Global Warming Science:


Obama’s Government


[last update: 2011/02/23]



President Obama has said he wants to kill coal and outlaw CO2. Unfortunately he and his people are out of touch with science – since the science conflicts with the political and monetary goals they have in mind. Science is subordinate to his political goals.


The US CO2 emissions have decreased since 2007 (but Obama hasn’t noticed).

See: United States – Confused:


His stimulus push for wind energy is creating foreign jobs for an unreliable energy source.

See: Wind Energy:



Republican Congress tries to rein in the EPA:



This document contains sections on:



On April 27, 2009, Obama addressed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) at its 146th annual meeting in Washington, D.C. In his speech he said “Under my administration, the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over.” []. What a liar.


See also: 100 prominent scientists sign letter to Obama, disagreeing with his stance on global warming:


  • Obama: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.


  • The Scientists: “Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”




Senator John Kerry introduced cap and trade legislation that would provide foreign aid and reduce the deficit on the backs of American consumers.



On Nov 10, 2009, Kerry brought UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, to address US senators. “A joint meeting between the UN Secretary-General and a group of US senators leaves hope of a US climate framework to be adopted before the Copenhagen conference, thus paving the way for a global deal. Although the US Senate is unlikely to pass a regular climate bill before the December climate change conference in Copenhagen, it is likely that the Senate can agree on a framework before the meeting. … Ban said he was encouraged by his day-long trip to Washington, describing a Senate framework as "quite important and useful for us to get this negotiation started" and "as a very strong political message and as a sign of commitment on the part of the United States" []




Rep Ed Markey (D-Mass), coauthor of the Waxman Markey cap-and-trade bill that passed the House, demonstrates his ignorance of science on CNN’s Situation Room.



The House “Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming” is chaired by Rep. Edward Markey (D – Mass.)





Washington State Senators (both Democratic) Cantwell and Murray are clueless when it comes to science.



Washington’s Cantwell (D) and Maine’s Collins (R) have created a “bipartisan” attempt at cap-n-tax.





Washington State Government Representative (Democratic) Brian Baird is confused. In an interview with Grist he says: “the quickest way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to save consumers money, lower the deficit, and improve the environment is to begin to save energy … People say, "I like long, hot showers." I understand that. Do you like passing $1.3 trillion in debt on to your kids? Do you like having them possibly enlisted in wars to go fight for foreign oil? So long hot showers caused the government deficit and Baird thinks that domestic hot water is heated with foreign oil. Ignorance reigns supreme with these idiots.




Wisconsin State (Democratic Governor) Jim Doyle produced a ridiculous bill (AB 649).








Dateline Dec 18, 2009: Obama said “We agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, and importantly, to take action to meet this objective consistent with science.” []

Obama said: “if we could set up a financing mechanism to help those countries that are most vulnerable, like Bangladesh” The following figure shows the average annual temperature anomalies for all the stations in the CRU database for Bangladesh.



Or maybe it’s sea level that makes Bangladesh extremely vulnerable – oops sea level remains unchanged over the last 30 years (the closest station to Bangladesh is shown below from




See: for Obama’s speech to the UN FCCC COP15 conference and his continuing dismal (but ideological) knowledge of science.


Dateline Nov 26, 2009: “The White House said yesterday that President Obama will attend international climate talks next month in Copenhagen and commit the United States to a specific short-term target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, providing new momentum for negotiations that had been faltering. Obama will travel to the Danish capital on Dec. 9, one day before he visits nearby Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.” []




Obama Is Out of Touch with Science and the People



Update 6/23/2009: Obama shows his grasp of science and the CO2 issue: "At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe(from “Obama urges Congress to move swiftly on climate change bill” [])



President Obama wants CO2 declared to be a danger to the public. He wants Congress to draft and pass legislation that would cut greenhouse gases by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, threatening to use authority under the Clean Air Act if legislators don't move fast enough or create strong enough provisions. Obama wants a CO2 cap-and-trade system put in place with “an economy-wide law - instead of just some major emitting sectors - and to auction off 100% of the emission credits, which analysts say could exponentially increase the cost of emitting, as well as the pay-off for low-carbon projects” [] Industry fears it could shut down the economy, not only preventing plants from operating and spurring a dramatic retooling of the energy sector but also pushing up costs and hurting the international competitiveness for a raft of sectors”.


