Daniel Simmons writes:
Great work with Watts Up With That on the CRU email scandal. Hopefully this scandal will lead to increased openness in climate science.
With all of the noise about those emails I wanted to bring your attention to an EPA comment period that closes this Friday. As you previously covered on Watts Up With That, EPA is working on declaring that CO2 and GHGs greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/epa-sends-co2-endangerment-finding-to-the-white-house/
That endangerment finding is the first step to regulating GHGs and the second is to develop the actual regulations to regulate GHGs for cars and light trucks. On Friday, the comment period for EPA’s proposed regulations on cars and light trucks closes. It would be very helpful to push back on the proposed endangerment finding by pushing back on the proposed regulations on cars and light trucks and sending EPA as many comments as possible on the proposed GHG regulations for cars.
We want to make sure as many people as possible know about this proposed rule and generate as many comments as possible. To facilitate people sending comments to EPA on the proposed rule, we put up a page that contains a model comment to send to EPA. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/contact_form/index2.php The model comment is completely modifiable.
Also, here is EPA’s Proposed Rule: http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations.htm
and a direct link to the Docket to submit comments to EPA is here: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472
People can also send email on this rule directly to EPA at a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
It would be very helpful if you would let your readers know about this comment period. Because of Thanksgiving and the cap-and-trade bills, this proposed rule hasn’t gotten very much attention and yet it relies on the same science as EPA’s other regulations and will help trigger a regulatory cascade of EPA inserting itself into many areas of life because those activities emit GHGs.
Here’s more background: To address climate change (and relying on the standards sources of climate science–the IPCC, NCDC, GISS, etc.) EPA is proposing to use the Clean Air Act to require 35 mpg fleetwide fuel economy standards by 2016—four years faster than Congress’ plan in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Not only will this rule drive up car and truck prices and limit consumer choice, it will start a regulatory cascade with EPA regulating GHGs using a number of sections of the Clean Air Act.
But EPA’s data show that the rule is all cost and no benefit. According to EPA, the proposed rule will increase car and truck prices an average $1,100. (74 Fed. Reg. 49460) As a result of less CO2 in the air, the rule will lead to decrease in global mean temperature by 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius (0.016°C) in 2100 and a decrease in mean sea level rise by 1.5 mm. (74 Fed. Reg. 49589) That’s not a joke—that’s what the rule says. Obviously 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius, 90 years down the road will not affect the climate in any way.
It would be bad enough if the rule only imposed exorbitant costs and with no benefits. But this will start the regulatory cascade that many of us have written about. To finalize this rule, EPA would also finalize their “endangerment finding” (in other words, EPA would find that GHGs from motor vehicles harm public health and welfare). CO2 and GHGs will become subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards, New Sour Performance Standards, Hazardous Air Quality Standards, among other regulatory schemes.
If EPA makes an endangerment finding for GHGs, that action would make two permitting programs apply to GHGs—prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V. PSD applies to stationary sources which emit more than 250 tons a year and Title V applies to stationary sources which emit 250 tons per year. According to EPA, this would force as many as 6 million buildings (school, churches, hospitals, office buildings, farms, etc.) to comply with the Clean Air Act’s permitting provisions. To try to address this problem, EPA has proposed a “tailoring rule.” The point of the tailoring rule is that 250 tons per year of emissions can be read to mean 25,000 tons per year. Again, that’s not a joke: http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/01/epa-tailoring-rule-confirms-mass-v-epa-set-the-stage-for-administrative-quagmire-and-economic-disaster/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Wow, smoking gun? I can hardly believe it! I don’t know Fortran (I’m a C++/C# developer); is yrloc defining a range (1400 -> findgen(19)…) or is it defining a two dimensional array? How is “yearlyadj” subsequently applied to actual temperature data?
Dumb question of the week: what is the theoretical basis for the number series [0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6] having any significance to the historic temperature record? What does the $ sign mean in fortran (or IDL)?”
^^^^^^^^^^
Yes indeed. I wrote forcasting models in fortran (years ago)and they weighted the heat in the 30’s downward and the recent heat upward. Who needs a thermometer?
By adding so much in the last years, it bends the curve upward and sharply steepens the slope. Mann bent the line to create a vector. Taking the last 2-3 points, we have a steep slope in a vector and he uses the tree proxy (singular) to negate the actual temp reading.
If you use his formula and altered data, you replicate his resuslts. If you assess the raw data and create an equation from your own analysis, you can’t replicate his results.
Now to answer the “dumb question”. What is the basis for adjusting the data by reason of weighting in certain years?
It is personal preference. It gets them the number they want the Power Point presentation to show.
Everyone seems to forget that
USA UK Australia New Zealand et al CONNIVED
with the hacked scientists to
get the results they got–
They would have received no funding if
they had not made it clear to their masters that they would
produce positive agw results —
they would have been simply persecuted like
all other agw opponents had there been
any hint that they would NOT fudge
the data.
In fact the emails are so outrageous–and possibly
unnecessary–that it appears that
the intention may have been to
have them forwarded to
certain govt officials to show them
the efforts being exerted on their behest
and perhaps encourage more funding–
Contrary to the media fecal spin that
USA UK Australia New Zealand et al
are not neck deep in this fraud–
USA UK Australia New Zealand et al
did pillory castige and still
intend to prosecute(under antiterror laws) those scientists and
pundits opposed to the
agw train–
the fact that the wheels are coming off
this govt backed runaway train has no effect
on it –there are no brakes –it will roar ahead
like any other imbecilic govt backed policy–
and long after the total wreck the
history books will still be
glowingly portraying
the remarkable forsight of the
sponsoring govt officials–
(contrast the prosecution and
guillotining of the pioneering utah cold
fusion scientists 20 years ago vs the current
resurgence of cold fusion research with no mention
of them or their achievements)–
anyway–
here is a bit of current reality
weather as opposed to climate
–
Early sea ice formation traps
Greenland towns and stops supplies
until spring–
http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103562.ece?lang=EN
First time in 20 years–
Early sea ice formation traps
Greenland narwhales in ice
and they are shot–
http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103734.ece?lang=EN
http://englishrussia.com/?p=2495
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/data/ice/ice.png
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/global.xml
Everyone seems to forget that
USA UK Australia New Zealand et al CONNIVED
with the hacked scientists to
get the results they got–
They would have received no funding if
they had not made it clear to their masters that they would
produce positive agw results —
they would have been simply persecuted like
all other agw opponents had there been
any hint that they would NOT fudge
the data.
In fact the emails are so outrageous–and possibly
unnecessary–that it appears that
the intention may have been to
have them forwarded to
certain govt officials to show them
the efforts being exerted on their behest
and perhaps encourage more funding–
Contrary to the media fecal spin that
USA UK Australia New Zealand et al
are not neck deep in this fraud–
USA UK Australia New Zealand et al
did pillory castige and still
intend to prosecute(under antiterror laws) those scientists and
pundits opposed to the
agw train–
the fact that the wheels are coming off
this govt backed runaway train has no effect
on it –there are no brakes –it will roar ahead
like any other imbecilic govt backed policy–
and long after the total wreck the
history books will still be
glowingly portraying
the remarkable forsight of the
sponsoring govt officials–
(contrast the prosecution and
guillotining of the pioneering utah cold
fusion scientists 20 years ago vs the current
resurgence of cold fusion research with no mention
of them or their achievements)–
anyway–
here is a bit of current reality
weather as opposed to climate
–
Early sea ice formation traps
Greenland towns and stops supplies
until spring–
http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103562.ece?lang=EN
First time in 20 years–
Early sea ice formation traps
Greenland narwhales in ice
and they are shot–
http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103734.ece?lang=EN
http://englishrussia.com/?p=2495
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/data/ice/ice.png
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/global.xml
Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472
RE: Proposed Rule making to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
I petition the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reject regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles as unjustified. Such regulations unnecessarily harm the economy, limit transportation, increase the cost of vehicles and reduce jobs.
EPA proposes to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, “because of the critical need to address global climate change.” (74 Fed. Reg. 49454). This is a false very weakly founded basis.
Peaking of Light Oil
The EPA findings are fatally flawed by ignoring global oil production rates and the necessity of rapidly finding alternatives to replace rapid declines in existing oil production. US light oil production unquestionably peaked in 1970. The OilWatch Monthly by ASPO Netherlands clearly shows that Non-OPEC oil production peaked in 2004/2005. The International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2009 reports at least 6.7%/year decline in existing global oil production. It is forecasting a near term supply crunch before 2030 with significant probability before 2020.
The UK Energy Research Centre reviewed 500 global oil depletion models. See: “Global Oil Depletion, An assessment of the evidence for a near-term peak in global oil production” the 198 page 2009 UKERC report. ISBN 1-903144-0-35
It finds the rate of decline is a critical issue that must be addressed, even more than the exact timing of the oil plateau/peak. More than half to 2/3rds of current production must be replaced by 2030. Add even 1.5%/year increase from population growth results in needing 100% replacement of current production within 20 years by 2030. This requires the equivalent of six new Saudi Arabias by 2030!
The more conservative Uppsala World Energy Outlook (2009) models existing fields and prospects and projects declining global fuel availability. This will dominate all climate change considerations. See:
Kjell Aleklett, Mikael Höök, Kristofer Jakobsson, Michael Lardelli, Simon Snowden, Bengt Söderbergh, “The Peak of the Oil Age – The Uppsala World Energy Outlook”, Energy Policy 2009 (in press) http://www.fysast.uu.se/ges/en/headline-news/the-peak-of-the-oil-age
Rate of Alternative Fuel Production
The EPA findings are critically flawed by ignoring the costs and rate limitations to providing alternative fuels. See publications by Robert L. Hirsch:
Hirsch, Robert L.; et al. (2005, February), Peaking of world oil production: impacts, mitigation, & risk management, US Dept. Energy/National Energy Technology Lab., pp. 91
Hirsch, Robert L. (February 2008), “Mitigation of maximum world oil production: Shortage scenarios”, Energy Policy 36 (2): 881–889, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03014215
Investment required for alternative fuels
The EPA findings are further critically flawed by ignoring the investment required to develop alternative fuels. The marginal cost of developing alternative fuels was about $100,000 / bbl / day in 2008. e.g. for Canadian Oil Sands to synfuel. Replacing the current 82 million bbl/day and expanding to 100 million bbl/day would nominally require $10 trillion investment. e.g. over the next 20 years. Declining availability of light oil with consequent skyrocketing fuel costs will make it increasingly more difficult to obtain the investment needed to provide sufficient alternative fuels.
The rapidly increasing cost of fuel, massive investment required for alternative fuels, and fuel shortages will high likely cause far greater and immediate harm to the US and global economy than any foreseeable increase in CO2 emissions.
The highest priority must be to focus on urgently reducing the USA’s dependence on imported oil by increasing alternative fuels, and reducing transportation fuel use.
Politically Biased Science
By relying only on the IPCC, the EPA’s science is politically biased. The IPCC has a political mandate to find evidence for anthropogenic climate change. The EPA has NOT included major body of peer reviewed science disputing the IPCC findings. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, summarizes voluminous scientific evidence, ignored by the IPCC, that climate change is dominated by natural, not anthropogenic causes. See:
Climate Change Reconsidered, the 880 p 2009 report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.(NIPCC) http://www.nipccreport.org
Unreproduceable Biased Temperature
The IPCC is relying on HadleyCRU temperature data base. The CRU “lost” their original data and refuses to release the data and models for independent scientific review. Recently released CRU emails (“Climategate”) from Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit, and Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State University, show scientists systemically biasing paleo temperature science by keeping reports out of the IPCC reports, manipulating data, forcing editors to leave, and “hiding the decline” etc. The EPA is thus relying on data and models that violate the scientific method.
Scientific Forecasting
The EPA’s findings are critically flawed by ignoring the Principles of Scientific Forecasting. See
Armstrong, J.S. (2001). Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/
The IPCC reports violate at least 72 established principles of scientific forecasting. See: Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong, Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts, Energy & Environment, Vol 18 No. 7+8 2007
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
Models of Polar Bear endangerment are also flawed. See:
J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green & Willie Soon, Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit, Interfaces Vol. 38, No. 5, September–October 2008, pp. 382–405
http://kestencgreen.com/polarbears.pdf
EPA can only achieve valid results by auditing ALL climate models it uses to ensure that ALL 132 principles of scientific forecasting are adhered to.
Hurst-Kolgomorov Statistics
The EPA/IPCC projects are critically flawed by ignoring Hurst-Kolgomorov parameters of natural climate change. e.g. See publications by D. Koutsoyiannis et al.
G. G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, A. Christofides, and N. Mamassis, Credibility of climate predictions revisited, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2009 Vienna, Austria, 19‐24 April 2009
Climate change as a scapegoat in water science, technology and management
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/865
D. Koutsoyiannis, TA Cohn, The Hurst phenomenon and climate, EGU General Assembly 2008, Geophys. Res. Abstracts, 2008
http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/849/2/documents/2008EGU_HurstClimatePr.pdf
Solar impact on Climate
The EPA reliance on IPCC models is fatally flawed by ignoring the major impact of solar/climate correlations, and overestimating the influence of CO2. See publications by Nicola Scafetta http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/
N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007. PDF
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf
See also Nicola Scafetta’s presentation to the EPA. “Climate Change and Its causes: A Discussion about Some Key Issues” Nicola Scafetta. Invited author at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009.
Futile regulation
The proposed regulation will fail to achieve EPA’s stated goal. EPA’s regulation states that the carbon dioxide reductions “are projected to reduce global mean temperature by approximately 0.007–0.016°C by 2100, and global mean sea level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06–0.15 cm by 2100.” This is a negligible result will not affect global climate at all nor will they affect “public health and welfare” (See Clean Air Act Sec. 202).
This will cause a massive constraint and financial impact. The National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that increasing fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 would cost the car companies $114 billion. (See Detroit News, “Fuel Plan Would Cost Big Three” (March 1, 2007). EPA and NHTSA’s plan will increase costs for car companies and further reduce auto company jobs. Higher priced cars and trucks will make life more difficult for American families who need affordable transportation options.
EPA would be forced to regulate greenhouse gases under Clean Air Act, sections 108, 111, and 112. This would seriously harm our economy, reduce American jobs, and worsen our employment situation.
I pray the EPA not to regulate carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
These regulations would severely worsen our economy, and massively increase our high unemployment. It would result in negligible reduction in global temperature while diverting effort from the critical issue of providing alternative fuels to manage global peaking of light oil.
Nylo, glad to hear that upon second thoughts you oppose the EPA rule. By all means let us all limit the amount and place of exit of dangerous pollutants. That will not happen by limiting CO2 or fuel when the rule or legislation is all cost and no benefit. We must live in the real world and not a romanticized version of it. Living has a cost; all living makes waste (entropy, if I am accurate enough); affluence — living well enough — enables us to be inventive in sorting out, curtailing, corralling, and eliminating that waste. It provides the essentials for technological development.
last dinner at copenhagen:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2gy8w9v.jpg
i love it!
Stephen Shorland (06:52:27) : ice-momentors ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
“Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in local temperature reconstruction after certain assumptions.”
Note the important last three-word phrase: after certain assumptions …
In the suggested chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Note, the Temp curve (blue) leads the CO2 curve (green). Seen clearly at 150 thousand years ago – temp rises rapidly while CO2 is still low and even falling. (I use another open window as a straight-edge and line up the peak at 150 with the left-hand edge. Observe what the green line is doing.)
Fwiw, I sent the following, probably trying in vain to get the EPA to act as though reduction of fossil fuel CO2 emissions is an alleged cure to an alleged disease. Fat chance, and I’m getting really much too sick of these self-inflated morons acting as though they are proceding rationally in order to save the World, when in fact they are doing the opposite. So my comment was only a general flail at the issue –
Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472
RE: Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
It has never been shown by any credible process that the alleged cure, reduction of fossil fuel CO2, is not worse than the alleged disease, Anthropogenic Global Warming. Think, for example, FDA rules on approving new drugs and other therapies on actually confirmed diseases.
If Medical Science had proceded as has the ipcc’s alleged science, the health care cost problem would not exist, because no one in their right mind would ever want to go to a healthcare provider, if indeed anyone had survived to begin with after seeking care.
But the attempt by the EPA to control CO2 is much worse than the above scenario, because people/our citizenry will be forced to essentially commit suicide as a result of Governmental fiat.
People will note and remember your decision in this matter, that is, unless a foul and regressive decision emanates from the EPA, in which case we will have only so much time to remember anything.
The following is a form letter objection which I’m sure you have seen or will see many times. So you don’t need to read it as far as I’m concerned, if you think you you’ve seen it quite enough already:
Ryan said:
I personally believe that it is our responsibility to do sensible things to reduce our impact on the environment. This is why I strongly support incentives for individuals and businesses to increase use of renewable energy, realistic proposals to reduce fossil fuel dependence (such as nuclear power), alterations to the residential and commercial building codes to improve energy efficiency, and, yes, increasing fuel efficiency for vehicles.
You are the victim of fuzzy thinking, Ryan. Any sane, sensible energy policy must be based on science and on reality, not on science fiction and pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Otherwise, you wind up with unintended consequences which can (and often do) do the exact opposite of the very thing you are trying to accomplish.
Take ethanol. Please. And that is just one example of many.
Once again, the ends, no matter how noble you may think they are do not justify the means.
Nylo (01:18:39) :
No Nylo, you don’t enact a lie into law.
If they want an energy reduction program….. Then they should say so.
….This is about making CO2 a pollutant… Which it is not. This is how Fascist dictatorships rise.
No sane person would go forward with any of this climate change nonsense until all facts are reviewed. Me thinks something stinks!
Nylo, my hat’s off to you for jumping into the fray. I agree with pyromancer and J.Hansford.
EPA (and greens) declare CO2 a pollutant => enact laws to reduce CO2 => reduce industrial output and reduce agriculture yields (and other unitended consequences) => increase human misery
Maybe a bit dramatic, but you get the idea.
Re: Bruce Cobb (09:06:09) :
Perhaps you should read more carefully before replying. I specifically mentioned ethanol as something I do not support. You also failed to notice that the items I listed that I do support are anything but “pie-in-the-sky” and “wishful thinking”.
You might consider clarifying your own thoughts before accusing others of fuzzy thinking.
Richard deSousa (21:32:15) :
“If the EPA muzzled it’s own people like Alan Carlin what are the chances it will pay any attention to our comments?”
This is the front end of confrontation. We see hearings on fuel standards close Friday, Some car maker sues and says the “science” isn’t there and protests their penalties.
Then they soepoena any and all internal correspondence and scientific studies that the EPA uses to fight CO2 and it drags on for 6-7 years.
Here is the bottom line. The ePA claims to have a science basis for regulating CO2. The IPCC also makes the claim. But they do NO research. They accept unverified research from friendly outside groups like the CRU and NASA GISS>
The EPA will lose in court because they have no foundation for their claim. MASSEY Coal or someone will be the first to fight.
It backfires when the EPA muzzsles whistleblowers. That is the tobacco suit all over again.
There are many good points here…
First and foremost, however, you can’t legislate laws of physics. The ONLY way to reduce CO2 emissions with our current technology is to reduce the use of currently available fuels. There is no magic way to continue our current lifestyle while making any sort of measurable difference. WE ONLY HAVE our current technology.
In other words, just because there is a reduction law in effect, just because there is CAFE, just because someone legislated CO2 reduction, does NOT mean that alternatives exist. They do not, period.
It’s all very nice to talk about “alternatives” and “renewables” and “sustainability”, but look beyond these warm fuzzy “feel good” words to what they mean. They mean insufficient heat in winter, less A/C in summer, driving less, ridiculously expensive fuel, dismantling or banning many types of energy-intensive businesses (ie. jobs). The next step after legislation is enforcement, and that may well mean mandatory mileage reporting on your vehicle so you can be taxed more when you renew your license, at the very least. The next step would be worse.
This is what needs to be fought. By this time, the gigantic AGW machine has been working for so long that even “skeptics” are talking about reducing CO2 emissions, even people who know better are stopping and thinking about what they do (which was the goal all along). There is no need, but even the most well educated is starting to roll over and let it happen.
This WILL mean a dramatic reduction of YOUR quality of life. No more will it be “someone else”, but YOU.
Those of you who have a hard time arguing against what the EPA is going to be party to need to seriously evaluate how it will affect YOU, because it will. There is no positive to this. None.
May I repeat that:
1) I’m only saying that increasing the miles you travel per galon of fuel is a good thing (especially because current technology leaves quite a lot of room to do that for quite a lot of cars), regardless of any consideration about how much CO2 you emit in the process, because you will also emit less of any true toxics in the process and be more cost-effective at the same time. Less fuel for the same output is a good thing, always. It’s all about improving efficiency.
2) I don’t think that CO2 itself is a pollutant or has any negative effect on climate or air quality and I don’t think that it should be taxed. Measures that enforce efficiency gains in the use of fuel are good things, measures that make you pay for being as “evil” as to emit CO2 are bad things.
Ryan O (10:33:15) :
Re: Bruce Cobb (09:06:09) :
Perhaps you should read more carefully before replying. I specifically mentioned ethanol as something I do not support. You also failed to notice that the items I listed that I do support are anything but “pie-in-the-sky” and “wishful thinking”.
You might consider clarifying your own thoughts before accusing others of fuzzy thinking.
It makes no difference that you are against ethanol; the fact remains that it was and is one of the harmful, unintended consequences of a wrong-headed energy policy. You mentioned “renewable energy”, but for the most part renewable energies, at least for now are just that – pie-in-the-sky. They cost too much, are often unreliable, and in some cases do more harm than good. As for increasing energy efficiency, the devil is always in the details. The crucial question is, what is the payback period for your investment in increased energy efficiency? And secondarily, with vehicles, you have the unintended consequence of lower safety with smaller, lighter vehicles to consider. As for more energy-efficient buildings, why would people need “incentives” to save money? I recently added insulation in my attic, and the only “incentive” I needed was that I wanted to cut down on my heating costs. I don’t want, or need Joe Public to help me pay to insulate my house.
BBC Reporting Scotland News did not miss a trick tonight.
Apart from the odd murder and Glasgow Rangers we had repeated stories (fiction) about global warming. I counted three global warming stories before the weather.
There was a story about record rainfall and oh yes we have had rain, lots and lots of rain. We, the viewer, licences payers, were told that it is a record rainfall at Eskdalemuir and that Dundrennan had a wind gust of 74 mph!!
How many people do you think who live in Scotland know where Dundrennan is? I know.
Eskdalemuir has again had a record rainfall; since records began.
Some chap wearing an official Met Office jacket thing – it said Met Office and had stripes below – went to the rain gauge and pulled out a plastic bottle. Think it was diet cola or irn-bru, it had one of those plastic rims. Two litre I’d imagine.
Are plastic bottles recognised now as official scientific equipment?
Guess so, as the BBC Scotland showed the contents being poured into a glass/plastic measure. Definitely a record, no two ways about it, a record.
It was worse last week, thankfully you all missed Fiona Walker’s three part series on Climate Change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8364319.stm
Please do not check it out, none of you have done me any harm.
Even the BBC have lost the links to the remaining last two videos.
Were in Scotland we have an EPA it is called SEPA, good name, has a kind of ring to it. SEPA SEPAAAAA.
They know what climate change is all about; my life, yes my life and millions of others depends upon them and their scientific based decisions.
“Professor James Curran of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) fears flooding is going to increase. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8373308.stm
Please, please, please check this one out.
I’m still in shock. A wee dram might just help.
“He said: “Globally the temperature has risen by almost one degree celsius over the past century so that actually means there is no ……. ……. left.””
No, sorry, I’m not going to spoil it, no no no no!
Sit down, yes sit down, get a wee drink and have a look.
Well?
Please you guys in USA could you get us a green card?
I could live in SW Florida. We like it there. Naples would be very nice somewhere beside the fishing pier would be ideal.
Help Get Me Out of Here
Nylo (11:29:00) :
May I repeat that:
…
2) … Measures that enforce efficiency gains in the use of fuel are good things,…
Might I suggest they are BAD things. The best enforcer of efficiency is the free market. As a consumer, I’m more likely to buy or invest in efficient goods. Govt is dreadful at creating incentives without unintended consequences.
As was mentioned earlier, wealth has been the driver to clean our industry and environment. The wealthier we are, the more we care about our environment and the more we are able to apply resources to improve it.
I also want efficient fleets of cars, planes, trains, ships, etc. but govt regulation is not going to get us there.
Re: Bruce Cobb (11:52:55) :
Great. We agree on ethanol. Yet you still seem to think that something in my statement means I buy into some sort of “wrong-headed energy policy”. Eh? You also seem to have a preternatural dislike of renewables.
Where I grew up (Montana), renewables are quite common. Ranchers use both microhydro and wind power to supplement power provided by the electrical grid. In the case of microhydro, they often install plants in the 25 – 50kW range, meet the requirements of a QF (qualified generation facility) and sell power back to the utilities as an independent company. In meeting those requirements, they have access to other tax incentives and rebates to offset the initial capital expense. Same with wind. While certainly no panacea as these two particular forms of renewables are all about location, location, location, the legal restrictions in some states that prevent (or cap) individuals and companies from selling excess power is a needless disincentive.
Anyway, as long as you’re happy dismissing things like this as “pie-in-the-sky”, I’m happy to stop responding.
😉
helpgetmeoutofhere (12:00:14) :
FYI – 1936
http://ssa.nls.uk/film.cfm?fid=2363
I am very sorry that the EPA needs to STOP further implementation of any efforts in regulating GHG.
They need the entire organization purged.
Congress needs to review if we even need a group of liars.
This issues has become completely political. They claim that theglobal warming debate is over. Well I don’t ever remember there ever being a debate. All opposing non global warming science is being covered up. Diverse opinions are not tolerated. Do not trust your government.
I just read an article about the Coca Cola Co. supporting the “Hopenhagen” website for climate change.
Their primary product contains carbon dioxide, much of which is liberated to the atmosphere when a container is opened; even more is liberated in the carbonation process.
I added the following to the petition requesting that EPA not rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.
EPA has NO standing to regulate carbon dioxide under any conditions. While in sufficient concentrations carbon dioxide is a simple asphyxiant by nature of reducing oxygen concentration, the simple fact that carbon dioxide is found in foods and beverages indicates that it is not harmful to humans.
If it were harmful to humans the FDA would have already ruled against foods and beverages containing carbon dioxide.