Ben Affleck’s Batman Drives a Hybrid?


Via Naked DC:

Yesterday director Zack Snyder tweeted the above teaser picture of the next Batmobile, and later revealed a more complete look of Bat’s new ride from what looks like a movie still. Far from the military-styling of Christian Bale’s Batmobile, Affleck’s ride look lower, sleeker, and more, dare I say, comic book-y? Looks aside, more interesting is word that the functional movie prop might shun the traditional V8 engine of Batmobiles past in favor of a gas-electric hybrid setup, according to Jalopnik’s unnamed sources.

A functional Batmobile is necessary for filming, and Batmobiles of the past often went with the tried-and-true small-block Chevy V8, even though some of them were supposedly turbine-powered. A few private a Batmobile concepts have gone even further, embracing clean-burning hydrogen fuel cells.

If there’s some reason that a hybrid would make sense on the movie set, then that makes sense. A zero-emission electric vehicle, for example, would be ideal for shooting scenes in an enclosed space. But if it’s just a nod to Affleck’s environmentalism, then what a waste of money for absolutely no environmental benefit.

Al Gore: Kochs Are Behind GOP Climate Denialism


Via the HuffPo:

Speaking at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics on Monday, Gore noted that Republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney had acknowledged and taken steps toward solving the issue before it became politicized by the right.

“I don’t think it’s particularly complicated why they have all cowed into abandoning that position,” Gore said. “They will face primary opponents financed by the Koch Brothers, and others who are part of their group, if they even breathe the slightest breath of sympathy for the truth about climate science. It’s not really that complicated.”

Gore continued: “And of course, Sen. Paul is from a coal state, but even if he were not, anyone who wants to set his or her aspirations on the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2016 already knows that they can’t possibly cross the Koch brothers and the others that are part of that group, the large carbon polluters and ideological anti-statists who are really terrified that the government will do anything new, so as Grover Norquist said famously years ago, they want to shrink the government to where it can be drowned in a bathtub.”



The Alarmists Love John Oliver’s Take on Global Warming


Much to the delight of the alarmist community, John Oliver brought media-darling Bill Nye to his HBO show on Sunday to illustrate what a cable-news debate on global warming would look like if it were based on the much cited 97-percent consensus that humans are contributing to global warming. Oliver comically had 97 people on one side of his desk arguing that humans are warming the planet with three people on the other side denying a link. 

The HuffPo declared that Oliver and Nye schooled the skeptics. Salon called it a “brilliant take down.” Talking Points Memo saw it as a “real” climate debate. Mother Jones wrote the segment showed why cable-news debates on global warming were “ridiculous.” 

The problem is, however, Oliver based the entire bit on a misrepresentation.

The segment started with Oliver asking why it’s still an “uphill climb” to get Americans to believe in the science of global warming. After showing a clip of MSNBC’s Alex Witt discussing this Gallup poll with the headline, “One in Four in U.S. Are Solidly Skeptical of Global Warming,” Oliver had this to say:

Who gives a s***. That doesn’t matter. You don’t need peoples’ opinion on a fact. You might as well have a poll on which number is bigger, fifteen or five? Or do owls exist?

This makes for a funny line, but it’s not what Gallup polled. Oliver’s monologue made it seem that Gallup was asking about a belief in the science.

Here’s what viewers saw:

But Gallup actually asked how worried people were about global warming:

Asking how worried a person is about global warming is a much different question than asking if a person believes the science. This is an important distinction as there is a segment of the population that trusts science, but doesn’t agree on the threat. 

Now back to Oliver’s original question on why the alarmists face an “uphill climb.” The Gallup poll he cited answers it for him, but the missed it.

Here’s why: Gallup asked if  ”Global warming will pose a serious threat in your lifetime?”

Now let’s do some math. Gallup found of the ”Core Believers,” the 39-percent of Americans who “attribute global warming to human activities and are worried about it,” only 65-percent of that group think global warming will “pose a serious threat” in the near term. 

That equals about 25-percent of Americans who think we need to do something about global warming right away. 

I won’t go as far as saying that only 25 percent of respondents thought global warming was caused by man, worried about it, and were worried about it in the near term is as fact as incontrovertible as the existence of owls, but it’s a very good explanation of why the alarmists have an “uphill climb.” 

As far as switching the debate — as Oliver, Nye, and the rest of the alarmist community suggest — to one of “what to do about global warming,” I’m all for it. But they won’t like that debate very much either as Americans just don’t believe — even Americans who trust the science — that global warming is an imminent threat. 





Robert Samuelson: There’s No Solution For Climate Change Yet


This is a great column and an honest take on global warming by Samuelson in today’s Washington Post:

It would be healthy — in the sense of promoting honesty — if every report warning of global warming and climate change (the two terms are interchangeable) came with the following disclaimer:

Despite our belief that global warming poses catastrophic threats to many of the world’s 7 billion inhabitants, we acknowledge that we now lack the technologies to stop it. The purpose of our analysis and policy proposals is to create the political and economic conditions that foster the needed technologies. But there is no assurance that this will happen, and much time and money may be invested in futile and wasteful efforts.

I am not optimistic. Our climate-change debates confuse more than they clarify. They follow a ritualistic script that is now playing out again.

First came a downbeat report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of scientists set up by the United Nations. It found that global temperatures have warmed for decades, that man-made emissions are the main cause (atmospheric concentrations are said to be the highest in 800,000 years) and that the effects include rising sea levels, melting ice formations and more heat waves.

Next arrived the U.S. National Climate Assessment, a study by 300 U.S. experts that’s more alarming than the IPCC report. It begins: “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.” Americans already suffer from global warming. Floods are more frequent; wildfires are harder to control; rainstorms are more violent.

Naturally, climate skeptics (a.k.a. “deniers”) denounced the reports. The evidence was exaggerated, cherry-picked or both, said Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Consider, they said, a contrasting study headed by a Harvard researcher. It found that heat-related deaths in 105 U.S. cities had declined since the late 1980s.

The rhetorical ping-pong — claim vs. counterclaim — suggests a struggle for public opinion. Not really. Right or wrong, the public already believes in global warming. A 2013 Pew poll found that 67 percent of Americans see “solid evidence” that the Earth is warming. Though that’s down from 77 percent in 2006, the margin is still large. Democrats are stronger believers than Republicans, but mainly because tea party support is low.

It’s useful for environmental groups to have global warming “deniers” (and, of course, behind them the sinister oil companies) as foils. The subliminal message is that once the views of these Neanderthals are swept away, we can adopt sensible policies to “do something” about global warming.

The reality is otherwise. The central truth for public policy is: We have no solution.

The rest here.

Porn-Watching EPA Employee Not Fired


The EPA in action: 

How much porn does it take to get fired at EPA?

As a U.S. House committee looked at allegations that a special homeland security unit within the Environmental Protection Agency was blocking investigations by the EPA’s Inspector General, lawmakers also veered into other internal probes at that agency, demanding to know why it is so difficult to get rid of federal workers involved in on-the-job misconduct.

“When we have an employee who is looking at over 600 porn sites in a four day period – and it’s there in black and white – fire them!” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).

At the hearing, investigators detailed for lawmakers how a six figure EPA employee had admitted watching large amounts of porn on the job; he remains on the payroll, but his case has been referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution.

“So this guy is making $125,000, spending two to six hours a day looking at porno,” said Rep. John Mica (R-FL), who was told by officials that the worker had been given performance awards – despite one time spending four straight hours on a website called, “Sadism is Beautiful.”

“How much pornography would it take for an EPA employee to lose their job?” asked a frustrated Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

There was no concrete response from officials, given the lengthy process that it takes for the federal government to “separate” an employee from the civil service.

The rest here.


Stanford to Divest Endowment of Coal Companies


There’s a growing movement to get universities to divest from fossil-fuel companies, and although Stanford is not the first to do so, it is the biggest name so far. Via the Stanford Report:

Acting on a recommendation of Stanford’s Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing, the Board of Trustees announced that Stanford will not make direct investments in coal mining companies. The move reflects the availability of alternate energy sources with lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal.

Stanford University will not make direct investments of endowment funds in publicly traded companies whose principal business is the mining of coal for use in energy generation, the Stanford Board of Trustees decided today.

In taking the action, the trustees endorsed the recommendation of the university’s Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing (APIRL). This panel, which includes representatives of students, faculty, staff and alumni, conducted an extensive review over the last several months of the social and environmental implications of investment in fossil fuel companies.

