Archive for January, 2010

Insurance group says Climategate emails show the risk of accepting climate science

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

By EVAN LEHMANN of ClimateWire, for the New York Times

A major trade group for the insurance industry is warning that it is “exceedingly risky” for companies to blindly accept scientific conclusions around climate change, given the “serious questions” around the extent to which humans cause atmospheric warming.

The assertion was made in a letter to insurance regulators, who will administer the nation’s first mandatory climate requirements on corporations in May. Large insurers will have to answer about a dozen questions related to the preparations they are taking to safeguard themselves from climatic hazards.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies believes that the new regulation leaves little room for companies to cast doubt on widely accepted assumptions about global warming. Insurers are hamstrung to provide answers that
dovetail with the perception of key regulators who believe climate change threatens the industry’s financial strength, said Robert Detlefsen, the group’s vice president of policy. (more…)

Unpublished reader letters to The Oregonian newspaper

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Dear Editor –

Dec 7, 2009 – You hear that shushing? It?s the sound of The Oregonian digging itself deeper into a hole of absurdity over global warming. Evidence of ?snooty, arrogant climate scientists manipulating data, destroying evidence?and actively working to stifle criticism?? does not undercut the science. Really? Could have fooled me. Shush. The East Anglia research center, ground zero of the ?snooty? scientists, is just ?one climate center.? Oh, silly me, I thought it was pivotal to the IPCC?s case. Shush. But not to worry, the newspaper tells us, because the scientists have ?promised to release all the temperature data? at last. But wait, how do you release data that?s been thrown out? Shush. Then the newspaper goes on to characterize ?skeptics? as both ?countless people? and yet a ?small band.? Well which is it? Good luck with that shovel. The catastrophically warming ground is actually quite frozen at the moment?oops Clank. (more…)

A question of quantities

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

From Mr. Seldon B. Graham

To The Honorable James F. Wood,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Fuel.

Dear Mr. Wood,

Thank you for answering my email to Energy Secretary Steven Chu which asked for an answer to the following simple question:

  • Why is it that carbon dioxide from carbonated beverages, pets, cattle, farm animals, humans, yeast, dry ice, fireplaces, charcoal grills, campfires, wildfires, alcohol and ethanol is good, and carbon dioxide from fossil fuel is bad?

You did not provide a scientific answer to my question. However, you did state that ?One of the largest sources of CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels? and that ?Combustion is considered a ?point source? since all the emissions from the combustion process are emitted from a chimney,? I assume that you are the James F. Wood who recently retired from Babcock Power Inc., ?The Babcock that is more than just a boiler company.? (more…)

Scarewatch: Schneider again.

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

The desperation of the climate extremists as global temperatures plummet for the tenth year in a row is growing. Stephen Schneider, professor of environmental biology and “global change” at Stanford University, said today:

  • “We can no longer prevent global warming — it is upon us. Rapidly melting polar icecaps, acidification of the oceans, loss of coral reefs, longer droughts, more devastating wildfires, and sea level rise that threatens island nations and seacoasts everywhere are clear signs of change in Earth’s climate. Disruptions of the monsoon seasons in India and China already threaten crop yields resulting in more frequent and severe food shortages than in the recent past … If we continue ‘business as usual’ our habitat could be disrupted beyond recognition, with consequences for our way of life that we cannot now foresee. Without vigorous and immediate follow-up to the Copenhagen conference and well-conceived action we are all threatened by accelerating and irreversible changes to our planet.”

Nonsense. Here’s why. (more…)

The lack of climate skeptics on PBS’s ‘Newshour’

Thursday, January 14th, 2010


by Russell Cook

I stopped watching commercial network news in the ’80s, but still had PBS’ MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour and its trademark two-side analysis of major news. Gradually after 2002, the lack of global warming skeptic scientists offering rebuttal to their IPCC guests began bothering me, so I wrote and asked about it, starting in 2007. I also started writing to the Media Research Center this year, asking them to include PBS when they criticized broadcast news outlets’ lack of balance in global warming stories. Long  story short, the PBS Ombudsman answered on 12/17 (here, 2/3rds down the page at the headline “Hot About Warming”), and Tim Graham at MRC’s NewsBusters also wrote a nice 12/21 analysis of PBS’ response. (more…)

The cruel cost of dodging Kyoto by using farmland as a “carbon sink”

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

An Australian farmer writes –

“For the sake of the farmers in Australia, please educate their political leaders on the basics of biology and farming. Consider two very simple points.

“1) Plants sequester the greatest quantity of CO2 at the highest rate while they are rapidly growing.

“2) Farmers have a vested interest in maximizing the amount of plant growth in every last bit of farmland.

“Those simple points show that setting aside farmland to act as a “carbon sink” is counterproductive. The farm fields of the midwestern United States (where I live) are an amazingly effective carbon sink. Using modern farming techniques, literally tons of biomass are created in every acre of farmland, every year. Land that’s “set aside” and not farmed absorbs only a fraction of the CO2.”

Our reply – (more…)

The North-West Passage has been open more often than you think

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

A kind reader has sent us the following historical update on the history of the North-West Passage –

Regarding the North-West Passage, since the 1942 expedition by Henry Larsen the passage has been navigated on a number of occasions, several times by unaided yachts without icebreaker assistance. This is in contrast with sensationalist news in 2007 that the passage had been open “for the first time in history.”

In 1977 the Belgian sailor Willy de Roos and his steel ketch Willywaw became the third yacht to go through, largely single-handed. (more…)

What is science without religion?

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

A reader has sent us the following remarkably intriguing enquiry about science and religion, which we have answered at the length it deserves. This posting is a good read, and is worth following all the way through ?

“I am very grateful to SPPI for bringing forward objective and undistorted science on so many different subjects. I really enjoy watching your videos and reading your papers, not just because they are so incredibly well written or spoken and reveal an unprecedented amount of knowledge but also because your way of debating and making your point is just a joy to spectate.

“In particular I find Lord Monckton?s interviewing my fellow citizen, the Norwegian Greenpeace activist at Copenhagen on YouTube, to be the best lesson in the art of debating I have ever seen.

“So, in light of SPPI?s extraordinarily rational approach to science(and everything else for that matter) it comes as a surprise to me that Lord Monckton seems to have a Christian faith. Being very interested and reasonably knowledgeable in both science and religion, it would be very interesting to learn how you describe your faith.

“All the best from Oslo (only 10 C below today).”

Our reply ?

Dear Enquirer ? Here in the UK it is also below freezing, and snowing on the streets of London. Thank you very much for raising such an interesting question. Many of us at SPPI are Christians. In particular, I am a Christian. So were many eminent scientists in former times, including Lord Kelvin, after whom the internationally-recognized unit of absolute temperature is named.

Is it rational to be both a respecter of the scientific method, which proceeds only be evidence and measurement, and an adherent of religion, which proceeds almost entirely without evidence?


Cooling towers and ‘global warming’

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

  • A reader has sent in the following enquiry –

Why do I hear nothing about the effects of all of the-environmental-agency-mandated “cooling towers” dumping heated water vapor into the atmosphere? They must have some effect on the Earth’s temperature. The water vapor adds heat to the atmosphere, equal to at least the power generated by the power station, and forms clouds in the area which make the surrounding area cool less at night. The water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. The towers started out as building coolers. Now they are on every large building and every power plant.

  • Our reply –

Water vapor, thanks to the sheer quantity of it in the atmosphere, is the most important of the greenhouse gases, accounting for 65-85% of the natural greenhouse effect without which the Earth would be an ice planet. Since 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered in water, evaporation, convection, advection, subsidence, and precipitation are occurring somewhere on Earth all the time. Precisely because the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere – the “absolute humidity” is so high, adding just a little more with cooling towers from power stations and other industrial sources has virtually no influence on the greenhouse effect. (more…)

Knocking down the extremists who set up straw men

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

The Daily Telegraph, on 8 December 2009, produced what it called the ?Climate Skeptic?s Q&A?, a piece written by Fred Pearce, a long-standing environmental extremist campaigner on the climate question. There was no attempt in the piece to produce balanced or scientifically-accurate answers. A reader has sent the ?Q&A? to us and has asked us to put matters to rights. Mr. Pearce?s ?straw-man? questions are in bold face; his answers are in italics, and my comments are in Roman face.

How can scientists claim to predict climate change over 50 or more years when they can?t even get next week?s weather forecast right?

They can?t tell us in detail. But forecasting climate change is more like forecasting the seasons than the weather. We know winters are cold and summers are warm. Always. And it?s like that with greenhouse gases. Physicists have known for 200 years that gases like carbon dioxide trap heat. These gases are accumulating in the atmosphere, thanks to our pollution. They will heat up the atmosphere just as certainly as the summer sun heats us. (more…)

Group Demands REAL Investigation Into Mann

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010


By on 1.12.10 @ 2:40PM

The Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg, Pa. does not trust Pennsylvania State University to investigate Climategate hockey sticker Michael Mann, because of the millions of dollars that his research brings to the university. The foundation today released a 12-page policy brief which addresses Mann’s Climategate emails, the significance of his role, and why the university has a conflict of interest in investigating him. Commonwealth held a press conference today at the state capitol about their report: (more…)

To all climate rationalists …

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

If you are not taking flak, you are not over the target!

taking flak 5Taking flak

States Want Delay on Emission Rules

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010


Source: Wall Street Journal

A growing number of state regulators are urging the Obama administration to slow the rollout of proposed federal rules curbing industrial greenhouse-gas emissions, saying the administration’s approach could overwhelm them with paperwork, delay construction projects and undercut their own efforts to fight climate change. (more…)

CO2 Benefits Marine Life

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010
Written By: James M. Taylor
Source:  The Heartland Institute

A new research paper by Dr. Craig Idso, author of the 2009 book, CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future, exposes the flimsy science behind a recent National Resources Defense Council film claiming carbon dioxide is destroying the world’s oceans.

The research paper, “Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification,” documents extensive scientific evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide are not poisoning the oceans to the detriment of marine invertebrates or other marine life. To the contrary, the paper shows that “even a cursory review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals … that the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will actually prove a boon to calcifying marine life.” [emphasis in the original] (more…)

Lord Monckton rips Scientific American’s climate lies

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Source: Courtney of

December 27, 2009

Does Lord Christopher Monckton ever sleep? Thank goodness he must not–he’s out today with another brilliant hit piece on the global warming hoaxers. This time its Scientific American, who viciously attacked US Senator James Inhofe because he had proclaimed 2009 to be the Year of the Skeptic. (Remember when scientists were skeptics?)

Venomously, Science Fiction American’s editorial comment continued: “Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists.” Yah-Boo! This name-calling marks the depth of unscientific desperation to which the proponents of the “global warming” nonsense have now sunk.

Unscientific American pompously continued: “Not everyone who questions climate change science fits that description, of course—some people are genuinely unaware of the facts or honestly disagree about their interpretation. What distinguishes the true naysayers is an unwavering dedication to denying the need for action on the problem, often with weak and long-disproved arguments about supposed weaknesses in the science behind global warming.”

Politicized American, following a host of similarly left-leaning bodies such as the Royal Society and the unspeakable BBC, proceeded to parody and then condemn the now-overwhelming scientific case against the notion that CO2 is the principal driver of the past half-century’s “global warming” by setting up and then knocking down seven feeble straw men – childish, dishonest simulacra of the true scientific arguments against “global warming” hysteria. It described its straw men as “only a partial list of the contrarians’ bad arguments”. Yah-Boo!

After ripping Unscientific American to shreds, Monckton goes on to reproduce each of Scientific American’s seven straw men, state the true skeptical argument, and discuss the scientific truth.

A must read: Scientific American’s Climate Lies | The SPPI Blog.