Lubos, as well as giving CCNet newsletter a boost promoted the following:
"Some interesting links from Willie Soon:
-Climate crusaders should welcome intense scrutiny, space on TV, not to shit into their pants like Mike Mann: it has helped many (First Things)
-Barney Frank, Dem candidate, takes a private jet for fun (Boston Herald)
-Michael Mann replies to Joe Barton again (Bad Astronomy of Phil Plait is of course ready to publish arbitrarily bad garbage from Mr Mann, even garbage that was too stinky even for the Washington Post to be published)
-Carbon Trust U.K. began jihad against bicycles in their company (Copenhagenize: because private jets are safer for those who are saving the planet from CO2 emissions)
-Pacific Legal Foundation sues EPA over CO2 and endangerment"
Video from that article:
***That ups the total to 91 contestants -
EPA sued by over 90 entities for 'Greenhouse' Gas Regulations
According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration's move to curb 'greenhouse gases' using the Environmental Protection Agency has drawn legal challenges from more than 90 companies and trade associations. This could be very interesting since any of these legal challenges conceivably might result in subpoenas issued for infamous warmists such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, forcing them to provide documents and prove their flimsy AGW theory under cross-examination in a court of law. Here's what happened when James Hansen was 'boxed in' on the witness stand once before, dumbfounded when cross-examined and asked to name just one other scientist who agreed with his assertion that sea levels would rise more than 1 meter this century, stating "I could not, instantly. "Dr. Roy Spencer appears well prepared as an expert witness for the plantiffs.
A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that Energy Leaders Blame Oil and Gas Subsidies for Weak Prospects. This is worth revisiting as information on subsidies in the US energy sector has been published.
For a more realistic value for WE, the usable/used energy is around 8% of capacity. Being generous, production is around 30%. That means 3.75 times more per UoP (23.37x3.75=$87,6375) when production that is actually consumed is considered.
Subsidy and Support per Unit of Production (dollars/megawatt hour)
Source (PDF): U.S. Energy Information Administration
Coal $0.44Fiscal Year 2007 Subsidy and Support (million 2007 dollars)
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids: $0.25
Biomass (and biofuels): $0.89
Solar: $24.34 Wind: $23.37
Source (PDF): U.S. Energy Information Administration
Coal: $854 millionCompared to natural gas, wind power receives 93 times more money per megawatt hour and solar receives 97 times more money per megawatt hour. The subsidies for wind power are so extreme that the total amount of the federal subsidy ($724 million), as shown in Figure 3, is not that different from the total subsidy for coal ($854 million).
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids: $227 million
Nuclear: $1,267 million
Biomass (and biofuels): $36 million
Geothermal: $14 million
Hydroelectric: $174 million
Solar: $14 million
Wind: $724 million
The big difference between the two though is coal generates 63 times more electricity.
[Time permitting I'll see if I can find the EC and UK numbers for comparison.]
The above was taken from Bingaman’s Renewable Energy Standard: Another Proposed Energy Tax by Daren Bakst that begins:
Congress seems intent on imposing energy taxes on the American public. First, there was the proposed cap-and-trade legislation; now there’s a renewable energy standard. While cap-and-trade legislation appears to be dead for now, the same can’t be said for a renewable energy standard. On September 21, 2010, Senator Bingaman (D-NM) introduced the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010 (S. 3813). A bipartisan group of 32 cosponsors gives this bill a legitimate chance of passage this year. At a minimum, it’s a bill that warrants significant attention.
The following topics are considered in the article:
Regional Inequities: What About States with Limited Renewable Potential? Federal Government Violates State Rights Again Addressing the Key Myths
1) An RES would help the economy and increase jobs.
2) An RES would reduce CO2 emissions.
3) An RES will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Conclusion There was significant concern about a cap and trade bill, but that concern is not as evident when it comes to an RES. If the RES doesn’t receive more attention, Americans will find that after a long and apparently successful fight against a cap and trade energy tax, they will likely be forced to incur an energy tax through other means. An RES is a combination of bad elements of a cap and trade bill and ObamaCare. It’s an energy tax. It ignores state rights and forces Americans to buy something they don’t want. Even worse, a federal RES would fundamentally alter the underlying principle that utilities should be focused on using the lowest cost and most reliable sources of electricity. Common-sense electricity policy would be destroyed in favor of environmental extremism and self-interested politicians.
Gas, as well as being an abundant and renewable source has half the emissions of coal.
UK; upgrading coal fired energy plants would meet the ECotard's lunatic emissions reduction target of the non polluting carbon dioxide.
I question the legality of the EC in regulating CO2 emissions, I wish others would too. The US is way ahead of the field in fighting corrupt and misguided governance in this area***.
