the SEC decision to drive cap-and-trade laws and “endangerment” rulings forward, and drive hydrocarbon use and users into oblivion.

Many companies have been cowed into going along with this agenda. They seek to gain “a seat at the negotiating table,” curry favorable PR through “greenwashing” and “green-nosing,” protect themselves against lawsuits over CO2 emissions and global warming, or profit from renewable energy mandates, subsidies and stimulus grants.

But the “right to know” extends far beyond the activists’ narrow agenda. Indeed the lesson may be that this SEC guidance offers a tremendous opportunity for any company or investor wise enough to seize it. For the new guidance does not say companies must disclose only alleged risks from climate change.

It says they should also address impacts from legislation, regulation, international accords and their effects on business trends. This creates valuable opportunities for educating investors, customers, employees and voters about climate change issues. …

Carbon emissions trading on the Chicago Climate Exchange began at $1 per metric ton in January 2004. Prices then fluctuated wildly, reaching a $7 peak value in May 2008, before crashing to $0.10 in October 2009. Speculators who entered the carbon market on 5/30/08 lost 98.6% of their investment.

Investors have right to know all of this. That’s where the SEC guidance offers vital opportunities for intelligent investors and socially responsible companies. They should carefully consider how to comply with the Commission’s ruling in the areas it has identified. …

It is becoming increasingly clear that the real risks to businesses, investors, employees, and low-income, minority and elderly families are not due to climate change. They are the result of policies enacted in the name of preventing climate change. The SEC guidance can help identify risks and opportunities – and advise people about them in a timely, accurate, responsible manner. Socially responsible companies will seize the opportunity.

NAFO Urges Congress to Expand Use of Forest Biomass for Biofuels

Changes in the law needed to fully implement the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard

National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO), February 5th, 2010 [here]

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) today praised the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its efforts to include forest biomass as a source of transportation fuels in its final rule implementing the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, and called upon Congress to fix the flawed definition in the Standard excluding most renewable forest biomass from the program.

David P. Tenny, President and CEO of NAFO, said, “The EPA has taken positive steps to enable forest owners to participate in the renewable transportation fuel market. Unfortunately, the agency’s hands are tied under a statutory definition of biomass disqualifying as much as 90% of our nation’s private forests from contributing. This policy forfeits the carbon benefits of transportation fuels made from renewable forest biomass, which reduce carbon emissions by over ninety percent compared to gasoline.” … [more]

Federal agency denies endangered species protections for tiny pika

By The Associated Press, Oregon Live, February 04, 2010, [here]

SALT LAKE CITY — Climate change might be hurting some populations of the American pika, a relative of the rabbit, but not enough to warrant endangered species protection for the tiny mountain-dwelling animal, according to a decision released Thursday.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service posted a copy of its decision on a federal Web site stating that while some pika populations in the West are declining, others are not, so it would not extend Endangered Species Act protections.

If they had been allowed, the pika would have been the first animal in the continental United States listed because of the effects of global warming.

Although potentially vulnerable to climate change in some parts of its range, pikas will have enough high-elevation habitat to survive, the agency said.

“We acknowledge there is going to be some decline at some locations, but the pika is widespread enough, across a range of habitat, that it appears it would not threaten the long-term survival and existence of the species,” Larry Crist, supervisor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Utah, said Thursday afternoon.

Greg Loarie, an Earthjustice attorney who worked on lawsuits pressing for protections for the pika, said science clearly points toward dramatic reductions in pika populations in the coming decades because of warming temperatures.

“To conclude this species is not threatened by climate change strikes me as an impossible gamble,” Loarie said. … [more]

No Greg, it’s common sense. The “science” you are relying on is claptrap.

5 Feb 2010, 11:13pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Critics: Emissions Bill Would Cripple Businesses

KOAT-7 News, February 5, 2010, [here]

SANTA FE, N.M. — Critics of legislation that would lay the groundwork in New Mexico for a future regional or federal cap-and-trade program are pleading with state lawmakers not to pass the measure.