Obama says he wants to reduce CO2 in because “Few challenges facing America -- and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change” []. (That report also states:”The United Nations reported on Monday that carbon emissions from industrialized countries stabilized in 2006 after six years of growth“). The following figure shows the satellite global temperature data for the lower troposphere since the beginning of satellite measurements in 1979 (left) []

and since 2002 (right).





Obama: “our planet, because we didn’t adjust from fossil fuels, has gone up 2 or 3 degrees and the polar ice caps have melted and the oceans have gone up and suddenly our ways of life have changed” ( at 1:55 in the video). That is how out of touch with reality he is.



gone up 2 or 3 degrees”:


Climate models only need the anthropogenic CO2 after 1970 – prior to that the models without anthropogenic CO2 also match the observed warming. In other words, anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to global warming only since 1970, according to the IPCC. The warming prior to that can be explained by the models with only natural variation. Note that this increase is about one half of one degree – not 2 or 3 degrees.






the polar ice caps have melted”:


The polar ice caps are currently above the 1979-2000 mean.


As the Arctic ice cap has receded in the 2000s, the Antarctic ice cap has grown.





See the Regional Summary for details on climate change in the US.



We The People


What do people think? According to a national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 7-11 [], global warming is the least of the concerns of the American people. Keep in mind that the Pew Charitable Trusts runs the Pew Center on Global Climate Change (whose slogan is “Working Together…Because Climate Change is Serious Business”) and the Pew Campaign on Global Warming (which promotes “mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions” and “national climate policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all economic sectors”) []  The following figure is from the Pew survey mentioned above. It shows that global warming is at the bottom of the list of concerns. If Pew wasn’t promoting global warming alarmist fears it wouldn’t even be that high up on the list.




Update: A March 11, 2009 Gallup poll reported that “a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.” []


The Gallup poll also showed that global warming ranked last in people’s environmental concerns:



The Gallup poll also showed the increased politicization of global warming:




So why is Obama so out of touch with the people? -- Because CO2 cap-and-trade represents big bucks for the government (and their friends). “Obama promised (again) that "95% of working families" would not see their taxes rise by "a single dime," his own budget reveals that taxes will rise for 100% of everyone for the sake of global warming.


Obama’s budget "climate revenues section, where the White House discloses that it expects $78.7 billion in new tax revenue in 2012 from its cap-and-trade program. The pot of cash grows to $237 billion through 2014, and at least $646 billion through 2019. … The Congressional Budget Office estimates that cap-and-trade taxes would actually throw off as much as $300 billion every year -- not merely $78.7 billion -- and in a footnote the Obama budget implicitly acknowledges that its $645.7 billion estimate is a lowball”. []


Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu states the obvious: “The concern about cap-and-trade in today’s economic climate,” Dr. Chu said, “is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable.” … and … “reaching agreement on legislation to combat climate change would be difficult in the current recession because any scheme to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would probably cause energy prices to rise and drive manufacturing jobs to countries where energy is cheaper.” []


The following figure shows the total energy generation by type in 2007 (data from Coal is close to 50% while oil is less than 2%. Obama says: “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted” [




Obama: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. … they would have to retrofit their operations – that will cost money – they will pass that money on to consumers.” []  (Actually the utilities will be passing the cost not the money on to consumers.)


Would the reduction of CO2 emissions in the US even have an effect on global greenhouse gases?


A study published in 2008 reports that China became the largest emitter of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in 2006. (Gregg, J. S., R. J. Andres, and G. Marland, “China: Emissions pattern of the world leader in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption and cement production”, Geophysical Research Letters 35, 2008) []. The following figure is from that study and compares the monthly carbon emissions for the US and China for 2001 – 2007. The study states: “the annual emission rate in the US has remained relatively stable between 2001–2006 while the emission rate in China has more than doubled.



