Senate's top climate skeptic turns up heat on media

Sen. James Inhofe -- who calls human-induced climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind" -- is using his chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to spank journalists who fail to give equal time to global-warming skeptics. The Oklahoma Republican has used interviews and press releases to question the objectivity of reporters who cover climate issues. Two recent targets are former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw and Associated Press science reporter Seth Borenstein. Inhofe called Brokaw "a pawn of the Democratic Party" for keeping skeptics out of his recent Discovery Channel documentary. And Inhofe challenged Borenstein's article that asked more than 100 scientists for their views on former Vice President Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," for not including Gore's critics.

A 71-year old former insurance executive, Inhofe has never been shy about confronting climate scientists, environmentalists, Hollywood producers and fellow senators. But in setting his sights on the press, Inhofe appears to be incorporating a strategy hatched by the committee's new communications director, Marc Morano.

As a reporter for the conservative Cybercast News Service from 2001 until earlier this year, Morano peppered his climate reporting with skeptics' views that have surfaced as themes in Inhofe's recent press attacks. Earlier this year, for example, Morano wrote about NASA scientist James Hansen's contributions to the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.). Inhofe's press release questions why Brokaw failed to mention the political ties of Hansen and other scientists interviewed for the Discovery report.

During the 2004 United Nations conference in Buenos Aires, Morano wrote how environmental activists chastised him for asking skeptical questions about science during a session on global warming's effects on inhabitants of the Arctic Circle. Inhofe's release challenging the Associated Press included a demand for a list of the skeptics who the news service contacted to review Gore's film.

Morano, who worked as a producer in the mid-90s for radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, was also among the first reporters to write about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign scrutinizing Kerry's Vietnam War record. And earlier this year, Morano penned an article questioning the Purple Heart medals of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

In an interview, Morano said Inhofe's latest statements target journalists because they have focused so heavily on the effects of global warming when the science is still open for debate. "The media has essentially white-washed the whole issue," Morano said. "There has been a love fest in the media on this." Morano insisted the press does not give a fair shake to skeptics, particularly news organizations with reporters who he says have a financial stake in the issue. For example, he questioned The New York Times' coverage of climate since one of its science reporter, Andrew Revkin, has written a book on the effects of global warming on the North Pole. Sales of Revkin's book, Morano argued, would be enhanced by his paper's coverage of climate. "We're not just shooting arrows," Morano said.

Intimidation factor?

Inhofe's critics question the propriety of the efforts of the committee's chairman and communications director and wonder if it will have any effect on press coverage and public understanding of climate change. Some journalism professors say Inhofe's goal might be to intimidate reporters and editors, particularly in smaller markets that rely on the Associated Press for Washington coverage. This, they say, could damage the public's understanding of the issue at a time when scientific evidence of global warming is growing. "It strikes me that the public relations people for Senator Inhofe are trying to distract the media by attacking the media for fairly reporting what the vast majority of scientists are reporting," said Jim Detjen, director of the Knight Center for Environmental Journalism at Michigan State University. "It's a last ditch effort to now attack the journalists," Detjen added. "I really believe it's nonsense."

Dan Fagin, a former Newsday environmental reporter who now teaches journalism at New York University, said he did not think Inhofe's criticism would affect Brokaw or his reputation. But he said the attacks on the Associated Press might convince some small newspapers and radio and television stations against running the wire service's stories on climate issues rather than wrestle with a Senate committee chairman. Fagin also suggested Inhofe might be attacking the press to toss red meat to conservative activists before midterm elections. "It's about ginning up the base," he said. "That kind of character assassination goes a long way on both counts. It's reprehensive, but it's a very effective political strategy."

Detjen likened Inhofe's efforts to other historical events where politicians have taken aim at the media, from President Teddy Roosevelt dubbing investigative reporters "muckrakers" to former President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew's condemnation of the press in the wake of the Watergate break-in. Media criticism has escalated during President Bush's time in the Oval Office amid news reports of several controversial secret domestic surveillance programs.