Stanford, however, is divesting only from coal companies and not from the entire fossil-fuel industry. Why? Because they don’t see “green energy” as a viable solution yet:

In its review, the APIRL acknowledged the findings of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding the role of fossil fuels in contributing to changes in the global climate system. The APIRL also noted that the use of coal for electricity production generates higher greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy generated than other fossil fuels, such as natural gas, and that alternatives to coal are sufficiently available.

Replacing other fossil fuels with renewable energy sources also is a desirable goal, the APIRL said, but fewer alternatives are readily available for these other energy sources on the massive scale that will be required to replace them broadly in the global economy.

In effect, Stanford is admitting the importance of fossil fuels while making a wholly symbolic move to divest from coal. Environmentalists shouldn’t cheer this move, but weep over it. As David Harsanyi notes today, and this move by Stanford confirms: ”The climate debate is over, and the environmentalists lost.”

Harvard was petitioned last year to make a similar move with their endowment, and rejected any sort of divestment from any energy company. Here’s the explanation of that decision by Harvard’s president, Drew Faust. Some excerpts:

Climate change represents one of the world’s most consequential challenges.  I very much respect the concern and commitment shown by the many members of our community who are working to confront this problem.  I, as well as members of our Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility, have benefited from a number of conversations in recent months with students who advocate divestment from fossil fuel companies.  While I share their belief in the importance of addressing climate change, I do not believe, nor do my colleagues on the Corporation, that university divestment from the fossil fuel industry is warranted or wise.

And. . .

Because I am deeply concerned about climate change, I also feel compelled to ask whether a focus on divestment does not in fact distract us from more effective measures, better aligned with our institutional capacities.  Universities own a very small fraction of the market capitalization of fossil fuel companies.  If we and others were to sell our shares, those shares would no doubt find other willing buyers.  Divestment is likely to have negligible financial impact on the affected companies.  And such a strategy would diminish the influence or voice we might have with this industry.  Divestment pits concerned citizens and institutions against companies that have enormous capacity and responsibility to promote progress toward a more sustainable future. 

I also find a troubling inconsistency in the notion that, as an investor, we should boycott a whole class of companies at the same time that, as individuals and as a community, we are extensively relying on those companies’ products and services for so much of what we do every day.  Given our pervasive dependence on these companies for the energy to heat and light our buildings, to fuel our transportation, and to run our computers and appliances, it is hard for me to reconcile that reliance with a refusal to countenance any relationship with these companies through our investments.

Good for Harvard.

Stanford (kinda, sorta) avoided the hypocrisy argument by limiting its divestment to coal as California only gets 1 percent of electricity from coal compared with 12 percent in Massachusetts. But California and Massachusetts are remarkably similar — 59 percent and 63 percent, respectively — in regard to electricity from natural gas.

Of note, Stanford did not divest from any companies involved with fracking.

Maybe because one of its top academics, Dr. Mark Zoback, in an often-quoted expert on fracking who is a vocal, dedicated supporter of a “decarbonized energy future,” but sees fracking as necessary to accomplish this. For example, Zoback gave this interview to the Los Angeles Times

California is considering a moratorium on fracking.

I’m usually against such moratoriums. Many people believe that everything we do to impede oil and gas development will be a step toward a decarbonized energy future. I’m very committed to a decarbonized energy future, but you have to recognize our dependence on hydrocarbons.

We need a well-thought-out energy policy that allows a transition to a decarbonized energy future, that respects the need for economic growth not only in this country but around the world. We have to double the size of the energy system [and yet] reduce its impact on the environment; we have to respect national security.

That’s very daunting, and moratoria just say this is bad, let’s stop doing it. Moratoria tend to make a political statement, but I’m not sure we need political statements. We need good science, good engineering, good regulations and good enforcement.

And Zoback is the go-to guy to debunk alarmist claims that fracking causes earthquakes.

Fracking-related earthquakes were reported in Oklahoma, and Ohio now requires seismic monitoring. Does fracking cause earthquakes?

There have been well-documented cases around the country where wastewater injection [post-fracking] has triggered slip on preexisting geologic faults that would have produced an earthquake someday anyway. You need to avoid injection into potentially active faults. Pretty straightforward, but if you don’t think about this ahead of time, you won’t do it. There have been a handful of cases, mostly in northernmost British Columbia, where hydraulic fracking itself has triggered earthquakes. It does the oil and gas industry no benefit to pressurize a preexisting fault.

