Archive for October, 2010

Goodbye Global Warming, Hello Biodiversity

Sunday, October 31st, 2010

Source:  Warning Signs

By Alan Caruba

After three decades of trying to push the global warming scam to a point where billions could be made selling and trading bogus “carbon credits”, the global schemers have abandoned it in the wake of 2009 revelations that a handful of rogue climate scientists were literally inventing the data to support it.

If there is one lesson to be learned from and about environmentalists, it is that they are utterly relentless. The ultimate goal is one-world government directed from the United Nations by unelected bureaucrats who are soulless strangers to the truth, to morality, to humanity.

The United States supports this abomination to the tune of billions every year. (more…)

A Nest of Carbon Vipers

Sunday, October 31st, 2010

Source: SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

Vast sums of money, influence and power are involved in carbon mitigation schemes, and yet there is never any mention in the media of these massive and lucrative conflicts of interest. They appear quite content swallowing the diversionary tactics pushed by the likes of DeSmog Blog and Greenpeace ExxonSecrets with their claims of “oil- company funded deniers”.  It is doubtful that mainstream journalists ever bother to look behind the scenes at these people, yet it is all available on official websites.

It is no wonder that Christiana Figueres wanted the Kyoto Mechanism to continue, when she addressed the UNFCCC Tianjin Conference on the 4th of October, because without it her friends in the carbon business would find their virtual world starting to disappear, as evidenced by the recent problems at the Chicago Climate Exchange. (more…)

Wind Energy: The Truth Blows

Saturday, October 30th, 2010

Source:  Energy Tribune

By Tony Rose and Michael J. Economides

Wind Energy: The Truth Blows

Wind energy is the environmentalists’ great energy hope, but two inconvenient truths seem to come between fantasy and reality.

1. Study after study shows that wherever wind development was put in place, natural gas demand went up and the environmental benefits were the opposite of what the advocates expected.

“Cycling” coal plants to accommodate wind generation makes the plants operate inefficiently, which drives up emissions. Moreover, when they are not operated consistently at their designed temperatures, the variability causes problems with the way they interact with their associated emission control technologies, frequently causing erratic emission behavior that can last for several hours before control is regained. Ironically, using wind to a degree that forces utilities to temporarily reduce their coal generation results in greater SO2, NOX and CO2 than would have occurred if less wind energy was generated and coal generation was not impacted.” (more…)

The 97% “Consensus” is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists–

Saturday, October 30th, 2010

Source:  The Hockeystick

The graphic below comes via our friends at [un]skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of “climate scientists think that global warming is ‘significantly’ due to human activity,” a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this “consensus” and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.

However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.  (more…)

James Taylor letters to editor on California Prop 23

Saturday, October 30th, 2010

Prop 23 Opponents Are the Big Spenders
Submitted to the Los Angeles Times 10/21/2010

Opponents of Proposition 23 are increasingly claiming corporate Big Money is being funneled to Prop 23 supporters. Nothing could be further from the truth, given the avalanche of anti-Prop 23 money pouring in from environmental activist groups, liberal political action funds, and the renewable power industry.

The non-partisan group MAPLight.org, which is tracking campaign funding on both sides of the issue, reports that Prop 23 opponents have spent $30 million to defeat the initiative, while supporters have spent only $9 million. The National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club alone have spent nearly half as much as all Prop 23 supporters combined.

It is the environmental activist lobby, and not Prop 23 supporters, that are spending the Big Money to tilt the balance in the Prop 23 debate.

James M. Taylor
Parrish, Florida (more…)

Response To “Hot Topic”

Saturday, October 30th, 2010

Source: Real Science

Posted on October 30, 2010 by stevengoddard

I wrote an article for SPPI a couple of weeks ago titled “To a Geologist, “The Past is Key to the Future.” I got some good feedback from it, none more flattering than being compared to Lord Monckton by Hot Topic NZ

Unfortunately, they got a few other things wrong.

Point 1. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing steadily through the satellite record. No one disputes this.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

Point 2. Greenland is not as warm as it was 70 years ago. Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC said this :

The current Greenland warming, while not yet quite matching the temperatures of 70 years ago, is part of a global warming signal that for the foreseeable future will continue to increase temperatures (with of course occasional short-term fluctuations), in Greenland and around the world.