The Discovery Channel did not return calls for comment on Brokaw's report. The Associated Press, in a prepared statement, said Inhofe wrongly characterized Borenstein's article. The AP contacted more than 100 climate researchers, including skeptics. But it only quoted the scientists who said they had seen the movie or read the book, which turned out to be a far smaller number than those it surveyed. Generally, the AP said scientists were "positive toward Gore's scientific presentation." "The AP story reported facts," said Linda Wagner, director of AP media relations. "It did not take a position in a debate, whether political or scientific, about global warming."

Inhofe endorsed his press office's work and shrugged off a question over whether he was trying to intimidate reporters. "What are you talking about?" Inhofe said. "The media is 100 percent on the other side."

Outflanking Bush

Inhofe's drive to attack climate skeptics comes as the European Union and much of the industrialized world head full bore into implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the only mandatory program in the world aimed at mitigating rising greenhouse gas levels. And Inhofe's views on climate also run to the right flank of President Bush, who in 2001 pulled the United States out of Kyoto but has said he would address the global warming issue through voluntary programs and more funding for research and technological development.

David Sandretti, communications director for the environment committee's ranking member, Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), hesitated to discuss Inhofe's motivations for the press releases. "I'm not going to get into commenting on whether the tactic is appropriate," he said. "Clearly, the chairman's press release does not reflect the ranking member's opinion on the topic nor any of the Democrats on the committee." One of the committee's moderate Republicans, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), said today he disagrees with Inhofe on the science of global warming, but he expressed support for the chairman's right to say whatever he wants. "It's America," Chafee said in an interview. Asked if Inhofe's moves were a waste of taxpayer money, Chafee replied, "He's elected by the people. If his constituents think it's a waste of taxpayer dollars, they can make a change."

One former Hill Republican aide said Inhofe's latest attacks are nothing new. "Give the guy some credit for integrity is my reaction," the former staffer said. "This is consistent with his position on the issue," the aide continued. "I don't think it's necessary to look for ulterior motive. His motives couldn't be more apparent." Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, said Inhofe's outrage could be a sign that the policy argument is entering a new phase -- one in which environmentalists may also start lashing out if they do not think the developing policy is strong enough. "When you have a debate like this that has been so forcefully engaged for a decade, before it moves to a point of constructive resolution, the last months before that are likely to be marked with peels of anger along the edges," Grumet said. "Maybe this is a sign we're getting close."

Another former Republican Hill aide who disagrees with Inhofe said skeptics have a right to speak out. But the aide added, "There's ways of making your case and there are ways of making your case. I'm not sure attacking the mainstream media is the way to go. "It's counterproductive," the former staffer added. "It's more based on personality and affiliation than it is on the science."

From "Greenwire" of 19th.






Judge Halts Water Project Due to Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

I guess I hardly need to point out that this gives the Greenies a licence to stop anything. One of them has just got to say that he has "sighted" someting rare and that's it! No proof of anything needed

A federal judge temporarily stopped construction on a $320 million irrigation project Thursday, ruling the changes could disturb the habitat of a woodpecker that might or might not be extinct. The first purported sighting of the ivory-billed woodpecker in the area was in 2004, but more than 100 volunteers and researchers who spent weeks last winter trying to find conclusive evidence of its existence came back empty-handed.

Still, U.S. District Judge William R. Wilson said that, for purposes of the lawsuit brought by environmental groups, he had to presume the woodpecker exists in the area. Federal agencies may have violated the Endangered Species Act by not studying the habitat fully, he said. "When an endangered species is allegedly jeopardized, the balance of hardships and public interest tips in favor of the protected species. Here there is evidence," he wrote, that the ivory-billed woodpecker may be jeopardized.

