You are on page 1of 5

28 February 2015

In the News
Five Reasons the Polar Bears Are Doing Fine
Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 27 February 2015
Sorry EPA, Theres No Evidence You Care about Reliability
Daniel Simmons, Institute for Energy Research, 26 February 2015
Sharon Stone Is Being Sued for Skipping an Anti-Chevron Protest
Paul Barrett, Bloomberg, 26 February 2015
Global Warming: Follow the Money (on the NY Times Attack on Willie Soon)
Henry Payne, National Review Online, 25 February 2015
The Climate Debate: Ad Hominem Will Just Not Do
Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, 24 February 2015
Cap-and-Trade Is Alive and WellDespite Having Never Passed Congress
Seton Motley, PJ Tattler, 24 February 2015
Australias Wind Market Deflates
David Kreutzer, Washington Times, 23 February 2015
California Governor Brown Tied to Scandal That Took Down Oregon Governor
Katy Grimes, Flash Report, 23 February 2015

News You Can Use

Exorbitant Costs of EPAs Ozone Rule
According to a study published this week by the National Association of Manufacturers, EPAs recently
proposed ozone standard would reduce U.S. GDP by $140 billion per year and $1.7 trillion from 2017 to
2040 and result in 1.4 million fewer job equivalents on average through 2040.

Science Update
Myron Ebell

New York Times Repeats Scurrilous Greenpeace Attack on Willie Soon

Without Checking the Facts
New Yorks Times republished a Greenpeace press release on the front page of its Sunday, 22nd
February edition that attacks Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for
obtaining $1.2 million in funding for his research over the last decade from energy corporations, electric
utilities, and charitable foundations related to those companies. The press release, cleverly disguised as
an article supposedly written by Times reporters Justin Gillis and John Schwartz, also claims that Dr.
Soon did not adequately disclose the sources of his funding in articles published in scientific journals.
According to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Greenpeace and its closely
affiliated so-called Climate Investigations Center, Soon received $409,000 from the Southern
Company, a major utility, and $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation to fund his
research. The Greenpeace press release as republished in the Times notes that Mr. Kochs fortune
derives partly from oil refining. Yes, and the biggest charitable foundation donor to environmental
pressure groups is the Pew Charitable Trusts, which was founded on the Pew familys Sun Oil Company
earnings. Other major givers to green groups are the various Rockefeller foundations, which are based
on earnings from Standard Oil (of which Exxon Mobil and Chevron are among the many successor
companies). So whats Greenpeaces point? And everyone knows that scientists who accept funding
from the EPA are never influenced by the source of their funding. Thats why the EPA funds so much
research that contradicts its policies. Right?
I have known Willie Soon for about fifteen years. I respect him highly, particularly for the great integrity
he has shown in pursuing his politically incorrect research under scurrilous attacks like the one reprinted
in the NY Times. If Willie valued money over science, he would have joined the Global Warming Pep
Squad long ago.
For the rest of my take on the New York Timess disgraceful hit piece, see this post on global

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

House Democrat Joins in Witch Hunt Started by Greenpeace-Times Hit

on Willie Soon
Representative Raul Grijalva (D-Az.), ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee,
quickly followed up on the Greenpeace-New York Timess hit piece on Willie Soon (see above), with
letters to the presidents of seven universities asking them to provide details about seven professors who
are either prominent global warming skeptics or are not sufficiently loyal to every doctrine in the
alarmist canon. The letters were sent to MIT (concerning Richard Lindzen), Alabama (John Christy),

Delaware (David Legates), Georgia Tech (Judith Curry), Arizona State (Robert Balling), Colorado (Roger
Pielke, Jr.), and Pepperdine (Steven Hayward).
Grijalva asks for a lot of information for each targeted professor: all drafts of testimony to government
bodies; communications regarding that testimony; all sources and amounts of external funding;
communications regarding that funding; all financial disclosure forms filed; and total annual
compensation paid by the university.
I was heartened to see that the American Meteorological Association quickly sent a letter of complaint
to Rep. Grijalva. AMS Executive Director Keith L Seitter wrote:
Despite its commitment to transparency and full disclosure within the scientific process, the
AMS is concerned by the Letters to Seven Universities Asking for Documents on Climate Change
Research. Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have
expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources and thereby
questioning their scientific integrity sends a chilling message to all academic researchers.
Further, requesting copies of the researchers communications related to external funding
opportunities or the preparation of testimony impinges on the free pursuit of ideas that is
central to the concept of academic freedom.
Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., a political scientist who accepts the so-called consensus view on global
warming and supports a carbon tax and the EPAs greenhouse gas regulations, but whose research has
shown that the costs of natural disasters have not increased as a result of global warming, stated on his
I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have.
Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I
have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty
that this investigation is a politically-motivated witch hunt designed to intimidate me (and
others) and to smear my name.
But then Pielke, Jr., declares surrender:
The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my
academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers
on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full
professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me Ill be just fine as there are plenty of
interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I cant imagine the message
being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: when people are producing work in line with
the scientific consensus theres no reason to go on a witch hunt. When witch hunts are
deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just
another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and