Hot Topic cited some above normal temperatures earlier in the year, and ignored the long term trend. They ignored the fact that there are only a very small number of stations with contiguous records going back 100 years. They ignored the map I included showing the regions of GISS cooling (turquoise) over the last 70 years. (more…)

Disputing The Skeptical Environmentalist

Saturday, October 30th, 2010

Source:  IBD

By WILLIE SOON, ROBERT CARTER AND DAVID LAGATES

This is a response to “Why Can’t We Innovate Our Way To A Carbon-Free Energy Future?”, a “Perspective” by Bjorn Lomborg that ran in this space a week ago.

Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It,” is right about the need to focus on critical health and economic priorities. But he is wrong about human carbon dioxide emissions causing what is now being called “global climate disruption.”

By demonizing the gas of life, in league with Al Gore and Bill Gates, Lomborg commits several serious scientific errors. As independent scientists, with broad training in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and geography, we know CO2 is not a pollutant, and the notion of “carbon-free” or “zero-carbon” energy is inherently harmful and anti-scientific.

If nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium or any other nontoxic gas is pumped into a chamber containing air and a growing plant, the response is barely measurable. By contrast, if more CO2 is added, the plant and its root system benefit enormously, displaying enhanced growth and more efficient use of available water and nutrients.

Far from having detrimental effects, carbon dioxide has decidedly beneficial impacts on plants, aquatic and terrestrial alike, and a new study connects enhanced plant productivity to greater bird species diversity in China. How, therefore, can anyone conclude that human carbon dioxide is a pollutant that must be eradicated? (more…)

Happy Climate Fools’ Day

Friday, October 29th, 2010

Source:  UK Telegraph

by James Delingpole

Today is Climate Fools’ Day. To celebrate, here is an essay courtesy of Simon Barnett to show how your money is being squandered by the Coalition on “Climate Change”.

The 2008 Climate Change Act commits Britain to cutting its CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050 at a cost of £18.3 billion every year for the next four decades (according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change website).

This is being funded by top slicing the cash from your energy bills. The figure does not include other costs, such as the losses incurred due to the economic damage and opportunity costs of these measures. And obviously the law only seeks only to address CO2 emissions from the UK.

Without pausing to question how that 80 percent target is to be attained short of closing down the entire economy I’d just like to demonstrate the sheer scale of the cost of this bill with a little help from my beautiful assistant, H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth II. Here she is below on the fifty pound note, the largest denomination note in common circulation, and guaranteed to win friends and influence people wherever she goes…

Delingpole-she-goes-1

Also assisting me in my demonstration will be “red stick man” who is participating primarily as a visual reference to scale, but you can call him “Red Ed” if you’d like (to apportion blame). Here he is demonstrating that a million of the above notes (50 million pounds) will fit neatly onto a standard pallet… (h/t) (more…)

Rear Mirror — Climategate: hide the decline – codified

Friday, October 29th, 2010

Source:  Wattsup

Posted on November 25, 2009 by Anthony Watts

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the  HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you.

http://codyssey.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/software_bug.jpg?w=640

To say that the CRU code might be “buggy” would be…well I’ll just let CRU’s programmer tell you in his own words. (more…)

James Cameron labelled climate change ‘hypocrite’

Friday, October 29th, 2010

Source:  UK Independent

The eco-themed science fiction movie Avatar helped cement James Cameron’s standing as one of Hollywood’s most strident environmentalists.

Now, in a gesture that perfectly captures the fractious spirit of a polarised nation, comes the inevitable backlash: a political attack advert entitled “James Cameron – Hypocrite”.

A week ago, it emerged that the Oscar-winning film director had put his money where his mouth is by donating $1m of his personal fortune to opponents of Proposition 23, a ballot measure facing voters in California at the coming mid-term elections which would suspend the state’s landmark law combating climate change. Supporters of the proposition weren’t going to take that lying down, though. On Thursday, they returned fire by releasing a short film that claims to highlight a Titanic-sized gulf between Mr Cameron’s somewhat magisterial proclamations regarding the importance of combating climate change, and his actual lifestyle. (more…)

Gore leaves car idling for one hour during speech; Opts for Swedish government jet over public transportation

Friday, October 29th, 2010

Source: ClimateDepot

‘Local legislation prohibits any car engine running for more than 60 seconds’ — But Gore Not Fined

By Einar Du Rietz

Al Gore — He did it again.