The National Wildlife Federation and the Arkansas Wildlife Federation had sued the Army Corps of Engineers, arguing that the project would kill trees that house the birds and that noise from a pumping station would cause them stress. The last confirmed sighting of the woodpecker in North America was in 1944, and scientists had thought the species was extinct until a kayaker said he saw one in early 2004 near the White River in the big woods of eastern Arkansas. The report caused a sensation in scientific circles and has attracted people from all over the world who hope to see the bird. Ornithologists caught on tape a flicker of what they believed was the bird but announced this year they couldn't prove conclusively that the woodpecker still lives.

The Army Corps of Engineers began building the Grand Prairie Irrigation Project last year, about 14 miles from where the bird was reportedly spotted. Aquifers beneath eastern Arkansas soybean, cotton and rice fields are being depleted, and a federal court in a separate case last year said that the main aquifer used for farming will be depleted by 2015 if water isn't conserved and that the region would suffer significant economic hardship if it ran dry. Workers have already started on a pump station to draw 158 billion gallons from the White River per year. A Justice Department lawyer said this year that a one-month delay would cost the Corps as much as $264,000, and that a six-month wait would cost $3 million.

The judge on Thursday said the Corps and the Interior Department must conduct further studies before proceeding. The agencies must evaluate any ivory-bill nests and forage sites within 2® miles of the construction project. They also must identify and inspect for nesting, roosting and foraging all trees a foot or more across in the areas to be affected by eventual changes in water levels, Wilson said. The Corps had conducted a study showing the project would not significantly harm the woodpecker's habitat, but the environmental groups suing it said the study was too narrow and did not comply with the Endangered Species Act.

Source






A wetlands victory (for now)

At the age of 70, John Rapanos has finally ended his 18-year battle with state and federal environmental regulators, and has come out on the winning end when the US Supreme Court ruled in his favor on June 19, 2006. Much was at stake for Mr. Rapanos, who faced a conviction of 63 months in a federal penitentiary and approximately $13 million dollars in civil and criminal penalties. This 12-year litigation tale begins when Mr. Rapanos decided to start moving some sand. Mr. Rapanos owned 175 acres of land that he wanted to sell to a developer. In order to make the property more marketable, he decided to fill his property with sand so that it would be fit for development. Fifty-four acres of his property constituted "wetlands," described in the majority opinion as "land with sometimes-saturated soil conditions."

A consultant hired by Mr. Rapanos informed him that he did indeed have wetlands property that would be subject to regulation by state and federal enforcement; Mr. Rapanos, a petulant man, threatened the consultant and thereafter refused further inspection from state officials (interestingly, despite the lack of a warrant these state officials nevertheless trespassed on Mr. Rapanos's property after being denied access by him). Because of his uncooperativeness, the state officials contacted the Environmental Protection Agency, which thereafter claimed jurisdiction over his property under the Clean Water Act (CWA), preventing him from filling his wetlands under threat of civil and criminal action. The US Army Corps of Engineers, the governmental body determining which property is subject to the CWA, promptly invoked their authority once Mr. Rapanos refused to seek a permit and proceeded to fill his property with sand.

Writing for the majority on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia is quick to point out that the costs in obtaining a permit are not slight: "The average applicant for an individual permit spends 788 days and $271,596 in completing the process, and the average applicant for a nationwide permit spends 313 days and $28,915 - not counting costs of mitigation or design changes." Overall, more than $1.7 billion is spent each year by both private and public sectors in efforts to obtain wetlands permits. Mr. Rapanos's stubbornness culminated in a guilty verdict for various CWA violations, and a criminal sentence that the federal district court judge was loath to enforce.