We can manage this risk. I don’t want to minimize the potential for things to go wrong, but you need [to] see what’s being proposed and draw a conclusion about what’s safe and what isn’t. In our Deepwater Horizon report, we refer to an engineering [risk] principle, ALARP, “as low as reasonably possible.” The fear of fracking is being used as a scare tactic. There are environmental impacts, and our job is to do everything possible to minimize them, not just scare the public.

It’s hard to argue that Stanford should acquiesce to alarmism and punish the entire fossil-fuel industry when the settled science generated at Stanford sees the fossil-fuel industry, including fracking, as necessary to acheive a reduction in world-wide carbon emissions. 



WaPost’s ‘Capital Weather Gang’ vs. the National Climate Assessment


The Washington Post’s weather blog points out some issues with the National Climate Assessment released today. An excerpt:

Yet, one could argue the report – in a few places – goes too far in attempting to stay-on message by glossing over some of the thornier issues in climate science and not sufficiently qualifying projections.

For example, the highlights report says: “…data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections.”

Legitimate climate scientists, who have published in the peer reviewed literature, could easily nit pick this sweeping statement. Countering the assertion “earlier predictions have largely been confirmed”, an August 2013 paper in Nature Climate Change concluded that computer models simulated over four times as much warming compared to reality since 1998 (note: the report does discuss the reason for this, i.e. a short-term slowdown in surface warming, in its “science supplement.”). And while the decline in Arctic sea ice has occurred faster than model projections, Antarctic sea ice has actually increased (for complicated reasons, which don’t refute global warming) while many models predicted the opposite.

Just as the report’s discussion of the success of past predictions could be better qualified or more complete, so could some of its predictions about the future.

For example, the chapter on the Northeast predicts a 60-day per year increase in the number of 90 degree or warmer days by mid-century in the northern Mid-Atlantic region. In Washington, D.C., for example, that would imply the current average of 36 90+ degree days would increase to 90 – or the equivalent of the entirety of June, July, and August.

[. . .]

While the number of 90+ degree days have trended upward in D.C. over time, a rather remarkable acceleration in the long-term trend would be required for this projection to become reality.

Oversimplified statements and projections that seem over the top can do damage to an otherwise outstanding body of work – which is beautifully and innovatively presented.  Over 300 excellent scientists contributed to this report.

So don’t let a few alarmist apples spoil the bunch?

The whole post here.

My Favorite Part of the ‘National Climate Assessment’ So Far


This is from page 9 of the section called “Overview and Report Findings.”

If we don’t cut emissions from fossil-fuels, our fossil-fuel industry will be negatively affected:

Or, in other words, we need to switch to higher cost alternative energy to replace oil and gas production in order to save oil and gas production from rising sea levels.



White House Releases New ‘National Climate Assessment’


Or it’s the script for a reboot of Mad Max. I’m not sure which. CNN has a summary of the report:

Flooded rail lines. Bigger, more frequent droughts. A rash of wildfires.

Those are some of the alarming predictions in a White House climate change report released Tuesday, part of President Barack Obama’s broader second-term effort to help the nation prepare for the effects of higher temperatures, rising sea levels and more erratic weather.

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” the National Climate Assessment says, adding that the evidence of man-made climate change “continues to strengthen” and that “impacts are increasing across the country.”

“Americans are noticing changes all around them,” the report says, echoing a draft version from last year. “Summers are longer and hotter. … Rain comes in heavier downpours.”

In a statement released to coincide with the report’s publication, the White House called for a rapid response.

“The findings in this National Climate Assessment underscore the need for urgent action to combat the threats from climate change, protect American citizens and communities today, and build a sustainable future for our kids and grandkids,” the White House said.

You can download the almost 1,000-page document here.




Think Progress Warns of Sea Level Rise 2000 Years from Today. Again.


You can’t criticize Think Progress for not recycling. Here’s some familiar-sounding alarmism:

East Antarctic Melting Could Raise Sea Levels By 10 To 13 Feet, Study Finds

A region of East Antarctica is more vulnerable than previously thought to a massive thaw that could result in world sea levels rising for thousands of years, a study found Sunday.

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, looked at the 600-mile Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica, which, if it melted, has enough ice to raise sea levels by 10 to 13 feet. Researchers found that the region was vulnerable to melting because it’s held in place by a small “ice plug” that may melt over the next few centuries, meaning East Antarctica could “become a large contributor to future sea-level rise on timescales beyond a century,” according to the article.