Recently, Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore toured again. Or maybe he does that all the time. This time, he turned up in Gothenburg (Sweden) for the usual alarmist talk. In advance, all distinguished guests were politely advised to – if possible – use any form of public transportation to go to the event, in order to minimize CO2 emissions.

Intriguingly, the Master of World Climate himself arrived in a rental car (with or without driver is unclear), from the airport, and subsequently left the engine running for the entire lecture. That is to say, about one hour. Incidentally, local legislation prohibits – for very good environmental reasons, i e pollution – any car engine running on empty for more than 60 seconds. Fines are severe. As far as I know, he was not fined. (more…)

A Very Convenient Lie

Friday, October 29th, 2010

Source:  Health news for Americans

Global Warming is hailed as the new cause for this generation to fight against, to unite us all to save the world from. But is this a genuine threat to our world or is this just another scientific fad that is being over popularized by the media. In my opinion the only thing getting hotter is the rhetoric. Today the theory of global warming is taught much the same way that the theory of evolution has been taught; from the basis that it is an accepted fact, not just one of many scientific theories. The main figurehead of the global warming movement is widely recognized as former Vice President Al Gore, who gained notoriety for his docudrama An Inconvenient Truth.  This article will address not only the alleged facts of the film, but also the motivations behind the making of this film and the blatant hypocrisy that is Al Gore. (more…)

Heresy and the creation of monsters

Thursday, October 28th, 2010

Source: Climate ETC.

by Judith Curry

I’m having another “Alice down the rabbit hole” moment, in response to the Scientific American article, the explication of the article by its author Michael Lemonick, Scientific American’s survey on whether I am a dupe or a peacemaker, and the numerous discussions in blogosphere.  My first such moment was in 2005 in response to the media attention associated with the hurricane wars, which was described in a Q&A with Keith Kloor at collide-a-scape.  While I really want to make this blog about the science and not about personalities (and especially not about me),  this article deserves a response.

The title of the article itself is rather astonishing.  The Wikipedia defines heresy as: “Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma.”  The definition of dogma is “Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.”   Use of the word “heretic” by Lemonick implies general acceptance by the “insiders” of the IPCC as dogma.  If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic.  The story should not be about me, but about how and why the IPCC became dogma. (more…)

AFP Releases Paper Detailing How EPA Could Force Cap-and-Trade

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

Source: AFP

- Agency move toward trading program expands executive power at the expense of democratic representation -

WASHINGTON, DC—The free market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) today released a working paper engaging the debate over whether the EPA can use the Clean Air Act to enact a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases (GHGs). The paper—entitled: Of Elephants and Mouseholes: How EPA Could Revive Cap-and-Trade—examines the statutory structure of the Clean Air Act and identifies two existing programs that EPA could contort to enact a GHG cap-and-trade program. The paper also includes a discussion of how cap-and-trade allows the EPA’s regulations to reach much further and accomplish more expansive goals than the Clean Air Act was ever designed to cover. The paper is online here. (more…)

Energy claims and realities

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

Source:  SPPI

By James Tonkowich

What will happen to jobs, living standards and families under restrictive energy policies?

Pennsylvania is lucky. Even amid this prolonged recession and depressingly high unemployment (9.5% in PA), families and businesses in the Keystone State are still paying just 9.4 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity.

That’s due in large part to the fact that Pennsylvania gets 53% of its electricity from coal. A lot of people vilify that black rock. But just think how much easier it is to cool our homes and cook our food at this price – or operate a factory, farm, office, store, hospital, school, church … or government agency.

Of course, 9.4 cents per kilowatt hour might seem like a lot to pay, compared to Indiana (where people pay only 7.1 cents), Kentucky (where electricity costs just 6.3 cents), or West Virginia (where it’s a rock-bottom 5.6 cents a kWh).

But just think how much harder all that would be if we lived in California, which generates just 1% of its electricity with coal, and people pay 13 cents per kWh; in Rhode Island, which gets no electricity from coal, and they shell out 16 cents a kWh; or just across the Delaware River in New Jersey, where families and businesses have to cough up 14.9 cents per kWh, largely because the state uses coal to produce just 15% of its job-creating electricity. (more…)