At his sentencing hearing on March 15, 2005, the prosecution implored the court for a sentence of 63 months for Mr. Rapanos. Judge Zatkoff made a lucid comparison to one of the most notorious water pollution disasters in American history: the Exxon-Valdez oil spill that dumped 10.8 million gallons of crude oil in Alaskan waters, killing thousands of animals and crippling the local fishing industry. In that case, the drunken captain that caused the wreck was sentenced to serve 1,000 hours of community service in the course of 5 years - with no prison time or fine. In contrast, Mr. Rapanos's act of filling his land with sand caused no harm to the public in any appreciable sense. Moreover, his act of filling the land with sand was not polluting anything; the sand is meant (and does) "fill" and stick to the land in order to pave the way for development on the property. In light of this, Judge Zatkoff fined Mr. Rapanos $185,000 and sentenced him to 3 years of probation that was treated as time served. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Zatkoff's downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Judge Zatkoff, who is otherwise known for a strict sentencing policy, nevertheless stood his ground:

I don't know if it's just a coincidence that the case that I just sentenced prior to this case has come into this court, that was the case of Mr. Gonzalez, who was a person selling dope on the streets of the United States. He is an illegal person here. He's a citizen of Cuba, not an American citizen. He has a prior criminal record..

So here we have a person who comes to the United States and commits crimes of selling dope and the government asks me to put him in prison for ten months. And then we have an American citizen who buys land, pays for it with his own money, and he moves some sand from one end to the other and government wants me to give him sixty-three months in prison. Now, if that isn't our system gone crazy, I don't know what is. And I am not going to do it.

Why this fervor to punish a 70 year old man? Appalled at the state's trespass of Mr. Rapanos's property, and the subsequent witch hunt by the Corps, Judge Zatkoff explained that "we have a very disagreeable person who insists on his constitutional rights. And this is the kind of person that the Constitution was passed to protect."

Before the case was heard before the Supreme Court, Mr. Rapanos amassed support from the general public and various special interest groups that sought to curb the Corps's regulation-wielding authority. Indeed, Mr. Rapanos did not just have the support of average American citizens and special interest groups. As Pacific Legal Foundation notes, "Groups representing hundreds of government agencies that provide clean water for tens of millions of Americans are supporting Mr. Rapanos. Supporters include the largest urban water district in the nation, the largest coalition of public water agencies in the nation, and a coalition of water agencies that provide clean water to more than 30 million citizens in six states in the Western United States."

Although triumphant, Mr. Rapanos's victory at the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the state agents' unconstitutional trespass on his property. The issue before the Supreme Court was simply whether the Corps's exercise of jurisdiction was permissible under the Clean Water Act. The 5-4 majority determined that it was not.

The CWA makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutants (including sand) into navigable waters. "Navigable waters" are defined as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." The Corps enjoys expanded jurisdiction over wetlands because the transition from water to solid ground is not abrupt, thus all wetlands adjoining a navigable waterway were subject to the Corps's jurisdiction. Labeling the Corps as "an enlightened despot," Justice Scalia does not mince words about the Corps's hungry desire for regulatory control over every drop of water in America.

The Corps has kept expanding its interpretation of "navigable waters" to include all forms of intrastate waters, including "storm drains, roadside ditches, ripples of sand in the dessert that may contain water once a year, and lands that are covered by floodwaters once every 100 years." At one point, the Corps even applied its authority over an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois; the Supreme Court overruled this action as an overreaching of power and found that nothing in the text of CWA authorized the Corps to assert jurisdiction.

This expansion of power came to affect Mr. Rapanos, whose saturated lands were claimed to abut navigable waterways because there were "hydrological connections" between his property and "adjacent tributaries of navigable waters." It was clear to the Supreme Court that whatever "hydrological connections" meant, it impermissibly expanded the CWA's definition of "navigable waters" at the Corps's discretion:

In applying the definition to "ephemeral streams," "wet meadows," storm sewers and culverts, "directional sheet flow during storm events," drain tiles, man-made drainage ditches, and dry arroyos in the middle of the desert, the Corps has stretched the term "waters of the United States" beyond parody.

To the Corps, Mr. Rapanos's land was clearly moist enough, and his disposition indignant enough that they felt a right to drag him through criminal and civil litigation over the course of 12 years. Mr. Rapanos's land was 20 miles away from a waterway; his 54 acres of wetlands (or "sometimes-saturated soil") were nowhere near adjacent to a stream of navigable water.

Thus, after years of battle, Mr. Rapanos has achieved victory against the regulators. But what sort of victory is it? He spent a considerable amount of time and money battling the federal government in defense of his own property. Mr. Rapanos is a new-age entrepreneur. In a regulated state, today's entrepreneur is the man or woman battling bureaucracy with their time, money, and effort that would have been better placed toward functional, capitalist ventures. Real entrepreneurs are supposed to be self-serving, willing to make capital risks on consumer demand. In contrast, today's entrepreneurs are selfless, risking their life savings and the possibility of incarceration in a federal penitentiary in order to give future entrepreneurs more room to maneuver in the stranglehold of regulatory policies.

The Supreme Court took care to state that "the Government's expansive interpretation would result in a significant impingement of the State's traditional and primary power over land and water use." Nevertheless, the majority commented on the fact that the Corps's ever-expanded jurisdiction into wetlands was part of the environmental lobbying efforts attempting to effectuate increased protection for wetlands under the CWA. By stating that "a Comprehensive National Wetlands Protection Act is not before us, and the wisdom of such a statute is beyond our ken," the majority implies that if such an Act were before them, they would dutifully uphold the Act as constitutional.

In one sense, this reflects a pyrrhic victory for society as a whole. As soon as Congress gets the political muster and statutorily enacts protection for all the nation's wetlands, the Supreme Court will most likely uphold the Act as constitutional. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's reverence for establishing precedent always supersedes the Commerce Clause limitation binding Congress against regulating intrastate affairs. As laudable as Mr. Rapanos's victory is, the sobering reality is that there are many more individuals like him who will still be subject to the regulatory authority of the federal government, and will not have his tenacious temperament to fight for their rights in a decade-long battle.

Source







WARMING WELCOMED IN LONDON

A lot like 1911, actually

Britain's inland capital of London may be a far cry from a languorous beach resort but some of its office workers have found something that comes close enough. As temperatures soar to record highs for July, women in bikinis mingled with workers dressed both formally and casually on "City Beach" - a patch of sand imported to the heart of London's grimy East End. "This weather won't last for long so you've got to enjoy it while you can," Carolyn Baker, a 27-year-old data controller said as she sat on a deck chair on her lunch break.

Wearing a short skirt and sleeveless top, Ms Baker was among some 50 workers lounging on deckchairs or sipping drinks below parasols on the stretch of sand dotted with potted palm trees. A small crowd stood around a Brazilian-style bar of bamboo and thatch which pumped out house music and served pina coladas and cold beer. It proved to be a popular alternative to the traditional pub.

The 20-metre by 10-metre beach is just over two kilometres from the River Thames and about 48 kilometres from the nearest English seaside resort. It is surrounded by decrepit warehouses and bohemian shops. Entrepreneur Richard Lee turned this unprepossessing car park into an inland riviera four weeks ago, just in time to catch one of Britain's most intense heatwaves.

On the third day of the scorching weather, the national Meteorological Office website says the mercury has soared to 36.5 degrees Celsius at Wisley in south-east England. The previous July record was only 36 degrees Celsius, set on July 22, 1911 at Epsom, south-west of London.

"I've been really lucky with the weather," Mr Lee said. "It was a big gamble but it's paid off very well." Many of the "City Beach" sunbathers shrugged off warnings from scientists that the heat wave sweeping Europe was a result of the global warming induced by industrial activity. Grant McPherson, 26, had taken a few days off from his job as a physiotherapist and could not believe his luck at the weather. "It's great, I'm out soaking up the rays," he said. He says despite the warm weather few people will probably take a sick day off work. "Most people have already done that for the World Cup," he said.

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************