Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

The Week That Was: 2013-06-15 (June 15, 2013) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project


Quote of the Week: For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. Richard Feynman [The Quotes Page]


Number of the Week: 96%



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

NIPCC in China: The editors of the two large reports by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) are attending a press conference held by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) where CAS announcing the translation of the reports into Chinese. The Academy’s invitation to the event stated:

“…NIPCC is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. In 2009 and 2011, NIPCC publicized two reports named Climate Change Reconsidered, providing evidences the IPCC ignores and questioning the proposal of IPCC that climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

China information center for global change studies of CAS edited and published the Chinese version of “Climate Change Reconsidered: Report of the NPICC” to facilitate Chinese scholars’ understanding the opinions of NIPCC. The International Symposium of Global Changes is held on this occasion to enhance exchanges on the new advancements internationally and researches. A press conference will be held, with lead authors of NIPCC reports Craig D. Idso (USA), Robert M. Carter (Australia), S. Fred Singer (USA) and many other prominent scholars of the field presenting.”

Researchers from home and abroad are warmly welcomed to attend the conference.

Time: June 15th 2013

Venue: Xijiao Hotel, Beijing


Such an event clearly illustrates that 1) the science is not settled, 2) the absurdity of claims of 97% of climate scientists support the concept that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming, and 3) leaders of the Chinese Academy have a better command of the principles of modern Western science than the leaders of many once venerable Western scientific institutions.

Also the event vindicates the work by S. Fred Singer who conceived and directed the NIPCC project and Fredrick Seitz who provided valuable guidance until his death in March 2008. Along with two other scientists, Seitz and Singer were vilified by largely unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in the Merchants of Doubt. Publications such as Science carried fawning reviews of Merchants and refused to publish a rebuttal by Singer, the only one of the four still living.

The Heartland Institute was the publisher of these reports as well as the first one, and will be the publisher of the upcoming report. Please see links under NIPCC in China.


IPCC Hype: According to an article by Bob Ward, who is Policy Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has secretly delivered the draft of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) to the governments involved. According to the IPCC schedule it would be Summary for Policymakers (SPM) because the authors are still writing the synthesis report and papers are still being accepted. As typical, for the IPCC the summary comes first, then the research. The review of the SPM by governments ends on August 2. The schedule does not clearly state when the government representatives will be negotiating the findings in the SPM.

Ward’s article is all too characteristic. “Governments around the world have just received one of the most important scientific reports ever written.” According to Ward, the reports state that at the end of the century temperatures will be “about 3 deg C higher than the little ice age.” Apparently, he and the IPCC remain blissfully unaware that the models have not been validated, thus are useless for prediction, and that they are failing miserably.

We will have to wait to see if the IPCC has tightened its review methods as Ward claims: “…governments and the public can be confident that the report will be the most reliable scientific assessment of climate change that has ever been produced.” Please see link under Defending the Orthodoxy, and http://www.ipcc.ch/scripts/_calendar_template.php?wg=8#.UbzDmPm1Fc4


Carbon Dioxide and Temperatures: Astrophysicist Murry Salby of Australia’s Macquarie University gave a technical talk at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, on the relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperatures in which he attributes the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations more to a rise in temperatures (from natural causes) than from human emissions. His assertions are controversial. For those who wish to explore the arguments and some of the responses please see link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


The Mean Is Meaningless: Christopher Monckton had a post on WUWT titled No significant warming for 17 years 4 months. This was followed by a comment by a person identified by only rgbatduke, who Judith Curry thinks is Robert Brown, a lecturer in Physics at Duke University. The comments are penetrating. There are many climate models, each making different projections of future temperatures. A mean (average) of the results of these models has no scientific meaning. The models have not been validated and there is no reason to assume the mean of the models approaches some true mean (value). The same applies for standard deviations derived from the models, and to the probability “likelihood” statements of the products of the models. It particularly applies to the “science” presented by the EPA in Federal court. Brown also argued that those models that perform well against temperatures should be enhanced, and those that perform poorly should be thrown out. Please see links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


It’s Real: The US production of oil increased by 14% last year, the greatest increase among countries producing a million or more barrels a year, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2013. In 2012, the US was the third largest producer of oil, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. This increase is in spite of Washington’s policies, which have caused the production of oil, natural gas liquids, natural gas, and coal from federal lands to fall, both in quantity and as percentage of total production.

The remarkable developments come from the combination of technological advances in precise horizontal drilling, multi-port hydraulic fracturing using sand or ceramic proppants to keep fractures open under intense pressure, a chemical mix to promote flow, and expanding knowledge of oil and gas bearing formations. Isaac Orr of The Heartland Institute termed it “smart drilling.” As more wells are drilled, knowledge on how to drill them and keep them productive expands. We do not know how much oil and natural gas products can be recovered, at a given price level, but with changing technology and knowledge the estimated recoverable amounts expand over time.

A major issue with this boom is getting the oil and gas from the fields to refineries and the market. According to the BP review “The average crude price at a major benchmark hub in Europe last year was $111.67 a barrel, compared with $94.13 in Oklahoma.” The oil produced from shale is light as compared to that from the North Sea, therefore should command a higher price. The necessary pipelines need to be built, but will be opposed by many in Washington and by environmental organizations, many of which oppose all energy, except, perhaps, that from solar and wind.

At a time in which many in Washington and in the several states are complaining about tight budgets, in 2012 North Dakota experienced a 29% increase in taxable economic activity, according to the editors of Master Resource. This is largely attributable to the oil field activity in the Bakken formation.

Please Article #4 and links under Energy Issues – Non-US, Washington’s Control of Energy, and Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?


Carbon Tax: The Heartland Institute and the R Street Institute hosted a debate on the question: Should conservatives accept a carbon tax? The concept was that the revenues from the carbon tax would be offset by reductions in other taxes, unspecified. Global warming was specifically excluded for the debate. Both sides of the issue were well represented with James Taylor, of Heartland, and David Kreutzer of Heritage Foundation opposed and Andrew Moylan of R Street and former US Representative Bob Inglis, of Energy and Enterprise Initiative in favor. From his questions, it quickly became evident that the moderator, Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine, had already formed an opinion supporting of carbon tax. T

The debate can be summed as those who do not trust the government to permanently reduce other forms of taxation to offset a carbon tax as opposed to those who do. The proponents of the tax asserted that the EPA would regulate carbon fuels anyway, presenting the false dilemma that the choice is between an expansion of government power thru taxation or the expansion of government power thru EPA blunt force.

Inglis asserted that his opponents are against the concept of self-government, as the country’s founders envisioned. The false dilemma and the concept of self-government triggered an idea for different debate. The label “conservative” is poorly defined. During the contentious debate on the adoption of the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, many founders grudgingly admitted that a stronger central government was necessary, but stipulated its powers must be few, defined, and limited. To address these concerns the Bill of Rights was quickly added by the new government. The founders demanding limited government could be identified as conservatives.

The question could be then phrased as: What limits to government power will prompt conservatives to discuss expansion of government powers thru a carbon tax? A possible answer could include clear limits on government regulatory power, especially the EPA, which evokes science that is not publicly available, and uses models that have not been validated, in proclaiming a need for regulatory expansion in the name of public health.

Proposed limits to power could include: 1) no secret science – all data and computer codes must be publically available; 2) independent replication of all studies used to justify regulation; 3) all models used must be validated; 4) all litigation agreements (sue and settle) must meet the above conditions; and 5) all existing regulations not meeting the above must be immediately rescinded.

Such conditions should provide a practical basis to discuss the merits of a carbon tax.


Amplifications and Corrections: Last week’s TWTW discussed sea level rise, the uncertainty, and the possible acceleration of the rate of rise. Physicist Donald Rapp send a set of papers a making a powerful argument that “It is possible that all (or most) of the claimed acceleration is due to ground water depletion, not global warming.” He may be right. We appreciate all those who take the time to send amplifications and corrections.


SEPP Web Site: Several readers stated that their antivirus software flagged an item when they downloaded from the SEPP website. We found three unauthorized items, deleted them, and worked with the host provider to tighten the security of the website. One of the items had the name Blackhat, which, years ago was a code name for a NSA operation, purpose unknown. We will endeavor to be vigilant.


Number of the Week: 96%. Last week, TWTW linked to a post by Roy Spencer showing the great divergence between observations and the projections from 73 CMIP5 climate models for the period 1979 to 2012 between latitudes 20 deg N and 20 deg S (approximately the tropics). As stated, the linearization of the observations hide the climate shift shown by the actual data. However, the end points for 2012 are illuminating. A rough measurement shows that 70 out of 73 of the models (96%) projected a warming greater than twice that shown by the observations. All 19 US models were in the 96%. Will this divergence appear in the IPCC AR5? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/



For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

1. Fracturing in California

Democrats revolt against a ban on oil and gas ‘fracking.’

Editorial, WSJ, Jun 7, 2013


2. U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North

Warmer Climate, Hardier Seeds Help Crop Gain on Wheat, North Dakota’s Staple

By Owen Fletcher, WSJ, Jun 14, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Informed the reporter that there is another driving factor for this shift – carbon dioxide enrichment.]

3. Why U.S. Wood Can—and Should—Power Europe

A forest owner (and Rolling Stones keyboardist) on the benefits of ‘biomass’ sales.

By Chuck Leavell, WSJ, Jun 9, 2013


4. U.S. Oil Notches Record Growth

Rise in Production Is World’s Largest; Fueled by Fracking

By Keith Johnson and Russell Gold, WSJ, Jun 12, 2013





NIPCC in China

Chinese Academy of Sciences Publishes Heartland Institute Research Skeptical of Global Warming

‘Another sign that the latest science does not support claims of catastrophic man-made climate change’

By Joseph Bast, Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer, and Robert Carter


Climate Change Reconsidered – Translation by the Chinese Academy of Sciences

By Joe Bast, Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer, Robert Carter, Heartland, Jun 11, 2013


Exclusive: China Translate 1,200-Page Rebuttal to Climate Change Agenda

By Staff Writers, Breitbart, Jun 11 2013


Challenging the Orthodoxy

On the meaning of ensemble means

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jun 14, 2013


No significant warming for 17 years 4 months

By Christopher Monckton, WUWT, Jun 13, 2013


[SEPP Comment: See the link immediately above for a comment on the article.]

Before and After the Temperature Standstill

By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Jun 11, 2013


An Engineer’s Take on Climate Change #2

By Ronald Voisin, WUWT, Jun 14, 2013


Man-Made Global Warming WRONG – The Ten Reasons.

By Cohenite, NCTCS, Jun 5, 2013


Murry Salby: CO2 is the integral of temperature

By Luboš Motl, The Reference Frame, Jun 12, 2013


Defending the Orthodoxy

Climate Change by the Numbers

By Bob Ward, Project Syndicate, Jun 11, 2013


What to Make of a Warming Plateau

By Justin Gillis, NYT, Jun 10, 2013


World in danger of missing climate goals

By Staff Writer, WNN, Jun 10, 2013


Natural disasters not odd coincidences:

By Robert Redford, USA Today, Jun 11, 2013


[SEPP Comment: When all else fails bring in Hollywood.]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Are Climate Scientists Wrong About Man’s CO2 Emissions?

Editorial, IBD, Jun 12, 2013


12 Reasons the MET Office Is Alarmed

By Staff Writer, GWPF, Jun 14, 2013


Climate Models Predict Heat That Hasn’t Occurred

Editorial, IBD, Jun 11, 2013


Keep Your Long Flannel Underwear: Climate Scientists Predict Hell To Freeze Over!

By Larry Bell, Forbes, Jun 9, 2013


The Pause In Global Warming

By Art Horn, Energy Tribune, Jun 12, 2013


Effects of CO2 on Nitrous Oxide Emissions

By Staff Writers, SPPI & CO2 Science, Jun 12, 2013


In summation, it would appear that concerns about additional global warming arising from enhanced N2O emissions from agricultural soils in a CO2-enriched atmosphere of the future are not well founded.

Problems in the Orthodoxy

Climate talks collapse!

Russia derails treaty track at UN climate summit in Bonn

By Craig Rucker, Jun 12, 2013


UN climate talks collapse amid acrimony in Bonn

By John Parnell, RTCC, Jun 12, 2013


Is UN negotiating an unattainable climate goal?

By Staff Writers, Bonn (AFP), June 13, 2013


Divorce? Lovers finally stumble across boundary object which once kept them together!

By Werner Krauss, Die Klimazwiebel, Jun 12, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Climate activist group close to IPCC removes video: The science on which it was based, from Stefan Rahmstorf, is no longer the scientific consensus

By Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning (translated/edited by P Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Jun 13, 2013


Met Office withdraws article about Marcott’s hockey stick

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jun 14, 2013


[SEPP Comment: What took so long?]

Seeking a Common Ground

A Climate Debate: Both Sides Showed Up!

By Dennis Avery, Center for Global Food Issues, Jun 3, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Mass starvation occurs more often in cold periods than in warm periods. In cold periods often crops do not ripen, in warm periods they ripen earlier.]

Leading the way with an unbiased climate panel

By Tom Harris, WUWT, Jun 14, 2013


Expanding the Orthodoxy

Climate Change Officers

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Jun 10, 2013


[SEPP Comment: A new professional society. Wonder how many of them ever studied climate change history such as by H.H. Lamb?]

Polar Bear Specialist Group adds WWF and PBI activists as full voting members

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Jun 6, 2013


[SEPP Comment: No doubt to give the organization great objectivity!]

Questioning European Green

German Government Pushes Electricity Costs to Record High

By Daniel Wetzel, Trans. Phillipp Mueller, Jun 6, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Government regulations and taxes, not cost of fuel, are causing sharply increasing costs to consumers.]

Merkel Sees the Folly of Green Energy Policy

By Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, Jun 13, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Waiting to see what she proposes to do, rather than what she says.]

Plymouth diesel power stations ‘to help green energy

Two diesel power stations planned in Plymouth will compensate for fluctuations in supplies from green energy, say developers.

By Staff Writers, BBC, Jun 11, 2013 [H/t Bishop Hill]


Its 52 generators will consume more than 1.1m litres of diesel a year, or about one tanker a week.

Questioning Green Elsewhere

DOE Green Energy Loans: $11.45 million per job and a rounding error’s worth of averted carbon emissions.

By David Middleton, WUWT, Jun 11, 2013


Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?

Climate science tells us the alarm bells are ringing

By Michael Oppenheimer and Kevin Trenbert, Washington Post, Jun 7, 2013 [H/t Conrad Potemra]


A Couple of Comments about the Oppenheimer and Trenberth Op-Ed in the Washington Post

By Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Jun 9, 2013


[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Bloomberg’s Folly

By Joseph D’Aleo, ICECAP Jun 11, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Devastating critique of New York Mayor Bloomberg’s plan and the lack of knowledge behind it. See links below.]

Bloomberg’s race to protect NYC from climate change

By Dana Milbank, WP, Jun 11, 2014


[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]

Gotham will be a Southern-fried hot mess by 2020, climate pros warn

City Hall urges preparations for Alabama-slammer summers with heat waves that’ll be hell, and high water from 10% more rain. A quarter of the Big Apple is predicted to be submerged under water by 2050.

By Jennifer Fermino, New York Daily News, Jun 10, 2013 [H/t WUWT]


[SEPP Comment: See first link in the section.]

Carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.4 percent in 2012, IEA report says

By Steven Mufson, Washington Post, Jun 10, 2013


The agency said continuing that pace could mean a temperature increase over pre-industrial times of as much as 5.3 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit), which IEA chief economist Fatih Birol warned “would be a disaster for all countries.”

[SEPP Comment: Nothing is rising faster than hyperbole!]

Gore laments scientists ‘won’t let us’ tie climate change to tornadoes

By Zack Colman, The Hill, Jun 11, 2013


Measurement Issues

Australian Warming Exaggerated

By Geoff Brown, NCTCS, Jun 15, 2013


Changing Weather

English Winters Back To Normal–Julia Blames Global Warming!

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 12, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Germany begins to count cost as floods surge north

By Staff Writers, Berlin (AFP) June 11, 2013


Maxeiner, Miersch And Magdeburg: Superstitious Spiegel Devolves To The Dark Ages, Blames Floods On “Deniers”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jun 11, 2013


Hungary says catastrophe averted after Danube hits new record

By Staff Writers, Budapest (AFP), June 10, 2013


To NCDC: it’s been two year of La Niña, what do you expect?

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 14, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Clear explanation using NOAA maps showing why La Niñas create droughts in the southwestern US.]

Changing Climate

Borneo stalagmites provide new view of abrupt climate events over 100,000 years

By Staff Writers, Atlanta GA (SPX), Jun 11, 2013


Link to paper: “Varied response of western Pacific hydrology to climate forcings over the last glacial period,”

By Stacy Carolin, et al., Science, Jun 6, 2013


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Ocean Water Melting Antarctic Ice From Bottom Up

By James Foley, Nature World News, Jun 13, 2013 [Catherine French]


Link to paper: Ice Shelf Melting Around Antarctica

By E. Rignot1, S. Jacobs, J. Mouginot, B. Scheuchl, Science, Jun 13, 2013


New Study Shows Antarctica Ice Is Melting 70% More Slowly Than Thought – Another Scare Bites The Dust

By Translated P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jun 15, 2013


[SEPP Comment: 70% less than what was predicted in the 2007 IPCC-AR4]

Friday Funny (well maybe not so funny) – XKCD takes on the real climate threat

phics to scale: ice sheets 21,000 years ago versus today’s skylines.

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 14, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Cannot attest to the accuracy, but it give a perspective that is often ignored.]

Acidic Waters

Rutgers findings may predict the future of coral reefs in a changing world

By Staff Writers, New Brunswick NJ (SPX), Jun 10, 2013


On the commonly used pH scale, where lower numbers are more acidic, today’s seas are a moderately alkaline 8.2. But they are expected to creep toward 7.6 as carbon dioxide concentration increases in the air. Using a scanning electron microscope and other measurement devices, the scientists examined the proteins and found that all had begun to precipitate calcium carbonate crystals in the test tube at both pH levels.

[SEPP Comment: Unless it goes below 7, lowering the pH of an alkaline solution does not make it more acidic; it makes it more neutral.]

Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

Is there a crisis in farming?

By Martin Livermore, Scientific Alliance, Jun 14, 2013


Biotech crops vs. pests: Successes and failures from the first billion acres

By Staff Writers, Tucson AZ (SPX), Jun 11, 2013


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC

For a full list of articles see www.NIPCCreport.org

Storm-Track Activity: Modeled vs. Measured

Reference: Chang, E.K.M., Guo, Y., Xia, X. and Zheng, M. 2013. Storm-track activity in IPCC AR4/CMIP3 model simulations. Journal of Climate 26: 246-260.


Effects of Elevated CO2 on Plant Attacks by Herbivorous Insects

Reference: Klaiber, J., Najar-Rodriguez, A.J., Piskorski, R. and Dorn, S. 2013. Plant acclimation to elevated CO2 affects important plant functional traits, and concomitantly reduces plant colonization rates by an herbivorous insect. Planta 237: 29-42.


Reassessing the Past Century of Warming in Australia

Reference: Stockwell, D.R.B. and Stewart, K. 2012. Biases in the Australian high quality temperature network. Energy and Environment 23: 1273-1294.


How Do Non-Specialist Sub-Arctic Mammals React to Warming?

Reference: Hof, A.R., Jansson, R. and Nilsson, C. 2012. Future climate change will favor non-specialist mammals in the (Sub) Arctics. PLOS ONE: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052574.


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Eternal Vigilance: Federal Energy Spending Tracker (www.energysubsidies.org)

By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, Jun 12, 2013


Link to the Federal Energy Spending Tracker:

By Staff, IER,


EPA and other Regulators on the March

EPA nominee in limbo as Republicans press for documents

By Zack Colman, The Hill, Jun 12, 2013


How the EPA connives with Greens on policy

Radical partisans use threat of lawsuits to intimidate the agency

By Bob Beauprez, Washington Times, Jun 10, 2013


What happens in the backroom of a sue-and-settle lawsuit?

By Ron Arnold, Washington Examiner, Jun 6, 2013


‘Environmental Justice,’ EPA Style

If the EPA wants to help low-income and minority populations, it should stick to promoting technologies that reduce pollution for everyone, rather than making environmental issues about racial justice

By Steven Hayward, The American, Jun 9, 2013


GOP warns of $1T EPA regs

By Julian Hattem, The Hill, Jun 12, 2013


Rogue EPA Staff Spies On U.S. Farmers, Releases Data

Editorial, IBD, Jun 11, 2013


Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Operations: EPA’s Continuing, Conscious Overestimate

By Katie Brown, Master Resource, Jun 10, 2013


Pebble mine’s Shively discusses future of project, EPA’s watershed assessment

Transcript by Staff Writers, EETV, Jun 13, 2013


White House knew about Lisa Jackson’s secret email account

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jun 9, 2013 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Energy Issues – Non-US

Statistical Review of World Energy 2013

By Staff Writers, BP, June 2013


Coal remained the fastest-growing fossil fuel, with China consuming half of the world’s coal for the first time – but it was also the fossil fuel that saw the weakest growth relative to its historical average.

Developing world oil demand surpasses wealthy nations: EIA

By David Sheppard, Reuters, Jun 11, 2013


Could US Oil Trends Alter How Oil Prices Are Set?

By Geoffrey Styles, Energy Tribune, Jun 14, 2013


Fear and bad policy is holding back the UK’s huge shale potential

By Dan Lewis, City A.M., UK, Jun 12, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Energy Issues — US

Exporting Natural Gas

By Donn Dears, Power for USA, Jun 14, 2013


Washington’s Control of Energy

Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 through FY 2012

By Staff Writers, US Energy Information Administration, May 2013


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Energy agency: US oil-and-gas reserves up 35 percent, thanks to shale boom

By Zack Colman, The Hill, Jun 10, 2013


The Mighty Bakken (Resourceship in action: II)

By Fred Lawrence, Master Resource, Jun 14, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Part 2 of a well-written and informative series – we simply do not know how much is down there and how much can be recovered. With changing technology and knowledge, the recoverable amount expands over time.]

Fracking Energy Mess: Deconstructing the Green Agenda

By Michael Economides and Peter Glover, Energy Tribune, Jun 11, 2013


Return of King Coal?

Clean Coal Needs Another Look

By Donn Dears, Power for USA, Jun 11, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Focus on a solution that is practical and works.]

Environmental Organizations Don’t Want Clean Coal. It’s Making Fossil Energy Too Expensive. Really!

By Larry Bell, Forbes, Jun 11, 2013


Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences

Cleanup work after BP oil spill end in 3 states

By Staff Writers, AP, Jun 10, 2013


[SEPP Comment: According to the report, BP spent over $14 Billion.]

Nuclear Energy and Fears

Nuclear plant closures show industry’s struggles

By Michael Blood and Ray Henry, AP, Jun 8, 2013


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Can You Get More than 100% Solar Energy? The Answer is Yes!

By Cliff Mass, His Blog, Jun 14, 2013


[SEPP Comment: More problems for the grid. Shows actual production and solar radiation on a roof top rather than modeled production.]

Goldman Sachs Eyes Japan Offshore Wind in Clean Energy Expansion

By Chisaki Watanabe, Bloomberg, Jun 13, 2013


Spain: Sorry about this, but some of these renewable-energies subsidies have got to go

By Erika Johnsen, Hot Air, Jun 9, 2013 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

Ethanol Use Creates a Spike in Global Food Prices

By Staff Writers, NCPA, Jun 10, 2013


Wood Not So Green a Biofuel? Logging May Have Greater Impact On Carbon Emissions Than Previously Thought

By Staff Writer, Science News, Jun 13, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Link to paper: Mineral soil carbon fluxes in forests and implications for carbon balance assessments.

By Buchholz, et al., Bioenergy, Jan 29, 2013


Carbon Schemes

Moving Iron in Antarctica

By Staff Writers, Atlanta GA (SPX), Jun 13, 2013


Link to paper: Role of biogenic silica in the removal of iron from the Antarctic seas

By Ingall, et al., Nature Communications, Jun 10, 2013


Environmental Industry

NRDC chief: Fracking ‘most complicated thing I’ve encountered’

By Zack Colman, The Hill, Jun 11, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Totally clueless!]

The Sierra Club Exposed

By Marita Noon, Energy Tribune, Jun 13, 2013


Potentially ‘catastrophic’ changes underway in Canada’s northern Mackenzie River Basin

By Staff Writers, Los Angeles CA (SPX), Jun 13, 2013


Other Scientific News

Science, Heal Thyself

By Ferric Fang, Project Syndicate, Jun 5, 2013


Last year, for example, when C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis sought to reproduce 53 “landmark” preclinical cancer studies, they discovered that nearly 90% of the findings could not be reproduced. While the researchers who originally published those studies may have profited from increased funding and recognition, the patients who need new cancer treatments gained nothing.

[SEPP Comment: Highlights the need for independent reproduction of studies before major policy decisions including funding. Disagree with the authors comments on climate change. The alarm is not based on scientifically-established principles.]

NASA To Study How Pollution, Storms And Climate Mix

By Staff Writers, Edwards CA (SPX), Jun 10, 2013


New study proposes solution to long-running debate as to how stable the Earth system is

By Staff Writers, Southampton, UK (SPX), Jun 13, 2013


Link to paper: The Emergence of Environmental Homeostasis in Complex Ecosystems

By James Dyke and Ian Weaver, PLOS, May 16, 2013


Abiogenic methane made in the mantle from carbonate?

By Matt Ridley, His Blog, Jun 8, 2013


[SEPP Comment: A long debated issue.]

Other News that May Be of Interest

Signs that Davis Strait polar bears are at carrying capacity

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Jun 10, 2013 [H/t GWPF]




Climate change could slash snowfall in Southern California mountains

By Bettina Boxall, LA Times, Jun 14, 2013 [H/t WUWT]


[SEPP Comment: Based on studies of unvalidated models. Snowfall observed from Los Angles is rare, but occurs on the next set of mountains further east.]


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Margaret Hardman
June 16, 2013 11:16 pm

I see the CAS/Heartland links don’t work and the “news” has rather unravelled. Should you be repeating it when it turned out not to meet the hype?
REPLY: Oh, a concern troll, how nice. The press release was removed because people like yourself created “hype” where there was none and bullied the CAS into a position. Typical warmers, they can’t handle it when any attention of any kind is given to alternate works, so they sling mud, and play bullies.
For example, one of the hypes was that Heartland claimed that CAS “endorsed” the work, where no such claim was made. Try to find it in this press release. You won’t because it never existed.
If Heartland wants me to remove it I’m sure I would have heard about it and will do so if they ask, but I don’t give a rats butt about the opinion of concern trolls or the activist bullies that made a non-issue of endorsement into a fake issue.
The fact remains that the work was indeed translated, and no amount of whining will change that fact.- Anthony

Goode 'nuff
June 17, 2013 12:11 am

Wow, California, waking up to whether green obsessions have been worth stopping economic development? You just might actually go from ‘totally fracking lost it, duuuuude’, back to ‘Eureka’ in a few short years. I sure am surprised! Wow, GLTA!

Stephen Richards
June 17, 2013 12:59 am

about 3 deg C higher than the little ice age.
Ward up to his dirt again. higher than little ice age ? I thought their reconstructions had eliminated the LIA and the MWP.

Margaret Hardman
June 17, 2013 3:35 am

The first hype I saw was here. I certainly didn’t hype it. I don’t think the CAS hyped it. I think the Heartland Institute, along with yourself, hyped it.
REPLY: Again, the hype came from people that can handle a second opinion. – Anthony

June 17, 2013 5:56 am

) – a very potent greenhouse gas. During various steps of natural gas extraction, transportation, and processing, methane is released to the atmosphere. These “fugitive” emissions can represent an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, maximizing the potential climate benefits of using natural gas.

Brian H
June 17, 2013 7:41 am

AT THE VERY LEAST please flag the paywalled WSJ articles, so we won’t waste time trying to access them.

Margaret Hardman
June 17, 2013 9:54 am

I notice that Anthony says one of the hypes was that CAS endorsed the reports. The CAS statement certainly believes that was what was said. Can’t easily check it because Heartland have taken down the original. Score very big own goal. Bit like the billboards the other year.

No, again you are wrong – on two counts. The hype was false outrage created by activists, for example, notable scumbag “bigcitylib”, which then turned into “save face” pressure on the Chinese. The Chinese aren’t good at handling criticism, even if it is fake hype. Second you CAN check it yourself or have you forgotten that in your concern troll mode you complained that I should take down the original press release? You can check it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/12/heartlands-nippc-report-to-be-accepted-by-chinese-academy-of-sciences-in-special-ceremony/
Clearly you don’t like Heartland, so I’m pretty sure you’ll find something not to like about it, but the key thing you WON’T find is the words “endorse” or “endorsement”.
– Anthony

Margaret Hardman
June 17, 2013 10:58 am

All BigCityLib (thank you for pointing me in that direction) did was what all true skeptics do – they checked some facts. It isn’t difficult to do but unfortunately it is something that some people choose not to do. The CAS obviously don’t agree with the Heartland Institute as witnessed by their statement. The CAS used the word endorse. The Heartland Institute didn’t, but of course their original press release is now down so it is much harder to check.
I wasn’t saying that you should take down the original post. I was suggesting that since the story hasn’t gone to plan, that this should not be included in a round up of news, especially when some might not have seen what has happened since the news first came out. A more honest approach might be to admit the changing circumstances but this is your site, not mine, and you are free to do with it as you please.
I see that in your reply to my original comment that you believe the CAS was bullied into backing off by warmists. I suspect that is incredibly unlikely. I would suspect they have much bigger issues to worry about that a handful of “warmist” blogs emailing them to ask what is happening.
Finally, I am entitled to like or not like the Heartland Institute. I do not support their policies.

June 17, 2013 11:47 am

Margaret Hardman,
Anthony is right about Heartland being attacked by a handful of Chinese apologists. Wake me when the CAS meets to formally issue a position statement about Heartland. Until then, all we have seen are a few enablers of the anti-Heartland faction. But they have no official standing, do they?
Also, I have watched BugCityLib trolling here on WUWT for the past six years. He is not someone I would use as my authority WRT ‘facts’. But YMMV.

Margaret Hardman
June 17, 2013 12:07 pm

Wakey, wakey
As for BigCityLib, I shall make up my own mind, thanks. I understand the ghost of Shari Lewis lurks hereabouts.

June 17, 2013 6:41 pm

Margaret Hardman says:
“Wakey, wakey.”
That is a completely lame and off-point response to my charge that the CAS has never met officially, or formulated any official response to the Chinese apologists posting here. In fact, I do not see how that response gives you any credibilty at all. It puts you into the same class as über-troller Michael J. Murphy, AKA: ‘BigCityLib’.
From the link you posted:
“Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in1750 to over 375 ppm today…” Note that current CO2 levels are ≈400 ppmv.
Just when, exactly, was that link written? The Heartland kerfuffle has only been current during the past week. Your outdated link continues:
“We call on world leaders, including those meeting at theGleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to…”&etc. Your link also contains the Michael Tobis polemic: CO2 on Trial.
That is hardly unbiased, is it?

Margaret Hardman
June 17, 2013 11:14 pm

You have confirmed something I suspected. You don’t read things. The link has a date on it, which wasn’t hard to find.
Does the CAS need to meet to decide on a response to this issue? Of course not. It is what executives are paid to do, isn’t it?
I gave you a link that shows the CAS and, incidentally, the Russian Academy have both signed up to the warmist agenda and it was in 1985 – as shown on the link.
Does Anthony get all the moderators together before they snip a comment? I doubt it. Be realistic.

June 18, 2013 12:32 am

margaret Hardman says:
“I gave you a link that shows the CAS and, incidentally, the Russian Academy have both signed up to the warmist agenda and it was in 1985…”
Which proves my point. No official action has been taken re: Heartland.
But thankx for playing, ms. ‘Wakey-wakey’.

Margaret Hardman
June 18, 2013 2:03 am

“If the Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute. We reserve the right for further actions to protect the rights of CAS and the translators group.”
So CAS said shut up, apologise and don’t repeat what you said and the Heartland Institute did as they were told. No need for official action. They accepted their place on the naughty step. Which proves my point.
Correction – declaration linked to above was signed in 2005 not 1985. Not sure why I typed 1985.

June 18, 2013 3:53 am

M. Hardman says:
“Correction – declaration linked to above was signed in 2005 not 1985. Not sure why I typed 1985.”
Not sure why Margaret typed 2005, either. Because neither date also has anything to do with the current week-old Heartland kerfuffle, as I stated above. Digging up 8-year old unrelated comments is just a desperate attempt to salvage a lost argument.
And: “So CAS said shut up, apologise and don’t repeat what you said…”
So what? What are you chumps gonna do about it?? The CAS still has not taken an official position on Heartland, therefore your 1985/2005 threats mean nothing. You are beating a dead horse, and your closed mind is typical alarmist nonsense.

Margaret Hardman
June 18, 2013 6:09 am

I am assuming you have read this:
If not, please read it. I think it is totally clear what the CAS position is on Heartland at the moment. Since Heartland did what the CAS statement asked, I presume that they read it. My horse is galloping. I am guessing that the handover ceremony did not go ahead because we haven’t seen it hyped up here or on the other “skeptic” websites.
[Snip. This is not a ‘dishonest’ website. Please do not make that accusation again. — mod.]

June 18, 2013 8:01 am

“Amplifications and Corrections: Last week’s TWTW discussed sea level rise, the uncertainty, and the possible acceleration of the rate of rise. Physicist Donald Rapp send a set of papers a making a powerful argument that “It is possible that all (or most) of the claimed acceleration is due to ground water depletion, not global warming.” He may be right. We appreciate all those who take the time to send amplifications and corrections.”
Please provide links to papers! Thanks!
This probably deserves its own post.

June 18, 2013 10:27 am

As I commented above: “Not sure why Margaret typed 2005, either.”
Noticwe how “Margaret Hardman” tries to the subject, and how she avoids the point that she posted an 8-year old paper, trying to support her argument — an argument that only cropped up this past week.
Typical alarmist doublespeak. A paper from 2005 has nothing to do with the current alarmist attack on Heartland. But then, Margaret isn’t the most honest commentator here, is she?

Margaret Hardman
June 18, 2013 12:52 pm

I keep good company then. I shall keep my sock drawer clean of smoke and point out that you have a habit of not engaging with the actual point which is the dishonest posting of a repeat of a news story that had already changed, and not to the advantage of the Heartland Institute. Since I linked to what the CAS said I now know that you are incapable of reading the simplest documents unless you can prove me otherwise. I sincerely doubt it. My jet pilot eyes have no trouble seeing the Heartland’s fall for what it is. Icarus got warmed too.

June 18, 2013 2:03 pm

Only a fool would believe that Heartland is ‘falling’; and “Jet pilot” Margaret qualifies.☺

Margaret Hardman
June 18, 2013 3:14 pm

While my eyes are clear enough, smoke has clearly got in yours, David. Presumably in returning all the carbon dioxide plant food goodness to the atmosphere where, apparently, it belongs. I won’t detain you any longer from your path of truth and righteousness. I understood that all climate science “skeptics” understood metaphor but your limited reading suggests otherwise. I shall take my rising sjotrollet away to more important matters, like returning to my bohemian lifestyle, than trying to debate with a dvergar such as yourself.
As for Heartland’s fall, you know we’ll what I mean. Firstly crowing a out getting into bed with communists (the sworn enemies of libertarian right wing think tanks, surely) then getting called out by those same communists and having to back down. That’s on top of the sort of advertising campaign that makes Pepsi and others run for cover. I thought climate scientists and environMENTALists are left wingers so it’s a bit hypocritical to want to be best buddies with left wingers.
Margaret Hardman

June 18, 2013 4:08 pm

And there goes “Wakey-wakey” Margaret Hardman: jet pilot [she claims], married to a woman [?!?], writing her incomprehensible rants about Pepsi [?!?], and fervently hoping and praying for Heartland’s demise — which will not happen.
To cut to the chase, and the central issue in the entire debate: there is no credible scientific evidence showing that CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperature. “Margaret” is not happy about that fact, not one little bit. Because it does not fit in with “Margaret’s” lefty politics. Better that we have disastrous runaway global warming, than admit the fact that skeptics are right and climate alarmists are always wrong, eh?
This “Best Science & Technology” site does not tolerate wacko views, which is the real reason why “Margaret Hardman” is so unhappy. Honest, verifiable, testable science has deconstructed “Margaret’s” belief system. That would be uncomfortable for anyone.

June 18, 2013 4:53 pm

“for example, notable scumbag “bigcitylib”, ”
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might note that some people here don’t like the fellow, but there is no need for such boorish terminology, OTOH, the above post is from Fred Singer’s organization, not this website and the Rabett waits with pen in paw to read the blow by blow from Beijing next week

Margaret Hardman
June 18, 2013 10:19 pm

[Snip. Labeling other readers as “deniers” violates site Policy.]

June 19, 2013 6:40 am

“To cut to the chase, and the central issue in the entire debate: there is no credible scientific evidence showing that CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperature. ”
Is this true? I kind of doubt it. But, given the nature of the greenhouse effect, I’d think we would see the realtionship in the lows/downswings in global average temp (since GHE prevents heat from leaving, we should see muted heat loss over time). If you take high resolution global average temp data, start at the most recent point and take the next lowest temperate going back in time and compare to GHG concentrations, I bet you’d see a ln relationship.

June 20, 2013 2:06 pm

[snip. Russell Seitz is persona non grata here. — mod.]

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights