In The News
THE TRUTH BEHIND THE CLAIMS OF MCCAIN-FEINGOLD MYTHS AND FACTS: HOW THEY GET IT BACKWARDS
Wednesday July 19, 2006
REALITY: Any mistakes found by the end of the process review envisioned in the Feingold-McCain amendment would necessitate a repeat of the study process to correct the problem. Clearly this would delay project construction. Under the Inhofe-Bond proposal, since reviews are integrated into the process, any mistakes made or improvements suggested would be corrected or incorporated more efficiently.
MYTH: The Feingold-McCain amendment will require reviews of too many projects. ALLEGED FACT: The $40 million review trigger will on average subject about 5 projects a year to independent review.
REALITY: The $40 million trigger is only one of four triggers. Plus, due to constrained budgets, the Corps doesn’t undertake many new studies each year, so 5 per year is a large percentage. Another trigger would allow the Governor of a state anywhere within the drainage basin of a proposed Corps project to claim an environmental or economic impact and require a review. It is interesting to note that 31 Governors reside in the Mississippi River drainage basin.
MYTH: The Feingold-McCain amendment gives a handful of experts the right to dictate Corps projects, taking policy decisions away from the Corps. ALLEGED FACT: Project recommendations remain in the hands of the Chief of Engineers, and Congress retains the ultimate decision regarding whether to authorize a project.
REALITY: The intent of the Feingold-McCain amendment is made clear by the fact that the opinions of these panels would be given the same weight as those of the Chief of Engineers in legal proceedings. What other Federal agency has been stripped of the benefit of judicial deference?
MYTH: The Feingold-McCain amendment will increase project costs. ALLEGED FACT: Costs associated with independent review are capped and taxpayer watchdog groups strongly support the amendment.
REALITY: In the same way an end of the process review leads to delays to project construction, it will lead to increases in project study costs. Obviously, it will cost more for both the Federal government and the non-Federal sponsor (50-50 cost share) if a study must be done twice because a mistake wasn’t found until the end of the process. True, the costs of the peer review itself are capped, but it is the project costs that will be greatly increased. So-called “taxpayer watchdog groups” have a long history of opposing Army Corps projects, so it is no surprise they would support an amendment that would result in delaying or stopping as many Corps projects as possible.
MYTH: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review will apply to already authorized projects. ALLEGED FACT: The independent peer review applies to projects as they enter the feasibility stage, not after authorization, at which point the Chief's report is already complete. If necessary, certain already authorized critical flood control projects will get the benefits of a safety assurance review which will analyze engineering and technical aspects that are not fully defined in the feasibility study.
REALITY: The Feingold-McCain amendment encourages repeated, lengthy reviews of the same information. A model used in 10 separate projects, for example, should not undergo peer review 10 times; it should be peer reviewed once to ensure quality and accuracy, but after that only the application of the model to a specific project study should be subject to further peer review.
MYTH: The Feingold-McCain amendment will create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. ALLEGED FACT: The amendment does not create a bureaucracy; it establishes a workable system to address a very real problem - poorly planned and designed project that put people at risk, unnecessarily damage the environment and waste taxpayer dollars.
REALITY: A statutorily required Director of Peer Review is unnecessary micromanaging of the Corps, as is the specification of the size of the peer review panels. The responsibility of establishing panels is more efficiently performed by the Chief and the Corps’ Centers of Expertise as is called for in current Corps peer review policy pursuant to the Information Quality Act.
MYTH: The Inhofe-Bond amendment would create a system of true independent project review. ALLEGED FACT: Their amendment makes the Chief of Engineers the final arbiter of whether an independent review will happen at all. The Corps gets to select the reviewers, and there are no criteria at all for ensuring independence of those reviewers. Review is not independent if the Corps has control over whether, how, and who will review projects.
REALITY: The Inhofe-Bond amendment is clear that an independent peer review must be performed if the project is estimated to cost $100 million or if the Secretary of the Army determines the project is controversial. The Chief is given no discretion on this matter. The Chief certainly is bound by specific criteria for ensuring independence of reviewers. The Office of Management and Budget Bulletin of December 2004, applicable to all Federal agencies, discusses at length these criteria, and the Inhofe-Bond amendment requires Corps guidelines to comply with this Bulletin. The Corps has no more flexibility in managing peer reviews than any other Federal agency under OMB’s Bulletin.
EPA SCIENCE PROCESS SHROUDED IN CONTROVERSY
Tuesday July 18, 2006
FACT: The EPA is planning on issuing its final rule on particulate matter air quality standards without an opportunity for public review of how the agency is assessing recent scientific studies dealing with PM.
The EPA had a cutoff date of April 2002 for studies dealing with the health effects of PM during the current review, with the exception of a few hand-picked studies. Only after pressure from Senator Inhofe, who wrote a letter in 2005 to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson noting the dearth of newer scientific studies on particulate matter, did the EPA begin to review newer studies.
“I am not aware of any precedent for ignoring advancements in scientific knowledge over such a lengthy period of time, especially involving decisions that affect public health.” Senator Inhofe wrote in the 2005 letter.
In response to the Senator’s letter, the EPA has reviewed more recent scientific studies and has indicated it will factor in these studies in its final rule. But EPA plans to issue the final rule on selecting appropriate PM standards without allowing public review of how it is assessing those newer studies.
A new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled “Human Health Risk Assessment: EPA Has Taken Steps to Strengthen Its Process, but Improvements Needed in Planning, Data Development, and Training”, found additional problems in EPA's process in the current review.
The GAO report recommended that the EPA improve its use of science in conducting risk assessments. One of Senator Inhofe's top three priorities since he assumed the Chairmanship has been to improve EPA's use of science. It is clear from the manner in which EPA has conducted the current PM review that this goal is far from complete.
EPA Has Clear Discretion In Setting Air Quality Standards
Monday July 17, 2006
Despite calls from some in the environmental community to tighten particulate matter air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, a Congressional Research Service Report (CRS) from December 2005 stated that the EPA administrator has clear discretion in setting air quality standards.
FACT: In reviewing these standards, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review the science and set health standards at a level that ensures “an adequate margin of safety” requisite to protect human health. While individual studies vary, studies show that since 1997, when the last review was conducted by the Clinton administration, the health risk “point estimate” associated with particulate matter has decreased.
From page 4 of the December 30, 2005 CRS Report:
“…the [EPA] Administrator is given clear discretion; the requirements are conditioned by the phrase ‘in the judgment of the Administrator.”
Many have the impression that that EPA must or routinely strengthens air quality standards.
According to the 2005 CRS study, the EPA has only strengthened the standards twice out of the eleven times that they were reviewed since 1971 (including relaxing or revoking a standard on three occasions.)
From page 5 of the December 30, 2005 CRS Report:
“EPA has conducted multiple reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards since their establishment in 1971. The primary (health based) standards have been strengthened twice, retained 6 times, and relaxed or revoked on 3 occasions.”
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...Brokaw's Global Warming Show = Less Dissent Than "North Korean Political Rally" -- Bloomberg TV Review Says
Friday July 14, 2006
• “You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program, which would have benefited from contrarian views, perhaps from MIT's Richard S. Lindzen or William Gray, the world's foremost expert on hurricanes and a critic of global- warming orthodoxy. Both are serious scientists, yet neither appears to be in Brokaw's Rolodex.”
• “Tom Brokaw's special on global warming claims to have ``no agenda,'' though some viewers will quickly suspect he's out to make us sweat…A powerful presentation, to be sure, though certainly one with an agenda.”
BloombergBrokaw Warns of Melting Glaciers, Greenhouse Gases: TV Review
Dave Shiflett is a critic for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.
Tom Brokaw's special on global warming claims to have ``no agenda,'' though some viewers will quickly suspect he's out to make us sweat.
Tom Brokaw's special on global warming claims to have ``no agenda,'' though some viewers will quickly suspect he's out to make us sweat.If mankind doesn't change its polluting ways, New Yorkers will soon be snorkeling to work. That's the basic message of ``Global Warming: What You Need to Know,'' which airs on July 16 at 9 p.m. New York time on the Discovery Channel. Brokaw, like former Vice President Al Gore and many prominent scientists, is convinced that carbon-dioxide emissions are the main cause of global warming and that without serious change we should expect gondoliers in San Francisco. The former NBC anchorman delivers the bad news in his trademark solemn monotone and travels widely to marshal his argument…
No Dissent
Then there's the U.S., world leader in C02 emissions thanks to our love of the internal-combustion engine, large appliances and jet travel.
Brokaw relies largely on a handful of experts in the two- hour show, particularly NASA's James Hansen and Princeton professor Michael Oppenheimer. Both support Brokaw's view of global warming and consider the scientific debate closed. Brokaw scoffs at the notion that there are ``any remaining doubts humans are behind temperature rises,'' while Hansen says ``99.5 percent of scientists say we know what's going on.''
You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program, which would have benefited from contrarian views, perhaps from MIT's Richard S. Lindzen or William Gray, the world's foremost expert on hurricanes and a critic of global- warming orthodoxy. Both are serious scientists, yet neither appears to be in Brokaw's Rolodex.
Kyoto Protocol
Brokaw does ask Oppenheimer why critics ``refuse to believe it's a fact.'' Oppenheimer says some may find the issue too ``frightening,'' while others have a ``financial interest'' in the status quo. In other words, critics are stooges for industry. Does that mean Brokaw is a stooge for environmentalists?
While the show claims some of the damage is ``irreversible,'' Brokaw holds out hope that personal and political action can bring about significant change. Americans can greatly reduce their CO2 output by driving smaller cars, taking the bus, using fluorescent light bulbs and exercising a bit more thermostat discipline.
Brokaw praises the Kyoto Protocol, which sets goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in industrialized countries. The Bush administration opposes the agreement, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy and not have much impact in heavily polluting countries like China…
If we don't act soon, Brokaw says, we may reach a ``tipping point'' of no return: New York and other coastal cities will be submerged, while Bangladesh will vanish beneath the waves. We're also told there could be mass extinction of wildlife, a plague of disease-bearing insect swarms, extreme weather and famine causing mass starvation.
A powerful presentation, to be sure, though certainly one with an agenda.
Click here for the full text of the Review. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aioxPLZizTeg&refer=culture
See earlier Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority press release on Tom Brokaw’s Show. http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=258440
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT... "There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming" (Wall Street Journal, Op/Ed By RICHARD S. LINDZEN, June 26, 2006)
Tuesday June 27, 2006
Breaking the 'hockey stick' (You are now leaving senate.gov)
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...Gorey Truths 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.
Thursday June 22, 2006
In Case You Missed It... "U.S. Refining Capacity Requires a Boost" (Roll Call, Op/Ed, June 19, 2006)
Monday June 19, 2006
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.."Chill Out Over Global Warming" (By David Harsanyi, Denver Post Columnist 6/05/06)
Monday June 5, 2006
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT… Senator James M. Inhofe: Scientific consensus on global warming a manufactured hoax" (The Examiner, Washington DC, Op/Ed, May 26, 2006)
Friday May 26, 2006
The Examiner, Washington DC
Senator James M. Inhofe: Scientific Consensus on Global Warming a Manufactured Hoax
WASHINGTON - A new multimillion-dollar coordinated campaign by global warming alarmists is under way to scare the American public into believing that global warming is the greatest threat facing humanity.
Along with the premier of his Hollywood movie this week, Al Gore announced the creation of a new group dedicated to spending millions of dollars to push global-warming alarmism.
This explains the recent media frenzy over global warming featuring cover stories like the one in Time magazine, news specials on TBS and HBO, an Ad Council campaign, and of course, Al Gore’s very own Hollywood movie.
Not to be outdone, former President Clinton made headlines last weekend declaring that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism.
Global-warming alarmists are turning to their political and Hollywood connections to raise millions of dollars to intensify the rhetoric in order convince the American people the science is settled regarding man-made global warming.
One major problem — scientists themselves do not believe that a scientific consensus exists.
Just last month, 60 scientists sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada calling on the Canadian government to re-open the debate over Kyoto. The letter states:
“ ‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’ ”
The most flagrant distortion of science by global-warming alarmists is their claims that the recent hurricane devastation in the Gulf Coast region is linked to global warming.
Leading experts such as Dr. Christopher Landsea (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Dr. William Gray (Colorado State University) and Dr. Robert Sheets, (Director of the National Hurricane Center from 1987 to 1995), are part of the vast majority of scientists who reject claims that man was responsible for these violent storms.
This, however, didn’t stop Robert Kennedy Jr. just days after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans from declaring that the hurricane was due to global warming. It’s precisely what promoters of Gore’s film lead you to believe in order to push their agenda.
This manufactured scientific consensus, propped up by a multimillion-dollar campaign of disinformation that preys upon your fear, is the primary reason why I have long believed that claims of a consensus that man is causing global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
International momentum shifting away from cap-and-trade approach
It is little wonder that alarmists have intensified their rhetoric about the impending doom of the planet. Longtime supporters of cap-and-trade programs are slowly coming to grips with the realization that these programs are unworkable and unsustainable.
Last summer, Prime Minister Tony Blair made a stunning statement that initially went unreported by the press. Blair, as the London Telegraph reported, made a “U-turn” on Kyoto. The Telegraph reports, “Mr. Blair, who has been seen up to now as a strong supporter of the Kyoto Treaty, effectively tore the document up and admitted that rows over its implementation will ‘never be resolved.’ Regarding future Kyoto-like plans Blair stated, “To be honest, I don’t think people are going, at least in the short term, to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.” Prime Minister Blair’s “U-turn” comes as Europe struggles to meet the limits imposed by Kyoto.
Legislative proposals to cap emissions continue to lose support here in the United States as well. Last summer, the United States Senate rejected cap-and-trade legislation by soundly defeating the McCain-Lieberman bill 38-60, losing by five votes more than the previous time it was voted on.
The momentum shift away from a cap-and-trade program is not surprising. Cap-and-trade proposals are all cost and no reduction.
Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that Kyoto would cost an American family of four $2,700 annually, yet only reduce temperature by .06C.
The rejected McCain-Lieberman proposal would have cost American households an additional $810 a year and more than 1 million jobs would have been lost. Electricity prices would have increased 20 percent. The difference in temperature? 0.029 Celsius.
An inconvenient truth
The state of science continues to evolve on every frontier. So ask yourself: Is it really possible that the most complex scientific question ever to face mankind is settled?
So next time someone trying to sell you a “global-warming solution” tells you the science is settled, tell them you won’t fall for that hoax.
Click here for the full text of the Op/Ed.
Senator James M. Inhofe: Scientific Consensus on Global Warming a Manufactured Hoax