China – the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter – released its plan on climate change in 2007, supporting the rights of developing nations to pursue growth. The Chinese spokesman said "The consequences of inhibiting their development would be far greater than not doing anything to fight climate change … our general stance is that China will not commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets". [,2144,2575639,00.html 


India - In July 2008 The Government of India published a National Action Plan on Climate Change, which states: "No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established." India is taking a pragmatic approach and has no intention of cutting CO2 emissions if to do so will affect its economic growth. The report Overview states: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives." [] 


Russia also disagrees with the politicized western view. "Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol … say that the theory underlying the pact lacks scientific basis. When President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having "no scientific foundation."" Russian scientists state: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. This problem is overshadowed by many fallacies and misconceptions that often form the basis for important political decisions" and "The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases". []


The following figure shows global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by type from the 2007 IPCC AR4 SPM []. Note that CO2 fossil fuel use is 56.6 % of GHG globally. In 2004 the United States produced about 22 % of the global fossil fuel based CO2 emissions []. Thus, even if the United States eliminated all automobiles and all fossil fuel based electricity generation, etc – global GHG would be reduced by only 12 %









John Holdren is in the World of Science Fiction


[last update: 7 Jul 2009]



John Holdren is Obama’s Science Adviser (appointed to direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy). “Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog." [,0,4609864.story] Apparently the fog is the one in his mind.Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming — a radical idea once dismissed out of hand — is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's new science adviser said Wednesday. … That's because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month. The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren … includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.


Holdren is a global warming alarmist who believes that skepticism is dangerous: “The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous.” []

Later he clarified: “We should really call them “deniers” rather than “skeptics”, because they are giving the venerable tradition of skepticism a bad name.



His CO2-based alarmism is not new. []

  • 1981: “Too much fossil fuel means flirtation with a CO2-induced climate change potentially catastrophic for world food production” - John Holdren, ‘Renewables in the US Energy Future: How Much, How Fast?’, Energy 6(9), p. 913. (1981 – seven years before the formation of the IPCC, Holdren was predicting catastrophe
  • 1986: “As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” - Paul Ehrlich, The Machinery of Nature, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1986, p. 274


Apparently he still believes it. When asked at his 2009 confirmation hearing by Senator Vitter whether he still believed a billion people could die from global warming by 2020, he answered “It could happen.” []



Holdren is a doomsday alarmist. He co-authored population alarmist books and papers with Paul Ehrlich on the population bomb. We are not, of course, optimistic about our chances of success. Some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century. (The inability to forecast exactly which one – whether plague, famine, the poisoning of the oceans, drastic climatic change, or some disaster entirely unforeseen – is hardly grounds for complacency.)


John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, ‘What We Must Do, and the Cost of Failure’, in Holdren and Ehrlich, Global Ecology, p. 279, 1971 [] From the introduction: “What is required is no less than a revolution in human behavior, one which embodies fundamental reforms in our economic and political institutions, coupled with the wisest technological enterprises, the necessary ingredient of population control, and a new perception of man’s place in nature.


Holdren’s anti-human past is also discomforting: near the beginning of his career, Holdren introduced in 1971--with his colleague and perennial population-alarmist, Ehrlich--the concept of the I=PAT identity. Human Impact on the environment is equal to Population x Affluence/consumption x Technology. All of which are supposed to intensify and worsen humanity's impact on the natural world. History shows that the I=PAT identity largely gets it backward. Population is at worst neutral, while affluence and technology actually promote environmental flourishing. It is in the rich, developed countries that the air becomes clearer, the streams cleaner and the forests more expansive. []


His alarmist writings are required readings in some university courses. MIT – Comparative Security and Sustainability (which includes such required books as “Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action” and “The Collapse of Complex Societies”) has required readings from Holdren, including: Holdren, Daily and Ehrlich: “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects" from “Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations” as well as Holdren and Pachauri. "Energy." In “An Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the 21st Century”, 1992. []


