Friday, November 16, 2012

Follow The Money To Solar And Wind Energy......NO MORE PLEASE

As was totally predictable, the Billions of taxpayer dollars spent on subsidies to the solar and wind energy industries has been a bust, a failure, a waste.  With America in such debt, isn't it time to pull the plug on these losers?  Will anyone be held accountable for such a criminal waste?  And voters elected the same Administration responsible for this outrage to four more years?  Amazing stupidity.

Is Colorado's "new energy economy" still viable in light of recent setbacks in the industry? No
It's been a rough stretch for Colorado's "new energy economy." Over the last few months, the Centennial State's green energy industry, which the new energy economy was supposed to kick start, has been beset by a series of setbacks. Loveland-based Abound Solar went bankrupt; Vestas Wind Systems laid off almost 200 workers at its Windsor blade plant; and General Electric pulled the plug on a planned solar manufacturing plant in Aurora.
The troubles of renewable energy companies are not unique to Colorado; they extend nationwide. U.S. taxpayers ponied up $60 billion for green energy "investments" as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus bill. The results are only coming in only now, and they are not good. The list of "stimulosers" — of which Solyndra is only the most famous example — is long and growing. It includes Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Amonix, A123 Systems, Nevada Geothermal Power, and many others.
These green industries are in trouble for a simple reason. They are running out of subsidies. The 2009 stimulus has been spent and the wind production tax credit is set to expire in December. Without a steady influx of taxpayer help, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power cannot compete, due to their high capital costs and intermittent supply.
How dependent on government are these industries? The American Wind Energy Association estimates that almost half of the entire wind power workforce — almost 37,000 people — would lose their jobs if Congress were to allow a single tax subsidy to expire. Such sudden and severe contractions are symptomatic of industries whose business plan is predicated on political favoritism. When the political winds change and the subsidies on which these companies depend are cut, the bottom falls out from under them.
On the demand side, green energy entails higher rates for consumers. In 2011, for example, a New Energy Economy policy known as the Solar*Rewards program accounted for almost 4 percent of sales, despite generating a scant half a percent of Xcel Energy's system-wide power. That's a bad deal for Coloradans. Unfortunately, the burden on Xcel ratepayers will only increase with the expiration of federal subsidies, which have effectively discounted Colorado's policies.
Somewhat paradoxically, the new energy economy's biggest expense likely will pertain to fossil fuels. The 2010 Clean Air Clean Jobs Act mandated that Xcel Energy generate from natural gas almost 1,000 megawatts of base load supply that it now gets from coal. At current prices, natural gas is historically cheap, but it is still more than twice as expensive as coal, according to Xcel Energy's regulatory filings.
And let's not forget that the price of natural gas reached historical highs only four summers ago. In fact, the high cost and volatility of the natural gas market relative to coal was the primary reason that the Colorado utilities have relied on the latter to meet the preponderance of the state's energy needs.
A spike in the price of gas after the current supply contracts expire would cost Xcel Energy ratepayers dearly.
The worst aspect of the new energy economy program is its regressive nature. Utility bills represent a larger portion of poor households' budgets, so the new energy economy's costs are shouldered disproportionately by those who can least afford them.
Before the new energy economy program came along, Colorado utilities' decisions on how to provide power to consumers were guided by considerations on how to do so most efficiently at the least cost. Now, many of those decisions are based on political considerations, such as the need to prop up renewable energy, imposed by politicians. As a result, Colorado ratepayers can expect to pay for unsustainable subsidies, endure lower power supply reliability, and suffer unexpected consequences — all in the name of green ideology.
William Yeatman is assistant director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington, D.C.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Will The Debate On Global Warming/Climate Change Ever Be Over?

So many people have a vested interest in maintaining the big public scare about global warming and/or climate change, the debate will go on forever.  Many people's careers, in fact entire university science departments depend upon government funding for continual, "ad infinitum" research on climate.  With that understood, in order to justify this spending to the tax-paying public, these "researchers" absolutely must keep up with the scare tactics.  They must just love heat waves, floods, tornados, hurricanes, blizzards, and all the other usual weather phenomena.  The more destructive and headline-making these things are, the better.  It is all rather shameless, and in my opinion, much of it is despicable.


The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week held its first hearing on climate science since 2009. Politico incorrectly claimed that no star witnesses testified. In fact, University of Alabama-Huntsville Professor John Christy, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, provided outstanding testimony. Professor Christy’s written testimony is available here, and video of his opening statement is available here.

Among the alarmist witnesses, Stanford Professor Chris Field’s testimony was convincingly refuted in this response by University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Landsat Joins Google Earth

This is fabulous and very much worth following.

Google’s Landsat Video of EarthJuly 25, 2012 | Earth Engine
Google has prepared a video that describes the Landsat program and includes some spectacular views of earth. Now, Google Earth Engine allows scientists, researchers and the public to easily view and analyze this treasure trove of planetary data.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Biofuels Lead To Food Crisis

This is unfortunately so predictable.  It has been said here by me, and others all along, that using food crops to make fuel is insanity.  What is worse is it being done in the name of "stopping global warming" (now they call it climate change) by using less of those evil fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal).  And these people call this being "green".....and call themselves "Progressives".  They're not progressive in any way.  To put it politely, they are regressive.  They would have us living in the stone age, or using horses and buggies, if that.

It is becoming painfully clear that solar power and wind power and geothermal energy can not meet the demand either.  Thank goodness we've discovered what can be done with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling to increase the production of oil and gas, the only fuels that can meet the world's demand.  See here for more information on oil and gas:

The Biofuels Disaster: ‘Green’ Politicians Cause Another Food Crisis
cartoonA United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity. The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. --Grant Ferrett, BBC News, 27 October 2007
The world is running short of corn. That is the message being delivered by the market, where on Thursday prices pushed above $8 a bushel for the first time. With no obvious abundance of international suppliers to make up for the drought-ravaged US corn crop and stocks close to record lows, traders and analysts believe demand must be pegged back.The biggest potential for a reduction in corn demand comes from the ethanol industry, which is using roughly 5bn bushels of corn, or nearly 40 per cent of the US corn crop, each year to make fuel for cars and animal feed. -- Financial Times, 19 July 2012

read the remainder of the article here:

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Doomsday Environmental Fearmongers Will Not Go Away

These "scientists" and the United Nations make a living from instilling fear in people, coercing them to pay higher taxes giving them more control.  The late, lamented Michael Crichton was "spot on" with his book "State of Fear".  Nature will pretty much take its course, no matter what us "insignificant" humans do.  Giving money to these self-serving "scientists" and the United Nations is a total waste.

Do a search for Michael Crichton on this blog for much more information on his expose' of environmental fear tactics.


Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists

Climate change, population growth and environmental destruction could cause a collapse of the ecosystem just a few generations from now, scientists warned on Wednesday in the journal Nature.
The paper by 22 top researchers said a "tipping point" by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.

The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.

The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.
The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.

The factors in today's equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.
Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.

To support today's population, about 43 percent of Earth's ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.

On current trends, the 50 percent mark will be reached by 2025, a point the scientists said is worryingly close to the tipping point.

If that happened, collapse would entail a shocking disruption for the world's food supply, with bread-basket regions curtailed in their ability to grow corn, wheat, rice, fodder and other essential crops.
"It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point," said lead author Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California in Berkeley.

"The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations."

The authors stressed it was unclear when this feared tipover would happen, given blanks in knowledge about the phenomenon.

And they said there were plenty of solutions -- such as ending unsustainable patterns of growth and resource waste -- that mean it is not inevitable.

"In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren't there," said Arne Mooers, a professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University in Canada's British Columbia.

"My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the Earth's history are more than pretty worried," he said in a press release. "In fact, some are terrified."  (Yes, they're terrified they're going to lose their funding and government pensions.)

Past shifts examined in the study included the end of the last Ice Age, between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago, and five species mass extinctions which occurred around 443 million, 359 million, 251 million, 200 million and 65 million years ago.

Earth today is vulnerable to fast change because of the growing connectedness between ecosystems, voracious use of resources and an unprecedented surge in greenhouse gases, the authors concluded.
In a report on Wednesday issued ahead of the "Rio+20" summit, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that burgeoning populations and unsustainable patterns of growth were driving Earth towards "unprecedented" eco-damage.

Environmentalists Screw It Up Down Under

It is not just in the U.S.A. that "environmentalists" and their liberal elitist enablers screw things up in their ignorance of science and basic economics.  I won't even mention their lack of knowledge about human nature.  The utterly absurd and unfounded belief in the myth of man-caused global warming has led and is leading to disasters such as this in Australia, and is being repeated around the world.

Let your politicians know enough is enough.  End the nonsense!

Upstream on the Mitchell River near the juncti...
Upstream on the Mitchell Rive (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
FLOODS? On Gippsland's Mitchell River? Again? What a surprise to anyone stupid enough to trust the warmist politicians who recently ran this sorry state.
Remember how the Bracks and Brumby governments refused to build a cheap dam on the Mitchell River for a quarter of the price of their $5.7 billion desalination plant?

Remember how Labor even turned the dam reservation on the Mitchell into a national park to stop anyone else from building a dam on Victoria's fastest-flowing river - a dam to harvest cheap water for booming Melbourne and minimise the flooding you're now seeing downstream?

Remember premier John Brumby insisting global warming was drying up our rains, so a new dam would be useless since "we don't lack for storage, we lack for rain"?
Remember Melbourne Water parroting the same warming creed, arguing against a dam on the Mitchell because a "rainfall-dependent water source in the face of rapidly changing climate patterns is very risky"?

Yeah, right.
Now let's remember what came next.

Let's remember how the undammed Mitchell flooded in 2007, sending a year's worth of drinking water for Melbourne down to the sea.

Let's remember how pigheaded Labor nevertheless ploughed ahead with its desalination plant, now hopelessly behind schedule and over budget.
Read rest…

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Big Brother Is Watching, And Listening...And Who Knows what Else?

I guess I can safely assume I'm on the Deparment Of Homeland Security's watch list.  This is almost comical were it not so serious.

Don’t Say That! Just Don’t Say It!

As the result of a Freedom of Information Act request, the US Government has released the list of words that will trigger the Department of Homeland Security to start monitoring your online contributions and conversations. The list is divided into sections by subject matter.
Figure 1. You can call it a thunderstorm, but under no circumstances should you call it “extreme weather”
I was greatly amused to find a section for words about “Weather” on the list, which contains the following terms.

Extreme weather
Forest fire
Brush fire
Tsunami Warning Center
Mud slide or Mudslide
Power outage
Brown out
Emergency Broadcast System
Looks like WUWT is going to be front and center 24/7/365 at the Department of Homeland Security, no matter what we do …
Lest you think I’m making this up, the list of words is on page 23 of the “Analyst’s Binder“, which describes the situation for those doing the analysis …

The More Science One Knows, The Less They Believe In Man-Caused Global Warming

Surprise, surprise.  The more educated people are the less easy they are to manipulate, fool and control.