In assessing the value of Beyond Business as Usual. Investigating a Future without Coal and Nuclear Power in the U.S. John Droz, physicist asked did it adhere to the Scientific Method?
1) Was it done by independent parties?
2) Is it objective?
3) Is it comprehensive?
4) Is it transparent?
5) Is it based on empirical data?
[...] this report’s legitimacy. The answer: zero. After you’ve waded through a dozen or so of similar puff pieces (I’ve looked at hundreds), you’ll get the clear message that any real science in these polemics is strictly accidental, and that the scientific basis for wind energy is minimal.
CCNet newsletter notes the following articles relevant to current events:
At Last: BBC Told To Ensure Balance On Climate Change
Climate change sceptics are likely to be given greater prominence in BBC documentaries and news bulletins following new editorial guidelines that call for impartiality in the corporation’s science coverage. The BBC has been repeatedly accused of bias in its reporting of climate change issues. Last year one of its reporters, Paul Hudson, was criticised for not reporting on some of the highly controversial “Climategate” leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, even though he had been in possession of them for some time.
[...] In 2007, a BBC Trust report called Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century said: “Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular …
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate.”
The BBC Trust is also currently conducting a separate review into impartiality in the corporation’s science coverage, led by Professor Steve Jones from University College London, which will report in the spring of next year. Professor Jones has been asked to consider whether the BBC’s output “gives appropriate weight to scientific conclusions including different theories and due weight to the views expressed by those sceptical about the science and how it was conducted or evaluated.”
(Full story Daily Telegraph, 13 Oct 2010 Neil Midgley)
Is the BBC’s Eco-Tourism Coming To an End?
The rescue of the miners trapped deep underground in Chile is clearly a vivid, compelling and wonderful story. But it appears to be hindering the BBC's ability to cover other news, including the UN climate change talks in Cancún, Mexico, at the end of November. At the last climate talks in Copenhagen, the BBC went in with, I am told, 30 people on the ground. They were saving the planet, after all. (We [Guardian] sent seven people.)
But according to a BBC memo leaked to me, reproduced in full below, the cost of the Chilean mining spectacular means just one solo correspondent in Cancún will have to feed the many and ravenous mouths of the BBC's television, radio and online output. I pity the fool . . .
Jon Williams, BBC world news editor, in an email to staff, sets out: the costs and scale of ambition for the Chilean mine rescue - and some of the consequences for other events in the coming months The financial situation is serious: we are currently £67k beyond our agreed overspend of £500k - newsgathering's costs for Chile will exceed £100,000.
Two different BBC sources have told me that the costs are in fact £200,000 and that 40 people have been deployed. And so to the crunch: This afternoon, in discussion with the programmes and the newsroom, we agreed: * Cancun climate summit would not be a live "event" - one single correspondent
Certainly the political momentum has gone out of the climate talks after the Copenhagen debacle, which saw 120 world leaders turning up to sign a treaty which had yet to be negotiated. But sending just one correspondent to Mexico seems very underweight for one of the world's biggest newsgathering organisations. Shame on them.
(Full story Guardian 14 Oct 2010 Damien Carrington)
(If memory serves, no leaders will attend. A positive signal that the impetus is vanishing from the CO2 fraud as fast as wind energy, CRU & Gore's credibility.)
Leading Green Quangos Axed In UK Government Shake-Up
Dozens of environmental agencies have been chopped in the long-awaited “bonfire of the quangos” as the UK's Coalition Government strives to balance its books. The axe fell heaviest on the Environment Department, which lost 50 quangos, confirmed in a statement by Cabinet Minister Francis Maude today. The list of green agencies to be closed as part of the cull of 192 organisations includes
the Renewable Fuels Agency,
the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards,
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,
the Air Quality Expert Group and
the Renewables Advisory Board. The Environment Agency is one of a further 171 quangos to be “substantially reformed”.
According to the announcement, the Environment Agency will “Reform through structural, process and cultural change to become a more efficient and customer focused organisation; and clarify accountabilities.” Other bodies that face substantial reform are Natural England and the Forestry Commission.
The Committee on Climate Change has been retained on the grounds “of the need to act independently”. However, the future of the Sustainable Development Commission remains “under consideration” following Defra's decision to withdraw funding at the end of 2010/11.
In a written statement, Francis Maude, said: “This public expect ministers to take responsibility for what the government does, and not leave this to people or bodies that are unelected. In the past, too many public bodies have been established without proper thought, and allowed to remain when their mission has long been accomplished."
“This has meant that elected politicians have been able to avoid making difficult and tough decisions. This is a direct challenge to accountability and is contrary to openness and transparency in public services that this Government seeks to achieve."
“So the government's presumption is that state activity, if needed at all, should be undertaken by bodies that are democratically accountable at either national or local level. A body should only exist as a Quango if it meets one of three tests, to which my review has subjected all existing public bodies.” These tests will be:
- Does it perform a technical function?
- Do its activities require political impartiality?
- Does it need to act independently to establish facts?"
(Full story Click Green, 14 Oct 2010)
[Pandowdy (with a rich crust) Cameron giving the quango monster a light trim. How many EC/EU quangos for the guillotine? A rough estimate - 0. ]
Hal Lewis Resignation Reverberates
A SENIOR US professor has resigned in disgust from the American Physical Society. He joined a panel of sceptics to protest against what he said was the triumph of money over scientific integrity in climate change research.
Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said in his resignation letter to APS president Curtis Callan Jr that the "global warming scam" had "corrupted so many scientists and carried APS before it like a rogue wave". "It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist," he said. Professor Lewis, a member of APS for 67 years, said anyone who had the faintest doubt about his assessment should read the so-called climate-gate documents, which lay it bare.
"This is not fun and games -- these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance," Professor Lewis said in his letter of resignation. He accused APS management of "gaming" the problem from the beginning to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. "Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue," Professor Lewis said. "I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago."
Australian climate sceptic Ian Plimer, from the University of Adelaide, said he was not surprised by Professor Lewis's resignation. "Only younger people with careers in front of them are afraid to rock the boat," Professor Plimer said. "Older scientists, near the end of their career, can expose the fools and frauds and blow the whistle that major bodies of information are not appearing in publications," he said.
But ANU climate scientist Will Steffen, who sits on the federal government's climate change committee, said Professor Lewis had not published in the climate science or earth sciences literature. He said three investigations into the so-called climate-gate scandal had exonerated those involved and found there had been no perversion of the peer review system. Professor Steffen delivered a paper at the climate forum in Hobart yesterday questioning "when the science on climate change is so clear, why is it still portrayed as uncertain in the media?" He said there was a big divergence between what was known with a high degree of certainty and what was reported. Professor Lewis has joined the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which evaluates new studies and reports, explores future research projects and makes recommendations on issues related to climate research and policy.
(Full story The Australian, 14 Oct 2010 Graham Lloyd)
[Prof Steffen obviously doesn't get out of Real Climate often enough...]
IPCC Fails To Restore Credibility As Its Divisive Chairman Stumbles On
Pachauri, an Indian scientist, elected in 2002 and who is in his second six-year term, said the recommendation would only apply to future IPCC leaders after he steps down in 2014. "I have every intention of staying right till I have completed the mission that I have accepted," he said, referring to the completion of the IPCC's next major climate change report in 2014.
(Full story Reuters, 14 Oct 2010)
And Finally [from CCNet]: Guardian Super-Blogger Flames Reg Boffinry Desk
Globally popular Guardian science correspondent Martin Robbins has initiated a public flame war with the Reg. This is our response.
Earlier today, under the page title "The Register misrepresents climate science", the Guardianran this piece by Robbins, who blogs for the Graun under the title "The Lay Scientist" and who recently shot to world fame after writing this terrifically popular spoof science article - which we thought was pretty good, by the way. But Robbins doesn't like us, here on the Reg boffinry desk. In particular he didn't like this pieceof ours, reporting on recent research into the effects of solar variation on climate change.
Under the headline "Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun", we wrote: New data indicates that changes in the Sun's output of energy were a major factor in the global temperature increases seen in recent years. The research will be unwelcome among hardcore green activists, as it downplays the influence of human-driven carbon emissions. We had based this on the fact that the new research covered the period 2004 to 2007, which we would say fits pretty well under "recent years". We thought the phrase "major factor" was appropriate as Professor Joanna Haigh - lead scientist conducting the research - told Nature, publishing it, that increased visible-light emissions by the Sun have caused as much warming over those recent years as human carbon emissions have.
We quote Nature: Over the three-year study period, the observed variations in the solar spectrum have caused roughly as much warming of Earth's surface as have increases in carbon dioxide emissions, says Haigh.
Open and shut, then. Much of recent global warming - as much as was caused by human carbon emissions, anyway - was actually down to changes in the Sun. At least, if you believe Professor Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London. As for this being unwelcome news to hardcore green activists, the response the piece received - not least from Robbins of the Grauniad - suggests we were right on the money there, too. He says: At a time when action to deal with climate change is needed more than ever, this sort of misleading reporting does nothing to help the public debate.
We've got no argument with the idea that CO2 in an atmosphere has a greenhouse effect: that's just a fact [Moi, except the rule of diminishing returns questions whether CO2 has crossed the line to be a coolant, CO2 and H2O contest to absorb IR whose amount is limited, CO2 translating IR to lower wavelengths and different energy forms put it beyond H2O's genuine GHG ability that contrasts CO2's transient ability.]. But as for massive global action being required by the climate changes and atmospheric measurements observed in the present day, that's just an opinion based on long-range weather forecasts. It's an opinion widely held, apparently by Professor Haigh, certainly by Mr Robbins and many other green activists. For the record, your correspondent simply doesn't know whether they're right or not.