They contend it would cripple businesses, shutter the state’s coal-fired power plants and lead to expensive utility bills for residents.

Officials with the New Mexico Environment Department and supporters of the measure dismissed the concerns during a hearing Friday before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They say the bill would not establish any cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

The legislation would allow state regulators to establish rules for early emissions reduction credits and voluntary offsets in preparation for a cap-and-trade program. It would also require emissions reporting for electricity imported to New Mexico.

5 Feb 2010, 11:07pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
1 comment

Too Little, Too Late on Renewable Energy Subsidies

The Rogue Pundit, Feb. 5, 2010 [here]

Most of the job creation under Governor Kulongoski has come via government spending, mandates, and subsidies. Meanwhile, Oregon is hemorrhaging the types of jobs needed to pay for those subsidies. But now that enough Democrats finally realize that energy subsidies are significantly cutting into government union jobs, it’s time to cut start curbing the subsidies [here].

Big wind energy projects no longer need state incentives, Gov. Ted Kulongoski said today, as lawmakers explored a plan to rein in the soaring costs of Oregon’s tax breaks for green energy.

At a meeting with newspaper editors from across the state, Kulongoski said the $11 million in state tax credits routinely given to 10 megawatt-plus wind farms has “run its course.”

“Do they need the state to subsidize them? No,” Kulongoski said.

They never did, and he knows it. Investing in wind and solar power raises the cost of energy, which slows the economy and causes a net decrease in jobs. The critical metric is not job creation but whether more jobs are created than destroyed. Why do so many politicians project ignorance of such basic economics? Here in Oregon, the reasons tend to be catastrophism and careerism.

- The governor and a few allies pushed the program because they’ve fallen for the exaggerations surrounding climate change. They’re so concerned that they’re willing to waste our money but rarely to change their own carbon-wasting lifestyles. Hypocrites.

- Many others supported the program because appearing green-and receiving green from those seeking subsidies-could help get them and keep them elected. Meanwhile, how many government employees who’ve been involved with the subsidies in any way now have jobs with companies that have benefited from the subsidies?

Politicians and other government employees who put careerism ahead of public service deserve to join the ranks of the unemployed. Politicians who approve spending plans which don’t place caps on things like subsidies are fiscally irresponsible and deserve to be unemployed. … [more]

2 Feb 2010, 11:16am
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Enviro group: US must respond to coral concerns

By DAVID McFADDEN, Washington Post, January 20, 2010 [here]

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A U.S. conservation group announced Wednesday it would sue the federal government to force a decision on whether to protect 83 coral species it says are threatened by global warming and more acidic waters.

The Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity has sent notification of its intention to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service because the U.S. agency missed a deadline for an endangered species listing decision for dozens of coral species. A 60-day notification letter is required before a suit can be field.

Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the corals, found in Florida, Hawaii and island territories in the Caribbean and Pacific, face a growing threat of extinction from rising ocean temperatures.

“Timing is of the essence to reverse the tragic decline of these vitally important reefs,” Sakashita said. “We can’t afford any delays in protecting corals under the Endangered Species Act.”

Connie Barclay, a spokeswoman for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said Wednesday that agency scientists are working on the conservation group’s petition to put 83 coral species on the endangered species list. They hope to publish their findings in the next two weeks. … [more]

Note: Miyoko evidently hasn’t heard that AGW is dead, the oceans are alkali, and coral is not going extinct. But EAJA money is all that’s keeping the CBD afloat in these tough economic times, so might as well throw some junk lawsuits up against the wall and see if any of them stick.

 
  
  • For the benefit of the interested general public, W.I.S.E. herein presents news clippings from other media outlets. Please be advised: a posting here does not necessarily constitute or imply W.I.S.E. agreement with or endorsement of any of the content or sources.
  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent News Clippings

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta