Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

Quote of the Week:

“Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract… a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.” Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Administrator, 1997 AAAS presidential address [Boldface added, H/t Joe D’Aleo, ICECAP]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Number of the Week: 6

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


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

The Sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) sponsored by Heartland Institute took place this week in Washington, DC. The ICCC was co-sponsored by 43 other organizations from various countries, including SEPP and VA-SEEE. The one and one-half day event, titled “Restoring the Scientific Method,” was a thought provoking affair for those attending and watching over the internet, and, as expected, was derided by some defenders of the orthodoxy. Please see Article # 1.

The ICCC began on a disappointing note, the featured kick-off speaker, Senator Inhofe, was ill. Newspaper accounts state that the Senator blamed his illness on swimming in a lake during an algae bloom. He jokingly suggested to reporters that any articles describing the illness have headlines similar to “The Environment Strikes Back at Senator Inhofe.”

Even with less than 12 hours notice, Patrick Michaels splendidly filled-in with a brilliant lecture sprinkled with delightful humor. A distinguished senior fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, Michaels focus was the significant shift in many American scientific institutions from scientific objectivity to meeting the demands of government bureaucrats and government policies, which are often determined by politics contradicting objective science. Michaels presented many examples of this shift taken from his new book Climate Coup.

One slide was particularly illustrative of the political lobbying efforts of once vaunted scientific institutions. It was a photo of the office building housing the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) taken during ethanol debates. Hanging from the building was a large banner featuring a green gasoline filler assembly. In place of the standard nozzle was a husked ear of corn. The politics was unmistakable.


During lunch, we were treated to a lively debate between Scott Denning, the Monford Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and an editor of Journal of Climate, and Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and co-developer of the method of measuring atmospheric temperature changes by satellite. Both were excellent, positive advocates of their respective views. Denning supporting the orthodoxy that late 20th century warming was largely caused by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and Spencer advocating that the warming was caused by natural phenomena that are not well understood.

During the debate, Spencer introduced his recent work on the mystery of the missing heat. The models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) project a warming of the earth that is not occurring. Understanding the changing temperatures is vital to establishing the earth’s temperature sensitivity to a doubling CO2. James Hansen of NASA-GISS and others claim that the missing heat is hiding in the deep oceans. Spencer developed a very simple model to explain the changes in observed temperatures of the oceans to a depth of 700 meters over the period 1965 to 2005.

He shows that the observations demonstrate a temperature increase far less than what the most conservative model (lowest climate sensitivity to GHG warming) projects, which is less than the IPCC’s official projected range of warming from a doubling CO2. Using his simple model, which incorporates Hansen’s claimed sensitivity, Spencer projects that a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures by about 1.3 deg C. Note that Spencer’s model does not include any natural processes that he believes are the major causes of the late 20th century warming. Please see the article referenced under “Challenging the Orthodoxy.”


That afternoon we were introduced to the main reason for the ICCC – the upcoming publication of an Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which will be out at the end of July or the first part of August.

One of the purposes of the Interim NIPCC report is to provide a compendium of recent scientific research in the various fields falling under the broad term climate science. Most of the research is peer reviewed. This compendium will provide a basis for evaluating the upcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC that will appear around 2013. If, regrettably, the IPCC fails to provide an assessment that is not backed up by rigorous science, as it did in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR-4), then scientists will have a basis for evaluating and challenging the IPCC report for the general benefit of policymakers and the public.

Craig Idso, Chairman of the Center for the study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, introduced the contents of the report, which includes studies covering ten broad topics: climate models and their limitations, forcing and feedbacks, paleoclimate, temperature trends, and comparisons of observations and predictions in the cryosphere, ocean dynamics, precipitation, river and streamflows and extreme weather. Other chapters cover terrestrial animals, plants, and soils, aquatic life, human health effects and economic and other policy implications.

Professor S. Fred Singer, Chairman of SEPP and founder of NIPCC, introduced some of his latest research. Singer demonstrated the disparity between the IPCC models and observations as discussed in previous NIPCC reports. Singer rebutted the challenges to this disparity produced by published Santer (a principal author of IPCC reports) and 16 others by pointing out the huge range of error in the Santer study which suggests chaotic uncertainty within the models. The claim by Santer, et al. that the models are consistent with observations is spurious.

IPCC general circulation climate models are chaotic that produce different results with each model run. Singer also pointed out chaotic uncertainty is illustrated by a published study from the Japanese modeling group; it showed a different result for each of the five model runs. There is no way of knowing which one is more correct. The mean of the five runs (called the ensemble mean) may or may not be more correct than any of the runs.

A separate investigation using multiple runs revealed that ten or twenty or even more runs are needed before the ensemble mean approached an asymptotic value. None of the 22 models used by the IPCC have more than 5 runs; many have only one or two runs. Thus, the trends resulting from these models may have huge chaotic error and are of little value. Averaging the 22 IPCC models does not eliminate the chaotic error. Singer proposed that articles discussing model runs should include the number of runs and the results of each run so that independent scientists could have some understanding of the chaotic uncertainty in the model results. Note: even if the chaotic error is eliminated in a particular model, it does not address any bias introduced in unverified assumptions.

Singer also questioned the late 20th century warming shown in surface data between 1979 and 1997. Satellite data, which started in 1979, do not show any appreciable warming until the super El Niño of 1998. Without this questionable warming trend, the claim by the IPCC that late 20th century warming was caused by humans cannot be supported.


Research Professor Robert “Bob” Carter gave an excellent keynote lecture during Friday’s breakfast in which he discussed seven hypotheses that can be derived from IPCC’s publications and which are critical to claims that human emissions of GHG are the principal cause of late 20th century warming and that the warming is unprecedented and dangerous.

These hypotheses can be tested by observations against the proper null hypothesis – that the phenomena are natural. All the hypotheses fail basic testing. Carter called the failure of the hypotheses to withstand basic empirical testing “black swans.” Prior to the discovery of Australia, Europeans considered all swans were white. The discovery of black swans was a complete surprise. The black swan was used to refute 18th and 19th century argument that a priori is possible: that scientific knowledge can be derived by deduction. If it is a swan, therefore it is white is a conclusion made with incomplete evidence, and one exception disproves the conclusion. [Note: this logical concept is distinct from the recent financial concept expressed by Nassim Taleb of a black swan that is an unpredictable event that can have a massive impact on financial planning. Taleb gives Google as an example.]

Carter stated that the Prime Minister of Australia, who is advocating a carbon tax, and her advisors have closed their eyes to the black swans and claim that they are 95% certain GHG emissions are the cause of global warming and significant weather events. They have adopted post-modern (normal) science that ignores objective facts.


The above is but a brief summary of a few of the excellent lectures given during the short conference. Heartland Institute will be posting the tapes of all the lectures on its web site. TWTW will keep you informed when these lectures are posted.


AAAS: The board of directors of AAAS issued a press release stating “AAAS vigorously opposes attacks on researchers that question their personal and professional integrity or threaten their safety based on displeasure with their scientific conclusions…” “Scientific progress depends on transparency, the Board said, but “the sharing of research data is vastly different from unreasonable, excessive Freedom of Information Act requests..”

Certainly, physical threats and derision are reprehensible, but such attacks include global warming “skeptics” and “deniers” as well.

The AAAS board expresses laudable goals: to bring civility, transparency, and open discussion on scientific issues. The question is, will it enforce such goals on its signature publication Science? This would require a major change in editorial policy. If so, we should expect a public statement that the magazine is accepting competent articles from researchers who question the IPCC. The new policy would announce that those submitting articles must submit their data and computer source code so that other researchers can replicate the results. Any truncation of data must be carefully explained; otherwise, the article will not be published, or, if published, publicly retracted. The fawning review of the recent book by Oreskes and Conway who smeared distinguished scientists without presenting evidence would be publicly retracted with apologies. The rebuttal by Fred Singer, the only one of the scientists still alive, which was rejected due to claimed lack of space would be published.

If AAAS does not make these, and other, changes it will remain an ideologically driven, special interest group promoting certain government policies under guise of science. As the current NOAA administrator, Jane Lubchenco, asserted in her retiring president’s address to AAAS, such is the duty of all scientists to support government policy advocating change in the social contract [Constitution] in exchange for government support. Please the Quote of the Week.


NOAA released a misleading report on global warming. The report was roundly challenged by Roger Pielke, Sr. Please see articles referenced under “Defending the Orthodoxy” and “Challenging the Orthodoxy.”


The New York Times had a two part series questioning the economics of natural gas, particularly fracturing of shale for natural gas (fracking). When the technology for fracturing for natural gas became wide-spread, natural gas prices were very high. Since then, the prices have fallen by more than one-half, disappointing some investors who may have expected that high prices will remain forever. That is not how a market system works.

The reliance of a well to continue to produce without re-working is also an issue, as it has been for over a century. Contrary to the impressions given in the article, the technology is well founded and barring government intervention is a great boon for the economy. Unlike wind generated electricity and other favorites of politicians and the Times, which has no technology for storage, natural gas promises to provide affordable, reliable energy for many decades. Please see Article # 2 and articles referenced under “Oil and Natural Gas…”


The Number of the Week: 6 is the number speakers who signed their recently published books at the ICCC challenging the orthodoxy

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


For the numbered articles below please see: www.sepp.org.

1. First Ignored, Then Attacked: 6th International Climate Change Conference

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Jun 27, 2011


2,The Facts About Fracking

The real risks of the shale gas revolution, and how to manage them.

Editorial, WSJ, Jun 25, 2011


3. Why Your New Car Doesn’t Have a Spare Tire

Auto makers comply with fuel economy mandates by making cars lighter and more dangerous.

By Sam Kazman, WSJ, Jun 26, 2011


– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


Science: Is the Sun Rising?

An inconvenient cooling

Sun’s coming quietude burns global warmists

Editorial, Washington Times, Jun 27, 2011


Climategate Continued

IOC Orders UEA to Produce CRUTEM Station Data

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Jun 27, 2011


Breaking news: Today probably marks the closing chapter of the longstanding FOI request for CRUTEM station data. The UK Information Commissioner (ICO) has rendered a decision (see here) on Jonathan Jones’ appeal of the UEA’s refusal to provide Prof J. Jones with the CRUTEM station data that they had previously provided to Georgia Tech. The decision that can only be characterized as a total thrashing of the University of East Anglia.

Michael Mann and the ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

By Larry Bell, Forbes, Jun 28, 2011


Nature on Renewables and “Natural” Therapies

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Jun 30, 2011


“As happens far too often, Nature has posed the issue in the wrong way. The problem that Nature should be concerned about is whether IPCC is discharging its duties and responsibilities of providing the public and policy-makers with effective and balanced scientific advice. That’s what Nature should be worried about. If it does so, then critics will have less to criticize.”

“And if the scenarios prove a fantasy, Nature has abetted the perpetuation of the fantasy by its acquiescence in IPCC WG3 abdicating its responsibilities”

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Rebuttal of A National Strategic Narrative

By Donald Forbes & Donn Dears, June 27, 2011


[SEPP Comment: Refuting claims of global warming and global ecosystem alarmists in the Pentagon.]

More Evidence that Global Warming is a False Alarm: A Model Simulation of the last 40 Years of Deep Ocean Warming

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, June 25th, 2011


Continued Bias Reporting On The Climate System By Tom Karl and Peter Thorne

By Roger Pielke, Sr, Pielke Climate Science, Jun 30, 2011


“It is disappointing that the media do not properly question the claims made by Tom Karl and Peter Thorne. They are presenting a biased report on the actual state of the climate system.”

[SEPP Comment: Please see Climate change study…” below]

A Nutshell History of Climate-Change Hysteria

By Anthony Sadar, American Thinker, Jun 30, 2011


Defenders of the Orthodoxy

AAAS Board: Attacks on Climate Researchers Inhibit Free Exchange of Scientific Ideas

By Earl Lane, AAAS, Jun 29, 2011


Climate change study: More than 300 months since the planets temperature was below average

By Staff Writers, AP, Jun 28, 2011


[SEPP Comment: No one doubts that warming occurred in the 20th century, the question is cause. Early this year, monthly temperatures measured by satellite and reported by University of Alabama, Huntsville, dipped below the average for the entire satellite record of 32 years.]

Greenland ice melts most in half-century: US

By Staff Writers, AFP, June 28, 2011


[SEPP Comment: And what about the 1930s?]

Gore’s Final Solution

Editorial, IBD, Jun 28, 2011


Help Wanted: For an ‘Aggressive Program to Go After … Deniers’ of Climate Change

By Michael Chapman, CNS News, Jun 24, 2011 [H/t Catherine French]


Poland’s EU budget commissioner in climate change controversy

Poland’s EU budget commissioner has been forced to recant after he claimed climate change was exaggerated and argued that overambitious EU CO2 emissions targets would hurt his country’s economy.

By Bruno Waterfield & Matthew Day, Telegraph, UK, Jul 1. 2011 [H/t Tom Nelson]


[SEPP Comment: Those who believe that climate change is natural and normal are unfit for public office because they are in climate change denial?]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Discussion of June All-Time Record Maximum Temperatures in the United States Since 1950 And Possible Effect Of Instrument Changes

By Roger Pielke, Sr, Pielke Climate Science, Jul 1, 2011


[SEPP Comment: Few records were broken or tied in claimed hottest decade ever recorded. “…1994 bakes the cake.”]

The Failure of Al Gore: Part Deux

By Walter Russell Mead, American Interest, Jun 27, 2011


[SEPP Comment: A long, but insightful article.]

Problems within the Orthodoxy

The U.N.’s climate of desperation

By David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, Washington Times, Jun 28, 2011


Seeking a Common Ground

Don’t ignore climate skeptics – talk to them differently

More scientific data won’t convince doubters of climate change. But reframing the debate as one about values could make a difference.

By Andrew Hoffman, Christian Science Monitor, Jun 24, 2011 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Senator Inhofe Sends His Regrets

By John Broder, NYT, Jun 30, 2011 [H/t Marc Morano]


Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate?

The Log in the Eye of Greenpeace

By Dennis Ambler, SPPI, Jun 29, 2011


Changing Weather

Bastardi- What About Precip? A Look at 2008

By Joe Bastardi, Weather Bell, Jun 25, 2011


Southern Brazil’s coldest weather in a decade comes with snow

By Joeseph D’Aleo, Weather Bill, Jun 29, 2011


[SEPP Comment: With much of US corn going to ethanol, the loss of Brazil’s crop can affect world prices. Brazil is the world’s third largest producer, behind the US and China.]

Are Midwest Floods Caused by Global Warming or Radical Environmentalists?

By Roger Aronoff, Family Security, Jun 28, 2011


Study: Europe snowpack affects U.S. winter

By Staff Writers, UPI, Jun 24, 2011


Can America Last? Only If We Use the Lessons of the Past

By Joe Bastardi, State College.com, Jun 28, 2011 [H/t Paul Chesser]


Economic cost of weather may total $485 billion in U.S.

By Jeffrey Lazo, Megan Lawson, Peter Larsen, and Donald Waldman, NCAR, Jun 21, 2011 [H/t Weather Bell]


Global hurricane activity at historical record lows: new paper

By Ryan Maue, WUWT, Jun 26, 2011


Changing Climate

An Interesting 1973 Paper “A Preliminary Study On The Climatic Fluctuations During The Last 5000 years In China” By Chu Ko-Chen

By Roger Pielke, Sr, Pielke Climate Science, Jun 30, 2011


“The world climate during the historical times fluctuated. The numerous Chinese historical writings provide us excellent references in studying the ancient climate of China. The present author testifies, by the materials got from the histories and excavations, that during Yin-Hsu at Anyang, the annual temperature was about 2? higher than that of the, present in most of the time.

[SEPP Comment: About 3300 years ago. Reportedly the last capital of the Shang Dynasty (1766-1050 BC.]

Fossilized pollen reveals climate history of northern Antarctica

By Staff Writers, SPX, Jun 28, 2011


Extreme Precipitation Update

By Patrick Michaels, World Climate Report, Jul 1, 2011


Changing Seas

A new way of thinking as sea levels rise

By Darfryl Fears, Washington Post, Jun 26 2011


[SEPP Comment: A more accurate headline would be: faulty studies indicate sea levels may rise.]

Litigation Issues

Polar opposites

By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, Jul 1, 2011


[SEPP Comment: Frequently reports on litigation reflect the political attitude of the reporter.]

Precedent supports climate skeptics

By Dennis Avery, Canada Free Press, Jun 25, 2011


Supreme Court ruling is good, bad and ugly

Monday’s key US legal decision on emissions regulation was influenced by the unjustified attacks on climate science

By Douglas Kysar, Nature, Jun 21, 2011 [H/t Roger Cohen]


“That the nation’s highest court would repeat this misleading refrain, and seemingly endorse Dyson’s views as equal to those of the IPCC and the EPA, simply takes the breath away.”

Climate Science Disclosures – Freedom of Information or Chilling Effect?

By Hank Campbell, Science 2.0, Jun 29, 2011 [H/t Cooler Heads Digest]


NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups to Enrich Himself

By William Lajeunesse, | FoxNews, June 22, 2011 [H/t Catherine French]


U.S. Faces New Suits on Climate From Left and Right

By Eli Kintisch, Science Insider, 23 June 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

An inconvenient fallacy

By Bob Carter, The Age, AU, June 27, 2011


David Archibald’s Speech: Global warming is a litmus test for our politicians

Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jul 1, 2011 [H/t Marc Morano, Climate Depot]


“Belief in global warming cannot be forgiven”

Gillard Says Australia Will Compensate 90% of Households Under Carbon Tax

By Jacob Greber and Gemma Daley Bloomber, Jun 27, 2011 [H/t Timothy Wise]


[SEPP Comment: Will it pay those who lose their jobs?]

Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Corn-ethanol fiction

Federal subsidies cost taxpayers more than they save at the pump

By Ken Glozer, Washington Times, Jun 29, 2011


EPA and other Regulators on the March

White House: Benefits of EPA rules vastly outweigh costs

By Ben Geman, The Hill, Jun 28,2011


[SEPP Comment: What would happen if someone tried similar imaginary accounting on business expenses reported in a company tax return?]

GOP bashes EPA over $100M in foreign anti-pollution grants

By Andrew Restuccia, The Hill, Jun 28, 2011 06/28/11


Clearing the Air

By Paul Driessen, Townhall, Jun 27, 2011


EPA Delays Rules for Factory Boilers

By Ryan Tracy, WSJ, Jun 25, 2011


Grand Canyon area excluded from uranium claims

By Staff Writers, World Nuclear News, 24 June 2011


[SEPP Comment: For photo opportunities, the announcement was made overlooking the Grand Canyon, not at the actual sites which include barren wasteland that may have had reporters asking why.]

Energy Issues

China Has Its Eye on Canada’s Oil

Editorial, IBD, Jun 28, 2011


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Shale Gas Neo-Malthusianism: Poor Journalism at the ‘Newspaper of Record’

By Michael Lynch, Master Resource, Jun 28, 2011 [H/t Cooler Heads Digest]


Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush

By Ian Urbina, NYT, Jun 25, 2011


Behind Veneer, Doubt on Future of Natural Gas

By Ian Urbina, NYT, Jun 26, 2011 [H/t Randy Randol]


[SEPP Comment: The issue is not quantity, but price – both production price (cost) and selling price. Selling price is determined by the market; production price by technology, and quantity by geology. Also throw in a dose of politics by those who want to shut it down.]

Amid US gas boom, split over ‘fracking’

By Staff Writers, AFP, June 26, 2011


France Vote Outlaws ‘Fracking’ Shale for Natural Gas, Oil Extraction

By Tara Patel, Bloomberg, Jul 1, 2011 [H/t Cooler Heads Digest]


Drivers Warm To Natural Gas

By Raghavan Mayur, IBD, Jun 29, 2011


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy

The Great Corn Con

By Steven Rattner, NYT, Jun 24, 2011


Lots of Talk, Too Little Action

Editorial, NYT, Jun 27, 2011


R.I.P. Tesla

By Eric Peters, American Spectator, Jun 27, 2011


[SEPP Comment: The US Department of Energy is backing this car manufacturer. The estimated distance does not include what will happen if a heater is needed in the winter or an air conditioner in the summer.]

Energy giants want billions for back-up to windfarms

By Tom McGhie, This is Money, Jun 26, 2011 [H/t Mark Duchamp]


[SEPP Comment: Surprise, someone has to pay for the needed backup.]

Environmentalists vs. Renewable Energy

By Rael Jean Isaac, Family Security, Jun 28, 2011


California Dreaming

California’s Green Jihad

By Joel Kotkin, Forbes, Jun 7, 2011 [H/t Tom Sheahen]


Polluters Get 1-Year Respite from California Cap-and-Trade

By Tilde Herrera, Greenbiz, Jun 30, 2011 [H/t Cooler Heads Digest]


California’s Plan to Electrocute the Automobile Industry

By Bill Frezza, Real Clear Markets, Jun 20, 2011 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC

For a full list of articles see


The Productivity of China’s Forests: 1961-2005

Reference: Ren, W., Tian, H., Tao, B., Chappelka, A., Sun, G., Lu, C., Liu, M., Chen, G. and Xu, X. 2011. Impacts of topospheric ozone and climate change on net primary productivity and net carbon exchange of China’s forest ecosystems. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20: 391-406.


“The two phenomena of atmospheric CO2 enrichment and nitrogen deposition — both of which are by-products of the Industrial Revolution — provide powerful antidotes for the negative effects of ozone pollution, land-cover/land-use change and various deleterious climatic phenomena with regard to their impacts on NPP and NCE in China and, by inference, other parts of the world as well.” [Boldface added]

Effects of Elevated CO2 on Rice Leaves

Reference: Li, J.-Y., Liu, X.-H., Cai, Q.-S., Gu, H., Zhang, S.-S., Wu, Y.-Y. and Wang, C.-J. 2008. Effects of elevated CO2 on growth, carbon assimilation, photosynthate accumulation and related enzymes in rice leaves during sink-source transition. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 50: 723-732.


Live Coral Cover on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Reference: Osborne, K., Dolman, A.M., Burgess, S.C. and Johns, K.A. 2011. Disturbance and the dynamics of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995-2009). PLoS ONE 6: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017516.


Global Warming and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation

Reference: Zhang, D., Msadek, R., McPhaden, M.J. and Delworth, T. 2011. Multidecadal variability of the North Brazil Current and its connection to the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Journal of Geophysical Research 116: 10.1029/2010JC006812.


“Could the findings of Zhang et al. mean that the projections of “almost all state-of-the-art climate models” are just plain wrong? They sure could, for real-world observations always win out over theoretical projections if they differ; and so far, at least, that’s what the observations are doing — they’re winning.”

Health, Energy, and Climate

Peat Wildfire Smoke Linked to Heart Failure Risk

By Staff Writers, SPX, Jun 29, 2011


Food, Risk and Zero Tolerance

By Martin Livermore, Scientific Alliance, Jun 30, 2011


[SEPP Comment: An analysis of the foolishness of EU restrictions on genetically modified animal feed. There is no 100% purity.]

Environmental Industry

Plan Issued to Save Northern Spotted Owl

By William Yardley, NYT, Jun 30, 2011


[SEPP Comment: After destroying communities and the livelihoods of thousands of loggers on the dubious claim that a nesting pair of spotted owls requires two thousand acres of old growth forest, Fish and Wildlife is now recognizing that the main problem may be the barred owl.]

Dirty Dozen debate

Experts say benefits of fruits, vegetables outweigh exposure to pesticides

By Kelly April, LA Times, Jun 22, 2011 [H/t ACHS]


“It only means the pesticide levels are within legal limits. It does not mean they are safe,” Sara Sciammacco, of the Environmental Working Group,[SEPP Comment: Why not include the naturally occurring pesticides within the fruits and vegetables?]

Other Scientific News

Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995-2009)

Kate Osborne,* Andrew M. Dolman,¤a Scott C. Burgess,¤b and Kerryn A. Johns, Pub Med Central, Mar 10, 2011 [H/t WUWT]


“While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980’s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10-100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery.” [SEPP Comment: Direct reference to the study reviewed by NIPCC above.]

Latest research: no, the Reef isn’t being killed by warming

By Andrew Bold, Herald Sun, AU, Jun 29, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]


Rain? Blame It on the Plane

By Gautam Naik, WSJ, Jul 2, 2011


[SEPP Comment: May be behind a paywall.]

Other News that May Be of Interest

More Science Journalists, Fewer Science Supporters

By David Whitehouse, The Observatory, Jun 29, 2011


Across Europe, Irking Drivers Is Urban Policy

By Elisabeth Rosenthal, NYT, Jun 26, 2011


– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –


Warmer temperatures threaten Northern California vineyards

By Ashlie Rodriquez, LA Times, Jun 30, 2011 [H/t Marc Morano, Climate Depot]


[SEPP Comment: One, start with a model that fails basic hypothesis testing – it is wrong. Two, extrapolate from that failed model trends that are 30 years out. Three by doing so, create a false crisis. Four, declare this to be objective science. Most of California’s wine grapes are grown in hot regions. Hot weather in France produced some of the most famous vintages of Bordeaux.]

PLEASE NOTE: The complete TWTW, including the full text of the numbered articles, can be downloaded in an easily printable form at this web site: http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 4, 2011 10:02 am

Regarding the quote of the week …
What exactly is the difference between these “scientists” and the Dominique Gaston André Strauss-Kahn “hooker” ?
None that I can see.

July 4, 2011 10:26 am

The ICCC was an excellent conference with enough material to keep one busy for weeks! Thanks to all those who participated and organized this conference, especially those behind the scenes whose work isn’t seen nor applauded adequately.

July 4, 2011 10:27 am

Thanks for this post as I was unable to view it live.
I gave up my subscription to ‘Science’ because of
their response to Climategate.

Erik Styles
July 4, 2011 10:33 am

“Singer also questioned the late 20th century warming shown in surface data between 1979 and 1997. Satellite data, which started in 1979, do not show any appreciable warming until the super El Niño of 1998. Without this questionable warming trend, the claim by the IPCC that late 20th century warming was caused by humans cannot be supported” This is a very profound statement. It means that possibly that data is fraudulent. Me thinks this is the heart of the problem with UVA and UEA not releasing/destroying data this is what must not be seen! (but eventually will out).

July 4, 2011 10:54 am

Government and big business are flooding science with childish technocratic-marxists so they can control it. This trekkies are dangerous with their delusions of “United Federations of Planets” (aka UN), and their moneyless economic Utopia, and their irrealistic warp drives…science is becoming the Laputians of “Gulliver Travels”.

Reply to  Pete
July 4, 2011 10:58 am

I don’t see the word ‘Sun’ mentioned in this roundup.

July 4, 2011 10:59 am

Looking closely at the “The Environment Strikes Back at Senator Inhofe” breed of headlines, one cannot help but wonder if it translates to “The gods struck down Senator Inhofe so he wouldn’t be able to blaspheme”. I think that adequately explains the pre-scientific mindset from which they sprang.

July 4, 2011 11:40 am

Americorps for scientists.

Laurie Ridyard
July 4, 2011 1:23 pm

“define a new social contract…”
Way back in 1978, the UK Labour Government invented the great in- crowd term “New Social Contract”….
It was quickly redefined as the ” New Social Contrick”!

Paul Deacon
July 4, 2011 3:15 pm

Anthony – I find this weekly column a very useful resource. Please keep it up.

July 4, 2011 11:52 pm

“Heartland Institute will be posting the tapes of all the lectures on its web site.”
Will the younger members of the WUWT community know what ‘tapes’ are?

Dave Springer
July 5, 2011 3:18 pm

I think Spencer is padding that 1.3C per CO2 doubling with a few tenths of degrees of concilliatory warming for the usual warmist suspects. It’s probably a conservative number at for an inland Stevenson Screen but the earth is 71% ocean and I can’t make the physics work for that number over the ocean. I’m having trouble making just a few tenths of a degree work over the ocean because near as I tell non-condensing GHGs have close to zero surface heating effects over an effectively infinitely deep body of water. Water simply doesn’t absorb a significant amount of downwelling infrared. Land does, water doesn’t. All it does to water is increase the evaporation rate which bounces it straight up to the cloud deck without ever raising water temperature or near-surface air temperature.

Dave Springer
July 5, 2011 3:25 pm

Erik Styles says:
July 4, 2011 at 10:33 am
“Singer also questioned the late 20th century warming shown in surface data between 1979 and 1997. Satellite data, which started in 1979, do not show any appreciable warming until the super El Niño of 1998.”
Absent a theory of El Nino one cannot conclude the anomalous intensity of the 1998 mother of all El Ninos was of natural origin. The El Nino cycle, timewise, has been going on more or less unchanged since before the industrial revolution but the peak temperatures are less well known. No one has ever explained to my satisfaction why the 1998 episode was not unnatural in its peak temperature spike. I’m not saying it WAS unnatural. I’m just saying I can’t say one way or the other and I don’t think anyone else can say one way or the other either.

July 5, 2011 11:57 pm

Recently, I took a look of some of the 50 m wind power maps (e.g., http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/maps_template.asp?stateab=ak ). Obviously, the wind power classification is highly erroneous.
The formula to determine the power, P, is given by
P = 0.5 * C_p * rho * A * V^3
where C_p is the power coefficient, rho is the air density (nearly 1.2 kg/m^3 at sea level), A is the area of the rotor in m^2, and V is the wind speed in m/s. Note that the power coefficient is restricted by the so-called Lanchester-Betz-Zhukowsky limit, i.e., C_p < 0.593. Typical values for C_p are ranging between 0.42 and 0.48. Furthermore, the power density mentioned in this map is given by
P/A = 0.5 * C_p * rho * V^3
If we use, for instance, C_P = 0.593 (Lanchester-Betz-Zhukowsky limit), rho = 1.2 kg/m^3 and a wind speed ranging from 7.7 m/s to 8.5 m/s we will obtain for the power density:
P/A = 162 W/m^2 for V = 7.7 m/s
P/A = 219 W/m^2 for V = 8.5 m/s.
These values are nearly by a factor of four smaller than those listed in the map.If we use realistic values for C_p these values will become still smaller.

%d bloggers like this: