Saving Face At MIT

In reading the following press release from MIT you will see they still use the term "greenhouse gas" as something evil, caused by man's activities and something we must limit at all costs because we know, or more accurately, they assume it causes global warming and "climate change". They know (or they should) that this is a fallacy shown by observation and laid bare by the embarrassing exposure of the man-caused global warming hoax in the on-going ClimateGate fiasco. I won't even mention Al Gore's continuing hi-jinks.

However, MIT must save face in an effort to retain some degree of scientific integrity and credibility. They must still fight the never-ending battle for funding, so to be crude, they must "suck up". Although they admit the U.S. (and of course the world) will be dependent upon fossil fuels at least through the middle of this century because alternatives (e.g. wind, solar and geothermal can not suffice) they claim natural gas can be used to power our economy and replace that "dirty" coal. This they claim will reduce "greenhouse gases". Hogwash!

Burning natural gas (methane) produces nearly as much CO2 as coal or gasoline and oil. The net effect would be minimal. They also forget to mention that most natural gas is a "fossil fuel", found and produced in nearly the exact same way as is crude oil. This esteemed panel of "experts" at MIT should know better, and I'm sure they do, but they're playing the politically correct game, walking the middle of the road, trying to pacify the environmentalists and their idealistic dreams of a "carbon-free" world, while at the same time trying to maintain some degree of scientific and economic realism and integrity. They end up just looking like fools.
Peter

MITEI-led study offers comprehensive look at the future of natural gas

Photo - Graphic: Christine Daniloff

Researchers find significant potential for gas to displace coal, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions as a transition to a low-carbon future.

June 25, 2010

Natural gas will play a leading role in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions over the next several decades, largely by replacing older, inefficient coal plants with highly efficient combined-cycle gas generation. That’s the conclusion reached by a comprehensive study of the future of natural gas conducted by an MIT study group comprised of 30 MIT faculty members, researchers, and graduate students. The findings, summarized in an 83-page report, were presented to lawmakers and senior administration officials this week in Washington.

The two-year study, managed by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), examined the scale of U.S. natural gas reserves and the potential of this fuel to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Based on the work of the multidisciplinary team, with advice from a board of 16 leaders from industry, government and environmental groups, the report examines the future of natural gas through 2050 from the perspectives of technology, economics, politics, national security and the environment.

The report includes a set of specific proposals for legislative and regulatory policies, as well as recommendations for actions that the energy industry can pursue on its own, to maximize the fuel’s impact on mitigating greenhouse gas. The study also examined ways to control the environmental impacts that could result from a significant expansion in the production and use of natural gas — especially in electric power production.

“Much has been said about natural gas as a bridge to a low-carbon future, with little underlying analysis to back up this contention. The analysis in this study provides the confirmation — natural gas truly is a bridge to a low-carbon future,” said MITEI Director Ernest J. Moniz in introducing the report.

Read the full report

Read a press release about the report

Think About It: The Gulf Oil Leak Is An Accident, But The Failed Clean-Up Might Be Intentional

The idea of man-caused global warming has been shown to be a lie, (have a look around this blog if you need convincing) and the attempt to control carbon dioxide emissions is a horrible, cruel, costly folly. So the Obama Administration needed a crisis to convince people to reconsider the "Cap and Trade (Tax)" Energy Bill. Take a good hard look at what is being done to us by the Obama Administration.

Whether the botched clean-up efforts in the Gulf of Mexico are intentional or just the result of government incompetence, Obama has already, successfully extorted (blackmailed) $20 Billion from BP (British Petroleum). Which large oil company (or other industry) will he go after next? First it was the mortgage insurance industry, then the automakers, then Wall Street, then the health care industry, now the oil and energy industry is being set up to be controlled by the proposed "cap and trade" legislation. In the end, who pays? You and me, Joe and Jane taxpayer. You know it, or you should.

Obama is out to destroy the economy in order to save it. We are on the precipice of a major economic disaster caused by Obama's handling of this oil spill and this will be far, far more damaging to America than the leaked oil itself.
Peter


Could the Obama Administration be Blocking Gulf Clean-up Efforts Intentionally?"
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Friday, June 18, 2010 (source)

At first blush this sounds like an outlandish question with a conspiratorial twist. The corollary question goes like this: Is the Obama administration intentionally scaling back clean-up efforts in the Gulf in an attempt to maximize the damage so Democrats in Congress will have an excuse to take effective control over yet another major sector of our economy and impose crippling and draconian new taxes on the American people?

We first learned of this controversy reading Sher Zieve who wrote in the Canada Free Press: "Obama is doing the bare minimum so that destruction will be at an all-time maximum -- in order to shove his Cap and Trade bill (which will complete our destruction) down our throats."