Markey, Boxer, and Whitehouse Join Witch Hunt with Letters to 100
Companies and Organizations About Funding Climate Deniers
Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) on 25th
February sent letters to 107 companies, trade associations, and non-profit groups demanding
comprehensive information about all funding of research on climate or related issues over the last ten
years. I am proud to say that several members of the Cooler Heads Coalition, including the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, the American Legislative
Exchange Council, the American Energy Alliance, Americans for Prosperity, and the John Locke
Foundation, were on the honorable Senators hit list.
There were some glaring omissions, however. I wont list them because their feelings have already been
hurt enough.
Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee quickly responded to the MarkeyBoxer-Whitehouse stunt. Led by Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), all eleven Republican members of
the committee sent a letter on 27th February to all 100 targets plus the seven universities that received
a similar letter from Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Az.). The Republican Senators wrote:
Dissenting opinions fostered through the encouragement of all ideas is what truly facilitates intellectual
prosperity and political discourse. The letter you received from our colleagues is a wholly inappropriate
effort to challenge these well-accepted truths. We ask you to not be afraid of political repercussions or
public attacks regardless of how you respond. Above all, we ask that you continue to support scientific
inquiry and discovery, and protect academic freedom despite efforts to chill free speech.

EPA Administrator McCarthy Dissembles through Two House Hearings

on EPA FY 2016 Budget
William Yeatman
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified twice this week before the House of Representatives about
her agencys FY 2016 budget. On Wednesday, she appeared on a joint panel of two Energy and
Commerce subcommittees, and on Thursday she took questions before an Appropriations
subcommittee. As I explain here on, Administrator McCarthy relied on a number of
tricksincluding liesto deflect tough questions.

Around the World

Myron Ebell

Pachauri Resigns as IPCC Chairman After Sexual Harassment Charges


Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri resigned as chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on
24th February, four days after allegations of sexual harassment were published in India.
The allegations were made by a 29-year-old woman who works as a research analyst at The Energy and
Resources Institute (TERI) in New Delhi, which the 75-year-old Pachauri also heads. Indian police are
investigating the complaint. The accusers name has been withheld by the police. Her attorney filed a
motion to have Dr. Pachauris diplomatic passport seized so that he cannot leave the country while the
investigation proceeds.
The complaint states that Pachauris harassment included unwanted e-mails and text messages of a
sexual and personal nature. Besides heading two prestigious organizations, Pachauri is the author of
several soft-porn romances published in India. Dr. Pachauri has denied the allegations and has claimed
that his e-mail and cell phone were hacked and the offending messages sent by the hacker.
Bob Ward, the flack for a propaganda institute at the London School of Economics, was quick to preemptively accuse climate skeptics of taking advantage of the scandal. The Guardian quoted Ward:
There will no doubt be some climate change sceptics who seek to use Dr Pachauris resignation as an
opportunity to attack the IPCC [but its most recent report] is the most comprehensive and authoritative
assessment of the causes and potential consequences of climate change that we have ever had, and that
remains true with or without Dr Pachauri as chair.
A court has granted Pachauri anticipatory bail, which protects him from arrest until 27th March.
Dr. Pachauri is regularly described by the mainstream media as one of the worlds leading climate
scientists. He is in fact a railway engineer and railway economist. He was elected chairman of the IPCC
in 2002 over the incumbent Bob Watson and then re-elected unopposed in 2008. His current term
expires in October, and he had already declared that he would not seek a third term.
The Guardian reported that the leading candidates to succeed him in the October election are Prof.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele from Belgium, Prof. Thomas Stocker from Switzerland, and Prof. Chris Field
from the US. Other candidates may include Prof Nebojsa Nakicenovic from Austria, South Koreas
Hoesung Lee, and the German economist Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer.