Archive for February, 2010

Standard Still A Production Quota

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Source:  http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2010/02/should-congress-embrace-a-clea.php?rss=1#1413306

By Marlo Lewis

Sen. Lindsey Graham?s Clean Energy Act is, like cap-and-trade, calculated to raise energy prices and expand government control over the economy for the benefit of special interests.

The public ? and therefore the Senate ? isn?t buying cap-and-trade, and no informed adult really believes we can ?repower? America with wind turbines and solar panels. So Sen. Graham has come up with a slick alternative to both cap-and-trade and a national renewable electricity standard (RES) ? a national ?clean energy? standard (CES).

RES advocates claim they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on Mideast oil, yet won?t allow nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) to contribute to those goals. Graham?s CES avoids this rank inconsistency. (Or it does … (more…)

How Al Gore Wrecked Planet Earth

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Source:  The American Interest

The Washington Post this morning has a strong story on the collapse of the movement to stop climate change through a binding treaty negotiated under UN auspices.  And even the normally taciturn New York Times is admitting that the resignation of the top UN climate change negotiator suggests that no global treaty will be coming this year.

Short summary:  the current iteration of the movement–with its particular political project and goals–is dead.  This will not be news to readers of this blog where the news was announced on February 1, but never mind.

Anyway, as the Post now belatedly acknowledges, the movement to stop climate change through a Really Big and Comprehensive Grand Global Treaty is dead because there is no political consensus in the US to go forward.  It’s dead because the UN process is toppling over from its own excessive ambition and complexity.  It’s dead because China and India are having second thoughts about even the smallish steps they put on the table back in Copenhagen.

Doornail dead. (more…)

The Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Source:  http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/19/the-heretics-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

by  Rich Trzupek

When the infamous hockey-stick graph that purported to prove that human activities are causing runaway global warming was finally broken, there is some irony in the fact that a couple of Canadians did the breaking. Retired mining engineer Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, have been a thorn in the side of global warming alarmists for years. McIntyre, McKitrick and, more often, the acronym ?M&M? to refer to the pair, are the subject of many discussions in the e-mails released from the University of East Anglia?s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last November. (more…)

Rear Mirror: Wikipropaganda

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Source:  http://article.nationalreview.com/360788/wikipropaganda/lawrence-solomon

by Lawrence Solomon

Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works.

As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month. (more…)

Rear Mirror: Wikibullies at work

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information

by Anthony Watts

19 12 2009

http://himaarmenia.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wikipedia-logo.jpg?w=157&h=189UPDATED: see stats below the “read more” line.

Lawrence Solomon at the National Post writes about a topic that WUWT readers have known about for a long time: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.

We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history. (more…)

Answer to a “global warming” fanatic

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

  • I try to answer as many enquiries as I can from people who want to discuss “global warming”. I wrote this letter in reply to a “global warming” fanatic who, it is not unfair to say, had never actually thought about the superstition to which he subscribes. Perhaps this letter will make him think a little more and believe a little less.

Dear Enquirer, – Thank you for taking the trouble to write to me. If I may, I shall highlight various passages from your letter in bold face, and then respond to them seriatim in Roman face.

?I am not a climate scientist, and so I can only go by the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists that man-made climate change is occurring and that it poses a grave threat to humanity.? (more…)

The sound of alarm

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Source: Boston Globe

by Dr. Richard Lindzen

KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment. Vague terms such as “consistent with,’’ “probably,’’ and “potentially’’ hardly change this. Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we’ve seen is larger than any change we “have been able to discern’’ for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present. (more…)

More errors in temperature data

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Source:  Washington Times

Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ top climate-change official, announced his resignation yesterday. Good riddance. The bureaucrat’s departure is no surprise because his pseudo-scientific global warming religion was proved to be a hoax on his watch.

The list of problems central to the global warming fraud just doesn’t seem to end. As if hiding and losing data, the numerous errors in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the suppression of academic research that disagrees with global warming weren’t bad enough, now comes word that basic ground-based temperature data may have been biased towards incorrectly showing temperature increases. (more…)

Climategate: Plausibility and the blogosphere in the post-normal age.

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

Source:  Watts Up With That?

I?m honored to offer this guest post by Jerome Ravetz, of Oxford University in the UK. Mr. Ravetz is an environmental consultant and professor of philosophy of science best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity, discussing the science wars and post-normal science. Read more about him at his personal web page here, his Oxford page here, or at his blog the Post-normal Times. Also, my thanks to WUWT regular ?tallbloke? for his facilitation. ? Anthony

Guest post by Jerome Ravetz

At the end of January 2010 two distinguished scientific institutions shared headlines with Tony Blair over accusations of the dishonest and possibly illegal manipulation of information.  Our ?Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035?  of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is matched by his ?dodgy dossier? of Saddam?s fictitious subversions.  We had the violations of the Freedom of Information Act at the University of East Anglia; he has the extraordinary 70-year gag rule on the David Kelly suicide file. There was ?the debate is over? on one side, and ?WMD beyond doubt? on the other. The parallels are significant and troubling, for on both sides they involve a betrayal of public trust. (more…)

Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

source:  World Climate Report

Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

The defenders of the IPCC have contended that most of these errors are minor in significance and are confined to the Working Group II Report (the one on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) of the IPCC which was put together by representatives from various regional interests and that there was not as much hard science available to call upon as there was in the Working Group I report (“The Physical Science Basis”). The IPCC defenders argue that there have been no (or practically no) problems identified in the Working Group I (WGI) report on the science.

We humbly disagree. (more…)

The Peabody Petition to the EPA

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Source:  SPPI

by Robert Ferguson

Peabody Energy has filed a petition [executive summary] with the EPA asking them to reconsider their findings that greenhouse gases released by human activities “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The Peabody Petition was filed in light of the massive evidence of the manipulation of the IPCC process—a processes highly prized by the EPA—which has been exposed by the Climategate emails.  The EPA conducted little-to-no assessment of their own into the science of climate change, but instead relied heavily on the work of the IPCC—work which the Petition shows, in no uncertain terms, is tainted and unreliable.

The full Petition is one of the strongest cases yet presented that the EPA’s reliance on the IPCC Assessment Reports is misplaced, scientifically as well legally. It includes an in-depth look at the behind-the-scenes manipulation that took place with such topics as the “hockeystick,” tree-ring divergence, the “trick,” the warm early Holocene, the Medieval Warm Period, the surface temperature record, Freedom on Information requests, scientific peer-review, journal contents, and many other topics.

Here is an excerpt (from the 200+ page Petition) that provides a general summary of the science problems: (more…)

The Continuing Climate Meltdown

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Source: Wall Street Journal

More embarrassments for the U.N. and ‘settled’ science.

It has been a bad?make that dreadful?few weeks for what used to be called the “settled science” of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper. (more…)

Recent papers posted at SPPI

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Recent papers posted at Science and Public Policy Institute:


Acid Seas, Back to Basic

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/acid_seas.html

Petition to the EPA: Your Agency Has No Legal Option But to Re-examine Its Endangerment Finding

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/no_legal_option_but_to_re-examine.html

EPA Must Reconsider Its Endangerment Finding

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/epa_must_reconsider.html (more…)

DC Blizzard

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Why just “skeptics” interested in evidence?

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Source:  Althouse

by Ann Althouse

“The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws…”
“… at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.”

Huh? Why would it just be skeptics who would be interested in evidence of serious flaws in the science? I’m amazed by paragraph 6 of an article that begins:

The academic at the centre of the ?Climategate? affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ?keeping track? of the information. (more…)