Zieve added: "The BP oil disaster was custom-made for The Obama. The effective oil-skimmer systems utilized by the Saudis and others would work to greatly minimize the damage being caused to the US Gulf Coast. But, The Obama continues to drag his heels as States and lives are destroyed."

Fox News reported that when the Dutch government offered to help us clean up the oil spewing from the leaking BP oil rig, Obama initially turned them down cold. Norwegian and Dutch firms offered to help us too, but Obama said no.

It is reputed that the Roman Emperor Nero played his fiddle while Rome burnt to the ground so he could falsely blame the disaster on Christians and thereby rationalize a campaign of persecution against them.

Is it possible that Barack Hussein Obama and statists on Capitol Hill are using this crisis as an excuse to drive prices up at the pump, drive your utility bills through the roof, regulate your behavior and diminish your standard of living in this already queasy economy?

This much is certain -- in spite of what Obama told the American people during his Oval Office address to the nation, he did not adequately respond to this crisis. The administration has clearly failed in terms of organization and the use of resources available to the federal government.

Moreover, it's now indisputable that statists on Capitol Hill are attempting to exploit this disaster to push so-called cap and trade legislation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently revealed: "At the same time as Americans wonder when this gusher will ever be plugged, we hear word that the administration and my good friend the majority leader want to piggy back their controversial new national energy tax -- also known as cap and trade -- to an oil spill response bill that could and should be an opportunity for true bipartisan cooperation. So here again, we see the administration using a crisis, in this case the disaster in the gulf, as an opportunity to muscle through Congress another deeply unpopular bill that has profound implications for small business and struggling households."

But why let something as trivial as the truth get in the way when it comes to pushing an extreme "green" agenda? Liberals like Barack Obama made this problem worse so they could "solve" the problem and, as we've come to expect, they plan to "solve" the problem by making it worse.

So, true to form, Obama declared a moratorium on off-shore drilling and to make matters worse, Obama wants to institute a massive new energy tax, masquerading as sound energy policy (so-called cap and trade), that will dramatically raise the cost of just about everything you produce or consume, deprive you of income, control your behavior and repress your liberties.

Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, once said that you should never let a good crisis go to waste and Barack Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill aren't about to let this crisis go to waste. He may pontificate about holding BP to account but Obama and his leftist cronies fully intend to exploit this crisis to sneak liberty-stealing cap and trade legislation past the American people.

Man-Caused Global Warming Being Recognized As A Myth

It appears that mainstream media sources around the world are beginning to catch on and admit that man-caused global warming may indeed be a myth. They might not admit to having been fooled, or played for fools and deceived by the alarmist climate "scientists" seeking ever-larger financial support and power, but that is how a growing segment of the taxpaying public is seeing it. As has been said many times, eventually the truth prevails.

However, this sorry saga of global warming hoax has been going on for decades and it will not die quickly, even if Tipper Gore is taking some decisive steps in the right direction. Stay tuned because the Obama Administration is deeply entrenched in this fiasco. They will not abandon the myth of man-caused global warming for fear of losing what little face they have left.
Peter

Sinking 'Climate Change'
Cal Thomas
Thursday, June 03, 2010 (source)

Three modern myths have been sold to the American people: the promise of a transparent administration (President Obama); the promise of a more ethical Congress (Speaker Pelosi); and the myth of "global warming," or climate change.

The first two are daily proving suspect and now the third is sinking with greater force than melting icebergs, if they were melting, which many believe they are not.

After spending years promoting "global warming," the media are beginning to turn in the face of growing evidence that they have been wrong. The London Times recently reported: "Britain's premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures."

It gets worse, or better, depending on your perspective. Newsweek magazine, which more than 30 years ago promoted global cooling and a new ice age -- and more recently has been drinking the global warming Kool-Aid -- headlined a story, "Uncertain Science: Bickering and Defensive, Climate Researchers Have Lost the Public's Trust." Newsweek does its best to cling to its increasingly discredited doctrine, but the growing body of contrary evidence only adds to the public's disbelief.

In Canada, the polar bear -- which has been used by global warming promoters to put a cuddly face on the issue -- is in danger of not being endangered any longer. CBC News reported that the polar bear's designation as a "species of special concern" has been suspended "while the government reviews the polar bear's status and decides whether to renew the classification or change it."

The New York Times recently lamented "global warmism's loss of credibility" in a story about hundreds of "environmental activists who met to ponder this question: "if the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?" The "consensus" never was a consensus. Most of us may not have gotten an "A" in science, but we can sense when we are being bamboozled.

The German online news magazine "Focus" recently carried a story, "Warm Times Will Soon Be Over!" Commenting on the "new NASA high temperature record," which may be set, the magazine blames it on El Nino. Meteorologists, like Joe D'Aleo of The Weather Channel, are publicly distancing themselves from the false doctrine of global warming. D'Aleo says, "We'll have La Nina conditions before the summer is over, and it will intensify further through the fall and winter. Thus we'll have cooler temperatures for the next couple of years."

Remember the scare ignited in 2007 by supposed melting Arctic ice caps? The Star Canada says a new analysis shows that the apparent change was the result of "shifting winds," while an expedition last year to the North Pole discovered the ice "100 percent thicker than expected."

Much of this information -- and more -- is available at the useful Website www.climatedepot.com.

It is a given that America needs new sources of energy. Environmentalists have inhibited efforts at exploration by supporting policies that have forced some domestic exploration too far offshore (thus increasing chances of an ecological disaster as is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico).

Instead of trying to sell us a dubious doctrine at an estimated cost of $100 billion a year worldwide (so far), environmentalists would have done themselves and the world more good had they chosen a different strategy, such as not sending oil money to countries that want to destroy us. This would have increased our patriotic spirit and had the additional benefit of not only diversifying our energy supply, but also depriving our enemies of money they use to underwrite terrorism.

Watch for the hardcore "global warming" cultists to continue clinging to their beliefs; but also watch increasing numbers of scientists and eventually politicians to abandon this once "certain" faith and to look for other ways to control our lives. In that pursuit, the left never quits. Rather than acknowledge their error, they will go on to make new mistakes, knowing they will never be held accountable.

The Un-Making Of Al Gore And His Global Warming Alarmists

Not only has Tipper Gore seen the light and wants to distance herself from Al Gore (and his fraudulent activities), but the public seems to finally be catching on to what an enormous hoax the entire myth of man-caused global warming is and has been.

Wouldn't we all love to have those Billions of dollars spent on this "wild goose chase" returned to the government coffers and use that money for something based on sound, honest science instead of a socialist, leftist agenda? Maybe the tide is turning. Maybe the global economic and financial crises are causing people to take a second look at how taxpayers money is being spent. Maybe simple common sense will prevail after all.
Peter

Climate alarmists on the run (source)

FROM-The Washington Times

Former Vice President Al Gore was at his peak when the film "An Inconvenient Truth" made its initial Hollywood splash. Faith in man-made global warming had never been more widespread, with liberal academics and media subjecting to ridicule any who dared question the "settled science." Only a fool could deny that elevated carbon-dioxide levels had melted ice caps and stranded polar bears on rapidly diminishing ice floes.

How the tables have turned in a short time. On May 20, Oxford Union, the prestigious 187-year-old English debating society, formally considered the question of whether it was more important to focus on growing the economy or solving global warming. Climate realism won the day, 135 to 110. It's no wonder, considering how the purportedly scientific arguments advanced in support of the scaremongering conclusions have fallen apart since the Climategate scandal invited verification of the left's previously unexamined claims.

During the debate, Lord Whitty, former environment minister under the Labor government, claimed 95 percent of scientists were in agreement that man was responsible for a coming climatic cataclysm. Lord Monckton, representing climate realists, asked him to provide a reference backing up the claim. The audience jeered Lord Whitty for having none beyond, "Everyone knows it's true."

When the best the warmists can come up with is an appeal to authority, their case is lost for good. That's why, just a few days earlier, climate realists gathered in triumph on this side of the pondat a Heartland Institute climate-change conference in Chicago. Eminent scientists presented a wealth of evidence suggesting nature is, in fact, a much more powerful factor affecting the climate than man. That realism suggests the need for moderation when it comes to political action based on climate data.

"We think we need public policy that's based in facts, rather than facts that are based on a public agenda," Colorado State University professor Scott Denning said.

Once outcasts on the fringe of the scientific community, these individuals braved the ridicule of the self-appointed "enlightened" members of society to dismantle systematically the hockey sticks and other frauds crafted by leftists over the years.

In 1895, the New York Times suggested the Earth was headed toward a "second glacial period" in which "countries now basking in the fostering warmth of the tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions." By 1923, the Gray Lady had decided, "The Arctic seems to be warming up" as "so little ice has never before been noted." By the 1970s, schoolchildren were indoctrinated by textbooks blaming a new ice age on man's Earth abuse.

All this begs the question of how long it will take the warmist crew to readjust their scare story to win back the public. The majority firmly rejects their socialist prescription to solve an imaginary problem.


More...