Climate and Energy News Roundup June 19th

Restoring the Scientific Method is the theme of the Sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-6), Sponsored by the Heartland Institute. It will take place in Washington, DC from breakfast Thursday, June 30, to noon Friday, July 1, at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. This event will be more modest than in the past, yet as informative and, perhaps, even more challenging to the orthodoxy.

Senator James Inhofe is the Keynote Speaker at the Thursday breakfast. Senator Inhofe, probably more than anyone, prevented the US Senate from adopting cap-and-trade. Other principal speakers include S. Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Bob Carter – all major contributors to the NIPCC reports. Of course, SEPP is a co-sponsor. For the program please see:
http://www.heartland.org/events/iccc2011…

- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -

Quote of the Week:
“To point to this [a quiet sun] as something that could in any way ameliorate greenhouse gas warming is folly, said [Michael] Mann.” [H/t Wired Science]
“In the coming years the sun will show by itself how important it is.” Hendrik Svensmark [H/t The Hockey Schtick]

- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -

Number of the Week: 3

- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -

THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

A number of events occurred this week that increases the turmoil surrounding climate science.

American Meteorological Society: Noted hurricane expert and a member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) for over 50 years, Bill Gray, blasted the current, ideologically driven leadership of the AMS for embracing the human-caused global warming (AGW) hypothesis espoused by the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. According to Gray, the leadership did so without considering the views of many expert members of the society who do not embrace that view. The AMS failed its responsibilities to facilitate the scientific debate. Instead, the leadership adopted one side of a scientific issue without regard for its traditions of fostering scientific inquiry. As such, the effectiveness of the AMS has been greatly compromised.

Gray states two specific failings of the IPCC and its models which the AMS has embraced. One is that the upper troposphere water vapor feedback loop is grossly wrong. The models fail to handle the rainfall process correctly and project greater warming than justifiable. [This is illustrated in the missing fingerprint in weather balloon and satellite observations of the atmosphere centered over the tropics at about 10 km as shown in NIPCC 2008.]

The second failing Gray cites is the failure to comprehend the fundamental role of the deep ocean circulation, the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC). [The MOC is a more rigorous concept than the more popularly known Thermohaline Circulation.] To Gray, the MOC significantly influences rainfall, wind, and surface temperature changes independent of greenhouse gases and radiation.

The displeasure Gray expresses is similar to the displeasure numerous members of other physical societies have expressed towards the leadership of their organizations, which have issued political statements regarding AGW without fully consulting the views of the membership. We are witnessing a decline in scientific rigor and discipline in scientific debates. The damage being done to the societies is significant as is damage to the American science as a whole. Please see Article # 1.
******************
On Monday, at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, three separate groups announced the findings of their research -solar activity appears to be diminishing. The three studies examined three different components of activity, 1) the jet stream in the solar interior, 2) diminishing sunspots on the visible surface and 3) changes in the corona and near the poles. All three research efforts pointed to the same direction – a pronounced decline in solar activity including sun spots and solar magnetism.

Immediate responses range from it means little or nothing, the orthodoxy, to an alarmist future Little Ice Age. The quote above from Michael Mann reflects the orthodox view that solar changes have little influence on global warming and the climate.

The orthodoxy totally ignores the solar-cosmic ray hypothesis that solar activity, namely solar wind and magnetism, influences the number of high energy cosmic rays hitting the earth’s atmosphere, which, in turn, influences the formation of low level clouds which reflect sunlight, thus have a cooling effect. A dormant sun results in more cosmic rays and more clouds and cooler temperatures. A small change in cloud cover can result in significant temperature changes.

The quote above from Henrik Svensmark reflects the solar-cosmic ray hypothesis. At this time, one cannot confirm if the sun’s activity will continue to diminish, as the new research suggests. Nor can one confirm that sunspot activity is clearly related to solar wind and magnetism. (The effects of changes in solar wind and magnetism on cosmic rays have been long established.) If solar wind and magnetism diminishes, and clouds increase, then these events become a physical test of the solar-cosmic ray hypothesis.

At this time, the extent of the possible cooling, if any, cannot be determined. Don Easterbrook posted on Anthony Watt’s web site an excellent analysis of possible alternative cooling scenarios. The result may be a shallow cooling similar to 1945 to 1977, a more severe cooling similar to 1880-1915, a much more severe cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum of 1790 to 1820, or a return to a Little Ice Age. (Please see articles referenced under “Is the Sun Rising?” and under “Defenders of the Orthodoxy.”

Of course, several British satirists have seized upon these projections and wrote articles on what actions their government would take to prevent global cooling. Please see articles referenced under “Below the Bottom Line.”
******************
Climategate and similar IPCC shenanigans are upon us once again. One of the favorite marketing ploys of the IPCC is to make press releases and issue a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) with exciting claims with details to follow. It did so in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), in which the SPM was released months before the main report. The main report poorly supported, or failed to support, many of the claims in the SPM. Further, many of the claims were supported by gray literature written by operatives from environmental groups.

On May 9, the IPCC released a summary report claiming that close to 80% of the world’s energy needs can be supplied from renewable energy sources by 2050. According to IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, the report was based on the best information available and was a sound basis for policymakers to meet the challenges of global warming. It did not pass the sniff test.

On June 14, the IPCC released the main report. Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit examined it and discovered the lead author of the critical chapter arriving to 80% of the world’s energy needs was a Greenpeace activist, Sven Teske, appointed to the IPCC by the German government. Even more interesting, the IPCC claim was based on a report by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), with the lead author none other than Sven Teske. Thickening the plot, the preface to the Greenpeace report was written by none other than IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri. This is the best IPCC can do for objective, scientific reports!

As the dubious science of the IPCC was unraveling, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under which IPCC festivities take place is asking member nations for donations to increase its roughly $25 Million budget by 15% because it has taken on new responsibilities, including gearing up to dispense $100 Billion per year by 2020 in payments from developed nations to developing nations as compensation for global warming.

Perhaps it’s time for UNFCCC and IPCC to demand payments from the multibillion dollar environmental industry, which raises great sums playing to the false fears the IPCC creates. This would relieve the taxpayers of Western nations from the obligation of supporting an organization that is dedicated to lessening their standards of living. Further, it would remove the last shrouds covering the claim that the IPCC is an objective, scientific organization and identify it for what it has become- an organization for promotion of the environmental industry. Please see articles referenced under “Climategate Continued” and “Defenders of the Orthodoxy.”
******************
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has repeatedly made claims of the monetary benefits conferred to Americans by EPA regulations, especially under the Clean Air Act, that, simply, are not credible. Only the EPA and the environmental industry use them. Independent economists disregard them.

This week David Montgomery and Anne Smith of NERA Economic Consulting released a report stating the basis by which EPA obtains some of its dubious numbers. It is not by an objective measure, but by surveys, political polls – how much do you think we should pay for (cleaner air)? Obviously, the answer would be different for government employee as compared with a recently unemployed gulf oil worker. If the report is correct, then no numbers emanating from the EPA should be accepted as reliable. Please see report referenced under “Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate?”
******************
The Number of the Week: 3 is taken from the web site of John Brignell, Number Watch, who posted it on June 6, after an extended absence. Three is the number of campaigns (fronts) undertaken by the environmental industry and political enablers to, in Brignell’s terms, bring down the modern state by attacking “its energy, manufacturing and transport systems.” It worked well against Germany in World War II.

To Brignell the first front was global warming / climate change, and that is failing. The second front is ocean acidification, actually a marginal reduction in alkalinity of sea water, which is not doing well. Any tropical fish fancier recognizes the absurdity of many of the claims (some members of Congress may not).

The third front is particulates – invisible air pollution – tiny particles that may endanger health even though they are in low concentrations. The British government is sounding the alarm of the 1950s when burning of high sulfur coal, without scrubbers, killed thousands in a pea-soup fog. It makes little difference to government officials that automobiles or coal fired utilities with sulfur scrubbers do not produce the same sulfur emissions. The US EPA is invoking that dreaded metal mercury, without any physical evidence supporting its claims. Please see “Opening the third front” under “Challenging the Orthodoxy,” Article # 4, and referenced articles under “EPA and Other Regulators on the March.”

- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -

ARTICLES:
For the numbered articles below please see:
http://www.sepp.org…

1. On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
By Bill Gray, WUWT, Jun 16, 2011
(AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-…

2. Term ‘sustainability’ widely misused
By Charles Battig, VA-SEEE, Letter, Daily Progress, Jun 12, 2011
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2011 /jun/…

3. The Return of the Population Bomb
When the experts tell you there are too many people, they don’t mean too many Swedes
By William McGurn, WSJ, Jun 14, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270…

4. The EPA’s War on Jobs
Coal is from Earth, Lisa Jackson is from mercury.
Editorial, WSJ, Jun 13, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274…

5. America Needs the Shale Revolution
The drilling boom is the best U.S. energy news in generations and is crucial for reviving domestic manufacturing.
By Robert Bryce, WSJ, Jun 13, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270…

- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -

NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Science: Is the Sun Rising?
Sun’s Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity
By Denise Chow, Space.com, Jun 14, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]
http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-sl…

Scientists predict rare ‘hibernation’ of sunspots
By Kerry Sheridan, AFP June 14, 2011
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/…

The Demise of Sunspots – Deep Cooling Ahead
By Don Easterbrook, WUWT, Jun 17, 2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterb…

All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 14, 2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/all-thr…

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade
Physicists say sunspot cycle is ‘going into hibernation’
By Lewis Page, A Register, Jun 14, 2011 [H/t Anne Debeil]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_a…

NASA JPL on New Insights on How Solar Minimums Affect Earth
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 14, 2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/nasa-jp…

Climategate Continued
Greenpeace karaoke
IPCC report is based on Greenpeace renewables plan
By Steve McIntyre, Financial Post, Jun 16, 2011
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/16/j…
“Even more interesting, the original Teske-Greenpeace report comes with a preface from one R.K. Pachauri, a.k.a. Rajendra Pachauri, the illustrious chairman of the IPCC and mastermind of its many scientific endeavors.”

Responses from IPCC SRREN
By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Jun 16, 2011
http://climateaudit.org/…
“Close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.” [SEPP Comment: It must be true because Greenpeace said it.]

The IPCC loses its last credibility
By Lorne Gunter, National Post, Jun 17, 2011
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/1…

Climate change panel in hot water again over ‘biased’ energy report
By Oliver Wright, Independent, UK, Jun 16 ,2011 [H/t Best of the Web]
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/clim…
[SEPP Comment: To paraphrase the Best on the Web: And if there are honest scientists who think global warming [AGW] is real, why aren’t they the ones blowing the whistle on the malefactors who discredit the theory?]
http://online.wsj.com/article

Ideological money laundering
By Ben Pile, Bishop Hill, Jun 16, 2011 [H/t WUWT]
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/16/ide…
[SEPP Comment: Not only is Greenpeace involved in IPCC reports, but the European Renewable Energy Council is involved as well.]

Challenging the Orthodoxy
The opening of the third front
By John Brignell, Number Watch, Jun 6, 2011
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2011%20April.htm…

The temperature trend is not as simple as Garnaut makes out
By Tom Quirk, On Line Opinion, AU, Jun 14, 2011
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?arti…

Agenda 21: The U.N.’s Earth Summit Has Its Head In The Clouds
By Larry Bell, Forbes, Jun 14, 2011
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/14/…

Climate policy crisis
By Bob Carter, Quadrant, Jun 12, 2011
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-plane…
[SEPP Comment: Neo-colonialism in Western countries.]

Defenders of the Orthodoxy
Sunspot Drop Won’t Cause global Cooling
By Brandon Keim, Wired Science, Jun 15, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/sol…

Would Solar Lull Snuff Climate Action?
By Andrew Revkin, NYT, Jun 15, 2011 [H/t David Manuta]
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/…

Examining Dr. John Christy’s Global Warming Skepticism
By Dana Nuccitelli, Treehugger, Jun 14, 2011 [H/t Marc Morano, Climate Depot]
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/06/exami…
[SEPP Comment: The author gets hypothesis testing wrong. The alternative of the hypothesis that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing significant warming is the null hypothesis, they are not the cause.]

Rio eco-summit ‘top priority’ for UN
Staff Writers, AFP, June 16, 2011
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Rio_eco-sum…
[SEPP Comment: Creating more fears. See above article on Agenda 21 by Larry Bell.]

Budget battle at cash-strapped UN climate forum
By Staff Writers, AFP, June 16, 2011
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Budget_batt…

IPCC asks scientists to assess geo-engineering climate solutions
Leaked documents ahead of key Lima meeting suggest UN body is looking to slow emissions with technological fixes rather than talks
By John Vidal, Guardian, UK, Jun 15, 2011 [H/t Robert Pritchard]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/ju…
“The meeting has been given added weight because last week, Christiana Figueres, head of the UNFCCC, told the Guardian that the world may have to investigate geo-engineering because emissions were continuing to rise.”

Curb soot, smog to help keep Earth cool: UN
By Staff Writers AFP June 14, 2011
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Curb_soot_s…

Questioning the Orthodoxy
New Paper Under Review “Changes In Seasonal Snow Cover In Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region” By Gurung Et Al 2011
By Roger Pielke, Sr, Pielke Climate Science, Jun 17, 2011
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/…
[SEPP Comment: As reviewed by Pielke, the study suggests "changes in snow cover between 2000 and 2010 are due to inter annual variations in circulation pattern." Pielke also praises interactive review process of The Cryosphere, posting all reviews and responses.]

1995 And All That
By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Jun 14, 2011
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3207-1…
[SEPP Comment: Playing games with statistics.]

Questioning the European Green
UK faces job losses as businesses threaten to flee abroad to escape green energy levies
British industry’s ability to compete with companies overseas is under threat from punitive green energy costs, the new president of the CBI has told The Sunday Telegraph.
By Robert Mendick, Edward Malnick, and Andrew Cave, Telegraph, UK, Jun 12, 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysect…

Climate change should be excluded from curriculum, says adviser
Head of government review says school syllabus needs to ‘get back to the science in science’
By Jessica Shepherd, Guardian, UK, Jun 12, 2011 [H/t WUWT]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/…

Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate?
Assessment of the Obama Administration’s Cost-Benefit Analysis of Clean Air Act Regulations
By David Montgomery and Anne Smith, NERA Economic Consulting, Jun 14, 2011
http://www.ntu.org/news-and-issues/energy-env…

Models v. Data
The Failure Of Dynamic Downscaling As Adding Value to Multi-Decadal Regional Climate Prediction
By Roger Pielke, Sr, Pielke Climate Science, Jun 15, 2011
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/…
[SEPP Comment: A review of major, largely unanswered, issues in downscaling global multi-decadal models to obtain regional climate projections.]

Extreme Weather
Flooding in China Worsens
By Jeff Sussman, Weather Bell, Jun 17, 2011
http://www.weatherbell.com/weather-news/flood…

Thick snowpack holds water – and potential peril
Much of the West’s high country remains buried under a snowpack. Dam operators are watching for jumps in temperature that could turn piles of snow into raging floodwaters.
By Bettina Boxall, LA Times, Jun 12, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-snowp…
[SEPP Comment: Balancing water output is a constant issue for the dam operators. Many of the dams were built first to control raging floods, then for other uses such as irrigation and hydroelectric power.]

Largest Dead Zone on Record Predicted for Gulf
By Christine McEnrue, Weather Bell, Jun 17, 2011
http://www.weatherbell.com/weather-news/large…
[SEPP Comment: Apparently the records go back to 1985.]

New peer reviewed study: Surge in North Atlantic hurricanes due to better detectors, not climate change
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 16, 2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/new-pee…

Changing Climate
Study of 800-year-old tree rings backs global warming
The decline in recent decades of the mountain snows that feed the West’s major rivers is virtually unprecedented for most of the past millennium, according to new research published today.
By Craig Welch, Seattle Times, Jun 9, 2011
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localne…
[SEPP Comment: Warming is not the issue, the issue is cause. A study going back 1000 years would be more informative.]

Changing Seas
Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for ‘Adjusted’ Sea-Level Data
By Maxim Lott, Fox News, Jun 17, 2011 [H/t Debbie Wetlaufer]
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/res…

New sea level dataset now available – still flat
By Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Jun 11, 2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/11/new-sea…

What Will Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Mean for Barrier Islands
By Staff Writers, SPX, Jun 16, 2011
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/What_Will_C…
[SEPP Comment: No uniform answer - the islands will come and go as they always have.]

The Political Games Continue
Labor spends $12m on campaign to promote carbon pricing, but has no scheme in place
By Malcolm Farr, News.com AU, Jun 16, 2011
http://www.news.com.au/national/labor-spends-…

Truth is that Garnaut is partisan
By Greg Sheridan, The Australian, Jun 16, 2011 [H/t Des Moore]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa…

A Bill To Make Soros Richer
Editorial, IBD, Jun 14, 2011
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Arti…

Litigation Issues
Montana Supreme Court rejects the Global Warming petition by Our Children’s Trust
By Ed Berry, Climate Physics Institute, June 16, 2011
http://climatefire.com/2011/06/15/montana-sup…
[SEPP Comment: Important finding - the evidence offered for human-caused global warming is in legally substantial doubt. It appears that the court was less than impressed by the argument that the State must "protect and preserve the atmosphere."]

Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes
Northeast U.S. Carbon Auction Leaves More Than 2/3 of Allowances Unsold
By Simon Lomax , Bloomberg, Jun 10, 2011 [H/t Cooler Heads Digest]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/nort…
[SEPP Comment: A pricing bubble?]

EU climate chiefs in row over future of emissions trading
Ambitious new energy efficiency directive could destroy pioneering greenhouse gas trading system
By Fiona Harvey, Guardian, UK, Jun 17, 2011 [H/t GWPF]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/ju…

Subsidies and Mandates Forever
Ethanolics Anonymous
By Rich Trzupek, Front Page, Jun 17, 2011
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/17/ethanolics…
[SEPP Comment: Although removing the tax credit for ethanol removes a subsidy, the mandate still hurts the public.]

EPA and other Regulators on the March
A Scientific Critique of the EPA’s Proposed “National Emission Standards … “
By Willie Soon, Jun 2011 [H/t Joe Bast]
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/43…
[SEPP Comment: Focuses on new mercury standards]
Comment period ends July 5.
Posted comments can be found at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/Me…

Regulation As Ruinous As Taxation
By Pete Sepp, Editorial, Jun 14, 2011
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Arti…

EPA Delays GHG Rule for More Public Input
By Staff Writers, Power News, Jun 15, 2011
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/3777.html?h…

AEP to Retire 6 GW in Coal Generation Amid EPA Regulation Conceerns
By Staff Writers, Power News, Jun 15, 2011
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/3775.html?h…
[SEPP Comment: About thirty years ago Washington demanded that utilities switch from natural gas and oil to coal, now it is making coal fired plants too expensive to operate.]

Consumers’ electric bills likely to spike as coal plants close
As stricter environmental regulations approach, some power generators are choosing to shutter their coal-fired plants.
By Julie Wernau, Chicago Tribune, Jun 11, 2011 [H/t Catherine French]
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz…

More regulations: EPA’s fantasy solution to unemployment
Editorial, Washington Examiner, Jun 15, 2011
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/06…

Reptile Roils Oil Patch
Companies Oppose Endangered-Species Tag for Lizard, but Brace for Its Listing
By Ana Campoy, WSJ, Jun 14, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270…

Energy Issues
Obama: Energy Policy Remains “a Hodgepodge”
By Alexis Simendinger, Real Clear Politics, Jun 15, 2011 [H/t Cooler Heads Digest]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/201…
[SEPP Comment: It appears to be more a policy driven by the environmental industry, as President Obama so chose.]

Get ready for electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket”
By Ed Morrissey, Hot Air, Jun 12, 2011 [H/t Bob Ferguson, SPPI]
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/12/get-rea…

Collaboration Central to OBAMA Administration’s Grid Modernization Plan
By Staff Writers, Power News, Jun 15, 2011
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/3776.html?h…

Nuclear Fears & Responses
Cooling fuel pools at Fukushima
By Staff Writers, Word Nuclear News, Jun 13, 2011
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Cooling_…

German Nuclear Exit Hurts Merkel’s Green-Energy Goal
By Vanessa Fuhrmans, WSJ, Jun 15, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270…

Irate Power Companies to Sue Berlin For Damages
By Frank Dohmen and Alexander Neubacher, Der Spiegel, 13, 2011 [H/t Anne Debeil]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/…

Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
Eagle Ford Oil: ‘Resources are Not, Resources Become’ (and new jobs galore without government subsidy, President Obama)
By Greg Rehmke, Master Resource, June 16, 2011
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/06/eagle-f…

Shale gas doesn’t make Poland the new Norway yet
By Ekke Overbeek, European Energy Review, Jun 14, 2011
http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/pagin…

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy
Wind power and water power collide in the Northwest
Wind farms are furious at the Bonneville Power Administration for making them cut electricity generation because high flows on the Columbia River have led to extra hydropower.
By Kim Murphy, LA Times, Jun 14, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/natio…
[SEPP Comment: Wind advocates want the power authority to pay others to take the excess power - adding another ludicrous subsidy for wind on top of another.]

Greenbacks for ‘green’ energy
Lucrative subsidies for renewables amount to crony capitalism
Mackubin Thomas Owens, Washington Times, Jun 10, 2011
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/…

Tenfold increase of geothermal power and heat is possible
By Staff Writers, IEA, Jun 15, 2011
http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/pagin…
[SEPP Comment: All that is needed is more taxpayer funded subsidies.]

Renewable energy sources a priority for military, says report
By Staff Writers, UPI, Jun 13, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Ind…
[SEPP Comment: In isolated situations, alternative sources may be very useful. "In the mobility domain, much of the focus is on biofuels and synfuels that can serve as replacements for petrofuels for vehicles ranging from tactical vehicles, trucks and tanks to fighter jets and naval vessels." Unreal! Oil is high performance and comparatively cheap.]

Pentagon’s First Energy Plan
By Keith Johnson, WSJ, Jun 15, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270…
“The Navy, for example, has experimented with biofuel-powered F-18 fighter jets and is developing the “Great Green Fleet,” an aircraft-carrier strike group that will be powered exclusively by alternative fuels and aims to ship out by 2016.”
[SEPP Comment: Apparently the Pentagon is blissfully unaware of the drilling revolution taking place in the US. As usual it is fighting the last war. May be behind a paywall.]

Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC
For a full list of articles see
http://www.NIPCCreport.org…

Coralline Algal Growth Reveals History of North Atlantic Climate
Reference: Halfar, J., Hetzinger, S., Adey, W., Zack, T., Gamboa, G., Kunz, B., Williams, B. and Jacob, D.E. 2011. Coralline algal growth-increment widths archive North Atlantic climate variability. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 302: 71-80.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jun/…
[SEPP Comment: Additional studies indicating the 1920s and 1930s may have been warmer than today in the mid to upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.]

Surviving Global Warming by Migrating Mere Meters … or Even Millimeters
Reference: Suggitt, A.J., Gillingham, P.K., Hill, J.K., Huntley, B., Kunin, W.E., Roy D.B. and Thomas, C.D. 2011. Habitat microclimates drive fine-scale variation in extreme temperatures. Oikos 120: 1-8.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jun/…

Himalayan Glaciers
Reference: Chaujar, R.K. 2009. Climate change and its impact on the Himalayan glaciers – a case study on the Chorabari glacier, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Current Science 96: 703-708.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jun/…
[SEPP Comment: Another review of the report that contradicted the IPCC claim of the complete melting of the Himalayan Glaciers by 2035. IPCC head, R.K. Pachauri, called the report "voodoo science."]

No Long-term Trend in Atlantic Hurricane Numbers
Reference: Villarini, G., Vecchi, G.A., Knutson, T.R. and Smith, J.A. 2011. Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious? Journal of Geophysical Research 116: D10114, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jun/…

Health, Energy and Climate
When climate gets wetter, plagues get worse
That’s the conclusion of study in China about changes in precipitation levels
By Katharine Gammon, MSNBC, Jun 14, 2011
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43398016/ns/techn…
[SEPP Comment: No mention of temperatures. Of course the great plagues of Europe hit during the Little Ice Age.]

Oh Mann!
Computer Scientist Goes on Offensive to Defend Climate Scientists
By Eli Kintisch, Science Magazine, Jun 10, 2011
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6035/12…
[SEPP Comment: Defending Michael Mann by attacking scientists whose work exposed him. May be behind a paywall.]

Environmental Industry
Obama is packing the government with Big Green ideologues
By Ron Arnold, Washington Examiner, Jun 6, 2011
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columni…

Frankenpipeline
Environmental groups spout misinformation on Keystone pipeline
By Peter Foster, Financial Post, Jun 16, 2011
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/16/j…

Greenpeace Again Scales Oil Rig
By Alexis Flynn, WSJ, Jun 17, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270…
[SEPP Comment: The courts and laws do not apply to the environmental industry. May be behind a paywall.]

Other News that May Be of Interest
Junk Science Week: Lipstick, apples & sperm counts
By Terence Corcoran Jun 13, 2011 – 10:40 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 14, 2011
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/13/t…

No climate death in Venice
By Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, Jun 15, 2011
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/15/j…

- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -

BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:
The Ice Age is coming … don’t panic
By Richard Littlejohn, Daily Mail, UK, Jun 17, 2011 [H/t Malcolm Ross]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-200…

10 reasons to be cheerful about the coming new Ice Age
By James Delingpole, Telegraph, UK, Jun 15, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling…

Another stupid polar publicity stunt – “Row To The Pole
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 15, 2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/15/another…
[SEPP Comment: See the update]

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News Roundup and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Climate and Energy News Roundup June 19th

  1. Nic says:

    I thought Exxon Mobil donated money to the Heartland institute? I still do not believe that climate change is caused mostly by humans, but shouldn’t you try to distance yourselves from the heartland institute if you want to gain credibility?.

