Monthly Archives: July 2011

AGW Computer “Fails” Resource

Following several brief comments about another AGW scientist owning up to the weakness of the computer models, is a site that lists failed AGW climate computer models projections.  Remember it is these computer projection upon which rests the entire rationale for the manmade global warming theory,

Kevin Trenberth is “Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research”.  Trenberth has been a lead author for IPCC Global Warming Reports. He is also one of the Climategate gang.  In one of the hacked emails he sent to his compatriots he said:   “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”  (My emphasis)  He later explained that what he really meant is that the globe is still heating up but nobody can figure out where the heat is going.  Recently Dr Spencer and Dr Braswell seem to have explained this.   See here for their paper On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance  Roy W. Spencer, and William D. Braswell.

So we are talking about a major leader in the AGW theory crowd.  He recently has published a paper in “Climate Research”.  In that paper according to CO2 Science:

…..(he) compares the projections of state-of-the-art climate models with what is known about the real world with respect to extreme meteorological events related to atmospheric moisture, such as precipitation and various types of storm systems, as well as subsequent extreme consequences such as droughts, floods and wind damage. So what does he find?

 The C3 blog  summarizes that paper as follows:

Specifically, Trenberth takes issue with the climate models’ inadequacies in regards to precipitation. Such as:

                  …all models contain large errors in precipitation simulations, both in terms of mean fields and their annual cycle, as well as their characteristics: the intensity, frequency, and duration of precipitation…”

                  “…relates to poor depiction of transient tropical disturbances, including easterly waves, Madden-Julian Oscillations, tropical storms, and hurricanes…”

                  “…confidence in model results for changes in extremes is tempered by the large scatter among the extremes in modeling today’s climate, especially in the tropics and subtropics…”

                  “…it appears that many, perhaps all, global climate and numerical weather prediction models and even many high-resolution regional models have a premature onset of convection and overly frequent precipitation with insufficient intensity,…”

                  “…model-simulated precipitation “occurs prematurely and too often, and with insufficient intensity, resulting in recycling that is too large…”

                  “…a lifetime of moisture in the atmosphere that is too short, which affects runoff and soil moisture…”

                  and finally, he has a NSS moment…”major challenges remain to improve model simulations of the hydrological cycle.”

Ok we skeptic were pretty sure that was the case.  But remember that group still wants us to bet the future on their models.

I want to lead you  to a treasure trove of AGW computer model “Fails”.  If you click HERE you will get a listing of computer models failures.

Here are some of the recent titles:

NASA Research Reveals Antarctica Ice Sheet Melt Just A Fraction of Climate Model Predictions

New Research: Experts Determine German Flooding Has Not Increased From Global Warming As Predicted

IPCC Prediction That Global Warming Would Cause More Wildfires Proves To Be Wrong

Last Week Had The Global Warming Alarmists Admit To Zero Warming Since 1998, Now An Admission That Models Don’t Work

Since 1990, IPCC’s Climate Predictions Have Been Wrong – Billions Wasted On Worthless Fortunetelling

A Spectacular Failure: Latest HadCrut & NASA Temperatures Significantly Below IPCC Climate Model Predictions

Hansen’s Global Climate Model In Total Fail: Predicted Ocean Heat Goes Missing

Look at the other links that take you to more good information.


Skeptics Ahead on Science but Lag on Politics/Media

The Skeptics are winning the science battle but are still running behind in the political /media arena.  What can we do to help?


Scientists are abandoning the man-made global warming  (AGW) theory in increasing numbers.  They are recognizing the obvious:  The skeptic’s science is based upon observationally based science whereas the AGWers theory is based on computer projections.

Observationally Based Science versus Computer Projections

Amazingly, the AGWers will often say that the facts are wrong because their computer comes up with different answers.  This is most recently illustrated with respect to the recent reports on global sea level. From a WattsUpWithThat posting:

A few months ago a widely-publicized article by Houston and Dean was published in the Journal of Coastal Research (and on your site), noting that although sea-level is rising; the tide gauge data does not show any increased rate of rise (acceleration) for the 20th and early 21st centuries.  This augmented by a >).”>recent paper authored by an Australian scientist as well.