“East Antarctica’s Wilkes Basin is like a bottle on a slant. Once uncorked, it empties out,” Matthias Mengel, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

Which is a lot like this from March:

Sea Level Rise Threatens The Statue Of Liberty And Hundreds Of Other Cultural Heritage Sites

Almost 200 cultural heritage sites, including the Statue of Liberty and the Sydney Opera House, could be compromised if global warming reaches 3 degrees above pre-industrial levels, a new report in Environmental Research Letters shows.

The research released Tuesday from Austria and Germany used both sea-level estimates for the next 2000 years and high-resolution topography data to compute which of the more than 700 listed UNESCO World Heritage sites would be affected by sea-level rise at different levels of sustained future warming. The report found that if warming reaches 3 degrees Celsius, sea level would rise six feet in the next 2,000 years, and 170 of those sites would be drowned.

Oh, and by the way, we’ll probably be more worried about an ice age 2,000 years from now than Antarctica’s melting ice. Via MIT’s Technology Review:

But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not.In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals. Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory.

I guess in 2,000 years, after humans have moved to Mars to avoid the ice age, Think Progress will bitch about how anthropogenic factors are messing up the terraformed atmosphere.

Global Warming Renamed Again: Now It’s ‘Global Climate Disruption’


President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, thinks we should change the name of “climate change,” which was formerly known as “global warming,” to ”global climate disruption.” Via ScienceInsider:

First there was “global warming.” Then many researchers suggested “climate change” was a better term. Now, White House science adviser John Holdren is renewing his call for a new nomenclature to describe the end result of dumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into Earth’s atmosphere: “global climate disruption.”

“I’ve always thought that the phrase ‘global warming’ was something of a misnomer because it suggests that the phenomenon is something that is uniform around the world, that it’s all about temperature, and that it’s gradual,” Holdren said yesterday at the annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy in Washington, D.C. (AAAS publishes ScienceInsider.) “What could be wrong with that?”

Instead, he said, “we should call it ‘global climate disruption.’ Although the rising average global surface temperature is an indicator of the degree of disruption that we have imposed on the global climate system, what’s actually happening involves changes in circulation patterns, changes in precipitation patterns, and changes in extremes. And those are very different in different places.”

Holdren has made similar calls before, apparently with limited effect on the public’s vocabulary. This time, the remarks came in the context of a brief preview Holdren gave of a new climate report that the Obama administration is scheduled to release next week. The document will, in part, spell out the potential disruptions the United States faces as a result of a changing climate, perhaps giving Holdren’s idea some currency.

Why not just defend “global warming?” In Holdren’s own definition of “global climate disruption” above, he cites “rising average global surface temperature.” Um, that’s called “global warming.” And the reason for the name change isn’t to clear up any “misnomers,” it’s an attempt to find language that will finally convince voters that the president’s environmental policies should be enacted. 

Well, to quote President Obama from 2008, “You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Environmental loons can call warming hysteria and its associated apocalyptic predictions whatever they want. But it’s still a pig. 

Senator Schumer: Dems Support Fracking


But notice how he won’t criticize Gov. Cuomo over delays to bring fracking to New York state. Hat tip Energy in Depth:

I guess Senator Schumer spoke just a little too soon. A big win for the anti-fracking side in Colorado, led by Democratic Rep. Jared Polis:

Democrats fail to reach fracking deal

Democrats in the Colorado House of Representatives announced Monday they had failed to reach a deal to give local government more control over fracking.

The effort, which was spearheaded by Re. Su Ryden (D-Aurora) would have taken some steam out of the issue in this year’s elections.

A statewide-ballot question to allow local governments to ban fracking is being promoted (and funded in large part) by congressman Jared Polis (D-Colorado.)

The idea was to strike a deal to avoid the ballot question.

Politco warned two weeks ago that Rep. Polis’s anti-fracking ballot measure could “break Colorado Democrats.” Failure to reach a deal today make’s Politco’s warning that much more likely. 


Did Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Tell Chelsea Clinton to Forego Immunizations for Her Baby?


Earlier this week, Chelsea Clinton was honored by environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Riverkeeper foundation, receiving its prestigious distinguished esteemed silly-sounding “Big Fish” award:

Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have worked to promote clean and safe drinking water for communities around the world that need it most. Here at home, Chelsea has been a leader in supporting the recovery of New York City communities impacted by Superstorm Sandy.

