Time Out For LEAN – Update on Dead Bird Island

I post stuff from LEAN when it seems pertinent.

View alert on Leanweb.org or lmrk.org

“Dead Bird Island” Testing Results

Report by: Wilma Subra

Results of sampling performed by the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper in Terrebonne Bay on August 19, 2010

On August 19, 2010, in Terrebonne Bay south of Point-au-Chien, Modato Island was covered with vegetation, bare areas, and a large number of dead shore birds.  The area was designated by the Lower Mississippi River Keeper as “Dead Bird Island.”  The area also contained a number of shore birds in distress, nests containing eggs and a seagull that died shortly after sampling was complete.  Samples were collected along the shore of the island, 10-12 inches deep, under the vegetation matted material washed in by the tide.  The soil/sediment sample was contaminated with 48.4 mg/kg of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and 10 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (0.039 mg/kg).

Dead Tern
A dead gull found on “dead bird island” from which samples were taken

The internal organs from a gull, found dead, on the island contained 23,302 mg/kg Petroleum Hydrocarbons (2.3%).  The Blue Crab and Hermit Crab contained 3,583 mg/kg Petroleum Hydrocarbons and 4 PAHs (0.162 mg/kg).

Taking samples in the marsh
Taking soil samples in the marsh

At the southwest end of Modato Island the sediment/soil was contaminated with higher concentrations of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), 68.3 mg/kg Petroleum Hydrocarbons and 14 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (0.051 mg/kg).

Hermit Crab
A hermit crab in a welk shell on Modato island

On the north shoreline of Lake Chien, a boom was located 40 feet in from the shore in wetlands vegetation near the high water debris mark.   In the wetlands vegetation near the high water debris mark, the soil/sediment was contaminated with 0.039 mg/kg of 18 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. The Fiddler Crab and Snail from this area contained 6,916 mg/kg Petroleum Hydrocarbons and 1 PAH (0.012 mg/kg).

The marsh  grass along the shoreline of Lake Chien contained 3,946 mg/kg Petroleum Hydrocarbons and 10 PAHs (0.326 mg/kg).

SaveOurGulf.orgVisit SaveOurGulf.org to get more information about the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster from Waterkeeper organizations across the Gulf Coast and donate to Save Our Gulf!.

:}

More tomorrow

:}

The Nastiest Pollution On Earth – End this week with ickypoo

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZJ-5-_f9-4

Next week I will try the cleanest places on the planet as a topic. But do not get your hopes up.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1687376/8-of-the-most-toxic-energy-projects-on-the-planet

8 of the Most Toxic Energy Projects on the Planet

BY Ariel SchwartzTue Sep 7, 2010

BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico served as a wake-up call for many of us who never before paid attention to the destructive energy projects happening all around the world. But while Deepwater Horizon may have attracted the lion’s share of media attention this past Spring and Summer, there are a number of other toxic projects still going on. Below, we look at some of the worst.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjZCtMg_j04

:}

Alberta Tar Sands

Alberta, Canada is home to the second biggest recoverable oil reserve in the world: the infamous Athabasca tar sands. But the massive deposit of heavy crude oil (aka bitumen) is under a staggering 54,000 square miles of boreal forest and peat bogs, which are slowly being destroyed by the open pit mining used to recover Alberta’s oil. These open pit mining projects also deposit toxic mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and lead into the Athabasca river system, creating “masses of toxic soup.” Suncor Energy, Syncrude Canada, Shell Canada, Marathon Oil, and Chevron are all pursuing projects in the Athabasca sands.

Three Gorges Dam

China’s Three Gorges Dam, a hydroelectric dam in the Yangtze river, is world’s largest electricity-generating plant. Completed in 2006, the dam has already produced 348.4 TWh of electricity since its inception. But the Dam has its drawbacks–construction displaced 1.2 million people (not the only Chinese water project to displace huge populations), increased the risk of landslides in the area, and made nearby Shanghai significantly more vulnerable to flooding.

:}

Please read this gut wrenching article. More next week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZhfmBPl4Lc

:}

A Site Dedicated To The Worst Pollution On The Earth – They found their niche

The world has gotten so polluted that there is a site devoted entirely to that.

http://www.worstpolluted.org/pollution-facts-2009.html

Pollution Facts

Pollution is a Global Killer

Pollution likely affects over a billion people around the world, with millions poisoned and killed each year.  The World Heath Organization estimates that 25 percent of all deaths in the developing world are directly attributable to environmental factor.1 Some researchers estimate that exposure to pollution causes 40 percent of deaths annually.2

Pollution is Regarded as a Major (and quickly emerging) Factor in Disease

People affected by pollution problems are much more susceptible to contracting other diseases.  Others have impaired neurological development, damaged immune systems, and long-term health problems.

Women and Children are Especially at Risk, Children are Most Susceptible

Children are physiologically different and more vulnerable than adults. In some cases they have higher exposures since they eat, drink and breathe more per kilogram of body weight than adults and tend to ingest a lot more dirt and house dust than adults from their crawling around and playing outside.

While children only make up 10 percent of the world’s population, over 40 percent of the global burden of disease falls on them.  Indeed, more than three million children under age five die annually from environmental factors.

Death is Not the Only Toll of Exposure to Pollutants

Pollution causes chronic illness, neurological damage and shortened lifespan. For instance, the presence of lead in children lowers I.Q. by an estimated 4-7 points for each increase of 10 ?g/dL.3 Our database identifies populations around the globe with blood lead levels ranging from 50 -100 ?g/dL, up to 10 times the WHO reference levels for protection against neurological damage.

:}

More Tomorrow.

:}

Most Polluted Places – Apparently I could do this for a long time

Its Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I1bBcda4Ko

:}

Why is that. Because the WHOLE world is polluted. Most of these places didn’t even make the last two lists.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-19/americas-28-most-polluted-places/

Our Most Polluted States

by The Daily Beast Info

BS Top - Polluted Sites Greenpeace marine biologist Paul Horsman shows globs of oil on a jetti at the mouth of the Mississippi River on May 17, 2010. (John Moore / Getty Images) As the EPA and BP fight over the Gulf oil spill cleanup, the Daily Beast crunches the numbers and ranks the most contaminated sites in the nation.

The BP oil rig explosion has led to untold millions in lost income for people who make their living from the Gulf, but toxic hazards are an everyday occurrence: The EPA estimates that there are 3,500 chemical spills each year, requiring $260 million to clean.

Above those, however, are the Superfund sites—places that have sustained major, long-term damage, necessitating years of cleanup. Established in 1980 after a series of toxic disasters, including the infamous Love Canal district of Niagara Falls, which turned the neighborhood into a virtual ghost town, Superfund has largely succeeded in centralizing hazardous waste cleanup and holding responsible parties financially accountable.

The BP fiasco—both a natural and human disaster—got us thinking: what are today’s most polluted toxic dumping grounds? To figure it out, we examined all available Superfund data from the Environmental Protection Agency. We filtered the results, focusing on sites that remain dangerous for human exposure and sites that have dangerous ground water. And then we ranked them using the following criteria:

· Toxicity per acre: The number of instances of each toxin, multiplied by the severity of each toxin, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, and divided by the acreage of the site.

· Toxicity per population: To determine potential human exposure we took the number of instances of each toxin, multiplied by the severity of each toxin, and divided by the population within one mile of the site. (The EPA gives a population range, and we used the higher number for this calculation.)

Since toxicity per acre is a more concrete statistic than potential human exposure (one can live near a toxic site and avoid contact), we weighted the former three times the impact of the latter. An important note: The human exposure element does not measure exposure levels, but rather indicates that the EPA believes there is a reasonable expectation that people may be exposed to contamination—exactly what the Superfund teams spend their time trying to alleviate.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2maAPVOZlkc&feature=fvw

:}

Acres: 2
Population: 10,000
Toxic chemicals: 34

History: From 1949 to 1991 Fletcher’s Paint Works operated a retail store and storage facility in this small New Hampshire town along the Souhegan River. In 1982 New Hampshire officials found leaking and open drums of paint chemicals in the storage area. Soil and groundwater around the site was later found contaminated with arsenic, lead, PCBs, and a slew of other nasty chemicals. The nearby Keyes Municipal Water Supply Well was shut down in the early 1980s after it was found contaminated by volatile organic compounds—gases emitted from paint and other household supplies. Cleanup began in 1988 and continues today. The EPA has tested homes in the area for gases seeping from soil into basements, with no health risks found in the homes and another round of testing due for June 2010. The main concern now is that fish in the Souhegan contain PCBs, and that the EPA has found evidence of people fishing in the river.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCJp1h45gA&feature=related

:}

#2, Haverford, Pennsylvania:
Havertown PCP

Acres: 15
Population: 50,000
Toxic chemicals: 59

History: Getting rid of toxic waste used to be so simple. National Wood Preservers, which treated wood on the site from 1947 to 1963, would take their liquid waste lined with pentachlorophenols (PCPs) to a well, and dump it down. Or they would toss the PCP-laden liquid onto the ground. A nearby stream was contaminated, though residents living within a mile of the site don’t use it for drinking water. In 1992 the EPA removed 97,000 tons of liquid waste, and 60 tons of sludge from the site. The EPA is armed with $4.2 million from the Recovery Act to finish the final cleanup phase, which includes removing contaminated soil from residential property and public spaces.

:}

There is 2. For the rest read the article. HAPPY LABOR DAY everyone. More next week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX0cMoOiIMQ&feature=related

:}

Most Polluted Beaches In The US – Ready to take a Labor Day dip

As they say in the article, make sure it is not a dip in an open sewer. I have had this experience. It was one of the reasons I left Tampa never to return. They built their sewage ponds right next to the ocean and when there was a bad storm…it would all wash into the water. Yuck.

Dirty Dozen: The 12 Most Polluted Beaches in The U.S
Kamelia Angelova | Jul. 29, 2009, 1:15 PM |

dirty-beach-2.jpg

Careful!  The beach you’re rushing off to this weekend might actually be a sewer.

Human and animal waste, among other sewage overflow, contaminate the beachwaters of virtually every sandy retreat in the country.

See the dirtiest beaches in the country >

There were over 20,000 closing and advisory days last year at ocean, bay and Great Lake beaches because of high levels of bacteria and pollutants in the waters, according to the annual beachwater quality report – Testing The Waters – released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The agency also provides 5-star rating guide for 200 of the nation’s most popular beaches, based on beachwater quality, monitoring frequency, and public notification of contamination. Beachgoers who swim in polluted waters are at risk of contracting from various types of skin rashes and infections to meningitis and hepatitis.

Coastal cities can implement various green strategies such as green rooftops and permeable sidewalks to reduce and eliminate stromwater runoff, which overflows the sewage systems and dump polluted water in the oceans and lake.

The 12 Worst Beaches In The U.S. >

:}
I will give you the first one but you have to to the article for the other 11. If you can stand it that is.

Dirty Dozen: The 12 Most Polluted Beaches in The U.S.

1/13

Zach’s Bay at Jones Beach State Park

Zach’s Bay at Jones Beach State Park

Location: Wantagh, New YorkMajor Offenses: Tested repeatedly for high levels of bacteria in the last three years. No public advisories issued.

This popular New York beach, where boaters also often anchor, has failed many of the twice-weekly tests for the last three years. Bacteria-infested water is not the only problem here: Advisories telling you about the high levels of pollutants in the water are almost never posted online or at the beach.

:}

More Tomorrow.

:}

The Most Polluted Places On Earth – This from the Huffinton Post

I am not sure if I agree with the list below, but if you can only pick 9 when there are that many in the Old Soviet Union alone. Well then:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/photos-most-polluted-plac_n_693008.html

9 Of The Most Polluted Places In The World (PHOTOS)

Huffington Post |  Barbara Fenig First Posted: 08-31-10 08:26 AM   |   Updated: 09- 1-10 01:55 AM

81

From the highways of Los Angeles to the Citarum River of Bandung, Indonesia, earth’s most polluted city of Linfen, China to the streets of London, the world is laden with man-made pollution. Chemical, air, water and oil pollution ruin the environment, cause premature deaths, spoil the world’s resources and worsen climate change.

As the world’s population soars to nearly 7 billion, we here at HuffPost Green decided to take a virtual tour of some of the world’s most polluted places. Check out our slideshow of nine of the most polluted places in the world. Find out which city’s death rate surpasses its birth rate by 260 percent. Or which city has 50,000 people die prematurely each year due to man-made air pollution. As always, we want to hear from you. Tell us what you think in the comments.

Linfen, China
1 of 10

Linfen, China is the most polluted city on earth. According to Mother Nature Network, if one puts laundry out to dry, it will turn black before finishing drying. Located in China’s coal belt, spending one day in Linfen is equivalent to smoking three packs of cigarettes. 3 million people are affected by Linfen‘s coal and particulates pollution, which is residue from automobile and industrial emission

:}

Only one of nine. Please go see the rest. More tomorrow

:}

Gulf Spew Could Be 40 Million Barrels – New estimates and a video are scary

It is Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEDlOZJmCc

I have said for awhile that this could be the biggest manmade disaster of all time. I never believed the oil flow estimates and I never believed that they would be able to plug the hole. Now is a good time to pray.

So lets start with what the flow really looks like when they tried the the Big Siphon:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/new-footage-of-bps-failed_b_574350.html

Brendan DeMelle

Brendan DeMelle

Freelance writer and researcher

Posted: May 12, 2010 09:09 PM

New Footage of BP’s Failed Containment Dome Effort (VIDEO)

Update: BP just confirmed to us that the pipe in the 2nd video showing the main leak is 20″ in diameter (almost 2 feet). (Specifically, the outer is 21″; the inner is 20″.)

More footage was released today from the Deepwater Disaster, providing an indication of the powerful streams of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

This video shows the failed attempt over the weekend to lower a 100-ton, 4-story “cofferdam” dome over the top of the main leak. As the dome is lowered onto the leak, you can see the oil gushing out on the sides, offering a better sense of the volume of oil pumping into the Gulf of Mexico.

:}

Please see the article and the 2 videos. So what happens if the natural gas, which looks to be half the spill catches on fire?  BOOM…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BruDTUvBClk&feature=related

:}

Ultimately why did this happen? Deregulation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?hp

U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

By IAN URBINA
Published: May 13, 2010

WASHINGTON — The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf

Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands of barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day.

The Minerals Management Service, or M.M.S., also routinely overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised concerns about the safety and the environmental impact of certain drilling proposals in the gulf and in Alaska, according to a half-dozen current and former agency scientists.

Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife might be harmed.

Under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Minerals Management Service is required to get permits to allow drilling where it might harm endangered species or marine mammals.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is partly responsible for protecting endangered species and marine mammals. It has said on repeated occasions that drilling in the gulf affects these animals, but the minerals agency since January 2009 has approved at least three huge lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 drilling plans. Agency records also show that permission for those projects and plans was granted without getting the permits required under federal law.

:}

Is there any hope?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S_OU3EBtRo&feature=related

:}

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gulf-oil-spill-supertankers-051310

The Secret, 700-Million-Gallon Oil Fix That Worked — and Might Save the Gulf

May 13, 2010 at 6:46AM by Mark Warren


Workers on the Arabian Gulf overlook a supertanker owned by Saudi Aramco, the oil company that used a suck-and-salvage American technology to recover 85 percent of its previously unreported spill in 1993 and ’94.

There’s a potential solution to the Gulf oil spill that neither BP, nor the federal government, nor anyone — save a couple intuitive engineers — seems willing to try. As The Politics Blog reported on Tuesday in an interview with former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, the untapped solution involves using empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.

627diggsdigg

Hofmeister had been briefed on the strategy by a Houston-based environmental disaster expert named Nick Pozzi, who has used the same solution on several large spills during almost two decades of experience in the Middle East — who says that it could be deployed easily and should be, immediately, to protect the Gulf Coast. That it hasn’t even been considered yet is, Pozzi thinks, owing to cost considerations, or because there’s no clear chain of authority by which to get valuable ideas in the right hands. But with BP’s latest four-pronged plan remaining unproven, and estimates of company liability already reaching the tens of billions of dollars (and counting), supertankers start to look like a bargain.

The suck-and-salvage technique was developed in desperation across the Arabian Gulf following a spill of mammoth proportions — 700 million gallons — that has until now gone unreported, as Saudi Arabia is a closed society, and its oil company, Saudi Aramco, remains owned by the House of Saud. But in 1993 and into ’94, with four leaking tankers and two gushing wells, the royal family had an environmental disaster nearly sixty-five times the size of Exxon Valdez on its hands, and it desperately needed a solution.

Pozzi, an American engineer then in charge of Saudi Aramco’s east-west pipeline in the technical support and maintenance services division, was part of a team given cart blanche to control the blowout. Pozzi had dealt with numerous spills over the years without using chemicals, and had tried dumping flour into the oil, then scooping the resulting tar balls from the surface. “You ever cooked with flour? Absorbent, right?” Pozzi says. Next, he’d dumped straw into the spills; also highly absorbent, but then you’ve got a lot of straw to clean up. This spill was going to require a much larger, more sustained solution. And fast.

That’s when Pozzi and his team came up with the idea of having empty ships park near the Saudi spill and pull the oil off the water. This part of the operation went on for six months, with the mop-up operations lasting for several years more. Pozzi says that 85 percent of the spilled oil was recovered, and it is precisely this strategy that he wants to see deployed in the Gulf of Mexico.

:}

When they contacted BP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKQ5jhtFypg&feature=related

JON KING: Well, we went down to the BP headquarters in Houma, Louisiana, and we didn’t have an appointment so they wouldn’t let us in. Then I called the president of BP and I talked to his secretary and she put me in touch with somebody, but the somebody she put me in touch with didn’t know who we should talk to. Nick contacted a gentleman that he used to work with at BP, and he threatened to sue Nick for not going through channels. And I said, “Great. I’d love BP to sue us for trying to help them. That would be wonderful.”

While the Army Plays with itself.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/us-army-gulf-spill-oil-asphalt-experimental-chemical-video.php

US Army to Turn Gulf Spill Oil Into Asphalt With Experimental Chemical (Video)

by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 05.13.10

Science & Technology

hesco-barrier-oil-asphalt.jpg
Photos by Brian Merchant

In order to protect the coastline at Dauphin Island — a site where tar balls have made landfall and hundreds of fish are washing up dead on the beach — the US Army has launched a highly experimental plan to prevent any oil from reaching its shores. It plans on trapping the oil in Hesco baskets and then applying a chemical called CI Agent, turning the oil into a gelatinous solid. That solid, comprised from oil from the gulf spill, will then be collected and turned into asphalt. Here’s Dan Parker, the CEO of CI Agent Solutions, demonstrating how the chemical solution works:

(Please go to the site and see all the pretty video)

The chemical is contained in the boxes, which will be filled up with gelatin if and when the oil hits Dauphin’s coast.

Questions remain, of course: though both Parker and Captain Kelly affirm the chemical is safe for wildlife, it’s never been used or tested on such a large scale and in this manner. But considering that BP is dropping hundreds of thousands of experimental chemical dispersants in the Gulf as we speak, this is a drop in the bucket by comparison — and if cleaned and contained properly could be an interesting solution to watch for in the future.

I’m traveling around the Gulf of Mexico reporting on the continuing oil crisis. Stay tuned for the latest developments and breaking reports from the scene.

:}

See you Monday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvbA8FBd_Vo&feature=related

:}

Oil Spill In The Gulf – The tragedy continues

It is Jam Band Friday – but I am too sad for it today…:+{

I continue to support our sister group LEAN. According to the news the oil has reached the S. Louisiana Coast and the seas have kicked up making containment impossible. The Gulf is doomed.

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Louisiana  Environmental Action NetworkLMRK logoLouisiana Environmental Action Network
&
Lower Mississippi RIVERKEEPER©

Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

E-ALERT
APRIL 29, 2010
Oil may already be impacting the Louisiana shoreline
Forecast location for oil for 6:00 p.m. on April 29, 2010
Forecast location for oil

From the Unified Command:

Forecast is for increasing SE winds today and then strong, persistant SE winds of 15-25 kts from tonight through saturday night. These winds will continue to bring the oil towards the shoreline. Satellite imagery from this morning indicates the western edge of the oil is 7-8 miles from the delta, but oil was observed during overflights yesterday afternoon several miles off SE pass in the Mississippi River Convergence – This could be the leading edge of the tarballs becoming concentrated in this region. Shoreline impacts could hence occur as early as this morning, if the onshore winds are strong enough for the oil to escape the convergence zone, Shoreline impacts become increasingly likely later in the day and into Friday with the strengthening onshore winds. Morning overflight observations will be critical in assessing the strength of the convergence zone.

A flyover on Wednesday, April 28 at 2:00 p.m. (CDT), continued to show a large, rainbow sheen with areas of emulsified crude, approximately 16 miles off the coast of Louisiana.

On April 28 at approximately 4:45 p.m. (CDT), the response team conducted a successful controlled burn and is evaluating conducting additional burns.

More than 174,060 feet of boom (barrier) has been assigned to contain the spill.  An additional 243,260 feet is available and 265,460 feet has been ordered.

To date, the oil spill response team has recovered 18,180 barrels (763,560 gallons) of an oil-water mix. Vessels are in place and continuing recovery operations.
76 response vessels are being used including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels.

98,361 gallons of dispersant have been deployed and an additional 75,000 gallons are available.

Five staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines.  These areas include:
Biloxi, Miss., Pensacola, Fla. Venice, La., Pascagoula, Miss., and Theodore, Ala.

Weather conditions for April 29 – Winds from the southeast at 5-15 mph, choppy rough seas.

To report oiled or injured wildlife, please call 1-800-557-1401.
To discuss spill related damage claims, please call 1-800-440-0858.
To report oil on land, or for general Community and Volunteer Information, please call 1-866-448-5816.


Support this vital work today!

Yes! I want to help make Louisiana safe for us and for future generations!

LEAN is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Organization Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is a non-profit organization working to foster communication and cooperation among citizens and groups to address Louisiana’s environmental problems.

For More About LEAN:

:}

Rep. Joe Barton – You can’t regulate God

But you CAN regulate the airlines, the world’s Air Forces, the Coal companies, and the water born freight business. You can regulate the Navy and you can regulate the 500 largest point of source polluters. But trying to regulate Al Gore proved difficult:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqUHM2gf5g4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Barton

Barton was born in Waco, Texas to Bess Wynell Buice and Larry Linus Barton.[1] He graduated from Waco High School. He attended Texas A&M University in College Station on a Gifford-Hill Opportunity Award scholarship[2] and received a B.S. in industrial engineering in 1972. An M.Sc. in industrial administration from Purdue University followed in 1973. Following college Barton entered private industry until 1981 when he became a White House Fellow and served under Secretary of Energy James B. Edwards. Later, he began consulting for Atlantic Richfield Oil and Gas Co. before being elected to Congress in 1984.[3]

Barton was elected to represent Texas’s 6th congressional district in his first attempt, defeating Democratic opponent Dan Kubiak with 56% of the vote in a contest to succeed Phil Gramm, who left his seat to run for the United States Senate that year. He was one of six freshmen Republican congressmen elected from Texas in 1984 known as the Texas Six Pack. He received 88% of the vote in 2000, 71% of the vote in 2002 against Democratic challenger Felix Alvarado, and 66% of the vote in 2004 against Democratic challenger Morris Meyer.[citation needed]

In 1993, Barton ran in the special election for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the resignation of Lloyd Bentsen, who became Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration. Barton finished third in the contest and missed a runoff slot.[citation needed]

Congressman Barton is the Ranking Minority Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee.[

:}

Rep. Barton has been regarded as a climate change denier[5] and his opposition to addressing global warming has been consistent and long-term. As a chairman with primary responsibility over the energy sector, Barton has consistently acted over the years to prevent congressional action on global warming.[11] In 2001, Barton declared, “as long as I am chairman, [regulating global warming pollution] is off the table indefinitely. I don’t want there to be any uncertainty about that.”[12] Barton led opposition to amendments that would have recognized global warming during consideration of the Energy Advancement and Conservation Act in 2001, opposing an amendment to require the President to develop and implement a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels as called for by the non-binding United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the U.S. is a party to.[13] In 2003, Barton again opposed amendments that would have recognized global warming during consideration of the National Energy Policy Act of 2003, opposing a nonbinding amendment that would have put Congress on record as saying that the U.S. should “demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in reducing the health, environmental, and economic risks posed by climate change.”[14] In July 2003, Barton offered an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act to remove language that both recognized global warming and called on President Bush to reengage with the international community to find solutions.[15] In addition, Barton has consistently opposed proposals to reduce the nation’s dependence on oil.[16][17][18]

In 2005, prompted by a February 2005 Wall Street Journal article,[19] Rep. Barton has launched an investigation into two climate change studies from 1998 and 1999.[5] In his letters to the authors of the studies, he requested not just details on the studies themselves but significant information about their entire lives and previous studies. This has been widely regarded as an attempted attack on the scientists rather than a serious attempt to understand the science,[20] although some view it as a normal exercise of the committee’s responsibility and an effort to make possible scientific debate on a subject within its jurisdiction.[21][22] The Washington Post condemned Barton’s investigation as a “witch-hunt“.[23] Environmental Science & Technology, an obscure policy journal often cited by politicians, including Barton, reported what it said was scientific proof that global warming science is wrong.[24] See also Barton’s own response to this controversy in The Dallas Morning News.[25] The dispute expanded with Sherwood Boehlert‘s House Science Committee taking a strong interest.[26]

In 2006, Barton earned two “environmental harm demerits” from the conservative watchdog group Republicans for Environmental Protection, the first “for derailing floor passage of a sense of the House resolution … acknowledging climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”; the second, “for holding hearings, in his role as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, designed to intimidate climate scientists and raise doubt about the impacts and causes of climate change.”[27] The hearings were held by Barton’s committee on July 19, 2006, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations; there, several skeptics testified regarding the hockey stick graph.

During Former Vice President Al Gore‘s testimony to the Energy and Commerce Committee in March, 2007, Barton asserted to Gore that “You’re not just off a little, you’re totally wrong,”[28] thus reinforcing his denial that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global climate change.

:}

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/15

The Inquisitor
Rep. Joe Barton
Republican, Texas

As ranking Republican on the House energy committee, Barton is a mini version of Sen. James Inhofe. In his view, the climate is changing for “natural variation reasons,” and humans should just “get shade” and learn to adapt. “For us to try to step in and say we have got to do all these global things to prevent the Earth from getting any warmer is absolute nonsense,” he insists. “You can’t regulate God.”

During the Bush era, Barton bottled up all climate legislation and pushed to open up public lands for drilling by private interests. He also targeted leading climate scientists, demanding that they provide Congress with detailed documentation of their financial interests. (Barton himself has received $1.4 million from oil and gas donors, plus $1.3 million from electric utilities.) The inquisition drew sharp rebukes, even from Barton’s fellow Republicans. Your “purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them,” then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert told Barton. The effort “to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific debate” is “truly chilling.”

:}

With liars like this can the republic survive?

:}

Fred Singer – He has been making up science since he said cigarettes wouldn’t kill you

Of course he has been in favor of bad air for 50 years…so at least he is badly consistent….

Oh it’s Jam Band Friday and I am going to do something a little different….today i bring you the Grammy Picks by State Journal Register writers Rhys Saunders, Brian Mackey and Brian Murphy. Caution – most of these songs I have never heard – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAwjZLztd28&feature=related

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7JthgTMHDU )

He lies about the atmosphere, he also lies about his credentials

http://www.desmogblog.com/people/fred-singer

18 November 09

Fred Singer, lacking nobility, still claims the Prize

Climate skeptics are, not surprisingly, hitting the European speaking circuit in the weeks leading up to the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen. But what is surprising is that notorious global warming denier S. Fred Singer was described at a skeptic conference today as a Nobel prize winner, a flat out lie.

According to a Belgian journalist who alerted DeSmog to Singer’s appearance today at a skeptic conference in the European Parliament building, Singer was described in event materials as:

“a reviewer of IPCC reports, he shares the 2007 Nobel peace prize with Al Gore and 2000 others.”

The idea that Fred Singer shares any part in the IPCC/Gore Nobel prize is laughable, of course.  Other than Mr. Gore, the Nobel committee recognized only the IPCC authors, and they all received framed Nobel certificates.  If Singer can produce a framed Nobel, I’ll produce my Olympic gold medal (Singer must eat cereal too, I sure enjoy the prizes inside, although I’ve never seen a Nobel peace prize before).

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXG0YMv5Fvk )

Last week at the Copenhagen climate summit, we saw Christopher Monckton, the head of the delegation for the oil industry-friendly Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), accuse young climate change activists of being “Nazis” and the “Hitler youth.”

Another member of Monckton’s Copendenier delegation is a gentleman by the name of S. Fred Singer, who is well known to our team at the DeSmogBlog.

Readers might say why are you picking on this guy? You did not post much extra stuff about a lot of the earlier people?  The answer is that he is that he is the only one purporting to be a scientist…and he is from that bastion of lying and cheat…George Mason University. God typing that made me feel unclean.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/copendenier-fred-singer-o_b_390152.html

In fact, we once received a letter from Singer’s lawyer threatening to sue us after we reported that Singer once did work for the cigarette lobby. We never heard back from Singer after we sent along all the research behind our claim.

Like Monkcton, Singer has an “expert” opinion on many subjects. Not coincidentally, many of these expert opinions greatly assist the work of various industries looking to avoid being saddled with expensive health and environmental regulations.

Our research team recently came across a 1996 Washington Times article by Singer, titled Anthology of 1995’s Environmental Myths [pdf]. In the article, Singer outlines “five topics that demonstrate distortion or misuse of science in shaping policies.”

The five are: global warming, the hole in the ozone, second-hand tobacco smoke, the “Radon scare” and toxic substances in our food.

Take a read of Singer’s article and ask yourself this: what would our planet and people be like today if we had listened to Singer’s advice 13 years ago? Then ask yourself: why would anyone in their right mind trust his supposedly “expert” opinion – or the opinions of those in his delegation – here at the Copenhagen climate talks.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1Xr-JFLxik )

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1EFMoRFvY )

But the real deal is this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/13

The Hack Scientist
Fred Singer
Retired physicist, University of Virginia

A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake “science” designed to debunk global warming. The retired physicist — who also tried to downplay the danger of the hole in the ozone layer — is still wheeled out as an authority by big polluters determined to kill climate legislation. For years, Singer steadfastly denied that the world is heating up: Citing satellite data that has since been discredited, he even made the unhinged claim that “the climate has been cooling just slightly.” Last year, Singer served as a lead author of “Climate Change Reconsidered” — an 880-page report by the right-wing Heartland Institute that was laughably presented as a counterweight to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s scientific authority on global warming. Singer concludes that the unchecked growth of climate-cooking pollution is “unequivocally good news.” Why? Because “rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.” Small wonder that Heartland’s climate work has long been funded by the likes of Exxon and reactionary energy barons like Charles Koch and Richard Mellon Scaife.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYaiGB7eYU8 )

Don’t worry Radon Gas won’t hurt you. What a scientist hahaha

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSD4vsh1zDA )

:}