March 31, 2009

Make Believe World, With Real World Pain

from Power Line

"Green Jobs"--Another Hoax

One of the defining features of the Obama administration so far is its almost pathological inability to make hard choices--or even to acknowledge that hard choices need to be made. A prime example is the administration's insistence that making energy more expensive will somehow benefit our economy. This proposition is so foolish as to be almost self-refuting: in my view, anyone who doesn't understand that you can't create wealth by subsidizing the inefficient production of energy shouldn't be voting.

In particular, Barack Obama has trumpeted the creation of "green jobs" as somehow offsetting the obvious damage that will be done by his cap-and-trade system and other measures that will make conventional energy sources more expensive. He has pointed specifically to Spain as a country whose experience with "green jobs" we should emulate. So an empirical study of Spain's experience is timely. And, as it happens, one has just been done by Dr. Gabriel Calzada of Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

It is reported on here by the Institute for Energy Research. Some highlights:

* The U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 renewable job financed by the government.

* Only 1 in 10 of the jobs actually created through green investment is permanent.

* Since 2000, Spain has spent €571,138 ($753,778) to create each "green job," including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1,319,783) per wind industry job.
Those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy.

* Each "green" megawatt installed destroyed 5.39 jobs in non-energy sectors of the Spanish economy.

* The total over-cost--the amount paid over the cost that would result from buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at market prices--between 2000 and 2008 amounts to 7,918.54 million Euros ($10 billion).

* The total subsidy spent and committed to these three renewable sources amounts to €28,671 million ($36 billion).

* Consumer energy costs in Spain would have to be increased 31 percent to repay the debt generated by the green jobs subsidies.

The general rule is, whenever anyone says the word "green," grab your wallet and run for the hills.

So, what's going on here? Is the Obama administration really too dumb to figure out that subsidizing "green jobs" is a losing proposition? I don't think so. I think this is just one more aspect of the massive power grab that is coming out of Obama's Washington. I think the Democrats want to assert their control over all sectors of the economy: they want to decide what companies will succeed and what companies will fail; how much employees of publicly traded companies will be paid; what jobs will exist and what jobs will become obsolete.

When we are all dependent on the federal government, the only way anyone can count on staying in business or having his job preserved will be by donating money to the Democratic Party--the ultimate protection racket, one of which the Mafia can only dream, and one which is already well underway. When it is complete, the Democrats' majority status will be assured for the indefinite future. That is, I think, what the Dems have in mind, and it explains a great deal about Obamanomics.

Timing Is Everything

from Canadian Free Press

Hemispheric Timing Shows Oceans are Source of CO2?

Australia’s Tom Quirk, an Oxford-trained research physicist, noted that carbon 14 molecules from nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and ‘60s took some years to travel through the atmosphere between the northern and southern Hemispheres.

Quirk further noted that about 95 percent of the CO2 from fossil fuels has been emitted in the Northern Hemisphere. Thus, there should be a lag between the variations in CO2 levels at the Northern Hemisphere’s stations such as Mauna Loa, and Southern Hemisphere stations such as Antarctica.

But he has found no time differences between the CO2 variations in the two hemispheres.

“The seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest fossil-fuel-derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted,” he says. “This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increased CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”

Dial back to 2006, when Al Gore’s released his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Mr. Gore showed us 400,000 years of the ice record from Antarctica’s Vostok glacier.

Temperatures and CO2 levels in the ice record moved radically up and down together through four Ice Ages and four interglacial warmings—including the Modern Warming.

Then Gore got on a lift truck and soared himself 30 feet into the air, drawing upward a horrifying graph that predicted a parboiled planet.

Gore told us that more CO2 in the atmosphere meant higher temperatures. That was the huge technical error in his movie. More recent Antarctic studies, on more refined time scales, have shown that instead of causing warming, the CO2 levels respond to warming—slowly.

Apparently, the oceans absorb massive amounts of CO2 from the air every time they cool. The oceans hold at least 70 times as much CO2 as the air, and cold water holds more of any gas under the laws of physics. Since 1850, the planet had been slowly and erratically warming as we transitioned out of the Little Ice Age. Atmospheric CO2 rose slowly. This was the warming phase of the solar-linked Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle that happens every 1,500 years.

The environmental movement gave Dansgaard and Oeschger the “environmental Nobel”—the Tyler Prize—in 1996 because they thought the Antarctic ice record proved that CO2 regulates our global temperatures. But today we know that the correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 150 years is only 22 percent. The correlation with sunspots is 79 percent.

Now the most accurate ocean temperatures ever recorded—from the Argo diving floats—say the oceans stopped warming in 2003. Global surface temperatures have followed, dropping sharply over the last several years.

Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., the former Colorado State Climatologist, wrote in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 2003, “it is the change in ocean heat content that provides the most effective diagnostic of global warming and cooling.” Nor does Dr. Pielke think there is any place on earth that a large amount of latent warming could be “hidden.”

Josh Willis, a loyal Jet Propulsion Laboratory bureaucrat, says the global and ocean cooling “does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time.” However, a quick survey of the climate models has failed to find any such no-warming predictions published.

We must face the fact that the earth is now cooling, and any drastic actions to reduce fossil fuel emissions are premature. Dr. Kanya Kusano of Japan’s Earth Stimulator Project recently advised his government that the need for such actions is based on an “unproven hypothesis.”

Scientific maxim: If you theory doesn’t fit observed reality, change your theory.


Temperatures changing before CO2 levels:

1. H. Fischer et al, 1999. “Ice Core Record of Atmospheric CO2 around the last Three 3 Glacial Terminations,” Science 283: 1712-714.
2. N. Caillon et al., 2003, “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Tiermination III,” Science 299: 1728-1731.

Oceans Now Losing Heat:

Craig Loehle, “1,500-Year Climate Cycles, Broken Hockey Stocks, and Ocean Cooling,” Energy and Environment Vol. 20, 2009.

Lack of Time Differential in Hemispheric CO2 levels:

T. Quirk, “Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide,” Energy and Environment Vol. 20, pp. 103-119, 2009.

Accelerating ?

I ran across this graph and thought I'd post it. It really is nothing more that the 4 main temperature matrix over the past decade. Although we are constantly being reminded that you can not judge climate on short time frames like a decade, which is true.

However we are also being bombarded with news reports from alarmist scientist that climate change is accelerating, leading to ever more dire consequences. Please note that over the past decade that only one of the four show any accelerating of temperatures at all (GISS), more on that in a second.

As I have pointed out several times not only does this lack of warming not fit the model projections, except for GISS, there really is no increase in warming at all. So why all the hyperventlating about accelerating warming? Again as I have pointed out many times, it is not temperatures which are accelerating beyond projections, it is CO2 output. The climate science and political community that supports this view (AGW) is so locked into the idea that increased CO2 = increased temperatures that they are unwilling or unable to see that their cherished theory is being shot down right before their eyes.

As to the GISS showing an upward trend when all the others show a decrease, the GISS is the one that is run by James Hansen the Godfather of the Global Warming Theory, curious isn't it?

It could also be pointed out that the coolest of the trends is reported by UAH which is run by Roy Spencer, a scientist skeptical of the AGW theory, at least the alarmist view. However at least the UAH trend is going in the same direction as the the other two, whereas the GISS is going in the wrong direction compared to the other institutions.

At that, throw out both UAH and GISS, there is no case to be made for accelerating temperatures, it just ain't happening.

click for larger view


from Pajama Media

No SUVs Around During the Roman Global Warming ‘Crisis’

Self-hating humans need to relax and enjoy the warm weather while it lasts.

Ah, spring, when the earth slowly wakes from its winter slumber, a warming welcomed by nearly every living thing.

Hard to believe some silly people are deathly afraid of warming weather — worried sick because the earth has warmed a degree or two over the last 150 years.

Make no mistake — the earth has warmed. Unfortunately for the climate-change catastrophists, warming periods have occurred throughout recorded history, long before the Industrial Revolution and SUVs began spitting man-made carbon into the atmosphere. And as might be expected, these warm periods have invariably proven a blessing for humanity. Consider:

Around the 3rd century B.C., the planet emerged from a long cold spell. The warm period which followed lasted about 700 years, and since it coincided with the rise of Pax Romana, it is known as the Roman Warming.

In the 5th century A.D., the earth’s climate became cooler. Cold and drought pushed the tribes of northern Europe south against the Roman frontier. Rome was sacked, and the Dark Ages commenced. And it was a dark age, both metaphorically and literally — the sun’s light dimmed and gave little warmth; harvest seasons grew shorter and yielded less. Life expectancy and literacy plummeted. The plague appeared and decimated whole populations.

Then, inexplicably, about 900 A.D. things began to warm. This warming trend would last almost 400 years, a well documented era known as the Medieval Warm Period. Once again, as temperatures rose harvests and populations grew. Vineyards made their way into Northern Europe, including Britain. Art and science flourished in what we now know as the Renaissance.

Then around 1300 A.D. things cooled drastically. This cold spell would last almost 500 years, a severe climate event known as the Little Ice Age. Millions died in famine as glaciers advanced all over the world. The plague returned. In Greenland, the Norse colony that had been established during the Medieval Warming froze and starved. Arctic pack ice descended south, pushing Inuit peoples to the shores of Scotland. People ice skated on the Thames; they walked from Staten Island to Manhattan over a frozen New York Harbor. The year 1816 was remembered as the year without a summer, with some portions of the Northern Hemisphere seeing snowfall in June.

But around 1850 the planet began to warm up yet again. Glaciers retreated. Temperatures rose. This is the warming period which we are still enjoying today. And once again, the warmth brought bounty: The last 150 years have seen an explosion in life expectancy, population, and scientific progress like never before.

Of course, even before the appearance of humans, the earth alternated throughout its history between extremes of heat and cold: 700 million years ago the planet was covered entirely in ice; 55 million years ago, a swampy greenhouse.

Why? What drives these ancient cycles? There are a lot of theories. The waxing and waning of solar output; cosmic rays and their role in cloud formation; the earth moving through plumes of galactic dust as it travels up and down through the arm of the Milky Way; plate tectonics redirecting the ocean currents; vulcanism. Perhaps it is a combination of all of these things. Perhaps it is something as yet undiscovered. One thing for sure that it’s not: SUVs.

Why, then, do otherwise sensible people believe that we are both causing the current warming and that the warmth is a bad thing? To me it seems some grotesque combination of narcissism and self-loathing, a mentality that says at once “I am so important that my behavior is causing this” and “I am so inherently tainted that it must be bad.”

For these self-hating humans who want us to cut our carbs (carbons, not carbohydrates), I say relax and enjoy the warmth while it lasts.

Because it won’t. No matter what we do, the ice and the cold and the dark will come again. That should be our worry.

March 30, 2009

Greenpeace is worried that saving trees will cause global warming?

Let me see if I get this. Greenpeace does not want preservation of forest to be part of the NEW WORLD ORDER of economics to save the world from CO2, because if saving trees is part of the gig, nobody will build wind turbines. So evil dirty industrial CO2 polluters which plants (like trees) breathe or as they put it below absorb in order to survive, might continue to pump CO2 into atmosphere, which the trees like and just pay offsets to protect the trees instead of stopping to pour life giving....I mean polluting CO2 into the atmosphere.

So if Greenpeace gets its way, the dudes who are feeding the trees with extra CO2 (they like) will not be able to protect the trees but must instead devote their resources...uh taxes into eliminating the source of CO2 from the trees and not pay to protect the trees, because that would get in the way of depriving the trees of CO2. Got all that? Oh well read about it below.

from Red Orbit
Greenpeace: Forests Could Drop Carbon Market Prices

The environmental group Greenpeace said on Monday that carbon market prices could drop by a staggering 75 percent if credits for safeguarding forests are added to markets for industrial emissions, Reuters reported.

A flood of forest carbon credits could also slow the fight against global warming and divert billions of dollars from investments in clean technology, according to the report issued on the sidelines of U.N. talks in Bonn working on a climate treaty.

Roman Czebiniak, Greenpeace International political adviser on forests, said of estimates by Kea 3 economic modeling group in New Zealand, that cheap forest credits sound attractive but a closer examination shows they are a dangerous option.

The Bonn meeting on March 29-April 8 will bring together some 175 nations to discuss measures for fighting global warming.

Topics will include ways to slow tropical deforestation, which accounts for a fifth of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions

Trees absorb the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, as they grow, releasing the gas when they are burned or rotting. Placing a price on intact trees could help save forests from the Amazon to the Congo basin from logging and land clearance.

Greenpeace claims that forest protection measures in carbon markets would crash the price of carbon by up to 75 percent and derail global efforts to tackle global warming.
The report projected the 75 percent fall in prices to $5.16 per ton by 2020 under current national policies for limiting emissions.

The report also went on to say that countries like China, India and Brazil could lose tens of billions of dollars for clean energy investments if forest protection measures are included in an unrestricted carbon market.

So far, regulators have failed to reach an agreement on a new treaty that would put a price on forest carbon. Theories ranging from carbon trading to new taxes in developed nations have been suggested.

Governments aim to agree on a new U.N. climate treaty in Copenhagen in December.

However, the European Union should not let industry meet its climate goals by funding forest conservation in tropical nations before 2020, according to a European Commission report last year.

The report said that allowing companies to buy avoided deforestation credits would result in serious imbalances between supply and demand, saying deforestation emissions were three times bigger than emissions regulated by the EU emissions trading scheme.
A report earlier this month by New Carbon Finance analyst Aimie Parpia estimated that unlimited use of forestry could cut carbon offset prices by 40 percent by 2020.

However, Greenpeace’s forest proposal hopes to allow industrialized countries to meet a part of their emissions reduction goals by buying cheaper "tropical deforestation units" as an addition to deep cuts in domestic emissions.

Although, such units would not be tradable on markets for industrial emissions, the environmental group said.

Love Letter to the Prez

from Jennifer Marohasey
Note to President Obama: The Science is Not Settled

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” President-elect Barack Obama, November 19, 2008

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.........

Covering For the Prez

I mentioned the absurdity of Obama's comments about the flooding. The idea that global warming would be responsible for this is not only absurd it is a deception used by proponents such as Gore, Hansen and now I guess we can include Obama, to promote an agenda. They use their standing and position to make statements that people will assume must be true simply because of who they are.

That the common sense contradiction of what is happening does not even fit their theory is just ignored. Tomorrow is April 1st and they are calling for continued snows as well as highs in the 30's all week in Fargo which is 10 degrees below normal. Fargo North Dakota is not only suffering Flood Warnings which are typical for spring, but also a winter storm warning and we have the President of the United States connecting it to Global Warming. Absurd, disgraceful and sad, just so damn sad.

from Climate Sanity

Obama just plain wrong about North Dakota floods.

Scientific American continues to embarrass itself with its online reporting of President Obama’s insights concerning flooding of the Red River in North Dakota. They report “President Obama says potentially historic flood levels in North Dakota are a clear example of why steps need to be taken to stop global warming….” and quote the President as saying in his usual articulate way:

“If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’”

Scientific American has made it pretty clear in the past where their scientific political leanings are, but this may be a new low, even for them. It is sad to see this once great magazine so severely dumbed down in the last few years. In their haste to continue to cash in on the global warming hysteria they forgot to decided not to include a few salient facts.

Take a look at this very nice poster, “A History of Flooding in the Red River Basin,” from the USGS..........

Why not both?

The 2% solution to climate change: Hold the windmills and get me a cow
from National Post

A study in Ireland has discovered that feeding fish oil to cows reduces their flatulence problem and significantly reduces the amount of methane gas they release into the atmosphere.

This is a big deal because, as CNN reports: "More than a third of all methane emissions, around 900 billion tonnes every year, are produced by methanogen bacteria that live in the digestive systems of cattle, sheep and goats.By volume, methane is 20 times more powerful at trapping solar energy than carbon dioxide making it a potent greenhouse gas."

A researcher from University College Dublin in Ireland found that by adding 2% fish oil to a cow's feed, methane emissions were reduced 21%. It also helps the cow's heart and circulatory system, and makes the meat better.

Of course, feeding fish oil to cows is not nearly as much fun as restructuring the world's auto industry, closing down oilsands operations and coal-fired plants, building thousands of windmills and stringing transmission wires across continents to carry the higher-priced power, or inventing new taxes to alter the consumption habits of a few billion people. So you probably won't see any Al Gore films about fish oil in the near future.