What’s notable about it is that the event paired Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the prestigious distinguished esteemed dictator-loving environmentalist with a long history of vaccine alrmism and associated conspiracy theories with the pro-immunization and pregnant Chelsea Clinton. The media loves a good anti-vaccination vs. vaccination story, yet not a single media outlet jumped on it. Why is that?

A little history is in order. . .

Kennedy’s vaccination alarmism became widely known in June/July 2005 when Salon (online) and Rolling Stone (in print) jointly published his piece, “Deadly Immunity,” that repeated the specious claim that the vaccine preservative thimerosal is linked with autism. Here’s the conspiracy-laden sub-headline from the Rolling Stone edition (and can be read in full can be read in full on Kennedy’s website):

When a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data – and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in the epidemic

Kennedy’s work came under immediate criticism and Salon, “in the days after running” the piece, was forced to amend “the story with five corrections.” In 2011, Salon ended up retracting the piece in full:

In 2005, Salon published online an exclusive story by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that offered an explosive premise: that the mercury-based thimerosal compound present in vaccines until 2001 was dangerous, and that he was “convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.”

The piece was co-published with Rolling Stone magazine — they fact-checked it and published it in print; we posted it online. In the days after running “Deadly Immunity,” we amended the story with five corrections (which can still be found logged here) that went far in undermining Kennedy’s exposé. At the time, we felt that correcting the piece — and keeping it on the site, in the spirit of transparency — was the best way to operate. But subsequent critics, including most recently, Seth Mnookin in his book “The Panic Virus,” further eroded any faith we had in the story’s value. We’ve grown to believe the best reader service is to delete the piece entirely.

“I regret we didn’t move on this more quickly, as evidence continued to emerge debunking the vaccines and autism link,” says former Salon editor in chief Joan Walsh, now editor at large. “But continued revelations of the flaws and even fraud tainting the science behind the connection make taking down the story the right thing to do.” The story’s original URL now links to our autism topics page, which we believe now offers a strong record of clear thinking and skeptical coverage we’re proud of — including the critical pursuit of others who continue to propagate the debunked, and dangerous, autism-vaccine link.

In other words, the article was so bad that Salon decided to take it down entirely. 

Between 2005 when “Deadly Immunity” was written, and 2011 when it was retracted, the anti-vaccination movement was gaining momentum. In 2007 Jenny McCarthy became, arguably, the anti-vaccination movement’s public face when she wrote the parenting book Louder than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism that alleged a link between her son’s vaccinations and his autism diagnosis.

And in 2008, Kennedy appeared at a rally in D.C. hosted by “Green Our Vaccines” with Jenny McCarthy and actor/comedian Jim Carrey (remember him?):

WASHINGTON, June 4 /PRNewswire/ – Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey will lead the Green Our Vaccines march, rally and hold a press conference today, Wednesday June, 4th at the Capitol Building, West Capitol Grounds in Washington, DC. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will be joining Carrey and McCarthy as the keynote speaker. 
“We have been inspired by Mr. Kennedy’s support of mothers’ positions on vaccines and his ground breaking article, “Deadly Immunity,” McCarthy says. “His continued efforts are greatly appreciated.” 

McCarthy might be the public face of the movement, but it was RFJ Jr. who gave her the gravitas in those early days — thanks, in large part, to Salon.

Fast forward to today and Salon continues to cover the anti-vaccine movement, but they omit Kennedy and their own own role as a publication, in the perpetuation of the vaccine-autism link.

If you’re a celebrity not named Kennedy, however, you’re fair game for the ire.

For example, Salon called Reese Witherspoon clueless” for her views on vaccines. A few weeks earlier, Salon declared Jenny McCarthy ”one of the most divisive and controversial media figures in America today.”  Salon played the bimbo card, calling Witherspoon and McCarthy the two “blondes who were famous in the ’90s and who now use their celebrity to spout dubious parenting advice.” In March, they went after ”anti-vaccine nut Kristin Cavallari,” who is blonde, too.

None of these stories mention Kennedy at all. And when Kennedy is mentioned in a Salon piece on vaccines, his inclusion with the anti-vaccine movement is covered without insult:

“It’s a little bit cool, it’s a little bit of a trend,” says Nina Shapiro, a professor at UCLA medical school and mother of two who wrote an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times this weekend about her growing concern with the anti-vax movement.

It’s certainly true of the anti-vaccination’s most prominent voices, like actress Jenny McCarthy, who was just hired to a spot on “The View,” and environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr.

“It’s that whole natural, BPA-free, hybrid car community that says ‘we’re not going to put chemicals in our children,’” Shapiro told Salon. “It’s that same idea: ‘I’m going to be pure and I want to keep my child pure.’”

Yes, it’s a trend. RFJ Jr. started the trend. On They should mention that.

Of note, the link Salon provides — “environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr.” — doesn’t even direct readers to their own Kennedy mea culpa, it links instead to a piece on Kennedy in Slate. 

Now for the most over-the-top headline from Salon:

Dear ABC: Putting Jenny McCarthy on “The View” will kill children

Again, no mention of RFK. Jr.’s views, but it’s totally cool to say McCarthy will kill kids.

Well, if Jenny McCarthy is a baby-killer, than so is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and I want to know why the media ignored Chelsea Clinton accepting an award from a baby-killer. 





New Study Blames Scientists For Confusing People About Global Warming


Funniest headline you’ll read today, made even better as it’s from the alarmist Mother Jones:

Study: It Is “Very Likely” That Scientists Are Confusing Us About Global Warming

The United Nations’ blockbuster climate reports are full of language that makes people doubt climate change.


Unions vs. Anti-Fracking Efforts in Carson, Calif.


It looks like the unions won. The Los Angeles Times reports:

An effort to extend a moratorium on all oil drilling in the city of Carson failed Tuesday night after the five-member City Council failed to reach the four-fifths supermajority needed to keep the ban in place.

The temporary ban, passed last month, was initially sought by the council to allow the city more time to study the potential effects of oil extraction techniques, such as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and acidization.

Those technologies have been at the center of a controversy over a massive proposed oil project by Occidental Petroleum, which is seeking to drill more than 200 wells near the Cal State Dominguez Hills campus.

Much of the contention was based upon fears that the company would employ those methods at the site, a claim it has repeatedly denied.

Unlike previous meetings, supporters of the drilling project — many of them union members with T-shirts and signs that read “Jobs for Carson” and “Oppose the Ban” — came out in force.

Many said they were Carson residents and argued that extending the ban would hurt jobs within the city.

“We want Carson to be safe,” said Maria Elena Durazo, executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, “but let’s not pass a law that’s going to cut off this city from its economy. Together, we will fight to make Carson safe and prosperous for all residents.”

The rest here.

Unions vs. Anti-Fracking Efforts in Carson, Calif.


It looks like the unions won. The Los Angeles Times reports:

An effort to extend a moratorium on all oil drilling in the city of Carson failed Tuesday night after the five-member City Council failed to reach the four-fifths supermajority needed to keep the ban in place.

The temporary ban, passed last month, was initially sought by the council to allow the city more time to study the potential effects of oil extraction techniques, such as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and acidization.

Those technologies have been at the center of a controversy over a massive proposed oil project by Occidental Petroleum, which is seeking to drill more than 200 wells near the Cal State Dominguez Hills campus.

Much of the contention was based upon fears that the company would employ those methods at the site, a claim it has repeatedly denied.

Unlike previous meetings, supporters of the drilling project — many of them union members with T-shirts and signs that read “Jobs for Carson” and “Oppose the Ban” — came out in force.

Many said they were Carson residents and argued that extending the ban would hurt jobs within the city.

“We want Carson to be safe,” said Maria Elena Durazo, executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, “but let’s not pass a law that’s going to cut off this city from its economy. Together, we will fight to make Carson safe and prosperous for all residents.”

The rest here.

Showtime’s Years of Living Dangerously Still Struggling to Attract Viewers


James Cameron’s celebrity-filled global-warming propaganda series is bombing in the ratings. Here are the Nielsen numbers from Sunday April 27:

At Showtime, NURSE JACKIE and CALIFORNICATION stayed at 0.2 (although the latter needed rounding up to get to that number), and YEARS OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY remained at a tiny 0.04 with 1 more episode to air.  

And here’s Cameron writing about the show:

For the first time since An Inconvenient Truth, we have a media vehicle with the potential to ignite a decisive conversation on climate. The combination of storytelling, star power, and masterful cinematography promises to empower those who are already concerned and engage those who aren’t. This isn’t just about landmark television but about growing a global movement. We can and must work together to find solutions. We sincerely hope you watch the show – the biggest story of our time – with your friends and family and take a stand.

A landmark failure more like it.

SCOTUS Rules For the EPA on Power-Plan Emissions


National Journal:  

EPA is on a legal winning streak.

The Supreme Court has a reinstated a major rule to curb soot- and smog-forming power-plant pollution that damages air quality in the eastern United States.

Tuesday’s 6-2 ruling arrives two weeks after an Appeals Court upheld a separate rule to cut mercury and other air toxics from power plants.

The high court’s decision Tuesday revives the cross-state air-pollution rule, overturning a 2012 Appeals Court decision that sided with industry groups and states that challenged the regulation.

Both power-plant rules are major pillars of President Obama’s first-term air-quality agenda.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the cross-state rule, when phased in, will prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, and 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma annually.

The rule requires states in the eastern half of the U.S. to cut emissions from power plants that blow across state lines.

The decision rejects the Appellate Court finding that EPA took an overly expansive view of its power to force emission cuts under the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision.

“EPA’s cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision,” states the ruling authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer.

The rest here.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Finally Converted a Global-Warming Denier


The convert is Republican Congressman Michael Grimm, representing New York’s 11th congressional district.

Unfortunately for Hayes and his genocidal  fossil-fuel abolitionist movement, Grimm was just indicted on federal fraud and tax charges

Before the indictment, the 501(c)(4) formerly known as President Obama’s re-election campaign, was pretty excited about Grimm’s conversion as well:

Of course, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is excited about Representative Grimm as well, but they’re focused on his legal troubles rather than his new attitude on global warming.

If Grimm thought his last-minute conversion before the indictment would win him any Democratic friends, he was sorely mistaken. 



‘U.S. Electricity Prices May Be Going Up For Good’


Candidate Obama did say “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” if he was elected president. Why didn’t anybody believe him? 

Los Angeles Times:

As temperatures plunged to 16 below zero in Chicago in early January and set record lows across the eastern U.S., electrical system managers implored the public to turn off stoves, dryers and even lights or risk blackouts.

A fifth of all power-generating capacity in a grid serving 60 million people went suddenly offline, as coal piles froze, sensitive electrical equipment went haywire and utility operators had trouble finding enough natural gas to keep power plants running. The wholesale price of electricity skyrocketed to nearly $2 per kilowatt hour, more than 40 times the normal rate. The price hikes cascaded quickly down to consumers. Robert Thompson, who lives in the suburbs of Allentown, Pa., got a $1,250 bill for January.

“I thought, how am I going to pay this?” he recalled. “This was going to put us in the poorhouse.”

The bill was reduced to about $750 after Thompson complained, but Susan Martucci, a part-time administrative assistant in Allentown, got no relief on her $654 charge. “It was ridiculous,” she said.

The electrical system’s duress was a direct result of the polar vortex, the cold air mass that settled over the nation. But it exposed a more fundamental problem. There is a growing fragility in the U.S. electricity system, experts warn, the result of the shutdown of coal-fired plants, reductions in nuclear power, a shift to more expensive renewable energy and natural gas pipeline constraints. The result is likely to be future price shocks. And they may not be temporary.

One recent study predicts the cost of electricity in California alone could jump 47% over the next 16 years, in part because of the state’s shift toward more expensive renewable energy.

“We are now in an era of rising electricity prices,” said Philip Moeller, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who said the steady reduction in generating capacity across the nation means that prices are headed up. “If you take enough supply out of the system, the price is going to increase.”

In fact, the price of electricity has already been rising over the last decade, jumping by double digits in many states, even after accounting for inflation. In California, residential electricity prices shot up 30% between 2006 and 2012, adjusted for inflation, according to Energy Department figures. Experts in the state’s energy markets project the price could jump an additional 47% over the next 15 years.

The problems confronting the electricity system are the result of a wide range of forces: new federal regulations on toxic emissions, rules on greenhouse gases, state mandates for renewable power, technical problems at nuclear power plants and unpredictable price trends for natural gas. Even cheap hydro power is declining in some areas, particularly California, owing to the long-lasting drought.

“Everywhere you turn, there are proposals and regulations to make prices go higher,” said Daniel Kish, senior vice president at the Institute for Energy Research. “The trend line is up, up, up. We are going into uncharted territory.”

The rest here.


Subscribe to National Review