Global warming agenda pursued without oversight - Opinion - Advisor & Source

Despite environmental alarmists' claims, not only is carbon dioxide a part of the natural cycle of life and no evidence exists that it or other gases contribute to the earth's climate in any meaningful way, there is also no evidence that regulations can impact emissions. Even EPA administrator Lisa Jackson admitted regulations will do little to reduce carbon emissions or influence the climate. Moreover, since last year's infamous ClimateGate fiasco where scientists admitted they were deliberately suppressing evidence that proved global warming is a myth, even fewer people are falling for the climate hoax. Yet the president doesn't fashion policy on fact or public opinion. Too much money and power are at stake.

Obama's Answer To Spill Comes Up Short - Investors.com

Obama is dreamer in chief: He wants to take us to this green future "even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet precisely know how we're going to get there."

Here's the offer: Tax carbon, spend trillions and put government in control of the energy economy — and he will take you he knows not where, by way of a road he knows not which.

That's why Tuesday's speech was received with such consternation. It was so untethered from reality.

The Gulf is gushing, and the president is talking mystery roads to unknown destinations.

That passes for vision, and vision is Obama's thing. It sure beats cleaning up beaches.

Economics and Performance – The Primary Deficiencies of Wind Power — MasterResource

The investment is being wasted; with no hope of a reasonable return, and without large subsidies from government entities to offset the investment losses and artificial increases in the cost of electricity, a viable business case for implementation of wind turbine power generation cannot be made.

He Blinded Me with Science - Jonah Goldberg - National Review Online

“The recommendations contained in this report,” declared the document, “have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.”

Except that was untrue. In fact, it was such a glaring lie that the seven engineers who peer-reviewed an earlier version of the document felt obliged to come forward to clear the air.