The last Holdren writing mentioned above “Energy” written in 1991 with co-author R.K. Pachauri (who is now the head of the UN’s IPCC) states: “Global warming … is arguably the most dangerous of all the environmental impacts of human activity.” [ &printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=RLwzvfE2h2&sig=iugH_yCEyVkPAXI5qcAP2xYx5vI&hl=en&ei=zyjuSamPOZyKtgPztZXtAQ&sa=X&oi= book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA108,M1]


Being an apocalyptic alarmist, it makes sense that he believed in global cooling in the early 1970s: “Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction—that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history” (from Ehrlich, Ehrlich and Holdren, in Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment, 1977 [])


(Holdren’s co-author Paul Ehrlich “sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off." [])


Also from Ecoscience: “Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable…not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes…The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade…The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits…the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.“(p. 943.) []


From an earlier book “Human Ecology”, also coauthored with the Ehrlichs (1973): “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States”  []


According to MIT Atmospheric Science professor Richard Lindzen, John Holdren was admitted to the National Academy of Sciences through the “back door”: “for over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure. Members, so elected, proceeded to join existing sections where they hold a veto power over the election of any scientists unsympathetic to their position. Moreover, they are almost immediately appointed to positions on the executive council, and other influential bodies within the Academy. One of the members elected via the Temporary Nominating Group, Ralph Cicerone, is now president of the National Academy. Prior to that, he was on the nominating committee for the presidency. It should be added that there is generally only a single candidate for president. Others elected to the NAS via this route include Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren and Susan Solomon.” []


See also:

Expose of John Holdren:

John Holdren and population control:

(He says Brown’s book espousing eugenics “transformed my thinking about the world”)



Holdren is also listed Director of the Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC) “protecting the integrity of the global environment” []. In 2006 WHRC received a $1million grant from the Clinton Global Initiative: “A new partnership between the Woods Hole Research Center and The Goldman Sachs Center for Environmental Markets (CEM) announced yesterday at the Clinton Global Initiative will develop new market-based approaches to value the sustainable uses of forests for marketable products and ecosystem services. … The [Goldman Sachs] Center for Environmental Markets was established to undertake independent research with partners in the academic and NGO community to explore/develop pubic [sic] policy options for establishing effective markets around climate change, biodiversity and ecosystem services.”




In 2006 he prepared a presentation on global warming []. He believes changes are due to CO2 because the IPCC says so – the models cannot be wrong. He generally uses very short-term data because he doesn’t understand that climate is defined as “average weather over 30 years”. He also has forgotten that science involves more than running computer models – real world observations are more important. Here are some examples of his “science” (his presentation has many alarmist portrayals not supported by science):


John Holdren’s Presentation

A More Scientific View


Short term focus ignores the available data.

Sea level has been rising since the little ice age in the 1700s.


Holdren’s focus on 1992 – 2002 is 10 years – the green square in the graph above. He ignores the long term trend. Sea level has been has been rising at a steady rate since the 1800s.  [].




He uses a graph of decline of Mt Kilimanjaro glaciers since the 1800s (when CO2 did not play a role – in fact, according to the IPCC, CO2 did not affect global warming until 1970).



The actual temperature on Mt Kilimanjaro never gets above freezing. Temperatures show no warming. Despite air temperatures always being below freezing, areal retreat of plateau glaciers is governed mostly by solar radiation induced melt on vertical walls that characterize their north and south margins [Mölg et al., 2003]. []




He uses a misleading basis - cyclones / hurricanes are correlated with multi-decadal ocean oscillations on a longer than 50-year cycle.


In addition the use of PDI can be misleading. PDI is simply a function of the maximum wind speed cubed. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) is a more comprehensive index of hurricane properties. According to Kerry Emmanuel, who created the PDI, “there is also interest in basin integrated quantities, such as ACE. For the purpose of detecting climate signals, such integral measures may be preferable, owing to the much larger amount of information available for storms over their lifetimes compared to at landfall” []



The following figure shows the data to 2009 – global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) 1974-2009



The following figure shows Pacific ACE (green), global ACE (black) and multivariate ENSO (blue) 1983 - 2008.




The following figure shows long term data for PDI for US landfalling hurricanes.



See: []



He says global warming is already causing deaths. But the areas where these deaths are occurring have had no warming according to the satellite data. In fact it looks more like a correlation to developmental factors, not temperatures.



The following figure shows the global temperature change from 1978 to 2006 for the lower troposphere from satellite data []


Notice that the areas with the deaths in Holdren’s presentation are the areas with little to no warming.




He says “drought in the Sahel gets worse in a warming world.” – But the figure includes only outputs from computer models.


He says “Crop yields in tropics start dropping at [change in temperature] T = 1-1.5°C” And he specifically mentions corn and wheat. (this is again computer simulations)



Since the 1980s, the vegetation has been increasing in the Sahel, even as the temperatures increase. The following figure shows the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), showing substantial increases throughout most of the region. [].

NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) 1982 - 1999


The following figure shows increasing corn yields in the Sahel even as temperatures increase.


Average maize yield for the nine Sahel (CILSS) member countries since 1961




He uses the debunked “hockey-stick” graph debunked by the National Academy of Sciences and now abandoned by the IPCC.


The “hockey-stick” temperature graph was debunked by the National Academy of Sciences since it relied on one tree ring data set and eliminates both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. []

Short term focus ignores the history.


He says it is due to less moisture – but studies show it is due to decades of aggressive fire suppression.


Wildfire amount relates more to wildfire policy. A 2000 report to president Clinton stated: “As a result of the all-out effort to suppress fires, the annual acreage consumed by wildfires in the lower 48 states dropped from 40 to 50 million acres a year in the early 1930s to about 5 million acres in the 1970s. During this time, firefighting budgets rose dramatically and firefighting tactics and equipment became increasingly more sophisticated and effective. In short, decades of aggressive fire suppression have drastically changed the look and fire behavior of Western forests and rangelands. As a result, studies show that today’s wildfires typically burn hotter, faster, and higher than those of the past.










Carol Browner is Out of Touch with the Science


[last update: 16 Mar 2009]



Obama has named Carol Browner to be his White House coordinator of energy and climate policy (“Energy Czar”). Who is she?  “Browner is a major proponent of cap and trade programs, and had called on Mr. Obama to instruct EPA on his first day to start rulemaking on carbon regulation. She has called global warming the “greatest challenge ever faced.” []


Browner is a commission member of the “Socialist International - Commission for a Sustainable World Society”. From their website []:



From their statement on climate change: Global governance is no longer a concept but an urgent necessity. … Reiterating its firm conviction that the international agenda for climate change has to be linked to eradicating poverty, the Commission underlined that any global economic reforms had to ensure that development was not only greener, but also more just and sustainable, and that national and international development policies must include climate concerns. Stepping up efforts with regard to canceling the debt of poorer countries is needed and providing these countries with unrestricted market access, so lessening inequality among nations. []


The Socialist International believes that there is a great potential in the effective use of appropriate market mechanisms, such as carbon trading. Nevertheless, we are aware of the fact that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure the world has ever seen and that market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development. … Commitments by individual nations should be based on past, present and future level of emissions and the country’s economic capacity to reduce them, under the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. The wealthiest nations with the greatest volume of emissions should reduce their emissions first and the most. []



Browner is also on the Board of Directors of the Alliance for Climate Protection. What is the Alliance for Climate Protection? “it is Al Gore, substantially ... He is the chairman of the board, and the organization can be thought of as a vast extension of Al Gore's now-famous slide show depicted in An Inconvenient Truth. It's received many of the proceeds of the film, and the Live Earth concert.” [] Our mission is to persuade the American people—and people elsewhere in the world—of the importance and urgency of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis. The Alliance for Climate Protection is undertaking an unprecedented mass persuasion exercise” []


They also run the “We Can Solve It” campaign: “Climate change is real. And it’s happening much faster than was predicted just a few years ago.” They also run the “Repower America” campaign. USA Today reports that the Alliance for Climate Protection is spending $300 million over the next three years as part of their persuasion campaign. Their persuasion methods include: “early evidence suggests that many people will change if: … They think their children will be harmed by global warming, or children encourage the family to lead a greener life.