The opinion of an eminent physicist like Professor Haigh carries weight - Robbins' is worth less than the electrons used to publish it, of course. But then we might also consider the opinion of the still more eminent physicist Freeman Dyson - who considers the menace of carbon emissions to be seriously overblown, and who is not alone among eminent physicists in this. Then, even James Hansen of NASA himself - the man who more or less invented the idea of carbon-driven warming and who believes that only the exhaustion of global oil supplies can save humanity - has lately admitted that in fact other things might have just as powerful an effect on the climate as CO2.
(Full tale The Register, 12 Oct 2010 Lewis Page)
Thanks go to Dr Peiser of the GWPF for his tireless efforts to keep us current with the science and politics of the gang-green scum scam.
More from the Reg (Most commented)
- 'Squeeze green oil from North Sea by squirting CO2 in' - prof
- Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP
- Analysis Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?
- Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered
- I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss
At last. Jupiter and Saturn's gravitational influence on the Sun have been correlated with climate oscillations.
George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:
Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation. If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.
We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.251C, and periods of about 20 and 60 years respectively, are synchronized to theorbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct thetemperature oscillations since 1850 and tomake partial forecasts for the 21st century. It is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators.
The Jovian and Saturnian gravitational tug on the Earth is significant too, causing the ovality of its orbit that triggers glacial advance and retreat.
Global warming propagandist slapped down written by Lawrence Solomon
Disestablish the IPCC
Report of the French Academy of Sciences looks devastating to the IPCC
Uncertainties, unresolved issues, debate on the influence of sunlight, debate on the indirect effects of CO2, need to deepen the physical chemistry of clouds: what remains of the beautiful certainties enumerated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its last two reports ?
Remember that the IPCC reports are normative cathedrals (what you can not do, what you must do, education, etc.: for the past ten years there is not been any environmental policy, whose genealogy can not be related to the IPCC) built on the foundation of the scientific certainties of their first part. What would crack the pseudo-scientific foundations, would destroy the normative cathedral?
As we show in a book that is just been published (*), a formidable coalition of convergent interests of all forms has progressively surrounded the IPCC – economic, ideological, political, personal, etc…- to form an invincible political-mediatic armada crowned with the sublime aura of science.
Now that the IPCC is faltering, those that had, either by ignorance or ideology made themselves the enthousiastic spooksmen, now have to fly to its rescue.
Breaking News! It’s Global Warming! No Wait it’s Cooling! No Wait…(Part 1)
Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Oct. 14th 2010
U.S. foundations against the oil sands
Europe's Ill Wind (Video)
The right to question Michael Mann’s climate research; Bill to Overturn Light Bulb Ban
By Joe Barton, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post
Michael E. Mann’s Oct. 8 Washington Forum commentary, “Science isn’t a political experiment,” explained clearly how his ideas on climate science are superior to any accumulation of countervailing facts, and it showed that he’s plainly still annoyed that I questioned some of those ideas by holding a public hearing to evaluate them in 2006. /continues
[From the same item] Barton, Burgess and Blackburn Introduce Bill To Repeal Light Bulb Ban
Reps. Joe Barton, R-Ennis/.Arlington, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., today introduced H.R. 6144, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act.
The BULB Act repeals Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which is a de facto ban on the incandescent light bulb that has its origins in Thomas Alva Edison’s laboratory. “The unanticipated consequence of the ‘07 act - Washington-mandated layoffs in the middle of a desperate recession - is one of many examples of what happens when politicians and activists think they know better than consumers and workers,” Barton said.
“From the health insurance you’re allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy, Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to people who work for their own paychecks and earn their own living.”
“Thousands of American jobs have been shipped overseas as a direct consequence of this light bulb provision in the Democrats’ 2007 energy bill,” Burgess said. “Further, I have stated all along that exposing our citizens to the harmful effects of the mercury contained in CFL light bulbs, which are being manufactured in China, is likely to pose a hazard for years to come. This light bulb issue is just the latest example of Republicans attempting to correct the mistakes of Nancy Pelosi’s misguided Democrat-controlled Congress.” /full story
Alarmist wiki. Finally something credible. A ray of sunshine as we race towards an Arctic winter.
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels.
Bishop Hill noted: William Connolley has been topic banned by Wikipedia. Climate change is now off-limits for WC.
[For strangers to biased wiki editing WC is notorious for restoring corrected alarmist propaganda.]
Talking of religion,
Should churches be obliged to display a health risk warning as cigarettes are?
(Via JS) Churches may be more polluted than roads