A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

President Obama's State of the Union address will undoubtedly focus on the No. 1 concern of most Americans: jobs. Yet in rejecting the Keystone XL oil pipeline, the president has just squandered the best job-creating opportunity he has ever had. Here he had the chance to strengthen energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create tens of thousands of American jobs. But he said no. Instead, he sided with his extreme left base.


If the Keystone pipeline had been built, my home state of Oklahoma would have played a large role, as the pipeline was to run from Canada all the way down through Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf. Yet, in rejecting the Keystone permit, Obama still made an important commitment to Cushing. He said, "In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security - including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico."

A re-election campaign is a terrible thing to waste, and this year's race is already producing miraculous changes at the Obama White House: The latest example of a bear walking on its hind legs is the President's new embrace of . . . natural gas from shale.

Last week the White House issued its latest report on jobs and it includes a section on "America's Natural Resource Boom." The report avers that a few years ago there were widespread "fears of a looming natural gas shortage," but that "the discovery of new natural gas reserves, such as the Marcellus Shale, and the development of hydraulic fracturing techniques to extract natural gas from these reserves has led to rapidly growing domestic production and relatively low domestic prices for households and downstream industrial users."

Please pass the smelling salts to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Lisa Jackson at the Environmental Protection Agency.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time the White House has favorably mentioned the Marcellus Shale, the natural gas reservoir below Pennsylvania, West Virginia and other Northeastern states. And now he's taking credit for this soaring production.

At an unusual gala ceremony on the release of a major new Environmental Protection Agency rule yesterday, chief Lisa Jackson called it "historic" and "a great victory." And she's right: The rule may be the most expensive the agency has ever issued, and it represents the triumph of the Obama Administration's green agenda over economic growth and job creation. Congratulations.

The so-called utility rule requires power plants to install "maximum achievable control technology" to reduce mercury emissions and other trace gases. But the true goal of the rule's 1,117 pages is to harm coal-fired power plants and force large parts of the fleet -- the U.S. power system workhorse -- to shut down in the name of climate change. The EPA figures the rule will cost $9.6 billion, which is a gross, deliberate underestimate.

In return Ms. Jackson says the public will get billions of dollars of health benefits like less asthma if not a cure for cancer. Those credulous enough to believe her should understand that the total benefits of mercury reduction amount to all of $6 million. That's total present value, not benefits per year -- oh, and that's an -illion with an "m," which is not normally how things work out in President Obama's Washington.

The rest of the purported benefits -- to be precise, 99.99% -- come by double-counting pollution reductions like soot that the EPA regulates through separate programs and therefore most will happen anyway. Using such "co-benefits" is an abuse of the cost-benefit process and shows that Cass Sunstein's team at the White House regulatory office -- many of whom opposed the rule -- got steamrolled.

As baseload coal power is retired or idled, the reliability of the electrical grid will be compromised, as every neutral analyst expects. Some utilities like Calpine Corp. and PSEG have claimed in these pages that the reliability concerns are overblown, but the Alfred E. Newman crowd has a vested interest in profiting from the higher wholesale electricity clearing prices that the EPA wants to cause.

Sen. Jim Inhofe wants EPA’s inspector general to find out why the agency won’t answer his questions about its mercury and air toxics rule for power plants.

Inhofe (R-Okla.) sent a letter to the IG Monday asking for an investigation into numerous questions about the scientific assessments EPA used in its proposed utility MACT rule, which the agency signed Friday.

The lawmaker asked those questions of EPA directly but it has not responded, Inhofe said.

Now he’s pushing for the IG to investigate whether the agency is “adhering to existing EPA and [White House Office of Management and Budget] guidelines with respect to peer review of important scientific and technical documents and underpinning significant rulemakings,” the letter says.

It’s a familiar tactic for Inhofe.

Inhofe previously got the IG to investigate the science surrounding the agency’s “endangerment finding” on carbon dioxide pollution, which underpins several greenhouse gas rules.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, a frequent and vocal critic of President Barack Obama's environmental proposals, announced Monday that the administration is ready to declare the entire state of Oklahoma in attainment on ozone standards.

"I am pleased to learn today that not a single county in Oklahoma is in violation of EPA's ozone standards," the Oklahoma Republican said.

"This is significant because over a dozen counties in Oklahoma faced the potential listing, and as a result, would have suffered significant economic penalties from the federal government, including potential construction bans and driving restrictions.''

Inhofe based his comments on an entry he expects to be in Tuesday's Federal Register from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A Senate office also provided a copy of a letter an EPA regional administrator sent earlier this month to Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, notifying her of his agency's intention.

"I am extremely pleased that none of our counties will be designated in nonattainment for the immediate future,'' Fallin said. "This prevents the federal government (from) forcing another set of costly, job-killing mandates on Oklahoma.''

In October, Fallin had sent a letter to EPA's regional office stating that recent data collected by a state agency between 2008 and 2010 indicated no violations of the current ozone standard.

At that same time, Inhofe was still warning that the president's decision to pull the plug on new ozone standards did not let Oklahoma off the hook.

He cited the areas already in or near nonattainment.

A major player on such issues as the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Inhofe clearly was relieved at the expected development Tuesday.

He noted that EPA is not scheduled to revise the standard again until 2013.

"This announcement is due in large part to Oklahoma's tremendous efforts to improve air quality,'' Inhofe said.

"It is also because of our success in Washington in stopping the most aggressive EPA in history from imposing even stricter air quality regulations that would have suffocated our economy.''

He also said his focus has been to stop "Obama's regulatory nightmare.''

"This is one instance where we were able to put the brakes on the Obama administration, and as a result, help protect Oklahoma's jobs and economy,'' he said.