    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

    REPLY:
    Heartland at one time got a small grant from Exxon-Mobil (as did some pro-green NGO’s), but does not now. The website your cite is a political ploy and not reliable. – Anthony

  2. Doug Proctor says:

    Note: “To point to this [a quiet sun] as something that could in any way ameliorate greenhouse gas warming is folly, said [Michael] Mann.” [H/t Wired Science”

    Mann has revealed the warmist defense against solar things causing major warming and cooling events: the sun may REDUCE a-CO2 warming. So the result will be: “How lucky we are there is a cooling influence happening! We would be already in a planetary catastrophe except for this one-time, fortunate event! We have been given a temporary reprieve only, however, a bit more time to mend our ways. It is imperative we act aggressively now, for when normal processes return, there will be so much more CO2 in the atmosphere that the heating calamity will resume like a rocket.”

    We are doomed. But not this May 21st, but a different 21st, that’s all, says Michael Camping-Mann.

  3. John David Galt says:

    To cite small grants our side may have gotten from industry as if they showed corruption, while pretending that grants 100 or 1000 times larger from biased groups like Greenpeace or the EPA are not corrupting, is to be either so prejudiced or so stupid that you need to be dismissed.

  4. Simon says:

    I’m actually pleased the warmistas are hanging their hat on this whole “the sun is not important, it will not affect the levels of CO2 induced warming” – it makes me think there is an end in sight to this whole nonsense. They’re setting themselves up for a massive fall, surely irrecoverable, when temperatures worldwide start to drop over the next 10-20 years as a result of this reduced solar activity.

  5. James Sexton says:

    Nic says:
    June 19, 2011 at 9:46 am

    I thought Exxon Mobil donated money to the Heartland institute? I still do not believe that climate change is caused mostly by humans, but shouldn’t you try to distance yourselves from the heartland institute if you want to gain credibility?.
    ====================================================================

    lol, yes the old industry generated skepticism meme. Anthony, I bet this site drives them people up the wall, making the bat$hit crazy!!!

    To the loons out there. Skepticism isn’t funded, it is what rational people have engaged in since time eternal. It is the reason why hoaxes are exposed. It is why science advances and is one of the bedrocks of modern society.

    Dutch Shell, BP and Conoco strongly advocated instituting cap and trade in the U.S. and spent a fortune trying to make it happen through US-CAP. Shell is still part of that group, http://www.us-cap.org/ People should peruse the membership to see where the “tainted” money is going.

    Nic, instead of worrying about where the heartland institute gets their money, you should worry about where the supposed champions of nature gets theirs.

    http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/01_ebi.shtml Scroll down and you can see none other than one of our favorite nature champions Steven Chu.

    Berkeley, the standard bearer of environmentalism, the champion of the people against evil fossil fuel industrialist profiteers………slurping up $500,000,000 dollars as an obedient dog would lap up a bowl of milk offered by a grateful master.

    You’ll dance to the tune the fiddler gets paid to play.

  6. Nic says:

    I was just seeing what everyone had to say about the funding thing. I need to know what to say when people tell me that the skeptics are funded by Exxon mobile and are unreliable. I was talking to my biology teacher about my opinion on global warming and the next day he is trying to compare me to a creationist in front of another student, and brings up the Exxon mobile thing.It is kind of frustrating to hear my teacher say that global warming is settled science when science is never settled it is always changing.

  7. Nic said:
    19 June 2011
    > I was just seeing what everyone had to say about the funding thing…

    Props to Nic for standing up to institutionalised groupthink, and for using this excellent resource to counter it!

  8. sceptical says:

    When principal speakers are the likes of Fred Singer, one has to wonder what type of Scientific Method is to be restored. From sourcewatch.org,

    “In the January 2010 edition of Rolling Stone Magazine, journalist Tim Dickinson profiled the top 17 United States “polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming”. Below is an excerpt from the article titled “Climate Killers” about Fred Singer.[24]

    A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake “science” designed to debunk global warming. The retired physicist — who also tried to downplay the danger of the hole in the ozone layer — is still wheeled out as an authority by big polluters determined to kill climate legislation. For years, Singer steadfastly denied that the world is heating up: Citing satellite data that has since been discredited, he even made the unhinged claim that “the climate has been cooling just slightly.” Last year, Singer served as a lead author of “Climate Change Reconsidered” — an 880-page report by the right-wing Heartland Institute that was laughably presented as a counterweight to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s scientific authority on global warming. Singer concludes that the unchecked growth of climate-cooking pollution is “unequivocally good news.” Why? Because “rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.” Small wonder that Heartland’s climate work has long been funded by the likes of Exxon and reactionary energy barons like Charles Koch and Richard Mellon Scaife.”

  9. Tom Harley says:

    Why everyone wants the climate to cool is beyond me. Living in the tropics, warmer is still much better. Anywhere else, not for me. Benefits of a warming world are immense, only as long as the costs of alleviating it by the warmists are reduced to zero.

  10. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 19, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    When principal speakers are the likes of Fred Singer, one has to wonder what type of Scientific Method is to be restored. From sourcewatch.org,

    “In the January 2010 edition of Rolling Stone Magazine, journalist Tim Dickinson profiled the top 17 United States “polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming”. Below is an excerpt from the article titled “Climate Killers” about Fred Singer.[24]

    A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake “science” designed to debunk global warming. The retired physicist — who also tried to downplay the danger of the hole in the ozone layer — is still wheeled out as an authority by big polluters determined to kill climate legislation. For years, Singer steadfastly denied that the world is heating up: Citing satellite data that has since been discredited, he even made the unhinged claim that “the climate has been cooling just slightly.”
    ======================================================================

    lol, they’re never too old for character assassination, eh, scep? Because Dr. Singer points out the our govt had to lower its standards to pronounce cigs a carcinogenic, Dr. Singer gets berated. …..danger of the “hole” in the ozone layer…..BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!! Tell me scep….. what proof do you have that it wasn’t always there?…Danger!!! lol…..Have you checked on its respirations lately?……Unhinged? By pointing out the truth?……only a loon would use a past event to describe events today.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend —————–aarrrhhgg!!! The heating of -0.05 degrees is killing me!!! Its sooo much warmer than what it was over a decade ago!!

    Unhinged is apt, but I wouldn’t apply it to Dr. Singer.

    BTW, you read my comment further up? Dance boy, the fiddlers playing.

  11. sceptical says:

    James Sexton, no character assasination, just discussion about what type of people the “ICCCC” uses to justify a position unsupported by any evidence.

  12. Jim Lakely says:

    The Heartland Institute appreciates those who have come to our defense on this forum. Just to clarify, what sourcewatch.org says about Heartland’s funding is not true. Heartland does not receive funding from the Koch Foundation (though there is nothing wrong with that). As for Exxon, as Anthony noted above, Heartland has received rather modest donations from Exxon in the past, but none since 2006. And it is important to note that no corporation donates more than 5 percent of our annual budget.

    See here: http://www.heartland.org/about/truthsquad.html

    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute
    Chicago,IL

  13. aaron says:

    Comments aren’t showing for me on the dotearth link. Working for others?

  14. suyts says:

    sceptical says:
    June 20, 2011 at 5:15 am

    James Sexton, no character assasination, just discussion about what type of people the “ICCCC” uses to justify a position unsupported by any evidence.
    ==========================================================

    BS, Granddaddy of fake science? You got any proof? No, then that is character assassination. Which is in itself funny coming from a person pretending to know the importance of the “ozone hole”. Current information seems to indicate Dr. Singer was a bit more correct than previously thought. You can feel free to check for yourself. WUWT had an interesting article covering it a while back. And then applying the word “unhinged” to Dr. Singer for stating the truth…… if that doesn’t fit the definition of character assassination, I don’t know what else does. It is also a good bit of projection with a bit of reality rejection intertwined.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

  15. suyts says:

    Jim Lakely says:
    June 20, 2011 at 7:50 am

    The Heartland Institute appreciates those who have come to our defense on this forum. Just to clarify, what sourcewatch.org says about Heartland’s funding is not true. Heartland does not receive funding from the Koch Foundation (though there is nothing wrong with that). As for Exxon, as Anthony noted above, Heartland has received rather modest donations from Exxon in the past, but none since 2006. And it is important to note that no corporation donates more than 5 percent of our annual budget.
    ========================================================================

    Scept, do you have anything to add to your misinformation campaign? Or are we all to assume you’re FOS by the offerings you’ve given or do you have other offerings of which we can conclude you’re FOS?

  16. sceptical says:

    Mr. Lakely, the link you offer does not include the information as to who funds your institute. Perhaps you could clear the air and offer a list of your funders. Does your instituion receive funding, directly or through other front groups, from the oil industry?

  17. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 20, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    Mr. Lakely, the link you offer does not include the information as to who funds your institute. Perhaps you could clear the air and offer a list of your funders. Does your instituion receive funding, directly or through other front groups, from the oil industry?
    ================================================

    Scep, if you read the link, then you’d know they no longer list the donors. BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE DOES! What you need to be asking, is why your earthday-birthday people are slurping on the big oil funds. Or, did you not read the links I provided.

    Berkely is in bed with big oil. As is Steven Chu.
    Environmental Defense Fund…………..in bed with big oil.
    Natural Resources Defense Council….in bed with big oil.
    The Nature Conservancy………………..in bed with big oil.
    World Resources Institute………………in bed with big oil.

    Care to guess who people like the WWF reach out to for support?

    And you’re worried about a company that took donations from another company 5 years ago?

    Your feet getting tired?

  18. sceptical says:

    James Sexton, why are you trying to change the subject? The Heartland Institute is funded by those who have a financial stake in carbon pollution. Is it any wonder their positions run counter to science?

  19. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 21, 2011 at 5:20 am

    James Sexton, why are you trying to change the subject? The Heartland Institute is funded by those who have a financial stake in carbon pollution. Is it any wonder their positions run counter to science?
    ===================================================

    I’m trying to change the subject? You are attempting to hold them to a different standard than any other think tank. If you’d read the link he sent you, you would have read this part….. which explains all you’ve asked.

    ” * We frequently take positions at odds with those of the individuals and companies who fund us, so it is unfair to them as well as to us to mention their funding when expressing our point of view.

    * No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our budget, and most give far less than that. We have a diverse funding base that is too large to accurately summarize each time we issue a statement.”

    Or from this section that directly responds to the ludicrious assertions of GreenPeace’ misinformation arm, Exxonsecrets. “It should matter that Heartland gets 95 percent of its income from energy consumers and only 5 percent from energy producers, but this fact doesn’t appear on ExxonSecrets.”

    You should go read Mr. Lakely’s offering. As to being funded by those with financial stakes on the discussion, name me one NGO that doesn’t, or for that matter, even the govt. agencies.

    But, most importantly, scep, you’re missing my entire point. You see this discussion as, in part, a make or break debate for the oil companies. Nothing is further from the truth. What I tried to point out, is that the oil companies don’t care about this debate. In spite of CAFE standards or hybrids or Carbon tax schemes, they know you’ll still be dependent upon their products. We all will be for many generations to come. The carbon trading schemes work in the oil companies favor, that why you see their name and funding for certain advocacy groups that are in the alarmist camp.

    In other words, Scep, you’re being played. You and many alarmists have been getting played for a long time. Did you read the US-Cap web site I showed you? Read that list of some of the worlds richest and most powerful companies. Remember that as of 2009, BP, Conoco and Catepiller were part of that group. Now, do you understand why Exxon quit funding the Heartland institute 5 years ago? You think PepsiCo is a benign company with no stake in the CO2 question? Do you see how many mining and energy out fits are in that group?

    Scep, regardless of the outcome of this great CO2 debate, the industrialist corporations will continue. Most of them are pro-AGW because the scheme prohibit industry growth, meaning they will have government sponsored oligopolies. This especially includes the oil companies.

    Scep, I know at times, I appear to be simply argumentative. And, sometimes I am. In this particular case, I’m doing my level best to give you a revelation. Things aren’t as they appear. And, while I’ll never see eye-to-eye with many environmentalists, there are commonalities upon which we could build some common ground. This cause that so many are a part of. It isn’t the cause they assume it is.

    James.

  20. Jim Lakely says:

    James Sexton,

    Thanks, again, for your thorough defense of The Heartland Institute. Our opponents don’t want to debate the science anymore, because it’s not on their side. And they are in a panic that the public is waking up to the scam. So the only outlet left is to attack the messengers.

    Best,
    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute

  21. James Sexton says:

    Jim Lakely says:
    June 21, 2011 at 7:22 am

    James Sexton,

    Thanks, again, for your thorough defense of The Heartland Institute. Our opponents don’t want to debate the science anymore, because it’s not on their side. And they are in a panic that the public is waking up to the scam. So the only outlet left is to attack the messengers.
    ================================================================

    No problem Jim,

    I’m happy to oblige. I’m one of those strange people that believe, regardless of the source of funding, the science is either one of two things. It’s either correct, or its incorrect. No amount of funding changes that. Our misnomered friend, sceptical, knows he’s doing nothing but handwaving and trying to divert attention away from the real issues. Hopefully, I’ve interjected some reality into his world that he should confront before continuing his path and method of discourse. Of course, his use of rhetoric is, in a limited way, effective. Lately, this nation loves to demonize successful industries. Perhaps, we’ve always done so. But it seems like a national past-time nowadays. And, this is probably the reason I’ve chosen to engage in the larger climate discussion. I determined years ago, whether intentional or not, that industry, our nations lifeblood was in the cross-hairs of this latest environmental concern. I think history has bore this out and given the recent advances of nations such as China, I think we can all plainly see the economic harm done to this nation, in part, because of this issue.

    While I can’t say I’m always in total agreement with The Heartland Institute, I usually am. Any time you guys have something to discuss or have a message that you want put out, just holler. You can click on the link of my name if you have a specific request from me or not. I’ll be around here as long as Anthony lets me stay around.

    James Sexton

  22. James Sexton says:

    Jim Lakely says:
    June 21, 2011 at 7:22 am

    James Sexton,

    Thanks, again, for your thorough defense of The Heartland Institute. Our opponents don’t want to debate the science anymore, because it’s not on their side. And they are in a panic that the public is waking up to the scam. So the only outlet left is to attack the messengers.
    ================================================================

    No problem Jim,

    I’m happy to oblige. I’m one of those strange people that believe, regardless of the source of funding, the science is either one of two things. It’s either correct, or its incorrect. No amount of funding changes that. Our misnomered friend, sceptical, knows he’s doing nothing but handwaving and trying to divert attention away from the real issues. Hopefully, I’ve interjected some reality into his world that he should confront before continuing his path and method of discourse. Of course, his use of rhetoric is, in a limited way, effective. Lately, this nation loves to demonize successful industries. Perhaps, we’ve always done so. But it seems like a national past-time nowadays. And, this is probably the reason I’ve chosen to engage in the larger climate discussion. I determined years ago, whether intentional or not, that industry, our nations lifeblood was in the cross-hairs of this latest environmental concern. I think history has bore this out and given the recent advances of nations such as China, I think we can all plainly see the economic harm done to this nation, in part, because of this issue.

    While I can’t say I’m always in total agreement with The Heartland Institute, I usually am. Any time you guys have something to discuss or have a message that you want put out, just holler. You can click on the link of my name if you have a specific request from me or not. I’ll be around here as long as Anthony lets me stay around.

    James Sexton

  23. Jim Lakely says:

    I hope to see you at the conference, James. But if you can’t make it in person, we’ll be live-streaming it, and also posting videos of all the presentations at our website:

    http://climateconference.heartland.org/

  24. sceptical says:

    Mr. Lakely, unless your institute is willing to list funders, the assertions on the link you provided are assertions only. People such as Mr. Sexton are willing to be played by groups such as yours, but not all of us are. Even the name of your institutes gathering, the ICCC, is an attempt to play off from legitimate science in order to confuse those unaware of your institute. No doubt many will use your institution’s gathering as a legitimate source on climate science without knowing that the point is to obfuscate and delay.

  25. sceptical says:

    James Sexton, “, I think we can all plainly see the economic harm done to this nation, in part, because of this issue.”

    Science is unnecessary when this is how one has approached the issue. Sad that pre-conceived notions derived from ideology trump science for yourself.

  26. sceptical says:

    I would guess most of the posters on this site and most of those involved with the Heartland Institute have formed their ideas on climate change based on ideological views of short term economics instead of science.

  27. Smokey says:

    sceptical,

    Is there no mirror in your mom’s basement? Reading your last 3 comments provides convincing evidence that if it weren’t for psychological projection, the alarmist contingent wouldn’t have much to say.

  28. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 21, 2011 at 10:24 am

    James Sexton, “, I think we can all plainly see the economic harm done to this nation, in part, because of this issue.”

    Science is unnecessary when this is how one has approached the issue. Sad that pre-conceived notions derived from ideology trump science for yourself.
    ==========================================================================
    sigh….scep, you are a tiresome one.

    First, viewing the effects on the economy has nothing to do with “pre-conceived notions”, is has to do with a thingy called “observation”. And, if it was the “science” that brought us to this point, then I’d have to say experience tells us there is a flaw in the logic. Observation. That’s a key part of science. No, not observing models, observing reality. And, that particular comment wasn’t so much aimed at the science, but rather the narrow manner in which the alleged “science” was applied.

    Scep, regardless if you buy into the alarmist dogma or not isn’t relevant to that point. Applying the EPA CO2 standards, which will assuredly harm industries here in the U.S., will do nothing towards the demand of the various products, such as oil, steel, etc. The ecological zeal with which many attack our industries in the U.S. don’t shut down the industries, they move them. They move them to places like China or Korea, or Brazil. I ask you, which nation, from a purely ecological point of view, would you rather a steel mill operate? Would you want it in the U.S. where our EPA is vigorous in enforcing our various ecological laws, or places like China, where they have no laws anywhere close to our. How about offshore drilling? Brazil or off the U.S. coast? Ever consider to disaster in the Gulf could have been prevented or at least minimalized had we not forced the oil industry so far off shore into such deep waters? No, probably not. Because alarmists lack the ability to think beyond what happens with a molecule in a laboratory.

    They don’t think about earth’s equilibrium mechanisms, known and not known. They don’t consider the environmental damage done by moving industry to second and third world nations without environmental laws, and most importantly, they don’t consider the damage done to humanity by inflicting poverty upon the billions around the world or even upon their own fellow citizens.

  29. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 21, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Mr. Lakely, unless your institute is willing to list funders, the assertions on the link you provided are assertions only.
    =========================================================

    So, you gotta list of all the GreenPeace donors?

  30. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 21, 2011 at 10:27 am

    I would guess most of the posters on this site and most of those involved with the Heartland Institute have formed their ideas on climate change based on ideological views of short term economics instead of science.
    ====================================================

    Uhmm, no, most, in fact were once true believers such as yourself. Others came to their conclusions after 30 years of observation. Know that with each prediction of doom and gloom it becomes less and less probable that the hypothesis is correct. As for myself, I wanted to believe, it just never thought it possible for something as insignificant and limited in our knowledge as mankind as to be able to control our climate. The more I investigated, the more I knew that it wasn’t science being spewed at me, it was ideology.

    McIntyre confirmed my thoughts. Watts reinforced them. Climate-gate proved it. The rest…..its just further evidence that science doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion. I’d love to engage in a science conversation with you, but you can’t seem to understand it isn’t who funds it(big oil vs advocacy groups) but rather if it is correct or not. I know, it is a tricky concept to understand, but if you want to talk science, I promise I’ll go slow for you.

  31. sceptical says:

    James Sexton, your alarmist rhetoric about the doom and gloom industries will face if pollution is regulated is unfounded. Observation tells us that the past regulation of pollution has been economically beneficial to our society. Your use of fear tactics to justify the continued externalization of costs associated with pollution seem to fit well with Heartland institute rhetoric.

    The theory of AGW is based on observation and has been for over 100 years. You not being aware of this demonstrates where your knowledge of climate science is at.

  32. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    ………. Observation tells us that the past regulation of pollution has been economically beneficial to our society. Your use of fear tactics to justify the continued externalization of costs associated with pollution seem to fit well with Heartland institute rhetoric.

    The theory of AGW is based on observation and has been for over 100 years. You not being aware of this demonstrates where your knowledge of climate science is at.
    =======================================================================

    lol, yes reasonable regulation of pollution. No one is positing that we shouldn’t regulate pollution. That was a nice strawman, if I may say so. But it isn’t beneficial to react to a molecule as some crazed individual suffering from paranoid delusions.

    Scep, pretending China isn’t kicking our behinds economically won’t make that reality go away. And, once again, you’re misinterpreting/misrepresenting my point. I noticed you didn’t answer my question. Would you rather the steel mills operate in Ohio and Pennsylvania or China? The necessity for steel won’t go away, it will be made. Were I worried about the emissions of the process, I’d prefer here, because of the environmental laws that get enforced. Were I concerned about my fellow citizens being able to feed themselves, I’d prefer it done here, too. BTW, CO2 is not pollution, it is a gas necessary to all life on this earth.

    and more lol @ you, what made you think I wasn’t aware of the alarmism prevalent from over a century ago? The more things change, the more things stay the same. It is interesting to note, though, Arrhenius considered that if the mechanics of CO2 really did warm the earth, the effects would be beneficial to mankind, not detrimental. And, I share his view.

    More water in the water cycle….. are arable land…..shorter routes for trade,…….. more living space….easier access to resources…… more area for the various flora and fauna of the earth…… naw….wouldn’t want that, would we.

    Well, not if one was a Malthusian misanthropist, no, those people wouldn’t want that.

  33. sceptical says:

    James, your either-or argument on pollution regulation is a strawman. The argument that because it is necessary for life means it can not be a pollutant is a strawman as well. Your alarmist rhetoric about economic destruction if pollution is regulatated is unfounded. The best present understanding of future effects of increased CO2 polluton tells us the negatives will far out-weigh the positives.

  34. James Sexton says:

    ceptical says:
    June 21, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    James, your either-or argument on pollution regulation is a strawman. The argument that because it is necessary for life means it can not be a pollutant is a strawman as well. Your alarmist rhetoric about economic destruction if pollution is regulatated is unfounded. The best present understanding of future effects of increased CO2 polluton tells us the negatives will far out-weigh the positives.
    ======================================================================

    You are either being intentionally misleading, don’t read what I’m stating, or are too simple to be carrying on this conversation.

    I stated, “lol, yes reasonable regulation of pollution. No one is positing that we shouldn’t regulate pollution.”

    Please don’t misrepresent any further what I’ve stated. Though, I do appreciate the contrast you’ve set for all to read and display the loathsome practices of a typical alarmist.

    Aside from that unpleasantness, your alarmist projection to me is quite amusing. Thank you. (And I’m sure Smokey thanks you for showing he was correct in such short time.) I’m not alarmed by our economic downturn…… dismayed, perhaps. But, I’m dealing with the reality of it. And some of the causation isn’t difficult to discern. You see the difference? I’m not speaking of some hysterical imaginary thermogeddon. I’m speaking about the realities faced every day by the citizens of this nation and many nations across this world.

    As to your last sentence, show me. Show me how it is reasonable to assume such negative attributes when history is replete with examples of mankind thriving in warmer climates and not thriving in colder. Greenland is as far as we need to look. During the MWP, the many Norse moved and settled in Greenland, They thrived and prospered. The LIA took over and they died out to the point of extinction. RWP……well, you get the point.

    And yes, I’m aware of the prognostications of simultaneous droughtflood, warmcold, snowylesssnowy winters, saltylesssalty oceans, only the bad flora and fauna being able to survive… and all the other ridiculous posits. Scep, at any time you wish, bring me some scientific literature that states these things will happen and I will dissect it for you and show you how it would be highly improbable for this to occur. Or, better, I can show how it isn’t occurring. There is no frequency increase of tornadoes, droughts, floods, hurricanes, typhoons…. or anything else. I think, we’ve had ample time to discern whether or not humanity can survive the onslaught of another 1/2 degree rise in temps. The jury is in, reality says we’ll be just fine.

  35. James Sexton says:

    Scep, this little conversation has been……… well, amusing and fun at times, but ultimately, very tedious. I’d like to stay and play, but I’ve got things to go run and do. If you wish to continue this conversation, feel free to click on my link and go there….. doesn’t matter where, leave me a note and if necessary I’ll start a thread just for you.

    Best wishes,

    James

  36. Moderate Republican says:

    James Sexton says @ June 21, 2011 at 7:40 pm “Scep, this little conversation has been……… well, amusing and fun at times, but ultimately, very tedious

    James – why do you seem to want to stop a discussion when you are asked for citations to back up your assertions rather than falling back on a strawman argument?

    Come on man – let’s talk real science.

  37. James Sexton says:

    Moderate Republican says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    James Sexton says @ June 21, 2011 at 7:40 pm “Scep, this little conversation has been……… well, amusing and fun at times, but ultimately, very tedious

    James – why do you seem to want to stop a discussion when you are asked for citations to back up your assertions rather than falling back on a strawman argument?

    Come on man – let’s talk real science.
    ==========================================================
    lol, no one asked for any citations. In fact, it was me that stated, “..bring me some scientific literature that states these things will happen and I will dissect it for you and show you how it would be highly improbable for this to occur.” But, over an hour later no one had responded. So, I politely said goodbye and invited scep back to my blog to continue with an offer of his own thread. And then you’re going to say come back and talk science? MR, do you and Scep always display this much (lack of) character when in conversations?

    The offer then is extended to you, too.

  38. sceptical says:

    James Sexton, you have offered personal insults and Heartland Institute talking points. Your alarmist rhetoric about what would happen if polluters had to be responsible for their pollution is based on these talking points but has no basis in reality. To get back to where this all began, the Heartland Institute does not base its talking points on science but rather uses events like the ICCC to try to confuse those who do not know better.

  39. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 22, 2011 at 6:16 am

    “James Sexton, you have offered personal insults ………”
    ===============================================

    Hmm, personal insults? I’ve been derisive, and sarcastic, but personally insulting? I don’t see it, but I make it a habit of giving as good as I get. If you’ve taken anything I’ve stated personally, perhaps you should check your tone and tenor when engaging in such conversations. If you leave it on your side of the keyboard, you’ll likely get a more congenial response. But, if I’ve hurt your feelings, I’m sorry. My purpose is to make points in the discussion and get people to see my perspective. It isn’t to engage in some flame war.

Comments are closed.