"Ah, For the Simpler Life"

Flicked on the shower this morning and was waiting the obligatory 15-20 seconds to let it warm up when the phone rang.
Distracted, I took the call only to be disturbed a few moments later by the insistent tugging of the nearly five-year-old son at my sleeve.
I motioned him to be quiet (we're having a battle at the moment about not disturbing Dad when he's on the phone) but he refused to be deterred. I was about to tick him off but he cut me off mid-sentence.
"Dad," he said, in that tone of voice his parents reserve for telling him off, "The shower is running. The water's getting wasted and we can't waste water in the city."
It was a moment that left me feeling initially depressed, then slightly proud, then faintly hopeful, then depressed all over again. Let me explain.
Depressed? Well, it's a sign of the grim times for our planet when pre-schoolers are worrying about something as basic as water, a commodity which my generation never even thought about at his age.
When I look at my kids like my son and wonder what kind of place the world will be when they are my age - about 2050 - I find myself wondering if me and my family shouldn't just open the balcony doors of my 16th floor apartment and do the planet a favour by jumping out.......


Well with the Federal Government firmly entrenched in GM, can subsidies be far behind? Oh that's right we already own GM, hey how about they just give all us taxpayers a free Volt! Kill three birds with one stone, pay us tax payers back, a little stimulus thing and save the world from CO2-win,win,win... right?

from NRO
A Shocking Statement from Team Obama

The Chevrolet Volt will not save General Motors Corp., the U.S. government said Monday in its Viability Summary of GM.
"While the Volt holds promise, it will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short-term," the report said.
The electric car "is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable."

A Sprung Spring?

from Climate Science

New Paper In Press “Intercomparison, Interpretation, and Assessment Of Spring Phenology In North America Estimated From Remote Sensing For 1982 To 2006″ By White et al.2009

There is a very interesting paper in press that updates our understanding of spring pheonology in North America. There have been statements that spring leaf out has become earlier in recent years (e.g. see page 77 in CCSP, 2009). This claim appears to be incorrect....

The conclusion of the paper states in part

“Trend estimates from the SOS methods as well as measured and modeled plant phenology strongly suggest either no or very geographically limited trends towards earlier spring arrival, although we caution that, for an event such as SOS with high interannual variability, a 25-year SOS record is short for detecting robust trends. Increased greenhouse warming since the late 20th century would seem to argue for increased, not decreased, shifts in spring during our study period, indicating that processes such as succession, changes in community structure, land management, or disturbance may be more important than previously recognized. Seasonal temperature changes may also be linked to a trend reversal in SOS in the early 1990s.

The finding, with the cavaet that the record is still relatively short, that any early leaf out is, at best, geographically limited, raises questions on claims that spring has been arriving earlier.

Under Water

from UK Telegraph

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.

one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story......

Day Dream Believers

from Master Resource

Conference of the Century! (Fantasizing about capped 350 ppm CO2)

....Newsweek science reporter Sharon Begley (no skeptic she) interviewed Cal Tech chemist Nathan Lewis (no skeptic either) on what it would take just to keep atmospheric CO2 levels from reaching 450 ppm:

Lewis’s numbers show the enormous challenge we face. The world used 14 trillion watts (14 terawatts) of power in 2006. Assuming minimal population growth (to 9 billion people), slow economic growth (1.6 percent a year, practically recession level) and—this is key—unprecedented energy efficiency (improvements of 500 percent relative to current U.S. levels, worldwide), it will use 28 terawatts in 2050. (In a business-as-usual scenario, we would need 45 terawatts.) Simple physics shows that in order to keep CO2 to 450 ppm, 26.5 of those terawatts must be zero-carbon. That’s a lot of solar, wind, hydro, biofuels and nuclear, especially since renewables kicked in a measly 0.2 terawatts in 2006 and nuclear provided 0.9 terawatts. Are you a fan of nuclear? To get 10 terawatts, less than half of what we’ll need in 2050, Lewis calculates, we’d have to build 10,000 reactors, or one every other day starting now. Do you like wind? If you use every single breeze that blows on land, you’ll get 10 or 15 terawatts. Since it’s impossible to capture all the wind, a more realistic number is 3 terawatts, or 1 million state-of-the art turbines, and even that requires storing the energy—something we don’t know how to do—for when the wind doesn’t blow. Solar? To get 10 terawatts by 2050, Lewis calculates, we’d need to cover 1 million roofs with panels every day from now until then. “It would take an army,” he says. Obama promised green jobs, but still.*

The point? In Begley’s words, “We can’t get there from here: Political will and a price on CO2 won’t be enough” to stabilize emissions at 450 ppm. The UN/EU emission reduction target is unattainable absent “Nobel caliber breakthroughs.” Meeting the target will require “revolutionary changes in the technology of energy production, distribution, storage, and conversion,” as one group of energy experts wrote back in 2002....

March 29, 2009

Green Love

Gee and I thought we were just greedy and dumb, I'm sure glad all this global warming stuff is scientific huh?

Damnation: The ultimate, eternal global warming

We may all be damned -- in this world and the next -- by our environmental misdeeds and heedlessness, according to a stern warning from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams last week.

Mankind is rebuffing the divine love of God and, by its refusal to face "doomsday" environmental damage, it is choking, drowning and starving God's creation, Williams said.

He ties it all in to salvation season, when thoughts of Easter and forgiveness from sin loom large, saying suggest that God might intervene to protect us from the corporate folly of our practices is as un-Christian and un-biblical as to suggest that he protects us from the results of our individual folly or sin...

From The Left Side

from Green Hell Blog
Greens attack NY Times over skeptic article

The ever-intolerant greens attacked the New York Times Magazine for daring to publish a cover story about eminent Princeton physicist and global warming skeptic Freeman Dyson.

Media Matters criticized the Times for sending a “sports and music writer to do a science writer’s job.” The self-proclaimed media watchdog apparently feels that someone like NY Times climate propagandist Andrew Revkin would have been a better choice to write the sort of hatchet job on Dyson that it seems to have wanted.

It’s been quite a weekend for the New York Times. First there was Saturday’s front-page story trashing CFLs and then the Dyson cover piece on Sunday.

Maybe it’s dawning on Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. that there is no future in being the mouthpiece-of-record for the Loony Left.

March 28, 2009

Follow the Money

from Market Research .com

The New Global Ice Age

via Climate Change Fraud

At first glance, a research piece predicting significantly colder weather seems rather bold. In reality, we’re very confident about this report. That’s because we are not so much predicting colder weather, but are instead observing it. More important, we’re attempting to coax our readers to view recent weather data and trends with a neutral perspective—unbiased by the constant barrage of misinformation about global warming. We assure you, based on the accuracy of climatologists’ long-term (and short-term!) forecasts, you would not even hire them!

For example, in 1923 a Chicago Tribune headline proclaimed: “Scientist says arctic ice will wipe out Canada.” By 1952, the New York Times declared “Melting glaciers are the trump card of global warming.” In 1974, Time Magazine ran a feature article predicting “Another Ice Age,” echoed in a Newsweek article the following year. Clearly, the recent history of climate prediction inspires little confidence—despite its shrillness. Why, then, accept the global warming thesis at face value? Merely because it is so pervasive?

Unfettered by the Gore-Tex straitjacket of global warming dogma, one might ask some obvious questions. Why, in 2008, did Toronto, the Midwest United States, India, China, the United Kingdom and several areas of Europe all break summer rainfall records? Why was South Africa converted into a ‘winter wonderland’ this past September? Why did Alaska record its coldest summer this year—cold enough for ice packs and glaciers to grow for the first time in measured history? Why has sea ice achieved record levels in recent months? Lastly, why did a rare October snow fall on London, on the 29th, as British Parliament debated—appropriately enough—a climate bill? If you don’t believe that 2008 has been particularly wet and cold, you’ve most likely contracted typhoid or you haven’t been paying attention.

The reality is that there are forces at work, already affecting the weather for the past two years, that will make the next twelve years significantly cooler than anything we have seen in past decades. This report explores these forces and provides a roadmap of what to expect as the new ice age unfolds.

March 27, 2009

We aren't in Kansas anymore

from Gore Lied

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.,,,,,,,

"Notable Quotes"

"I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer."

Dr John Christy- Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

March 26, 2009

Well there was Disco

from Master Resource

The 70s: Bad Music, Bad Hair and Bad Energy Policy (what Obama can learn from Carter)

Many in the energy business, whether or not they support President Obama’s positions on energy and the environment, are likely to think, “Look, the US is a big ship. It cannot be turned around in a couple of years, and even if they tried, you can right the course at the ballot box.”
Actually, you can’t. The United States is still a nation of laws, and without strong political support, the acts of one administration cannot be easily reversed or undone by the next.
But there is more to the story than simple inertia and political head-counts. Each new administration enters with an agenda of positive goals. Spending time and political capital on your predecessor’s agenda can often find its way to the bottom of the to-do list. Moreover, a new president has only a limited circle of advisers. They cannot know everything about what the last guys did (Hayek’s revenge).......

........In the end, the energy policies of that past 30 years that had significant positive effects were mostly of the “first do no harm” variety. Most of those policies were enacted during the 1980s, so as to undo some of the most egregious acts of the 1970s. With the exception of the spectacular unintended consequences of the (relative) pittance in Synfuels Corporation funding, all of the careful mandatory allocations, use restrictions, production restrictions, punitive taxes, price controls and technology development showed either negative impacts on the supply of energy or no discernable effects on energy supply and use......


Seattle's Blue Sky Cleaners freshens clothes without toxic chemicals

via Tom Nelson

Dry cleaning can be hard on the pocketbook, but what really deters me from using the service is the expense to the environment. From the harsh chemicals used in the cleaning process to the plastic bags and wire hangers that return with your clothes, traditional dry cleaning is a major turnoff.

But after meeting with third-generation Seattleite Mark Callaghan, owner of Blue Sky Cleaners, an ecologically friendly, nontoxic dry cleaning service on Elliott Avenue West in Queen Anne, I see light at the end of the tunnel for the dry cleaning industry.

Blue Sky Cleaners uses recycled and filtered carbon dioxide, combined with 700 pounds per square inch of pressure, to do its dirty work -- replacing toxic chemicals like perchloroethylene (PERC), which is used by most traditional dry cleaners and can contaminate ground and drinking water.

According to Callaghan, carbon dioxide is sustainable and nontoxic, and doesn't contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. It is safe to inhale and is not harmful to employees. "The dry cleaning business has a long history of contaminating its workers," says Callaghan, who explains that the chemicals continue to emit toxic gases and are hard on the skin......

March 25, 2009

Pipes break in the cold

First off let me say that I hope everyone stays safe and there is no serious damage done as result of the flooding.


Obama: Red River flooding is wakeup call to fight global warming

...In a White House interview with a handful of reporters, including Janell Cole of the Forum of Fargo, the president said the current flooding cannot necessarily be blamed on global warming, but he said it should be a signal to act.

"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?' " the president told the reporters. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."


from Icecap
Blizzard in Northern Plains Will Aggravate River Flooding

.....Visibility was so poor that the South Dakota Department of Transportation pulled snowplows off the roads. “It’s a safety concern primarily,” the DOT’s Gary Engel said. “In the November blizzard we didn’t do our closure quite as soon in that one, and we had trucks stopped right on the road. We had trucks stuck in the ditch because they couldn’t see where they were going.” Read more here.

The snow melt after what was in parts of the Northern Plains an all-time snowiest winter, has already produced some major river flooding mainly across the Red River. Forecasters say that the Red River of the North in Fargo and Grand Forks, N.D., will ultimately reach major and possibly all-time record flood stage and has a strong likelihood of a crest measuring among the top five highest on record. Away from rivers, widespread over-land flooding is expected due to the flat terrain and frozen drainage networks in the Red River Basin. The threat in this area was so great that the National Weather Service created a new category - “High Risk” - to distinguish it from the existing “Above Average” category for flooding potential. Flooding occurred in this area in 1997 after a very snowy winter and early spring after a second year La Nina like this one.

Meanwhile, after some early spring like warmth, an early spring snowstorms is in the cards for the central plains including the drought stricken western high plains from Colorado and western Kansas south to the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles. 4 to 8 inches of snow with locally 12 inches is likely to fall Friday to Saturday.

The total disconnect here is stunning. First we have serious floods caused by what? Record snowfalls. So this is reason for our number one politician to use it as a reason to warn us about what? Global Warming. Now these record snowfalls are causing serious floods in the spring, which seems logical since when you have record amounts of snow, come spring you're bound to have floods. But now we add on top of the disconnect what do we have? Spring blizzards. Now as is pointed out there is nothing uncommon about spring snow in this area of the country, I know I lived in north east Montana in the mid 60's. before global warming even.

The idea that record snowfalls causing terrible flooding followed by spring blizzards is a reason to point out the danger of global warming by the President of The United States just shows how silly and insane this entire agenda is. If it weren't so dangerous and serious it would be funny.......Oh, OK it is still funny.

"Notable Quotes"

"Soothsayers have always tried to persuade people that they could predict the future. What is new today is that the incredibly powerful tools of science - nuclear weapons, flights to the moon, computers, iPods - have such huge implications for civilization that they may contain the seeds of their own destruction.

Thirty years from now, we will probably not be interested in today’s specific computer forecasts, but we may have lost our faith in science, a deeper and, to me, a more important problem."

Daniel Botkin has been a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara since 1979. Currently Dan is Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Called one of the one of the preeminent ecologists of the 20th century.”

It is Badly Good

Typical article that has to point the finger at climate change, which is all based on model projections. Obviously the scientist involved in the study got the money to do the study by tying it into climate change. Please note how the CO2 is going to be good for the marshes until overcome by sea levels caused by the Co2 warming. So in other words if there really is no sea level rise caused by warming, caused by atmospheric CO2, then all is good, so we can't have that now can we?

Coastal Wetlands May Get Climate Change Boost, Before Being Overwhelmed by Rising Seas

Though in the long-run rising sea levels and temperatures because of climate change certainly still pose a threat to coastal wetlands, researchers from the Smithsonian Institution and the US Geological Survey have concluded a two year study on the effect of CO2 levels on soil elevation in marshes which adds a new wrinkle to the effects we can expect to see as the Earth continues to warm:

Coastal wetlands must build upward through the accumulation of mineral and organic matter to maintain a constant elevation relative to water levels; otherwise, they will drown and disappear. Climate change, however, is causing acceleration in the rise of sea level, which would seemingly put wetlands at risk of excessive flooding.
"Our findings show that elevated CO2 stimulates plant productivity, particularly below ground, thereby boosting marsh surface elevation," said Adam Langley, the paper's lead author. Patrick Megonigal, the paper's corresponding author, added "We found that by stimulating root growth, thus raising a marsh's soil elevation, elevated CO2 may also increase the capacity for coastal wetlands to tolerate relative rises in sea level." (Science Codex)

Just to make it clear, the researchers also clearly say that this effect could easily be offset by rising sea levels in the longer term: Ultimately, rapidly rising seas could outstrip the positive effects of CO2 on the marshes that were observed.

The findings will be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week. (At the time of this writing it didn't appear that a link was yet available...)

"..deforestation has also led to the extinction of many rare species"

On the other hand, here is a common sense article. Although I do not believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is a significant problem and has virtually no contribution to global warming, this on the other hand is an ignored crisis. In addition if you sincerely believed that global warming was a problem, this ought to be the very first place you excerpt your efforts, not ruining economies.

This too is being exacerbated by the whole AGW nonsense, both by the burning of rain forest to plant crops for bio-fuels and by confining the impoverished of the world to a lower standard of living by depriving them of affordable energy sources. It also points out the dirty little secret of extinctions.

'Reducing deforestation cheapest way to arrest global warming'

Chandigarh (IANS): Minimising the cutting of wood and its use as fuel can go a long way to fight global warming, and do so in an affordable way, an expert asserts.

"Forest clearance and wood burning have emerged as a major cause of global warming over the last few decades. Deforestation alone contributes over 25 per cent gases responsible for global warming," Michael Kleine of International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO) told IANS. The U.N. however estimates it contributes around 20 per cent.

Mr. Kleine added: "Reduction in number of trees as a result of ignorant deforestation means that there would be fewer trees to absorb CO2 (carbon dioxide), the gas primarily responsible for global warming." ......

....Rohit Ruhella, an environmentalist based here, said: "It is the high time we preserved the integrity of our ecosystem. Every aspect of environment is inter-related with forests and it has become essential to reduce deforestation to avoid devastating impacts of global warming.

"Besides, deforestation has also led to the extinction of many rare species of wildlife in the last few years."

"Sounds Good to Me"

This is an example of an article that should drive thinking people insane. How can increased carbon dioxide (CO2) be bad for agriculture,? plants breathe it. Even if true how could warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons not to mention more moisture in the air be bad for agriculture?

Let's say that they are right and the world is going to heat up by 3C in the next century. According to their own projections the increased heat will be mostly in northern lattitudes and in winter. So we will have longer growing seasons and optimum conditions for plant growth, higher CO2 levels, warmer weather and more rainfall, sounds good to me.

But unfortunately, this is probably not going to happen, the opposite is more likely to happen in the coming years and we are headed in the wrong direction. IMO

Global Climate Change Initiatives Bared


Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants generated by industries, including agriculture, and other human activities buildup in the atmosphere and trap sunlight that, in turn, wann up the earth’s surface.

Engr. Raul C. Sabularse, deputy director of Philippine Council for Industry and Energy Research and Development (PCIERD), reported that the agriculture sector alone contributes 33 percent of the greenhouse gasses emitted among other sectors in the country.

PCARRD said that climatic conditions (rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, etc.) have direct effects on agricultural production, and changes in these factors are likely to affect food security.....

"A Call To Arms!"

AGWers Of The World Unite!

Some people are a bit reluctant in making it clear that the AGW efforts are a political attempt at social engineering on a massive scale, perhaps with one idea or two about a World Government.

That’s definitely not the case for Professor Claus Leggewie, Director of the Institute for Scientific Culture for the State of Essen (Germany), and Member of the Scientific Advisory Group for the German Federal Government on all topics Global Environmental Change.

Professor Leggewie writes on the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Mar 23) in the aptly-titled “Political Economy As Climate Defence” (SZ, 23 March):

The contemporaneous crisis of the Economy and the Environment requires a radical
new way of thinking in a global dimension. It necessitates a structural change
of great depth and long duration. If [such a change] is not thought and dared
today…we will lose the still-feasible move towards a Low-Carbon Economy. [...]

It is clear that Leggewie sees the economical crisis as a good chance to avoid the climate crisis. The latter is the goal, the former just a means to force everybody in the “right” direction…

A “Climate Marx” must surely be in the offing…

"Brave New World"


Obama's Carbon Cap and Trade Policy is Costly for Consumers

...Under a cap and trade system, the government would assert ownership of the atmosphere over the United States and set a maximum number of permits that it would sell to private companies for the “right” to discharge carbon dioxide into the air. Over time the government would decrease the number of permits and increase their price to meet the desired reducetion in emission levels. Companies would decide which was cheaper: to buy a permit at the government-set price, or incur the expense to introduce technologies to diminish its carbon dioxide emissionsr.

With the president’s plan, companies would pay $13 to $20 per ton of carbon that it wished to emit into the atmosphere. The Obama administration publicly estimated that selling such “rights” would generate nearly $650 billion in federal revenue between 2012 and 2019. However, Jason Furman, deputy director of the president's National Economic Council, told a bipartian group of Congressional staff members on February 26 that the White House believes that the sale of carbon emission permits, if priced a $20 a ton, will generate between $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion in additional government revenue in the period, 2012-2019.

Most of the these higher costs of doing business would be passed on to the consumers. According to current estimates, the price of gasoline will rise at least 12 cents a gallon and the average electricity bill will go up 7 percent once the policy is implemented.

The full magnitude of these costs in the form of higher prices for various commodities and the resulting decline in the standard of living, have not been properly emphasized....

Where's the love?

Despite the best efforts of ALGORE, James Hansen, the IPCC and like minded organizations, fewer people are concerned about global warming....excuse me climate change, than they were in 1989. Someday the backlash against science and government could be be very destructive to society. Trust is not something you step on.

Water Pollution Americans’ Top Green Concern

The Chicago Way

Oh Boy now we are taking it national!

Chicago's 'green' promise fades
Chicago taxpayers on hook for carbon credits that do little to fight global warming
Mayor Richard Daley promised long ago that his administration would start fighting global warming by buying 20 percent of its electricity from wind farms and other sources of green energy. But more than two years after the deadline he set, the city continues to get nearly all of its power from coal, natural gas and nuclear plants, according to records obtained by the Tribune.Daley administration officials contend they have kept the mayor's promise by buying carbon credits, a controversial way of offsetting pollution by paying money to producers of green energy. The credits are supposed to lower the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere.But most of the credits Chicago has bought over the last two years didn't reduce carbon emissions at all, energy experts and the city's own broker on the deal said.

As a result, taxpayers paid the full bill for the city's normal electricity usage, then the city paid again—more than half a million dollars in all—for credits with questionable environmental benefits. Buying carbon credits fights global warming only if they help finance new sources of renewable energy, such as new wind turbines, energy experts said. Yet 87 percent of the credits Chicago has purchased sent money to a wood-burning power plant that has been operating for nearly two decades.

"This is very misleading to the public," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who has sharply criticized the carbon offset market. "A city with the clout of Chicago should be able to do this right."

Acting on similar concerns, the U.S. House of Representatives decided last month to stop using carbon credits to offset the chamber's emissions. Like Chicago, the House had been buying credits that supported established energy projects.

It was 2001 when Daley promised that city government would be getting a fifth of its electricity from renewable energy sources by the end of 2006. In November of that year, the Tribune reported that the city had not bought any green energy since 2004. Chicago started buying carbon credits in 2007. In response to Tribune questions, the city provided a certificate from an Iowa-based power company stating the carbon credits that Chicago purchased that year were equivalent to planting 9,317 acres of trees and offset about 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide.

"This is about leadership and trying to demonstrate that we can have an impact on a global issue with local action," Sadhu Johnston, Daley's deputy chief of staff for environmental issues, said in an interview.

While the numbers look good on paper, city records show that only 5 percent of the electricity used by city government in 2007 was offset by credits supporting the construction of wind turbines and geothermal plants. The following year, the figure fell to 1 percent.

Most of the city's credits went to a North Carolina power plant that opened in 1990 to burn wood waste, or biomass, from the lumber industry. Though biomass plants are viewed as a source of renewable energy, the credits amount to little more than a financial bonus for a facility that had been operating long before Chicago paid a dime.

In a September e-mail to city officials, obtained by the Tribune through the Freedom of Information Act, the broker that handled the deal said most of Chicago's credits "do not have a value in offsetting" carbon dioxide because they came from an existing energy source, not a new one. The city's purchases of carbon credits are a little-discussed detail of an otherwise high-profile campaign by Daley to burnish Chicago's environmental image.

Among other things, the credits helped city government meet pledges it made six years ago to the Chicago Climate Exchange, a commodities market where greenhouse gases are traded like pork bellies or cattle futures.

When Daley joined the exchange and became its honorary chairman, the city promised to cut its heat-trapping emissions by 4 percent between 2003 and 2006 and another 6 percent between 2007 and 2010. City officials have had some success in reducing demand for energy—electricity usage by city government fell slightly last year—but they needed carbon credits to meet the exchange's targets.

"Our preference would be to reduce energy use and generate our own green energy," Johnston said. "We're trying to be realistic about doing this in a way that is the most cost-effective."

The credits also made the city eligible for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency list that promotes the nation's top purchasers of renewable energy.

To join the EPA's Green Power Partnership, buyers need to get at least 2 percent of their electricity from new sources of renewable energy. Older sources, like the wood-burning plant that sold credits to Chicago, don't count but are recognized as additional purchases.

In September, Daley nudged businesses and residents to start reducing their own contributions to climate change, and vowed the city would lead by example. By working harder to conserve electricity and investing in green energy, he said, Chicago could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels within the next 12 years.

The mayor cited the city's renewable energy purchases as part of his ambitious plan—a point that was repeated in several gushing stories about Daley in national magazines and newspapers.

Daley didn't mention the carbon credits, which have become a popular but controversial way for corporations, governments and individuals to offset their contributions to global warming pollution.

Working in a growing but largely unregulated market, carbon brokers estimate how much climate change pollution a buyer generates, then sell offsets that help finance tree-plantings, renewable energy sources or other projects that supposedly cancel out an equal amount of emissions.

This month the federal Government Accountability Office joined energy experts and environmental groups in criticizing the lack of standards for carbon offsets. The Federal Trade Commission also is investigating whether the environmentally friendly claims of credit brokers amount to false advertising, or "greenwashing."

Critics say tougher rules are needed if carbon credits are included in President Barack Obama's sweeping plans to fight climate change.

"If the money is just gravy for some energy provider," said Mark Trexler, a Portland, Ore., consultant who advises corporations about the carbon offset market, "how does that benefit the environment? It doesn't."

Selling Freedom

Didn't America used to auction away freedom?

from Master Resource

Permits Permits, Who Gets the Permits

As I explain in an article in today’s American web-journal, the lack of thought that Obama’s team has put into how they would implement cap-and-trade is becoming abundantly clear.

Team Obama has been saying that they can fix the problems with cap-and-trade (which, by the way, make it more and more like a carbon tax), if they just auction all the permits. But that’s easy to say, and sounds quite nice in theory, until you realize that it means:

a) A highly visible uptick in consumer costs as permit prices are passed on in immediate price hikes for energy, goods, and services, leading to screaming from consumers and their advocacy groups;

b) Screaming from sectors that can’t possibly afford to compete against other regions with lesser carbon controls;

c) More screaming from legislators in the states that will be disproportionately slammed by the need to buy permits, including the coal states, and the states that still have significant industrialization;

d) And a hissing sound: the sucking sound of America’s remaining industrial sector to countries with lesser carbon control regimes.

If Team Obama hasn’t thought through even this first issue, the allocation of carbon permits well enough to see obvious pitfalls, it’s clear that they can’t have even begun thinking through the kind of mischief that will ensue when they create new carbon-backed securities, aka emission allowances....

Water Wars

from World Climate Report

Contrasting Ideas about Climate Change and War

....Ms. Barnaby set out to write a book detailing the history of “water wars”—wars fought over water scarcity—with special interest on how climate change may impact such conflicts in the future. Since all sorts of entities, including the United Nations, the World Bank, and General Sullivan, have made grave prognostications about conflicts developing from global warming’s impact on water supply, Ms. Barnaby surely reckoned that a book detailing the history of the subject would be a popular read.

But then she encountered a major roadblock—the more she looked for “water wars” the more it became obvious that there just weren’t any. Instead, she found that nations with water deficits “solve their water shortages through trade and international agreements.”

Ms. Barnaby detailed her investigations which ultimately led to her not writing the book (since there was nothing to write about) in an essay titled “Do nations go to war over water?”...

....Maybe the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will invite Ms. Barnaby to their next hearing on climate change and national security for that they can get a more rounded briefing on the topic. But, probably they won’t, after all Ms. Barnaby includes this pearl of wisdom, “There is something other than water for which shortages, or even the perceived threat of future shortages, does cause war — oil,” which is decidedly not what those in control of the Subcommittee want to hear, after all, this is precisely the type of action (perceived threat of oil shortages) which they are promoting!

March 24, 2009

Skeptics From Around the Globe


Charles L Wax- Professor of Geography Mississippi State University and State Climatologist for Mississippi

"First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists, don't let anybody tell you there is."....."I don't know if it's going to rain Thursday or not. Certainly I don't
know what the temperature is going to be in 2050,"

Skeptics From Around the Globe


Garth Paltridge-Emeritus Professor, former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, and CEO of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Center

"Basically, the problem is that the research community has gone so far along the path of frightening the life out of the man in the street that to recant publicly even part of the story would massively damage the reputation and political clout of science in general. And so, like corpuscles in the blood, researchers all over the world now rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by any idea that threatens the carefully cultivated belief in climatic disaster. "