Houston and Dean (2011) considered only tide-gauge records with lengths greater than 60 years, noting that shorter record lengths are “corrupted” by decadal fluctuations.

Rahmstorf and Vermeer (RV) had previously reported on sea level change using their computer-aided program that provided different results of those of Houston and Dean.  RV attacked the Houston and Dean entry.  Houston and Dean responded to the RV criticism by saying:

RV link sea-level rise with temperature using a simple linear relationship with two free variables of opposite signs that allow them to “fit” any smooth data set. However, they are curve fitting, not modeling physics, so the approach cannot be used to predict future sea level.

A recent workshop of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2010) considered the semi-empirical approaches of Rahmstorf (2007), Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009), and others and concluded, “No physically-based information is contained in such models …” (p. 2) and “The physical basis for the large estimates from these semi-empirical models is therefore currently lacking” (p. 2). Other recent studies show slowing or reversal of the sea level.  See

The AGWers Are Getting Desperate

For some 12 years, global temperatures have not shown any discernable trend upward to match the increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2.   At last the AGWers know the reason, its volcanoes or it might be China’s coal based power plant emission.   Certainly we can be grateful that the computers have resolved (well sort of) this issue.  So coal based power plants actually make the global temperatures cooler and all along we have been told just the opposite.

For more information read this link and if you want a laugh read this link.


The Need For an Informed Public

For the nearly 10 years that I have been actively involved in discussions and reporting on global warming, I have always believed that the science was on the skeptic’s side.   In a status review of global warming prepared for some State Senators in 2003, I stated that being right about the science would probably not be enough to win this struggle with the AGWers.  For example, the taxing and regulating authority that would stem from enacting Cap and Trade legislation will drive the politicians.   I think the beginning of the end of AGW driven legislation will take place when the public began experiencing pain of the resulting financial burden.   But are we going to be reduced to third-world status as a nation before we can turn the ship of state around?

How can we avoid this national  destruction on the altar of the watermelon (red on the outside/green in the inside)  movement?

First principle should be that the people who are going to be asked to pay for these green programs be completely informed of the consequences of the regulations or legislation being enacted.  This is not happening now.


Let’s remember that the House of Representatives in 2009 passed legislation for imposing Cap and Trade on fossil fuel use.  The bill was over a thousand pages long.  The Democrat leadership pushed this massive attempt to bring the nation’s energy under the control of the Government without anyone fully understanding what was in the bill.  The committee chairmen said they did not know!!!!!!   In an attempt to mollify the unhappy conservatives, they agreed to have the bill read.  So those clowns hired a speed-reader.  I believe that a legislative rule should be enforced that requires no bill can be voted upon without a minimum of a week’s worth of legislative sessions following proposed law being published unless a ¾ vote in favor of suspending the rule is passed.   This would not impose a significant burden upon the members.  The objective would be to raise their constituents’ understanding and the legislators should not be afraid of doing that.    Fortunately, as you know, the Senate failed to pass companion Cap and Trade legislation and thus it was never enacted.


Regulations for Cap and Trade are being written by the EPA.  Yes, the EPA is writing regulations for legislation that could not get approval in Congress.  Part of the blame for this are five  of the nine members of the Supreme Court.

  Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Despite the knowledge that this legislation could not get passed in Congress and despite the fact that CO2 was excluded from the Clear Air Act, the Supremes gave the EPA the authority to determine if CO2 were a threat and if so, to write regulations to control it.

The EPA used the 2007 IPCC Global Warming report as their  science basis.  The EPA  asked for comments on their study and then they ignored any response that said that AGW science was badly flawed.  People within the EPA that expressed doubt were told to be quiet.  The EPA found CO2 to be a threat and began writing regulations.  These regulations are vast and growing.

There is a little irony here in that the environmentalists want all sources of CO2 to be regulated.  The EPA does not want to do that because the enormity of the ensuing burden.   Every furnace exhausts CO2, every hospital, every mall,  almost everything that makes our nation go would have to be monitored and reported.  The regulation overload will quickly result in demands for changes.  In fact I believe the EPA worries that it would result in legislation taking CO2 out of the Clean Air Act again.

Here again, the straightforward thing would be for your representatives to inform you of what the impact on them will be.  Congress should limit the damage the Supreme Court and The Executive (EPA) Branches do when they usurp the Legislatures prerogatives,   by passing legislations that restores the balance of powers.

Any other suggestions?


We all value the freedom of the press as guaranteed in the US Constitution. However the media, by and large, is supportive of BIG GOVERNMENT versus more individual freedom and responsibility. So they practice a form of soft censorship themselves by only reporting one side of the story.   One would expect better of them.  Although their domination of “what is fit to print” has been somewhat weakened by the ubiquitous Internet, it still is the primary input of news and information for most of the citizens of the US.  If our citizens would do less American Idol and pay more attention to what the politicians are doing, it would have a salutary effect on the their personal well-being and the nation’s well-being.

Surely some part of their misguided reporting of climate science is because they are not trained scientifically.  They apparently are too lazy or too intimidated to try to research the issues.  A science reporter from a newspaper in my area has obviously no curiosity or no understanding of what a millimeter is.  He reported about the danger of calving Antarctic Ice that would raise sea level several millimeters per year.  Recently he did a fairly straightforward report on the transfer of State Climatologist title from one PhD to another.  The one surrendering the title is a notable skeptic and frequent co-author of papers with other notables such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.   At the end of the report about the transfer, the reporter took a cheap shot at the skeptic saying that the skeptic was know to be a member of a group that was part of another group that once received money from Exxon.  If the reporter had any level of curiosity he could find out that the most of Exxon’s grant money is for groups that are working on alternative energy.  If the reporter believes funding by an advocate of a particular position is wrong, then why not then report on monies granted by Greenpeace, of the World Wildlife Fund to AGW scientists and groups. Secondly, the grants of money by AGW groups swamp the piddling amount the skeptics receive.  These grants are governmental and NGOs supplied and they total into the billions.  See these reports for further information about the distribution of monies.Here & here & here.

One suggestion is that you keep up with the skeptic blogs like WUWT, Ice Cap, Climate Depot, Heartland, Climate Audit, Science, etc and I hope, Climate Change Sanity and spread the information widely.

Also write to the newspapers.  Tell them when they are off base.  Suggest things they should look into.

If you have some thoughts on all of this, let me know.


Obama Plans to Nationalize the Energy Companies

This Administration’s actions lead me to believe that President Obama is planning to nationalize the energy companies.  When will he do this?   When gasoline hits somewhere around $10 per gallon as some predict it will this year.  See, see. Maybe you think that if gasoline prices get that high, he wont be re-elected?  That is why he will act.  His narrative will be that he had to do it to save the country. Many of our citizenry will applaud his actions. Unfortunately the idea that the government is everyone’s safety net is becoming too engrained.  If gasoline does not reach $10 in his first term and he gets a second term (and a Democrat majority in Congress, a real possibility if Obama is re-elected) he will wait until then.

Demonizing Energy Companies

So you think that this not something Obama and the Democrats would do.  They nationalized most of the automotive industry and got a way with it.   Obama Care is the first step on the way to nationalizing the Health Care industry.  The Congressional Democrats have long advocated nationalizing the Energy companies as have their echo chamber, the mainstream media. See, see, see, see. President Obama is not standing on the sidelines but rather is leading the charge against energy companies.

What Are The Signs

What is going on is an all out assault on the US energy companies by all of Obama’s administration.  Coal is being regulated out of business.  By managing permitting, Oil can’t increase the supply of crude domestically or from neighbors like Canada which will result in higher crude oil prices.  Natural gas re-emergence, resulting from fracking making available vast quantities of domestic gas, is facing the EPA and other environmental groups that want to outlaw or severely restrict the use of fracking.

And the Administration seems to want to reward our foreign foes or competitors while penalizing domestic Energy Companies.    What other conclusions can be derived from the way this President and his allies are conducting business?

The US has plenty of energy.  A recent study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) determined that the USA has the world’s most abundant supply of fossil fuels.  The fuel resources counted were oil, coal and natural gas and all were equilibrated to the energy in barrels of oil equivalent  (BOE). The Chart below has the top seven nations from the study.

Nation Total Fossil Fuels in BOE
United States 973    billions of barrels equivalent
Russia 955                     “
China 474                      “
Iran 328                      “
Australia/New Zealand 315                      “
Saudi Arabia 309                      “
India 227                      “

Data from CRS Report “US Fossil Fuel Resources”:Issued 30Nov2010

We have the resources but President Obama does not want to use them.   All this leads to the obvious conclusion that the President is trying to create a “crisis” so he will, as Rahm Emanuel would say, “never let a crisis go to waste.”   Which brings us back to how will he use this crisis.  I believe it will be to nationalize the US energy companies.  If that happens, don’t be deluded into thinking that the Government will be able to provide us with “low prices”.  The private energy companies, e.g. BigOil, are motivated to innovate ways to locate and exploit reserves at the lowest cost possible.  They represent private enterprise at its best.  Don’t expect nationalized oil to provide this leadership or low prices.   Likely there won’t be any benefit to our economy, or boost in jobs and I suspect President Obama knows this.  The reason then must be the ultimate goal of socialists—– redistribution of wealth.

It is hoped, that the following discussion will help one understand the battle the Energy Companies are facing.


Another investigation is underway to find out if Big Oil (e.g. Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, Conoco-Phillips) is manipulating the prices.   That Big Oil has been exonerated in all of the previous investigations, and will be in this one, is not the main issue here.  The Liberals know that this technique plants seeds of doubt in the publics mind. Typically, their accusations get all the headlines and the acquittal is seldom mentioned.

If Big Oil is driving up the prices how do they do it?  The American Petroleum Institute (API) listed the 20 Largest Oil and Gas Companies based upon their 2009 oil reserves.  It shows that 72% of the world’s oil reserves are owned by nations (not privately owned companies) such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Libya.  The biggest US Company to make the list was Exxon-Mobil at #17.   The Exxon-Mobil reserves as a percent of the world reserves are 0.68%.  Think about this situation where the OPEC type state owned companies have reserves 100 times greater than Exxon-Mobil.  Do you really believe that Exxon-Mobil is able to dictates the price of crude to OPEC?   Of course they can’t do that.

Well, there are those obscene earnings, right?  In 2010 the earnings as a percent of sales for Oil and Natural Gas was 5.7%.  Compare that to 19.4% for Beverages and Pharmaceuticals; 17.3% for Computers; and ALL MANUFACTURING was 8.5%.  So the average for manufacturing was 8.5% and Oil and Gas came in with 5.7%.    So, yes, their earnings are large but not out of line with their sales, in fact they are coming in lower than the average manufacturing business.  And further, U.S. oil and natural gas companies tax rates are considerably higher than the average manufacturing company. In 2010 income tax expenses (as a share of net income before income taxes) averaged 41.1 percent for Oil and Natural Gas companies compared to 26.5 percent for the average  S&P Industrial company.

Domestic oil production could make a real change in supply and it would significantly reduce our balance of payments deficit.  Further it would reduce the income of those countries that use the money to make problems for the US—Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, etc.  It is said that Venezuela’s Chavez needs oil above $40 per barrel to have money to support his dictatorship.   And his friend President Obama wants to see the price much higher than $40, too.

Classic wrong headedness is illustrated by diddling over access to Canada’s rich tar sands.  From the IBD posting “China has its eye on Canada’s oil”:

Together, the U.S. and Canada have enough oil and natural gas locked up in shale formations, tar sands, Alaska, the Canadian Arctic and the Outer Continental Shelf to make OPEC pound sand. But we won’t drill for ours and apparently; we don’t want Canada’s.

With more than 170 billion barrels, Alberta has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and ahead of Russia and Iran. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to nearly triple to 3.7 million by 2025. The only question is, will this crude be flowing south to U.S. refineries or west for export to China?