So what is Browner’s background? “in the mid-1980’s Browner was associate director of Citizen Action, founded by Ralph Nader” []  She was one of Gore’s aides when he was a Senator from Tennessee and was his legislative director from '88-'91. When Gore became VP, Browner was installed as head of the EPA []


As the EPA director under Clinton from 1993 to 2001:  “In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that, in collaboration with the EPA, it planned to ban the inhalers that 30 million Americans rely on to protect their daily breath. The EPA was concerned that, because the inhalers contained trace amounts of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), they contributed to greenhouse gas emissions.” The EPA “announced plans to impose entirely new standards for ozone and fine-particulate emissions Browner promised that the new rules would cost less than $10 billion a year. … George Mason University’s Center for the Study of Public Choice estimated that compliance with the new regs could cost $380 billion per year.  … the new regs were expected — even by EPA’s own Clean Air Science Advisory Committee — to have little or no health benefit…In May 1999, a federal appeals court struck down EPA’s new regulations as “an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.... What EPA lacks is any determinate criterion for drawing lines.” []


She was unusual in another way: “she refused to use e-mail when she served as President Clinton's Environmental Protection Agency chief in the 1990s for fear of leaving a digital trail. She also ordered her government computer hard drive wiped clean of records just before leaving office. "It was a conscious decision not to use a piece of equipment or to learn how to use a piece of equipment because I didn't want to be in a situation similar to what I had been in Florida," "This is why I made this decision not to use my computer," she said. "I was very careful."



After the Clinton EPA, Browner was a founding partner of the Albright Group (along with Madeleine Albright – Clinton’s Secretary of State). In 2006 she was involved with supporting the Dubai Ports World in the controversial takeover deal of an American company responsible for several ports [].


Browner is on the Board of Directors of the Center for American Progress (started by John Podesta, Clinton’s final Chief of Staff) – where the stand on energy is “to reduce the world’s reliance on dirty, carbon-based energy” []. This organization doesn’t look at science, only “the pressing voices of climate change refugees, in the poorest countries, who are already bearing the brunt of global warming.”


Like Al Gore, who has major investments in carbon credit trading via Generation Investment Management (see, Browner also has a similar conflict of interest. She is on the Board of Directors of APX Inc. APX is a “technology and service provider for environmental and energy markets, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and carbon emissions.”  []   She said: “The explosive growth in environmental commodities trading will result in a greater need for market oversight. ... APX is a world-class environmental infrastructure company with a long history of public-private partnerships, and I look forward to helping them capitalize on the full potential of these markets.” She is not the only Clinton EPA person at APX -- Gary Guzy, the EPA General Counsel under Clinton is now General Counsel at APX. At the EPA he was involved with authoring “climate change provisions that were later ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark 2007 decision finding that greenhouse gases are pollutants under federal law.” He said: “Emissions credit and allowance trading is a critical part of the solution for climate change” [].


Her communist views exposed more in an interview with U.S. News []: Controlled markets: “the government making decisions and creating opportunities for businesses” … Controlled access to electricity: “we can get to a system where an electric company will be able to hold back some of the power so that maybe your air conditioner won't operate at its peak


An example of her “science”: In a speech to the Stanford MBA students, she came “armed with data and statistics to illustrate the rapid warming of the earth's atmosphere … Browner said that some 36 cubic miles of Antarctic ice were melting into the sea each year” []. Either she isn’t aware that ice melts in summer and grows back in winter, or she is just trying to mislead people, since the Antarctic ice has actually been slightly increasing over the years:


Seasonal Extent:

Above from


Above from



Extent Anomalies:


Above from (graph has Arctic removed)



Above from








Steven Chu is Out of Touch with Reality


[last update: 21 Jun 2009]


See also: Study Contradicts Chu on Midwest Temperatures [2010/03/12]



Steven Chu is Obama’s Energy Secretary. “'We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California,' Steven Chu says[,0,7454963.story] But a UC Davis report called “California Agriculture in the 21st Century” [] concludes: “What about the future of California agriculture? While there are no sure predictors, we can draw upon our understanding of the forces that have shaped the past to reflect on the future. History suggests that California agriculture has generally flourished even as it was being buffeted by what seemed at the time to be “disaster after disaster.” So far, it has always emerged from each crisis by rapidly adjusting and changing. California agriculture is very different than it was a decade ago, 50 years ago, a century ago. It is bigger, more diverse, and very much alive, adjusting, as always, to its ever-dynamic environment. Undoubtedly, California agriculture in 2020 or 2050 will be very different than it is now, but it will still maintain its vitality, though experiencing, as is its fate, chronic and sometimes powerful adjustment pressures. Those forecasting its demise simply do not understand its natural and human assets nor do they acknowledge the dynamic resilience of California agriculture.


April 19, 2009: speaking at the Summit of the Americas, Chu says: (referring to temperature rise in the current century): “another 1 degree increase was certain to occur and "there's a reasonable probability we can go above 4 degrees Centigrade to 5 and 6 more." … “I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes.” [] So he exaggerates even beyond the IPCC predictions.


In a 2005 interview with UC Berkeley News he said: “we don't know the exact consequences [of burning fossil fuels] yet, but we can guess they're pretty serious. Take some of the current computer climate modeling simulations - which are not proof - that in the Midwest, the temperature will increase 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit on average. With hotter summers, that means that during the growing season, the soil moisture will decrease by 20 to 30 percent.”


In June 2009 Chu announced “Iowa will get $16 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, an amount that likely will grow to $40 million as the state ramps up its efforts."I want to shove this money out the door as quickly as possible," Chu said at a news conference with Gov. Chet Culver and U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, both Democrats. Chu's visit was the fourth this year from a member of President Barack Obama's Cabinet. Chu noted that global warming and climate change were major problems to tackle, but said he was optimistic that changes in energy policy could help those efforts. "Energy efficiency is a very big deal," said Chu, who warned of increased flooding coupled with drought as temperatures increase. []




Chu says 5 to 10 degrees in the Midwest? Increased flooding and drought in Iowa? The following figures show the historical data for the state of Iowa: temperature data (red) showing annual average temperature (left) and annual average summer temperature (right); and precipitation data (green) showing annual total precipitation (left) and summer total precipitation (right) (all data from the NCDC climate service []) No warming in Iowa – especially no summer warming trend. No trend in precipitation either. A Chu-gaff.


Iowa: Annual Average and Summer Temperatures


Iowa: Annual Average and Summer Precipitation



Chu is wrong on the Midwest’s drought too []





Chu has obviously never looked at actual data. His science is to simply repeat the global warming mantra.



Interview with Chu:          


REP. STEARNS: But you can’t honestly believe that you want the American people to pay for gasoline at the prices, the level in Europe?
SEC. CHU: No, we don’t.
REP. STEARNS: No. But somehow, your statement, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” doesn’t that sound a little bit silly in retrospect for you to say that?
SEC. CHU: Yes.









Lisa Jackson is a True Believer


[last update: 14 Feb 2010]



2010/02/14 – See: EPA Biofuels page:





Lisa Jackson was appointed by Obama to head the Environmental Protection Agency. On April 18, 2009, Obama’s EPA has officially adopted the position that CO2 poses a danger to public health. Jackson said: that global warming is “a serious problem now and for future generations… This pollution problem has a solution -- one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country's dependence on foreign oil” [] Jackson also said “The President has said—and I couldn’t agree more—that what this country needs is one single national road map that tells auto makers who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” []. So Jackson thinks the government should dictate the types of cars to be allowed.


The EPA had to stifle a 98 page report produced by 35-year EPA economist Alan Carlin. The report pointed out that global temperatures have been on a downward trend and problems with the models. “The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." []


Jackson previously worked with Browner at the EPA under the Clinton administration, where she managed the Superfund program. During the Bush administration Jackson was commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. She was also vice president of the executive board of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – the regional cap-and-trade program created by ten northeastern states to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. [] The RGGI website has a link to this news article: “US venture capitalists optimistic on carbon market” – “venture capitalists say they see a bright spot amid the international economic gloom: a potential trillion-dollar market in carbon spurred by new regulations” [].


Indeed, the RGGI CO2 contracts traded on the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE). The CCFE is owned by the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) where Maurice Strong (who started the global warming scare at the UN) is on the board. See for details on the CCX.


Jackson’s EPA senior counsel is Robert Sussman – he was also EPA deputy under Browner during Clinton/Gore. Jackson’s deputy is Lisa Heinzerling – also at the Clinton/Gore EPA and then a driving force in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA to force the EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. []


At least Jackson is more realistic than Chu. In congress, Senator Inhofe presented a chart showing that without action in China and India, the US cuts of CO2 would have no effect on climate.

Jackson: “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels”.

Chu: “No, I don't agree with that [EPA] chart

Inhofe: “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain. With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.” []




June 2009 – Submissions to EPA on CO2 Endangerment


Alan Cheetham: CO2 Not a Threat

Margaret Wilkinson: Warming Cycles Not Caused by CO2

Roy Clark: A Null Hypothesis for CO2




Dec 7, 2009 -- EPA Ruled That CO2 is DANGEROUS


“Jackson and her EPA ignores all dissenting comments and rests her case on the data provided by none other than the IPCC” []


Feb, 2010 – Virginia and Texas Petition EPA Challenging the Ruling


EPA stated: “The scientific evidence of climate change is overwhelming and greenhouse gases pose a real threat to the American people. The question of the science is settled.” []



In 2009 the EPA determined that CO2 was an endangerment to human health. “Dr. Alan Carlin, … at the time a scientist within the EPA, had warned that these [IPCC data] sources were not sufficient. He also warned that relying on these reports [IPCC] as the primary sources opened the EPA to legal challenge and also risked making extremely expensive regulatory changes without affecting climate change in any significant fashion. Dr. Carlin’s concerns were suppressed by the EPA. Dr. Al McGartland, head of the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, said, forthrightly, that Dr. Carlin’s view was not to be published because “[the]administrator and administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.” That is, Dr. McGartland was saying the decision to issue an endangerment finding had been made at the top of the EPA and counterarguments were unwelcome. Dr. Carlin later found out just how unwelcome his comments had been: he was ordered not to speak about the topic, removed from EPA climate policy committees, and eventually demoted.” []


So much for Obama’s “days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over”. Pants on fire.




Interview with Jackson:   


REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would – that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term “millions.” Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.


REP. SCALISE: And, I mean, while you might not be a jobs expert, you’re obviously talking about, you know, and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would claim that it would create jobs, are you making an assumption that it won’t lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost? Or if you don’t make that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Because groups have made very large claims. I mean, the National Association of Manufacturers claims our country would lose 3 to 4 million jobs as a result of a cap and trade energy tax.
So I just wanted to know if you or any members of the panel want to answer that question.
MS. JACKSON: I’ll go first and –
(Cross talk.)
REP. SCALISE: – if you would.
MS. JACKSON: I know that lobbyists keep playing large doomsday scenarios – quiet deaths for businesses across the country. That’s what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990 and it didn’t happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent…
…REP. JOHN SHIMKUS, R-Illinois: Let me ask Administrator Jackson. Do you know how many jobs – coal miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of the Clean Air Act amendments which you were addressing earlier?
MS. JACKSON: No, sir.
REP. SHIMKUS: Thirty-five-thousand.




[last update: 23 Feb 2011]


Cathy Zoi Flees the Republicans


Cathy Zoi (Obama’s Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) was previously CEO of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, where she helped create Gore’s “We” campaign and the “Repower America” campaign (“100% clean electricity within ten years”). []


As Obama’s ASEERE, she had serious conflicts of interest: “participating substantially in decisions impacting companies in which she is heavily invested. This flouts ethics requirements and would be a violation of U.S. criminal law.” []


On Feb 23, 2011 she is leaving Obama’s government. “The New York Times mentions nothing about Zoi's conflicts of interest. Her departure may be a sign that she sees greener pastures elsewhere now that Republicans have taken over the House and she might be subject to inquiries regarding her conflicts from Chairmen of various committees, particular from Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who has expressed a strong interest in investigation corruption in the administration.” []


For more info on Zoi’s green scams see: Obama's green subsidies attract do-gooder bandits