Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

In July, I wrote a blog on TownHall.com about Bisphenol A (BPA) in which I brought to your attention the behavior of many major media outlets with regard to their accusations against BPA, which is a chemical used to make lightweight, versatile, durable, high-performance plastics. In that piece I identified that contrary to those that claim that BPA is dangerous and hazardous to all, new research was telling an opposite story:

… After years of hand-wringing, biased media reports and witch hunts about BPA -- a new Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) report out of George Mason University (a non profit, non partisan group) has found that the risks were misleading and caused unnecessary public anxiety.

As the report noted,  "A handful of scientists and environmental activist groups claim that bisphenol A is the biological equivalent of global warming, and its presence in plastic bottles and can linings is endangering “millions of babies.” Their message – and their accusation that the Food and Drug Administration has been swayed by industry-sponsored studies and has ignored vital scientific evidence – has led Congress to ask the agency to re-examine the safety of the chemical. A decision is expected by the end of the summer."

... Of course, if someone claims your product harms babies, they don't really need to prove it.  The accusation is so incendiary that the mere suggestion could bankrupt most companies -- which, of course, is the point if you are trying to sell a "safer" plastic product.  In short, it's a "scare racket"…

And yet, many popular media outlets continue to baselessly attack BPA as a dangerous and unsafe chemical.

Read More...

[W]eakness in the U.S. dollar has driven the price of oil far beyond what normal supply and demand fundamentals typically bear.

"The increase was driven not so much by demand but by declining gas production and a weakening dollar," Flynn said. "Things are out of whack as refiners have scaled back production to historic lows as their margins get squeezed."

There are those who are also going to suggest that moving toward a clean energy future is going to somehow harm the economy or lead to fewer jobs. And they're going to argue that we should do nothing, stand pat, do less or delay action yet again. I just want to point out, we've heard such arguments before. We've engaged in this same type of debate a lot of times through our history. People don't like change, and they get nervous about it.

While campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama said his cap-and-trade tax plans would “bankrupt” anyone building a coal-fired power plant. Although those taxes haven’t materialized, the Environmental Protection Agency has put the brakes on 79 surface mining permits in four states since he was elected.

The EPA says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant “enhanced” review. But the agency went even further last week, announcing plans to revoke a permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in West Virginia – a move that has caused anxiety among coal-state Democrats about the future of the industry under the Obama administration. …

Although his favored cap-and-trade bill hasn’t yet been passed, West Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin III, who supported Mr. Obama’s candidacy, called the EPA moves part of a stealth campaign to stifle the industry.

“Right now, my belief is that they’re trying to kill off surface mining through regulation what they cannot get done through legislation,” Mr. Manchin told MetroNews Talkline, a West Virginia call-in radio program, earlier this month. In West Virginia, 23 permits are being held up, with other affected states being Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

Among the coal states' representatives voicing opposition to the move is West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller:

“I am angry with the EPA’s announcement that they will use veto power to revoke the authorized Spruce Mine permit in Logan,” he said. “It is wrong and unfair for the EPA to change the rules for a permit that is already active.”

Just what is it about California and its government’s increasingly creative ways of screwing up stuff? The latest example comes from the California Air Resources Board, aka CARB, the state’s evil twin of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Seems CARB wants to have all carmakers glaze car windows with tiny flecks of metal oxide.

Stay with me here.

This metal oxide is designed to reflect sunlight, which makes cars a little cooler in the summertime which means people don’t have to use their car air conditioners as much which means they won’t burn as much gas driving which means less pollution which means the Earth won’t fry under the withering heat that is Global Warming.

Still with me?

Trouble is this metal oxide window glazing reflects more than just sunshine and heat. It also reflects radio waves. You know, like the radio waves that provide data to your GPS unit, your cell phone, your Sirius or XM radio, your laptop, your garage door opener and, for you recently released prison inmates, your parolee ankle bracelet.

Toyota actually tried this in the late 1980s in Japan but the free market decided they would rather let the sun shine in than do without their radio gadgets so the automaker dumped the metal oxide window glazing.

Instead of heat reflecting window glazing, people who have a dog in this fight are suggesting CARB look at heat absorbing window treatments instead because people can still feelgood about saving the planet while listening to the 80s Channel and their Nuvi to find the office of a prospective client for their next appointment. Makes sense, right? Not to CARB.

I wish I was the first to berate CARB for this wackiness but Rush Limbaugh beat me to it with this scorching critique of the idea.

Evidence tonight that a major opinion poll has picked up on a major change on a big issue. For the past three years, over 70 percent of Americans have told pollsters from the Pew Research organization they believe there's solid evidence of global warming. This year, however, that number has dropped off significantly. Now just 57 percent say they believe it. The number of people who say they don't believe in climate change at all has doubled in that time. One theory offered today: in a down economy, people are less sensitive to the environment.

Something happened in Washington on Friday that had not occurred in 138 years of weather history: For the first time since the National Weather Service began compiling daily data here, the high temperature for Oct. 16 was below 50 degrees.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.

Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

Pew says that the political ramifications have been specifically significant among Independents:

Just 53% of independents now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75% who did so in April 2008. Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, have become even more so: just 35% of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Fewer Democrats also express this view – 75% today compared with 83% last year.