At issue is the Keystone XL pipeline, parts of which have already been built, that would bring Alberta oil to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline also could transport oil extracted from shale formations in the Rocky Mountain West.  The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the region, dubbed the Persia of the West, may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, six times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, and enough to meet U.S. oil needs for the next two centuries. By 2015, oil executives and industry analysts say, the oil-rich lands of the West, including North Dakota’s booming Bakken formation, could produce 2 million barrels a day, more than the pre-Deepwater Horizon production rate in the Gulf of Mexico.

Environmental groups oppose Keystone XL on the grounds that tar-sands extraction harms the environment through water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and potential pipeline leaks. The State Department, which must approve any pipeline entering the U.S. across international borders, has withheld its approval pending a final decision Nov. 1.  The Chinese aren’t waiting. Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, has a stake in a $5.5 billion plan to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific Coast province of British Columbia. Alberta Finance Minister Lloyd Snelgrove met this month with Sinopec and CNOOC, China’s other big oil company, and representatives of China’s banks.

While the U.S. dithers with concerns about “dirty oil” from Alberta’s rich tar sands, energy-hungry China makes Ottawa an offer it might not refuse. Memo to Washington: Pipelines can run west as well as south.

It is not that the President does not know that the laws of supply and demand are important to price of commodities.   When he pulled the stunt of releasing 30 million barrels of crude from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), my guess is that his intent was twofold.  Maybe he thought that OPEC would see it as a threat that he would permit additional releases from the SPR if they did up their production and thus reduce crude prices.  As the 30 million only amounted to two days of US crude requirements, it’s likely they were not too worried.  Probably the real reason was to signal that things were out of control and he was trying one of the possible levers to stop the “runaway” gasoline pricing.


The US has the largest coal resources in the world. It is inexpensive relative to other fossil fuels and it is abundant. Coal is used to produce 45% of the nation’s electricity.    While electricity is very dependant on coal, coal is highly dependent on electricity as 93% of all US coal is used to generate electricity.  But Obama wants to put coal use in the past tense.   Obama announced before he was elected that he was going to put coal out of business and he means to do just that.  He is using the EPA to put very stringent emission restrictions on coal based electrical power plants.  The price increases for the ratepayers in the Mid-Western US States are going to be ugly.

A posting in the TownHall blog, “Clearing the Air”:

EPA’s proposed “mercury and air toxics” rules for power plants are built on the false premise that we are still breathing the smog, soot and poisons that shrouded London, England and Gary, Indiana sixty years ago. In reality, US air quality improved steadily after the 1970 Clean Air Act was enacted.

EPA’s “most wanted” outlaw is mercury. But for Americans this villain is as real as Freddy or Norman Bates. To turn power plant mercury emissions into a mass killer, EPA cherry-picked studies and data, and ignored any that didn’t fit its “slasher” film script. As my colleague Dr. Willie Soon and I pointed out in our Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily articles, US power plants account for just 0.5% of mercury emitted into North American’s air; the other 99.5% comes from natural and foreign sources.

Energy analyst Roger Bezdek estimates that utilities will have to spend over $130 billion to retrofit older plants, under the measly three year (2014) deadline that EPA is giving them………, On top of that, utilities will have to spend another $30 billion a year for operations, maintenance and extra fuel for the energy-intensive scrubbers and other equipment they will be forced to install.

Many companies simply cannot justify those huge costs for older power plants. Thus Dominion Power, American Electric Power and other utilities have announced that they will simply close dozens of generating units, representing tens of thousands of megawatts – enough to electrify tens of millions of homes and businesses.

Electricity costs are set to skyrocket, just as the President promised. Consumers can expect to pay at least 20% more in many states by 2014 or shortly thereafter. According to the Chicago Tribune, Illinois families and businesses will shell out 40-60% more! How’s that for an incentive to ramp up production and hire more workers? How’s that “hope and change” working out for families that had planned to fix the car, save for college and retirement, take a nice vacation, get that long-postponed surgery?

For a mid-sized hospital or factory that currently pays $500,000 annually for electricity (including peak-demand charges), those rate hikes could add $300,000 a year to its electricity bill.

And it’s not just private businesses that will get hammered. As the Chi Trib notes, if the Chicago public school system wants to keep the lights on and computers running for two semesters, by 2014 it will get hit for an extra $2.7 million it doesn’t have, to pay for skyrocketing electricity costs.