Our public education system has failed, explaining why people believe such nonsense as man-caused global warming. (and elect such ignorant political leaders as we now have in the White House).......the following gov-funded study supports this obvious observation. Think about it when you wonder how things have gotten this bad....and when you next vote.
Combating the alarmist nature of the mainstream media and the climate change zealots who have turned man-made global warming into a profit-driven industry and not a scientific endeavor for answers. We seek to explore the notion that the fractional increase in temperature is primarily caused by man a...(continued here)
Gator  2012-05-29 18:29
Ignorance is not bliss, it is servitude.
Well said Gator!

Grade-school teacher known as "Evil Mr. Methane" teaching (brainwashing) children about the grave dangers of fossil fuels that "cause global warming".  This guy is what is known as a useful idiot by central control advocates.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Winning The War Over The Madness Behind The Myth Of Man-caused Global Warming And Climate Change

We have not totally won this war, but we're making progress.  Much depends on our ultimate victory; our economy, jobs, the environment itself, on even the integrity of science.  Unfortunately this whole sordid affair has become all too political and is now one major reason Obama must go.   The following article is excellent.  Share it.

Al Gore's act is coming to an end.

Climate "Deniers" Winning the War

By Marita Noon


“We are winning the war,” was a phrase I heard repeatedly this week. Congressman Sensenbrenner, Vice Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, said: “We won on these issues because we were right.”

Which war? The war that brought together more than 60 scientists from around the world—including astronauts, meteorologists, and physicians; politicians—comprising the Congressman, a head of state, and a member of the European Parliament; and policy analysts and media for two-and-a-half days in Chicago, in a battle over climate change and the belief that there needs to be real science—more “about honest debate than ideological warfare.”

Assembled by the Heartland Institute, the seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7) provided the second opportunity for Congressman Sensenbrenner to address the group. In his opening comments, Sensenbrenner said, “We’ve come a long way.”
He recounted: “When I last spoke, the House of Representatives was poised to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill; the United Nations was promising the extension and expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and President Obama was touting Spain as our model for a massive increase in renewable energy subsidies. Three years later, cap-and-tax is dead; the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire; and Spain recently announced that it eliminated new renewable energy subsidies.”

Sensenbrenner told about the behind the scenes wrangling that went on to get the Waxman-Markey bill passed. “I was on the House floor on June 29, 2009, when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately pulled Members aside to lobby, beg, and bargain for votes for the Waxman-Markey bill.” It did pass. But “the electoral consequences for the proponents of these policies was severe.” Just 16 months later, in the 2010 elections, “over two dozen of the Members she convinced to vote ‘yes’ lost their jobs.”

It wasn’t just the Members who suffered harsh political ramifications for their support of the Waxman-Markey bill—which was supposed to nullify the impact of manmade global warming through a cap-and-trade scheme. Sensenbrenner contends that support of the manmade (anthropogenic) global warming position (AGW) also cost Al Gore the presidency back in 2004. He explained: “West Virginia’s 5 electoral votes would have tipped the election for Gore, and Gore’s near-evangelical support for climate change easily cost him the 42,000 votes he would have needed to win there.”

While there is little debate that the climate does change, there is debate as to what causes it. The camps are divided into two general groups along the line of human’s role—with Al Gore’s camp believing that the “science is settled” concluding that man’s driving of SUVs burning petroleum products that emit CO2 (and other symptoms of the developed world) is the cause, and the other disagreeing. The “other” is who gathered in Chicago last week amid the thousands of NATO protestors. The “other” not only disagrees with Al Gore’s AGW position—but they disagree with each other.

I attended session after session where sunspots were addressed, deep ocean circulation changes were discussed, the CO2 contribution of volcanoes was brought up, and the health impacts of a warmer planet were touted—just to name a few. I brought home reams of documentation, some of which are, frankly, beyond my comprehension.

Whether or not the documentable climate change—cooler in the seventies, warmer in the nineties, stable for the last decade (just to point out some recent changes)—is due to the sun or the sea, or myriad other causes, the key take away is that the science is not settled.

Four former NASA employees presented at ICCC7—two astronauts: Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7) and Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt (Apollo 17). They talked about a letter sent to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., in which they requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) “refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.”
The March 28 letter, signed by 49 former NASA employees, declares that they “believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

It is the “unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change” that should concern you and me—and, it is not just coming from NASA. It is coming from the White House and the EPA, from environmental groups and protestors.

The belief that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change is the driver for today’s energy policy.
Based on a supposed “consensus,” politicians, and the nonelected bureaucrats they appointed, have, and are, making risky investments with taxpayer dollars (think Solyndra, et al); subsidizing “alternative” energies such as wind and solar that are not effective, efficient, or economical; blocking access to resources that are abundant, available, and affordable—which raises gasoline prices and punishes those who can least afford it; and regulating America’s most cost-effective electricity out of commission. The increasing energy costs are hurting all of America—individuals and industry—and our competitive edge.

Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament, offered these comments regarding wind energy and the entire green project in his presentation at ICCC7: “Wind plus gas back up results in virtually zero emissions savings. So, we are desecrating the countryside, we are wasting huge amounts of money, we are impoverishing our children, we are choosing poverty over prosperity—and after all that, we are not even achieving what we set out to achieve. This is madness, madness, madness writ large.”

Once you remove the manmade climate change/CO2 concerns, the foundation for expensive, intermittent “renewable” energy goes away—and there is a huge investment, emotional, ideological, and financial, in keeping the ruse alive.

In comparing the manmade climate change scheme to the European single currency, Helmer said: “Both of the projects are falling apart before our very eyes. But, as they fall apart, the true believers, especially the people with a financial interest—let’s not forget that these projects have attracted vast political and intellectual capital, but they’ve also attracted vast numbers of rent seekers and hangers on, and people whose jobs depend on these projects, and these people do not want to see them go away so these people are coming forward and—are thinking of every possible excuse which might explain what has gone wrong with the projects.”

No wonder there is a war. One side wants to “defend its findings,” while the other wants to “find the truth.”
While America is in an economic war, “advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers, is inappropriate.” In this election season, all candidates would do well to remember the fate of Al Gore and his many AGW supporters. Sensenbrenner offered these wise words on energy policy: “Going forward, we must continue to oppose bad ideas and continue to support technological development the only way it works—by allowing markets to determine the technological winners and losers.”

Echoing the war theme, Helmer offered encouragement in his closing remarks: “This is a battle that we must win. We must win it for America. We must win it for Europe. We must win it for our children and grandchildren. And, we must win it for all mankind. I’ll tell you why we will win it, because, we have two weapons in our armory that the bad guys don’t have. The first weapon is the truth, and the second weapon is the climate.”

Whether scientist or politician, policy analyst or media, one message that came through loud and clear at the ICCC7 is that we’ve come a long way in the climate change war, and we are winning, but we haven’t won yet! The climate change battle is at the center of global energy policy, and the countries that have the ability to develop their natural resources to produce cheap energy will be the victors.

Marita Noon

Marita Noon is Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Climate Talks Hit Brick Wall Over Global Warming Hoax

The attempt to blame rich "developed" countries for global warming (and the real joke -- climate change) and extort money from them is coming to an end.  They say it is because nobody can agree on who is rich and who is poor.   Could it be that nobody really believes the ridiculous, absurd, and scientifically, morally, and financially corrupt concept that fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide is causing global warming?

Hopefully this grand hoax championed by no less than Nobel Prize winner and genius Al Gore, is coming to an end.  Billions if not Trillions of dollars have already been squandered.  It is past due time to end this fiasco and stop the monetary bleeding.  The world is facing far greater challenges.

Is China poor? Key question at climate talks

Is China a developing country? Key question unresolved in latest round of climate talks

BONN, Germany (AP) -- Another round of U.N. climate talks closed without resolving how to share the burden of curbing man-made global warming, mainly because countries don't agree on who is rich and who is poor.
China wants to maintain a decades-old division between developed and developing countries, bearing in mind that, historically, the West has released most of the heat-trapping gases that scientists say could cause catastrophic changes in climate.
But the U.S. and Europe insisted during the two-week talks that ended Friday in Bonn that the system doesn't reflect current economic realities and must change as work begins on a new global climate pact set to be completed in 2015.
"The notion that a simple binary system is going to be applicable going forward is no longer one that has much relevance to the way the world currently works," U.S. chief negotiator Jonathan Pershing said.
Countries like Qatar and Singapore are wealthier than the U.S. per capita but are still defined as developing countries under the classification used in the U.N. talks. So is China, the world's second largest economy.
Finding a new system that better reflects the world today, while also acknowledging the historical blame for greenhouse gas emissions, is the biggest challenge facing the U.N. process as it seeks a global response to climate change.
"That is a fundamental issue," said Henrik Harboe, Norway's chief climate negotiator. "Some want to keep the old division while we want to look at it in a more dynamic way."
The U.N. climate talks are based on the premise that industrialized countries must take the lead on climate change by committing to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They are also expected to provide money to help poor countries grow in a sustainable way and to protect the most vulnerable nations from rising sea levels, droughts and other consequences of a warming world.
Disputes on how to categorize countries going forward was behind much of the procedural wrangling that slowed down the talks in Bonn. Delegates failed to agree on an agenda until the last day, leaving most of the work for a bigger summit in Qatar in November.
A separate dispute between developing countries delayed the appointment of officials to steer the talks. That stalemate was also unlocked on the last day.
The slow pace frustrated climate activists who fear that there won't be enough political will to rein in emissions to avoid dangerous levels of warming in coming decades.
"The talk here doesn't match the action that science says is required," said Mohamed Adow, senior climate change adviser at Christian Aid.
China's lead negotiator Su Wei told The Associated Press that the proposed new deal, which would have binding commitments for all countries after 2020, must be based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility" enshrined in previous climate agreements.
"That means we still would continue the current division between developed and developing countries," Su said.
He said China is still a developing country because if you look at wealth per capita, it barely makes the world's top 100. More than 100 million Chinese live below the poverty line, which Beijing has defined as about $1 a day.
Still, Western officials say China's fast-growing energy needs and rising emissions mean it can no longer be off the hook in climate negotiations.
"We need to move into a system which is reflecting modern economic realities," EU negotiator Christian Pilgaard Zinglersen said.
In the early 1950s, China accounted for just 2 percent of global emissions while the U.S. accounted for more than 40 percent, according to Climate Analytics, a climate research group based in Potsdam, Germany.
Today China's share of global emissions exceeds 25 percent, while the U.S. share has fallen toward 20 percent.
China and its supporters reject blame for stalling the climate talks, saying it is the U.S. and other developed nations that are unwilling to live up to their obligations to cut carbon emissions.
The U.S. refused to join the only binding accord to limit emissions — the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — partly because it didn't include China.
Seyni Nafo, spokesman for a group of African countries in the climate talks, noted that the U.S. also said that joining Kyoto would harm the U.S. economy. Years later, the U.N. climate effort still has little support in the U.S. Congress, which includes outspoken climate skeptics.
"We are hoping that they will get on board this time, which is not a given," Nafo said.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Methane Release And Global Warming

Ok, this is ignorance taken to its maximum.  We all know what permafrost is; frozen soil, and it traps naturally occuring methane gas below it from escaping.  When the soil warms and thaws, this gas escapes and goes into the Earth's atmosphere.  Hello?  This has been going on for millions, billions of years.  Glaciers advance and retreat.  The oceans rise and fall.  The sun sets and rises.  This has all been going on long, long before us evil human beings began burning fossile fuels.

So let's not be afraid of methane, that gas which we use to heat our homes and cook our food, scare us.  Don't let them blow smoke up our....bums.......

May 21, 2012, 7:18 am

Popping the Cap on Arctic Methane

Katey  M. Walter Anthony, the lead author of a new paper, examining a methane seep in Alaska.Josh Haner/The New York TimesKatey M. Walter Anthony, the lead author of a new paper, examining a methane seep in Alaska.
Green: Science
Methane held underground by caps of Arctic ice is bubbling out as a warming climate causes those caps to melt, researchers report in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The paper offers some of the strongest field evidence yet that a melt-back of land ice can release methane.

Removing an ice cap seems to work a bit like popping the cap on a bottle of soda, allowing pent-up gas to escape. In an interview, the paper’s lead author, Katey M. Walter Anthony of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, said that this mechanism has probably been at work since the end of the last ice age, some 10,000 years ago.

“We’re not necessarily saying this is a new source, so much as it’s newly discovered,” Dr. Walter Anthony said. “And at the moment, it’s not a huge source.”
The discovery raises concerns nonetheless.

The study implies that as human-induced greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet in the coming century, the retreat of land ice throughout the Arctic will send extra methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas itself, so such additional emissions, if large enough, could function as a feedback that would accentuate the warming.

The new mechanism may sound similar to one that I described last year in an article focusing on other work by Dr. Walter Anthony on the frozen lakes of central Alaska. But the two methane sources are not the same.

As that article explained, old organic material is locked up across much of the Arctic in frozen ground called permafrost, much of which dates back to the last ice age. As these shallow deposits thaw in today’s warmer climate, bacteria are converting the carbon into methane and carbon dioxide, both of which are escaping into the atmosphere.

The new paper describes a different type of deposit known as a geologic reservoir, in which methane gas has been trapped underground for a long time, thousands or even millions of years. Atop those deposits, land ice – in the form of permafrost, glaciers or ice caps, which are collectively known as the earth’s cryosphere – has helped to keep the methane sealed underground. But now that the ice is melting, the gas can escape.

Dr. Walter Anthony and her husband, a researcher named Peter Anthony, found the leaks by flying over Alaska and hiking across Greenland, looking for spots where methane from deep in the earth was bubbling vigorously enough to create holes in the ice cover of frozen lakes.

They believe they have identified 150,000 seeps in Alaska alone, and they approached a fraction of them from the ground to take gas samples. The Alaskan seeps were often near the margins of retreating glaciers or thawing permafrost. In Greenland, the seeps tended to be concentrated around the margins of ice caps that have been retreating over the past 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age.

The big question raised by the paper is exactly how big this flux of geological methane will become in a warming climate. “As the cryosphere degrades further, it could be a really big source,” Dr. Walter Anthony said.

Still, new findings about Arctic methane must be interpreted with caution.
Researchers in recent years have repeatedly found additional sources of methane in the Arctic, and additional ways for it to escape from underground or from the sea. Writers of news articles and blog posts have often leaped to the conclusion that these fluxes are new, instead of just newly discovered, with some write-ups carrying headlines like “Arctic Armageddon.”

Experts say the published science on this issue does not merit such panic, at least not yet.
It is true that the level of methane in the atmosphere has begun to rise in recent years, for reasons science cannot fully explain. And researchers are definitely concerned about that increase.
But data from monitoring stations in the two hemispheres suggests that the increase is not coming from the Arctic. Some of it could actually be coming from increased human production of natural gas with the drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing (natural gas is mostly methane).

Edward J. Dlugokencky, who monitors global methane emissions for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an e-mail that the available information “does not exclude the possibility of future increasing Arctic emissions resulting from Arctic warming, but it is strong evidence that it is not happening yet.”

Many experts do believe, however, that the situation is urgent in a scientific sense. They say we need a much better handle on where methane is coming from today and where it could come from in the future, so as not to be caught off guard by potentially nasty surprises.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

The End Of The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

The following article details how the concept of man-caused global warming (and climate change) should be dead and buried.  It won't be of course, because there are too many people whose reputations and livelihoods depended upon (they must save face) and still do depend on promoting this gigantic, terrible hoax.  Indeed, there are entire college departments offering degrees in "climatology", "environmental science" or "climate science".  That means for this charade to end there must be a lot of inertia to overcome, and a lot of government funding to be terminated.  That is just not going to happen very quickly.

If this climate "research" had been done by private business, it would have gone bankrupt and died long ago.  Instead, it serves as a prime example of how government involvement in research and development leads to corruption, breeds incompetence, and wastes an ungodly amount of taxpayers money.  Will we learn from this?  Maybe, a little bit, for a little while, but the same thing goes on in any endeavor that becomes political, which by definition, everything does when government "support" is involved.  Think solar energy (Solyndra), or wind power, electric cars, and a host of other activities.  Those of us who seek the truth about these things must be ever vigilant.  A quick scan of past articles posted on this blog alone illustrates how long and difficult battle it has been to reveal the truth about global warming.  We will however keep up the good fight, for truth, justice and limited government involvement and real, honest science.

The Death of the Hockey Stick?

Posted By Rand Simberg On May 17, 2012 @ 12:00 am In Environment,History,Media,Politics,Science,Science & Technology | 74 Comments


People who have been following the climate debate closely know that one of the most controversial and key elements of the controversy is the so-called “hockey stick” — a graph of supposed global temperature over the past centuries that ostensibly shows a dramatic increase in average temperature in the last century or so (the upward swoop of the graph at that point is the business end of the stick, with regard to the puck). It vaulted its inventor, Michael Mann of Penn State University, to climate stardom, with associated acclaim and government grants, when he first presented it in the late ’90s. It was the visual basis of much of the hysteria in recent years, from Al Gore’s Oscar-winning crockumentary [1] to bogus reports [2] from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Unfortunately for those promoting the theory (and the potentially economically catastrophic policy recommendations supposedly supported by it), recent events indicate that the last basis of scientific support for the hockey stick may be crumbling. But to understand this, a little background is necessary.

Ultimately, in addition to Mann’s claim for the dramatic recent uptick (which we are supposed to presume was a result of the late industrial revolution and equally dramatic increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a result of the liberation of carbon from burning long-buried fossil fuels), Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England controversially declared, based on Eurasian data, that the well-documented Medieval Warm Period (MWP), from around 950 to 1250 CE — the European Middle Ages — didn’t actually exist.
This claim was important, if not essential, to Mann’s thesis, because his initial formulation only went back to 1400, the beginning of the so-called Little Ice Age. Critics of the theory thus argued immediately upon its presentation that it shouldn’t be surprising that the earth was warming now, given that we are still coming out of it, and that the medieval warming in the absence of late Carolingian SUVs and coal plants argued that the climate naturally cycled, with no need to invoke Demon Carbon. That is to say, to the degree that the hockey stick has a blade in the twentieth century, it would have another a millennium ago.

The theory has continued to take blows over the years since it was first presented. About a decade ago, a paper [1] was published by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunis claiming that there was good evidence that both the (still extant) MWP and current warming were driven by solar activity rather than carbon emissions. But these initial attacks were beaten back by the climate mafia (as we now know from the leaked emails [3] between Mann and his partners in crime in East Anglia from two and a half years ago). The real damage came when a retired Canadian mining engineer, Steve McIntyre, and a professor at the University of Guelph, Ross McKitrick, started digging into Mann’s methodology, and found flaws in both his statistical analysis and data interpretation, and published a paper [4] describing them in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005. They showed that Mann’s methodology would generate a hockey stick almost independently of the data input, by feeding it spectral noise [5]. Later, Internet satirist (and apparent statistician by day) Iowahawk provided a primer on how to create a hockey stick at home [6], using a standard spreadsheet program.

Defenders of the theory have long claimed that even if there are problems with Mann’s method or data set, we have independent results from other research, such as that at the CRU, that confirm it. But this was a point of contention. In addition to the unscientific behavior in attempting to silence critics and keep them from publishing, we also know that the climate “scientists” had been withholding data that would help to resolve the controversy (more unscientific behavior, because it makes it difficult or impossible to replicate claimed results, and behavior that continues to the present da [7]y by the University of Virginia), even in the face of numerous Freedom of Information requests, on both sides of the Atlantic.

To no avail, McIntyre had been requesting data for years from Briffa, who had claimed to have independent Eurasian tree-ring analysis that confirmed Mann’s results, from a data set called the Polar Urals (Mann’s work was based on ancient California bristlecone pine trees). Unfortunately, paleoclimatologists had discovered that the Polar Urals data didn’t actually support the disappearance of the MWP, so they were in search of another Eurasian data set that would, and they found one called Yamal, gathered and published in 2002 by two Russian scientists.

McIntyre had wanted to see it for years, and in 2008, utilizing a bylaw of the Royal Society, he enlisted their aid in forcing Briffa to finally start to release the data. Unfortunately, he still didn’t get enough, at least initially, to make any sense of it. But he did notice that, first, it had sparse data for the twentieth century and second, that it, unlike the typical treatment of such data sets, was not supplemented by any regional data — Briffa was using it by itself. When McIntyre did such a supplementation himself using other data (reluctantly) provided by Briffa, the twentieth-century hockey-stick blade completely disappeared.

That was where things stood in 2009, just before the so-called Climate-gate email and model leak. After that, the CRU actually started to pull down data [8] that had been previously available for years. It was clear from the emails that Briffa had been telling one story publicly and another privately as to his reasons for not including the devastating data, but the tide finally turned last month, when the University of East Anglia was finally forced by the British Information Commissioner to at least tell McIntyre which data sets were used in its results. Let’s let blogger “Bishop Hill” (aka Andrew Montford, who has written the book [9] on the subject) tell the rest of the story [10] (and read the whole thing for a detailed description of the deception):
The list of 17 sites that was finally sent to McIntyre represented complete vindication. The presence of Yamal and Polar Urals had already been obvious from the Climategate emails, but the list showed that Briffa had also incorporated the Polar Urals update (which, as we saw above, did not have a hockey stick shape, and which Briffa claimed he had not looked at since 1995) and the Khadtya River site, McIntyre’s use of which the RealClimate authors had ridiculed.
Although the chronology itself was not yet available, the list of sites was sufficient for McIntyre to calculate the numbers himself, and the results were breathtaking. Firstly, the URALS regional chronology had vastly more data behind it than the Yamal-only figures presented in Briffa’s paper
But what was worse, the regional chronology did not have a hockey stick shape — the twentieth century uptick that Briffa had got from the handful of trees in the Yamal-only series had completely disappeared.
Direct comparison of the chronology that Briffa chose to publish against the full chronology that he withheld makes the point clear:
It seems clear then that the URALS chronology Briffa prepared to go alongside the others he put together for the 2008 paper gave a message that did not comply with the message that he wanted to convey — one of unprecedented warmth at the end of the twentieth century. In essence the URALS regional chronology was suffering from the divergence problem — the widely noted failure of some tree ring series to pick up the recent warming seen in instrumental temperature records, which led to the infamous ‘hide the decline’ episode.
Remarkably, however, Briffa did allude to the divergence problem in his paper:
These [regional chronologies] show no evidence of a recent breakdown in [the association between tree growth and temperature] as has been found at other high-latitude Northern Hemisphere locations.
The reason for dropping the URALS chronology looks abundantly clear. It would not have supported this message.
His emphasis.
And new results are coming out almost by the day. Earlier this week, McIntyre reportedly received [11]new Yamal data, which continued to confirm that there is no blade to the stick
What does this all mean? First, let’s state what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that we know that the planet isn’t warming, and it doesn’t mean that if it is, that we can be sure that it is not due to human activity.

But at a minimum it should be the final blow to the hockey stick, and perhaps to the very notion that bristlecone pines and larches are accurate thermometers. It should also be a final blow to the credibility of many of the leading lights of climate “science,” but based on history, it probably won’t be, at least among the political class. What it really should be is the beginning of the major housecleaning necessary if the field is to have any scientific credibility, but that may have to await a general reformation of academia itself. It would help, though, if we get a new government next year that cuts off funding to such charlatans, and the institutions that whitewash their unscientific behavior.

A fitting end for chief American global warming shyster and alarmist, James Hansen

Article printed from PJ Media:
URL to article:
URLs in this post:
[1] crockumentary:
[2] bogus reports:
[3] leaked emails:
[4] a paper:
[5] feeding it spectral noise:
[6] primer on how to create a hockey stick at home:
[7] continues to the present da:
[8] started to pull down data:
[9] the book:
[10] tell the rest of the story:
[11] reportedly received :

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

All "Environmentalists"....Read With Care

The following article accurately sums up the sad state of affairs surrounding the entire sordid man-caused global warming fiasco.  It has and is costing humanity dearly.  Let's hope we wake up in time to recover.  I have been preaching and pleading for people to listen to these truths for years.

The Greying of Green?
Posted By David Solway On May 16, 2012 @ 12:30 am In "Green" tech,economy,Elections 2012,Politics,Science & Technology,US News | 11 Comments

original here:

It has been reliably estimated by many researchers into the subject of “Global Warming” (or any of the other sobriquets by which it is known) that in fulfilling the draconian prescriptions of the Kyoto Accord or its successors, such as the United Nations IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, millions of jobs will be lost in the developed world, the quality of life in the industrialized nations will sink to substandard levels, and the inhabitants of the Third World will be deprived of the minimal immunities, comforts, and amenities to which they aspire.

Fiona Kobusingye, coordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda, has vehemently denounced the attempt to impose energy restrictions on African nations in the name of fighting global warming. “These policies kill,” she writes. As for the combustible Al Gore, he “uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year.” Her conclusion: “Telling Africans they can’t have electricity—except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels—is immoral. It is a crime against humanity” (, July 29, 2009). Her article is a must read. Graced with common sense and logical reasoning, it is one of the best puncturings of the hot air balloon in the relevant literature.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the nonprofit National Center for Policy Analysis, would clearly agree. He correctly argues that recommendations based on “flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles” should be taken “into account before enacting laws to counter global warming—which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.” Such consequences are already in evidence. Benny Peiser, editor of CCNet science network, speaking at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 climate conference in New York, sounded the death knell of the green movement in Europe owing to huge costs and minimal results (Climate Realists, March 11, 2009). Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon quotes Spanish economist Gabriel Calzada, whose studies show that “every green job created ploughs under 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy” and that green jobs are proving to be unsustainable since the creation of even one such job costs $1 million in government subsidies (National Post, March 31, 2009).

These are costs that may be suffered in other, frankly ludicrous, ways as well. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in its 2008 Annual Report, published in 2009, jubilates over the replacement of motorized vehicles by “bicycle rickshaws”—which, it must be admitted, will certainly help to decongest metropolitan traffic. That it would reduce America and the West to Third World Status does not trouble UNEP overmuch. Perhaps that is the plan.

The much-ballyhooed T. Boone Pickens strategy of introducing large-scale windmill technology is now proving to be a similarly quixotic project, unsightly, land-consuming, bird-killing, neurosis-inducing, expensive and totally inadequate to its declared purpose of meeting even a fraction of our electricity needs. Alex Alexiev of the Hudson Institute has laid the cards on the table for all to read: green electricity bills are rising exponentially; Europe is gradually abandoning many of its green energy programs as cost-ineffective and injurious to both wildlife and human health; and, as of the end of 2008, American solar and wind-power stocks had lost 80% of their value (FrontPage Magazine, March 31, 2009). Rhode Island’s Public Utilities Commission has rejected a deal to build an offshore wind farm that would have entailed “hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs…” (The Providence Journal, March 31, 2010). New Zealand has repealed its carbon tax scheme and Australia’s opposition party is vowing to follow suit.

The writing is on the wall in majuscule [1]. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has closed shop, putting an end to its estimated $10 trillion carbon trading scheme. In August 2011, President Obama’s pet green project, the California-based Solyndra solar plant, filed for bankruptcy, costing the U.S. $535 million in wasted stimulus funds and 1,100 jobs (NBC Bay Area, August 31, 2011). Other such futilities are impending. The Beacon Power Corp, recipient of a $43 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, has filed for bankruptcy after being delisted by the NASDAQ (Moneynews, October 31, 2011). The solar cell company Spectrawatt, recipient of a federal stimulus boost, and Nevada Geothermal, which profited from Federal DOE and Treasury Department subsidies, are on the brink of failure (FrontPage Magazine, January 26, 2012.) Ener 1, which received a $118 million stimulus grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop lithium storage batteries for electric cars, has filed for bankruptcy protection (Bloomberg Businessweek, February 2, 2012). This is bad news for the plug-in Chevy Volt, the president’s car of choice, which is beset with problems anyway; GM had to suspend production to cut inventory owing to anemic sales (Left Lane Online, March 2, 2012).

Abound Solar, which makes cadmium telluride solar modules to the tune of a $400 million federal loan guarantee, has laid off 300 workers, amounting to 70% of its workforce (New York Post, March 10, 2012). And now the electric vehicle battery company A123 Systems, beneficiary of $300 million in Obama’s Recovery Act funds and $135 million in state tax credits and subsidies, courtesy of Michigan’s former Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm, is about to go belly up—another instance, to use Michelle Malkin’s term, of a smart grid, crony-inspired “enviro-boodle” (National Review Online, March 30, 2012).

The reason for many of these failures in green energy-production companies is simple. As noted environmental consultant and author Rich Trzupek explains, the energy density of convertible wind and solar is risibly low and dispersed, which renders electricity-generating power plants, whether large or small, “the most inefficient, least reliable, and expensive form of power we have” (FrontPage Magazine, March 23, 2012). As happened in Spain, Europe’s bellwether country for climatophrenic ruination, Obama’s “solar alchemy,” which demonizes traditional forms of energy extraction and application, has become a recipe for an American economic debacle.

Finnish professor Jarl Ahlbeck, a former Greenpeace member and author of over 200 scientific publications, points out that “real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” Contrary to common belief, he continues, “there has been no or little global warming since 1995” (Facts and Arts, November 25, 2008). His findings have been supported by many other studies. To adduce just a few instances: geophysicist Phil Chapman, basing his results on careful analyses from major weather-tracking agencies, reports that global temperature is “falling precipitously” (The Australian, April 23, 2008); geologist Don Easterbrook, associate editor of the Geological Society of America Bulletin, Professor Emeritus at Western Washington University and former U.S. representative to UNESCO, is also convinced that recent solar changes suggest the advent of a new cooling cycle which could be “fairly severe” (GlobalResearch, November 2, 2008); and a new study conducted by three Norwegian scientists, Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum, indicates that the next solar cycle, which is imminent, will see a “significant temperature decrease” over and above the current decline (Climate Depot, March 7, 2012).

Moreover, as Robert Zubrin has decisively shown in his recent Merchants of Despair [2], there exists robust scientific proof derived from ice core data and isotopic ratios in marine organism remains that Earth’s climate is a stable system (I've been saying this for years now, Peter)  that CO2 emissions create surplus plant growth that in turn absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus restoring climate equilibrium over the long haul, and that under cyclical conditions of global warming agricultural productivity naturally increases and human life immensely improves.

In a brilliant article for the Financial Post (April 21, 2012) analyzing the eleven logical fallacies on which the argument for man-made climate change rests, Lord Christopher Monckton, known for tracking and exposing scientific hoaxes, has effectively proven that the anthropogenic thesis has absolutely no basis, neither in fact nor in theory. So-called climate skeptics need nerves of steel to oppose the reigning ideology. It takes no less courage and perhaps even more for a climate “Warmist” to buck the trend, as culture-hero James Lovelock has recently done. Lovelock, who in his 2006 The Revenge of Gaia [3] prophesied the charring of the planet, now admits he had been “extrapolating too far.” Despite predictably hedging his bets and deferring catastrophe into the indefinite future, he avers that “we don’t know what the climate is doing” and disparages his previous work, including Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth [4] and Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers [5], as “alarmist” (, April 30, 2012).

Nevertheless, the Global Warming meme continues to circulate in defiance of the accumulating evidence, which leads one to wonder who the real “deniers” are. In my own country of Canada, “Warmist” foundations are determined to continue issuing environmental fatwas, in particular to tie up state-of-the-art, economically productive oil pipelines in endless litigation. That such a move would impact national revenues and cost thousands of potential jobs is a matter of no concern.

But the problem does not extend only to adversarial institutions and fellow-traveling NGOs. In other respects, Canadian governing parties, on both the federal and provincial levels, have not yet caught on to the perilous, impractical and pixilated nature of the Green crusade. Unsightly, government approved wind farms, for example, are literally driving people crazy and adding steeply to electricity bills.

Despite being hyped by the left-leaning CBC News (May 22, 2008), solar energy installations and SpongeBob-looking photovoltaic panels disfiguring the landscape do not seem like a reasonable prop
osition in a country already burdened by a dark, six month winter, as the Ontario Power Authority will shortly discover. Government and industry supporters, to cite the enthusiastic CBC report, base their projections on the presumed success of the German model. But there is a slight hitch, namely, the German solar experiment is a possible “government boondoggle,” is “cost-inefficient,” [6] will soon be obsolete, and has become “debatable” (MIT Technology Review, July/August, 2010). Indeed, it is now being phased out (Slate, February 18, 2010).

And then we have the soon-to-be-mandated mercury-laden CFLs, an undoubted domestic hazard, that are replacing standard light bulbs. Like many of my fellow citizens, I am assiduously hoarding incandescents in my basement, enough to see me through at least five years of environmental madness. Perhaps by that time, Green may have greyed sufficiently to be put out to pasture. One can hope.