Carry those costs through much of the US economy – especially the 26 states that get 48-98% of their electricity from coal-fired power plants – and we are talking about truly “fundamental transformations.” Millions will be laid off, millions more won’t be hired, millions of jobs will be shipped overseas – and millions will endure brownouts, blackouts and social unrest.

The Chairman of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Jonathan Samet implies there is no limit to the EPA authority according to a Junk Science Posting “Samet” No End To EPA Air Regulations:”

What Samet is saying is that there is no scientific basis for EPA not continually reducing manmade air emissions until there aren’t any. As Samet points out, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA could literally regulate us out of any sort of industry without regard to the consequences.

Classic doublespeak by those who are  our “betters” that want us to use mercury laden lights that are much more expensive than low cost incandescent bulbs (that they are banning) when Energy Secretary Steven Chu said “ We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their money.”

Natural Gas

Fracking technology involves pumping high-pressure water, sand and some chemicals into a borehole to create fractures in the shale formations in which natural gas and oil resides.  The fracturing of shale makes paths for the gas and oil to move to the collection piping and up to the surface.   This technology has been used by the oil and gas producers for some while but recently fracking has been used to tap massive quantities of natural gas. The quantities are so large that some estimates of the available natural gas are said to be equal to a 200-year supply for the US.

But the Obama administration never sleeps when it comes to seeking ways to deprive the nation of new supplies of energy.  The EPA has begin to study fracking:  National Review Online’s “The Fracas about Fracking” raises concerns about the likelihood of the study providing a fair review or a predetermined outcome which will reflect unfavorably on the practice of fracking:

In deciding on a policy on fracking, we should not wait for a congressionally mandated EPA report on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water, due in 2012. A congressional hearing held in May revealed fatal flaws in what was supposed to be a definitive, vigorously peer-reviewed study. For one thing, it will be an inside job from the EPA; the study’s review panel excludes anyone with professional expertise in current industry practices or the technology of hydraulic fracturing. Under the current administration, industry experts, like highly credentialed professors of petroleum engineering, are assumed to be shills for greedy enterprises.

The EPA study has some other serious defects. It will cherry-pick only four wells, out of hundreds of thousands, for full forensic analysis, and it has excluded representatives of state regulatory agencies — which have six decades of experience in regulating this practice, which began in 1948 — from its review panel. Nor do the researchers seem aware of the difference between, on one hand, models of the assumed effects of hydraulic fracturing and, on the other, physical measurements of the results of hundreds of actual fracking treatments. To learn the fundamentals of this issue, the EPA would have to bother to speak with experts on the technology.

The study seems designed to substantiate a predetermined conclusion: that hydraulic fracturing poses grave risks. Therefore the EPA must either assert regulatory control on all drilling using this technology, or issue a “temporary” moratorium — as in the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf spill — until further study is complete. If fracking is delayed or discontinued, massive resources will remain untapped, hundreds of thousands of jobs will not be created, and billions of dollars of potential federal, state, and local tax revenues will be lost.

And some thoughts about this study from the American Thinker “Obama continues his war on cheap American Energy”:

Even if the panel should somehow miraculously decide that fracking is safe, there is a history of Obama appointees rewriting decisions from panels evaluating the safety of energy development, so as to change the outcomes to suit Obama’s biases against cheap and abundant (and American) energy. When the Gulf of Mexico oil-drilling platform Macondo sprang a leak, a panel’s conclusion regarding the safety of offshore oil drilling was doctored by White House political appointee Carol Browner (or someone operating under her authority) to make it appear that the panel of experts endorsed a moratorium on offshore drilling. When this manipulation of science was brought to light, many members of the panel objected to the distortion of their views and disavowed the “report”.

Stacking panels with ideological soul mates is Barack Obama’s modus operandi. If that does not work to accomplish his goals, creative re-writing is the next step. There is always one more trick in Obama’s pocket that he can use to keep us away from cheap, abundant and American energy.

There are some things we can do—–you probably know what they are.  Anyway, I will list some in my next blog.